HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-08-06; City Council; 13763; Aviara Phase III Revision. - C II
El B B %
R \ \ 2 . . E 2 e f 8
1 CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGEdDA BILL
AB# /3/ 3,‘$3 a:
AVIARA PHASE III REVISION CT 92-03(A)
MTG. 8/6/96
DEPT. PLN
@ ClTYAlTY. *
CITY MGR
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That Council ADOPT Resolution No. 96 -2 7.3 APPROVING the Tentative Tract Map
Revision for the Aviara Phase III development, allowing Cassia Road to be used as a
secondary access route.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On June 19, 1996, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and recommended
approval with a 7-O vote of a tentative tract map revision to the Aviara Phase III subdivision.
The revision would change the secondary access route from the existing route along Poinsettia
Lane and Black Rail Court (to the west) to Cassia Road (to the east). As shown on the
attached location map, the easterly route would be shorter and would use existing roadways
and subdivision dedications. The option for the revision’came about when Cassia Road was
connected to Poinsettia Lane by way of the Poinsettia Hill (Spires) subdivision. Since this
connection occurred after approval of the Aviara Phase Ill tentative map, a revision is
necessary to effectuate the change.
Thze was public testimony from several residents and property owners along the future Black
Rail Court in Zone 20. Their concern centered around replacing the existing dirt access routes
(i.e. La Costa Boulevard and Black Rail Court) with a paved access. While staff and the
Planning Commission empathized with the resident’s desire to gain paved access, the
secondary access requirement is only to satisfy the City’s cul-de-sac standard. The secondary
access requirement is not intended to enhance local circulation beyond that needed for
passage of emergency vehicles in an emergency. Had the Cassia Road connection been
available at the time of the Aviara Phase III public hearing, staff would have recommended the
eastward route for secondary access because it offers a functional and proportional solution to
the issue of secondary access.
FISCAL IMPACT:
All improvement costs for the primary and secondary access routes will be provided by the
developer, Aviara Land Associates, The secondary access routes will not be fully improved
and, at some later date, the property owners with street frontage will need to complete
improvements. No City funds are necessary to complete the primary and secondary access
routes, therefore the proposed amendment has no fiscal impact.
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Resolution No. 9b M$!?3
2. Location Map
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3947
4. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated June 19, 1996
5. Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes, dated June 19, 1996. 5. Aviara Phase III Graphic Illustrating proposed change.
\
r’
F .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
,
RESOLUTION NO. 96-273
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP REVISION FOR AVIARA PHASE III
SECONDARY ACCESS, LOCATED ALONG FUTURE
AMBROSIA LANE, NORTH OF ALGA ROAD, IN THE
SOUTHWEST QI.‘ADRANT
CASE NAME: AVIARA PHASE III REVISION
CASE NO: CT 92-03(A)
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning
Commission did, on June 19, 1996 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to
consider a Tentative Tract Map Revisions; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 13th day of
August , 1996, held a duly advertised public hearing to consider said Tentative Tract
Map Revision and at that time received the recommendations, objections, protests, comments of
all persons interested in or opposed to CT 92-03(A); and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLED by the City Council of the
City of Carlsbad as follows:
1.
2.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
That the above recitations are true and correct.
That the City Council APPROVES City Council Resolution No. 96-273
and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission as set forth ii
the Planning Commission Resolution No. 3947 on file with the City Clerk and
made a part hereof 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
-
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the 13th day of August , 1996, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Nygaard, Kulchin, Hall and Finnila
NOES: None
n ABSENT: Non 94
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUT
(SEAL)
-2-
ARPORT /
: l l l l
f
88. #8I8I#a888- .
:
:
:
:
:
:
AVIARA PHASE Ill
CT 92-03(A)
, 3 EX-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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3947
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP REVISION TO
REVISE A CONDITION OF APPROVAL REGARDING
SECONDARY ACCESS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED ALONG FUTURE AMBROSIA LANE, NORTH OF
ALGA ROAD, IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN
ZONE 19.
CASE NAME: AVIARA PHASE III REVISION
CASE NO: CT 92-03 (A)
WHEREAS, Aviara Land Associates has filed a verified application for certain
property to wit:
A portion of the east half of the southeast quarter of Section 22, and a portion of the
north half of Section 27, all in Township 12 south, Range 4 west, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California
with the City of Carlsbad which has been referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Tentative Tract Map
Revision as shown on- Exhibits “A’‘-%I”, dated June 19, 1996, on file in the Planning
Department and as provided by Chapter 20.12 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 19th 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 Tract Map Revision.
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.
PC RESO NO. 3947 -l- ci
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
W
FindinPs:
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of a Tentative Tract Map Revision CT 92-
03(A), based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
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 analyzed 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.
II 2. The Planning Commission finds that:
a. the project is a subsequent development as described in CEQA Guidelines
15168(c)(2) and (e), and 15183;
b. there was an EIR certified in connection with the prior 1994 General Plan
Update and Mitigated Negative Declarations approved in connection with the
prior Aviara Phase III and Poinsettia Hill subdivisions;
C. the project is consistent with the General Plan Master EIR (MEIR 93-01) and
the Mitigated Negative Declarations for Aviara Phase III (CT 92-03) and
Poinsettia Hill (CT 93-03);
d. the project has no new significant environmental effect not analyzed as significant
in the prior EIR or Mitigated Negative Declarations; and
e. none of the circumstances requiring Subsequent or a Supplemental EIR under
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15 162 or 15 163 exist.
3. The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the MEIR 93-01 and the Mitigated Negative Declarations
have been incorporated into or made conditions of this Subsequent Project.
4. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein for CT 92-03(A),
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 none of the existing,
approved land uses are proposed to change with the revision;
b. Circulation - Primary and secondary access are still a condition of approval
and installation of those circulation facilities must be in prior to occupancy
and must conform to the City’s cul-de-sac standard;
C. Noise - No alteration to the arrangement of land uses or noise sources is
-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
5.
6.
7.
8.
-.
proposed; and
d. Public Safety - Emergency access will be maintained throughout construction
and upon occupancy by means of all-weather access roads and the provision
of secondary access.
The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the
applicable local facilities management plan, and all City public facility policies and
ordinances since:
a. The project has been conditioned to ensure that the final map will not be approved
unless the City Council finds that sewer service is available to serve the project.
In addition, the project is conditioned such that a note shall be placed on the final
map that building permits may not be issued for the project unless the District
Engineer determines that sewer service is available, and building cannot occur
within the project unless sewer service remains available, and the District
Engineer is satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the
General Plan have been met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project.
b. All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as
conditions of approval.
C. The developer has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate
condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment
of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be available
concurrent with need as required by the General Plan.
The project has been conditioned to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new
construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional
requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to
Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of
public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project.
This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the
Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 19.
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. 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 trafftc and accommodate emergency vehicles.
PC RESO NO. 3947 -3-
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
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
-
That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding existing and future land
uses since surrounding properties are designated for medium and low-medium
residential density development and open space in the General Plan;
That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the
site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the density
proposed, in that the residential development complies with all city policies and
standards, including zoning, without the need for variances from development
standards.
That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements of record or easements established by court judgment, or acquired by the
public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, in
that the project has been designed and 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 lot sizes allow for a
variety of building placement alternatives, including the adequate placement and
separation of the homes, 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
MEIR 93-01 and the Mitigated Negative Declarations for Aviara Phase III(CT 92-
03) and Poinsettia Hill (CT 93-03) which are appropriate to this project have been
incorporated into the project and no significant impacts to fish, wildlife or their
respective habitats will occur.
That the discharge of waste from the subdivision will not result in violation of existing
California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, in that the project will
adhere to City Engineering Standards and comply with the City’s Master Drainage
Plan and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards.
The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed
to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
PC RESO NO. 3947 -4- s
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-- .
degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project, in
that Cassia Road immediately serves the site and this project completes dedications
and improvements which are reasonable and proportionate for secondary access
requirements.
18. 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 providing locations for public transit access; and
designing the project to accommodate pedestrian spaces as well as proposed parking
areas and building locations.
I/ Planning Conditions:
1. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the Tentative Tract
Map Revision for the subdivision project entitled “Aviara Phase III Revision”.
(Exhibit “A” - “M” on file in the Planning Department and incorporated by this reference,
dated June 19, 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. 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 tentative tract map revision shall be required.
3. That condition number 3, item 3 of City Council Resolution No. 94-41, dated January 25,
1994, and regarding a 30 foot wide temporary access easement, be deleted.
4. The following condition replaces condition number 58 of Planning Commission
Resolution No. 3577 for CT 92-03, dated December 1,1996:
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. PRIOR TO RECORDING THE FINAL MAP FOR THE FIRST PHASE IN
THE SUBDIVISION, THE FOLLOWING IMPROVEMENTS ARE
REQUIRED
1). Poinsettia Lane within the subdivision boundaries shall have full
PC RESO NO. 3947
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5.
6.
7.
2).
3).
41.
5).
public improvements to major arterial standards or as approved by
the City Engineer and the Planning Director.
Cassia Road within the subdivision boundaries shall have full public
improvements to local street standards. All sewer, water and
drainage facilities, and any public utilities located under the proposed
roadway, shall also be constructed.
Ambrosia Lane within the subdivision boundaries shall have full
public improvements to local street standards.
Within the subdivision boundaries Blackrail Court shall have a
between-curb width of 48 feet in a 68 foot wide right-of-way as shown
on the tentative map from Alga Road to Street “1”. From Street “I”
to the subdivision boundary the between-curb width shall taper from
48 feet wide to 40 feet wide. The taper shall be to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer.
Offsite Cassia Road from El Camino Real to Poinsettia Lane shall be
constructed with full width grading, 32 foot wide paved roadway, all
sewer, water and drainage facilities as may be required, plus new
curb, gutter and sidewalk on the north side, subject to potential
reimbursement by other adjacent development.. The City Engineer
may accept other streets or roadways that meet all requirements
including the cul-de-sac standard,
All other conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3577 for CT
92-03, Aviara Phase III, dated December 1, 1993, remain in full force and effect,
except as modified herein
The developer shall allow vehicular access, including trucks, from Poinsettia Lane
west to the existing private farm access road knows as La Costa Boulevard. The
vehicular access shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and be
permitted both during and after construction of Poinsettia Lane and the project.
In the event Cassia Road is constructed by the developer to provide secondary
access to project site, the developer shall pay a proportional share of the cost to
install the traffic signal at Cassia Road and El Camino Real in accordance with the
terms of the proposed reimbursement agreement between the City and the Villa
Loma developer.
