HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-08-06; City Council; 13760; Emerald Ridge EastI” ,+\
CI-WQF CARLSBAD - AGdDA BILL
AB# ]$%I~ TITLE:
816196 EMERALD RIDGE EAST
MTG. CT 95-05/HDP 95-12 CITY All-Y. We
DEPT. PLN Mk CITY MGRZ
RECOMMENDED ACTION: /
That the City Council ADOPT City Council Resolution No. 9&i -$9! APPROVING CT
95-05 and HDP 95-12 as recommended for approval by the Planning Commission
and the Housing Commission.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On June 5, 1996, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to review the
Emerald Ridge East project located north of Camino de las Ondas, east of future Hidden
Valley Road, and south of Palomar Airport Road in the R-l-7500-Q Zone, Zone 20 Specific
Plan area, and Local Facilities Management Zone 20. The Planning Commission approved
(7-O) SDP 95-l 1 for nine affordable second dwelling units (subject to City Council approval
of the project) and recommended approval (7-O) of CT 95-05 and HDP 95-12 to allow the
subdivision of the 56.3 acre hillside parcel. No public testimony was given by citizens at the
hearing.
The discretionary actions to be decided by the City Council include a Tentative Map and
Hillside Development Permit to subdivide the parcel into 60 standard R-1-7500 single family
lots, three open space lots, and a 28.9 acre remainder parcel. Access to the property would
be provided by Hidden Valley Road, and the project would be conditioned to construct
Hidden Valley Road from Palomar Airport Road to the project’s southwestern boundary.
The Planning Commission approved nine second dwelling units and the reservation of one
three bedroom unit onsite to satisfy the project’s 15% lnclusionary Housing requirement of
ten units. The project would be conditioned to allow options for the purchase of one credit
for a three bedroom unit in an offsite combined affordable housing project in lieu of the
reservation of one three bedroom unit onsite or the purchase of ten credits in an offsite
affordable housing project subject to compliance with Council Policies 57 and 58.
On July 1, 1996, the Housing Commission reviewed the affordable housing proposal and
unanimously (6-O) recommended approval.
The project does not include proposed structures, however, the project is subject to the
Qualified Overlay (Q) Zone and Hillside Development Ordinance which require approval of
architectural elevations and building placement. Therefore, the project would be
conditioned to require Planning Commission approval of a site development plan and an
amendment to the Hillside Development Permit prior to the issuance of building permits to
ensure that architecture and building placement are consistent with the Zone 20 Specific
Plan and the Hillside Development Ordinance architectural guidelines.
\
’ PAGE 2 OF AGElitdA BILL NO. / 7 % c?
Additional environmental impacts beyond those analyzed and mitigated by the Zone 20
Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR 90-03) would not result from implementation of the
project; therefore, this project qualifies as subsequent development to both the Zone 20 EIR
and the City’s MEIR. The Planning Director issued a Notice of Prior Environmental
Compliance on May 3, 1996, and the applicable mitigation measures of EIR 90-03 are
included as conditions of approval for this project. Mitigation conditions include the
purchase of credits in the Carlsbad Highlands mitigation bank for impacts to coastal sage
scrub habitat resulting from grading necessary to develop the site.
Facilities Zone 20
Local Facilities Management Plan 20
Growth Control Point 3.2
Net Density 3.05
Special Facilities CFD No. 1
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impacts will result from the project since it is consistent with 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.
1. City Council Resolution No. 96 - 23 1
2. Location Map
3. Planning Commission Resolution 3936 and 3938
4. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated June 5, 1996
5. Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes, dated June 5, 1996.
II
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
RESOLUTION NO. 9 6 - 2 7 1
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TENTATIVE
MAP AND HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO
SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY INTO 60 STANDARD SINGLE
FAMILY LOTS, THREE OPEN SPACE LOTS, AND A 28.9
ACRE REMAINDER PARCEL ALL ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF FUTURE HIDDEN
VALLEY ROAD, NORTH OF CAMINO DE LAS ONDAS, AND
SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD IN THE R-1-7500-Q
ZONE AND LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20
CASE NAME: EMERALD RIDGE EAST
CASE NO.: CT 9505/HDP 95- 12
WHEREAS, on June 5, 1996, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
public hearing to consider a Tentative Map (CT 95-05) and Hillside Development Permit (HDP
95-12) for project development on 56.3 acres of land and adopted Planning Commission
Resolutions No. 3936 and 3938 respectively, recommending to the City Council that they be
approved; and
WHEREAS, on July 1, 1996, the Housing Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing to also consider the project and adopted Housing Commission Resolution No. 9 6 - 0 0 4
recommending to the City Council that it be approved; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 6th day of
August , 1996, held a public hearing to consider the recommendations and heard all
persons interested in or opposed to CT 95-05 and HDP 95-12.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad as follows:
1. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval of the
Tentative Map (CT 95-05) is approved and that the findings and conditions of the
Planning Commission contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3936,
on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings
and conditions of the City Council.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval of the
Hillside Development Permit (HDP 95-12) is approved and that the findings and
conditions of the Planning Commission contained in Planning Commission
Resolution No. 3938, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by
reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council.
3. That the recommendations 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. 9 6- 004 , on file with the City Clerk and
incorporated herein by reference, are the findings of the City Council.
4. 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 than 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 to cover
the estimated cost or 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.”
5. Condition No. 50 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3936 is superseded by
the following:
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 a trail shown
on the tentative map within Open Space Lot 61. If the City of Carlsbad accepts
dedication of the trail easement, the trail shall be constructed as apubfic trail and
will be the maintenance and liability responsibility of the City of Carlsbad. If the
City of Carlsbad does not accept dedication of the trail easement, the trail shall
still be constructed but it shall be constructed as a private trail and shall be the
maintenance and liability responsibility of the Homeowners Association.
-2-
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Couqcil
of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the 6th day of AUGUST , 1996, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Nygaard, Kulchin, Hall
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Finnila
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
-3-
EXHIBIT 2
EMERALD RIDGE - EAST
CT 95=05/SDP 95-I l/HDP 95-I 2
C EXHIBIT 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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3936
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 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS WITH
A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 7,500 SQUARE FEET, THREE
OPEN SPACE LOTS, A 28.9 ACRE REMAINDER PARCEL,
AND ALLOW NINE SECOND-DWELLING UNITS, ALL ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF CAMINO
DE LAS ONDAS, EAST OF HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD, AND
SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, WITHIN SPECIFIC
PLAN 203, IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN
ZONE 20.
CASE NAME: EMERALD RIDGE EAST
CASE NO: CT 95-05
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 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”, “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 Offtcial 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 Map to
subdivide a 56.3 acre parcel into sixty single-family lots with a minimum lot size of 7,500
square feet, three open space lots, a 28.9 acre remainder parcel, and allow nine second-
dwelling units as shown on Exhibits “A-L”, dated June 5, 1996, on file in the Planning
Department and incorporated by this reference (“Tentative Map for Emerald Ridge East”
28 CT 95-05) as provided by Chapter 20.12 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and 7
C
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, the Planning Commission did on the 5th day of June, 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 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Carlsbad Tract CT 95-05, based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findiws:
1. The Planning Director has found that, based on the EIA Part-II, this Subsequent Project
was described in the MEIR 93-01 as within its scope; AND there will be no additional
significant effect, not &alyzed therein; AND that no new or additional mitigation
measures or alternatives are required; AND that therefore this Subsequent Project is
within the scope of the prior EIR; and no new environmental document nor Public
Resources Code 2 108 1 findings are required.
2. The Planning Commission finds that:
a. the project is a subsequent development as described in CEQA Guidelines
15 168(c)(2) and (e), and 15 183;
b. the project is consistent with the General Plan Master EIR (MEIR 93-01) and
Zone 20 Specific Plan EIR (EIR 90-03);
C. there were EIRs certified in connection with the prior 1994 General Plan
Update and Zone 20 Specific Plan;
d. the project has nonew significant environmental effect not analyzed as significant
in the prior EIRs;
e. none of the circumstances requiring Subsequent or a Supplemental EIR under
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15 162 or 15 163 exist.
s
1 PC RESO NO. 3936 -2-
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3. The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the MEIR 93-01 and EIR 90-03 which are appropriate to this
Subsequent Project have been incorporated into this Subsequent Project.
4. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein for CT 95-05 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 3.05 du/acre is less than the density range of 4 to 8 du/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 du/acre. *
b. Circulation - The local streets serving the project have 56 to 76 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 will not exceed 60 dBA CNEL except in the rear
yards of Lots 8, 9, and 26. The developer is required to construct 5’ high
noise walls along the tops of slope of these lots to mitigate exterior noise to
the 60 dBA CNEL level and to mitigate interior noise levels of the future
homes to 45 dBA CNEL.
d. Housing - The project is consistent with the Housing Element of the General
Plan and the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance since the Developer is
required to provide 10.588 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;
(2) construct 9 second dwelling units and purchase 1 Affordable Housing
Credit from Villa Loma subject to the requirements of City Council Policies
No. 57 and 58 and final approval by the City Council. The remaining .588
fraction of an inclusionary dwelling unit will be satisfied through the
payment of a fee equal to the fraction (.588) times the average subsidy needed
to make affordable to a lower-income household, one newly constructed
typical housing unit; or (3) purchase affordable housing credits from Villa
Loma for some or all of the project’s inclusionary housing requirement
subject to the requirements of City Council Policies 57 and 58 and final
approval by the City Council.
e. Open Space and Conservation - The project is consistent with the Open Space
provisions of the General Plan and Zone 20 Specific Plan in that Lot 62,
which contains steep slopes possessing coastal sage scrub habitat and the
4
PC RESO NO. 3936 -3-
h ,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
California gnatcatcher as well as two small finger canyons located within the
subdivision, will be preserved in open space; slopes exceeding 40% will not
be developed; the proposed hillside development relates to the slope of the
land which rises from west to east and preserves the existing finger canyons;
mitigation measures that establish a physical barrier between residential and
agricultural uses will be provided; the dedication of a trail easement for
Citywide Trail Link No. 31 along the northern property line will be required;
and the northern portion of the site located within the 65+ CNEL airport
noise contour, where residential uses are an incompatible land use in
accordance with Palomar Airport CLUP, will be preserved as permanent
open space.
Native habitat impacts have been reduced or mitigated by the design of the
project in that the preservation of .83 of the .97 acres of coastal sage scrub
(CSS) habitat occupied by the gnatcatcher and located within Open Space
Lot 62 will be preserved by open space easement, and .47 of the .5 total acres
of CSS habitat located within two small finger canyons will be preserved,
however, the USFWS has determined that this .5 acre site is impacted due to
the proposed surrounding development. Therefore, the loss of .64 acres of
CSS habitat would result from implementation of the project which would be
mitigated through the purchase of credits in the Carlsbad Highlands
mitigation bank. The CSS loss is consistent with the City’s draft Habitat
Management Plan (HMP) as follows:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
PC RESO NO. 3936
That the habitat loss does not cumulatively exceed the 5% guideline
established in the Draft Conservation Guidelines of the Draft Natural
Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), in that the reduction of .64
acres of CSS habitat from Carlsbad’s 5% allocation (165.7 acres total)
does not exceed the remaining balance of 145.22 acres;
That the habitat loss will not preclude or prevent the preparation of
the City’s Habitat Management Plan, in that the area is not part of a
Preserve Planning Area (PPA) or Linkage Planning Area (LPA),
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;
That the loss will not preclude connectivity between areas of high
habitat value since this area is not included as a part of a Linkage
Planning Area (LPA);
That the habitat loss will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the
survival and recovery of listed wildlife species in the wild, in that high
quality habitat equal to or greater in area and quality to that
disturbed will be preserved offsite;
That the habitat loss has been minimixed and mitigated to the
maximum extent practicable in accordance with the mitigation
\o
-4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(6)
established by the NCCP Guidelines, in that credit for .78 acres of
CSS habitat will be purchased for preservation in the Carlsbad
Highland mitigation bank;
That the habitat loss is incidental to otherwise lawful activities, in that
the proposed subdivision of Emerald Ridge East is consistent with the
City’s General Plan, the Subdivision Map Act, and the Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinances.
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.
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.
b.
C.
d.
e.
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.
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.
Park-in-lieu fees are required.
All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as
conditions of approval.
The developer has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate
condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment
of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be available
concurrent with need as required by the General Plan.
6. 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.
\\
PC RESO NO. 3936 -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
7.
8.
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 develoDer 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.
9. That the project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual, adopted by City Council
Resolution No. 90-384.
