HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-04-02; City Council; 13589; Emerald Ridge WestQ
0
n
Y
2
K
z 0 F 0 a
=! 0 z 3 8
\B # ./qi 589
IEPT. PLN @
rllTG. 4/2/96
TITLE: EMERALD RIDGE WEST
CT 95-03/SDP 95-06/HDP 95-06
?ECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council ADOPT City Council Resolution No. ’?be //8 APPROVING the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, CT 95-03,
SDP 95-06, and HDP 95-06 as recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and the
Housing Commission.
ITEM EXPLANATION
On January 17, 1996 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the Emerald
Ridge West project. The project site is located directly north of the Poinsettia Community Park
and includes a residential subdivision of the 56.3 acre property into sixty-one (61) single-family
lots, and one 8.3 acre open space lot. The Planning Commission recommended approval of
the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Tentative Map, Site Development Plan, and Hillside
Development. The commission’s vote on all the project actions was 7-0 and no public testimony
was given by citizens at the hearing.
On February 8, 1996 the Housing Commission reviewed the project and recommended approval
of the project’s onsite inclusionary housing proposal to provide second-dwelling units. The
commission’s vote on the project was 8-0 and no testimony was given by citizens at the hearing.
The Planning Commission’s primary discussion focused on the project’s affordable housing and
the commission was very supportive of the proposal to provide 9 second-dwelling units to satisfy
the inclusionary housing requirements. The second-dwelling units would have exterior access
to the side yard, be incorporated into the second-story of the primary home, and utilize a portion
of the three-car garage for parking. City regulations require that the maximum monthly rental
rate for a second-dwelling unit shall be affordable to low-income households.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the project with an option to allow the
Developer to satisfy inclusionary housing requirements with a future opportunity to participate
in an offsite combined affordable housing project subject to compliance with City Council
Policies No. 57 and 58. However, most of the Planning Commissioners stated that they did not
endorse providing the affordable housing offsite. They prefer to have the affordable housing
constructed onsite in the form of second-dwelling units. The Planning Commission voted for the
offsite option merely to allow a future offsite option to proceed to City Council for the final
decision without the project having to be reviewed again by the Planning Commission. Since
they are not a policy making body, the Planning Commission felt obligated to vote to
recommend approval of the offsite affordable housing option because the Developer’s right to
pursue the future offsite option is consistent with adopted City Council policy.
The discretionary actions to be decided by the City Council include a Tentative Map, Site
Development Plan, and Hillside Development Permit for the project described as follows:
1. A residential subdivision into sixty-one (61) single-family lots (7,500 square feet in size
and larger) with a 27.4 acre remainder parcel, and one 8.3 acre open space lot; and,
2. The designation of 9 lots for future second-dwelling units and the deed restriction of 1
three-bedroom home or the purchase of 1 Affordable Housing Credit in Villa Loma to
satisfy the City’s inclusionary housing requirements.
-
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. /3; 587
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Mitigated Negative Declaration was processed addressing all the necessary discretionary
approvals needed to develop the project. The environmental document was found by staff and
the Planning Commission to have been prepared in compliance with State and City regulations.
The Planning Commission has determined that the project would have a significant effect on the
environment, however, there will not be a significant effect in this case since the mitigation
measures described in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3889 have been added to the
project.
FISCAL IMPACT
As discussed in the Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan, all necessary major capital
facilities will be provided concurrent with development and funded by the Developer of the
project. A financing plan that comprehensively addresses the provisions of public facilities within
the facility zone has been approved by the City Council.
Facilities Zone 20
Local Facilities Management Plan 20
Growth Control Point 6 DUIACRE
Net Density 3.01
Special Facilities C.F.D. NO. 1
EXHIBITS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
City Council Resolution No. 91b - //8
Location Map
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3879, 3880, 3881, and 3882
Planning Commission Staff Report, dated January 17, 1998
Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated January 17, 1996
Housing Commission Resolution No. 96-002
Housing Commission Staff Report, dated February 8, 1996
Excerpts of Housing Commission Minutes, dated February 8, 1996.
d
RESOLUTION NO. 96-118
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, TENTATIVE
MAP, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND HILLSIDE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY
INTO 61 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS AND 1 OPEN SPACE LOT,
AND PROVIDE 9 SECOND DWELLING UNITS, AND DEED
RESTRICT 1 THREE-BEDROOM HOME AS AFFORDABLE TO
LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, ALL ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF PASEO DEL NORTE,
NORTH OF CAMINO DE LAS ONDAS AND SOUTH OF
PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, WITHIN SPECIFIC PLAN 203
AND LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 20.
CASE NAME: EMERALD RIDGE WEST
CASE NO: CT 9503/SDP 9506/HDP 95-06
WHEREAS, on January 17, 1996 the Planning Commission held a duly
noticed public hearing to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration with a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program , Tentative Map (CT 9503), Site Development Plan
(SDP 95-06), and Hillside Development Permit (HDP 95-06) for project development on
56.3 acres of land and adopted Planning Commission Resolutions No. 3879, 3880,
3881, and 3882 respectively, recommending to the City Council that they be approved;
and
WHEREAS, on February 8, 1996 the Housing Commission held a duly
noticed public hearing to also consider the project and adopted Housing Commission
Resolution No. 96-002, recommending to the City Council that it be approved; 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 CT 95-03/SDP 95-06/HDP 95-06; 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. --
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
That the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program on the above referenced project is approved, and that
the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission contained in
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3879 and, 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 Tentative Map (CT 95-03) is approved and that the findings and
conditions of the Planning Commission contained in Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3880, 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 Site Development Plan (SDP 95-06) is approved and that the
findings and conditions of the Planning Commission contained in
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3881, 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 95-06) is approved and that the
findings and conditions of the Planning Commission contained in
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3882, 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 Housing Commission for the approval of
the project is approved and that the findings of the Housing Commission
contained in Housing Commission Resolution No. 96-002, on file with the
City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings 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.”
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the 2nd day of APRIL , 1996,
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Nygaard, Kulchin, Finnila, Hall
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Al-TEST:
Aii&&L
ALETtiA L. RAUTENKRANZ, Ci& Clerk
(SEAL)
3
,
EXHIBIT 2
EMERALD RIDGE - WEST
CT 95=03/SDP 95=06/HDP 9506
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
EXHBIT 3 .
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3879
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A TENTATIVE MAP,
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND HILLSIDE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, TO: (1) SUBDIVIDE THE MSP
CALIFORNIA LLC PROPERTY INTO 61 SINGLE-FAMILY
LOTS, ONE 8.3 ACRE OPEN SPACE LOT, AND A 27.4
ACRE REMAINDER PARCEL; AND (2) ALLOW 9
FUTURE SECOND-DWELLING UNITS; ALL ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF PASEO
DEL NORTE, NORTH OF CAMINO DE LAS ONDAS,
AND SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, WITHIN
SPECIFIC PLAN 203 AND LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 20.
CASE NAME: EMERALD RIDGE WEST
CASE NO: CI’ 9503/SDP 95-06/HDP 95-06
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for approval of the project
more fully described as a Tentative Map, Site Development Plan, and Hillside Development
Permit, to subdivide the MSP California LLC property into 61 single-family lots, one 8.3
acre open space lot, a 27.4 acre remainder parcel, and allow 9 future second-dwelling units,
for certain property to wit:
All that certain parcel of land delineated and designated as “Description No.
1,103.91 Acres” on Record of Survey Map No. 5715, filed in the Offke of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, December 19, 1960, being a portion
of Lot G of Ranch0 Agua Hedionda, according to Map thereof No. 823, filed
in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 16,
1896, a portion of which lies within the City of Carlsbad, all being in the
County of San Diego, State of California. Excepting therefrom that portion
” lying within Parcels A ‘I, “B”, “C” and “D” of Parcel No. 2993 in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, August 23,1974 as File No. 74-230326
of Official Records.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of January, 1996,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law and provided in Chapter 19.04 of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code, to consider said request, and
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
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration according to Exhibit “ND”, dated October 27, 1995, the “PII”,
dated October 3, 1995, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program on file in the Planning Department, attached hereto and made a
part hereof, based on the following findings:
FindinPs:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and
considered Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Emerald Ridge West project, the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and said comments thereon,
and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, on file in the Planning
Department, prior to recommending approval of the project. Based on the EIA
Part-II and comments thereon, the Planning Commission finds that there is no
substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment and
hereby recommends approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
2. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the Emerald Ridge West project and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program have been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines, and the Environmental Protection
Procedures of the City of Carlsbad.
3. The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Emerald Ridge West project reflects the independent judgment of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
Conditions:
1. Sewer/Stormdrain Alternative “A” - Implementation of Alternative “A” crosses
Encinas Creek. Prior to the issuance of a final map or grading permits, whichever
occurs first, the developer shall obtain a Streambed Alteration Agreement from the
PC RESO NO. 3879 -2- 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
2.
3.
4.
5.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
‘h -
California Fish and Game Department, if required for any proposed alterations to
existing natural watercourses, and shall comply with any and all permit
requirements associated therewith, pursuant to Section 1601/1603 of the Fish and
Game Code. The developer, in conjunction with the Department of the Army Corp of Engineers shall determine whether a 404 permit shall be required for alterations
to wetland areas.
0.12 acres of coastal sage scrub (CSS) habitat will be directly impacted by this
project. The impacted CSS habitat is regarded as disturbed habitat (0.05 acres) and
medium to high quality habitat (0.07). Pursuant to the Interim Take provisions of
the 4d Rule for the California gnatcatcher, the project shall be required to mitigate
this loss of .12 acres of CSS by acquiring, for preservation, comparable quality
habitat at a 1:l ratio for the disturbed CSS and 2:1 for the higher quality CSS. The
developer proposes to mitigate this impact by purchasing, for preservation, .19 acres
of CSS habitat within the high quality, coastal sage scrub area found in the Carlsbad
Highlands mitigation bank. This proposal shall require the approval of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the California Department of Fish and Game,
and the City of Carlsbad. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project
applicant shall be required to consult with and obtain necessary “take” permits from
the USFWS, the California Department of Fish and Game for impacts created by the
loss of the .12 acres of CSS.
The CC&Rs for the project shall include a requirement, stating that flood lights
from the development shall not project/shine into the native habitat areas.
Heavy construction adjacent to coastal sage scrub and chaparral habitat areas along
the east and north side of the site during the California gnatcatcher breeding season
(March 1 to July 31) shall be prohibited.
Approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration is granted subject to the approval
of LCPA 94-04, ZC 94-04, CT 95-03, SDP 95-06, and HDP 95-06. The Mitigated
Negative Declaration is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission
Resolution Nos. 3873,3874,3880,3881, and 3882.
PC RESO NO. 3879 -3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of January,
1996, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Erwin, Monroy, Nielsen,
Noble, Savary and Welshons
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairperson
CARLSBADPLANNIN G COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 3879 -4-
MITIGATED NEGATlVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: San Diego County, City of Carlsbad, Accessors
Parcel Number 212-040-32, 36, 36, 38. East of
Paseo del None and south of Palomar Airport
Road.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A tentative map for 61 single-family residential lots
ranging in size from 7,500 to 19,201 sq. ft., a 8.3 acre open space lot, and 10 second-
dwelling units. Project improvements include: (1) local public streets, curbs, gutters,
sidewalks and drainage facilities to serve the lots; (2) two alternative sewer and
stormdrain alignments (A and 6) that connect from the property to an existing east/west
sewer line along Encinas Creek; (3) the construction of Hidden Valley Road from
Camino de las Ondas to Palomar Airport Road; (4) the alignment of a trail between the
northern segment of Hidden Valley Road and the residential lots, and; (5) the
construction of a local public street from Hidden Valley Road to the project site.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described
project pursuant to the Guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carisbad. As a
result of said review, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will
not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject
project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the
Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments
from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning
Department within 30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call
Jeff Gibson in the Planning Department at (619) 438-l 161 ,‘extension 4465.
DATED:
CASE NO:
.
OCTOBER 27,1QQ5
CT 96-03/HDP 96-06/SDP 96-06 Planning Director
CASE NAME: EMERALD RIDGE WEST
PUBLISH DATE: OCTOBER 27, 1995 JG:kr
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-l 576 - (619) 438-l 161 a
-
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
BACKGROUND
CASE NO. CT 95-03/HDP 95-O6/SDP 95-06
DATE: October 3. 1995
1. CASE NAME: Emerald Ridpe West
2. APPLICANT: Ladwie DesiPn Groun. Inc.
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 703 Palomar Airnort Road. Suite 300
Carlsbad CA 92009. (6191 438-3182
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Mav 26. 1995
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A tentative map for 61 single-fan-& residential lots raneina in size from
7.500 to 19.201 sa. ft.. a 8.3 acre onen snace lot. and 10 seconddwellinp units. Proiect
imrxovements include: (1) local nublic streets. curbs. gutters. sidewalks and drainaee facilities to serve
the lots: (2) two alternative sewer and stormdrain alienments 1A and B) that connect from the
pronertv to an existing east/west sewer line along Encinas Creek: (3) the construction of Hidden
Vallev Road from Camino de las Ondas to Palomar Airnort Road: (41 the alignment of a trail between
the northern sepment of Hidden Vallev Road and the residential lots. and; (51 the construction of a
local nublic street from Hidden Vallev Road to the txoiect site.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact”, or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation
Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning x Transportation/Circulation - Public Services
Population and Housing x Biological Resources Utilities and Service
Systems
Geological Problems Energy and Mineral Resources
x Aesthetics
x Water Hazards
X Cultural Resources
x Air Quality x Noise
Recreation
x Mandatory Findings of-
Significance
1 Rev. 3/28/!25 ,a
-
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the W Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATlVE
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 NEGA’IWE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one
potentially significant 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. An MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
I fmd that although the proposed project could have a signifkant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT
be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have
been avoided or mitigated pursuan t to that earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice
of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
q
cl
0
El
q
Planner S#Wue ck-t&c 24. )?35 Date
Planning Director $@atu# d45~ Date l
2 Rev. 3/28/95 i5
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAm
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental
Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental
Impact 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 Impact” answer should be explained when
there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general
standards.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact
is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant
Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation
measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
“Potentially Sign&ant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant.
Based on an “E&Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the
environment, but a potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards 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, and none of the circumstances
requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required
by the prior environme ntal document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
When “Potentially Sign&ant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare
an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier 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
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.
3 Rev. 3/18t!a lcj
. If there are one or 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.
. An ElR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited
to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or
mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to
mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding
Considerations” for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed
mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than signif%ant, or; (4) through the E&Part
II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially sign&ant effect to
below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
4 Rev. 3/28/95 j3’
h
hes (and suppating Iafdm sauces):
POWidlY sinirtcant
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source N(s): )
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project? ()
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? ()
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)? ()
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? ()
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? 0
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? ()
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? 0
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? ()
b) Seismic ground shaking? Q
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ()
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? 0
5
POtddly signifii
UIllC23
h+mi@uh
IllaYcprxatal
x
Les3Tilall
Significant
Impsct
No
Impact
x
x
x
-
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Rev. 3lw5 1b
-
Issues (and suppatiug lllfm soar#a):
e)
f)
g>
h)
0
Landslides or mudflows? 0
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ()
Subsidence of the land? ()
Expansive soils? 0
Umque geologic or physical features? ()
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a> Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface runoff? ()
W Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? ()
cl Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? ()
d) Changes in the amount of surface water’ in any
water body? ()
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements? ()
fl
g)
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 subs&&al loss of groundwater recharge
capability? ()
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
0
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ()
PC@.lltidly
sigllimnt
w=t
POWirlly
SigSW
Unless Mitigation
lmoqmated
LessTIm Significant No
w-=t m=t
x
x
x
x
x
x
-
x
-
x
x
x
x
x
6 Rev.3/28p5 /y
C
Issues (and suppatillg [nformrtioa -x
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
0
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? ()
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? ()
d) Create objectionable odors? ()
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal
result in:
a)
b)
cl
4
d
fl
g>
VII.
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
0
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or inconipatible
uses (e.g. farm equipment)? ()
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses? ()
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ()
Hazards or bar&s for pedeshians or bicyclists? 0
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? ()
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? ()
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
POtentidly
Sigllifii
POWidly U&!SS Les!3Tllan
SigllifiCUlt MitiJptioll Significant No
m=t lnaJfpocated Impect m=t
x
x -
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
7 Rev. 3M95 f
h
Issues (and suppdllg lnfalllatial Sam%):
4
b)
cl
4
d
VIII.
a)
b)
c>
Potentially SigllifiCiUlt
hwt
POtt?lltidl~
Significaat
Unless Mitigation
Iumated
LesTllaxl
Significaut No
m@ct Impact
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds? ()
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? ()
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ()
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
PW 0
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ()
x
-
x
x
ENERGY AND MINERAL RRSOURCRS. Would the
proposal:
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
0
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ()
Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value to
the region and the residents of the State? 0
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation? ()
b) Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? ()
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? ()
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? Q
-
x
-
-
x
x
x
x
8 Rev. 3/28p5 /;”
- -
Issues bll.K! suppa laxmath stnms):
e) Increase fue hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? ()
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ()
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Q x
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? ()
b) Police protection? ()
c) Schools? ()
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
0
e) Other governmental services? ()
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? ()
b) Communications systems? ()
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? () .
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ()
e) Storm water drainage? 0
f) Solid waste disposal? ()
g) Local or regional water supplies? ()
paelltidly
siillihllt
Impact
POtellti8.U~ siiicant
Udt%S LessThan
MitiptiOll Significant
Incupcrated mJ=t Ilgct
x -
x
-
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
9 Rev. 3/28/95 dO
- h
ltsws (and supporting lnfanlatial sowxs):
Potentially
Significant
m=t
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ()
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ()
c) Create light or glare? ()
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
-
a)
W
cl
d)
d
POklltirlly sinincant
UllkSS
Mitigation
Incmporated
x
x Disturb paleontological resources? 0
Disturb archaeological resources? 0
Affect historical resources? ()
Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? ()
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? ()
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: .
a) lncrm the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities? Q
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ()
Lk?sThal.l
Significant
w=t gtct
-
x
x
-
x
x
x
x
x -
x
10 Rev. 3t28195 ,” /
issues (and slqpmhg II&math sauces):
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 indirectly?
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
POMltidly
Significant
mJ=t
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
I.ncmporated
lA!ssThan
Significant No
w=t hP=t
x
x -
x
-
-
b)
cl
Earlier analyses 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. MEIR - 1994 update of the Carl&ad General Plan/Final EIR 90-03 for Specific Plan 203, on
file in the Planning Department at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carl&ad CA. 92009.
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. See following discussion.
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. See following discussion.
11 Rev. 3/28/95 4 1
-
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND ENVIRONMENTAL SE’ITING:
The project is located south of Palomar Airport Road, east of Paseo De1 Norte, adjacent to future Hidden Valley
Road, and north of Camino de las Gndas, in the City of Carl&ad. The western half of the property is utilized for
agriculture. The majority of the site contains very gently sloping topography that rises from west to east. The
eastern half of the property consists of a fmger canyon which continues north and connects with Canyon de las
Encinas. The flat developable areas of the property are rimmed by steep slopes along the east and north.
Topographic elevations on the site range from approximately 80 feet in the canyon floor to 180 feet above mean
sea level on the gently sloping mesa. The site is underlain by the Eocene age bedrock Santiago Formation (also
known as Delmar and Friars Formation), which is capped by Quaternary terrace deposits. These bedrock
formations are mantled by alluvium, topsoil, and artificial fill soils. Six vegetation types are present on the
property: (1) ruderal/agriculture on the mesa; (2) pampas grass, diegan coastal sage scrub, and southern mixed
chaparral along the steeper slopes, and; (3) riparian southern willow scrub, and baccharis/mule fat in the canyon.
Vehicular access to the site would be provided by a local street leading from a future non-loaded collector street
named Hidden Valley Road. Hidden Valley Road would travel east of the property and intersect with Camino de
las Gndas to the south and intersect with Palomar Airport Road to the north. The project would sewer north,
through the Mar Vista project (CT 94-11) and connect with the existing east/west sewer line in Canyon de las
Encinas (Alternative “A” or “B”). Due to an elevation differential of 28 feet between the low end of the Mar Vista
project site at elevation 142 feet (Lot 19) and the high point on Emerald Ridge - West at elevation 180 feet, it is
not physically possible to sewer the project through the already approved sewer line in future Hidden Valley Road,
therefore, another sewer line that flows directly to the north of the site is required. The alignment of future Hidden
Valley Road from Palomar Airport Road to Camino de las Gndas has already been environmentally reviewed and
approved by two previous projects; the City’s Poinsettia Community Park project - (CUP 92X)5), and the Sambi
Vesting Tentative Map - (CT 92-02). The environmental documents for these projects are on file in the Planning
Department.
Subsequent to the submittal of this project to the City on May 26, 1995, the California Department of Fish and
Game, the California Coastal Commission, and the Army Corps of Engineers in a Section 7 Consultation with the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service have all issued permits or approvals for the construction of Hidden Valley
Road from Palomar Airport Road to the northern property boundary of the City’s Poinsettia Community Park.
Hidden Valley Road would provide primary access to the project from Palomar Airport Road, and it’s construction would not significantly impact the environment as conditioned and mitigated through City, State and Federal
permits.
The project site is located within the boundaries of Specific Plan 203 which covers the 640 acre Zone 20 Planning
Area. The certified Fhral Program EIR 90-03 for Specific Plan 203 addresses the potential environmental impacts
associated with the future buildout of the Zone 20 Specific Plan area and is on file in the Planning Department.