Code Reminders:
8. 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
PC RESO NO. 3947 -6- \Q
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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 Direct0
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 19th day of June, 1996, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: Chairman Compaq Commissioners Heineman, Monroy, Nielsen,
Noble, Saw-y and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
II ATTEST:
- MICHAEL J. HOLZMILtiR
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 3947 -7- \\
EX- 4 I .
1-m City of CARLSBAD Planning Depammt
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION &
Item No. 4 0
Application complete date: February 2 1, 1996
P.C. AGENDA OF: June 19,1996 Project Planner: Michael Grim
Project Engineer: Clyde Wickham
SUBJECT: CT 92-03(A) - AVIARA PHASE III REVISION - Request for a tentative tract
map revision to revise a condition of approval regarding secondary access for
property generally located along future Ambrosia Lane, north of Alga Road, in
Local Facilities Management Zone 19.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3947
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a revision to a tentative tract map CT 92-03 (CT 92-
03(A)), based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
The proposed tentative tract map revision would revise the condition of approval that requires
secondary access to the subdivision. Currently, the secondary access is required to follow the
future extension of Poinsettia Lane westward to future Black Rail Court, then southward to
existing Alga Road. The proposed revision would allow the developer to construct secondary
access eastward from the site, using the partially dedicated Cassia Road. Staff supports the
proposal because there are already some dedications and improvements along the proposed,
shorter secondary access route.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Aviara Land Associates is requesting a revision to the conditions of approval for the Phase III
tentative tract map. Aviara’s Phase III extends north of Alga Road along future Ambrosia Lane
and the existing 12’ through 15* holes of the Aviara Golf Course, terminating north of future
Poinsettia Lane at the south end of the Palomar Industrial Park (SP 145). To the west of the site
are the Zone 20 properties, such as De Jong and Ocean Bluff (CT 93-09), and to the east are
Poinsettia Hill (CT 93-03) and Villa Loma (SDP 93-06). Except for the Villa Loma apartments,
no development has occurred in the immediate area. In conjunction with the Villa Loma
development, Cassia Road was installed from El Camino Real to the western project entry.
The Aviara Phase III subdivision was approved by the City Council on January 25, 1994,
through City Council Resolution No. 94-41 and Planning Commission Resolution No. 3577
(copies attached). As with all major subdivisions, a secondary access was required to serve the
development in case the primary access was cut off during an emergency. At the time of the
Aviara Phase III public hearings, Cassia Road was intended to cul-de-sac at the western edge of
’ CT 92-03(A) - AVIARH PHASE III REVISION
JUNE 19,1996
PAGE 2
the Poinsettia Hill subdivision (see Exhibit “X”). After hearing the Poinsettia Hill tentative map,
the Planning Commission and City Council voiced concern over pedestrian access to Aviara
Oaks School and the future park. As a result, Cassia Road was required to be connected with
Poinsettia Lane (see Exhibit “Y”). This change in development set the stage for an alternative
access route to the Aviara Phase III subdivision.
The proposed secondary access would utilize the now approved alignment of Cassia Road from
Poinsettia Lane to El Camino Real. Since the undeveloped portions of the roadway lie within the
boundaries of two subdivisions, Aviara and Poinsettia Hill, the effort required for acquisition and
construction of the roadway is greatly reduced and more proportional to the level of
development.
Another component of the Aviara Phase III tentative map proposed for revision is a City Council
requirement for additional park access. The approving City Council resolution contained a
condition mandating a temporary access easement from Poinsettia Lane to the Aviara park site to
facilitate pedestrian traffic. Now that Cassia Road connects with Poinsettia Lane, the sidewalk
system for both of these public roads will allow complete pedestrian access, thereby eliminating
the need for a temporary easement. Staff is recommending that this condition be deleted.
Since the application for the Aviara Phase III Revision was made, staff has received several
comments from property owners on or near the westward extension of Poinsettia Lane and Black
Rail Court. These property owners object to the relocation of the Aviara Phase III secondary
access and feel that Aviara should construct the northerly extension of Black Rail Court. Staff
appreciates their concerns and desire to obtain improved access, however the secondary access
requirement is only to satisfy the City’s cul-de-sac standard. The secondary access requirement
is not intended to enhance local circulation beyond that needed for passage of vehicles in an
emergency. All exactions, such as offsite improvements, require a nexus and must be
proportional to the need. Had the Cassia Road connection been available at the time of the
Aviara Phase III public hearing, staff would have recommended the eastward route for secondary
access because it offers a functional and proportional solution to the issue of secondary access.
Upon review of the proposal, staff found that the Aviara Phase III Revision is subject to the
following land use plans, policies, programs and zoning regulations:
A. General Plan;
B. Mello I and Mello II segments of the Local Coastal Program;
C. Aviara Master Plan (MP 177 and its amendments);
D. Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code);
E. Growth Management Ordinance (Chapter 21.90 of the Zoning Ordinance); and
CT 92-03(A) - AVIA& I’nASE III REVISION
JUNE 19,1996
PAGE 3
F. Zone 19 Local Facilities Management Zone.
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 these regulations/policies utilizing both text and
tables.
A. General Plan
The proposed revisions to the Aviara Phase III project are consistent with the applicable policies
and programs of the General Plan. Particularly relevant to the tentative tract map revision are the
Land Use, Circulation, Noise and Public Safety Elements. Table 1 below indicates how the
project complies with these particular elements of the General Plan.
Element
Land Use
Circulation
Noise
Public Safety
TABLE 1: GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
Use Classification/Goal, Proposed Use and
Objective of Program Improvements
Project area designated for No alteration to existing
residential, recreation and permitted land uses is
community center uses. proposed.
Require development to Primary and secondary access
construct all needed still a condition of approval.
roadways prior to or Installation must be in prior to
concurrent with occupancy and in conformance
development. with the City’s cul-de-sac
An environment free from
standard.
No alteration to the
excessive and harmful noise.
Maintain an initial
emergency travel response
time of five minutes.
arrangement of land uses or
noise sources.
Provision of primary and
secondary access allows for
emergency response times
Mello I and Mello II Segments of the Local Coastal Program
Compliance
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Aviara Phase III is located within the Mello I and II segments of the LCP; therefore, the project
is subject to the Land Use Plan and Implementing Ordinance for those segments. The
implementing ordinance for those portions of the Mello I and II segments within Aviara is the
Aviara Master Plan. This section addresses only conformance with the Land Use Plan, since
-
1 CT 92-03(A) - AVIAI& PHASE III REVISION
JUNE 19,1996
PAGE 4
implementing ordinance conformance is addressed in section C below. The policies of the Mello
I and II Land Use Plan which apply to the proposed project are land use and environmentally
sensitive habitat preservation.
Since no alteration to the existing, approved land uses is involved with the proposed revision, no
Coastal land use issues exist with the project. The physical development associated with the
Cassia Road secondary access does not encroach into any coastal resource areas and has
undergone environmental review and Coastal Commission discretionary review. Therefore, the
proposed tentative tract map revision is consistent with the Local Coastal Program.
C. Aviara Master Plan (MP 177 and its amendments)
There are no specific provisions in the Aviara Master Plan that address offsite improvements or
particular circulation routes. There are general provisions that require all land needed for public
streets be granted to the City without cost and free of all liens and encumbrances. This is also a
typical City policy and is occurring with the proposed secondary access route using Cassia Road.
Since all land uses and the intensity and configuration of development remain unchanged, the
Aviara Phase III revision remains consistent with the Aviara Master Plan.
D. Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code)
The Subdivision Ordinance requires that, prior to final map, the developer agree to install all
street improvements necessary for the use of the lot owners in the subdivision in accordance with
City Standards. According to the Public Street Design Criteria of the City Standards, the
maximum length of a cul-de-sac is a function of total traffic on the road. If traffic volumes are
expected to exceed the standard, then a second access route to the neighborhood is required. The
proposed tentative tract map revision replaces the secondary access rather than deletes it,
therefore no impact to the cul-de-sac standard will occur. Since no grading, lots or other streets
will be altered, the Aviara Phase III Revision is consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance.
E. Growth Management Ordinance (Chapter 21.90 of the Zoning Ordinance)
Since the Aviara Phase III Revision does not involve any alteration of land uses, the Growth
Management compliance mimics the original approval. This analysis is shown on the attached
Local Facilities Impact Assessment and in Table 2 below.
II TABLE 2: GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE II
Standard
City Administration
Library
Waste Water Treatment
Parks
Impacts/Standards
2,047.7 sq. ft.
1,092.l sq. ft.
699 EDUs
4.09 acres
Compliance
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
’ CT 92-03(A) - AVIARA PHASE III REVISION
JUNE 19,1996
PAGE 5
II TABLE 2: GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE
Standard Impacts/Standards Compliance
Drainage N/A Yes
Circulation 5,318 ADT Yes
Fire Station #4 Yes
Open Space N/A Yes
Schools N/A Yes
Sewer Collection System 699 EDUs Yes
Water 154.000 GPD Yes
F. Zone 19 Local Facilities Management Zone
The Aviara Phase III area lies within the Local Facilities Management Zone 19. There are no
special development requirements in the zone plan that apply to either the approved tentative
tract map or the proposed revision. Since all necessary improvements, including primary and
secondary access, will still be installed prior to or concurrent with need, the Aviara Phase III
Revision is consistent with the Zone 19 Local Facilities Management Plan.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The original tentative map for Aviara Phase III received a Mitigated Negative Declaration with
regard to potentially adverse environmental impacts. These original mitigation measures
included provisions for open space preservation and enhancement, geotechnical precautions,
paleontological resources, noise, air quality and visual impacts. The mitigation monitoring
program is in place and none of the mitigation measures are affected by the proposed revision.
The alignment of Cassia Road eastward from Aviara Phase III has already undergone
environmental review through a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Poinsettia Hill
subdivision (CT 93-03). In addition, the Master Environmental Impact Report for the City’s
General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01) found that impacts of development to air quality and
circulation were regional in nature and, therefore, adopted a Statement of Overriding
Consideration. Listed in the MEIR were a number of mitigation measures intended to reduce the
air quality and circulation impacts to the greatest extent possible.
The proposed tentative map revision was reviewed for its potential impact on the environment
pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Since all previous
environmental review still applies to the proposed revision and no new circumstances have arisen
that would necessitate additional environmental review, the Planning Director determined that
the tentative map revision is in prior compliance with the original documentation. All applicable
mitigation measures regarding air quality and circulation have been incorporated into the project.
A Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance was therefore issued on March 16, 1996, a copy of
which is attached to this staff report.
r
CT 92-03(A) - AVIARH PHASE III REVISION
JUNE 19,1996
PAGE 6
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3947
2. Location Map
3. Background Data Sheet
4. Local Facilities Impact Assessment
5. Disclosure Form
6. Environmental Impact Assessment, Part 2, dated March 11, 1996
7. Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance, dated March 16, 1996
8. City Council Resolution No. 94-41
9. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3577.
h4G:bk
- _-
BACKGROUND DATA SHEh a
CASE NO: CT 92-03(A)
CASE NAME: Aviara Phase III Revision
APPLICANT: Aviara Land Associates
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Request for a tentative tract mau revision to revise a condition
of atxwoval regarding secondarv access for property generally located along future Ambrosia
Lane, north of Alga Road
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A portion of the east half of the SW quarter of Section 22 and a
portion of the north half of Section 27, all in the Citv of Carlsbad. Countv of San Dieno.
APN: 215-040-19.20.21; 215-080-24 Acres: j4J Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 15 1 lots
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: RLM/RIWRMIWRH/OS
Density Allowed: O.O- 19.0 du/ac Density Proposed: same
Existing Zone: P-C Proposed Zone: P-C
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad’s Zoning Requirements)
Site P-C
North P-M
South P-C
East L-C
West L-C
Zoning Land Use
Vacant
Industrial office
Golf course
Agriculture
Agriculture
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Carlsbad Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 699
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated: October 14, 1993
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
cl Negative Declaration, issued
cl Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
X Other, Notice of Prior Environmental Comnliance
-
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: Aviara Phase III Revision - CT 92-03(A)
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 19 GENERAL PLAN: RLM/RM/RMH/RI-I/OS
ZONING: P-C
DEVELOPER’S NAME: Aviara Land Associates
ADDRESS: 2011 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 206. Carlsbad, CA 92009
PHONE NO.: (619)931-l 190 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 215040-19/20/21.215-080-24
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 140 acres
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: 1998
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 2.047.7
Library: Demand in Square Footage = 1.092.1
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) 699
Park: Demand in Acreage = 4.09
Drainage: Demand in CFS = N/A
Identity Drainage Basin = N/A
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: Demand in ADTs = 5,318
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 4
Open Space: Acreage Provided = N/A
Schools: N/A
(Demands to be determined by staff)
Sewer: Demands in EDUs 699
Identify Sub Basin = N/A
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
Water: Demand in GPD = 154,000
The project is 1,268 units the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.
-
City
DISCLOSCRE STATEME.X-T
.
AT’3LiCANTS STATEMENT OF CDC’ 3 cu GF;E of CEFITAIN OWNERSHIP IKEi;ES;S ON ALL APpUanONS wr,c+, w,LL ;E,~,<,;~ I
=:ScsmONAilY AmoN ON %E ?An oF r4E cn CouNcIL OR ANY APPOIc3 aOA;iO. COMMISSION OR CcMMEEz. I I
I L
(P/ease Prmr)
The fcllowing information must be disclosed:
1. Aodicant
tist the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application. Aviara Land Associates Limited PartnershiD
2011 Palomar Airuort Road Suite 206
Carlsbad, CA 92009
2. - Owner
3.
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Aviara‘Land Assoc%ates Limited partnershin 2011 Palomar Airport Road
If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or parkership, list the names and
addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any pannership
interest in the partnership.
pJ/A
4. If any person identifktd pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organitation or a trust. list the names and
addresses of any person serving as officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary
of the trust.
FRMoW13 a/90 7.Q
2075 Las Palmas Or~ve - Carlsbacl. Caltfornla 92009-4859 0 (619) 436-I 1 6’
-
- - 3isclasure Statement
(Over)
Page 2
5. Have you had niare than 5253 worth of business transacted with any member af City staff, scares
Commissions, Committees and Cauncii’within the past twelve months?
Yes - No - If yes, please indicate person(s)
I Denon ,, d.fin& u: ‘AT tndiwdu& firm. COo~~~hr~. jOinI voRtt.Wc USOCdlan. SCCd dub. htW?ld OrgMUltiOn. COI;)OI~flOn. l OtM@. 1RSt.
I Gw. ryndicata. fh and my ottr~ couny. cy and COUP. CY munk=WW. dtsl7W OI 0ul.f polrnCJ mbdlvtrlon. 0, my 0tnw grouo or I
I
!
com0tnaUon l tiog u a unrl’ I
Owner:
Aviara Land Associates Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership
Date:
By:
Date: vy
Applicant:
Aviara Land Associates Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership
Date:
By: Republic Development Co., a
Date: w if
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CT 92-03(A)
DATE: March 11. 1996
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Aviara Phase III Tentative Man Extension and Revision
2. APPLICANT: Aviara Land Associates
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2011 Palomar Airnort Road, Suite 206,
Carlsbad. CA 92009 (619) 931-1190
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Januarv 23.1996
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reauest for an extension to the exniration of a tentative man and a revision
to the conditions of anuroval of that man, allowing an alternate secondary access for the Aviara Phase III
develonment. located along future Ambrosia Lane, north and south of future Poinsettia Lane.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact”, or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation
Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
- Land Use and Planning - Transportation/Circulation - Public Services
- Population and Housing __ Biological Resources - Utilities and Service Systems
- Geological Problems
- Water
- Energy and Mineral Resources - Aesthetics
- Hazards - Cultural Resources
- Air Quality - Noise - Recreation
- Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 22/
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.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one
potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described
on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
cl
Cl
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 all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards
and (b) have been avoided or mitigated 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 Date
Planning Directo?$ignaturv Date , ,
MG:
2
9
Rev. 3/28/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation
or zoning? (#l-pgs 11,12; #2-pg 11)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans
or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? (#l-pgs 11,12; #2-pg 11)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (#l-pgs 11,12; #2-pg 11)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations
(e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts
from incompatible land uses)? (#1-pg 11; #2-pg 10) -
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement
of an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)? (#1-pg 13; #2-pg
12)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l-pg 13; #2-pg 12)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects
in an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (#1-pg 13; #2-pg 12)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l-pg 13; #2-pg 12)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the
proposal result in or expose people to potential
impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (#1-pg 7; #2-pg 7)
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than Significant
Impact
No
Impact
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#1-pg 7; #2-pg 7)
3
x
14 Rev. 3/28/95
Potentially
Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact
c>
4
ia
h>
0
Seismic ground failure, including
liquefaction? (#1-pg 7; #2-pg 7)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l & 2-pg 7)
Landslides or mudflows? (#l-pg 7; #2-pg 7)
Erosion, changes in topography or
unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading, or fill? (#1-pg 7; #2-pg 7)
Subsidence of the land? (#1-pgs 7,8; #2-pg 7)
Expansive soils? (#1-pg 7; #2-pg 7)
Unique geologic or physical features? (#l-pgs 7,8;
#2-Pg 7)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#1-pg 8;
#2-pg 8)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? (#l-pg 8;#2-pg 8)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.
temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)? (#l-pg 9; #2-pg 8)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water
in any water body? (#1-pg 9; #K2-pg 8)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? (#1-pg 8; #2-pg 8)
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
x
x‘
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
4 15
Rev. 3/28/95
- -
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (#1-pg 9; #2-pg 8)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater? (#l-pg 8; #2-pg 8)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#1-pg 9; #2-pg 8)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for
public water supplies? (#l-pg 8; #2-pg 8)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation? (#1-pg
8; #2-pgs 7,8)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#1-pg 8;
#2-pgs 7,8)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,
or cause any change in climate? (#l-pg 8; #2-pg 8)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#1-pg 8; #2-pg 8)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l-pg
14; #2-pg 12)
b) Hazards to safety from design features
(e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#1-pg
14; #2-pg 13)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (#1-pg 15; #2-pg 13)
x
x
a-
X 7
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
?Y
Rev. 3128195
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or
off-site? (#l-pg 14; #2-pg 12)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists? (#1-pg 14; #2-pg 13)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (#1-pg 14; #2-pg 12)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic
impacts? (#l-pg 14; #2-pg 12)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Potentially Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
x
x
x
x
4
b)
c>
4
d
Would the proposal result in impacts to:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds? (#1-pgs 10,ll; #2-pg 10)
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage
trees)? (#l-pgs 10,ll; #2-pg 10)
Locally designated natural communities
(e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l-pgs 10,ll;
#2-pg 10)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and
vernal pool)? (#1-pgs 10,ll; #2-pg 10)
Wildlife dispersal or migration
corridors? (#1-pg 11; #2-pg 10)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? (#l-pg 9; #2-pg 9)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l-pg 9; #2-pg 9)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
6 ?-1
Rev. 3128195
Potentially
Potentially
Significant
Unless Less Than
No Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact 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? (#1-pg 9;
#2-Pg 9) x
IX. HAZARDS Would the proposal involve:
a>
b)
cl
4
e>
A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited to:
oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation? (#1-pg 13; #2-
Pg 12)
Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#1-pg
15; #2-pg 13)
The creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard? (#1-pgs 12,13; #2-pg 11,12)
Exposure of people to existing sources
of potential health hazards? (#l -pgs 12,13; #2-pg
11,12)
Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees? (#l-pg 13; #2-pg 11)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#1-pg 13; #2-pg
11)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise
levels? (#1-pg 13; #2-pg 11)
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? (#l-pg 12; #2-pg 11)
b) Police protection? (#1-pg 12; #2-pg 11)
x
x
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
7 7%
Rev. 3128195
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
c) Schools? (#l-pg 12; #2-pg 11)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? (#l-pg 12; #2-pg 11)
e) Other governmental services? (#1-pg 12; #2-pg 11)
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
4
W
c>
d)
e)
0
g)
proposal result in a need for new systems or
supplies, or substantial alterations to the following
utilities:
Power or natural gas? (#l-pg 9, #2-pg 9)
Communications systems? (#l-pg 12; #2-pg 11)
Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities? (#l-pg 12; #2-pg 11)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l-pg 12; #2-pg 11)
Storm water drainage? (#1-pg 12; #2-pg 1 I)
Solid waste disposal? (#1-pg 12; #2-pg 11)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l-pg 12; #2-pg
11)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic
highway? (#l-pg 15; #2-pg 13)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect? (#1-pg 15; ##2-pg 13)
c) Create light or glare? (#l-pg 13; #2-pg 11)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l-pg 9; #2-pg 9) -
8
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
x
x
x
x
x
x
x’
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
0
Rev. 3128195
-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#1-pg 9; ti-pg 9)
c) Affect historical resources? (#l-pg 9; #2-pg 9)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? (# I-pg 9; #2-pg 9)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses
within the potential impact area? (#l-pg 9; ##2-pg 9)
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#l-pg
15; #2-pg 13)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l-pg 15;
#2-pg 13)
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?