10. 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. 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 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.
11. That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding existing and future land
uses since: 1) surrounding properties are designated for medium and low-medium
residential density development and open space in the General Plan; 2) the project is
compatible with the residentially designated Sudan Mission property to the east;
and 3) the project is consistent with the Palomar Airport CLUP. Public street
improvements, including Hidden Valley Road, would be provided to accommodate
traffic generated by the project. The single family units would be surrounded by
Hidden Valley Road to the west and open space easements along the northern,
southern, and eastern property boundaries which would provide ample separation
between land uses.
12. 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.
PC RESO NO. 3936 -6-
\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
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
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 conditioned 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 certified Final EIR 90-03 and MEIR 93-01 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.
The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the
Developercontained 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 the panhandle lots are located between areas
proposed for open space preservation due to the presence of sensitive habitat on
steep slopes. This results in developable land that cannot be served adequately with
a public street. \3
PC RESO NO. 3936 -7-
,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
21.
22.
23.
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
along the east by undevelopable slopes.
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.
The project, as designed, implements certain objectives and mitigation measures
established by the General Plan Master EIR to reduce cumulative air quality
impacts as applicable to a residential project of this scale. These include: providing
links to public sidewalk systems; providing for safe pedestrian and bicycle
movements within the project; and designing the project to accommodate
pedestrian spaces as well as proposed parking areas and building locations.
PlanninP Conditions:
1. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the Tentative Map
for the CT 95-05 project entitled “Emerald Ridge East”. (Exhibit “A” - “L” on file in
the Planning Department and incorporated by this reference, dated June 5, 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.
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
I9
PC RESO NO. 3936 4%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15'
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
drawing. Said blueline drawing(s) shall also include a copy of any applicable Coastal
Development Permit and signed approved site plan.
Facilities & Services:
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
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 2 1.90 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 October 3, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
IS
PC RESO NO. 3936 -9-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Approval of CT 95-05 is granted subject to Coastal Commission approval of LCPA
94-04 and approval of SDP 95-11 and HDP 95-12. CT 95-05 is subject to all
conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 3937 and 3938.
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&& shall include provisions
specifying Homeowner’s Association maintenance responsibility for all natural open
space (Lots 61 and 62), slope maintenance and landscape easements identified on the
approved Tentative Map as L.O.S.E. and Open Space Lot 63, and in accordance
with the tentative map landscape plan which is on file in the Planning Department,
or as conditioned by this resolution.
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 consistent with the Zone 20 Specific Plan
architectural guidelines and the Hillside Development Ordinance architectural
guidelines, and 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, which is consistent with the
required uniform wall locations shown on Exhibit “A”, for Planning Director
approval prior to issuance of building permits.
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.
The developer shall provide notices to all future homebuyers within the specific plan of
the existence and possible impacts from, among other things, lights, noise, traffic and
circulation, the neighboring Poinsettia Community Park and the school proposed by the
Carlsbad Unified School District. The form of this notification shall be approved by the
Planning Director and included in the CC&Rs for the project and proof of service of such
PC RESO NO. 3936 -lO-
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
notification upon purchasers shall be made to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
Landscape:
21. 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.
22. The first submittal of detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be accompanied by the
project’s building, improvement, and grading plans.
23. 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.
24. All landscaping shall comply with the Landscape Requirements of Specific Plan 203.
Contingency Permits/Other Agencies:
25. 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 95-05 shall be required.
26. 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:
27. The Developer shall diligently implement, or cause the implementation of, all mitigation
measures identified in the Zone 20 Final EIR 90-03 and MEIR 93-01 that are found by
this resolution to be feasible.
28. The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of the Zone 20 Final EIR
(EIR 90-03) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
. . .
PC RESO NO. 3936 -ll-
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
28
29. Paleontology:
a. Prior to any grading of the project site, a paleontologist shall be retained to
perform a walkover survey of the site and to review the grading plans to
determine if the proposed grading will impact fossil resources. A copy of
the paleontologist’s report shall be provided to the Planning Director prior
to issuance of a grading permit;
b. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections
of the site and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some
of the fossils present in the geologic strata, it may be necessary to collect
matrix samples for laboratory processing through fine screens. The
paleontologist shall make periodic reports to the Planning Director during
the grading process;
C. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area
of an exposed fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary,
salvage artifacts;
d. All fossils collected shall be donated to a public, non-profit institution
with a research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural
History Museum;
e. Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities of the project shall be resolved by the Planning Director and City
Engineer.
30. 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 Palomar Airport Road Transportation
Corridor in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney.
31. 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.
32. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Developer shall record an Avigation Easement
for all lots located within the 60 to 65 CNEL contour to the County of San Diego and file a copy of the recorded document with the Planning Director.
33.
34.
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.
In accordance with the Emerald Ridge East Noise Assessment performed by Pacific
Noise Control, prior to occupancy of any of the dwelling units, the developer shall
PC RESO NO. 3936 -12-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
construct a minimum 5’ high noise barrier wall along the tops of slope of Lots 8,9,
and 26 as shown on Exhibit “A”. The design of the wall shall be included in the
required fence plan (see Condition No. 16) to be approved by the Planning Director.
35. 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 September 26, 1995, 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.
36. To offset the conversion of non-prime agricultural land to urban land uses per the
requirements of the Mello II 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. The fee shall be paid prior to final map or issuance of a grading permit,
whichever occurs first.
37. 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. The watering of all surfaces being graded and haul routes shall be
required during dry weather conditions.
b. All unpaved areas shall be revegetated according to approved
landscape plans as soon as possible after grading.
C. 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.
d. All construction activities shall be limited during periods of high
winds.
e. 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.
PC RESO NO. 3936 -13-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15'
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
. . .
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
f. Construction equipment shall be subject to regularly scheduled
maintenance/tune-ups, and be turned off when not being utilized to
avoid excessive idling emissions.
g* 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.
h. The Engineering Department shall monitor for compliance during all
grading operations of the project.
The Homeowner’s 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 pubhc
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
7P
PC ES0 NO. 3936 -14-
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
dust, pesticides, and odors associated with adjacent agricultural operations, and
that the owners, users, and tenants occupy this area at their on risk.
44. 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.
45. 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 requirements and the phasing schedule provided in the Zone 20 LFMP.
Reclaimed water facilities shall be constructed in all major roadways within the
project.
46. Prior to approval of the Site Development Plan for the project, as required by
Chapter 21.06 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, the general visual design guidelines
identified on Table 3.13.1 of Final EIR 90-03, the hillside architectural standards in
SP 203, and the hillside architectural design requirements of Carlsbad Municipal
Code Section 21.95.060(g) shall be incorporated into the proposed architecture on
lots l-60. The site plan shall include a 15’ minimum setback from the top of slope
on lots adjacent to Hidden Valley Road and Open Space Lot No. 61 and may
include, but not be limited to, the following measures: (1) varying rooflines and roof
massing; (2) enhanced rear building elevations that are visible from Palomar
Airport Road; (3) increased landscape screening; (4) earth tone roof and building
wall material and colors; (5) increased building separation; and (6) single story
elements on at least 50% of the building coverage on lots abutting Hidden Valley
Road.
47. Prior to approval of the final map the developer shall dedicate Open Space Lot No.
63 to the Homeowner’s Association and dedicate a perpetual open space easement
over Open Space Lots No. 61 and 62 to the City of Carlsbad.
48. Removal of native vegetation anb development of Open Space Lot No. 62, including
but not limited to fences, walls, decks, storage buildings, pools, spas, stairways, and
landscaping, 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 Homeowner’s 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.
49. 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
2\
PC REZSO NO. 3936 -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
Lots 27, 28, 29, 30,34,35,36,37, 46, 47, 48, and 49 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.
50. 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 the citywide trail(s)
shown on the tentative map within Open Space Lot 61. If prior to final map the
City has a funding mechanism for trail maintenance and liability and accepts the
dedication of the trail easement, the Developer shall be required to construct the
trail improvements prior to occupancy (i.e. first unit, of any building, etc.), and the
City will assume responsibility for trail maintenance and liability. If however, prior
to final map the City does not have a financing mechanism in place to fund
maintenance and liability for the citywide trail system, the Developer shall be
required to provide adequate security through bonds, letters of credit, cash or other
acceptable security for the trail improvements.
51. .64 acres of coastal sage scrub (CSS) habitat occupied by the gnatcatcher will be
directly impacted by this project. Pursuant to the Interim Take provisions of the
4d Rule for the California gnatcatchers, the project shall be required to mitigate this
take of .64 acres of CSS by acquiring for preservation comparable quality habitat at
a 1:l (.5 acres) and 2:l (.14 acres) ratio. Prior to the recordation of the first final
tract map, the applicant shall mitigate this impact by purchasing for preservation
.78 acres of comparable quality CSS habitat within the high quality, coastal sage
scrub area found in the Carlsbad Highlands mitigation bank upon approval of the
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the California Department of Fish and
Game, and the City of Carlsbad.
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, 12, 17, 23, 28, 35, 41,
49, 56) and one three-bedroom home as appropriate, as affordable to lower income
households for the useful life of the dwelling unig pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal
Code Section 21.10.015 and in accordance with the requirements and process set
forth in Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The draft Affordable
2% PC RESO NO. 3936 -16-
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Housing Agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Director not later than thirty
(30) days 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, 12, 17,23,28,35, 41,49, and 56) 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.
53. 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.
54. 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.
Engineerinp Conditions:
General: .
55. There shall be one final subdivision map recorded for this project.
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
2-3
PC RESO NO. 3936 -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
28
map.
56. 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.
Fees/Agreements:
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
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.
Prior to issuance of a building permit for any buildable lot within the subdivision, the
property owner shall pay a one-time special development tax in accordance with City
Council Resolution No. 9 l-39.
The developer shall pay all current fees and deposits required.
The owner of the subject property shall execute an agreement holding the City harmless
regarding drainage across the adjacent property.
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:
62. The developer shall submit proof that a Notice of Intention has been submitted to the
State Water Resources Control Board.
63. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the
tentative map, a grading permit for this project is required. The developer must submit
and receive approval for grading plans in accordance with City codes and standards.
64. 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.
Dedication/Improvements:
65. 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
Pi PC RESO NO. 3936 -1%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
City. Streets that are already public are not required to be rededicated.
66. 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 rip-rap, 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.
67. The developer shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The developer shall provide best
management practices as referenced in the “California Storm Water Best Management
Practices Handbook” to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge
to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer.
Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of
the following:
a. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with
established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose 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.
68. 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 way/48’ Curb to
curb width) from “F” Street to Palomar Airport Road, including:
l Asphalt/Concrete Pavement. a Concrete Curb and Gutter.
l Concrete Sidewalk on one (1) side.
0 Street Light Standards on both sides.
l Traffic Signal at Palomar Airport Road and Hidden Valley Road.
B
PC RESO NO. 3936 -19-
-
b. Hidden Valley Road secondary access width improvements (68’ Right of
way/28’ Berm to berm width) from “F” Street to Camino De Los Ondas,
including:
l Asphalt/Concrete Pavement.
0 Asphalt/Concrete Berms.
7
8
9
10
11
C. Street “A” full width improvements between “D” & “E” Streets (60’ Right-
of-way /40’ Curb-to-curb width) and the remainder of “A” Street (56’ Right
of way/36’ Curb to curb width), including:
0 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement.
l Concrete Curb and Gutter.
l Concrete Sidewalk on both sides.
l Street Light Standards.
12
13
14
15
16
d. “B” Street full width improvements (56’ Right of way/36’ Curb to curb
width), including:
0 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement.
0 Concrete Curb and Gutter;
l Concrete Sidewalk on both sides.
0 Street Light Standards.
17
18
19
20
21
e. “C” Street full width improvements (51’ Right of way/36’ Curb to curb
width), including:
l Asphalt/Concrete Pavement.
0 Concrete Curb and Gutter.
0 Concrete Sidewalk on one side.
0 Street Light Standards.
22
23
24
25
26
f. I’D” Street full width improvements (56’ Right of way/36’ Curb to curb
width), including:
l Asphalt/Concrete Pavement.
0 Concrete Curb and Gutter.
l Concrete Sidewalk on both sides.
l Street Light Standards.
27 “E” Street full width improvements (56’ Right of way/36’ Curb to curb
width), including:
II PC RESO NO. 3936 -2o- 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
l Asphalt/Concrete Pavement.
0 Concrete Curb and Gutter.
0 Concrete Sidewalk on both sides.
l Street Light Standards.
h. “F” Street full width improvements (76’ Right of way/56’ Curb to curb
width), including:
0 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement.
l Concrete Curb and Gutter.