Use of a Program EIR enables the City to character& the overall environmental impacts of the specific plan. The
Final Program EIR contains broad, general environmental analysis that serves as an information base to be
consulted when ultimately approving subsequent development projects (i.e. tentative maps, site development plans, grading permits, etc...) within the specific plan area. The City can avoid having to “reinvent the wheel” with each
subsequent development project by analyxing, in the program EIR, the regional influences, secondary effects,
cumulative impacts, and broad alternatives associated with buildout of the planning area. The applicable and
recommended mitigation measures of Fii EIR 90-03 will be included as conditions of approval for this project.
This subsequent expanded “Initial Study” is intended to supplement the Final EIR and provide more focused and
12 Rev. 3/28/95 a3
detailed project level analysis of site specific environmental impacts and, if applicable, provide more refined project
level mitigation measures as required by Final EIR 90-03. Mitigation measures that are applicable to the project
and already included in Final EIR 90-03 will be added to the tentative map resolution and new mitigation measures
not evaluated in Final EIR w3 will be included in this Mitigated Negative Declaration. For example, additional
environmental impacts not addressed in Final EIR 90-03 include riparian impacts created by the offsite sewer
alignment “B”.
In addition to the Final EIR for Specific Plan 203, more recently the City has certified a Fii Master
Environmental Impact Report for an update of the 1994 General Plan. The certified Master EIR is on file in the
Planning Department. The Master EIR serves as the basis of environmental review and impact mitigation for
project’s that are consistent with the plan, including projects within Specific Plan 203. Projects covered under the
Master EIR for the General Plan include implementation activities such as rezoning of properties, specific plans,
and the approval of development plans, including tentative maps, conditional use permits, and other land use
permits.
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT:
Tonozranhv. Geotechnical. & Gradinn:
Development of the site would include 129,205 cubic yards of grading to accommodate building pads, lots, utilities,
drainage structures, onsite local public roadways, and Hidden Valley Road. The proposed grading conforms to the
City’s Hillside Development Ordinance and manufactured slopes would be landform/contour graded, screened with
landscaping, and not exceed 30 feet in height, therefore the alteration of the topography would not be considered a significant physical impact. The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared by GeoSoils, Inc., dated
September 6, 1994 states that; “Based on our field exploration, laboratory testing, engineering and geologic
analyses, it is our opinion that the project site is suited for development from a geotechnical engineering and geologic standpoint”. A grading permit is required for the project, therefore, the City’s adopted grading permit
standards, including required compliance with the geotechnical study, would ensure that the project has proper
erosion control measures including landscaping on~manufactured slopes, adequate drainage facilities, and proper
soil compaction. These items are all required by the Engineering Department prior to approval of the grading
permit.
Water Gualitv:
Section 5.2 of Master EIR 93-01 discussed water quality and sedimentation impacts to Encinas Creek. Development
of the project would create impervious surfaces onsite which reduce absorption rates and increase surface runoff
and runoff velocities. In addition, drainage from the project’s roofs, streets, driveways, slopes, and yards would
constitute a potentially significant impact to water quality due to potential pollutants in the “non-point source”
urban runoff. Buildont of the General Plan, including residential development within Specific Plan 203, may
significantly impact hydrological resources, therefore, the appropriate, and recommended General Plan mitigation
measures will be added as a condition of this project - (Section 5.2.5, Page 5.2-8, Master EIR 93-01). Prior to
approval of a grading permit the applicant must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The applicant would be required to provide the best management practices
to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive biological areas. Compliance with
this requirement would reduce any water quality impacts to below a level of significance. Grading Permit
standards and the Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan require adequate drainage facilities to service the site.
Hydrology standards of the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program require that post development surface
run-off, from a lo-year/6 hour storm event, must not carry any increased velocity at the property line. To meet
13 Rw.3/28p5 d4
this standard, energy dissipation facilities (i.e. rip-rap) would be provided along the drainage course, in addition
to a permanent regional h&n proposed west of future Bidden Valley Road, adjacent to Encinas Creek at the 67
foot elevation.
Air Qualitv:
Final ElR 90-03 for the Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 203) discussed air quality impacts, however, this discussion
has now been supplemented by the Air Quality Section 5.3 of the Master EIR. The implementation of projects
that are consistent with 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 sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors
to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-
attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued
development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the
air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation
measures 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.
Section 3.3.2.2 of Final EIR 90-03 and Section 5.3.3 of the Master EIR both indicate that construction activities
associated with implementation of the Specific Plan and General Plan will produce short term air quality impacts
in the form of dust from grading and traffic on dirt roads, and emissions from construction equipment. To reduce
these short-term construction impacts to the lowest extent possible the project would be conditioned with mitigation
measures designed to reduce dust and construction emissions - (Fii EIR 90-03, Section 3.3.3, Page m-33; and
Master EIR 93-01, Section 5.3.5, Page 5.3-11).
Short-term construction impacts for this project can be mitigated below a level of significance locally, but
operation-related emissions are still considered cumulatively significant because the area is located within a “non-
attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked U YES - significant”. This project is not
required to prepare an EIR because the recent certification of the Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council
Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air quality impacts. This
“Statement Of Gverriding consideration” applies to all projects covered by the Master EIR, including residential
projects in Specific Plan 203, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required.
Cultural & Paleontolonical Resources:
Section 3.60 of Final EIR 90-03 identified an archaeological site within the project boundaries (CA-SDI-9607).
The project would impact CA-SDI-9607, therefore, a Historic.al/Archaeological Survey of the site was prepared
by Gallegos & Associates, &ted September 1994. The report concluded that due to the limited number or artifacts
and the disturbed nature of the deposit, site CA-SDI-9607 is identified as not important under CEQA and the City
of Carl&ad Guidelines, and no further study or mitigation is required.
14 Rev. 3/28/95 aa-
Section 3.10 of Final EIR 9003, identified the potential for the presence of significant paleontological resources
throughout the entire specific planning area, with a high potential for the discovery of fossils during future grading
and construction activities. To reduce this potential impact to below a level of significance the project would be
conditioned with mitigation measmes designed to protect paleontological resources - (Section 3.10.0, Page m-107,
Final ElR 90-03).
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT:
,
Backmound:
The Biology Section (3.4) of Fii EIR 90-03 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 conditions 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 Final EIR 90-03
and provide more detailed and current resource surveys plotted at the tentative map scale for each property. 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 conservation plan, or the purchase and protection
of similar habitat offsite.
Proiect Level Biolonical Renorts:
To meet these EIR requirements a biological resource field survey was prepared by RECON, dated January 1995
and updated June 20, 1995 (sewer and stormdrain impacts), and a Biological Survey Report, prepared by Brian
Mooney Associated, dated August 1995, which evaluated impacts created by the project. These subsequent
biological studies are intended to provide more focused, current, and detailed project level analysis of site specific
biological impacts and provide more refined project level mitigation measures as required by Final EIR 903.
The project site was surveyed for sensitive plant and animal species and no sensitive plant species were identified
onsite, and three (3) sensitive wildlife species (turkey vulture, northern harrier, and California gnatcatcher) were
observed onsite. The “threatened” coastal California gnatcatcher was observed in the Diegan coastal sage scrub
along the east and north side of the site. The property was also surveyed for the burrowing owl and the bird was
not observed on the site.
Offsite Roadway and Utllltv Imnacts and Alternatives:
The RECON Biological Report indicates that implementation of the project’s off-site sewer and stormdrain
alignment “B” would create additional significant impacts to riparian habitat not discussed in Fii EIR 90-03,
therefore, mitigation measures designed to reduce biological impacts to below a level of significance will be
required as part of the project. Alignment “B” may have a potentially significant impact on sensitive biological
habitat which is under the jurisdiction of two (2) “Responsible” public resource agencies, the California Coastal
Commission and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). The construction of the project’s sewer
may be considered an alteration to a streambed and require a permit from the CDFG and the Army Corp of
Engineers. If feasible, the Alternative “B” sewer line should be tunneled under Encinas Creek to avoid impacts
to the wetlands. To reduce riparian impacts to below a level of significance, and contingent on the approval of
15 Rev. 3/28/95 dl,
the appropriate resources agencies, any areas of riparian habitat disturbed by construction of the sewer line shall
be replanted/enhanced with native riparian species at a 3:l ratio so there is no “net loss” of habitat, and impacts
are temporary. The project will he required to obtain all necessary or applicable resources agency permits prior
to approval of a final map or grading permit, whichever occurs frrst.
Based on comments from the California Coastal Commission during the public review period for the Mar Vista
project’s (located directly west) Mitigated Negative Declaration, the developer has proposed a more environmentally sensitive sewer and storrndrain alignment “A. If the newly proposed and environmentally preferred alternative
sewer and stormdrain alignment “A” is implemented, then no native habitat would be impacted and habitat
mitigation is not required, per the analysis provided in the updated Biological Survey Report, prepared by RECON,
dated June 20, 1995. During the writing of this Initial Study the Carlsbad Water District has decided to actively
pursue approval for Alternative “A”, from the California Coastal Commission and the State Fish and Game
Department, in order to provide sewer for the City’s Poinsettia Community Park as well as other properties that
must gravity sewer in this direction within the area. Phase I of the park is estimated to be completed by the end
of the summer of 1996, therefore, the Water District anticipates having all environmental clearances and applicable
resource agency permits for the sewer line prior to the summer so that the sewer line construction can be
coordinated with the completion of the park.
The Mooney & Associates Biological Report, dated August 1995, indicates that the project’s main access road
leading from future Hidden Valley Road to the project site would impact approximately 0.05 acres of disturbed
coastal sage scrub habitat (CSS), and grading for the residential building pads would impact 0.07 acres of CSS.
The impacted CSS habitat area is small in size, linear in shape, partially disturbed and located along the edge of
larger habitat areas, thus the significance of the impact is reduced. To offset the loss of 0.12 acres of CSS the
project shall be conditioned to mitigate the 0.12 acre CSS impact by acquiring, for preservation, comparable quality
habitat. The developer is proposing to mitigate this impact by purchasing, for preservation, .19 acres of coastal
sage scrub habitat within the high quality, coastal sage scrub area found in the Carlsbad Highlands mitigation bank
(subject to the approval of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish).
Citv’s Habitat Management Plan. NCCP. and 4d Rule Determination:
The construction of the local access road in this area is the least environmentally damaging access alternative, it
provides primary access to an otherwise landlocked area that is surrounded by steep slopes and high quality CSS,
and it would result in the loss of 0.05 acres of CSS habitat. The .07 acre impact within the 60 foot buffer area
is small and linear in size and shape and will not adversely effect the larger habitat area to be preserved in
permanent open space (Lot 62). Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the City may have to authorize this
project to draw from the City’s 167.5 acre (5%) CSS take allowance. The take of 0.12 acres of CSS habitat from
the Emerald Ridge-West property site will not impair the ability of the City to implement it’s draft Habitat
Management Plan (subregional NCCP). Prior to completion of a subregional NCCP/Carlsbad Habitat Management
Plan (HMP), interim approval must be secured for losses of coastal sage scrub habitat. A procedure has been
established which allows the local jurisdiction to benefit from the 4(d) rule. This procedure includes:
establishment of the base number of acres of coastal sage scrub habitat in the subregion, calculate 5% for the
interim habitat loss, and keep a cumulative record of all interim habitat losses. The City of Carl&ad has calculated
that 5% of the base acreage of coastal sage scrub is 165.70 acres. As of March, 1995,3.96 acres have been taken.
The loss of coastal sage scrub due to the project (0.12 acres) would result in a cumulative habitat loss of 4.08 acres
for the HMP area once all the approved loses have been taken. This loss does not exceed the 5% guideline of
165.70 acres. The 0.12 acre take area is located outside of any Preserve Planning Areas. The habitat loss will not preclude connectivity between areas of high habitat values since this area is not included as a part of a Linkage
Planning Area (LPA). The habitat loss will not preclude or prevent the preparation of the Carl&ad HMP in that
16 Rev. 3/28/95 97
the area is not a part of a Linkage Planning Area, makes no contribution to the overall preserve system and will
not signifxantly impact the use of habitat patches as archipelago or stepping stones to surrounding PPAs.
The habitat loss has been reduced or mitigated by the design of the project, in that this access alignment is the most
sensitive in terms of habitat and slope impact. Mitigation for the loss of the 0.12 acres of CSS will be in the form
of the acquisition of habitat credits as discussed above. The loss of habitat on the Emerald Ridge-West property
will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the gnatcatcher. The habitat loss is small
in size, located along the edge, and in a disturbed area that is directly adjacent to future Hidden Valley Road and
the Poinsettia Community Park, therefore, large blocks of habitat will not be lost and fragmentation will not occur.
The habitat area being impacted is at the periphery of a larger CSS habitat area; it is not in the center where the
loss of habitat would be more important.
The habitat loss is incidental to otherwise lawful activities. The development of the Emerald Ridge West property
is a legal development and all required permits will be obtained. Mitigation for impacts to the CSS habitat will
be accomplished in the form of purchase of equal or better habitat credits at an off-site location. This mitigation
area has been identified as the Carl&ad Highlands Mitigation Bank site which has previously been accepted by
the California Department of Fish and Game and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
Noise and Lieht Imnacts to Gnatcatchers:
Since coastal California gnatcatchers are known to occur in the area to the east and north of the property per the
biological surveys, there may be an indirect impact to the gnatcatcher from the project’s lights. These impacts can
be avoided by directing construction and project lighting away from the native habitats. The development will be
conditioned to prohibit any flood lights from projecting into native habitat areas. In addition, possible construction
noise impacts to breeding gnatcatchers should be avoided, therefore, the project shall be conditioned to prohibit
heavy construction adjacent to CSS and chaparral habitat areas during the breeding season (March 1 to July 31).
Future Hidden Valley Road Jmnacts:
An offsite access requirement for this project includes the construction of future Hidden Valley Road from Camino
de las Gndas to Palomar Airport Road. The Initial Study and adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Sambi Project - (CT 92-02), identified significant biological impacts associated with the construction of the
northern segment of Hidden Valley Road from Poinsettia Community Park north to Palomar Airport Road. As
part of the Sambi project a prehminary biological mitigation program was also adopted to reduce significant
biological impacts associated with the roadway. As of the date of preparation of this Initial Study all required
Local, State, and Federal permits have been obtained for the construction of Hidden Valley Road. Since CT 94-l 1
(Mar Vista) is dependent on this offsite roadway for access, compliance with all approved biological mitigation
as part of all local and resource agency permits will become a condition of approval for this project. If the
developer constructs the roadway as part of this project, then that developer must comply with the terms and
conditions of the applicable permits.
17 Rev. 3rnP5 sz
APriculture:
The relatively level portions of the site are currently being utilized for agricultural purposes. The site’s soil (Marina
Loamy Coarse Sand (MIC) & Chesterson Fine Sandy Loam (CfB)) is not considered prime, Class I or II,
agricultural soil. The site is located in the Coastal Agricultural Overlay Zone (Site lI) of the Mello II Segment
of the Local Coastal Program. Section 3.0 of Fii EIR 90-03 evaluated impacts created by the conversion of
agricultural land use to urban land use in the overlay zone. The EIR concluded that the cumulative loss of agricultural land could be offset with the mitigation measures established and required by Mello II Segment of
the LCP, therefore, the appropriate condition will be added to the project - (Section 3.1.3, Page III-20, EIR 90-03).
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT:
Planned Land Use And Density:
The project would not alter the planned land use of the site and is consistent with the Residential Medium (RM)
land use designation and density established by the Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan. The RM
designation allows up to 8 dwelling units per net acre with a Growth Control Point of 6 dwelling units per net acre.
The project’s proposed density is 3.01 dwelling units per net acre.
Hazardous Substances:
The site has been farmed and cultivated for a number of years and there may be a potential for significant impacts
to future residents from accumulations of hazardous chemicals in the soil. To evaluate this potential impact a
Preliminary Pesticide Residue Survey was prepared by Geo Soils Inc., dated July 1994. The survey report indicates
that very low level/minute concentrations of four pesticides (3); 4$-DDE, 4,4’-DDT, Aroclor- 1254 (PCB’s), Dioxin
(HpCDD, HxCDD, and GCDD) were detected in soil samples taken from the site. The report concluded that the
pesticide levels in the random soil samples were sufficiently below regulatory levels to not warrant additional
testing or assessment, therefore, the potential hazard is considered less than significant, and no further analysis is
required. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project, per Final EIR 90-03 Section 3.9.3 , the pesticide
survey report shall be reviewed and approved by the County Health Department.
Section 3.9.2.3 of Final EIR 90-03 analyzed land use incompatibilities caused by the ongoing use of agricultural
chemicals and the future development of residential land uses. As phased development proceeds within the specific
plan area, interface conflicts associated with pesticide spraying, irrigation runoff, and odor impacts may arise
between agricultural operations and residential uses. To reduce such impacts to below a level of significance, the
appropriate EIR recommended mitigation measures will be made a condition of the project - (Section 3.9.3, Page
III- 103, Final EIR 90-03). Mitigation will include walls, drainage control, and a notification to all future residential
land owners that this area is subject to dust, pesticide, and odors associated with adjacent agricultural operations.
Light and Glare:
The property is surrounded by open space to the east and north, a future public park with several lighted sports
fields to the south, and similar residentially zoned property to the west, therefore, the light generated from the
vehicles, street lights, and homes in this single-family project will not significantly impact the surrounding land
uses.
18 Rev. 3fla195 a 9
Circulation:
The project would increase local traffic in the area., however, a Traffic Study prepared for the project by WPA
Traffic Engineering, Inc., dated November 23, 1994, and a Traffic Impact Analysis conducted as part of the Zone
20 Specific Plan indicates that compliance with the circulation requirements of the Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 203).
Final Program EIR 90-03, and the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 20 would mitigate any significant
local traffic impacts - (Section 3.5, Page III-58, Fii EIR 90-03). Final EIR 90-03 for the Zone 20 Specific Plan
(SP 203) evaluated circulation impacts, however, this discussion has now been supplemented by the Circulation
Section 5.7 of Final Master EIR 93-01.
Public Facilities:
The project is located within the Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan. Public facility impacts and financing
have been accounted for in this plan to accommodate the residential development. The residential land use would
be consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the project would not significantly impact public facilities and
planned land uses. In addition, a condition will be added to the project to require that the developer enter into an
agreement with the appropriate school district to ensure that there are adequate school facilities available to serve
the residential subdivision - (Section 3.11, Page III- 112, Final EIR 90-03).
Noise:
Section 3.8 of Final EIR 90-03 evaluated potential noise impacts for future projects located in Specific Plan 203
and recommended that noise studies be prepared for projects impacted by traffic and airport noise. A portion of
the site is located within the 60 to 65 dRA CNEL contour, therefore, noise from existing Palomar Airport Road,
Paseo De1 Norte, and the airport would create a potential impact on the homes in this project. In the
Comprehensive McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Plan, residential development is considered conditionally
compatible within the 60 to 65 CNEL contour area. A Noise Technical Report was prepared for the project by
Pacific Noise Control, dated May 1995. Noise levels on the project site will not exceed the Noise Element’s
exterior traffic noise standard of 60 CNEL. Prior to approval of the Site Development Plan for siting of single-
family homes on the lots, additional interior noise analysis will be required for the project. If interior noise levels
in the homes exceed the interior noise standard of 45 CNEL, mitigation measures are required to reduce the noise
levels to the adopted standard. The project will be conditioned to comply with all the appropriate mitigation
recommendations of Section 3.8.3 of Final EIR 90-03 and the recommendations of the project’s noise report,
including but not limited to interior noise mitigation, if applicable, and legal notification of potential airport noise
impacts to future land owners.
Visual Aesthetics:
Section 3.13 of Final EIR 9OXl3 analyzed potentially visual impacts created by development within Specific Plan
203, including this property. It was determined that visual impacts to the Palomar Airport Road Viewshed
(Vantage Point 7, Figure 3.16-6) could be potentially sign&ant. To reduce these potential impacts to below a
level significance the EIR recommended mitigation measures, including additional visual analysis - (Section 3.13.3,
Page III-49, Final EIR 90-03).
The proposed project is a residential lot subdivision, and at this point in time, no residential structures are being
planned. Due to the visual sensitivity of the site from Palomar Airport Road and it’s location adjacent to a future
.public park, the property’s zoning contains the Qualified Development Overlay Zone. The Q-Overlay Zone
requirement for a Site Development Plan will ensure that future development is consistent with the overlay zone.
19 Rev. 3/28/95 30
This future SDP will evaluate visual impacts created by the building height, building facades, roof lines, and colors
of homes along the northern and eastern edge of the mesa. The SDP will also evaluate the placement of homes
on the individual lots in relationship to setbacks, and the visual street scene from internal public streets. As part
of the development of future homes on the site, the project will be conditioned to require additional visual analysis.
This analysis shall consist, at a minimum, of computerenhanced photo modifications showing development
conditions proposed by the project.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNTFICANCE:
As discussed in the Biological Section of this EIA, the implementation of sewer alignment “B” will impact riparian
resources and the construction of a local public access road and grading of the site will impact .12 acres of coastal
sage scrub habitat. However, mitigation measures included as part of this EIA and the project will adequately
mitigate impacts to biological resources.
The implementation of projects that are consistent with 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 sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in
regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or
State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorpo;ated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions .of project approval.