(#l-pg 15; #2-pg 13)
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) (#1-pg
16; #2-pg 14)
9
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than Significant
Impact
No
Impact
x
x
x
P
Rev. 3128195
x
x
x
x
x
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly? (#1-pg 16; #2-pg
14) x
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses has been conducted on the project site and on the alternate secondary access. The
currently approved tentative map was reviewed for potentially adverse environmental impacts through a
Mitigated Negative Declaration for Aviara Phase III (CT 92-03), issued October 14, 1993 (Source #l).
The alternate secondary access route was reviewed for potentially adverse environmental impacts through
a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Poinsettia Hill (CT 93-02), issued November 11, 1993 (Source #2).
AI1 necessary adaptations to the project required to lower the potential impacts to a level of insignificance
were incorporated into project design and operational requirements of the existing tentative maps (CT 92-
03 and CT 93-02). These features include preservation of wildlife corridors within the native vegetation,
conformance to geotechnical recommendations, archeological and paleontological artifact recovery
programs and fugitive dust controls. The extension of the tentative map expiration date and the potential
for an alternate secondary access route are still consistent with the intent and environmental ramifications
of the existing tentative map.
The revised tentative map would still be within the allowed density and its configuration would still meet
the goals and objectives of the General Plan. No new circumstances have arisen that would necessitate
additional environmental review. Therefore, the extension and revision of the Aviara Phase III tentative
map will not cause any new impacts that were not previously identified in the prior environmental review
for the site. All adjustments necessary to reduce impacts to a level of insignificance have been
incorporated into the project and no additional mitigation measures are required.
10 3’ Rev. 3128195
.
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
N/A
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE1
11 3% Rev. 3/28/95
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
12
33
Rev. 3128195
City of Carlsbad
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: CT 92-03(A) - Aviara Phase Ill Extension and Revision
Project Location: West and east of future Ambrosia Lane, north of Alga Road and
South of Camino Vida Roble, City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego.
Project Description: Request for an extension to a tentative map and a revision to that
map to allow an alternate secondary access within Phase III of the
Aviara Master Plan.
Justification for this determination is on file in the Planning Department, Community
Development, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within
thirty (30) days of date of publication.
DATED: MARCH 16, 1996
CASE NO: CT 92-03(A)
CASE NAME: AVIARA PHASE Ill REVISION
PUBLISH DATE: MARCH 16,1996
MG:kr
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 576 - (619) 436-11610 FAX (619) 438-0894
RESOLUTION NO. 94-41
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, APPLICATION FOR A MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT; LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT, TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP AND HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT CASE NAME:' AVIARA PHASE III CASE NO:MP 177!G)/GPA 93006/LCPA 920Ol/CT 920031HDP 92-04
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on December 1, 1993
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider
amendments to Master Plan MP 177(G), General Plan GPA 93-06, Local
Coastal Plan LCPA 92-01, Tentative Subdivision Map CT 92-03 and
Hillside Development Permit HDP 92-04 and adopted Planning
Commission Resolution Nos: 3574, 3575, 3576, 3577 and 3578
respectively, recommending to the City Council that they be
approved; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, did on
January 25, 1994 hold a duly advertised public hearing to consider
said amendments.and at that time heard all persons interested in or
opposed to Master Plan MP 177(G), General Plan GPA 93-06, Local
Coastal Plan LCPA 92-01, Tentative Subdivision Map CT 92-03 and
Hillside Development Permit HDP 92-04: and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that MP
177(G), GPA 93-06, LCPA 92-01, CT 92-03 and HDP 92-04 will not have
a significant impact on the environment and the City'Counci.1 has
concurred and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was issued and
approved in satisfaction of the requirements of the City of
Carlsbad. Environmental Protection Ordinance of 1980 and the ,
California Environmental Quality Act: and
35
:
rl ‘
1
C .
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, the City Council, after considering all proposed
changes, directed the City Attorney to return with appropriate
documents.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the findings and conditions of the Planning
Commission in Resolution Nos. 3573, 3574, 3575, 3576, 3577 and 3578
constitute the findings of the City Council in this matter.
3. That the two conditions in Planning Department
memorandum dated November 17, 1993 be added and an additional
condition as stated at the City Council meeting be added to read as
follows:
“(1) The applicant 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 unless previously excluded by the Parks Agreement between the City and Aviara Land Associates dated June 1, 1989, as determined by the Parks'and Recreation Director.
” (2) The applicant shall provide school fees to mitigate conditions of overcrowding as part of building permit application. These fees shall be based on the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit application. All or a portion of said fees may be waived subject to the approval of the Carlsbad Unified School District.
"(3) Developer shall provide a 30' wide temporary access easement along the easterly boundary of Lot 3, as shown on Exhibit "A" until such time as a permanent alternate access easement is A8diCat8dto allow pedestrian and vehicular access from the residential areas east of the project to Aviara Park and the Aviara Oaks School to the satisfaction of the City Council.l@
4. That the alignment of Poinsettia Lane be approved as
shown on the Poinsettia Lane Alignment Study, marked Exhibit B and
attached -hereto.
2
:
:
A
1 c
E
7
t
c
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
5. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration is approved
as shown in Planning Commission Resolution .No. 3573 on file with
the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference.
6. That the application for Master Plan Amendment (MP-
177(G) to change planning area boundaries, internal street
alignment and residential product mix on property generally located
along future Ambrosia Lane, north of Alga Road in LFMP Zone 19 is
approved as shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3574 on
file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference.
7. That the General Plan Amendment (GPA 93-06) to add
the residential medium high density (RMB) and residential high
density (RB) designations to the existing combination district for
property generally located north of the Batiquitos Lagoon, east of
I-5 and west of El Camino Real in LFMP Zone 9 is approved as shown
in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3575 on file with the City
Clerk and incorporated herein by reference.
8. That the Local Coastal Plan Amendment (LCPA 92-01) is
approved as shown in Planning Commission R8solution No. 3576 on
file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference.
9. That the Tentative Subdivision Map (CT 92-03) to
subdivide and rough grade the individual neighborhood and major
streets on property generally located along future Ambrosia Lane,
north of Alga Road in LPMP Zone 19 is approved as shown in Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3577 on file with.the City Clerk and
incorporated herein by reference.
10. That the HillSid Disvelopment Permit (HDP 92-04) to
rough grade the neighborhood and major streets on property
generally located along future Ambrosia Lane, north of existing
3
1
z
2
4
c w
e
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
Alga Road is approved as shown in Planning Commission R&solution
No. 3578 on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by
reference.
11. This action is final the date this resolution is
adopted by the City Council. The provision of Chapter 1.16 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code, "Tim8 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 PrOC8dUre, Section 1094.6., which hati been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or Other paper Seeking judicial
r8Vi8W IDUSt be filed in the apprOpriat8 COUrt not later than the ninetieth day following the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the prOC88dingS accompanied by the required deposit in an amount Sufficient t0 cover the estimated cost of preparation of such record,
the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than th8 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.@@
///
///
/I/
///
///
///
///
4
/
I
!
l(
1'
1:
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
City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 8th day of FEBRUARY
1994, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Stanton, Kulchin, Nygaard, Finnila
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUkENKRANZ, City Clerk
(SEAL)
.
.
5
. . z F 2, f B% 3 ii 1 % H s! fJ i ” II
% / ,I \\ ’ . \i, / gg .I f 4
.
FXHIS tr ‘A’
-. r
\\ ;
1
Lb
I
I 1000 MI. ct. ,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3577
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO SUBDMDE
AND ROUGH GRADE THE INDMDUAL NEIGHBORHOODS
AND MAJOR STREETS WITHIN THE THIRD PHASE OF THE
AVIARA MASTER PLAN ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
ALONG FUTURE AMBROSIA LANE NORTH OF ALGA ROAD
IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 19.
CASE NAME: AVIARA PHASE III
CASE NO: CT 92-03
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to wit:
A portion of the east half of the southeast quarter of Section
22, and a portion of the north half of Section 27, all in
Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian,
in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California according to official plat thereof, as shown on
Record of Survey No. 10774, recorded in the Office of the San
Diego County Recorder, October 30, 1986.
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided by Title e
21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 17th day of November,
1993, and on the 1st day of December, 1993, 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 CT 92-03; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
as follows:
A> That the above recitations are true and correct.
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
recommends APPROVAL of CT 92-03, based on the following findings and subject
to the following conditions:
Findings:
1. The proposed map and project design is consistent with the applicable general plan
and local coastal plan segments.
2. 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.
3. The .project is consistent with all City public facility policies and ordinances since:
The Planning Commission has, by inclusion of an appropriate condition to this
project, ensured building permits will not be issued for the project unless the City
Engineer determines that sewer service is available, and building cannot occur
within the project unless sewer service remains available, and the Planning
Commission 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.
All necessary public improvements have been provided or will be required as
conditions of approval.
The applicant 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.
4. The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since
surrounding properties are designated for residential development on the General
Plan.
5. This project will not cause any significant environmental impacts and a Mitigated
Negative Declaration has been issued by the Planning Director on October 14,1993.
In recommending approval of this Mitigated Negative Declaration the Planning
Commission has considered the initial study, the staff analysis, all required
mitigation measures and any written comments received regarding the significant
effects this project could have on the environment.
6. This project is consistent with the City’s Growth Management Ordinance as it has
been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 19.
PC RESO NO. 3577 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements or records of
easements established by court judgement, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
Conditions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Approval is granted for CT 92-03, as shown on Exhibits “A” - “M”, dated November
17, 1993, incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning Department.
Development shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these
conditions.
The developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar copy of
the tentative map as approved by the City Council. The tentative map shall reflect
the conditions of approval by the City. The tentative map copy shall be submitted
to the City Engineer and approved prior to building, grading, final map, or
improvement plan submittal, whichever occurs fust.
A 500’ scale map of the subdivision shall be submitted to the Planning Director prior
to the recordation of the final map. Said map shall show all lots and streets within
and adjacent to the project.
This project is also approved under the express condition that the applicant pay the
public facilities fee adopted by the City Council on July 28, 1987 (amended July 2,
1991) and as amended from time to time, and any development fees established by
the City Council pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code or other
ordinance adopted to implement a growth management system or facilities and
improvement plan and to fulfil1 the subdivideis agreement to pay the public
facilities fee dated March 9, 1992, 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.