0 Concrete Sidewalk on both sides.
0 Street Light Standards.
l 8’ Raised Median
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.
Special Engineering Conditions:
69. 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.
70. An Adjustment Plat shall be processed for the .37 acre “triangular” area located at
the proposed detention/desilting basin west of Hidden Valley Road.
71. 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&Rx
“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.”
Fire Conditions:
72. The applicant shall provide additional public fire hydrants at intervals of 500 feet along
public streets and/or private driveways. Hydrants should be located at street intersections
when possible, but should be positioned no closer than 100 feet from terminus of a street
or driveway.
II
73. 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. 2’1
PC RESO NO. 3936 -21- /
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
. . .
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
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.
Al required water mains, fire hydrants and appurtenances shall be operational before
combustible building materials are located on the construction site.
Prior to final inspection, all security gate systems controlling vehicular access shall be
equipped with a “Knox,” key-operated emergency entry device. Applicant shall contact
the Fire Prevention Bureau for specifications and approvals prior to installation.
Prior to issuance of the building permits, the applicant shall obtain fire department
approval of a wildland fuel management plan. The plan shall clearly indicate methods
proposed to mitigate and manage fire risk associated with native vegetation ,growing
within 60 feet of structures. The plan shall reflect the standards presented in the fire
suppression element of the City of Carlsbad Landscape Guidelines Manual.
Prior to occupancy of building, all wildland fuel mitigation activities must be completed,
and the condition of all vegetation within 60 feet of structures found to be in conformance
with an approved wildland fuel management plan.
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.
Water Conditions:
79. 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.
80. 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.
81. Sequentially, the Developer’s Engineers shall do the following:
a. Meet with the C& Fire Marshal and establish the fire protection requirements.
Also obtain GPM demand for domestic and irrigational need from appropriate
parties.
b. Prepare a colored reclaimed water use area map and submit to the Planning
2%
PC RESO NO. 3936 -22-
C
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
82.
83.
84.
85.
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 (i.e., 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 permits will continue to
be available until time of occupancy. This note shall be placed on the final map.
The Developer shall be required to construct a gravity sewer pipeline in Hidden Valley
Road extending from Palomar Airport Road to approxiplately Station 62+40.
The Developer shall be required to construct a 12” potable waterline (375’ HG) in
Hidden Valley Road extending from Palomar Airport Road to its southerly
property line. Also a water analysis shall be required to establish the size of waterlines
in the entry street and in Streets A, B, C, D and E. In any event, 8” diameter waterlines
will be the minimum size required.
The developer shall construct a 12” reclaimed waterline (384’ HG) in Hidden Valley
Road from Palomar Airport Road to its southerly property line and shall install
reclaimed waterlines deemed necessary after the colored use map is reviewed and needs
are established.
Final MaD Notes:
86. The Developer shall provide the following note on the final map of the subdivision and
final mylar of this development submitted to the City:
“Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code establishes a Growth Management
Control Point for each General Plan land use designation. Development cannot exceed
the Growth Control Point except as provided by Chapter 2 1.90. The land use designation
for this development is RM. The Growth Control Point for this designation is 6 dwelling
units per nonconstrained acre.
87. Parcels 1 thru 63 were used to calculate the intensity of development under the General
Plan and Chapter 2 1.90. Subsequent redevelopment or resubdivision of any one of these
parcels must also include parcels 1 thru 63 under the General Plan and Chapter 21.90 of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code.”
88. 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. 9 l-39.”
89. The developer shall place the following notes on a non-mapping data sheet of the final
map:
zq
PC RF50 NO. 3936 -23-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
. . .
a. This subdivision contains a remainder parcel. No building permit shall be issued
for the remainder parcel until it is further subdivided pursuant to the provisions of
Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
b. 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.
Code Reminders:
90. 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.
91. 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.
92. 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.
Landscape:
93. 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:
94. 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.
Fees:
95. 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.
96. The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
P
PC FESO NO. 3936 -24-
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 5th day of June, 1996, by the following vote, to
II wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compaq Commissioners Heineman, Nielsen, Noble,
Savary, Welshons
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Monroy
ABSTAIN: None
11 CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
&HP .
MICHAEf. J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
3’ I/ PC RESO NO. 3936 -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
Wi .t:
-
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3938
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 60
SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS WITH A MINIMUM LOT SIZE 7,500
SQUARE FEET, DEVELOP NINE SECOND DWELLING
UNITS, CREATE THREE OPEN SPACE LOTS AND LEAVE A
28.9 ACRE REMAINDER PARCEL, ALL ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF CAMINO DE LAS
ONDAS, EAST OF HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD, AND SOUTH
OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, WITHIN ZONE 20 SPECIFIC
PLAN 203, IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN
ZONE 20.
CASE NAME: EMERALD RIDGE EAST
CASE NO: HDP 95-12
WHEREAS, MSP California LLC has filed a verified application for certain property to
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 Ran&o 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
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Hillside
Development Permit to subdivide a 56.3 acre parcel into 60 single-family lots with a
minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet, three open space lots, a 28.9 acre remainder parcel,
and allow nine second-dwelling units as shown on Exhibits “A-L”, dated June 5, 1996, on
file in the Planning Department and incorporated by this reference (“Hillside Development
Permit for Emerald Ridge East” HDP 95-12) as provided by Chapter 21.95 of the Carlsbad
32
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
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 5th day of June, 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:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Hillside Development Permit HDP 95-12,
based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findinps:
1. That hillside conditions have been properly identified on the constraints map Exhibits
“G - H”, dated June 5, 1996, which show existing and proposed conditions and slope
percentages;
2. That undevelopable areas of the project, i.e. slopes over 40%, have been properly
identified on the constraints map Exhibits “G - H” , dated June 5,1996;
3. That the development proposal is consistent with the intent, purpose, and requirements of
the Hillside Ordinance, Chapter 2 1.95, in that: 1)the grading design avoids steep slopes
except for small isolated ravines; 2) manufactured slopes exceed 30 feet in height to
a maximum of 38 feet at one location along the eastern property boundary due to
site constraints which include the preservation of 26% of the site in open space, the
vertical alignment set for Hidden Valley Road along the project’s western boundary,
the terraced grading design, and compliance with the City’s street design standards;
3) manufactured slopes are contoured to follow the adjacent road and open space
alignments; 4) grading quantities of 8,836 cubic yards/acre, which are within the
potentially acceptable range, are necessary since the area of grading is limited to the
central portions of the site due to environmental constraints and a required grading
design that creates terraced, single family building pads with access streets that
follow the natural hillside contour in accordance with hillside development
standards; 5) the roadways are curvilinear and follow the natural contours; and 6)
the future homes would be setback from the top of manufactured slopes.
PC RESO NO. 3938 33
-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
4. 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 greater than 40% and Mello II LCP “dual criterion” slopes, are
preserved in open space;
5. 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
tops of manufactured slopes, and all manufactured slopes will be screened with
landscaping that includes a combination of ground cover, shrubs, and trees;
6. That the project design and lot configuration minimizes disturbance of hillside lands, in
that the project’s grading and development does not encroach into steep slopes
except for small isolated ravines which have been identified but are excluded from
the hillside development standards.
Planninp Conditions:
1. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the Hillside
Development Permit for the HDP 95-12 project entitled “Emerald Ridge East”.
(Exhibit “A” - “L” on file in the Planning Department and incorporated by this reference,
dated June 5, 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. Approval of HDP 95-12 is granted subject to the approval of CT 95-05 and SDP 95-11.
HDP 95-12 is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions
No. 3936 and 3937.
3. Prior to issuance of building permits on Lots l- 60 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.
. . .
. . .
. . *
PC RESO NO. 3938 -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
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 5th day of June, 1996, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Heineman, Nielsen, Noble,
Savary, Welshons
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Monroy
ABSTAIN: None
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairper&
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST: /7
L 7- - Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 3938 -4-
- EXHIBIT 4
*me City of CABLSBAB Planning Department 6P A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No. 2 0
P.C. AGENDA OF: JUNE 5,1996
SUBJECT: CT 95-05/SDP 95-ll/HDP 95-12 - EMERALD RIDGE EAST - Request for
approval of a Site Development Plan and recommendation of approval for a
Tentative Map, and Hillside Development Permit, to: (1) subdivide the property
into 60 single-family lots and 3 open space lots; (2) create.a 28.9 acre remainder
parcel; (3) provide 9 future second-dwelling units; and (4) deed restrict one three
bedroom home to be affordable or purchase one Affordable Housing Credit in
Villa Loma; all on property generally located east of future Hidden Valley Road,
north of Camino de las Ondas, and south of Palomar Airport Road, within the
Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP-203) and Local Facilities Management Zone 20.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3937
APPROVING SDP 95-11 and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 3936 and 3938
WCOMMENDING APPROVAL of CT 95-05 and HDP 95-12, based on the findings and
subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
The applicant is requesting approval of various permits to subdivide the 56.3 acre parcel into 60
standard single-family lots and three open space lots on 27.4 acres, and a 28.9 acre remainder
parcel. (The City Council approved a tentative map, Emerald Ridge West - CT 95-03, for 61
single family homes and 9 second dwelling units on the 28.9 acre remainder parcel on April 2,
1996.) Nine (9) second dwelling units and the reservation of one three bedroom home or the
purchase of one credit in Villa Loma are proposed to satisfy the project’s inclusionary housing
requirements. Architectural elevations and floor plans are provided for the second dwelling
units. As designed and conditioned, the project is consistent with the General Plan, Zone 20
Specific Plan (SP-203), Mello II LCP, the Subdivision Ordinance, and the relevant Zoning
Chapters of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The Emerald Ridge East project is located within the boundaries of Area B of the Zone 20
Specific Plan and the Mello II segment of Carlsbad’s Local Coastal Program (LCP). The site is
h
‘CT 95-05/SDP 95-l l/r,JI’ 5-12 - EMERALD RIDGE EAST
JUNE 5,1996
designated RM by the General Plan allowing residential medium density (6-8 dwelling
units/acre) development. The project consists of 60 standard single family lots and 9 second
dwelling units resulting in a proposed project density of 3.05 dwelling units per acre which is
well below the density permitted by the RM land use designation. 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.
A zone change (ZC 94-04) from Residential Density Multiple with the Qualified Overlay Zone
(RDM-Q) to the One Family Residential with the Qualified Overlay Zone (R-1-7500-Q) for the
parcel was approved by the City Council on April 2, 1996. The Qualified Overlay Zone requires
the approval of a site development plan, including architectural elevations. However, the project
has been conditioned to require Planning Commission approval of a site development plan with
architectural elevations, floor plans, and building locations for the 60 single family lots prior to
the issuance of building permits. The zone change requires Coastal Commission approval of a
Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA); therefore, the Planning Commission’s
recommendation of approval and City Council approval would be contingent upon the Coastal
Commission’s approval of the LCPA.
The proposed subdivision would include three open space lots located along the northern,
southern, and eastern boundaries which provide substantial separation between the project and
existing and future land uses on adjacent properties. In accordance with the provisions of the
Zone 20 Environmental Impact Report (EIR 90-03), the southern open space lot (Lot 62) will be
preserved due to the presence of coastal sage scrub habitat and the California gnatcatcher, and the
eastern open space lot will be preserved due to the Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use
Plan (CLUP) residential land use restriction for areas subject to 65+ dBA CNEL noise levels.
These open space lots will be dedicated as permanent open space and maintained by the
Homeowner’s Association.
The site consists of 27.4 acres of vacant, previously cultivated land which is surrounded by
vacant land to the north, the Sudan Interior Mission to the northeast, Hidden Valley Road and
Emerald Ridge West to the west, and agricultural uses to the southeast. The parcel rises in
elevation from west to east approximately 100 feet and from north to south approximately 200’.
The majority of the site consists of hillside topography with 25% or less gradient. Steeper slopes
(25%+) existing along the parcel’s northern, southern, and western boundaries, and within two
small, centrally located finger canyons will be preserved. The site conditions described above
require compliance with the Hillside Development Ordinance development standards and design
guidelines regulating grading and architecture, however, as specified above, architectural
elevations are not included as part of the project at this time. The proposed grading design
preserves ocean views to the north and consists of balanced grading to create terraced hillside
lots which generally follow the existing topography, i.e., rising in elevation from west to east.