Local traffic impacts for this project can be mitigated below a level of signifkance, but regional related impacts
are still 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 “YES - significant”. This project
is not required to prepare an EIR because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council
Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This
“Statement Of Overriding Consideration” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the Master EIR, including
residential projects in Specific Plan 203, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is
required.
As previously discussed within this document, this project will not create environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
Alternatives:
Project alternatives are required when there is evidence that the project will have a significant adverse impact on
the environment and an alternative would lessen or mitigate those adverse impacts. Public Resources Code Section
21002 forbids the approval of projects with significant adverse impacts when feasible alternatives or mitigation
measures can substantially lessen such impacts. A “significant effect” is defined as one which has a substantial
20 Rev. 3/28/w 3/
A
adverse impact. Given the attached mitigation conditions, this project has “NO” significant physical environmental
impacts, therefore, there is no substantial adverse impact and no justification for requiring a discussion of
alternatives, (an alternative would not lessen an impact if there is no substantial adverse impact).
Sources:
1. Brian Mooney Associates, Biological Survey and Report for Emerald Ridge - West, August 1995;
2. Final EIR 90-03 - Zone 20 Specific Plan;
3. Gallegos & Associates, Historical/Archaeological Survey of the Kelly Property (Now referred to as Emerald
Ridge - West) and Test of Site CA-SDI-9607 (W-l 15), September 1994;
4. GeoSoils, Inc., Preliminary Pesticide Residue Survey, Kelly Property, July 25, 1994;
5. GeoSoils, Inc., Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment, Kelly Property, September 6, 1994;
6. MEIR - 1994 Update Date of the Carl&ad General Plan;
7. Pacific Noise Control, Noise Assessment, dated May 24, 1995;
8. RECON Biological Surveys and Coastal California Gnatcatcher Surveys for the McReynolds Property, January
13, 1995;
9. RECON Updated Biological Surveys and Coastal California Gnatcatcher Surveys for the McReynolds Property,
June 20, 1995;
10. WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc., Traffic Study for the Kelly Property, November 23, 1994.
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES CIF APPLICABLE\
1. Sewer/Stormdrain Alternative “B” - Implementation of Alternative “B” as it crosses En&as Creek,
would impact .02 acres of riparian vegetation. Mitigation for this impact will require the replacement
of this riparian vegetation at a 3:l ratio so there is no “net loss” of habitat, and if feasible, the sewer line
should be tunneled under En&as Creek to avoid impacts to the streambed and surrounding wetlands.
All riparian areas impacted along the proposed sewer/stormdrain alignment shall be replanted/enhanced.
Prior to the issuance of a fInal map or grading permits, whichever occurs first, the.developer shall be
required to: consult with the California Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, and
the U.S. Fiih and WildMe Service regarding specific permits and mitigation for impacts to .02 acres of
riparian vegetation.
OR
SewerlStormdrain Alternative l An - Implementation of Alternative “A” crosses En&as Creek. Prior
to the issuance of a final map or grading permits, whichever occurs first, the developer shall obtain a
Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California F’ish and Game Department, if required for any
proposed alterations to existing natural watercourses, and shall comply with any and all permit
21 -. 3tw95 32
2.
3.
4.
requirements associated therewith, pursuant to Section 16Ol/l603 of the Fish and Game Code. The
developer, in co@xtion with the Department of the Army Corp of Engineers shall determine whether
a 404 permit shah he required for alterations to wetland areas.
.l2 acres of coastai sage scrub (CSS) habitat will be directly impacted by this project. The impacted
CSS habitat is regarded as disturbed habitat (0.05 acres) and medium to high quality habitat (0.07).
Pursuant to the Interim Take provisions of the 4d Rule for the California gnatcatcher, the project shall
be required to mitigate this loss of .12 acres of CSS by acquiring, for preservation, comparable quality
habitat at a 1:l ratio for the disturbed CSS and 2:l for the higher quality CSS. The developer proposes
to mitigate this impact by purchasing, for preservation, .19 acres of CSS habitat within the high quality,
coastal sage scrub area found in the Carlsbad Highlands mitigation bank. This proposal shall require
the approval of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the California Department of F’ish and
Game. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall be required to consult with
and obtain necessary “take” permits from the USlWS, the Caliromia Department of Fiih and Game for
impacts to the loss of .12 acres of CSS.
The CC&Rs for the project shall iuclude a requirement, stating that flood lights from the development
shall not project/shine into the native habitat areas.
Heavy construction adjacent to coastal sage scrub and chaparral habitat areas along the east and north
side of the site during the California gnatcatcher breeding season (March 1 to July 31) shall be
prohibited
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
See Attached Sheet
22 Rev. 3/28/95 - s-3
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MlTIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
bate
/p-(ro-yY /&!y/&J!=-
’ $?gnature~
23 Rev. 3f28/%
s 4
ENVIRONMENTAL MlTlGATlON MONITORING CHECKLIST Page 1 of 1
8 a gx s a@
qs .el o- -m# s&5 ‘Ca E PtOU
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3880
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE MAP
TO SUBDIVIDE A 56.3 ACRE PARCEL INTO SIXTY-ONE
SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS WITH A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF
7,500 SQUARE FEET, ONE 8.3 ACRE OPEN SPACE LOT,
A 27.4 ACRE REMAINDER PARCEL, AND ALLOW NINE
SECOND-DWELLING UNITS, ALL ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF CAMINO DE LAS
ONDAS, EAST OF PASEO DEL NORTE, AND SOUTH OF
PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, WITHIN SPECIFIC PLAN
203, IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE
20.
CASE NAME: EMERALD RIDGE WEST
CASE NO: CT 95-03
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
WHEREAS, MSP California LLC has filed a verified application for certain
property to wit:
All that certain parcel of land delineated and designated as “Description No.
1,103.91 Acres” on Record of Survey Map No. 5715, filed in the Offke of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, December 19,1960, being a portion
of Lot G of Ranch0 Agua Hedionda, according to Map thereof No. 823, filed
in the Office of the County Recorder of San piego County,’ November 16,
1896, a portion of which lies within the City of Carlsbad, all being in the
County of San Diego, State of California. Excepting therefrom that portion
lying within Parcels “A”, “B”, “C” and “D” of Parcel No. 2993 in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, August 23,1974 as File No. 74-230326
of Offkial Records.
with the City of Carlsbad which has been referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Tentative
23 II Map to subdivide a 56.3 acre parcel into sixty-one single-family lots with a minimum lot
24
25
26
27
28
size of 7,500 square feet, one 8.3 acre open space lot, a 27.4 acre remainder parcel, and
allow nine second-dwelling units as shown on Exhibits “A-M”, dated January 17, 1996, on
tile in the Planning Department and incorporated by this reference (“Tentative Map for
Emerald Ridge West” CT 95-03) as provided by Chapter 20.12 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code; and
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
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of January, 1996,
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 Map.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission’ of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
4
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Carlsbad Tract CI’ 95-03, based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and
considered Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Emerald Ridge West project, the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and said comments thereon,
and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, on file in the Planning
Department, prior to recommending approval of the project. Based on the EIA
Part-II and comments thereon, the Planning Commission finds that there is no
substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment and
hereby recommends approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the Emerald Ridge West project and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program have been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines, and the Environmental Protection
Procedures of the City of Carlsbad.
The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Emerald Ridge West project reflects the independent judgment of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein for CT 95-03
is in conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the following:
a. The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan since the proposed
density of 3.01 dus/acre is less than the density range of 4 to 8 dus/acre
PC RESO NO. 3880 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
specified for the site as indicated on the Land Use Element of the General
Plan, and is below the growth control point of 6 dus/acre.
b. Circulation - The local streets serving the project have 56 to 60 feet of public
right-of-way, and connect to Hidden Valley Road which is a non-loaded
collector street. All the local, collector, and major streets within this area
would be constructed to full public street width standards, and have curb,
gutters, sidewalks, and underground utilities. The proposed street system is
adequate to handle the project’s pedestrian and vehicular traffic and
accommodate emergency vehicles.
C. Noise - A noise study was completed for the project, and traffic noise from
Palomar Airport Road does not exceed 60 dBA CNEL. The developer is
required to mitigate interior noise levels of the future homes to 45 dBA
CNEL.
d. The project is consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan and
the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance since the Developer is required to
provide 10.764 affordable housing units and has been conditioned to enter
into an Affordable Housing Agreement to either: (1) construct 9 second
dwelling units and deed restrict 1 three-bedroom home; or (2) construct 9
second dwelling units and purchase 1 Affordable Housing Credit from Villa
Loma subject to the requirements of City Council Policy No. 57 and 58 and
final approval by the City Council. The remaining .754 fraction of an
inclusionary dwelling unit will be satisfied through the payment of a fee equal
to the fraction (.764) times the average subsidy needed to make affordable to
a lower-income household, one newly constructed typical housing unit.
e. Open Space and Conservation - The project is designed to avoid the steep
slopes surrounding the mesa and riparian drainage area in the eastern finger
canyon. This area will be placed under an 8.3 acre open space easement to
the Homeowners Association. This 8.3 acre open space lot would connect
with the open space to the north along Encinas Creek. City Wide Trail Link
No. 29 would be aligned to the east along the bluff and slope to minimize
gnatcatcher, coastal sage, and riparian impacts in the eastern finger canyon.
Native habitat impacts have been reduced or mitigated by the design of the
project, in that project grading and the Cherry Blossom Road alignment is
the most sensitive in terms of habitat and slope impact as follows:
1) The 0.12 acre take area is located outside of any Preserve Planning
Areas (PPAs);
2) The habitat loss will not preclude connectivity between areas of high
habitat values since this area is not included as a part of a Linkage
Planning Area (LPA);
PC RESO NO. 3880 -3-
I 38
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)
The habitat loss will not preclude or prevent the preparation of the
Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan in that the area is not a part of
a Linkage Planning Area, makes no contribution to the overall
preserve system and will not significantly impact the use of habitat
patches as archipelago or stepping stones to surrounding PPAs.
Mitigation for the loss of the 0.12 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS)
will be in the form of the acquisition of .19 acres of high quality CSS
habitat credits from the Carlsbad Highland Mitigation Bank. The loss
of habitat on the MSP California LLC property will not appreciably
reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the gnatcatcher;
The habitat loss is located in a disturbed area that is directly adjacent
to Hidden Valley Road and the Poinsettia Community Park, therefore,
large blocks of habitat will not be lost and fragmentation will not
occur, and;
The habitat area being impacted is at the periphery of a larger CSS
habitat area; it is not in the center where the loss of habitat would be
more important.
f. Parks and Recreation - The project is required to pay park-in-lieu fees.
Public Safety - The proposed project is required to provide sidewalks, street
lights, and fire hydrants, as shown on the tentative map, or included as
conditions of approval.
5. 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:
a. 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.
b. Prior to final map approval the developer is conditioned to enter into an
agreement with the appropriate school district to ensure that adequate school
facilities are available to serve the project.
C. Park-in-lieu fees are required.
PC RESO NO. 3880 -4- 39
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
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
h
d. All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as
conditions of approval.
e. 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
construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional
requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant
to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the
project.
This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part
of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 20.
The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the
McClellan-Palomar Airport, dated April, 1994 in that the developer is conditioned
to record a notice concerning aircraft noise and an avieation easement. 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 residential development is conditionally compatible within
the 60 to 65 CNEL and the project has been conditioned to mitigate interior noise
levels to 45 dBA CNEL.
That the project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual, adopted by City
Council Resolution No. 90-384.
That the proposed map and the proposed design and improvement of the subdivision
as conditioned, is consistent with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan,
any applicable specific plans, Titles 20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and
the State Subdivision Map Act, and will not cause serious public health problems, in
that the proposed project is required to provide sidewalks, street lights, and fire
hydrants, as shown on the tentative map, or included as conditions of approval. Tbe
local streets have adequate public right-of-way and connect to Hidden Valley Road
which is a non-loaded collector street. All the local, collector, and major streets
within this area would be constructed to full public street width standards, and have
curb, gutters, sidewalks, and underground utilities. The proposed street system is
adequate to handle the project’s pedestrian and vehicular traffic and accommodate
emergency vehicles.
That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since
surrounding properties are designated for residential development less than 4 to 8
dus/acre in the General Plan, in that the proposed residential land use is buffered
from the park, compatible with the residentially designated property to the west; and
PC RESO NO. 3880 -5 co
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
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
consistent with the CLUP. Public street improvements would be provided to
accommodate traffic generated by the project. A local street would separate the
residential lots from the community park, and the residential land use is compatible
with the RM residential land use designation on the property located directly west.
That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since
the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the
density proposed, in that the residential development complies with all city policies
and standards, including zoning, without the need for variances from development
standards.
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 7,500+
square foot lot sizes allow for a variety of building placement alternatives, including
the adequate placement and separation of the homes, in combination with the
proposed variety of future floor plans and the dominant western wind patterns/solar
radiation patterns, will allow utilization of natural heating and cooling opportunities.
That the Planning Commission has considered, in connection with the housing
proposed by this subdivision, the housing needs of the region, and balanced those
housing needs against the public service needs of the City and available fiscal and
environmental resources;
That the design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat, in that all feasible mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and certified Final EIR
93-03 which are appropriate to this project have been incorporated into the project
and no significant impacts to fish, wildlife or their respective habitats will occur.
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 Specific Plan 203, City ordinances, and Mello II have been
considered and appropriate drainage facilities have been designed and secured. In
addition to City Engineering Standards and compliance with the City’s Master
Drainage Plan, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
standards will be satisfied to prevent any discharge violations.
PC RESO NO. 3880 -6- 47
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
19.
20.
21.
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.
That the property cannot be served adequately with a public street without panhandle
lots due to unfavorable conditions resulting from unusual topography, surrounding
land development, or lot configuration, in that steep slopes to the north and the east,
and a property line to the west both created an isolated area of buildable land that
is not feasible to access with a full width public street.
That subdivision with panhandle lots will not preclude or adversely affect the ability
to provide full public street access to other properties within the same block of the
subject property, in that the lots are located between two cul-de-sac bulbs and are
bordered by the western subdivision property line.
That the buildable portion of the panhandle lot consists of a minimum of 8,000 sq.
feet, which meets the requirements of Section 21.10.080(d)(l) of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code;
Planning Conditions:
1. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the Tentative Map
for the CT 95-03 project entitled “Emerald Ridge West”. (Exhibit “A” - “M” on file
in the Planning Department and incorporated by this reference, dated January 17,
1996), 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
exhibits/or documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and conform
to City Council’s final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially
as shown on the approved exhibits. Any proposed development substantially
different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
2. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
Maps and Exhibits:
3. The Developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar copy of the
Tentative Map as approved by the final decision making body. 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.
4. The Developer shall provide the Planning Director with a 500’ scale mylar of the
subdivision prior to the recordation of the final map. Said map shall show all lots
and streets within and adjacent to the Project.
PC RESO NO. 3880 -7- +-Q
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
5. 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.
Facilities & Services:
6. The Developer shall pay the public facilities fee adopted by the City Council on July
28, 1987 (amended July 2, 1991) and as amended from time to time, and any
development fees established by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code or other ordinance adopted to implement a growth
management system or Facilities and Improvement Plan and to fulfil1 the subdivider’s
agreement to pay the public facilities fee dated May 26,1995, 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. The final map shall not be approved unless the City Council finds as of the time of
such approval that sewer service is available to serve the subdivision.
8. Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless
the District Engineer determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of
application for such sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of
occupancy. A note to this effect shall be placed on the final map.
9. 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-Roos 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.
10. 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.
General Conditions:
11. 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.
PCRESO NO. 3880 -8- $3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Approval of CT 95-03 is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, LCPA 94-04, ZC 94-04, SDP 95-06, and HDP 95-06. CT 95-03 is subject
to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3873, 3874,
3879,3881, and 3882.
The Developer shall establish a homeowner’s association and corresponding
covenants, conditions and restrictions. Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and
approved by the Planning Director prior to final map approval. The CC&Rs shall
include provisions specifying Homeowner’s Association maintenance responsibility
for all natural open space (Lot 62), slope maintenance and landscape easements
(Lots 1-17, and 22-23), as shown on the approved Tentative Map and landscape plan
which is on file in the Planning Department, or as conditioned by this resolution.
Prior to approval of the final map the Developer shall establish slope maintenance
and landscape easements along the rear yard slopes facing Palomar Airport Road
and Hidden Valley Road, including Lots 1-17, and 23.
Prior to approval of the final map the developer shall dedicate Open Space Lot No.
62 to the Homeowner’s Association and dedicate a perpetual open space easement
over Open Space Lot No. 62 to the City of Carlsbad.
Removal of native vegetation and development of Open Space Lot No. 62, including
but not limited to fences, walls, decks, storage buildings, pools, spas, stairways, and
landscaping, other than that approved as part of the tentative map for the sewer line
and drainage facilities as shown on Exhibit “C”, is specifically prohibited, except
upon written order of the Carlsbad Fire Department for fire prevention purposes,
or upon written approval of the Planning Director, and (California Coastal
Commission if in Coastal Zone), based upon a request from 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 dwelling units. For areas containing native vegetation the
report required to accompany the request shall be prepared by a qualified biologist.
Prior to approval of a final map the Developer shall establish an open space
easement, as shown on the Tentative Map, and deed restriction along the rear of
Lots 1 thru 23 for purposes of native habitat protection and fire suppression as
shown on the tentative map. No development shall be permitted in this buffer/open
space easement, including; future regrading of the building pad and manufactured
slopes, the construction of habitable and non-habitable accessory structures, patio
covers, pool rooms, solariums, and second-story decks and balconies, wooden decks
and spas 42 inches above grade, and any other structures that require a building permit. Screen walls/fences, landscaping. in accordance with the approved fire
suppression plan for the project, hardscape features such as brick or cement
walkways and patios, pool equipment, and grade level pools and spas shall be
permitted. In addition, the CC&Rs for the project shall stipulate the above
mentioned restrictions.
PCRESONO. 3880
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
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
. . . .
Prior to approval of the final map, the Developer shall provide an irrevocable offer
of dedication to the City of Carlsbad for a trail easement for trail(s) shown on the
tentative map within Open Space Lot No. 62. If the City of Carlsbad accepts
dedication of the trail easement the City shall assume responsibility for maintenance
and liability. 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 approval of the final map or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs
first, the developer shall notify, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and City
Attorney, all owners, users and tenants of this project that a community park site
is located adjacent to this project to the south.
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&Rs shall prohibit the storage of recreational vehicles in the required front yard
setback.
Prior to issuance of any building permits for the project the Developer shall receive
approval of a Site Development Plan (SDP) by the Planning Commission in
accordance with Chapter 21.06 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The single-family
homes within this tentative map shall be developed consistent with the project’s
approved SDP. Unless otherwise approved through the future Site Development Plan
process, the lots shall not be sold for the purpose of developing individual custom
homes on each separate lot.
The applicant shall submit a wall and fencing plan subject to Planning Director
approval prior to issuance of building permits. Prior to occupancy of Lot Nos. 1
thru 12 the developer shall construct a 6 foot high solid screen wall/fence along the
top of the berm that separates the City Wide Trail from the residential building
pads.
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.
The Developer shall display a current Zoning and Land Use Map in the sales office
at all times, or suitable alternative to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
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.
PC RESO NO. 3880 -lO- 4-L
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
Landscape:
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
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.
The first submittal of detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be accompanied
by the project’s building, improvement, and. grading plans.
Prior to approval of the landscape and irrigation plans, the plans shall show all
manufactured off-site slopes created by this project, landscaped to the satisfaction
of the Planning Director, and shall include at a minimum, landscaping to control
erosion and to provide visual screening of the slopes.
All building pad and street areas that are graded and remain vacant or undeveloped
for a period of more than 6 months after the grading operation is completed shall
be seeded and adequately irrigated to reduce erosion and visual impacts. If grading
is phased, the six month time period shall start at the completion of each individual
grading phase, subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director.
All landscaping shall comply with the Landscape Requirements of Specific Plan 203.
Contingency Permitdother Agencies:
31. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the Developer shall receive approval of a Coastal
Development Permit issued by the California Coastal Commission that substantially
conforms to this approval. A signed copy of the Coastal Development Permit must
be submitted to the Planning Director. If the approval is substantially different, an
amendment to CT 95-03 shall be required.
32. 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 Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat;
and, 2) obtain any permits required by the USWFS.
Environmental:
33. The Developer shall diligently implement, or cause the implementation of, all
mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR 90-03 that are found by this
resolution to be feasible.
34. The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of the Final EIR and
Mitigated Negative Declaration’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
PC RES0 NO. 3880 -11- 46
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
2a
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
Paleontology:
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
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;
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;
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;
All fossils collected shall be donated to a public, nonprofit institution
with a research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural
History Museum;
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 the recordation of the first final 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 or existing
Transportation Corridor in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and
City Attorney.
Prior to the recordation of the first final 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
McClellan-Palomar Airport in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director
and the City Attorney.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the Developer shall record an Avigation
Easement for all lots located within the 60 to 65 CNEL contour, including Lots 13
thru 35 to the County of San Diego and file a copy of the recorded document with
the Planning Director.
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.
PC RES0 NO. 3880 -12- 47
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
40.
41.
42.
Prior to issuance of a building permit the developer shall mitigate the interior noise
levels of the homes to 45 dBA CNEL, in accordance with the policies of the Noise
Element of the General Plan and the recommendation of the project's noise study
prepared by Pacific Noise Control, dated May 24,1994, and on file in the Planning
Department. If openings to the exterior of the homes are required to be closed to
meet the interior noise standard then mechanical ventilation shall be provided.