This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not
be issued for development of the subject property unless the water district serving
the development determines that adequate water and sewer service is available at
the time of application for water service and sewer permits and will continue to be
available until time of occupancy. This note shall be placed on the final map.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which may
be required as part of the Zone 19 Local Facilities Management Plan and any
amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
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 property owner
PC RESO NO. 3577 -3-
l#
1
2
z
4
5
e
s
t
s
l(
13
1:
II
14
1:
If
1:
1z
1Z
21
23
2:
2;
24
2:
2e
25
2E
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
shall pay a one-time special development tax in accordance with the City Council
Resolution No. 91-39”.
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 project are challenged this approval shall be suspended as provided in
Government Code Section 65913.5. 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.
The applicant 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 unless
previously excluded by the Parks Agreement between the City and Aviam Land
Associates dated June 1,1989, as determined by the Parks and Recreation Director.
The applicant shall provide school fees to mitigate conditions of overcrowding as
part of building permit application. These fees shall be based on the fee schedule
in effect at the time of building permit application. AU or a portion of said fees may be waived subject to the approval of the Carlsbad Uni&xi School District.
Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all sections of the Zoning
Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building
permit issuance.
Approval of CT 92-03 is granted subject to the approval of MP 177(G), LCPA 92-61,
GPA 93-06, and HDP 92-04. CT 92-03 is approved subject to all conditions of
approval for MP 177(G), LCPA 92-01, GPA 93-06, and HDP 92-04, Planning
Commission Resolution No’s. 3574, 3575, 3576, and 3578, incorporated herein by
reference and on file in the Planning Department.
The applicant shall annex the area covered by Phase tII into the Aviara Master
Homeowner3 Association and corresponding covenants, conditions and restrictions.
The amended CC&R’s shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director
prior to final map approval.
The applicant shall submit a street name list for Planning Areas 17, 21, and 22
consistent with the City’s street name policy subject to the Planning Director’s
approval prior to final map approval for those Planning Areas.
The applicant shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan which shall be
submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to the approval of grading
or building plans, whichever occurs first.
PC RESO NO. 3577 -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
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
. . .
A master plan of the existing onsite trees shall be provided to the Planning Director
as part of the final grading plan to determine which trees shall be required to be
preserved prior to the issuance of a grading permit or a building permit, whichever
occurs first.
All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free
from weeds, trash, and debris.
The developer shall install street trees at the equivalent of 40-foot intervals along
all public street frontages in conformance with City of Carlsbad standards. The
trees shall be of a variety selected from the approved Street Tree List.
All landscape plans shall be prepared to conform with the Landscape Manual and
submitted per the landscape plan check procedures on file in the Planning
Department.
Landscape plans shall be designed to minimize water use. Lawn and other zone 1 plants (see Landscape Manual) shall be limited to areas of special visual importance
or high use. Mulches shall be used and irrigation equipment and design shall
promote water conservation.
Prior to final occupancy, a letter from a California licensed landscape architect shall
be submitted to the Planning Director certifying that all landscaping has been
installed as shown on the approved landscape plans.
All herbicides shall be applied by applicators licensed by the State of California.
The applicant shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by
Section 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
The first set of landscape and irrigation plans submitted shall include building plans,
improvement plans and grading plans.
All landscape and irrigation plans shall show existing and proposed contours and
shall match the grading plans in terms of scale and location of improvements.
The project shall provide bus stop facilities at locations subject to the satisfaction
of the North County Transit District. Said facilities 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 in a manner so as to not detract from the basic architectural
theme of the project and said design shall be subject to the approval of the Planning
Director and North County Transit District.
PC RESO NO. 3577 -5-
1
2
;!
4
fi w
e
7
E
$
1c
13
12
1:
14
If
l(
1:
l{
l<
2(
21
2:
2:
24
21
2e
2’i
2E
3
3
1
I c
!
II .\ I
5
5
7
3 ii
)I
t /I
> ,
5
c
i
5
r
27. Approval of CT’ 92-03 is subject to approval of the California Coastal Commission.
Any revisions that may be required by the Coastal Commission must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and City Engineer prior to approval of any
Enal map, and may necessitate a formal amendment to this approval.
28. Prior to approval of the Enal map for Unit I, the developer shall complete any
dedication and vacation necessary to complete the park land exchange, to the
satisfaction of the Parks and Recreation Director.
Ennineerinn Conditions:
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
. . .
Prior to issuing a building permit for Lots 143 through 152 in Unit VII, the
developer shall provide an emergency secondary access in accordance with City
Standards.
Direct access rights for all lots abutting Ambrosia Lane shall be waived on the final
map except for designated access points to Lots 1, 2, 3, and 8 as shown on the
tentative map or at other designated access points as approved by the City Engineer.
This project is located within the Mello I, Mello II, and East Batiqtitos Local Coastal
Plans. All development design shall comply with the requirements of those plans.
Unless a standards variance has been issued, no variance from City Standards is
authorized by virtue of approval of this tentative map.
The applicant shall comply with all the rules, regulations and design requirements
of the respective sewer and water agencies regarding services to the project.
The applicant shall be responsible for coordination with S.D.G.&E., Pacific Bell
Telephone, and Cable TV authorities.
This project is specifically approved as seven (7) units for the purposes of recording.
All public facilities needed to serve each unit and meet City Standards shall be
guaranteed for construction prior to recording of a final map for that unit.
If the applicant chooses to construct out of phase, the new phasing must be
reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and Planning Director.
All concrete terrace drains shall be maintained by the homeowner’s association (if
on commonly owned property) or the individual property owner (if on an
individually owned lot). An appropriately worded statement clearly identifying the
responsibility shall be placed in the CC&R’s.
PC RESO NO. 3577 -6-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
. . .
Approval of this tentative tract map shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the
date of City Council approval unless a final map is recorded. An extension may be
requested by the applicant. Said extension shall be approved or denied at the
discretion of the City Council. In approving an extension, the City Council may
impose new conditions and may revise existing conditions pursuant to Section
20.12.110(a)(2) Carlsbad Municipal Code.
The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents,
officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its
agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void or null an approval of the
City, the Planning Commission or City Engineer which has been brought against the
City within the time period provided for by Section 66499.37 of the Subdivision
Map Act.
Prior to the approval of the final map, the owner shall enter into an agreement with
the City to pay any drainage area fees established as a result of the Master Drainage
Plan Update.
Prior to final map the applicant 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 prior to approval of the
final map for this project.
The subject property is within the boundaries of Assessment District No. 88-l (Alga
Road). Upon the subdivision of land within the district boundaries, the owner may pass through assessments to subsequent owners & if the owner has executed a
Special Assessment District Pass-through Authorization Agreement. Said Agreement
contains provision regarding notice to potential buyers of the amount of the
assessment and other provisions and requires the owner to have each buyer receive
and execute a Notice of Assessment and an Option Agreement. In the event that the
owner does not execute the Authorization Agreement, the assessment on the subject
property must be paid off in full bv the owner nrior to final man annroval.
As required by state law, prior to the recordation of a final map over any of the
subject property, a segregation of assessments must be submitted for all subdivided
lots. By applying for a segregation of assessments, the applicant agrees to pay the
fee to cover the costs associated with the segregation. A segregation is not required
if the applicant pays off the assessment on the subject property prior to the
recordation of the final map. In the event a segregation of assessments is not
recorded and property is subdivided, the full amount of assessment will appear on
the tax bills of & new lot.
PC EESO NO. 3577 -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
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
. . .
Prior to final map approval the owner shall execute a hold harmless agreement for
geologic failure.
Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on
the tentative map, a grading permit for this project is required. (Prior to final map
approval, the applicant must submit and receive approval for grading plans in
accordance with City Codes and standards. Prior to issuance of a building permit
for the project, a grading permit shall be obtained and grading work be completed
in substantial conformance with the approved grading plans.)
Upon completion of grading, the applicant shall ensure that an “as-graded’ geologic
plan is submitted to the City Engineer. The plan shall clearly show all the geology
as exposed by the grading operation, all geologic corrective measures as actually
constructed and must be based on a contour map which represents both the pre and
post site grading. This plan shall be signed by both the soils engineer and the
engineering geologist. The plan shall be prepared on a 24” x 36” mylar or similar
drafting film and shall become a permanent record.
No grading shall occur outside the limits of the subdivision unless a grading or slope
easement is obtained from the owners of the affected properties. If the applicant
is unable to obtain the grading or slope easement, no grading permit will be issued.
In that case the applicant must either amend the tentative map or change the slope
so grading will not occur outside the project site in a manner which substantially
conforms to the approved tentative map as determined by the City Engineer and
Planning Director.
Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction
site within this project, the applicant shall submit to and receive approval from the
City Engineer for the proposed haul route. The applicant shall comply with all
conditions and requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the
hauling operation.
The developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this
project to prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided
in accordance with the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the City Engineer. Reference
Chapter 11.06.
The applicant shall construct desiltation/detention/urban pollutant basin(s) of a
type and a size and at location(s) as approved by the City Engineer. The applicant
shall enter into a basin maintenance agreement and submit a maintenance bond
satisfactory to the City Engineer prior to the approval of grading, building permit
or final map whichever occurs first for this project. Each basin shall be serviced by
PC RESO NO. 3577 -8-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
52.
53.
an all-weather access/maintenance road. This condition may be met by basin(s)
guaranteed for construction by other projects located offsite and downstream from
this project.
Additional drainage easements may be required. Drainage structures shall be
provided or installed prior to the issuance of grading or building permit as may be
required by the City Engineer.
The applicant shall place the following note on a non-mapping data sheet of the
final map:
Geotechnical Caution:
54.
55.
56.
A prelimhry soils report indicates the possible presence of a remnant of an’ancient
landslide and the possible presence of unconsolidated alluviums within the
boundaries of the subdivision. Even though the report also recommends methods of mitigation for these geologic conditions, some risk to building pads or structures
located thereon may exist, therefore:
The owner of this property on behalf of itself and all of its successors in interest has
agreed to hold harmless and indemnify the City of Carlsbad from any action that
may arise through any geological failure, ground water seepage or land subsidence
and subsequent damage that may occur on, or adjacent to, this subdivision due to
its construction, operation or maintenance.
The owner shall make an offer of dedication to the City for all public streets and
easements required by these conditions or shown on the tentative map. The offer
shall be made by a certificate on the final map for this project. All land so offered
shall be granted to the City free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without
cost to the City. Streets that are already public are not required to be rededicated.
Some improvements shown on the tentative map and/or required by these
conditions are located offsite on property which neither the City nor the owner has
sufficient title or interest to permit the improvements to be made without
acquisition of title or interest. The applicant shall conform to Section 20.16.095 of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This conditional approval is null and void if title to
said property is not obtained, unless the City Engineer and Planning Director make
findings of substantial conformance without construction of said improvements.