Vehicular access to the site will be provided by Hidden Valley Road, a non-loaded collector
street, which is currently rough graded, and extends from Camino de las Ondas to Palomar
Airport Road. The major project improvements would include the following:
CT 95-05/SDP 95-l l/,-JP ‘5-12 - EMERALD RIDGE EAST
JUNE 5,1996
PAGE 3
1. The construction of local public streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and drainage facilities
necessary to service the new lots; and
2. The construction of Hidden Valley Road including a traffic signal at the intersection of
Palomar Airport Road.
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. General Plan with RM and OS Land Use Designations;
B. Specific Plan 203;
C. Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program (LCP);.
D. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 2 1 (Zoning Ordinance), including:
1. Chapter 2 1.10 One Family Residential Zone;
2. Chapter 2 1.06 Qualified Development Overlay Zone;
3. Chapter 21.85 Inclusionary Housing, and Chapter 21.53, Site Development Plan
required for affordable housing project;
4. Chapter 2 1.95 Hillside Development Regulations.
E. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 20 (Subdivision Ordinance);
F. Habitat Management Plan (in process);
G. Growth Management Ordinance, (Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 20); and
H. Environmental Protection Procedures (Title 19) and the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA).
Iv. ANALYSIS
The recommendation of approval for this project was developed by analyzing the project’s
consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. The following analysis
section discusses compliance with each of the regulations/policies utilizing both text and tables.
3g
‘CT 95-05/SDP 95-1 I/--JP ‘Y-12 - EMERALD RIDGE EAST
-
JUNE 5,1996
PAGE 4
A. 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
Public Safety
Proposed residential density of 3.05 du/net acre is below the GP designation of RM
4-8 du/net acre and growth control point of 6 du/net acre.
Provides a combination of second dwelling units, deed restriction of 1 three-
bedroom home or the purchase of 1 Affordable Housing Credit in Villa Loma.
City Wide Trail Link No. 3 1 to be aligned along an existing dirt road thereby
avoiding imnacts to Encinas Creek.
Required roadway and intersection improvements, including Hidden Valley Road
from Camino de las Ondas to Palomar Airport Road, are shown on the tentative map
and included as conditions of anoroval.
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; and
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 pay Park-in-lieu fees.
Proposed project is required to provide sidewalks, street lights, and fire hydrants, as
shown on the tentative map, or included as conditions of approval.
B. Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 203)
The Zone 20 Specific Plan requires project compliance with all applicable land use plans,
policies, and ordinances, except as modified by the Specific Plan. The following
discussion describes the proposed project’s conformance with the relevant Specific Plan
regulations which include Affordable Housing, Land Use (General Plan, Zoning,
Development Standards, and the Mello II LCP), and Open Space Preservation.
Affordable Housing
The Zone 20 Specific Plan requires consistency with the City’s Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance, requiring that 15% of the total number of proposed units are made affordable
to low income households. The project’s 15% inclusionary requirement is 10.58 dwelling
units. The proposed project includes a request for approval of a site development plan for
9 second dwelling units dispersed throughout the subdivision and the reservation of one
three bedroom home or the purchase of one credit for an affordable three bedroom unit in
CT 95-05/SDP 95-1 l/l-X 5-12 - EMERALD RIDGE EAST
JUNE 5,1996
PAGE 5
Villa Loma to satisfy this requirement.
Land Use
The project is located within Area B of the Specific Plan. The project site is designated
for medium density residential development to be implemented by the One Family
Residential and Qualified Overlay Zones (R-1-7500-Q) which allow single family
development. The Qualified Overlay zone requires approval of a site development plan,
which includes architectural elevations, floor plans, and building footprints. The Zone 20
Specific Plan development regulations require compliance with the R-l zoning
regulations, Specific Plan architectural design criteria, and require consistency with
landscape guidelines for collector streets, slopes and project entries. Since architecture for
the single family units is not proposed by the applicant at this time, the project has been
conditioned to require Planning Commission approval of a Site Development Plan (SDP)
prior to the issuance of building permits. The SDP will be required to demonstrate
consistency with both the City’s Hillside Ordinance architectural guidelines and the Zone
20 Specific Plan architectural design criteria. As shown on Exhibit “L”, the conceptual
landscape design for project slopes along the Hidden Valley Road corridor, project entry,
and internal slopes is consistent with the Zone 20 Specific Plan and the City’s Landscape
Design Manual.
As shown on the zoning compliance table under section D below, the project meets or
exceeds the R-l (single family) zone standards.
Onen Space Preservation
The project is consistent with the Open Space provisions of the Zone 20 Specific Plan in
that Lot 62, which contains steep slopes possessing coastal sage scrub habitat and the
California gnatcatcher, will be preserved in open space; slopes exceeding 40% will not
be developed; mitigation measures that establish a physical barrier between residential
and agricultural uses will be provided; Citywide Trail Link No. 3 1 will be dedicated; and
the northern portion of the site located within the 65+ CNEL airport noise contour, where
residential uses are an incompatible land use, will be preserved as permanent open space.
Mello II Local Coastal Program - See the discussion under item C below.
C. Mello II Local Coastal Program
The project is located within and subject to the Mello II Local Coastal Program segment
and is designated for residential medium density (RM) land use and RDM-Q zoning.
Although the Mello II Land Use Plan is consistent with the subject parcel’s RM General
Plan designation, the implementing zone specified by the Mello II LCP is not consistent
with the new R-l -7500-Q zone until the Coastal Commission has approved a Local
Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA). A Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA
94-04) is currently being reviewed by the Coastal Commission to change the
implementing zone on the subject property to R- 1-7500-Q. Lo
-CT 95-05/SDP 95-l llc3F ‘5-12 - EMERALD RIDGE EAST
JUNE 5,1996
Development Regulations
The project is consistent with Mello II LCP policies requiring the preservation of steep
slopes (25%+) possessing chaparral and coastal sage plant communities (“dual criterion”
slopes) since the proposed grading will preserve the majority of the 1.47 total acres of
dual criterion slopes. If the application of this policy would preclude any reasonable use
of the property, an encroachment not to exceed 10% of the steep slope area may be
permitted. The site contains two isolated finger canyons which are approximately .5
acres in area and contain dual criterion slopes. While the project will preserve the
majority of these canyons (.47 acres) through an open space easement, minimal
disturbance will result due to grading .03 acres for the purpose of creating building pads
on adjacent lots. This 2% disturbance represents less than 10% of the 1.47 total acres of
dual criterion slopes. Development of the site requires the preservation in open space of
approximately 7.063 acres along the northern and southern property boundaries, or 26%
of the 27.4 acre site, as mitigation for biological, noise, and visual impacts. Development
of the site is thereby limited to the central portion of the site where the finger canyons are
located. The City’s Hillside Development Ordinance further restricts development of the
parcel through grading regulations which require grading to be consistent with existing
hillside topography. The application of the above numerous development restrictions
results in a project density of 3.05 dwelling units per acre which is well below the
maximum of 8 dwelling units per acre allowed by the General Plan. The minor .03 acre
encroachment into dual criterion slopes is therefore necessary to allow a reasonable use of
the property without further reducing the project density.
Mello II policies also provide for the preservation of all 25% slopes unless:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
the findings of a soils investigation determine that the slopes areas are stable and
any corrective grading necessary for the project will be completed;
grading is essential to the development design and intent;
slope disturbance will not result in substantial damage or alteration to major
wildlife habitat or native vegetation areas;
no more than one third of the area of parcels exceeding 10 acres shall be subject to
major grade changes; and
north facing slopes shall be preserved.
The above findings can be made for the project which contains approximately 6.8 acres of
25%+ slopes. A geotechnical analysis has been prepared for the project by GeoSoils,
Inc. The conclusion of the report is 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 viewpoint. The
recommendations presented....should be incorporated into the final design, grading, and
construction phasing of development.” The project will be conditioned to comply with
the recommendations of this report thereby ensuring stable earth conditions for the life of
the project. Since the west-facing hillside parcel consists of gentle to steep slopes which
have been disked for agricultural use, it is necessary to grade a portion of the 25% slopes
to create a terraced grading design for the single family lot subdivision, however, slopes
exceeding 40% grade are almost entirely avoided. The proposed grading design results
, ‘CT 95-05BDP 95- 1 1/,-3F 5-12 - EMERALD RIDGE EAST
JUNE 5,1996
PAGE 7
in major grade changes to less than one third of the 27.4 acre parcel and will preserve
north facing slopes along the northern project boundary. The project will avoid major
wildlife habitat or native vegetation areas existing along the northern and southern
property boundaries since these areas will be preserved through an open space easement.
Hydrology standards of the Mello II segment of Carlsbad’s LCP require that post
development surface run-off from a lo-year/6 hour storm event must carry any increased
velocity at the property line. Drainage from the project will be provided through storm
drains beneath Hidden Valley Road which will flow into a drainage course located
adjacent to the west of this roadway. In accordance with the provisions of the PEIR,
energy dissipation facilities (i.e. rip-rap) have been provided along the drainage course in
addition to a permanent regional basin west of future Hidden Valley Road, adjacent to
Encinas Creek at the 67 foot elevation. The project will be conditioned to provide
adequate drainage, siltation and erosion control facilities as part of the approved grading
permit, and the grading operation will be limited to the summer construction season,
April 1 to October 1.
The project contains vacant non-prime agricultural land containing Class III 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.
D. ZONING ORDINANCE
1. One-Family Residential Zone (R-l-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-l-
7500 Zone:
11 Lot Size (Min.) 7,500 Square Feet I 7,630-36,876 SF
Lot Width
2nd Dwelling Unit
Size
60 Feet
640 Square Feet
60+ Feet
640 Square Feet
Garage Size
2nd Unit Parking
Two Car Garage - 20’X 20’
One Additional &ace
Two & Three-Car Garages
Space in Three Car Garage
Lot Coverage
Building Height
Panhandle Lot:
Combined Access
40 Percent
30 Feet & Two-story
200 Feet Max.
To Be Determined w/Future SDP
To be Determined w/Future SDP
160 Feet
CT 95-05/SDP 95-1 l/riDF -‘2-12 - EMERALD RIDGE EAST
JUNE 5,1996
PAGE 8
Combined Access
Width -
Buildable Area -
30 Feet Min.
8,000-10,000 SF
30 Feet
10,370- 38,876 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. 44 and 45 as panhandle type lots. The two lots
are justified based on the environmental constraints of the buildable area of the overall
parcel. The panhandle lots are located between areas proposed for open space
preservation due to the presence of sensitive habitat on steep slopes. This results in
developable land that cannot be served adequately with a public street. The panhandle
lots are located along the eastern perimeter of the site, between two cul-de-sac bulbs,
where they will not adversely affect 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 which requires the submittal and approval of a
Site Development Plan. At this point in time the developer is not planning to construct
homes on the lots, therefore, the project does not include a site development plan.
However, the project has been conditioned to 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.
3. Chapter 21.85 Inclusionary Housing, and Chapter 21.53, Site Development Plan:
The project includes 60 single-family lots and an inclusionary housing requirement of
10.58 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. As shown on Exhibit “J”, 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 Policies No.
43
-
c
CT 95-05BDP 95-1 l/hL)F ‘C-12 - EMERALD RIDGE EAST
JUNE 5,1996
PAGE 9
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 .588 fraction of an inclusionary
dwelling unit would be satisfied through the payment of a fee equal to the fraction (.588)
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 Commission.
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.
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:
Contour Grading Variety of Slope Direction & Manufactured Slopes have been
CT 95-05/SDP 95-1 l/&F S-12 - EMERALD RIDGE EAST
JUNE 5,1996
PAGE 10
ground cover I/ Slope Setback Not Quantified - 15 Foot To be determined with future
Recommended SDP
II Architecture Roofline, Building Bulk & Scale To be determined with future
Roadways Follow Contours Curvilinear streets that follow
contours and provide access to
terraced lots.
* In accordance with Section 21.95.070 of the Hillside Ordinance, justification is required
for the modification of the 30’ maximum manufactured slope height standard. As
proposed, the only slope on the project that exceeds 30 feet in height is along the east side
of “C” Street within open space Lot 63. The slope height goes to 38 feet for about 75
lineal feet and transitions back to 30 feet and less in each direction over a total length of
200 feet. The increased slope height is necessary due to constraints which include the
preservation of 26% of the site in open space. the vertical alignment set for Hidden
Valley Road along the project’s western boundary, the terraced grading design which is
consistent with the Hillside Development Ordinance, and compliance with the City’s
street design standards.