To offset the conversion of non-prime agricultural land to urban land uses per the
requirements of the Mello I1 Local Coastal Program, the applicant shall provide
payment of an agricultural mitigation fee, the amount of which shall not be less than
$5,000 nor more than $10,000 for each net converted acre of non-prime agricultural
land. 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 Carlsbad's
LCP.
Compliance with APCD Rules 51 (The "Nuisance" Rule), 52 (Particulate Matter),
and 54 (Dust and Fumes) of the Air Quality Chapter would effectively 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 with these rules, and reduce construction-related air pollutants:
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
g*
The watering of all surfaces being graded and haul routes shall be
required during dry weather conditions.
All unpaved areas shall be revegetated according to approved
landscape plans as soon as possible after grading.
All construction-related traffic shall be restricted to routes that are
dust-controlled, and reduced speed limits shall be maintained for all
haul and construction vehicles.
All construction activities shall be limited during periods of high
winds.
All heavy-duty, diesel-powered construction equipment shall be
operated according to manufacturers suggested operating instruction
(with the fuel-injection timing retarded to recommended levels for NO,
emissions, but which would not result in excessive visible smoke
emissions) in order to control pollutant emissions.
Construction equipment shall be subject to regularly scheduled
maintenancehne-ups, and be turned off when not being utilized to
avoid excessive idling emissions.
The application of architectural coating and cut-back asphalt shall
adhere to APCD Rules 67.0 and 67.7, to effectively control other
construction-related emissions of air pollutants.
PC RES0 NO. 3880 -13- +'&
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
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
h. The Engineering Department shall monitor for compliance during all
grading operations of the project.
The Homeowners Association shall obtain and distribute to owners and tenants
annual information from Caltrans and North County Transit regarding the
availability of public transportation, ride-sharing, and transportation pooling
services in the area. This information shall also be provided in the sales office of
the project. A condition so stating this shall also be placed in the CC&Rs for the
project.
Prior to occupancy of individual units a solid wall or fence, and landscaped
windbreaks shall be installed along the perimeter of any future developable area that
abuts property under "open field" cultivation, in order to reduce public nuisance
effects of adjacent pesticide spraying and dust generation from farm vehicles and
operations.
Prior to approval of a final map or issuance of a building permit, which ever occurs
first, an infrastructure improvement plan shall be submitted to the Planning and
Engineering Departments for review and approval by the Planning Director and City
Engineer. This plan shall illustrate the temporary road connections required to
maintain continued access to adjacent agricultural properties that could be impacted
by future roadway improvements.
Drainage water from buildings, streets, parking lots, and landscaped areas within
the project shall be disposed of through stormdrains or otherwise in a manner that
will avoid any runoff onto agricultural areas whether planted or fallow. All runoff
agricultural and urban shall conform with the National Pollution Discharge and
Elimination System Permit requirements pursuant to San Diego Regional Water
Quality Control Board Order No. 90-42, adopted by City Council Resolution No. 90-
235.
Prior to issuance of a building permit the project shall comply with the City of
Carlsbad's standards for solid waste management.
Prior to approval of the final map or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs
first, the applicant shall notify, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and City
Attorney, all owners, users and tenants of this project that this area is subject to
dust, pesticides, and odors associated with adjacent agricultural operations, and that
the owners, users, and tenants occupy this area at their on risk.
All grading shall comply with the recommendations incorporated by Geosoils, Inc in
the preliminary geotechnical assessment of the site dated September 6,1994 and any
amendments or updates of the report, that is on file in the Planning Department.
Prior to approval of a final map, improvement plans shall be submitted to the
Engineering Department showing locations and sizing of reclaimed and or urban
runoff diversion facilities, in accordance with the Carlsbad Municipal Water District
&+ t PC RES0 NO. 3880 -14-
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
requirements and the phasing schedule provided in the Zone 20 LFMP. Reclaimed
water facilities shall be constructed in all major roadways within the project.
51. Prior to approval of the Site Development Plan for the project, as required by
Chapter 21.06 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, a visual analysis of the project shall
be conducted by the Developer. This analysis shall consist, at a minimum, of
computer-enhanced photo-modifications showing development conditions proposed
by the development of homes as viewed from Palomar Airport Road. The purpose
of this analysis is to determine the specific visual impacts that the proposed project
could have on the Palomar Airport Road Viewshed. If the Planning Director
determines, based on future visual analysis, that there is a potentially significant
visual impact created by the construction of homes, mitigation to reduce this impact
shall be consistent with Section 3.133 of Final EIR 90-03 and may include, but not
be limited to, the following measures: (1) reduced building height along the top of
the bluff; (2) varying rooflines and roof massing; (3) enhanced rear building
elevations that are visible from Palomar Airport Road; (4) increased landscape
screening; (5) earth tone roof and building wall material and colors; and (6)
increased building separation.
Housing:
52. 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 9 lots for second dwelling units (including: Lots 2, 7, 13,
19, 24, 31, 36, 42, 52) and one three-bedroom home as appropriate, in accordance
with the requirements and process set forth in Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code. The draft.Af€ordable Housing Agreement shall be submitted to the
Planning Director not later than thirty (30) after the final map submittal. The
recorded Affordable Housing Agreement shall be binding on all future owners and
successors in interest; OR
Prior to 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 agreement with the City to deed restrict 9 second
dwelling units (including: Lot 2, 7, 13, 19, 24,31,36, 42, and 52) and the purchase
of 1 Affordable Housing Credit in Villa Loma, as appropriate, in accordance with the
requirements set forth in Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad 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; OR
Upon showing by the developer that an onsite contribution is not appropriate for the
project, a second inclusionary housing option available to the developer shall be that
prior to final map approval, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the
c, -3 PC RES0 NO. 3880 -15-
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
53.
54.
City to purchase affordable credits from Villa Loma or participate in an offsite
combined inclusionary project within the southwest quadrant and as appropriate, in
accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad
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.
Prior to City review and approval of the offsite option, the approval of a Specific
Plan amendment to SP 203 shall be required to designate the proposed offsite
combined inclusionary project as an approved location for the provision of affordable
units to satisfy the inclusionary requirements of Zone 20 properties.
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.
EnPineerine Conditions:
Note: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following engineering conditions,
upon the approval of this proposed major subdivision, must be met prior to approval
of a final map.
55.
56.
The developer shall provide for sight distance corridors at all street intersections in
accordance with Engineering Standards and shall record the following statement in
the project's CC&Rs:
"NO structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object over 30 inches
above the street level may be placed or permitted to encroach within the area
identified as a sight distance corridor in accordance with City Standard
Public Street-Design Criteria, Section 8.B.3. The underlying property owner
shall maintain this condition."
The above statement shall be placed on a non-mapping data sheet on the final map.
Drainage outfall end treatments for any drainage outlets where a direct access road
for maintenance purposes is not provided, shall be designed and incorporated into
the grading/improvement plans for the project. These end treatments shall be
designed so as to prevent vegetation growth from obstructing the pipe outfall.
Designs could consist of a modified outlet headwall consisting of an extended
concrete spillway section with longitudinal curbing and/or radially designed riprap,
or other means deemed appropriate, as a method of preventing vegetation growth
directly in front of the pipe outlet, to the satisfaction of the Community Services
Director and the City Engineer.
PC RES0 NO. 3880 -16-
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. This project is approved specifically as 1 (single) unit for recordation.
58. 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.
Feedmeemen t s
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
A funding mechanism for the full improvements for Poinsettia Lane and Alga Road
must be approved or fees paid, in conformance with the updated Zone 20 Local
Facilities Management Plan funding program.
The owner of the subject property shall execute an agreement holding the City
harmless regarding drainage across the adjacent property.
The developer shall pay all current fees and deposits required.
The developer shall construct desiltation/detention/urban pollutant basin(s) of a type
and a size and at location(s) as shown on the Tentative Map and as approved by the
City Engineer. The applicant shall enter into a basin maintenance agreement and
submit a maintenance bond satisfactory to the City Engineer prior to the approval
of grading, building permit or final map whichever occurs first for this project. Each
basin shall be serviced by an all-weather accesshaintenance road.
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.
Grading:
64. The developer shall submit proof that a Notice of Intention has been submitted to
the State Water Resources Control Board.
65. No grading shall occur outside the limits of the subdivision unless a grading or slope
easement is obtained from the owners of the affected properties. If the applicant is
unable to obtain the grading or slope easement, no grading permit will be issued. In
that case the applicant must either amend the tentative map or modify the plans so
grading will not occur outside the project site in a manner which substantially
conforms to the approved tentative map as determined by the City Engineer and
Planning Director.
66. 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
PC RES0 NO. 3880 -17-
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
67.
68.
69.
standards.
Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from the site, 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.
The developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project
to prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in
accordance with the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the City Engineer.
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.
DedicationDmprovements:
70.
71.
....
The owner shall make an offer of dedication to the City for all public streets and
easements required by these conditions or shown on the tentative map. The offer
shall be made by a certificate on the final map for this project. All land so offered
shall be granted to the City free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without
cost to the City. Streets that are already public are not required to be rededicated.
The developer shall comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The developer shall provide best
management practices 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 plans shall include, but not be limited to the following, which
shall be included in the project's CC&Rs:
a. The homeowner's association shall coordinate the use of the City's established
program to assist residents with the removal and proper disposal of toxic and
hazardous waste products.
b. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil,
antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such
fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm
drain or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides,
fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical
treatments shall meet Federal, State, County, and City requirements as
prescribed in their respective containers.
c. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface
pollutants when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface
improvements.
PC RES0 NO. 3880 -18- -- - I' -,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
72. 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:
a. Hidden Valley Road full width improvements (68’ Right of way148’ Curb to
curb width) from Calle Serena (formerly Cherry Blossom Road) to Palomar
Airpott Road, including:
a AsphaltKoncrete Pavement.
a Concrete Curb and Gutter.
a
a
Concrete Sidewalk on one (1) side.
Street Light Standards on both sides.
Traffic Signal at Palomar Airport Road and Hidden Valley Road.
Retrofi4Open Existing Raised Median in Palomar Airport Road.
Hidden Valley Road secondary access width improvements (68’ Right of
way/28’ Berm to berm width) from Calle Serena (formerly Cherry Blossom
Road) to Camino De Los Ondas, including:
a AsphaltKoncrete Pavement.
a AsphaltKoncrete Berms.
Note: The City will enter into an agreement with the developer to obtain
proportionate share reimbursement from benefitting property owners to the
north of Camino de Las Ondas and to the south of the project, for the
Hidden Valley Road secondary access improvements.
b-1. Calle Serena (formerly Cherry Blossom Road) full width improvements (60’
Right of way/40’ Curb to curb width) from Hidden Valley Road to the
southwest corner of the property, including:
a AsphalVConcrete Pavement.
a Concrete Curb and Gutter.
a Street Light Standards.
a Concrete Sidewalk on both sides.
a On-Site/Off-Site Calle Serena Asphalt/Concrete Transition.
-0R-
b-2. Calle Serena (formerly Cherry Blossom Road) secondary access width
improvements (72’ Right of way/52’ Curb to curb width) from Hidden Valley
Road to “A” Street, including:
a AsphaltlConcrete Pavement.
a Concrete Curb and Gutter.
- PC RES0 NO. 3880 -19- .: -f
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
Note:
C.
d-1.
d-2.
e.
a Concrete Sidewalk on both sides.
e Street Light Standards.
Roadway Improvement B-2 above will only be required if Poinsettia Park is
not constructed prior to building permits being issued for Emerald Ridge
West. If Poinsettia Park is constructed, prior to building permits being
issued for Emerald Ridge West, then this widened roadway section will not
be required (site specific secondary access will be gained through the park as
indicated on the tentative map.)
"A" Street full width improvements (60' Right of way/40' Curb to curb width)
from Calle Serena to the northern terminus, including:
0 AsphaltKoncrete Pavement.
a Concrete Curb and Gutter.
e Street Light Standards.
a Concrete Sidewalk on both sides.
"A" Street off-site, site specific secondary access improvements (30'
Easement/ZB' Berm to berm width) from the westerly property line to the "A"
Street /Calle Serena (Mar Vista) intersection, including:
a AsphaltlConcrete Pavement.
e AsphaltKoncrete Berms.
a On-Site/Off-Site "A" Street AsphaltKoncrete Transition.
Calle Serena (Mar Vista) off-site, site specific secondary access improvements
(30' EasemenV28' Berm to berm width) from the "A" Street/Calle Serena (Mar
Vista) intersection to the westerly property line (located at the southwest
corner of the property), including:
a Asphalt/Concrete Pavement.
a Asphalt/Concrete Berms.
a On-Site/Off-Site Calle Serena AsphaltKoncrete Transition.
Sewer and Drainage Alternative "A" or as determined by the CMWD District
Engineer and City Engineer. Note: Prior to approval of the final map the
developer shall revise the map to eliminate SewedStormdrain Alignment "Btl.
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.
PC RES0 NO. 3880 -20-
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
Special Engineering Conditions:
73. Tentative map easement items number's 7 and 14 shall not be vacated. These
easements shall remain and this shall be indicated on the conforming tentative map.
Preliminary Title Report (PR) (PR dated 3/22/95) Item No. 6 shall be shown on the
conforming tentative map with the future disposition of the easement indicated.
An Adjustment Plat shall be processed for the 37 acre "triangular" area located at
the proposed detentioddesilting basin west of Hidden Valley Road.
The developer shall enter into an "Agreement for Reimbursement of Costs for the
Construction of Poinsettia Park Off-Site Sewer, CMWD Project No. 94-404" for a
proportional share of the total construction cost.
74.
75.
76.
Water Conditions:
77.
78.
79.
80.
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.
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 permit. The San Diego
County Water Authority capacity charge will be collected at issuance of application
for meter installation.
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).
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 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.
PC RES0 NO. 3880 -21-
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
26
27
28
81.
82.
83.
84.
The Developer shall be required to participate in either: 1) the construction of a
gravity sewer pipeline in Hidden Valley Road extending from Palomar Airport Road
south to Cherry Blossom Road or 2) the construction of a gravity sewer pipeline in
Calle Serene (Sewer Alignment "A), which is a future street proposed for the Mar
Vista Tract CT 94-11.
The Developer shall construct a 12" potable water line (375' H.G.) in Hidden Valley
Road from Palomar Airport Road to Cherry Blossom Road. Also, a water analysis
shall be required to establish the size of water lines in Cherry Blossom Road, Streets
A, B and C. In any event, 8" diameter water lines will be minimum size installed.
The Developer shall construct a 12" reclaimed water line (384' H.G.) in Hidden
Valley Road from Palomar Airport Road to Cherry Blossom Road and shall install
reclaimed water lines deemed necessary after the colored use map is reviewed and
needs established.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, complete building plans shall be submitted
to and approved by the Fire Department.
Fire Conditions:
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
....
Prior to the issuance of building permits, complete building plans shall be submitted
to and approved by the Fire Department.
Additional onsite public hydrants are required.
Applicant shall submit a site plan to the Fire Department for approval, which depicts
location of required, proposed and existing public water mains and fire hydrants. The
plan should include off-site fire hydrants within 200 feet of the project.
Applicant shall submit a site plan to depicting emergency of 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 "Knox", key operated emergency entry device. Applicant shall contact
the Fire Prevention Bureau for specifications and approvals prior to installation.
._ , ,* PC RES0 NO. 3880 -22- ....e
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
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
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, Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Native vegetation which presents a fire hazard to structures shall be modified or
removed in accordance with the City of Carlsbad Landscape Manual. Applicant shall
submit a Fires Suppression plan to the Fire Department for approval.
Plans and/or specifications for fire alarm systems, fire hydrants, automatic fire
sprinkler systems and other fire protection systems shall be submitted to the Fire
Department for approval prior to construction.
An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed in buildings having an
aggregate floor area exceeding 10,000 square feet.
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.
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.
Planning Code Reminders:
Fees:
98. 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.
99. 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:
100. 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
-23- ,tr PC RES0 NO. 3880
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
101.
102.
103.
exceed the Growth Control Point except as provided by Chapter 21.90. The land use
designation for this development is RM. The Growth Control Point for this
designation is 6 dwelling units per nonconstrained acre.
Parcels 1 thru 62 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 1 thru 62 under the General Plan and
Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code."
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."
Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of
the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of
building permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provide herein.
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.
Landscape:
104. 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:
105.
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
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 RES0 NO. 3880 -24-
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, held on the 17th day of January, 1996, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Erwin, Monroy, Nielsen,
Noble, Savary and Welshons
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
LlL
WILLIAM COMPAS, ‘Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLZ~LER .
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 3880 -25-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3881
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A SITE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 9 SECOND DWELLING
UNITS WITHIN A 61 LOT SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION AND DEED RESTRICTION OF 1 THREE-
BEDROOM HOME OR THE OPTION TO PURCHASE 1
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDIT IN VILLA LOMA
SUBJECT TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL, ALL TO
SATISFY THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING
REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 21.85 OF THE
CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE, ALL ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF CAMINO DE LAS
ONDAS, EAST OF PASEO DEL NORTE, AND SOUTH OF
PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, WITHIN SPECIFIC PLAN
203, IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE
20. CASE NAME: EMERALD RIDGE WEST
CASE NO: SDP 95-06
WHEREAS, MSP California LLC has filed a verified application for certain
property to wit:
All that certain parcel of land delineated and designated as “Description No.
1,103.91 Acres” on Record of Survey Map No. 5715, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, December 19,1960, being a portion
of Lot G of Ranch0 Aqua Hedionda, according to Map thereof No. 823, filed
in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 16,
1896, a portion of which lies within the City of Carlsbad, all being in the
County of San Diego, State of California. Excepting therefrom that portion
” lying within Parcels A “, “B”, “C” and “D” of Parcel No. 2993 in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, August 23,1974 as File No. 74-230326
of Official Records.
with the City of Carlsbad which has been referred to the Planning Commission; and I
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Site
Development Plan to subdivide a 56.3 acre parcel into 61 single-family lots with a minimum
lot size of 7,500 square feet, one 8.3 acre open space lot, a 27.4 acre remainder parcel, and
allow 9 second-dwelling units as shown on Exhibits “A-M”, dated January 17, 1996, on file
in the Planning Department and incorporated by this reference (“Site Development Plan
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
for Emerald Ridge West” SDP 95-06) as provided by Chapter 21.53 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of January, 1996,
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 ali
factors relating to the Site Development Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of SDP 95-06, based on the following findings
and subject to the following conditions:
Findinps:
1. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein for SDP 95-
06 is in conformance with. the Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the
following:
a. The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan since the proposed
density of 3.01 dus/acre is less than the density range of 4 to 8 dus/acre
specified for the site as indicated on the Land Use Element of the General
Plan, and is below the growth control point of 6 dus/acre.
b. Circulation - The local streets serving the project have 56 to 60 feet of public
right-of-way, and connect to Hidden Valley Road which is a non-loaded
collector street. All the local, collector, and major streets within this area
would be constructed to full public street width standards, and have curb,
gutters, sidewalks, and underground utilities. The proposed street system is
adequate to handle the project’s pedestrian and vehicular traffic and
accommodate emergency vehicles.
C. Noise - A noise study was completed for the project, and trafftc noise from
Palomar Airport Road would not exceed 60 dBA CNEL. The developer is
required to mitigate interior noise levels of the future homes to 45 dBA
CNEL.
PC F2ESO NO. 3881 -2- id
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
d. The project is consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan and
the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance since the Developer is required to
provide 10.764 affordable units and has been conditioned to enter into an
Affordable Housing Agreement to either: (1) construct 9 second dwelling units
and deed restrict 1 three-bedroom home; or (2) construct 9 second dwelling
units and purchase 1 Affordable Housing Credit from Villa Loma subject to
the requirements of City Council Policy No. 57 and 58 and final approval by
the City Council. The remaining .764 fraction of an inclusionary dwelling
unit will be satisfied through the payment of a fee equal to the fraction (.764)
times the average subsidy needed to make affordable to a lower-income
household, one newly constructed typical housing unit.
e. Open Space and Conservation - The project is designed to avoid the steep
slopes surrounding the mesa and riparian drainage area in the eastern finger
canyon. This area will be placed under an 8.3 acre open space easement to
the Homeowners Association. This 8.3 acre open space lot would connect
with the open space to the north along Encinas Creek. City Wide Trail Link
No. 29 would be aligned to the east along the bluff and slope to minimize
gnatcatcher, coastal sage, and riparian impacts in the eastern finger canyon.
Native habitat impacts have been reduced or mitigated by the design of the
project, in that project grading and the Calle Serena (Cherry Blossom Road)
alignment is the most sensitive in terms of habitat and slope impact as
follows:
i.
ii.
. . . 111.
iv.
V.
The 0.12 acre take area is located outside of any Preserve Planning
Areas (PPAs);
The habitat loss will not preclude connectivity between areas of high
habitat values since this area is not included as a part of a Linkage
Planning Area (LPA);
The habitat loss will not preclude or prevent the preparation of the
Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan in that the area is not a part of
a Linkage Planning Area, makes no contribution to the overall
preserve system and will not significantly impact the use of habitat
patches as archipelago or stepping stones to surrounding PPAs.
Mitigation for the loss of the 0.12 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS)
will be in the form of acquisition of .19 acres of high quality CSS
habitat credits from the Carlsbad Highland Mitigation Bank. The loss
of habitat on the MSP California LLC property will not appreciably
reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the gnatcatcher;
The habitat loss is located in a disturbed area that is directly adjacent
to Hidden Valley Road and the Poinsettia Community Park, therefore,
large blocks of habitat will not be lost and fragmentation will not
occur, and;
PC FUZSO NO. 3881 -3- lo3
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
2. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the
use, in that the lots are a minimum of 60 feet wide and the second-dwelling units
would have exterior access, be incorporated into the second-story of the primary
home, and utilize a portion of the three-car garage for parking.