The drainage system shall be designed to ensure that runoff resulting from lo-year frequency storms of 6 hours and 24 hours duration under developed conditions, are
equal to or less than the runoff from a storm of the same frequency and duration
under existing developed conditions. Both 6 hour and 24 hour storm durations shall
be analyzed to determine the detention basin capacities necessary to accomplish the
PC RESO NO. 3577 -9-
Gp
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
57.
58.
desired results prior to (final map approval) issuance of building or grading permits
whichever occurs first.
The applicant shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The applicant shall provide best
management practices 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 prior to approval of the final map, issuance of grading or building
permit, whichever occurs first.
Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all public improvements shall
be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to approval of the final
map in accordance with City Standards, the applicant 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:
I. PRIOR TO RECORDING THE FINAL MAP FOR THE FIRST PHASE IN THE
SUBDIVISION, THE FOLLOWING IMPROVEMENTS ARE REQUIRED:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Poinsettia Lane within the subdivision boundaries shah have full
public improvements to major arterial standards or as approved by the
City Engineer and Gnning Director.
Offsite Poinsettia Lane from the subdivision boundary to Blackrail
Court shall be constructed with full width grading, two 14 foot wide
paved center lanes, median curbing, drainage facilities as needed and
all sewer and utility lines that would be underneath the pavement.
The developer may apply for a reimbursement agreement for these
improvements. .
Ambrosia Lane within the subdivision boundaries shall have full public
improvements to local street standards.
Within the subdivision boundaries Blackrail Court shall have a
between-b width of 48 feet in a 68 foot wide right-of-way as
shown on the tentative map from Alga Road to Street “I”. From
Street “I” to the subdivision boundary the between-curb width shall
taper from 48 feet wide to 40 feet wide. The taper shall be to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Offsite Blackrail Court from the subdivision boundary to Poinsettia
Lane shall be constructed with a 28 foot wide paved roadway with
sufficient drainage control facilities as may be required and all sewer,
water and utility lines that would be underneath the paving.
PC RESO NO. 3577 -lO-
5’
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
10
11
12
13
k 14
15
16
17
18
19 ,I
20'1
21 Ii
22 ‘I
23
24
25
26
27
28
Sufficient right-of-way shall be obtained for the improvements to be
constructed and maintained but not less than 30 feet in width. The
developer may request a reimb ursement agreement for the utilities
being installed but not needed for this project and permanent surface
improvements not needed for this project.
II. PRIOR TO RECORDING A FINAL MAP FOR AIUY SUBSEQUENT PHASE ALL
THE IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED FOR THAT PHASE TO MEET CITY
STANDARDS ARE REQUIRED:
k Street “D” and Street “G” in Unit VII are designated hillside streets.
As shown on the tentative map, Street “D” and “G” shall have a right-
of-way width of 46 feet, a between-curb width of 32 feet and
sidewalks only on one side. The right-of-way width shall taper from
the local street 60 feet wide in Unit V to the hillside street 46 feet
wide in Unit WI. The betweencurb width shall taper from 40 feet
wide in Unit V to 32 feet wide in Unit VII, all to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer.
B. All streets within the subdivision boundaries shall have full public
street improvements based on the right-of-way widths as shown on
the tentative map.
A note to this effect 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.
Fire Conditions:
59. Prior to the issuance of building permits, complete building plans shall be approved
by the Fire Department.
60. Additional onsite public water mains and fire hydrants are required.
61. 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.
62. Applicant shall submit a site plan depicting emergency access routes, driveways and
traffic circulation for Fire Department approval.
63. An all-weather, unobstructed access road suitable for emergency service vehicles
shall be provided and maintained during construction. When in the opinion of the
PC RESO NO. 3577 -ll-
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
64.
65.
66. The entire potable water system, reclaimed water system and sewer system shall be
evaluated in detail to ensure that adequate capacity, pressure and flow demands are
met.
67. The Developer shall be responsible for all fees, deposits and charges which will be
collected at 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.
68. Sequentially, the Developers Engineer shall do the following:
A. Meet with the City Fire Marshal and establish the fire protection
requirements.
B. Prepare a colored reclaimed water use area map and submit to the Planning
Department for processing and approval.
C. Schedule a meeting with the District Engineer for review, comment and
approval of the preliminary system layout usage (GPM - EDU) plan for
potable, reclaimed and sewer systems prior to the preparation of
improvement plans.
69. This project is approved upon the expressed condition that building permits will not
be issued for development of the subject property unless the water district serving
the development determines that adequate water service and sewer facilities are
available at the time of application for such water service and sewer permits will
continue to be available until time of occupancy. This note shall be placed on the
fmal map.
.-
Fire Chief, the access road has become unserviceable due to inclement weather or
other reasons, he may, in the interest of public safety, require that construction
operations cease until the condition is corrected.
All required water mains, fire hydrants and appurtenances shall be operational
before combustible building materials are located on the construction site.
Native vegetation which presents a fire hazard to structures shall be modified or
removed in accordance with the specifications contained in the City of Carlsbad
Landscape Guidelines Manual. Applicant shall submit a Fire Suppression plan to the
Fire Department for approval.
Water Conditions:
PC RESO NO. 3577 -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
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of December, 1993, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Betz,
Welshons, Savary, Erwin & Hall.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
BAILEYNOB@ Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RESO NO.3577 -13-
Exm5
4. CT 92-03(A) - AVIARA PHASE III REVISION - Request for a tentative tract map revision to revise a
condition of approval regarding secondary access for property generally located along future Ambrosia
Lane, north of Alga Road, in Local Facilities Management Zone 19.
Chairman Compas reminded the applicant, Commissioners, and public, that if the Commission recommends
approval for this item it will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration.
The staff report was delivered by Michael Grim. Mr. Grim stated that the Aviara Phase III subdivision was
approved by the City Council on January 25, 1994, through City Council Resolution No. 94-41 and Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3577. As with all major subdivisions, a secondary access was required to serve
the development in case the primary access was cut off during an emergency. At the time of the Aviara
Phase III public hearings, Cassia Road was intended to culde-sac at the western edge of the Poinsettia Hill
subdivision. After hearing the Poinsettia Hill tentative map, the Planning Commission and City Council voiced
concerned over pedestrian access to Aviara Oaks School and the future park. As a result, Cassia Road was
required to be connected with Poinsettia Lane. This change in development set the stage for an alternative
access route to the Aviara Phase III subdivision.
Additionally, The proposed secondary access would utilize the now approved alignment of Cassia Road from
Poinsettia Lane to El Camino Real. Since the undeveloped portion of the roadway lies within the boundaries
of two subdivisions, Aviara and Poinsettia Hill, the effort required for acquisition and construction of the
roadway is greatly reduced and more proportional to the level of development.
Further, the Aviara Phase III tentative map proposed for revision is a City Council requirement for additional
park access. The approving City Council resolution contained a condition mandating a temporary access
easement from Poinsettia Lane to the Aviara Park site to facilitate pedestrian traffic. Now that Cassia Road
connects with Poinsettia Lane, the sidewalk system for both of these public roads will allow completed
pedestrian access, thereby eliminating the need for a temporary easement. Staff recommends that this
condition be deleted.
Commissioner Monroy asked Mr. Grim to indicate the location of Aviara Oaks School on the map and show
how it will be accessed from the north. Mr. Grim illustrated on the map that the school was located, on the
PLANNING COMMISSION June 19, 1996
corner of Alga Road and Ambrosia. He added that Ambrosia will continue northward and be completed with
curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements, allowing both vehicular and pedestrian access all the way up into
the park.
Commissioner Monroy asked Mr. Grim if the affordable housing requirements are being met by that
apartment project? Mr. Grim replied that the affordable housing requirements for the entire Aviara Master
Plan and then some are being provided through the Villa Loma apartment project.
Commissioner Monroy asked if Cassia Road is delayed, will the children from that affordable housing site
have to come down El Camino Real. Mr. Grim replied that the children would have to come down El Camino
Real or walk across La Costa Blvd. which would be kept in place, until such time as Poinsettia Lane is
finished.
Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Grim about safety measures in the conditions. She cited Planning
Commission Resolution 3947 on page 6, under 4A No. 5 - “Offsite Cassia Road from El Camino Real to
Poinsettia Lane shall be constructed with full width grading, 28 foot wide paved roadway, all sewer, water and
drainage facilities as may be required. The City Engineer may accept other streets or roadways that meet all
requirements including the cul-de-sac standard.” She asked if this was phrased in such a way that if
Poinsettia Hills, Cobblestone, or any other project in that area fails, they would still satisfy their requirement of
cul-de-sac requirements by doing the improvements themselves?
Mr. Grim replied absolutely. He added that staff typically tries to design maps that will stand on their own,
and that’s how the condition reads. Adding that you cannot count on the improvements of other people.
Additionally, a condition has been added per the June 18, 1996 memo from the Asst. City Engineer to the
Planning Commission, that has been distributed to the Commissioners. Specifically, Aviara Phase Ill would
be conditioned to enter into a reimbursement agreement with those parties that constructed the signal light at
Cassia Road and El Camino Real.
Commissioner Welshons referred to the second part of No. 5, where the City Engineer may accept other
streets or roadways meeting all requirements for secondary access. She asked if this has been added as we
traditionally do.
Mr. Grim replied yes. If after evaluating all of the improvements that would be required to build Cassia to El
Camino Real, the developer should decide that that is not the best way to go, and they want to go somewhere
else and it meets the cul-de-sac standards per the City Engineer, they are allowed to do that, yes.
Chairman Compas asked the applicant to make his presentation.
Mr. Larry Clemens, Aviara Land Associates, 2011 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 206, Carlsbad stated that he
fully agreed with staffs recommendation with one provision to add which was language to the June 18, 1996
memo from Asst. City Engineer to the Planning Commission, and has to do with the traffic signal at Cassia
and El Camino Real sharing with the affordable housing project. Mr. Clemens wanted to make the point that
what they wanted to do is share proportionately the traffic at build out.
Chairman Compas asked Mr. Hauser to clarify the point. Mr. Hauser said there would be no objection to add
the language. Chairman Compas requested Mr. Hauser to come up with the language.
Asst. City Attorney Rudolf asked if the current proposed additional condition is in accordance with the terms
of the proposed reimbursement agreement between the City and the Villa Loma developer included in the
language or do we need to fix this language to make that clear at this point?
MINUTES
5’0
PLANNING COMMISSION June 19,1996
Commissioner Monroy also asked the applicant if he would be including in the proportionality Aviara’s share
of the affordable housing traffic, since it is Aviara’s requirement? Applicant Clemens replied that he didn’t
follow Commissioner Monroy’s line of question. Commissioner Monroy asked if Aviara was meeting its affordable housing through the Villa Loma, so Aviara would have to assume part of that traffic. Mr. Clemens
replied, yes, but that he did not agree with it.