** Due to the preservation of significant open space along the northern and southern
property boundaries impacted by the 65 CNEL airport noise levels and coastal sage scrub
habitat, the preservation of 40%+ slopes and the LCP requirement to preserve dual
criterion slopes, the area of grading is limited to the central portions of the site. Grading
quantities in the potentially acceptable range are therefore necessary to create terraced,
single family building pads and access streets which follow the natural hillside contour.
The project density resulting from this grading design (3.05 du/acre) is well below that
permitted by the medium density (4-8 du/acre) land use designation.
E. Subdivision Ordinance
The proposed tentative map complies 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 Street “F” which connects to Hidden Valley Road.
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
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.
-
-CT 95OYSDP 95-l l/A )I- S-12 - EMERALD RIDGE EAST
JUNE $1996
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.
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 (Draft)
The project is not located within any of the Preserve Planning Areas (PPAs) defined by
the City’s draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP) dated July, 1994, Although
disturbance to .64 acres of coastal sage scrub will result from implementation of the
project, it will not preclude connectivity between PPAs nor preclude the preservation of
CSS habitat. Moreover, this project provides mitigation in the form of offsite
preservation because it will result in the purchase for preservation of .78 acres of habitat
in an offsite habitat mitigation bank.
Since completion of a subregional NCCP/HMP, has not occurred, prior to the issuance of
a grading permit, the City may have to authorize this project to draw from the City’s
165.7 acres (5%) CSS take allowance (4d rule) to ensure that the project does not
preclude the City’s draft HMP. The take of .64 acres of CSS habitat will not exceed the
5% allowance, nor jeopardize the HMP since it is located outside the HMP preserve
planning areas (PPA) and/or linkage planning areas (LPA) and therefore 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. Since mitigation
for the habitat loss will result in the preservation of equal or better habitat in an offsite
location, the project will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and
recovery of the gnatcatcher. The habitat loss is incidental to otherwise lawful activities.
The development of the Emerald Ridge East property is a legal development which is
consistent with the City’s General Plan and all required permits will be obtained.
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: l-i@
- CT 95-05/SDP 95-I l,:Jr
.-
5-12 - EMERALD RIDGE EASl
JUNE 5,1996
DRAINAGE
CIRCULATION
FIRE
OPEN SPACE
SCHOOLS
SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM
WATER
Basin No. 3
654
Station No. 4
7.063 acres
CUSD
69 EDUs
15,180 GPD
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
The project is 66.36 dwelling units below the Growth Management Dwelling Unit
allowance of 13 5 dwelling units for the property as permitted by the Growth Management
Ordinance. Surplus dwelling units (66.36) that are not used by the developer are placed
into a City bank of excess dwelling units. The City can allocate these dwelling units for
affordable housing or other special housing needs within this quadrant.
H. Environmental
The project site is located within the boundaries of the Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 203)
which covers the 640 acre Zone 20 planning area. The direct, indirect, and cumulative
environmental impacts from the future development of the Zone 20 planning areas have
been discussed in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR 90-03) for the specific
plan. Additional project level studies have been conducted including soils investigation,
biological analysis, noise report, and a traffic study. These studies provide more focused
and detailed project level analysis and indicate that additional environmental impacts
beyond what was analyzed in Final EIR 90-03 would not result from implementation of
the project. This project qualifies as subsequent development to both the Zone 20 EIR
and the City’s MEIR as identified in Section 21083.3 of the California Environmental
Quality Act; therefore, the Planning Director issued a Notice of Prior Environmental
Compliance on May 3, 1996. The recommended and applicable mitigation measures of
Final EIR 90-03 are included as conditions of approval for this project. Conditions
include specific mitigation for impacts to coastal sage scrub habitat identified by the Zone
20 EIR through the purchase of .64 credits at a 1 :l and 2:l replacement ratio in the
Carlsbad Highlands in accordance with the recommendation of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. With regard to air quality and circulation impacts, the City’s MEIR found that
the cumulative impacts of the implementation of projects consistent with the General
Plan are significant and adverse due to regional factors, therefore, the City Council
adopted a statement of overriding consideration. The project is consistent with the
General Plan and as to these effects, no additional environmental document is required.
-CT 95-05/SDP 95-l 11. l’ ‘5-12 - EMERALD RIDGE EAST
JUNE 5,1996
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
AH.bk
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3936
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3937
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3938
Location Map
Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance dated May 3, 1996
Environmental Impact Assessment, Part II
Background Data Sheet
Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
Disclosure Form
Reduced Exhibits, dated June 5, 1996
Full size Exhibits “A” - “L”, dated June 5, 1996.
.
EMERALD RIDGE - EAST
CT 95=05/SDP 95-1 l/HDP 95-12
PUBLIC NOTICE OF PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
Please Take Notice:
The Planning Department has determined that the environmental effects of the project
described below have already been considered in conjunction with previously certified
environmental documents and, therefore, no additional environmental review will be
required and a notice of determination will be filed.
Project Title: EMERALD RIDGE EAST
Project Location: South of Palomar Airport Road, East of future Hidden Valley Road,
and North of Camino de las Ondas
Project Description: A tentative map for 60 standard single family residential lots
ranging in size from 7,630 to 36,876 square feet in area and three
open space lots, and a site development plan for 9 onsite second
dwelling units and one offsite affordable housing credit to satisfy
the project’s inclusionary housing requirement. Onsite and offsite
project improvements include local public streets, curbs, gutters,
sidewalks, and drainage facilities to serve the lots, the construction
of Hidden Valley Road between Camino de las Ondas and
Palomar Airport Road, and alignment of a trail segment along the
project’s northern boundary.
Justification for this determination is on file in the Planning Department, Community
Development, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within
thirty (30) days of date of publication.
DATED:
CASE NO:
* MAY 3, 1996 MICHAEL J. HOLZMtiER
Planning Director
CT.95-05/SDP 95-1 l/HDP 95-12
CASE NAME: EMERALD RIDGE EAST
PUBLISH DATE:
AH:bk
MAY 3, 1996
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (619) 438-1161. FAX (619) 438-0894 49
, .
. + -
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CT 95-05/SDP 95-ll/HDP 95-12
DATE: December 3, 1996
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Emerald Ridge East
2. APPLICANT: Ladwig Design Grout, Inc.
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 703 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 300,
Carlsbad. CA 92009, (619) 438-3182
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: October 3. 1995
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A tentative mau for 60 standard single familv residential lots ranging
in size from 7.630 to 36,876 square feet in area and three open space lots, and a site develooment
plan for 9 onsite second dwelling units and one offsite affordable housing credit to satisfv the
proiect’s inclusionarv housing requirement. Onsite and offsite proiect improvements include local
public streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and drainage facilities to serve the, lots. the construction of
Hidden Vallev Road between Camino de las Ondas and Palomar Airnort Road, and alignment of
a trail segment along the txoiect’s northern boundarv.
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.
3 Land Use and Planning 3 Transportation/Circulation _ Public Services
- Population and Housing 3 Biological Resources - Utilities and Service Systems
- Geological Problems _ Energy and Mineral Resources 3 Aesthetics
_ Water _ Hazards _ Cultural Resources
3 Air Quality 3 Noise _ Recreation
- Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 3/28/95
-
DETERMINATION.
- -
(To be completed by the Lead 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 NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. cl
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. q
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. q
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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed. q
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have
been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLAIWTION
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been
prepared. El
Planner Signature
;;/-s+56
Date
Planning DirectWSignat6ke
5$/%
Date ’
Rev. 3/28/95 9%
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an
Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a 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 Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant.
. Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the
environment, but &I 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 environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no
additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
. When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare
an EIR if the significant ‘effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations”
has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
. 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. 3t28/9?’
. 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 EIR 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 significant, or; (4)
through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a
potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a
potentially significant effect to below, a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form
under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to
discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
Rev. 3128195 ?A
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or
zoning? (Sources #l and 8:)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? (Sources #l and 8)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (Source #l and 2)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)? (Source # 2) x
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of
an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)? (Source #2) -
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (Source #l)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (Source #2)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (Source #2)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (Sources #2 and 3)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (Sources #2 and 3)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(Source #3)
x
x
x
-
-
-
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
5 Rev. 3/28/95 *
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
4
e)
9
k9
h)
9
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
(Source #3) x
Landslides or mudflows? (Source #3) x
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
Source #3)
Subsidence of the land? (Source #3)
x -
x
x Expansive soils? (Source #3)
Unique geologic or physical features? (Source
#3)
al
b)
Cl
4
e>
f)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
(Source #2)
Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? (Source #2)
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration
of surface water quality (e.g. temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (Source #2 )
Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? (Sources #2)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? (Source #l)
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability? (Sources #2
and 3)
x
x -
x
x
x
x
x
6 Rev. 3/28/95 s\o
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater? (Source #2 and 3)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (Source #2
and 3)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public
water supplies? (Source #l)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation?
(Source #l)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (
Source #l)
x
‘c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,
or cause any change in climate? (Source #l)
d) Create objectionable odors? (Sources #l and 2)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a)
b)
c)
d)
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
(Source #l)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
(Source #2)
Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? (Source #2)
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(Source #2)
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
x -
Less Than Significant
Impact
No
Impact
x
x
x
-
x
x
x
-
x
x
x
Rev. 3/28,1;\
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(Source #l and 2)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (Source #l and 2)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (Source
#l and 2)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants,
fish, insects, animals, and birds? (Sources #2
and 7)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
: (Sources #2 and 7)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g.
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Sources #2
and 7)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)? (Sources #2 and 7)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (
Sources #2 and 7)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would
the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? (Source #l)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (Source #l) ~
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
x
x
x
No
Impact
x
x
x
-
x
x
x
x
Rev. 3/28/95 f$
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value
to the region and the residents of the State?
(Source #l)
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?
(Source #l)
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
(Source #l)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? (Source #l)
cd) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? (Source #l)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees? (Source #2)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Sources #2
and 5)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
(Sources # 2 and 5) 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? (Sources #l and 2))
b) Police protection? (Source #l)
c) Schools? (Sources #l and 2)
x
x
x
x
x
x -
x
x
x
x
Rev. 3/28/95
ti
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? (Source #l)
e) Other governmental services? (Sources #l and 2)
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>
b)
Cl
d)
e>
f)
g)
Power or natural gas? (Source #i j
Communications systems? (Source #l)
Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities? (Sources #l and 2)
Sewer or septic tanks? (Sources #l and 2)
Storm water drainage? (Sources #l and 2)
Solid waste disposal? (Source #l)
Local or regional water supplies? (Sources #l
and 2)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
(Source #2)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect? (Source #2)
c) Create light or glare? (Source #l)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
(Source #2)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (Source #2) -
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
x
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
-
x
x
x
x
10 Rev. 3128195 ao
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
C)
d)
e>
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Affect historical resources? (Source #2) x
Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? (Source #2)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? (Source #2)
x
x
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
(Sources #l and 2 )
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
(Source #2)
x
x
11 Rev- 312g1g5 d
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
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.
a>
b)
4
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
x
x
x
EARLIER ANALYSES.
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.
Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis.
Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,“
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier
document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
12 Rev. 3128195 @ 1/
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Proiect Background and Environmental Setting:
The project is located south of Palomar Airport Road, east of future Hidden Valley Road, and north
of Camino de las Ondas in the City of Carlsbad. Canyon de las Encinas, an ephemeral stream, is
located along the property’s northern boundary and a small residential development is located along
the parcel’s northeastern boundary. Agricultural and undeveloped parcels surround the property to the
west, north and south. Earth materials encountered onsite include the Eocene age bedrock Santiago
Formation and surficial soils. The property rises in elevation from west to east approximately 100 feet
and from north to south approximately 200 feet.. The majority of the site consists of hillside
topography with 25% or less gradient. Steeper slopes exist along the parcel’s northern and southern
boundaries, and within two small east-west finger canyons. Although the majority of the property is
disturbed by past agricultural activities, the property supports two native habitat types: Diegan coastal
sage scrub and wetland vegetation. There is a drainage channel near the southern property boundary
which supports some upland plant species. Three sensitive bird species (turkey vulture, northern
harrier, and California gnatcatcher) were observed onsite during field surveys.
Vehicular access to the site would be provided by a local street leading from Hidden Valley Road, a
non-loaded collector street, which extends from Camino de las Ondas to Palomar Airport Road.
Although the project would be conditioned to improve Hidden Valley Road, the alignment of this
roadway from Palomar Airport Road to Camino de las Ondas has already been environmentally
reviewed and approved by two previous projects and rough grading of the roadway has occurred. The
previous projects are the City’s Poinsettia Community Park project (CUP 92-05) and the Sambi Vesting
Tentative Map (CT 92-02). Subsequent to the submittal of this project, the California Department of
Fish and Game, the California Coastal Commission, and the Army Corps of Engineers in a Section 7
Consultation with the USFWS have all issued permits or approvals for the construction of Hidden
Valley Road from Palomar Airport Road to the project’s southern boundary. The environmental
documents for these projects are on file in the Planning Department.