3. 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 in that the second dwelling unit would be integrated into
the primary dwelling units and meet all the development standards of the R-1-7500
Zone.
4. The second dwelling unit is located above a new three car garage and does not
exceed the 30 foot height limit.
5.
6.
The total floor area of the second dwelling unit does not exceed 640 square feet.
The second dwelling unit is architecturally compatible with the primaty dwelling unit
and retains the appearance of a single family dwelling within the project.
7. Since the second dwelling unit complies with all of the applicable development
standards of the R-l zone, has been designed to appear as a single family residence
when viewed from the street, and should generate very little additional traffic, it will
not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or
improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located.
8. The second dwelling unit has a separate entrance.
vi. The habitat area being impacted is at the periphery of a larger CSS
habitat area; it is not in the center where the loss of habitat would be
more important,
f.
!5
Parks and Recreation - The project is required to pay park-in-lieu fees.
Public Safety - The proposed project is required to provide sidewalks, street
lights, and fire hydrants, as shown on the tentative map, or included as
conditions of approval.
Plannine Conditions:
1. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the Site Development
Plan for the SDP 95-06 project entitled “Emerald Ridge West”. (Exhibit “A” - “M”
on file in the Planning Department and incorporated by this reference, dated
January 17, 1996), 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 exhibits/or documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and
conform to City Council’s final action on the project. Development shall occur
substantially as shown on the approved exhibits. Any proposed development
substantially different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this
PC RESO NO. 3881 -4- pi
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
approval.
2. Approval of SDP 95-06 is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, LCPA 94-04, ZC 94-04, CT 95-03, and HDP 95-06. SDP 95-06 is subject
to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3873, 3874,
3879,3880, and 3882.
3. 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 9 lots for second dwelling units (including: Lots 2, 7, 13,
19, 24, 31, 36, 42, 52) and one three-bedroom home as appropriate, 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 thirty (30) after the final map submittal. The
recorded Affordable Housing Agreement shall be binding on all future owners and
successors in interest; OR
Prior to 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 agreement with the City to deed restrict 9 second
dwelling units (including: Lot 2, 7, 13, 19, 24, 31,36, 42, and 52) and the purchase
of 1 Affordable Housing Credit in Villa Loma, as appropriate, in accordance with the
requirements set forth in Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad 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; OR
Upon showing by the developer that an onsite contribution is not appropriate for the
project, a second inclusionary 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 inclusionary project within the southwest quadrant and as appropriate, in
accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad
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.
4. Prior to City review and approval of the offsite option, the approval of a Specific
Plan amendment to SP 203 shall be required to designate the proposed offsite
combined inclusionary project as an approved location for the provision of affordable
units to satisfy the inclusionary requirements of Zone 20 properties.
PC FXESO NO. 3881 -5-
1
'2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5. 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.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 17th day of January, 1996, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Erwin, Monroy, Nielsen,
Noble, Savary and Welshons
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
WILLIAM COMPAS,&hairperson
CARLSBADP LANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Mrcr-rmL J. #~LU~ILLER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 3881 -6-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3882
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A HILLSIDE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO GRADE AND SUBDIVIDE
A 56.3 ACRE PARCEL INTO 61 ONE SINGLE-FAMILY
LOTS WITH A MINIMUM LOT SIZE 7,500 SQUARE
FEET, DEVELOP NINE SECOND DWELLING UNITS,
CREATE A 8.3 ACRE OPEN SPACE LOT AND LEAVE A
27.4 ACRE REMAINDER PARCEL, ALL ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF CAMINO DE LAS
ONDAS, EAST OF PASEO DEL NORTE, AND SOUTH OF
PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, WITHIN SPECIFIC PLAN
203, IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE
20.
CASE NAME: EMERALD RIDGE WEST
CASE NO: HDP 95-06
WHEREAS, MSP California LLC has filed a verified application for certain property
to wit:
All that certain parcel of land delineated and designated as “Description No.
1,103.91 Acres” on Record of Survey Map No. 5715, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, December 19,1960, being a portion
of Lot G of Ranch0 Aqua Hedionda, according to Map thereof No. 823, filed
in the Offtce of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 16,
1896, a portion of which lies within the City of Carlsbad, all being in the
County of San Diego, State of California. Excepting therefrom that portion
lying within Parcels “A “, “B”, “C” and “D” of Parcel No. 2993 in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, August 23,1974 as File No. 74-230326
of Official Records.
with the City of Carlsbad which has been referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Hillside
Development Permit to subdivide a 56.3 acre parcel into 61 single-family lots with a
minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet, one 8.3 acre open space lot, a 27.4 acre remainder
parcel, and allow nine second-dwelling units as shown on Exhibits “A-M”, dated January
17, 1996, on file in the Planning Department and incorporated by this reference (“Hillside
Development Permit for Emerald Ridge West” HDP 95-06) as provided by Chapter 21.95 of
L7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of January, 1996,
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 Hillside Development Permit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Hillside Development Permit HDP 95-06,
based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findinps:
1. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein for HDP 95-
06 is in conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the
following:
a. The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan since the proposed
density of 3.01 dus/acre is less than the density range of 4 to 8 dus/acre
specified for the site as indicated on the Land Use Element of the General
Plan, and is below the growth control point of 6 dus/acre.
b. Circulation - The local streets serving the project have 56 to 60 feet of public
right-of-way, and connect to Hidden Valley Road which is a non-loaded
collector street. All the local, collector, and major streets within this area
would be constructed to full public street width standards, and have curb,
gutters, sidewalks, and underground utilities. The proposed street system is
adequate to handle the project’s pedestrian and vehicular traffic and
accommodate emergency vehicles.
C. Noise - A noise study was completed for the project, and trafftc noise from
Palomar Airport Road would not exceed 60 dBA CNEL. The developer is
required to mitigate interior noise levels of the future homes to 45 dBA
CNEL.
PC RESO NO. 3882 -2-
,
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
d. The project is consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan and
the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance since the Developer is required to
provide 10.764 affordable units and has been conditioned to enter into an
Affordable Housing Agreement to either: (1) construct 9 second dwelling units
and deed restrict 1 three-bedroom home; or (2) construct 9 second dwelling
units and purchase 1 Affordable Housing Credit from Villa Loma subject to
the requirements of City Council Policy No. 57 and 58 and final City Council
approval. The remaining .764 fraction of an inclusionary dwelling unit will
be satisfied through the payment of a fee equal to the fraction (.764) times
the average subsidy needed to make affordable to a lower-income household,
one newly constructed typical housing unit.
e. Open Space and Conservation - The project is designed to avoid the steep
slopes surrounding the mesa and riparian drainage area in the eastern finger
canyon. This area will be placed under an 83 acre open space easement to
the Homeowners Association. This 83 acre open space lot would connect
with the open space to the north along Encinas Creek. City Wide Trail Link
No. 29 would be aligned to the east along the bluff and slope to minimize
gnatcatcher, coastal sage, and riparian impacts in the eastern finger canyon.
Native habitat impacts have been reduced or mitigated by the design of the
project, in that project grading and the Cherry Blossom Road alignment is
the most sensitive in terms of habitat and slope impact as follows:
i. The 0.12 acre take area is located outside of any Preserve Planning
Areas (PPAs);
ii. The habitat loss will not preclude connectivity between areas of high
habitat values since this area is not included as a part of a Linkage
Planning Area (LPA);
. . . 111. The habitat loss will not preclude or prevent the preparation of the
Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan in that the area is not a part of
a Linkage Planning Area, makes no contribution to the overall
preserve system and will not significantly impact the use of habitat
patches as archipelago or stepping stones to surrounding PPAs.
iv. Mitigation for the loss of the 0.12 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS)
will be in the form of the acquisition of .19 acres of high quality CSS
habitat credits from the Carlsbad Highland Mitigation Bank. The loss
of habitat on. the MSP California LLC property will not appreciably
reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the gnatcatcher;
V. The habitat loss is located in a disturbed area that is directly adjacent to Hidden Valley Road and the Poinsettia Community Park, therefore,
large blocks of habitat will not be lost and fragmentation will not
occur, and,
PC RESO NO. 3882 -3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
-
vi. The habitat area being impacted is at the periphery of a larger CSS
habitat area; it is not in the center where the loss of habitat would be
more important.
f.
g-
Parks and Recreation - The project is required to pay park-in-lieu fees.
Public Safety - The proposed project is required to provide sidewalks, street
lights, and fire hydrants, as shown on the tentative map, or included as
conditions of approval.
That hillside conditions have been properly identified on the constraints map Exhibit
“J”, dated January 17,1996, which show existing and proposed conditions and slope
percentages;
That undevelopable areas of the project, i.e. slopes over 40%, have been properly
identified on the constraints map Exhibit “J”, dated January 17, 1996, and placed
into a 83 acre Open Space (Lot 62);
That the development proposal is consistent with the intent, purpose, and
requirements of the Hillside Ordinance, Chapter 21.95, in that the grading avoids
steep slopes, manufactured slopes do not exceed 30 feet in height and follow the
natural contours, grading volumes do not exceed 7,900 cubic yards per graded acre,
the roadways are curvilinear and follow the natural contours, and the future homes
would be setback from the bluff top;
That the proposed development or grading will not occur in the undevelopable
portions of the site pursuant to provisions of Section 21.53.230 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code, in that steep slopes and riparian areas are preserved in open space;
That the project design substantially conforms to the intent of the concepts illustrated
in the Hillside Development Guidelines Manual, in that the roadways are
curvilinear, grading follows the natural contours, the future homes would be setback
from the bluff top, and all the manufactured slopes will be screened with
landscaping that includes a combination of ground cover, shrubs, and trees;
That the project design and lot configuration minimizes disturbance of hillside lands,
in that project’s grading and development does not encroached into steep slopes.
Planning Conditions:
1. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the Hillside
Development Permit for the HDP 95-06 project entitled “Emerald Ridge West”.
(Exhibit “A” - “M” on file in the Planning Department and incorporated by this
reference, dated January 17, 1996), 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 exhibits/or documents, as necessary to make them internally
consistent and conform to City Council’s final action on the project. Development
PC RESO NO. 3882 -4- 70
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
shall occur substantially as shown on the approved exhibits. Any proposed
development substantially different from this approval, shall require an amendment
to this approval.
2. Approval of HDP 95-06 is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, LCPA 94-04, ZC 94-04, CT 95-03, and SDP 95-06. HDP 95-06 is subject
to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3873, 3874,
3879,3880, and 3881.
3. Prior to issuance of building permits on Lots l- 61 for single family residential
structures, an amendment to this Hillside Development Permit shall be submitted
for review and approval by the Planning Commission to ensure that architecture is
consistent with the Hillside Development Ordinance architectural standards.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 17th day of January, 1996, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Erwin, Monroy, Nielsen,
Noble, Savary and Welshons
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None.
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairperson
CARLSBADP LANMNG COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 3882 -5-
cc- EXHBIT 4
A REPORT TO TRE PLANNING COMMISSION +B’
Item No.: 3 0
P.C. AGENDA OF: JANUARY 17, 1996
Application complete date: September 19, 1995
Project Planner: Jeff Gibson
Project Engineer: Mike Shirey
SUBJECT: CT 95-03/SDP 95-06/HDP 95-06 - EMERALD RIDGE WEST - Request for
recommendation of approval for a Mitigated Negative Declaration and the
accompanying Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Map,
Site Development Plan, and Hillside Development Permit, to: (1) subdivide
the property into 61 single-family lots and 1 open space lot; (2) create a 27.4
acre remainder parcel; (3) provide 9 future second-dwelling units; and (4)
deed restrict 1 three-bedroom home as affordable to lower income households
or purchase one Affordable Housing Credit in Villa Loma; all on property
generally located east of Paseo de1 Norte, north of Camino de las Ondas, and
south of Palomar Airport Road, within Specific Plan 203 and Local Facilities
Management Zone 20.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3879
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the Mitigated Negative Declaration issued by the
Planning Director, and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 3880,3881, and 3882
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of CT 95-03, SDP 95-06, and HDP 95-06, based on the
findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
The developer proposes to subdivide the 56.3 acre parcel into 61 single-family lots with a
27.4 acre remainder parcel, and provide 9 second dwelling units to satisfy inclusionary
housing requirements. Architectural elevations and floor plans are provided for the second
dwelling units and the project is consistent with all City codes, policies, and ordinances as
well as Specific Plan 203. To comply with all the requirements of the Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance, including the three-bedroom requirement, the developer has been conditioned
to deed restrict one of the future three-bedroom homes as affordable to lower income
households, or purchase 1 Affordable Housing Credit in Villa Loma in compliance with City
Council Policy No. 57 and 58, and final approval by the City Council.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The 56.3 acre parcel is located within the Coastal Zone, Specific Plan 203, and has
Residential Medium (RM) and Open Space (OS) General Plan Land Use designations. The
CT 95-03/SDP 95-06/HDP 95-06 - EMERALD RIDGE WEST
JANUARY 17, 1996
proposed project would include the following major features:
1. A residential subdivision into sixty-one (61) single-family lots with a 27.4 acre
remainder parcel, and one 8.3 acre open space lot, and;
2. The designation of 9 lots for future second-dwelling units and the deed restriction on
one three-bedroom home to satisfy the City’s inclusionary housing requirements.
The second-dwelling units would have exterior access, be incorporated into the
second-story of the primary home, and utilize a portion of the three-car garage for
parking.
The zoning for the entire 56.3 acre MSP California LLC parcel was recently recommended
for a change from Residential Density Multiple with the Qualified Development Overlay
Zone (RDM-Q) to the One-Family Residential with the Qualified Development Overlay
Zone (R-1-7500-Q). The Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the
zone change (ZC 94-04) on January 3, 1996, as part the neighboring Mar Vista project to
the west. The City Council has not taken final action on ZC 94-04, therefore, the approval
of Emerald Ridge West/CT 95-03 would be conditionally recommended for approval by the
Planning Commission, subject to the final approval of ZC 94-04 by the City Council.
The major project improvements would include the following:
1. The construction of local public streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and drainage
facilities necessary to service the new lots;
2. A sewer line that connects from the property, through the Mar Vista site to the west
and, then north to an existing sewer line located along Encinas Creek and Palomar
Airport Road;
3. The construction of a local public street named Calle Serena (Cherry Blossom Road)
from Hidden Valley Road west to the project site.
Currently the western half of the property is being used for agricultural purposes. It is also
surrounded by open space to the east and north, Poinsettia Community Park to the south,
and similar residentially designated (RM) property (Mar Vista) to the west. The majority
of the site contains very gently sloping topography that rises from west to east. The eastern
half of the property consists of a finger canyon which continues north and connects with
Canyon de las Encinas. The flat buildable areas within the western half of the property are
rimmed by steep slopes along the east and north. Topographic elevations on the site range
from approximately 70 feet in the canyon floor to 190 feet above mean sea level on the
gently sloping mesa.
The following vegetation types are present on the property:
1. Ruderal/agriculture on the gently sloping mesa;
CT 95-03/SDP 95-06/HDP 95-06 - EMERALD RIDGE WEST
JANUARY 17, 1996
PAGE 3
2. Pampas grass, diegan coastal sage scrub, and southern mixed chaparral along the
steeper slopes surrounding the mesa to the north and east;
3. Riparian southern willow scrub, and baccharis/mule fat in the bottom of the eastern
finger canyon.
Vehicular access to the site would be provided by future Calle Serena (also referred to as
Cherry Blossom Road) which connects to Hidden Valley Road. Hidden Valley Road is east
of the property and intersects with Camino de las Ondas to the south and Palomar Airport
Road to the north.
The project site is located within the boundaries of Specific Plan 203 which covers the 640
acre Zone 20 Planning Area. Specific Plan 203 was approved by the Planning Commission
and City Council in 1993. The specific plan provides a framework for the development of
the vacant properties within Zone 20 to ensure the logical and efficient provision of public
facilities and community amenities for the future residents of the planning area.
The proposed project is subject to the following adopted land use plans and regulations:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
General Plan with RM and OS Land Use Designations;
Specific Plan 203;
Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 21 (Zoning Ordinance), including;
1. Chapter 21 .lO One-family Residential Zone;
2. Chapter 21.06 Qualified Development Overlay Zone;
3. Chapter 21.85 Inclusionary Housing, and Chapter 21.53, Site Development
Plan required for affordable housing project;
4. Chapter 21.95 Hillside Development Regulations.
Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program (LCP);
Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 20 (Subdivision Ordinance);
Habitat Management Plan: (in process);
Growth Management Ordinance, (Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 20);
Environmental Protection Procedures (Title 19) and the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
- -
CT 95-03/SDP 95-06/HDP 95-06 - EMERALD RIDGE WEST
JANUARY 17, 1996
Iv. ANALYSIS
Staff is recommending approval of this project for the reasons stated in the staff report.
Consequently, this analysis section was developed by analyzing the project’s consistency with
the applicable plans, policies, regulations, and standards listed above and presented through
the use of the following tables and text.
A. CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN
The proposed project is consistent with the policies and programs of the General Plan. The
table below indicates how the project complies with the Elements of the General Plan which
are particularly relevant to this proposal.
Land Use
Housing
Open Space
Circulation
Noise
Park & Ret Proposed project is required to pay Park-in-lieu fees.
Public Safety
................. ................. ................................................................. ............................................................. ............ .......................................................................... ....... ., ,, ............. ............ .......................... .......... .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: :.:.:.:.:.:.::.:.:. .:.:. . . ........... ....................... ~~:.~~~:.:.~:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::.:.::...:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:...:.:.:.::.:.::::::::..::i::::::.:.:j::::i::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::~::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::: : :,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,) ,:,:,:,:,: ::::::.:: :::j:::.::::::::;:::::j::::::::::::::,:::::,::::::::::::::::: ........................ / ;“::~“‘.:‘:.::~:li::: ::“::::~::::~:::::~:::::;:::::::::::::::::::::;::,;:::::::::::i .:.:. :.>>x :...:.: ..:: .................. .................................................................................................................. ) .:.> .:.:. ~: ........ ....................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................. ,, ,, ..
.............................................. .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::.::::::::::.:.~: :.: ;:.:.: .... :.: .. ................ ........................ ............... ..... .:.:.::...:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:...: .: .............. ....................... ....................................................................................................................................................... . ..“.......j..j :i :.:...:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~ ............ .... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.: ............ ::...:....:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. :.->:.:: .i::-:-:-:-.:.:.:. ........... .................. .: :.:-:-~~:.:::i::::::::::i:::::::j::::j::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::~:: 5 :: i.:..~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:::~::::~~~~~~~~~:~~~:~~~~~ .~ jg:: .~.~ai;ll.:;~~ :.:.:.:.:.:.:. ...... ....................................................... . . . . . ., . . ...................................... ,.,.,.i,.,.i,.,., ............ ............................. . . . . . . . . ..... ......... ................................................... .... ...................... ::j:j:::i:j I:.:: “““‘: ::: ::: :.::. :.‘:‘i-.: :~:..:.:.:..........:...~:...~.....:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:...:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.::.:.:.:.:.:~:.::~ ii:l:l:l:::l:::i:~:“:“:::::::::::::::::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. ...... .... ::: ..... ............................................................................ ........ . .::,: ..“..‘.‘.: ... . . :.:.:. . :.:.:.~,i.j.i.i::,.~ :.:.:.:.:.: .......................... :::: ,.: .:.: I:...:.:.: .: ..::..:.: .:: ................ :...: ...
..................................... .................... ................... ....................... .... ... ............. .... . >..:.:...:.: ... .:.:.:::::.::::::. .... :.:.:.:.: :, :.............:...:.: .......... y..: ... ....
..... ........... . . ........ . .................... ......... ,:::::::,:::::::::j,:::::::::j:i:j:::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::,: ::‘:::i:::::.:::.:.:.:.:.: ........ ....... ...... ............ ... .............. ... ................... .... .... .................... ......... ..... .x::.;.:.::.,.: ................................... .: :. .: :...>:...:.: .x I:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: :.:.: :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: .. : ................... ................ ..................... .................... .:.:, ...... ..: .: :, .,/ ..)> .. : ... .......................... .. .,,,.,.,.,, ....... ..... _ ,, .... .... ... ... .,,, ,, .................. . .......
1. Proposed residential density of 3.01 dus/net acre is below the GP
designation of RM 4-8 dus/net acre and growth control point of 6
dus/net acre;
Provide a combination of second dwelling units, deed restriction of 1
three-bedroom home or the purchase of 1 Affordable Housing Credit
in Villa Loma.
1. GP constrained lands are (steep slopes and riparian habitat)
protected in 8.3 acre open space lot;
2. City Wide Trail Link No. 29 to be aligned along the top of the
bluff and across the slope via an exiting dirt road to minimize
California gnatcatcher, and coastal sage scrub impacts in the
eastern finger canyon.
Required roadway and intersection improvements, including Hidden
Valley Road from Camino de las Ondas to Palomar Airport Road, are
shown on the tentative map, or included as conditions of approval.
1. Exterior traffic noise levels do not exceed 60 dBA CNEL;
2. Noise study required to evaluate interior noise levels as part of the
future Site Development Plan for the homes;
3. Residential land use is conditionally compatible with land uses
designated within the 60-65 dBA CNEL noise contours of the
airport land use plan (CLUP).