Commissioner Noble added that he believed that Mr. Clemens didn’t have to agree with it because he had
already assumed his portion of x-number of houses that are already blocked and set-aside even for houses
he has yet to build. So in essence it’s taken care of.
Commissioner Heineman stated that once they have acquired whatever required affordable housing is
necessary in Villa Loma, it no longer is their housing.
Mr. Clemens went on to make two other points. Mr. Clemens wanted to elaborate on the requirement of the
Cassia/Poinsettia Road connection. He stated that Council Member Nygaard wanted to find a way to make
sure that there was a direct access to Aviara Oaks school and to the park site from Villa Loma. Alternate
sites came up, and it was at that time that the extension from Cassia down to Poinsettia and connecting to Ambrosia was decided upon. It was at this Council meeting that this discussion and decision was generated.
While timing could be an issue, and if the off-site property owners don’t proceed, Aviara has the right to build
in advance and then be reimbursed. He added that Aviara was already working with Dwight Spires and off-
site property owners on this issue. Lastly, Mr. Clemens asked to have his rights to rebuttal reserved.
Chairman Compas so noted his right to rebuttal. Chairman Compas asked what the projected timing for
Ambrosia Lane for getting it to the park? Mr. Clemens replied the rough grading was expected to begin this month and hoped to pull the permit to begin rough grading of Phase III in the next few weeks. Being in the
Coastal Zone, they will have to stop at a point coming up, so rough grading will have to end at the end of
September and then start up again in April.
Chairman Compas opened public testimony and asked Thomas Smith to come forward.
Thomas Smith, 2945 Harding Street, Carlsbad, stated the same problems exist in this agenda item as in the
previous item, namely the problem of access. He added that access should continue to be as good as it has
been in the past. Also, he stated that his clients did not want to end up with a situation like the one on the
western end, where the grade is impassable in inclement weather. With the lock on the gate, denying the
area residents of the additional 700’ they need to travel to get to Alga Road, all three directions of access will
be closed off. Mr. Smith illustrated on a map, showing that La Costa Blvd. has been a road for over 100
years and its a road that has been recognized by governments at the local, regional, and federal levels, and
feels that there is some obligation to maintain some right to access that the area residents have enjoyed all of
these years. Secondly, there is concern over the amount of money that is available for public facilities in this
area, and if Mr. Clemens is allowed to do what he is intending to do, he will bum up a lot of money, which
may not leave enough to develop Black Rail Court. Mr. Smith added that he felt this was the plan, to use up
all the money and then have the burden of paying for Black Rail Court improvements on the property owners.
Mr. Smith wanted to know when Black Rail Court was going to be improved. He wants to ensure for his
clients that they won’t be assessed a disproportionate amount for improvements to Black Rail Court. He feels
that the proposed revisions to Aviara Phase III will eat up a lot of the money designated to public facilities in
that area. He wants to know where the real obligations lie with regard to Black Rail Court.
Chairman Compas asked if there were any questions for Mr. Smith; there were none. Chairman Compas
called Ronald McKinney to speak.
Ronald McKinney addressed the topics of land use, circulation, noise, and public safety with regard to
Tentative Map Revision. Contrary to staffs position, Mr. McKinney stated that he believes these elements
will be negatively impacted by the revision. Mr. McKinney went on to say that changing the access of Aviara
-
PLANNING COMMISSION June 19, 1996
Phase III to the east to Cassia and then to El Camino Real changed the whole scenario. This proposed
revision would cut off all access to the agricultural community to the west of Aviara Phase III. No access
means that their agricultural community will be disrupted, and access will be cut-off to emergency vehicles.
Mr. McKinney also raises the concern over the direction that the wind blows, which feeds fires. Lastly, Mr.
McKinney states this revision would pose a threat to children who have to walk through brush, pass around
illegal immigrant camps, and through trees on their way to school.
Evelyn McKinney, 6525 El Camino Real, Carlsbad stated her concerns focused on safety issues west of
Aviara Phase III. Mrs. McKinney cited a number of illegal and violent activities that have taken place in this
area, and emphasizes her concern over the fact that there is the potential for children to be exposed or
victimized by such events. Mrs. McKinney went on to cite two cases, Do/en v. Tigard and No//an v. Coastal
Commission to make the point that there must be a demonstrable factual relationship, or “Nexus” between a
development impact and conditions imposed to mitigate. In closing, Mrs. McKinney stated that she believes
there is a nexus here and that area residents need exaction to mitigate it. She then urged the Commission
not to approve the Revision to Aviara Phase Ill.
Commissioner Welshons inquired how many residents live on Black Rail Court. Mrs. McKinney replied there
were approximately 13. Commissioner Welshons asked how many children, to which Mrs. McKinney replied
7 who attend both Aviara Oaks and the high school.
Chairman Compas requested Mr. Guy Moore to step forward, and established that he was once again
speaking for the same five people listed above.
Guy Moore, 6503 El Camino Real, Carlsbad stated that he believed the issue of accessing Ambrosia and
Aviara Oaks School by the southerly projection of Cassia Street is a scam to relieve Aviara of covenants to
open and construct Black Rail Court. Mr. Moore wanted to point out that Cassia goes down into a canyon
approx. 80’ deep. Poinsettia Hill has two connections, which will be projected onto Poinsettia Lane and no
one knows where it is going to be and there are three alternates and no one has tied it down or when its
going to be built. Mr. Moore went to a map to make his point and illustrate to the Commission. He stated that
Aviara does not need the connection, which he believes will be a liability in the future when Poinsettia Lane is
built. Until Poinsettia is completed to its future destination, which is Melrose Drive (approx. 5 - 10 years) he
believes that Black Rail Court will serve a comparable purpose. In light of this anticipated event, Mr. Moore is
petitioning the City Council to include Black Rail Court in the Bridge & Thoroughfare District elements of Zone
20 Facility Management Plan, and donations of existing easements and covenants be considered as payment
therefore.
There being no one else from the audience who wished to speak, Chairman Compas called on Mr. Clemens
for rebuttal.
Applicant Larry Clemens, Aviara Land Associates, 2011 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 206, Carlsbad, stated
that he and Asst. City Attorney Rudolf believe there is some misunderstanding in this matter dealing with the
way the conditions read regarding access to the properties to the west where Aviara terminates at the west
boundary on Poinsettia. It doesn’t seem to read in the condition that once improvements are made to that
road of the Cassia link and Poinsettia, there is nothing that says that Aviara wouldn’t put up a gate, thereby
eliminating access, which is not the intent. The intent is to make the access better for the property owners to
the west, and by making those improvements, giving Villa Loma access to the park and school. Perhaps
there should be some wording that says that the property owners to the west would have access to those
road improvements. Another point Mr. Clemens clarified with regard to a statement Mr. Smith made was that
during the time construction of improvements is taking place, Aviara will leave open the current La Costa
Blvd. roadway which serves as access today. One last point Mr. Clemens wanted to emphasize was that
there is no legal right for access over Aviara’s property by anybody in that zone outside of the property and to
clarify what Mr. Smith was saying that at some point in the future they will get the bad news that they are
obligated to fund the street improvements north of Aviara’s boundary on Black Rail Court, that Aviara has the
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION June 19, 1996 Page 16
right to install improvements on Black Rail Court, but not the obligation. Additionally, the access problem that was created that both Mrs. McKinney and Mr. Smith referred to earlier at Alga and Poinsettia was a water
main problem, it was not Aviara. It was another developer in Zone 20. Regarding the McKinney’s allegations
that inaccuracy or failure to speak to points in Aviara’s EIR and land use findings, and Mr. Clemens reminded
the Commission that these were approved by Council and the CA State Coastal Commission in 1987 and
1988 and still stand. The 1200’ intersection altered to a 600’ intersection for Cassia was not a standard as
stated by Mrs. McKinney. Rather, it is a policy of the City, and as such is the best consideration by the
deciding body. With regard to the fencing off of La Costa Blvd. from their property, this was required by the
City of Carlsbad because people were illegally dumping on Aviara and the City’s property. The only way to
eliminate the dumping was to fence it and then dig a trench, because people would go around the fence. Mr.
Clemens stated that Aviara is very concerned over the safety of children and is putting Ambrosia Lane
through as quickly as possible, which should begin within two weeks. One final point made by Mr. Clemens
is that Aviara is not scamming anybody. It is the desire of Aviara to solve the problem with the access and
make it better to the north. Mr. Clemens reiterated that Aviara does not have an obligation, only a right to
construct the Black Rail Court north of Aviara’s boundary.
Chairman Compas asked Mr. Clemens for clarification that Aviara will not disrupt access to the east while
improvements are under construction. Mr. Clemens answered access will not be disrupted at any time.
Chairman Compas closed public testimony and asked staff for information and further clarification.
In chronological order, Mr. Grim began with Mr. Smith’s request that staff add a condition that access through
construction of build out of the project would not be hindered and, as Mr. Clemens explained, Aviara’s intent
is not to disrupt access. Therefore, an explicit condition will be drafted to reflect this intent. (Mr. Rudlof
noted that Mr. Hauser had already done this.) Additionally Mr. Smith said La Costa Blvd. property was
assumed by the City and this is not correct, according to Mr. Hauser, private proscriptive rights easements
would be the only thing across La Costa Blvd. With regard to the amount of money being spent in this area
that is of concern to Mr. Smith, this money is being spent by Aviara Land Associates as private property
owner, and this money is being spent on circulation roadways because of requirements placed on Aviara by
the City for subdividing. Property owners to the west, while they are much smaller property owners, would
probably have to get together in union to do the type of improvements that are being discussed tonight,
however, it is not the City building the road, therefore this money is not coming from the General Fund, or
Bridge and Thoroughfare Fees, and essentially there is not a city well to dry up as a result of improvements
being made in this matter. With regard to the fact that these areas are impassable during inclement weather
and the inability for emergency vehicles to get in and out, Mr. Grim pointed out that a dirt road will be replaced
with a fully paved road, making improved access rather than declining access. With regard to Mr. Moore’s
comment on Poinsettia Road, staff is certain that Poinsettia will be aligned in the future, and as far as
knowing where Poinsettia road will be built, staff has vertical and horizontal controls knowing where that’s
going to be built through the Aviara project. Mr. Grim deferred the matter of the Bridge and Thoroughfare
District to Mr. Hauser regarding adding a road to that district.