The project site is located within the boundaries of the Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP-203) which covers
the 640 acre Zone 20 Planning Area. The certified Final Program EIR 90-03 (PEIR) for SP 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 projects (i.e., tentative maps, site development plans, grading permits,
etc...) within the specific plan area. The applicable and recommended mitigation measures of Final
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 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. Through the aid of the required additional project
specific biological, soils/geological, noise, slope, and viewshed analyses performed for this project, no
additional significant environmental impacts beyond those identified by the Final EIR 90-03 have been
identified. Mitigation measures that are applicable to the project and already included in Final EIR
90-03 will therefore be added to the tentative map resolution.
13 Rev. 3/28/B ~~
In addition to the Final EIR for Specific Plan 203, the City has certified a Final Master Environmental
Impact Report (MEIR) for an update of the 1994 General Plan. The certified MEIR is on file in the
Planning Department. The MEIR serves as the basis of environmental review and impact mitigation
for projects that are subsequent to and consistent with the General Plan, including projects within the
Zone 20 Specific Plan area.
I. LAND USE
A. Zoning
A zone change from the RDM-Q (multiple family) zone to the R-1-7500-Q (one family) zone has been
approved by the City and is pending Coastal Commission approval for the subject property. Since the
property currently contains the Residential Medium (RM) density land use designation allowing 4-8
residential dwelling units/acre, the single family lots and product type proposed with this project at a
density of 3.05 dwelling units/acre and designed in accordance with the R-1-7500 zone standards are
consistent with the RM General Plan designation and the R-1-7500-Q zoning. Therefore, no
significant environmental impacts will result from the development of the single family project.
B. Mello II LCP
The project is also subject to the Mello II LCP segment of Carlsbad’s Local Coastal Program. Mello
II Policy 4-3 requires the preservation of slopes exceeding 25% grade which possess coastal sage scrub
habitat (dual criterion slopes). If the application of the policy would preclude any reasonable use of
the property, an encroachment not to exceed 10% of the steep slope area may be permitted. The site
contains two isolated finger canyons which contain “dual criterion” slopes and are approximately .5 acres
in area. While the project will preserve,the majority of both of these finger canyons (.47 acres) through
an open space easement, minimal disturbance will result due to grading .03 acres for the purpose of
creating reasonable building pads on lots adjacent to these canyons. This 2% disturbance represents
less than 10% of the 1.47 total acres of dual criterion slopes. Development of the site requires the
preservation in open space of approximately 7.063 acres along the northern and southern property
boundaries, or 26% of the 27.4 acre site, as mitigation for biological, noise, and visual impacts.
Development of the site is thereby limited to the central portions where the two isolated finger canyons
are located. The City’s Hillside Development Ordinance further restricts development of the parcel
through grading regulations which require grading to be consistent with existing hillside topography.
The application of the above numerous development restrictions results in a project density of 3.05
dwelling units per acre which is well below the maximum of 8 dwelling units per acre allowed by
General Plan. The minor .03 acre encroachment into dual criterion slopes is therefore necessary to
allow a reasonable use of the property without further reducing the project density.
Mello II Policy 4-3 also provides for the preservation of all 25% slopes unless:
1. the findings of a soils investigation determine that the slopes areas are stable and any
corrective grading necessary for the project will be completed;
2. .grading is essential to the development design and intent;
3. slope disturbance will not result in substantial damage or alteration to major wildlife habitat
or native vegetation areas;
4. no more than one third of the area (> 10 acres) shall be subject to major grade changes;
5. north facing slopes shall be preserved.
Rev. 3/28/95 (9 \
The above findings can be made for the project which contains approximately 6.8 acres of 25%+
slopes. A geotechnical analysis has been prepared for the project by GeoSoils, Inc. The conclusion
of the report is 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 viewpoint. The recommendations presented . . ..should be incorporated into the
final design, grading, and construction phasing of development.” The project will be conditioned to
comply with the recommendations of this report thereby ensuring stable earth conditions for the life
of the project. Since the west-facing hillside parcel consists of gentle to steep slopes which have been
disced for agricultural use, it is necessary to grade a portion of the 25% slopes to create a terraced
grading design for the single family lot subdivision, however, slopes exceeding 40% grade are almost
entirely avoided. The proposed grading design results in disturbance to less than 25% of the steep
slopes and will preserve north facing slopes along the northern project boundary. The project will avoid
major wildlife habitat or native vegetation areas existing along the northern and southern property
boundaries since these areas will be preserved through an open space easement.
Hydrology standards of the Mello II segment of Carlsbad’s LCP require that post development surface
run-off from a lo-year/6 hour storm even must carry any increased velocity at the property line.
Drainage from the project will be provided through storm drains beneath Hidden Valley Road which
will flow into a drainage course located adjacent to the west of this roadway. In accordance with the
provisions of the PEIR, energy dissipation facilities (i.e. rip-rap) has been provided along the drainage
course in addition to a permanent regional basin west of future Hidden Valley Road, adjacent to
Encinas Creek at the 67 foot elevation.
D. Agriculture
The site is located in the Coastal Agricultural Overlay Zone (Site II) of the Mello II segment of
Carlsbad’s Local Coastal Program. Section 3.0 of Final EIR 90-03 evaluated impacts created by the
conversion of agricultural land use to urban land use in the overlay zone. The PEIR concluded that
the cumulative loss of agricultural land could be offset with the mitigation measures established and
required by the Mello II segment of the LCP; therefore, the tentative map will be conditioned to
require the payment of an agricultural mitigation fee prior to approval of a final map.
As detailed by the PEIR, Zone 20 is comprised of agricultural uses which are typically incompatible
with residential uses due to physical and operational characteristics such as tilling and
pesticide/herbicide spraying. The Emerald Ridge East tentative map will be conditioned to include
the applicable mitigation measures required by the PEIR to reduce impacts to agricultural resources.
Since the project is buffered by open space along the northern and southern boundaries, Hidden Valley
Road along the western boundary, and landscaped slopes along the eastern boundary, the required 25’
wide open space easement between open field agricultural operations and onsite developable areas is
incorporated into the project. PEIR mitigation requiring the notification of to all future residential
land owners that this area is subject to dust, pesticide, and odors associated with adjacent agricultural
operation and the provision of temporary road connections to maintain continued access to adjacent
agricultural properties will be conditions of map approval.
15 Rev. 3128195 tP
-
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING
B. Growth Inducing
As specified by the Zone 20 PEIR, the development of projects including transportation routes, public
services, and land uses within the Zone 20 Planning Area is not growth inducing since the area has been
previously planned and designed for residential development by the City’s General Plan, Growth
Management Program, and Zone 20 LFMP. Although the project will be conditioned to construct
Hidden Valley Road, it is a planned north-south collector already approved to provide access to
projects located to the south within Zone 20. Development already exists or has been approved to the
south, north, west and east; therefore, urbanization of the area is inevitable.
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS
Consistent with the Zone 20 PEIR, These recommendations will be incorporated as project conditions
in accordance with the PEIR.
IV. WATER QUALITY
As anticipated by the water quality discussion in Section 5.2 of the Master EIR (MEIR) 93-01 and the
Zone 20 Program EIR (PEIR), sedimentation impacts to Encinas Creek due to the creation of
impervious surfaces onsite, the reduction of absorption rates, and an increase in surface runoff and
runoff velocities would result without mitigation. As required by the PEIR, previously approved
projects were required to install energy dissipation facilities (i.e. rip-rap) along the drainage course in
addition to a permanent regional basin located within the drainage course approximately 250’ south of
Encinas Creek. The remaining appropriate PEIR and MEIR mitigation measures which include
requirements for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and consistency
with the City’s Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan will be added to the
project as conditions of approval.
V. AIR OUALITY
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994
General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled.
These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases,
oxides of nitrogen and 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
16 Rev. 3128195 (J@
mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as
conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within
a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant
Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not
required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246,
included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air quality impacts. This “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Final
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts
is required. This document is available at the Planning Department.
VI. CIRCULATION
The project would increase local traffic-in the area, however, a Traffic Study prepared for the project
by WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. dated September 13, 1995, and a Traffic Impact Analysis conducted
as part of the Zone 20 Specific Plan indicates that compliance with the circulation mitigation of the
Zone 20 Specific Plan PEIR and the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 20 would mitigate
any significant local traffic impacts (Section 3.5, Page 111-58, Final EIR 90-03). The project will
therefore be conditioned to construct and/or improve all roadways necessary for or impacted by this
development. These include Hidden Valley Road from Camino de las Ondas to Palomar Airport
Road including a traffic signal at the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and all internal streets to
City standards.
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994
General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to
accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by
regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all
freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the
implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City’s
adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize 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 incorporated into the design of the
project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of
intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the “Initial
Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General
Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final
Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding
17 Rev. 3/28/95 d
Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all
subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no
further environmental review of circulation impacts is required.
VII. BIOLOGY
The Biology Section (3.4) of the Zone 20 Specific Plan PEIR provides baseline data at a gross scale
due to the large size of the specific plan area. Given the large number of property owners and their
differing development horizons and the inevitable change in biological conditions over the long-term
buildout of the area, it is not possible to mitigate biological impacts from the buildout of the entire
specific plan under one comprehensive open space easement that crosses property lines or a habitat
revegetation/enhancement plan sponsored solely by the property owners. The implementation of the
biological section of the EIR is based on future site specific biological survey studies that focus on the
impacts created by individual subsequent development projects. These additional biological studies are
required to consider the baseline data and biological open space recommendations of the PEIR and
provide more detailed and current resource’surveys plotted at the tentative map scale for each property.
The range of future mitigation options specified by the PEIR 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.
To satisfy these PEIR mitigation requirements, a biological field survey was prepared for the project
by Brian F. Mooney, Associates, dated September, 1995. This subsequent biological study provides
more focused, current, and detailed project level analysis of site specific biological impacts and provides
more refined project level mitigation measures as required by the Zone 20 PEIR. The property was
surveyed and three sensitive bird species (turkey vulture, northern harrier, and California gnatcatcher)
were observed onsite in the southern portion of the site during the field surveys in an area containing
.97 acres of mid to high quality coastal sage scrub. This area is proposed to be dedicated in open space.
The biological report indicates that a total of .64 acres of sage scrub would be impacted by the project
which represents a significant environmental impact without mitigation.. In accordance with the PEIR
biological mitigation requirements, the tentative map will be conditioned as follows:
1. .83 acres of coastal sage scrub within an 1.78 acre area will be preserved by open space
easement in substantial conformance with the PEIR biological mitigation map (Figure 3.4-3);
2. a total of .14 acres of sage scrub habitat, which will be disturbed along the northern edge of
the open space easement for the purpose of providing a 60’ fire suppression buffer between
the natural vegetation and single family units, will be mitigated through the purchase of .28
acres of equal quality habitat to be preserved in an offsite habitat mitigation bank;
3. .5 acres of unoccupied and isolated CSS habitat located within two small finger canyons
generally identified by the PEIR and specifically by the Mooney biological study, which
although not directly disturbed will be indirectly impacted due to the proposed development,
will be mitigated through the purchase of .5 acres of equal quality habitat to be preserved in
. an. offsite habitat mitigation bank; and,
4. possible construction noise impacts to breeding gnatcatchers and other potential bird species
will be avoided by prohibiting heavy construction adjacent to CSS habitat during the breeding
season (March 1 to July 31).
18 Rev. 3/2819S lb3
NCCP/HMP. 4D RULE
The project is not located within any of the Preserve Planning Areas defined by the City’s draft Habitat
Management Plan (HMP) dated July, 1994, Although disturbance to .64 acres of coastal sage scrub
will result from implementation of the project, it will not preclude connectivity between PPA’s nor
preclude the preservation of CSS habitat. Moreover, this project provides mitigation in the form of
offsite preservation because it will result in the purchase for preservation .78 acres of habitat in an
offsite habitat mitigation bank.