Proposed project is required to provide sidewalks, street lights, and
fire hydrants, as shown on the tentative map, or included as conditions
of approval.
CT 9503/SDP 95-06/HDP 95-06 - EMERALD RIDGE WEST
JANUARY 17, 1996
B. SPECIFIC PLAN 203
The proposed project is consistent with the policies of Specific Plan 203. The table below
indicates how the project complies with the relevant requirements of the specific plan:
Land Use Open space is provided along the eastern and northern slopes,
Compatibility proposed low density residential is compatible with future residential
(RM) to the west, and there is a roadway (Cherry Blossom Rd.)
between the residential building pads and Poinsettia Community Park
to the south.
Circulation See General Plan Discussion under Circulation. In addition, Hidden
Valley Road would have pedestrian sidewalks and bike lanes.
Landscaping 70% of the lots have three (3) street trees in the front yard, and 30%
of the lots have one (1) tree. All manufactured slopes have
landscaping to prevent erosion and to provide visual screening.
Building
Elevations
The building elevations of future single-family homes would be
reviewed by the Planning Commission under a Site Development
Plan.
Affordable
Housing
Designate 9 second dwelling units, deed restrict 1 three-bedroom
home or purchase 1 credit in Villa Loma per the offsite affordable
housing provisions of Section IV.C.3.ii of SP 203
Site Design The layout of the subdivision does not impact steep slopes, the streets
are curvilinear, and there are adequate buffer areas between the
proposed dwelling units and the open space lot and Poinsettia Park.
C. ZONING ORDINANCE
1. One-Family Residential Zone (R-1-7500):
The developer is proposing to subdivide the property into single-family lots,
therefore, the following table summarizes the project’s compliance with the standards
of the R-1-7500 Zone:
Lot Size (Min.)
Lot Width
Second Dwelling
Unit Size
7,500 Square Feet 7,570-19,201 SF
60 Feet 60-100 Feet
640 Square Feet 640 Square Feet
- -
CT 95-03/SDP 95-06/HDP 95-06 - EMERALD RIDGE WEST
JANUARY 17, 1996
PAGE 6
............ ::::::::::.:.:.:.:.:::.:.:...:.:.:.>:.: ................................................ .......~~~~i...~:.:...~: :.:.:.:...:.:.:.:.:::~:~.~~~~~~~~.:.:.:~~:~: ‘yy::‘:‘:‘::‘:‘:‘:‘:‘:‘. ....... ... ............... . . .... . . .............. .::::::::.:::: ::::.: :,: ::: ::: .....>~..>>~>:.>; ............. .: ..................... ........... ;:.y-.: ‘:.-:.i’i’ii’i‘i’:‘i’ii’:‘;:; ;..~:.:...:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:..:~~::~:~:;~:::::::::::~:~:~:~:~.~ :: : ..: :.:;-:.:.:.:,:::::::::j:l ::.: ..:...:.:.):(.:.:. ~:.~ :.:.; .............. ...... .......
II.. ” -
~~~S~~~~~:~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.......... .:.:.:...:.:. .... . . . .... :::.: ... . .... . :...:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.z: .............. .......... ......................................... ................................................................................ ............ ........ .......................... ..: ............ .................................. . . ............. ... .:.. .: .... . . . ...... ... :. .:.:. :/: :.: II Garage Size & Two Car Garage - 20’X 20’ Two & Three-Car Garages
2nd Unit Parking One Additional Space II Lot Coverage 40 Percent To Be Determined with Future
SDP /I Building Height 30 Feet & Two-Story To be Determined with Future
SDP
Panhandle Lot:
Access Length -
Combined Access
Width -
Buildable Area -
150 Feet Max. 120 Feet
30 Feet Min. 30 Feet
8,000-10,000 SF 8,635-9,836 SF
Setbacks:
Front -
Street Side -
Side -
Rear -
20 Feet
10 Feet
10% of Lot Width
20% of Lot Width
To Be Determined with Future
SDP
The developer is also proposing Lots No. 28 and 29 as panhandle type lots. The two
lots are justified based on the irregular configuration of the buildable area of the
overall parcel. The buildable portion of the parcel is long and narrow and
constrained with steep slopes to the north and east, and a property boundary to the
west, resulting in developable land that cannot be served adequately with a public
street. The panhandle lots are located along the perimeter of the site and between
two cul-de-sac bulbs and would not adversely effect public street access to
surrounding properties. The project has been appropriately conditioned to ensure
that the panhandle lots comply with the access, parking, setback, and drainage
provisions of the code.
2. Qualified Development Overlay Zone:
The property contains the Q-Overlay Zone. At this point in time the developer is
not planning to construct homes on the lots, therefore, the Q-Overlay Zone would
require that a Site Development Plan (SDP) be approved by the Planning
Commission prior to approval and issuance of building permits for the homes. The
SDP would show the floor plans, placement of the homes on the lots, building height,
and the architectural elevations of the homes.
77
CT 95-03/SDP 95-06/HDP 95-06 - EMERALD FUDGE WEST
JANUARY 17, 1996
3. Chapter 21.85 Inclusionary Housing, and Chapter 21.53, Site Development
Plan:
The project would have 61 single-family lots and an inclusionary housing requirement
of 10.764 dwelling units which must be affordable to lower income households. In
addition, 10 percent of those units, or 1 dwelling unit, must be a three-bedroom unit.
The developer is proposing to satisfy the housing requirements by designating, onsite,
9 lots for future second-dwelling units. The second-dwelling units would have
exterior access, be incorporated into the second-story of the primary home, and
utilize a portion of the three-car garage. for parking. Since the project also requires
the provision of 1 three-bedroom unit which is infeasible to accomplish with second
dwelling units, staff has conditioned the project to deed restrict one of the future
three-bedroom homes as affordable to lower income households. In addition to this
condition, the developer has been provided an option of providing 9 second dwelling
units on-site and purchasing 1 Affordable Housing Credit in Villa Loma. The offsite
purchase of 1 credit in Villa Loma is conditioned subject to compliance with City
Council Policy No. 57 and 58, Specific Plan 203, and the final approval of the City
Council as part of the project’s Affordable Housing Agreement. The remaining .764
fraction of an inclusionary dwelling unit would be satisfied through the payment of
a fee equal to the fraction (.764) times the average subsidy needed to make
affordable to a lower-income household, one newly constructed typical housing unit.
If at a future date it is determined to be infeasible to provide any of the affordable
housing onsite, the developer has also requested a second option to satisfy the
affordable housing requirements by either purchasing 10 credits in Villa Loma or
participating in an offsite combined affordable project. In the event of this option,
the project has been conditioned to require future compliance with City Council
Policies 57 and 58, and Specific Plan 203 prior to City Council approval of an
Affordable Housing Agreement to allow the offsite option.
The Carlsbad Municipal Code requires a Site Development Plan for any affordable
housing project of any size. The Site Development Plan for this project indicates
which lots would be designated and deed restricted for second-dwelling units. The
plans also include prototypical preliminary floor plans and building elevations to
illustrate the parking arrangement and how the second-dwelling units integrate into
the primary homes. If, at a later date, the developer desires to build a different type
of primary home/second-dwelling unit or change the designated lots, a Site
Development Plan Amendment must be approved by the Planning Director.
The project has been conditioned to require an Affordable Housing Agreement that
would be submitted for review and approval by the City prior to final map approval.
The Affordable Housing Agreement is a legally binding agreement between the
developer and the City which provides the specific details regarding the phasing and
implementation of the affordable housing requirements of this project.
CT 95-03/SDP 95-06/HDP 95-06 - EMERALD RIDGE WEST
JANUARY 17, 1996
4. Hillside Development Regulations:
The project site contains slopes of 15% or greater and an elevation differential
greater than 15 feet, therefore, a Hillside Development Permit is required. The table
below indicates how the project complies with the requirements of the Hillside
Development Regulations:
Slope Height
Grading Volume
30 Feet
O-7,999 cubic yds/acre
14 Feet Max.
6,493 cubic yds/acre
Contour Grading Variety of Slope Direction
& Undulation
Manufactured Slopes
Follow the Edge of the
Bluff
Slope Screening Landscaping Combination of Trees,
Shrubs, & Ground Cover
Slope Setback Not Quantified - 15 Foot
Recommended
30 - 60 Feet
Architecture Roofline, Building Bulk &
Scale
To Be Determined with
Future SDP
Roadways Follow Contours Curvilinear Streets That
Follow the Bluff Top
D. MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
The project is located in the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program (LCP) and
complies with the plan as follows:
1. The project is located within the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone
and would connect to the gravity sewer system that has been proposed and
designed to service the sewer basin in this area which includes a portion of
the Costa Do Sol project, Poinsettia Community Park, and the Mar Vista
project. Sewer Alignment “A” is the environmentally preferred alignment and
would impact steep slopes with disturbed habitat.
Due to the topographic constraints in the area, the District Engineer and the
Coastal Commission staff have both recommended that Alternative “A” is the
least environmentally damaging alternative. On January 3, 1996, as part of
the Mar Vista project (CT 94-ll), the Planning Commission approved
Alternative “A” for the following reason:
-
CT 95-03/SDP 95-06/HDP 95-06 - EMERALD RIDGE WEST
JANUARY 17, 1996
PAGE 9
a. The Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone permits development
and grading on slopes over 25% in order to provide utilities to service
areas of the project site if there is a no less environmentally damaging
alternative. The feasibility of Sewer Alignment “B” is questionable in
terms of tunneling under Encinas Creek to minimize riparian impacts
and the Coastal Commission supports Alignment “A”.
Primary access to the site via Calle Serena (Cherry Blossom Road) would
impact .05 acres of steep slopes (25% slope or greater) that contain disturbed
Coastal Sage Scrub habitat. Because this access is also the least
environmentally damaging and provides primary access to flat developable
areas of the site, the slope encroachment is permitted per the requirements
of the Overlay Zone. The Planning Commission also reviewed and
recommended approval of this access, as part of the Mar Vista Project.
2. The project will be conditioned to provide adequate drainage, siltation, and
erosion control facilities as part of the approved grading permit. To avoid
potentially damaging runoff into Encinas Creek during the rainy season, the
grading operation would be limited to the summer construction season, April
1 to October 1.
3. The project contains vacant non-prime agricultural land containing Class III
and IV soils and is located in the Coastal Agricultural Overlay Zone (Site II).
The Mello II LCP requires mitigation when non-prime coastal agricultural
land is converted to urban land uses. The project has been conditioned to
comply with the LCP mitigation option provided when projects are located in
Site II. This option requires the payment of an “Agricultural Conversion
Mitigation Fee” to the California Coastal Conservancy.
E. SUBDMSION ORDINANCE
The proposed tentative map would comply with all the requirements of the City’s
Subdivision Ordinance, Title 20. Currently there are no public roads or intersections to
serve the project site, therefore, the developer must extend public off-site street
improvements to connect to the existing circulation network. Primary access to the property
would be provided by future Calle Serena (Cherry Blossom Road) which connects to Hidden
Valley Road. In order to comply with the City’s cul-de-sac policy, the developer is also
required to construct a second road connection for emergency access purposes to the
driveway of Poinsettia Community Park to the south (as shown on Exhibit “c”, dated
January 17, 1996).
The proposed project is required to provide sidewalks, street lights, and fire hydrants, as
shown on the tentative map, or included as conditions of approval. The local streets have
adequate public right-of-way and connect to Hidden Valley Road which is a non-loaded
collector street. All the local, collector, and major streets within this area would be
CT 95-03/SDP 95-06/HDP 95-06 - EMERALD RIDGE WEST
JANUARY 17, 1996
constructed to full public street width standards, and have curb, gutters, sidewalks, and
underground utilities. The proposed street system is adequate to handle the project’s
pedestrian and vehicular traffic and accommodate emergency vehicles.
To mitigate drainage impacts from the project site, the developer is required to provide
adequate drainage, erosion control, and urban pollutant basins. The drainage requirements
of Specific Plan 203, City ordinances, and Mello II have been considered and appropriate
drainage facilities have been designed and secured. In addition to City Engineering
Standards and compliance with the City’s Master Drainage Plan, National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards will be satisfied to prevent any discharge
violations. To‘ comply with Water Quality standards, City grading and erosion control
requirements, and the requirements of the Mello II segment of the Local Coastal Program,
the developer is required to install permanent and or temporary desiltation/retention basins
at the downstream end of all proposed storm drain pipes.
The subdivision 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. The project has been designed and structured such that there are
no conflicts with any established easements. In addition, the property is not subject to a
contract entered into pursuant to the Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act).
F. HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN: (IN PROCESS)
Future Calle Serena (Cherry Blossom Road), which would lead from Hidden Valley Road
to the project site, would impact approximately 0.05 acres of disturbed coastal sage scrub
habitat (CSS), and grading for the residential building pads would impact 0.07 acres of CSS.
The impacted CSS habitat area is small in size, linear in shape, partially disturbed and
located along the edge of larger habitat areas, thus the significance of the impact is reduced.
Because the CSS habitat is regarded as disturbed or located along the edges and the
remaining high quality CSS habitat in this area would be preserved, the project is
conditioned to mitigate the 0.12 acre CSS impact by acquiring, for preservation, comparable
quality habitat. The developer is proposing to mitigate this impact by purchasing, for
preservation, .19 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub habitat within the high quality, coastal sage
scrub area found in the Carlsbad Highlands mitigation bank (subject to the approval of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish, and the City of
Carlsbad).
The construction of Calle Serena (Cherry Blossom Road) in this area is the least
environmentally damaging access alternative. It provides primary access to an otherwise
landlocked area that is surrounded by steep slopes and high quality CSS. The .07 acre
impact within the 60 foot buffer area is small and linear in size and shape and will not
adversely effect the larger habitat area to be preserved in permanent open space (Lot 62).
The project would result in the loss of 0.12 acres of disturbed CSS habitat, therefore, prior
to the issuance of a grading permit, the City will have to authorize this project to draw from
-
CT 95-03/SDP 95-06/HDP 95-06 - EMERALD RIDGE WEST
JANUARY 17, 1996
the City’s 165.70 acre (5%) CSS interim take allowance. The take of 0.12 acres of CSS
habitat from the MSP California LLC property will not impair the ability of the City to
implement it’s draft Habitat Management Plan (subregional NCCP). Interim CSS habitat
losses that are incurred before completion and approval of a subregional NCCP/Carlsbad
Habitat Management Plan (HMP), must be approved by the City Council (Habitat Loss
Permit) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. A procedure has been established
which allows the City to benefit from the 4(d) rule. This procedure includes: establishment
of the base number of acres of coastal sage scrub habitat in the subregion, calculation of the
5% for the interim habitat loss, and cumulative record keeping of all interim habitat losses.
Prior to the grading of the project site the Developer must receive City Council approval
of a Habitat Loss Permit. The City has calculated that 5% of the base acreage of coastal
sage scrub in Carlsbad is 165.70 acres. As of August, 1995, 19.38 acres have been taken.
The loss of coastal sage scrub due to this project (0.12 acres) would result in a cumulative
habitat loss of 19.5 acres for the HMP area once all the approved loses have been taken.
This loss does not exceed the 5% guideline of 165.70 acres.
The habitat loss has been reduced or mitigated by the design of the project, in that the Calle
Serena (Cherry Blossom Road) alignment is the most sensitive in terms of habitat and slope
impact and adequate mitigation is proposed to offset habitat impacts from grading for
building pads along Lot 62. The project meets the intent of the City’s draft HMP as follows:
1. The 0.12 acre take area is located outside of any Preserve Planning Areas;
2. The habitat loss will not preclude connectivity between areas of high habitat
values since this area is not included as a part of a Linkage Planning Area
&PA);
3. The habitat loss will not preclude or prevent the preparation of the Carlsbad
HMP in that the area is not a part of a Linkage Planning Area, makes no
contribution to the overall preserve system and will not significantly impact
the use of habitat patches as archipelago or stepping stones to surrounding
PPAs.
4. Mitigation for the loss of the 0.12 acres of CSS will be in the form of the
acquisition of habitat credits as discussed above. The loss of habitat on the
MSP California LLC property will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of
the survival and recovery of the gnatcatcher;
5. The habitat loss is located in a disturbed area that is directly adjacent to
Hidden Valley Road and the Poinsettia Community Park, therefore, large
blocks of habitat will not be lost and fragmentation will not occur, and;
6. The habitat area being impacted is at the periphery of a larger CSS habitat
area; it is not in the center where the loss of habitat would be more
CT 95-03/SDP 95-06/HDP 95-06 - EMERALD RIDGE WEST
JANUARY 17, 1996
important.
G. GROWTH MANAGEMENT
The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 20 in the
Southwest Quadrant of the City. The impacts created by this development on public
facilities and compliance with the adopted performance standards are summarized as
follows:
CITY ADMINISTRATION 246.8 square feet Yes
LIBRARY
WASTE WATER TREATMENT
131.6 square feet
71 EDUs
Yes
Yes
PARKS
DRAINAGE
.49 acres
Basin No. 3
Yes
Yes
CIRCULATION
FIRE
670 ADT
Station No. 4
Yes
Yes
OPEN SPACE
SCHOOLS
3.48 acres
CUSD
Yes
Yes
SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM
WATER
71 EDUs
15,620 GPD
Yes
Yes
The project is 68.26 dwelling units below the Growth Management Dwelling Unit allowance
of 139.26 dwelling units for the property as permitted by the Growth Management
Ordinance. Surplus dwelling units (68.26) that are not used by the developer are placed into
a City bank of excess dwelling units. The City can allocate these dwelling units to residential
projects that exceed the growth control point (Density Bonus) in order to provide affordable
housing.
H. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project site is located within the boundaries of Specific Plan SP 203 which covers the
640 acre Zone 20 planning area. The certified Final Program EIR 90-03 for Specific Plan
203 addresses the potential environmental impacts associated with the future buildout of the
Zone 20 Specific Plan area and is on file in the Planning Department. Use of a Program
EIR enables the City to characterize the overall environmental impacts of the specific plan.
The Final Program EIR contains broad, general environmental analysis that serves as an
information base to be consulted when ultimately approving subsequent development
projects (i.e. tentative maps, site development plans, grading permits, etc...) within the
83
CT 95-03/SDP 95-06/HDP 95-06 - EMERALD RIDGE WEST
JANUARY 17, 1996
specific plan area. The City can avoid having to “reinvent the wheel” with each subsequent
development project by analyzing, in the program EIR, the regional influences, secondary
effects, cumulative impacts, and broad alternatives associated with buildout of the planning
area. The recommended and applicable mitigation measures of Final EIR 90-03 are
included as conditions of approval for this project. Per the requirements of Final EIR 90-
03, additional project specific environmental studies, including biological analysis, have been
prepared. 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
will result from implementation of the project.
In addition to the Final EIR for Specific Plan 203, more recently the City has certified a
Final Master Environmental Impact Report for an update of the 1994 General Plan. The
Master EIR serves as the basis of environmental review and impact mitigation for project’s that are consistent with the plan, including projects within Specific Plan 203.
Per the recommendations of Final EIR 90-03, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was issued
for this project to evaluate the additional environmental impacts created by the two off-site
sewer lines, project grading, and the access road (Cherry Blossom Road) from Hidden
Valley Road. The Planning Director has determined that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment, however, there will not be a significant effect in this case since the mitigation measures and Mitigation and Reporting Program described in the attached
EIA-Part II have been added to the project. This decision was based on findings of the
EIA-Part II, an evaluation of Final EIR 90-03 and Master EIR 94-01, an archaeological report, a biological survey and impact study, a geotechnical report, soils report, pesticide
residue survey and report, acoustical study, traffic report, and field surveys by staff.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration was sent to the State Clearinghouse and the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service for public agency review and letters were received from the
California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) and the California Coastal Commission
(CCC). DFG concurs with the mitigation measures of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and agrees with staff that the project is consistent with the Natural Communities
Conservation Planning Program Guidelines (NCCP). The CCC recommends Sewer
Alignment “A” because it is the least environmentally damaging alternative. They have also
commented on the project’s grading and the potential impact it may have on steep slopes. In response to this comment, the project’s grading for the trail, local internal streets, and
building pads has been designed to avoid all steep slopes and the proposed manufactured
slopes have been contoured graded to follow the top of the bluff. In addition, future
buildings would be setback 60 feet from the steep slope and native habitat areas.
ATI’ACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3879
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3880 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3881
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3882
- r?
CT 95-03/SDP 95-06/HDP 95-06 - EMERALD RIDGE WEST
JANUARY 17, 1996
PAGE 14
5. Location Map
6. Background Data Sheet 7. Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
8. Disclosure Form
9. Department of Fish and Game letter, dated November 17, 1995
10. California Coastal Commission letter, dated November 30, 1995
11. Full size Exhibits “A” - “M”, dated January 17, 1996 JG:kr
I BACKGROUND DATA SHEE”-
CASE No: CI’ 9503/SDP 95-O6/HDP 95-06
CASE NAME: EMERALD RIDGE WEST
APPLICANT: MSP CALIFORNIA LLC
REQUEST AND LOCATION: 61 Single-Familv Lots, 9 Second Dwelling Units. & one 8.3 acre Onen
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: All that certain oarcel of land delineated and desimated as “Descrintion No.
1.103.91 Acres” on Record of Survev man No. 5715. filed in the Qffice of the Countv Recorder of San
Dieeo Countv, December 19.1960, being a nortion of Lot G of Ranch0 &ua Hedionda. according to MaD
thereof No. 823. filed in the Office of the Countv Recorder of San Dieeo Countv, November 16.1896. a
portion of which lies within the Citv of Carlsbad. all beinp in the Countv of San Dieeo. State of California.
Excenting therefrom that nortion lvinrr within Parcels “A,” “B,” ‘C,” and “D” of Parcel No. 2993 in the Citv
of Carlsbad, Countv of San Diepo. State of California, filed in the Office of the Countv Recorder of San
Dieeo Countv. August 23. 1974 as File No. 74-230326 of Official Records
APN 212-040-32 and 36 Acres 56.3 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 61 Lots and 71 Units
(Assessor’s Parcel Number)
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation Residential Medium
Density Allowed 6 dus/acre Density Proposed 3.01
Existing Zone R-1-7500-Q Proposed Zone N/A
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carisbad’s Zoning Requirements)
Zoning Land Use
Site R-1-7500-Q Agriculture
North OS Vacant
South PC Park
East R-1-10-Q Residential
West R-1-7500-Q Agriculture
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District Carlsbad Water District Carlsbad Sewer District Carisbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity) 71 EDUs
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated Mav 26.1995
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
x Mitigated Negative Declaration, issued October 27.1995
- Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
Other,
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: CT 95-03/SDP 95-06/HDP 95-06
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE:3 GENERAL PLAN: u ZONING: R-1-7500
DEVELOPER’S NAME: MSP CALIFORNIA LLC
ADDRESS: 650 S. CHERRY STREET SUITE 435 DENVER COLORADO 80222
PHONE NO: 1303) 339-9804 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO: 212-040-32 and 36
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 56.3/71 units
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: N/A
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
Is.
L.
City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 246.8 sa. ft.
Library: Demand in Square Footage = 131.6 so. ft.
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) N/A
Park: Demand in Acreage = .49 acres
Drainage: Demand in CFS = N/A
Identify Drainage Basin = N/A
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: Demand in ADTs = 670 ADT
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = No. 4
Open Space: Acreage Provided - 3.48
Schools: CUSD
(Demands to be determined by staff)
Sewer: Demand in EDUs - 71
Identiq Sub Basin - N/A
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
Water: Demand in GPD - 15.620
The project is 68.26 dwelling units below the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.
DISCLOSURE ST.4TEME.W
I r?oL:CAmS ‘jTA.‘~UE?3 ZF 3:s:’ - --%pE of CERMN OWNEPShlP IMEilESTS CN AU APPJCAECNS NHICh +y,u :E=~,~E
I
:tSCSErCNAaY ACT:CN CN 7,-E 34m cf -‘E cm c%NClL CR ANY APPOINTED WARO. ~CMMISSICN cp CCMM~EE,
Pease Pm) _..e,. _ .v
Tke tcllowlng information must be discfosed: r.yy 2 6 7~35
1. . . .
tist the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
MSP CALIFORNIA, L.L.C. MSP CALIFORNIA. L.L.C.
Marcus S. Palkowitsh David M. Bentley
650 South Cherry Street, Suite 435 3573 East Sunrise Drive. S-21 Denver, Colorado 80222 Tucson. Arizona 85718
2. Owner
list the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
MSP CALIFORNIA. J,.J,.C. MSP CALIFORNIA. L.L.C.
Marcus S. Palkowitsh David M. Bentley
650'South Cherry Street, Suite 435 3573 East SW Drive. SUP 771
Denver. Colorado 80222 Tucson, Arizona 85718
3. If any person identified punuurt to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or putnership, list the names ar,c
addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation 01 owning any pannersrrz
interest in the partnership.
4. If any person idwttlled pursumt to (1) of (2) above is a non-protlt organization or a trust, list the names and addresses of any peaon serving u offlcef of director of the nonprofIt orgmization or as trustee or beneficiary
0f m0 trust.
FRMmo13 w90 88
207s Las Palmu Oriva l Carlsb8d. Californm 92-9 * (619) 438-l 161
Disclorur8 Statwnant
Oer)
Page 2
5. Have you had mere than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff. ?,catzs
Commrssions, CommIttees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes - No If yes, please indicate person(s)
Oman I* dofind u: ‘Any md~~~duol. firm. coputnonk~p. lotm vonturo. maociatton. aooml club. htomol organu~~on. corporu~on. l stuo. :rmt. !
couny. cl(v mun1c10URy~ distnc( or 0tBw wmca rubd~~~rcon. of my otnor gr0b.o of
comatnulon rctmg aa 4 Ann*
(NO-; Attach additional pages as necessary.)
Si&uture ot Owner/dam I SicjkturO d applicant/date
Marcus S. Palkowitsh
Print or type name of owner -.
Marcus S. Palkowitsh Print or type nam@ of appkant
-.
k..
,
FR4moo13 8/90
-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Gomnor
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
4949 vIEwRIDoE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92123
(619) 467-4212 .\
t-a‘
November 17, 1995
I+,
.‘i /r:q 7Q” .-., * ,‘I c i’<;\ 4- -.,-
!,!> “. -:, :i, )I’ .I, , .,, ,
Mr. Jeff Gibson
Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009- 1576
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Emerald Ridge West Project,
City of Carlsbad, CT 95-03/HDP 9%06/SDP 95-06
Dear Mr. Gibson:
The Department of Fish and Game’s (DFG) Natural Community Conservation Planning
(NCCP) staff has reviewed the mitigated negative declaration, and supporting environmental
documentation, for the Emerald Ridge West development project and offers the following
comments. The proposed 28.9 acres project is located in the City of Carlsbad, south of Palomar
Airport Road, east of Paseo De1 Norte, north of Camino de las Ondas, and immediately west of
the proposed alignment of Hidden Valley Road. The development would consist of 61 single-
family residential lots, 10 second-dwelling units, and an 8.3 acre open space lot. An access road
off of Hidden Valley Road, and an off-site sewer line would also be constructed.
The property currently supports 6.44 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub (CSS), 0.05 acres
of disturbed CSS, 1.2 acres of southern mixed chaparral, 0.43 acres of riparian vegetation, 0.23
acres of unvegetated channel, and 20.55 acres of disturbed agricultural lands. The site is not
located within the City of Car&a d’s proposed Mabitat ?&nagement Plan presep/e area. No
sensitive plant species were identified on-site. The California gnatcatcher, a federally-threatened
species was observed within the CSS habitat on the property, as well as in habitat just off-site.
The proposed development would impact 18.0 acres of agricultural lands, and 0.12 acres
of CSS habitat. The habitat where the California gnatcatcher was observed would not be directly
impacted. The project proponent proposes to mitigate impacts to CSS by on-site preservation of
4.82 acres of CSS and the purchase of 0.19 acres of credit within the Carlsbad Highlands
mitigation bank. On-site impacts to CSS and wetlands from the construction of Hidden Valley
Road will be mitigated by on-site habitat restoration/creation. An adjacent property owner
(Sambi) is responsible for fulfilling this mitigation requirement.
The DFG concurs with the mitigation measures proposed by the project proponent, and
90
Mr. Jeff Gibson
November 17, 1995
Page Two
also agrees that they are consistent with the NCCP Guidelines. If mitigation credits are not
purchased in the Carlsbad Highlands mitigation bank, then 0.19 acres of equal or higher quality
CSS habitat must be acquired by the property owner within the North County coastal region. The
DFG would need to review and concur with any alternate mitigation site if this project is to be
processed through the provisions of the NCCP program.
If you have any questions concerning these comments please contact David Lawhead at
(6 19) 467-42 11. Thank you.
Sincerely,
William E. Tippets
NCCP Field Supervisor
cc: Department of Fish and Game
Mr. Ron Rempel
Sacramento
Ms. Patty Wolf
Long Beach
Mr. David Lawhead
San Diego
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mr. Gail Kobetich
Ms. EIIen Berryman
FILE: Chron
EMRLDRDG.DNL
LAWHEAIYTIPPETS
STATE OP CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Gowvw
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SAN DIEGO COAST AREA
3111 CAMINO ML RIO NORTH, SUITR 200
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108.1725
(619) 521-aD36
November 30.1995
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009- 1576 Attn: Jeff Gibson
$[!:
RE: Proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the Emerald Ridge
West Project - SCH I#95101062
Dear Mr. Gibson:
Commission staff has reviewed the above cited document and would like to provide the
following comments. To begin with, it is our understanding that the project involves a 6 l-
lot residential subdivision along with open space and 10 second dwelling units. The
project also proposes a number of on- and off-site road and utility improvements including
two alternative sewer alignments. Relative to procedures, the project site is located within
the Coastal Zone and is therefore subject to coastal development permit review. The
project site is located within the area governed by the City of Carlsbad certified Mello II
LCP segment. As such, the standard of review for the coastal development permit is the
Commission-certified Mello II LCP segment.
Pertaining to potential concerns raised by the above cited draft document, the document
details two sewer/storm drain aitemalive &gnmenrs (A & B). Based on the information
provided, Alternative B would have significant impacts on environmentally sensitive
habitat areas, while Alternative A does not have any direct native or sensitive habitat
impacts. As such, Alternative A is clearly the least environmentally-damaging alternative.
However, the draft document does not specify which alignment is being proposed. As you
are aware, in March of this year, the Coastal Commission approved a permit for a
residential subdivision south of the subject site (ref. CDP #6-94- 13 l/Toyohara). The
Commission’s approval also included the extension/improvement of Hidden Valley Road
north from the project to Palomar Airport Road. In its approval, the Commission found
that while the road alignment would impact dual criteria slopes, such impacts could be
accepted because the road alignment would also provide necessary sewer, water and
access to other developable areas. In subsequent permit actions for other development in
this area, the Commission made additional findings that, because of potential impacts to
environmentally sensitive habitat areas, any proposed sewer lines to serve development in
A
Jeff Gibson
November 30,1995
Page 2
this area should be within Hidden Valley Road. Due to topographic constraints that
would require the use of a pump facility, which can be costly to construct and maintain,
neither alternative is proposed within Hidden Valley Road. However, because Alternative
A does not involve any native habitat impacts, it should be the “preferred alternative”.
The draft document also states that approximately 129,205 cubic yards of grading is
necessary to accommodate building pads, lots, utilities, etc., and that the grading conforms
to the City’s Hillside Development Ordinance. However, the document does not indicate
whether a slope analysis has been completed and if there is any grading of dual-criteria
slopes. As such, this should be clarified. In addition, because portions of the site dram to
environmentally sensitive habitat areas, any grading that occurs during the winter rainy
season could lead to sedimentation impacts to such downstream resources. Therefore, the
document should make it clear that grading of the site would be prohibited during the
winter rainy season (October 1 to April l), consistent with LCP requirements.
Finally, on Page 15 of the draft document, the statement is made that “no sensitive plant
species were identified onsite...“. Although this statement is true, taken literally, it is
somewhat misleading. While it is true there are no plant species onsite that have been
listed by any state or federal agencies, the site does contain several environmentally
sensitive habitat areas (Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub, Mixed Chaparral and Riparian) that do
support several listed/protected wildlife species. Therefore, this should be clarified in the
document.
The above comments have been prepared by Commission staff based on the information
available at this time. Additional issues may result from further public review and input.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this draft document. If you have any
questions, please give me a call.
McEachem
Coastal Planner
3. CT 9503/SDP 95-06/HDP 95-06 - EMERALD RIDGE WEST - Request for recommendation of
approval for a Mitigated Negative Declaration and the accompanying Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, Tentative Map, Site Development Plan, and Hillside Development Permit, to: (1)
subdivide the property into 61 single-family lots and one open space lot; (2) create a 27.4 acre
remainder parcel; (3) provide nine future second-dwelling units; and (4) deed restrict one 3-bedroom
home as affordable to lower income households or purchase one Affordable Housing Credit in Villa
Loma; all on property generally located east of Paseo del Norte, north of Camino de las Ondas, and
south of Palomar Airport Road, within Specific Plan 203 and Local Facilities Management Zone 20.
Chairman Compas advised the public that if the Planning Commission recommends approval, the
application will be forwarded to the City Council for its consideration.
Jeff Gibson, Associate Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the proposed
project is very similar to the Mar Vista project which came before the Commission a few weeks ago. The
Emerald Ridge project is located directly north of the Poinsettia Community Park and south of Palomar
Airport Road. The developer proposes to subdivide the 56.3 acre parcel into 61 single-family lots and one
8 acre open space lot, including the designation of 9 lots for future second dwelling units and the restriction
of one 3-bedroom home or the purchase of a credit in Vitta Loma to satisfy the inclusionary housing
requirement. The second dwelling units would have exterior accesses, be incorporated into the second
story of the primary home, and utilize a portion of the 3-car garage for parking. At this time, the owner is
not planning to construct homes on the lots, therefore the qualified development overlay zone on the
property would require that a site development plan be approved by the Planning Commission prior to
approval and issuance of building permits for the actual homes. The SDP would show the floor plans,
placement of the homes on the lots, building height, and architectural elevations of the homes. The
Carlsbad municipal code requires a site development plan for any affordable housing project of any size.
The site development plan for this project indicates which lots would be designated and deed restricted for
second dwelling units. The plans also include proto-typical floor plans and building elevations to illustrate
the site planning feasibility, parking arrangements, and how the second dwelling units integrate into the
primary home. Provisions to ensure that second dwelling units are provided and rented to low income
households:
1. the appropriate individual lot will be deed restricted to require a second dwelling unit which conforms to
City approval;
2. the developer must enter into an affordable housing agreement with the City to ensure that the second
dwelling units are constructed; and
3. the owner of the primary home and second dwelling unit must sign an affidavit and agree to rent the
second dwelling unit at a monthly rate which shall not exceed an amount equal to 30% of the gross
PLANNING COMMISSION January 17, 1996 Page 9
monthly income of a low income household, adjusted for household size at 80% of the San Diego
median income.
Currently there are no public roads or intersections to serve this project site, therefore the developer must
extend public offsite street improvements to connect to the existing circulation network. Primary access to
the project would be provided by future Cherry Blossom Road which connects to Hidden Valley Road
(currently under construction). In order to comply with cul-de-sac requirements, the developer is also
required to construct a second offsite road connection for emergency access to Poinsettia Community Park
to the south. The project would gravity sewer northwest through the Mar Vista project to an existing sewer
line along Encinas Creek via Sewer Alignment “A” which was approved by the Planning Commission as part
of the Mar Vista project. Based on the project’s compliance with the general plan, applicable City standards
and policies, and Specific Plan 203, staff recommends approval.
Commissioner Monroy stated that Policies 57 & 58 keep coming up. If the Commission approves this
project, the only thing we are doing is giving the applicant the option to build offsite but the final decision to
go offsite must come from elsewhere. Mr. Gibson replied that is correct. If the developer chooses to go
offsite, they must comply with Policies 57 & 58 and the City Council is the ultimate decision maker.
Commissioner Monroy stated that staff is required to make those findings. Since the Planning Commission
doesn’t have those findings, they could not make the decision. Those findings would be presented to the
Housing Commission and the City Council. Mr. Gibson replied that is correct.
Chairman Compas invited the applicant to speak.
Bob Ladwig, Ladwig Design Group, 703 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 300, Carlsbad, addressed the
Commission and stated that although this project is similar to Mar Vista, it is a different project. The owner,
Mr. David Bentley, and the civil engineer are in attendance. Staff has done an excellent job and many
issues were resolved early in the process. He requested the Commission’s approval.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if the owner, Mr. Bentley, has had previous experience with second
dwelling units in other locations,
David Bentley, 3573 E. Sunrise Drive, Suite 221, Tucson, Arizona, addressed the Commission and stated
that he is in the land development business. He does not build homes. They have a pseudo partner who is
a homebuilder and who has an option to purchase these lots once the approvals have been secured. That
particular homebuilder does have experience building an appropriate product to satisfy the second dwelling
unit requirement, which is why they selected this particular option.
Commissioner Welshons inquired where these second dwelling units were built. Mr. Bentley replied that he
is currently building a product in Coto de Caza in Orange County, which is called The Classics. The builder
is Monarch Communities. The third model of a three model product has an attached second dwelling unit.
He does not believe the affordable housing requirement of Coto de Caza is the same as Carlsbad.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if he had investigated the market and found that potential homebuyers
might find this feature interesting. Mr. Bentley stated that he had spoken with Mr. Becker earlier today
regarding the difficulty which faces the homebuilder with regard to the highest and best use of affordable
housing. First, it is somewhat untested. Secondly, the market is subject to change. For that reason, he
requested staff to allow the option for offsite credits if it became infeasible to build onsite. Currently, the
market indicates that second dwelling units will work real well and they would like to build them because
they can be integrated into the development. However, if the market suggests there is a superior option
offsite within Zone 20 with a neighboring developer (i.e. Sambi), he would like the opportunity to argue the
point and be heard. As long as second dwelling units continue to be the most viable option, that is their plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION January 17,1996
CORRECTED
Page 10
Commissioner Noble stated that when the City first came out with affordable housing, there was suppea&
M-be an implication that 15% would be included in every project. Then Policies 57 & 58 came out. He
wants to make sure Mr. Bentley understands that if there are no units available in an offsite project, he will
have to build the affordable housing onsite, regardless of whether or not it is economically feasible. Mr.
Bentley stated that he is fully aware of their obligation with regards to inclusionary housing.
Chairman Compas opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak.
There being no persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman Compas declared the
public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members.
Commissioner Erwin requested staff to confirm that this project meets or exceeds all R-l standards. Mr.
Gibson replied that it does. The most fundamental standards at this point in the process are the lot size, lot
width and depth, frontage requirements, and street size. When the actual site development plan comes
forward, staff will have another opportunity to view the standards with regard to homebuilding.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if it is possible that it might not meet our R-l standards in the future. Mr.
Gibson replied that it must meet our R-l standards or staff will not recommend that the future site
development plan be approved.
Commissioner Nielsen stated that, from what he heard, it sounded like staff was trying to talk the applicant
out of building affordable units within this project. Mr. Gibson replied that the applicant wanted the option
for credits but he was adamant about having the second dwelling units built as proposed.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired if Mr. Becker is considered part of staff. Mr. Gibson replied yes.
Commissioner Nielsen stated that he thought Mr. Becker had told him that the Sambi project would be
superior to building onsite. Mr. Bentley was called back to the podium to respond. He stated that he did not
intend to give that impression. Neither, was it the impression he received from Mr. Becker. He discussed
with Mr. Becker the requirement to build affordable housing and the value associated with giving the
developer the option to do A, B, or C, what the market might define as the highest and best use and what
the City might decide is the highest and best use.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired if he feels that second dwelling units onsite is his current preference. Mr.
Bentley replied yes.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired if it is possible that this project might be stalled for years before it is built.
Mr. Bentley hopes that the staff and City will continue to be as supportive as they have been so they can
get the project under development. They would like to begin development within 9-12 months.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired what might change your mind in that short time. Mr. Bentley replied that if it
were demonstrated that an offsite project was superior to our onsite project, he would like the opportunity to
ask the City to allow them to participate in an offsite project.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired who might demonstrate that it would be superior. Mr. Bentley replied that
Sambi’s proposed development project might be considered superior.
Mr. Gibson commented that if they want to exercise that option to build offsite, then they are required to go
through the Policy 57 Committee, which is another layer of staff review. At that time it would be analyzed to
see if it would truly be a benefit.
Rich Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney, commented that one of the focuses of Policy 57 is not that it is a
superior project but that it is economically infeasible (or difficult) on this site. The focus is quite a bit
different. The market would have to change considerably between now and then for it to be infeasible. The
PLANNING COMMISSION January 17, 1996 Page 11
applicant would have to demonstrate with clarity that it would be economically infeasible to follow through
on the proposed project and building offsite would be a better alternative.
Commissioner Erwin stated that he still does not believe we should be building homes in this area because
of the airport influence and noise. However, since this project does meet our minimum requirements, he
will vote for it.
Commissioner Welshons likes the product. She likes the second dwelling units and hopes they will be built
as proposed. She thinks there is a desire to do so by the land developer. She will support the staff
recommendation.
Commissioner Monroy agrees with Commissioner Welshons.
Commissioner Noble will vote for it. Policy 57 only authorizes them to move offsite if they meet certain
criteria. However, he would prefer to see 15% of every development built onsite as affordable housing. He
will vote for it.
Chairman Compas will vote for it. He also agrees that affordable housing should be built onsite.
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Motion by Commissioner Welshons, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3879 recommending approval of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration issued by the Planning Director, and adopt Planning Commission
Resolutions No. 3880, 3881, and 3882 recommending approval of CT 95-03,
SDP 95-06 and HDP 95-06, based on the findings and subject to the conditions
contained therein.
7-o
Compas, Erwin, Monroy, Nielsen, Noble, Savary, Welshons
None
None
97
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
EXHBIT 6
HOUSING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 96-002
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
DEVELOPMENT OF NINE (9) SECOND DWELLING
UNITS AFFORDABLE TO LOW INCOME
HOUSEHOLDS WITHIN THE EMERALD RIDGE
WEST PROJECT GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF
PASEO DEL NORTE, NORTH OF CAMINO DE LAS
ONDAS AND SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT
ROAD.
APPLICANT: MSP CALIFORNIA, LLC
CASE NO.: AHP 96-02 (CT #95-03 And SDP #95-06)
WHEREAS, an Affordable Housing Project (AHP) Application (No.
96-02) 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. 96-02
containing 9 second dwelling units to be affordable to low income (80%
or below 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. 96-002
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 9 second dwelling units (1 bedroom)
affordable for rent to households at 80% or below of the county median which
meets a “medium 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.