Since completion of a subregional NCCP/HMP, has not occurred, prior to the issuance of a grading
permit, the City may have to authorize this project to draw from the City’s 167.5 acres (5%) CSS take
allowance (4d rule) to ensure that the project does not preclude the City’s draft HMP. The take of .64
acres of CSS habitat will not exceed the 5% allowance, nor jeopardize the HMP since it is located
outside the HMP preserve planning areas (PPA) and/or linkage planning areas (LPA), 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 PPA’s. Since mitigation for the habitat loss will result
in the preservation of equal or better habitat in an offsite location, the project will not appreciably
reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the gnatcatcher. The habitat loss is incidental to
otherwise lawful activities. The development of the Emerald Ridge East property is a legal
development which is consistent with the City’s General Plan and all required permits will be obtained.
X. NOISE
Section 3.8 of the Zone 20 PEIR evaluated potential noise impacts for future projects located in the
Specific Plan area 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 dBA CNEL airport and Palomar
Airport Road noise contours, therefore, noise from existing Palomar Airport Road and the airport
would create a potential impact on the homes in this project. In the Comprehensive Airport Land Use
Plan, residential development is considered conditionally compatible within the 60 to 65 CNEL contour
area. A Noise Study was prepared for the project by Pacific Noise Control dated September 26,1995.
Noise levels on the project site are projected to be significant since they exceed the City’s 60 CNEL
noise standard on Lots 8,9, and 26 due to future noise generated by traffic on Palomar Airport Road.
Therefore, in accordance with the Zone 20 PEIR mitigation requirements, the tentative map will be
conditioned to comply with the noise study recommendations requiring the construction of a 5’ high
masonry noise barrier wall at the top of slope on Lots 8, 9, and 26 to attenuate the exterior noise level
to 60 dBA CNEL or less, the provision of interior noise mitigation, if necessary, and legal notification
to future homeowners of potential airport noise impacts.
XI and XII. PUBLIC FACILITIES
The project is located within the Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Zone. Public facilities and
financing have been accounted for in the Zone 20 LFM Plan to accommodate the residential
development. The residential land use would be consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
project svould not significantly impact the provision of public facilities. 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 111-112, Zone 20 PEIR).
19 Rev. 3/28/95 6
XIII. VISUAL AESTHETICS
Section 3.13 of the Zone 20 PEIR analyzed potential visual impacts created by development within the
Specific Plan area. It was determined that visual impacts to the Palomar Airport Road Viewshed
(Vantage Points 7 and 8, Figure 3.16-6) could be potentially significant. To reduce these potential
impacts to below a level of significance, the PEIR mitigation measures include additional visual analysis,
landform-contour grading and landscaping, and compliance with visual design guidelines.
The Emerald Ridge East project includes a hillside development permit application (HDP 95-12) which
requires compliance with hillside architectural and grading standards. The project is in compliance with
these standards which are consistent with the PEIR mitigation requiring landform grading and
contouring. Additional visual analysis performed by the applicant has identified that units will be visible
from the Palomar Airport Road viewshed and future structures will therefore require compliance with
the PEIR visual design guidelines including combination of one and two story homes, a variety of roof
heights and roof massing, a variety of earth tone roof and wall materials and colors, and enhanced
fenestration. The proposed project is a residential lot subdivision, and at this point in time, no
residential structures are being proposed. Due to the visual sensitivity of the site from Palomar Airport
Road and its location adjacent to a future public park, the property’s zoning contains the Qualified
Overlay (Q) Zone. The Q-Overlay zone requires approval of a site development plan, including
architectural elevations. Therefore, to avoid visual impacts , the tentative map will be conditioned
to require that prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant must amend the site development
plan by submitting architectural elevations for Planning Commission approval which ensure that future
structures are consistent with the PEIR visual design guidelines and hillside architectural guidelines.
SOURCES
1. MEIR - 1994 General Plan Update of the Carlsbad General Plan.
2. Final EIR 90-03 - Zone 20 Specific Plan.
3. Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment prepared by GeoSoils, Inc., dated September 6, 1994, and
supplemental letter dated December 6, 1995.
4. Preliminary Pesticide Residue Survey prepared by GeoSoils, Inc. dated July 25, 1994.
5. Pacific Noise Control, Noise Assessment, dated September 26, 1995.
6. WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc., Traffic Study for Emerald Ridge East, dated September 13,1995.
7. Biological Survey and Report for Emerald Ridge East prepared by Brian F. Mooney, Associates
dated September, 1995.
8. Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum for Mar Vista (ZC 94-04/CI’ 94-
ll/HDP 94-09/SDP 94-lO/LCPA 94-04) dated October 3, 1995.
20 Rev. 3/28/95 ”
a L
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
N/A
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE\
N/A
21 Rev. 3/28/95”
c-
.
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
22 7% Rev. 3/28/95
L. BACKGROUND DATA SHEET -
CASE NO: CT 9505/SDP 95-l l/I-IDP 95-12
CASE NAME: EMERALD RIDGE EAST
APPLICANT: LADWIG DESIGN GROUP, INC.
BEQUEST AND LOCATION: Reouest for annroval of a Site Develonment Plan and recommendation of
approval for a Tentative Man, and Hillside Develonment Permit. to: (1) subdivide the property into 60 single-
family lots and 3 onen snace lots: (2) create a 28.9 acre remainder uarcel; (3) nrovide 9 future second-dwelling
units; and (4) deed restrict one three bedroom home to be affordable or uurchase one Affordable Housing
Credit in Villa Loma: all on property generally located east of future Hidden Valley Road, north of Camino de
las Ondas, and south of Palomar Airnort Road, within the Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP-203) and Local Facilities
Management Zone 20.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: All that certain parcel of land delineated and designated as “Descrintion No.
1.103.91 Acres” on Record of Survey Map No. 5715. filed in the Offke of the County Recorder of San DiePo
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. Exceuting therefrom
that portion lying within Parcels “A”. “B”, “C” and “D” of Parcel No. 2993 in the City of Carlsbad, Countv of
San Diego. State of California, tiled in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August 23,
1974 as File No. 74-230326 .of Offkial Records.
APN: 212-040-32.36 Acres 56.3 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 60/69
(Assessor’s Parcel Number)
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation RM Density Allowed 6 Density Proposed 3.05
Existing Zone R-l-O Proposed Zone
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad’s Zoning Requirements)
Zoning Land Use
Site R-1-7500-Q Vacant
North PM Vacant
South RDM-Q Vacant
East R-l-10-Q Sudan Int Mission
West R- 1-7500-Q Hidden Valley Road
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District CUSD Water District CMWD
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity) 69
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated October 3. 1995
Sewer District Carlsbad
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
_ Negative Declaration, issued
_ Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
Other, Prior Environmental Comnliance, dated May 3. 1996
1.
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 9505/SDP 95-1 l/HDP 95-12 - EMERALD RIDGE EAST
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 20 GENERAL PLAN: RM
ZONING: R- 1-7500-O
DEVELOPER’S NAME: MSP California LLC
ADDRESS: 650 Cherrv Street, Suite 435, Denver, CO 80222
PHONE NO.: (303) 399-9804 ASSESSORS PARCEL NO.: 212-040-32,-36
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 27.4 ACRES/ 69 DU
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: UNKNOWN
City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 239.9 sq. ft.
Library: Demand in Square Footage = 127.9 sa. ft.
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) 69 EDU
Park: Demand in Acreage = .48 acres
Drainage: Demand in CFS =
Identify Drainage Basin = Basin No. 3
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: Demand in ADT = 660 ADT
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = Station No. 4
Open Space: Acreage Provided - 7.063 acres
Schools: CUSD
(Demands to be determined by staff)
Sewer: Demand in EDU - 69 EDU
Identify Sub Basin - Basin No. 3
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
Water: Demand in GPD - 15.180 GPD
The project is 66.36 units below the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT I
APPUCANl-S STATEMEHT OF DlSCLOSUFlE OF CEKTALN CMMERSHIP INTERESTS ON AU APPIJCATIONS WI-UCH WIU REQUIRE / DiSCRlTlOtURY ACTlON ON THE PART OF ME CVY COUNCIL OR ANY APPOINTED BOARD, CoMhASSlON OR COMMllTEE.
! I (Plea80 Printj
The following information must be disclosed:
1. ArMcant
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
MSP CALIFORNIA, L.L.C.
Marcus S. Palkowitsh David M. Bentley
650 South Cherrv Street. Suite 435 . . 3571 ~1.w Dr-iVP. 8111 tp 33 1 Denver, Colorado 80222 Tucson, Arizona 85718
2. Owner
List the naries and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. 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, Suite 221
Denver, Colorado 80222 Tucson. Arizona 85718
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names and addresses
of all individuals owning more than 1096 of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the
partnership.
4. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profM organization or a trust, list the names and
addresses of any person serving as ofRcer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of
the trust.
FRMOOOI 12/91
2075 Las Palmas Drive l Carlsbad, California 92009-l 576 l (619) 436-l 161
Dlsclosufe Statement Page 2
5. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards,
Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes - No g If yes, please indicate person(s)
Pmon is dofined u: ‘Any individual. firm. coputrwshlp, joint venture. -idon. odd club, fahtnal orgukatkm, carporation. oats& trwt. rocoive ,
IryndicUa this and any other county, city and county, city municipaltty, di or o&r politkal rubdlvioh, 01 any othw group of combination acting U
unrt’ i
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.)
, _,j. ‘7 i j;i2[ d.-~x2-- qH24;7--ilT
re of Owner/date - S66ature of applicant/date
. Marcus S. Pa&w1 tsh
Print or type name of owner
rlls s- P-1 tnh
Print or type name of applicant
.
TM0001 12f91
ATTACHMENT 10
JUNE 5, 1996
I I I 1 I 1 I
: I , I 1 I I
: I I , I , I
WY I 0
w
LL
1: 'E 2 + -I 2 0 e I z 4
St&: ii li .i I Y CA,
.$~~~~~~~~rao.~~~~~
-8 ‘\ 8’ AlMdGHd
S\ ‘3-i-i MNl3G3l-W3 dSW
3
ALMdGl3d ‘5-l-l b7fWGWY3 dSYV
2 133HS 33s
._
k
i f c I 2
EJa
f3 il
/-&ii ti
5
I- cn
a
Ill
Ill
r
:I. . . . . .
L
l-P -
k a I z i I i
I I a f ! i
i-tTm+d b
T-- l------
‘p I r: ; i
1
-- --_
f 1 $1
!
r;--- LA-* L I /
-
YIB-au .1*-d - .,*wA : 5 a! .0.*13IML- an6Dv-u-B*AI~M Jsw~s7n-~m WLvlral zz-- 8-m*“r-m .-l-9 i-;, f: 4 :w Y,ISIB W”U13N03 . rlh
. h. § 11 1
a; 4 iFib 4 i.
c . Y .L ; ; .
- EXHIBIT 5
2. CT 9505/SDP 95-1 l/HDP 95-12 - EMERALD RIDGE EAST - Request for approval of a Site
Development Plan and recommendation of approval for a Tentative Map, and Hillside Development
Permit, to: (1) subdivide the property into 60 single-family lots and 3 open space lots; (2) create a
28.9 acre remainder parcel; (3) provide 9 future second-dwelling units; and (4) deed restrict one
three bedroom home to be affordable or purchase one Affordable Housing credit in Villa Loma; all
on property generally located east of future Hidden Valley Road, north of Camino de las Ondas, and
south of Palomar Airport Road, within the Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP-203) and Local Facilities
Management Zone 20.
Chairman Compas advised the applicant that he/she has the right to be heard before a full Commission.
Bob Ladwig, Ladwig Design Group, 703 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 300, Carlsbad, representing the
applicant, replied that he wished to be heard tonight.
Chairman Compas announced to the applicant and public that this item, if approved, will be forwarded to
the City Council for their consideration.
Anne Hysong, Associate Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the project
consists of the subdivision of a 56.3 acre parcel located in the Zone 20 Specific Plan, southwest quadrant.
The parcel is designated by the General Plan for residential-medium density development and is zoned
R-l-7500(Q). The site is located in the northwestern segment of the Zone 20 Specific Plan, north of
Poinsettia Park, south of Palomar Airport Road, and between the recently graded Hidden Valley Road
alignment and the Sudan Interior Mission. The site is a currently vacant and previously cultivated hillside
parcel which rises in elevation from west to east approximately 100 ft.