CONDITIONS:
1.
2.
3.
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
Recommendation of approval is granted for AHP No. 96-02, as shown on Site
Development Plan 95-06, 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. 96-02 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 80% or
below 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. 96-002
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: Chairperson Calverley, Commissioners: Schlehuber,
Escobedo, Noble, Rose, Scarpelli & Wellman.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ATTE_ST:
EVAN BECKER, Housing and Redevelopment Director
- EXHIBIT 7
f%F
TuaCmorC- Eooearc P RED- DICP-
A REPORT TO TEE HOUSING COMMISSION
Item No. 2
1 Staff: Il%bijbi~;~k~;hdyst 1
DATE: FEBRUARY 8,1996
SUBJECT: EMERALD RIDGE \1vEsT - CT 95-03/SDP 95-OtWDP 95-06 - Request for
recommendation of approval of a 16-unit affordable apartment project satisfying
the affordable housing obligation of the project known as Ocean Bluff.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Housing Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 96-002, recommending APPROVAL
of 9 second dwelling units and the purchase of 1 credit for a three-bedroom unit offsite (SDP
95-06) within the Emerald Ridge West project in order to satisfy an affordable housing
obligation under the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
II. PROJECT ‘BACKGROUND
On January 17, 1996, the applicant, MSP California, received a recommendation for approval
from the Planning Commission for a Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan and Hillside
Development Permit to subdivide the subject property into 61 single-family lots and 1 open space
lot; to create a 27.4 acre remainder parcel; and, to provide 9 future second dwelling units. The
affordable housing 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 Emerald Ridge West project.
The developer’s 15 % inclusionaty requirement is 10.764 dwelling units, which according to the
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, must include one three-bedroom unit.
The proposed affordable project includes nine (9) second dwelling units and the proposal to
purchase one (1) housing credit in an offsite affordable housing project to meet the requirement
to provide one three bedroom unit. The remaining .764 fraction of an inclusionary housing
dwelling unit would be satisfied through the payment of a fee equal to the fraction times the
average subsidy needed to make a newly constructed typical housing unit affordable to a lower-
income household. The nine (9) second dwelling units will be affordable to households earning
80% of the Area Median Income. As proposed, the project will meet the developer’s obligation
under the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
The site development plan for the project indicates which lots will be designated and deed
restricted for second dwelling units. The project has been conditioned to require an Affordable
Housing Agreement which will provide the specific details regarding the phasing and
implementation of tbe affordable housing component of this project.
/Ol
EMERALD RIDGE
CT 95-03/SDP 95-06/HDP 95-06
PAGE 2
III. APPLICANT/DE TEAM INFORMATION
The development team for the proposed project is as follows:
Applicant: MSP California, LLC (see disclosure statement included in
Exhibit 3)
Developer: MSP California, LLC
Project Consultant/Manager: Ladwig Design Group, Inc.
Iv. AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The project site is generally located east of Paseo De1 Norte, north of Camino de las Ondas, and
south of Palomar Airport Road, within Specific Plan 203 and Local Facilities Management Zone
20. The project includes improvements for 1) construction of local public streets, curbs,
gutters, sidewalks and drainage facilities necessary to service the new lots; 2) addition of a sewer
line that connects from the property, through the Mar Vista Site to the west, and then north to
an existing sewer line located along Encinas Creek and Palomar Airport Road; 3) and the
construction of a local public street named Calle Serena from Hidden Valley Road west to the
project site. The project will create 61 single family lots and provide for 9 second dwelling
units.
As stated above, the affordable housing component of the project will consist of nine (9) one-
bedroom second dwelling units approximately 640 square feet in size. These units will have
exterior access, be incorporated into the second-story of the primary home and utilize a portion
of a three car garage for parking.
V. PROJECT AFFORDABILITY
If the second dwelling units are rented, the rate shall be set according to the applicable rent for
a household with an income equal to 80% of the San Diego County Median. This rental rate will
be set at the time the second dwelling units are constructed and provided for rental purposes.
VI. FINANCIAL
The applicant is unable to provide information which can be analyzed by staff to determine the
feasibility of the proposed affordable housing project. Additionally, the developer has identified
no specific financing sources or commitments. Therefore, it is not possible to make any
assessment of project feasibility at this time.
No financial assistance is being requested at this time, but this does not rule out a request at a
later date.
EMERALD RIDGE
CT 95-03/SDP 95-06/HDP 95-06
PAGE 3
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 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 second dwelling units, affordable at 80% of Area Median Income, would rank “Medium
Priority” according to the City’s Consolidated Plan which is required by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development. Construction of these second dwelling units with deed
restrictions will count towards 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 flo&zble housing policies and ordkrnces,
as expressed in the Housing Element, Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, Density Bonus
Ordinance, etc.
0 The proposal’s ckvelopmentand operatingfeasibility, emphasizing the development team,
financing sources and the role of the City in providing financial assistance or incentives.
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 approval of this project to the City
Council.
The Housing Commission’s 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 the 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.
-
EMERALD RIDGE
CT 95-03/SDP 95-06/HDP 95-06
PAGE 4
x. EXHIBITS
1.
2.
3.
Housing Commission Resolution No. 96-002
Housing Commission Review Application
Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated January 17, 1996 with appropriate
attachments
C
* ldwig Design Oroup, Inc.
EXHIBIT 2
January 23, 1996
Mr. Evan Becker
Housing and Redevelopment
City of Carlsbad
2965 Roosevelt, Suite B
Carlsbad, CA 92008
SUBJECT: EMERALD RIDGE WEST CT95-03 AND SDP 95-06
(LADWIG DESIGN GROUP, INC. - J/N L 10 17)
Dear Evan:
Emerald Ridge West was approved by Planning Commission with a unanimous vote on January 17,
1996. This project contains 61 Rl 7500 lots and is proposing to construct, as one option, nine
second dwelling units onsite and to purchase one credit for a three-bedroom unit offsite as allowed
for in the conditions of approval for this project. I have attached to this application, nine copies of
the reduced site plan and architecture for the second dwelling units along with nine copies of the full
scale architectural plans and site development plans. In addition, I have included nine copies of a
photo vicinity map for the project.
We ask that you please present this project to your Housing Commission at your next meeting, which
is February 8, 1996, and ask them to review the three major aspects of the project, which include the
project’s ability to serve the City’s housing needs, the project’s consistency with the City’s affordable
housing policies and the project’s feasibility.
Please look everything over and ifyou need additional copies or any items are not clear, please get
in touch.
Sincerely,
LADWIG DESIGN GROUP, INC.
Robert C. Ladwig
RCL:klb. 102
Attachments
cc: Mr. Marc Palkowitsh, MSP California LLC
Mr. David Bentley, MSP California LLC
703 Pcdomcrr Rirport Road + Suite 300 + Ccrrlsbad, California 92009
(619)438-3182 FfU(619)438-0173
_- . CITY OF CARLSBAD -
, HOUSING COMMISSION RJZVTEW APPLICATION
I. APPLICANT/DEVELOPh~TEAMINFORMATION
Name of Applicant: Ladwig Design Group, Inc.
.Robert C. Ladwig
Mailing Address: 703 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 300
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Telerhone No.: (619) 438-3182
Identify Development Team (ie., developer, builder, architect, etc.):
Developer
MSP California, LLC & David M. Bentley Marc Palkowitsh MSP California, LLC 650 S. Cherry Street 3573 East Sunrise Drive Suite 435 Suite 221 Denver, CO 80222 Tucson, AZ 85718 (303) 399-9804 (520) 299-2179
IL GENERALPROJECT INFORMATION ‘.
Project Name: EMERALD RIDGE WEST (CT 95-03)
Describe General Location of Project:
South,x>f Palomar Airport Road, West of Hidden Valley Road; just North of .and adjacent to Poinsettia Park.
?roject Address:
Site Parcel No(s).: 21.2-040-32 & 36
rotal Number of Affordable Units Required (if applicable): 10
rota1 Number of Affordable Units Proposed: 10
rype of Units (ie., garden apartments, detached, etc.):
9 - 2nd Dwelling Units and Purchase of 1 Credit Offsite.
:ize (in square feet) of each Unit: 640' max for each 2nd dwelling unit.
tedroom Size Distribution- of Units: 9- 1 bedroom units onsite.
bescribe any special features/amenities to be inciuded within project:
Adjacent to Poinsettia Park in Zone 20.A proposed City wide trail segment is within
the project and will provide for pedestrian access from the Park to Palomar Airport
Road and other further trail segments, if approved and accepted by the City Council. All lots are 7500 square feet or more and many units will have ocean views.
Housing Commission Review Application
Page I
id. TERMS OF AFFORD. iLITY FOR AFFORDABLE UNITS (ATlr.CH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION LF
NECESSARYI
Targeted Income Levels (as % of area median): Rental units @ 80% of County Median
Target Population (ie., families, seniors, etc): Single rentals
Monthly Rent (by bdr. size) or Sales Price of Units:
Within rental rate limits established by City affordable critefia.
Term of Affordability (ie., 30 yn, life of project, etc.): As required by City.
Projected Schedule for Construction of Affordable Housing Units:
Mid to late 1997
Lf the affordable units are being constructed to satisfy the City of Carlsbad’s lnclusionary Housing requirement, how
will they be phased with respect to construction of the market rate units? Please Explain Project Phasing:
The proposed 2nd dwelling units will be built in conjunction with and proportion to
the market.rate units.
l
V. FINANCIAL. INFORMATTON ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
‘lease attach a copy of development and operating financial profonnas showing sources and ties of funds to
ccomplish the affordable units proposed in this application. In the proformas, please identify your subsidy sources
nd appropriate justifications for use of these sources. N/A
lescribe the local fmancial assistance or incentives, if any, including specific terms desired for the affordable housing
reject which you are, or will be, requesting from the City of Carkbad:
None
lentify any other project conditions which may be relevant to project feasibility:
Because the affordablejinclusionary housing character of the proposed product is
untested in a new subdivision setting, feasibility is not.yet proven.
Housing Commission Review Applicrtion
Page 2
ID:6025296621 --, .--.*r.,.+ JAN 23’96 13:53 No.004 P.03 P.4
ZENTS TO AF’PLKATION
Tic Mowtng iMu mubt tM uhcbrd to QI$ rpplfcsrlon:
0 Slu Dcvc!apmtnr Plrn for Affdrbb Hoylng Udu; . *
i Nurrtiv* dudk~ Itow bc pro&t mcbU the Hourtug Ncedt ud Prioritiu 4s c~pteueb within tbc Ciry Of Cuhbtd’s ?iOwhg Ekmant and Comprchcnrivr Hot&g AffordrbUiy Stntqy;
t Nmnttve OA tko project’s aulrtcncy with cbe City 01 Cultbrd’r Mordrbb Housing Polkier u trprwad in rhe
Hourlng Eiemnt, MWwy Housing ordimcc, Uetml plrp md O~&CC &red documtntr;
0 Devmh*nt cud opbtuht FLIWJ Ptekmu indhint loutas and uw ol hadr hr he pcojca, iachd~tq
j~ttifk~i~h rad i&Mt~tktt of rubsidy mu~~dl;
l canptetc de.¶c~t~an d hmchl urlmla or hoirativti inwIng qlecm tcrm# that LPI, UC will bo fcquuwd rroa
the Cly of Cuhbrd for rhr ~rajea, If a@cablo; md,
Complettd Dir&sun Worncut of OwuerthIp
Property Owner Nnrne, Addrw and Tekphoue~ No.:
:
YtP CalifotfJi,a~ LLC 656 S, Cherry Strce$, Suite 435 Denver, CO 80222 1, rba uadmlgnrd, da betrbp cutiff that I &II the lqal owm of thr aubfcct propMy aad that the ab4n lafarrnat~or k true and eomct to the
a.,,x.rhte&, IljL
*
‘, tbt uhdelal@td rpplkmt, do hmby crrttfy that I ulll thr nt~rcaentatve of the lye1 owner d tbc mubjcct propwty md tbrt tht mbow tafmnnttoa b true md cerrtct to the best 01 my km&&e,
We Applicatlba Received:
~pplicatlan Rwived By:
tdf bCOtnmc8d&ti00c /+-s~houavnqw*w
w of MurIng Commkian Rtvlew: &?/ 8 /q 6
,ctlon on Appllwtibn by Houtlnp &Mwdrrioa: ,
,
-_- - I- - --_- /w
Heurln8 Commlulon R&w &0lkrdoa
?I&# J l2:J 01
EXHBIT 8
2. CT 9503SDP 95-06MDP 9506 - EMERALD RIDGE WEST - Request for recommendation of
approval for Emerald Ridge West to build second dwelling units and purchase an Affordable
Housing Credit in the Villa Loma project, to satisfy the affordable housing obligation of the project
known as Emerald Ridge West.
Debbie Fountain, Senior Management Analyst, reviewed the background of the request and stated that on
January 17, 1996, the applicant, MSP California, received a recommendation for approval from the
Planning Commission for a Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan, and Hillside Development Permit to subdivide the subject property into 61 single family lots and one (1) open space lot, to create a 27.4 acre
remainder parcel, and to provide nine (9) future second dwelling units. The affomable housing project is
proposed to satisfy the inclusionary housing requirement of the Emerald Ridge West project.
Ms. Fountain stated that the developer’s 15% inclusionary requirement is 10.764 dwelling units which,
according to the lnclusionary Housing Ordinance, must include one (1) three-bedroom unit. The proposed
affordable project includes nine (9) second dwelling units and the proposal to purchase one (1) housing
credit in an offsite affordable housing project to meet the requirement to provide one three-bedroom unit.
The remaining .764 fraction of an inclusionary housing dwelling unit would be satisfied through the payment of a fee equal to the fraction times the average subsidy needed to make a newly constructed typical
housing unit affordable to a lower-income household. The nine (9) second dwelling units will be affordable
to households earning 80% of the Area Median Income. No financial assistance is being requested at this
time, but this does not rule out a request at a later date. An Affordable Housing Agreement will be required.
Evan Becker, Housing 8r Redevelopment Director, led a discussion regarding second dwelling units. He
discussed the proposed zone code amendment which the Planning Commission had denied at their
February 7, 1996 meeting. That zone code amendment would have required either the main unit or the 10 3
HOUSING COMMISSION February 8,1996 Page 3
second dwelling unit to be owner-occupied. He discussed some of the reasons why the Planning
Commission had denied the amendment.
Chairman Calveriey invited the applicant to speak.
Bob Ladwig, Ladwig Design Group, 703 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 300, representing MSP California,
addressed the Commission and stated that the applicant has taken much care to integrate the second
dwelling units throughout the project. Mr. Ladwig feels that both products can co-exist in this project without
impacting the one another. In many cases, the second dwelling unit sits over the garage but it could be
designed to have access to the main unit. Each unit having a second dwelling unit would have a double
garage and a single garage, with the single garage being dedicated to the affordable unit. A homeowner’s
association would be responsible for slope maintenance only.
Commissioners queried Mr. Ladwig about various issues, i.e. how to ensure that the unit will remain
affordable for 55 years and owner responsibilities regarding the third garage. Mr. Becker stated that second
dwelling units are permitted by state law but the law does not require that they be monitored.
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 Sato, and duly seconded, to adopt Housing Commission
Resolution No. 96-002, recommending approval of nine (9) second dwelling units and
the purchase of one (1) credit for a three-bedroom unit offsite (SDP 96-06) within the
Emerald Ridge West project in order to satisfy an affordable housing obligation under
the City’s lnclusionary Housing Project.
VOTE: 8-O
AYES: Calverfey, Escobedo, Noble, Rose, Sato, Scarpelli, Schlehuber, Wellman
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
April 16, 1996
Ladwig Design Group, Inc. 703 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 300 Carlsbad, CA 92009
Re: Emerald Ridge West
The Carlsbad City Council, at its meeting of April 2, 1996, adopted Resolution No. 96-118, approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, CT 95-3, SDP 95-6, and HDP 95-6 as recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and the Housing Commission.
As a courtesy, enclosed is a copy of Resolution No. 96-118 for your records.
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, CMC\ City Clerk
ALR:ijp
Enclosure
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, California 92008-l 989 - (619) 434-2808 @?a
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALlFORNlA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the above-
entitled mat&r. I am the principal derk 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 dedare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at California, this -day
of 1 nnr l”laL~I1, I22U A
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
This space is for the County Clerk’s Eil
Proof of Publication of
Notic eof Public H
-e------i-----------
--------------------
4
4
f , 1 , I
;
t
z
ling Stamp
aring .-----
.-----
- C NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARIJ
CT 95-3/SDP 95=6/HDP 95-6 - EMERALD RIDGE WEST
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 a request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and an application for a Tentative Map, Site Development Plan, and Hillside Development Permit to: (1) subdivide a 56.3 acre property into 61 single-family lots and one open space lot; (2) create a 27.4 acre remainder parcel; (3) propose nine future second-dwelling units; and (4) deed restrict one three-bedroom home as affordable to lower income households or purchase one Affordable Housing Credit in Villa Loma; all on property generally located east of Paseo de1 Norte, north of Camino de las Ondas, and south of Palomar Airport Road, within Specific Plan 203 and Local Facilities Management Zone 20, and more particularly described as:
All that certain parcel of land delineated and designated as lWDescription No. 1,103.91 Acres" on Record of Survey Map No. 5715, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, December 19, 1960, being a portion of Lot G of Ranch0 Agua Hedionda, according to Map thereof No. 823, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 16, 1896, a portion of which lies within the City of Carlsbad, all being in the County of San Diego, State of California; excepting therefrom that portion lying within Parcels Italy, IIBII, ~~Cll, and lrDll of Parcel No. 2993 in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August 23, 1974, as File No. 74-230326 of Official Records.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Jeff Gibson in the Planning Department, at (619) 438-1161, ext. 4455.
If you challenge the Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan, 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: MSP California LLC PUBLISH: March 22, 1996
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
h
EMERALD RIDGE - WEST
CT 95=03/SDP 95=06/HDP 95-06
NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Carisbad will
hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad,
California, at 690 p.m. on Wednesday, January 17, 1996, to consider a request for
recommendation of approval for a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Tentative Map, Site
Development Plan, and Hillside Development Permit, to: (1) subdivide the property into
61 singlefamily lots and one open space lot; (2) create a 27.4 acre remainder parcel; (3)
propose 9 future seconddwelling units; and (4) deed restrict 1 thr-bedroom home as
affordable to lower income households or purchase 1 Affordable Housing Credit in Villa
Loma; all on property generally located east of Paseo del None, north of Camino de las
Ondas, and south of Palomar Airport Road, within Specific Plan 203 and Local Facilities
Management Zone 20 and more particularly described as:
All that certain parcel of land delineated and designated as “Description No.
1,103.Ql Acres” on Record of Survey Map No. 5715, filed in the Office of
the County Recorder of San Diego County, December 19, 1960, being a
portion of Lot G of Rancho Agua Hedionda, according to Map thereof No.
823, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County,
November 16, 1896, a portion of which lies within the City of Carisbad, all
being in the County of San Diego, State of California. Excepting therefrom
* that portion lying within Parcels A “, “B”, “C and “D” of Parcel No. 2993 in
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the
Ofke of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August 23, 1974 as
File No. 74230326 of Official Records.
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 January 11, 1996. If you
have any questions, please call Jeff Gibson in the Planning Department at (619) 438-
1161, ext. 4466.
If you challenge the Tentative Map, Site Development Plan, and/or Hillside Development
Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else
raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence
delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: CT Q503/SDP Q6-06/HDP 95-08
CASE NAME: EMERALD RIDGE WEST
PUBLISH: JANUARY 5,1QQ6
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING COMMISSION
(F0r.m A)
TO: C1T.Y CLERK’S OFFICE
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached, are the materials necessary for you to notide
CT 95-03/SDP 95-06/HDP 95-06 - EMERALD RIDGE WEST
for a public hearing before the City Council.
Please notice the item for the council meeting of
Thank you.
February 28, 1996
Date
FACILITIES FOR CITY CLERK
CT 95-03/SDP 95-06/HDP 95-06
EMERALD RIDGE - WEST
CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST i SAN DIEGO COUNTY PLANNING
801 PINE AVE I STE “B”
CARLSBAD CA 92008 5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92 123
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JEFF GIBSON
CITY OF ENCINITAS CITY OF SAN MARCOS CIT?z’ OF OCEANSIDE
505 S VULCAN AVE 1 CMC CENTER DR 300 ti0 COAST HWY
ENCINITAS CA 92024 SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949 OCEANSIDE CA 92054
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
VISTA CA 92085
CALIF DEFT OF FISH & GAME
330 GOLDENSHORE #50
LONG BEACH CA 90802
-
CHRISTA MCREYNOLDS
2316 CALLE CHIQUITA
LA JOLLA CA 92037
JAMES UKECAWA
6145 LAUREL TREE ROAD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SIM USA INC
1400 FLAME TREE LANE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CARLTAS ASSOCIATES
5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS
SUITE 100
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JAMES UKECAWA
4218 SKYLINE ROAD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CARLTAS COMPANY
j RICHARD & ROBERT KELLY
I 2770 SUNNY CREEK ROAD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
PACWEST LTD
550 WEST C STREET
SUITE 1750
SAN DIECO CA 92101
SAMBI SEASIDE HEIGHTS LLC
8649 FIRESTONE BLVD
DOWNEY CA 90241
MSP CALIFORNIA
650 SOUTH CHERRY STREET
SUITE 435
DENVER CO 80222
g. /
.