Ms. Hysong showed slides of the site and the recent grading which has taken place. She stated that the site
rises from north to south approximately 200 ft. The majority of the site consists of slopes of less than 25O/6
gradient, with steeper slopes existing along the northern and western boundaries, and within two small,
centrally located finger canyons. The proposed project consists of 60 standard single family residential lots,
MINUTES fl
PtANNING COMMISSION June 5, 1996
nine second dwelling units, and the reservation of one 3-bedroom unit on site to satisfy the project’s
inclusionaty housing requirement, 3 open space lots, and terraced hillside grading. The applicant is
requesting a recommendation of approval for a Tentative Tract Map and a Hillside Development Permit and
approval of a Site Development Plan for the nine affordable second dwelling units. The project is subject to
and is consistent with the relevant general plan policies, the Zone 20 Specific Plan requirements for land
use, open space preservation, public facilities and aesthetics, the Mello II LCP land use policies and
implementing ordinances, the provisions of the R-l single family zone, the inclusionary and affordable
housing ordinances, and the hillside development, growth management, and subdivision ordinances, as well
as the draft Habitat Management Plan.
MS. Hysong stated that the proposed nine affordable second dwelling units are consistent with the Second
Dwelling Unit Ordinance in that they do not exceed 640 s.f., a parking space would be provided for each
unit within a 3-car garage, and each unit would have a separate entrance. The units would be compatible
with the surrounding single family units in that they would be integrated into the design of the market rate
units and they are disbursed throughout the subdivision. The applicant is requesting approval to pursue the
following affordable housing options if the provision of the 3-bedroom unit or all of the units on site are
determined to be infeasible: (1) construct nine units on site and purchase one 3-bedroom credit in Villa
Loma, or (2) purchase credits for some or all of the inclusionary requirement in Villa Loma. Compliance
with either of these options would require compliance with City Council policies #I57 and #58 and City
Council approval.
Ms. Hysong stated that the project is consistent with all of Zone 20’s Specific Plan requirements, including
consistency with the architectural visual design guidelines. Since no structures are proposed at this time,
the project is required to receive Planning Commission approval of a site development plan at the time
units are proposed, which would be prior to building permit issuance. The project is consistent with the
specific plan provisions for open space preservation in that Lot 62, located along the projects southern
boundary, is.proposed for and dedicated as open space. A segment of the Citywide trail located along the
project’s northern boundary, adjacent to Encinas Creek, will also be offered for dedication. The project is
also conditioned to construct Hidden Valley Road along the project’s frontage and north to Palomar Airport
Road.
Ms. Hysong stated that the project is subject to and consistent with the Hillside Development Ordinance in
that on site 40°h slopes are preserved and manufactured slope heights meet the 30 ft. standard except at
one location where the slope rises to 38 ft. in height, due to topographic and environmental site restraints.
This modification is therefore justified. On site grading is minimized to the potentially acceptable range and
compliance with the hillside architectural guidelines will be ensured through an amendment to the hillside
permit which is required as a condition of approval. This would occur at the time structures are proposed.
Ms. Hysong stated that the Zone 20 program EIR analyzed significant environmental impacts resulting
from the development of the Zone 20 properties and required mitigation measures to reduce those impacts.
Since no additional significant impacts were identified for the project, the Planning Director has issued a
notice of prior environmental compliance. The project therefore includes the following mitigation measures
required by the Zone 20 EIR as conditions of project approval:
l Preservation of .83 acres of coastal sage habitat on site within open space Lot 62.
w Purchase of credits off site for .78 acres of coastal sage habitat.
l Payment of agricultural mitigation fees.
l Dedication of the trail easement.
l Noise barrier walls to reduce noise impacts from Palomar Airport Road for units along the northern
portion of the site.
l Notices to future residents of potential airport and road noise impacts.
l Buffers to separate the agricultural and residential uses, if applicable.
MINUTES 56
PLANNING COMMISSION June 5,1996
l Compliance with visual design guidelines to reduce visual impacts. (These units will be visible from
Palomar Airport Road.)
l Notices to future residents of the potential for agricultural operation impacts.
Since the findings for the various permits can be made, staff recommends approval of the resolutions and
the errata sheet containing minor housekeeping items.
Commissioner Welshons referred to Resolution No. 3936, page 16, Condition #50 and inquired if
construction of trail improvements must be completed prior to occupancy. Ms. Hysong replied yes and that
Condition #50 will be corrected by deleting the words “of” and “the” before the parenthesis.
Commissioner Welshons inquired about Condition #52. Ms. Hysong replied that it should read “30 days”
and staff will make that correction as well.
Commissioner Welshons stated that she doesn’t see a condition relating to recreational vehicles, even
though the resolution refers to it. Ms. Hysong replied that 25O/6 is a standard requirement of the R-l zone.
When this project wmes back with a site development plan, the applicant will be required to show which
lots will satisfy this requirement. This is a standard required by the R-l zoning ordinance.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired about the inclusion on the errata sheet regarding the purchase of off site
credits. This is the first he has heard of it. Ms. Hysong replied that this was added at the request of
Commissioner Welshons.
Commissioner Welshons explained that a statement in the staff report was not consistent with the findings
so she inquired about it. This is merely a housekeeping item.
Commissioner Savary requested staff to show her the access to the two panhandle lots (Lots 44 and 45).
Ms. Hysong pointed out the access on the wall diagram and stated that the lots share a driveway.
Commissioner Savary inquired if buyers will know about the shared driveway before they purchase the lots.
Ms. Hysong repl,ied yes.
Commissioner Welshons requested staff to explain the street widths in the project. Mr. Wojcik reviewed the
various street widths using the wall diagram.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if it is too early to project how much guest parking will be available on the
street. Mr. Wojcik replied that he does not foresee a problem with guest parking, and that there should be
sufficient guest spaces available on the street.
Commissioner Noble inquired how far this project goes along Hidden Valley Road. Ms. Hysong replied that
it goes from the project’s southern boundary to Palomar Airport Road.
Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, recommended two modifications to Resolution No. 3936, as
follows:
Add a final sentence to Condition #36 which reads, “The fee shall be paid prior to final map or
issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first.”
Revise Line 24 of Condition #52 to read, ” . ..three-bedroom home as appropriate, as affordable to
lower income households for the useful life of the dwelling unit pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code
Section 21.10(015) and in accordance with the requirements...” and on Line 26, add the word “days”
after (30).
MINUTES L&\
PLANNING COMMISSION June 5,1996 Page 5
Chairman Compas inquired if these changes have been discussed with the applicant. Mr. Wayne replied
that the correction to Condition #36 was not, because it is procedural.
Chairman Compas invited the applicant to speak.
Bob Ladwig, Ladwig Design Group, 703 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 300, Cartsbad, addressed the
Commission and stated that he agrees with the changes on the errata sheet dated June 5,1996 and
Conditions #36 and #52 as read into the record by the Assistant Planning Director. He stated that RV
parking is included in the Zone 20 Specific Plan as well as the ordinance, so it cannot be missed. Mr.
Ladwig stated that he is very happy that access to the panhandle lots worked out so nicely because the lots
are located on higher ground and there was less grading required. Separation between other lots is also
greater. Mr. Ladwig stated that he has read the staff report and agrees with the contents. He requested the
Commission’s approval.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired if the applicant plans to build affordable housing on site. Mr. Ladwig replied
that that is the current plan. Their first option would be to build second dwelling units.
Chairman Compas opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak.
There being no other 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.
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Nielsen, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution No. 3937 approving SDP 95-l 1 and adopt Planning Commission
Resolutions No. 3936 and 3938 recommending approval of CT 95-05 and HDP 95-12,
based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, including the
errata sheet dated June 5,1996 and the added wording to Conditions No. 36 and No. .
52 of Resolution No. 3936, as read into the record by Assistant Planning Director
Wayne.
VOTE: 6-O
AYES: Compas, Heineman, Nielsen, Noble, Savary, Welshons
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
NJG-06-96 TUE 15: 14 gTY OF CARLSBAD COMM DE
.
DATE:
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
WRJECT:
MEMORANDUM
AUGUST 6,1996
CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER
PLANNING DIRECTOR
FAX NO. 4?,90894 P, 02
EMERALD RIDGE PAST - CT 954WHDP 95-12
Subsequent to the JUIX 5,199G Planning Commission public hearing for the Emerald Ridge East
subdivision, the City Council approved the following revised “trails” condition to be applied to
kture projects showing citywide public traiI easements within their boundaries:
St&f is therefore mmumending that the following coadition be added to City Council
Resolution 96-271.
1. Condition No; 50 of Plaukg Cwnxnission Resolution No. 3936 is
superseded by the following:
Prior to approval of the final map, the Developer shall provide an irrevocable
offer of dedication to the City of C&bad for a trail easement for a trail shown
on the tentative rnae within Open Space Lot 61. If the City of C&bad accepts
dedication of the trail easement, the trail shall be constructed as a pubic rruif and
will be the maintenance and liability responsibility of the City of Carlsbad. If the
City of C&k?ZId does not accept dedication of the trail easement, the trail shall
still be constructed but it shall be constructed as a private trail and shall be the
maintenance and liability responsibility of the Homeowners Association.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CT 95-5/HDP 95-12 - EMERALD RIDGE EAST
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, August 6, 1996, to consider an application for a
Tentative Map and a Hillside Development Permit to: (1) subdivide property into 60 single-family lots and 3 open space lots; (2) create a 28.9 acre remainder parcel; (3) provide 9 future second-dwelling units; and (4) deed
restrict one three bedroom home to be affordable, or purchase one Affordable Housing Credit in the Villa Loma project; on property generally located east of future Hidden Valley Road, north of Camino de las Ondas, and south of Palomar Airport Road, within the Zone 20 Specific Plan, (SP-
203), and Local Facilities Management Zone 20, and more particularly described as:
All that certain parcel of land delineated and designated as "Description No. 1,103.91 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 San Diego County
Recorder, November 16, 1896, a portion of which lies within the City of Carlsbad, 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 San Diego County Recorder, August 23, 1974, as File No.74-230326 of Official Records.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Ann Hysong in the Planning Department, at (619) 438-1161, ext. 4477.
If you challenge the Tentative Tract Map 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 map, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short.
APPLICANT: MSP CALIFORNIA, L.L.C. PUBLISH: July 26, 1996
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
EMERALD RIDGE - EAST
CT 95005/SDP 95-1 l/HDP 95-I 2
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, California 92008-l 989
Dr. George W. Mannon, 'cqj
' Superintendent of Schools
Carlsbad Unified School Dist.
801 Pine Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
ANNE HYSONG PLANNING DEPARTMENT GUY S, MOORE GEORGE BOLTON 6503 EL CAMINO REAL 6519 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
THOMAS AND JANET MASS
2851 TORRY COURT LADWIG DESIGN GROUP FLEN YAMAMOTO
CARLSBAD CA 92009 703 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD STE300 1201 VIA LA JOLLA CARLSBAD CA 92009 SAN CLEMENTE CA 92672
CHRISTA MCREYNOLDS CARLTAS ASSOCIATES RICHARD & ROBERT KELLY
2316 CALLE CHIQUITA 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS 2770 SUNNY CREEK ROAD
LA JOLLA CA 92037 SUITE 100 CARLSBAD CA 92008
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JAMES UKEGAWA JAMES UKEGAWA PACWEST LTD
6145 LAUREL TREE ROAD 4218 SKYLINE ROAD 550 WEST C STREET
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92008 SUITE 1750
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
SIM USA INC CARLTAS COMPANY SAMBI SEASIDE HEIGHTS LLC
1400 FLAME TREE LANE 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS 8649 FIRESTONE BLVD
CARLSBAD CA 92009 SUITE 100 DOWNEY CA 90241
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MSP CALIFORNIA
650 SOUTH CHERRY STREET
SUITE 435
DENVER CO 80222
\ I
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad
Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 5, 1996, to consider a request for
approval of a Site Development Plan and recommendation of approval for a Tentative Map, and Hillside
Development Permit, to: (1) subdivide the property into 60 single-family lots and 3 open space lots; (2)
create a 28.9 acre remainder parcel; (3) provide 9 titure second-dwelling units; and (4) deed restrict one
three bedroom home to be affordable or purchase one Affordable Housing Credit in Villa Loma; all on
property generally located east of future Hidden Valley Road, north of Camino de las Ondas, and south
of Palomar Airport Road, within the Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP-203) and Local Facilities Management
Zone 20 and more particularly described as:
All that certain parcel of land delineated and designated as “Description No.
1,103.91 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.
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 May 30, 1996. If you have any questions, please call
Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at (6 19) 43 8- 116 1, extension 4477.
The time within which you may judicially challenge this Tentative Map, Site Development Plan and/or
Hillside Development Permit, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very
short. 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:
CASE NAME:
CT 95-OS/SDk& l/HDP 95-12
,A \
EMERALD RIDGE EAST
PUBLISH: MAY 24,1996
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
AH:kr
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (619) 438-1161 l FAX (619) 438-0894