Chairman Compas inquired that if Black Rail Court was to be built in the property outside of Aviara, that that
is going to have to be paid for by the property owners? Mr. Grim replied that there are two other maps that
are “on the hook” for secondary access, however secondary access is not full street improvements.
Therefore, to get the full curb, gutter, and sidewalk, staff would have to consider this use for primary access
and the property owners, just as all property owners in the City are required to improve the frontage of their
property. Bottom line, yes, property owners would have to pay for full street improvements.
Commissioner Monroy inquired about conditions 2 and 5 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3947,
addressing the issues of streets, and it specifies certain conditions such as drainage facilities, etc. but does
that include sidewalks as well?
PLANNING COMMISSION June 19,1996
Mr. Grim answered that the only portion that includes sidewalks is area no. 2. Per policy on exaction, staff is
only requiring full street improvements within the subdivision boundary of Aviara. Therefore, only a small link
of Cassia would be required to have full street improvements, which include curb, gutter, and sidewalk. The
southern end of Cassia does not have the improvements. It would only have a 28’ wide paved roadway.
Mr. Hauser added that when it is conditioned it would not have sidewalks.
Commissioner Monroy stated that this was a substantial concern for him when talking about safety issues.
One of the issues here is the safety for the children who attend schools to the south. And, the pedestrian
walk survey by the City gives the schools high priority on the sidewalks; number one priority. Therefore,
there should be at least one sidewalk on one side of the street.
Mr. Hauser responded that could be conditioned in.
Chairman Compas asked staff if there wasn’t a sidewalk, wouldn’t people from Villa Loma have a hard time
getting to the park? Mr. Hauser responded that they would have to walk in the shoulder area. Mr. Grim
added that it was secondary access and therefore, theoretically the only people using this access would be
emergency vehicles.
Commissioner Monroy again brought up the issue of safety for the children walking to school and the need for
sidewalk. Commissioner Monroy reiterated his concern over this issue.
Mr. Hauser said staff had the same trouble when putting the condition together because typically, for
secondary access roads, a 28’ section is what the requirement states, because it is primarily used only as a
secondary access. The problem with this is that this secondary access acts as an access for another project
on the other side of it, so who is responsible for putting in the curb, gutters and sidewalk - Aviara or Villa
Loma? It was harder to use this as a nexus to come up with an answer of who should pay what portion, but if
Commissioners feel that it is a matter of traffic safety, it wouldn’t do to have secondary access unless you had
a sidewalk on one side of the street, and then you could find it probably should include a sidewalk on one
side.
Commissioner Monroy stated that was why he raised the question about proportionality and the signal earlier.
The nexus that he sees is that the affordable housing requirements of Aviara have been met by Villa Loma, and therefore that should have a sidewalk because those apartments would not have been built unless Aviara
suggested it to meet their affordable housing requirements. Commissioner Monroy went on to say that he did
not believe Aviara should be responsible to pay for all of the apartments, just their proportion of affordable housing units. He added that he wondered who was going to pay for the signal and the sidewalk.
Mr. Hauser answered that payment for the improvement of the signal was paid for in the original Villa Loma project and it was paid for by the developer. Therefore, Aviara has already paid for its proportional share of
improvements. Beyond the Villa Loma project there will be other development that will utilize the signal and
therefore staff wants to get a proportional share from those developments.
Commissioner Welshons suggested asking the applicant if he would agree to put in sidewalks on one side to
the road with the understanding that he would be reimbursed as the other projects come in on Cassia.
Chairman Compas asked applicant Larry Clemens to come forward and address Commissioner Welshons’
question.
Mr. Clemens agreed to make improvements and install a sidewalk on one side with the understanding that he
would be reimbursed as other developments came in.
PLANNING COMMISSION June 19,1996 Page 18
Chairman Compas asked Mr. Hauser if he agreed with the statement from area residents that they have lost
their ability to go west. Mr. Hauser answered, agreeing that there are problems with access out there during
inclement weather, which staff will try and solve, and move the water line, which Council authorized a few
weeks earlier. Chairman Compas asked Mr. Hauser what the time line was estimated to be, to which Mr.
Hauser answered it would take another few weeks to get out there to do the work. Under the best conditions
it would probably take a couple more weeks.
Commissioner Welshons asked if these were not the same issues that were raised with regard to Chestnut
and the antennas? Staff heard the complaints and were going to investigate. Based on testimony tonight, if
the land owners in that area have not been conditioned to put in an adequate road and have not done so, and
the City is aware of it, by this public hearing our obligation is to look into it and get it resolved.
Chairman Compas added that the Commissioners would like the staff to look into this problem of what
appears to be lost access to these people and straighten out the matter, and make a report back to the
Commission. Chairman Compas suggested 60 days, and Commissioner Heineman suggested 30 days.
Chairman Compas requested staff to report back within 30 days.
Commissioner Noble inquired how far it was from Villa Loma to Aviara Oaks School.
Mr. Hauser replied it was approximately 1.6 miles.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if conditions were ready to be heard.
Mr. Hauser replied that he had the m condition No. 6 to Resolution No. 3947, which reads, “The developer
shall allow vehicular access, including trucks, from Poinsettia Lane west to the existing private farm access
road known as La Costa Boulevard. The vehicular access shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer and be permitted both during and after construction of Poinsettia Lane and the project.” In addition,
staff would renumber No. 6 to No. 7.
Chairman Compas asked if the applicant wanted to comment on that. Mr. Clemens wanted to clarify for the
record that he generally agreed with what Mr. Hauser said but wanted it understood that the developer will
provide a transition road from the improved Poinsettia Lane to the existing roadway known as La Costa
Boulevard.
Mr. Hauser agreed that was the intent of the language he drafted.
Chairman Compas asked Mr. Smith if he would like to comment. Mr. Smith responded that if this means his
clients will have the same access they have always enjoyed, that is agreeable. Mr. Hauser said that while it
may not be exactly the same, it would be equivalent to what they have enjoyed in the past. It will be
maintained so that it does not have a steeper grade. Mr. Smith also noted a dangerous condition on the west
side that occurs when you go down and then come up you lose sight of whoever is coming in the opposite
direction.
Chairman Compas asked for the other condition that had to do with sidewalks, and asked staff to read the
new language for the sidewalk condition.
Mr. Wayne responded that Condition 4A 5 would be amended to read as follows, “Offsite Cassia Road from
El Camino Real to Poinsettia Lane, shall be constructed with full width grading, 28 foot wide paved roadway, all sewer, water and drainage facilities as may be required (added language) plus new curb, gutter and
sidewalk on the north side, subject to potential reimbursement by other adjacent development.”
Mr. Hauser suggested that 28 foot be changed to 32 foot, which would be the normal standard of l/2 street
plus 12.
PLANNING COMMISSION June 19,1996 Page 19
Commissioner Welshons said she thought there was one other condition that the City Attorney was
suggesting.
Mr. Wayne said there were two. They are in Resolution No. 3947, Condition No. 3. The Planning
Commission does hereby recommend can be deleted, and the sentence should start “That Condition 3, item
3 of City Council Resolution 9441 dated . ..” So, just delete the first part of the phrase.
Commissioner Welshons wished to address Mrs. McKinney, since her name was featured in her letter. She
wanted to make a statement and said she appreciated the comments on her tenacity and inquiring about
details. She asked Mrs. McKinney to respect her responsibility as a Planning Commissioner and that there
are strict legal parameters that she needs to work within and one of those is regarding nexus and #o//an and
Do/an cases that were cited. It is clear that the shortest route for the applicant is to make their secondary
access via Poinsettia and Cassia Road. She was sorry that it ended up that way for Mrs. McKinney
personally, but that this Commission and City Council expressed the concern about connecting Cassia.
Therefore, Commissioner Welshons feels compelled to support staff in this matter.
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Welshons, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution No. 3947 recommending approval of the revision to a tentative tract map CT
92-03 (CT 92-03(A)), based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained
therein plus new Condition No. 6, new No. 7 as read by Asst. City Engineer, the
addition of language regarding the sidewalks to Condition No. 4A No. 5, Condition No. 3
deletion of the first part of the Condition as read by Assistant. Planning Director and
Assistant City Engineer, and the June 18, 1996 memo adding a new condition No. 7
and noting the change to that Condition No. 7.
VOTE: 7-o
AYES: Compas, Heineman, Monroy, Nielsen, Noble, Savary, Welshons
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Chairman Compas closed the public hearing and thanked everyone who participated.
ARPORT 1
PROPOSED SECONDARY
.f?ASSIA RD / POINSETTIA LN %%
k AMBROSIA LN
I..III####~ \
I . . * . +
: 88 ~IIIIIIIIa-
:
:
:
:
:
:
%a w f m : I s
1111111111~ 3
: l * + m : : l *
: i.‘.jt
AVIARA PHASE Ill
CT 92=03(A)
_ - ._
-.ylr& COBBLL - rONE M:.-----ufl -R
200 UNITS There are no legal
easements North of
.-_ --1___. .-..---._ the tanks
I
I ocean bluff 1: I ~‘,?‘r;./; % / 100 units : ,I ! t ’
, / I ai .
7j -. ,,” :.,i ,! \I,+ .- -_ 0%
! .
‘\ NOT Tb SCALE \ -- -._..
.a*.-. ‘\ 1 \ ’
‘,’ 1, ,;::;y&cI,
.--..--.J
\ I. ‘\
i----.-*--. “.’ .-_- I.--- -_ I i --, ---- -...; 1 : T i $a~& b & ac 2 - - -... , _ .__ _ 1 p q7F I * j ! e? 8 --em..-. $ $?5$@ bJ;]s ip9”,ai” QQ@ \ 6 1” \
i
i----- --
--.._-_ - __.._
I .
E .I ---. .- __-. - _.... .__
-------.-:e.
--_---
;I
--
/ --.-r-w.-
\,
I “\ 4 /,j /:1
(2 r L !_) 3 \ ,‘, 3’ Q,
IQ? /, ;” _
, / /
-_ ‘\ “‘\ ‘. P. ’ ‘\ < ‘\I
\
‘q., )
‘\
\
?
‘-. . . ,’
/
’
a- r//3j?L i?caA-i
.
u PLANNING COMMISS - J June 19, 1996 Page 15
Phase 111 to the east to Cassia and then to-El Camino Real chana@-the, whole scenario. This proposed .- . WC w.- revision would cut off all access to the agricultural community to the west of ‘Aviara Phase III. No access
means that their agricultural community will be disrupted, and access will be cut-off to emergency-.vehicles.
Mr. McKinney also raises the concern over the direction that the wind blows, which feeds fires. Lastly, Mr.
McKinney states this revision would pose a threat Qch.i!dren who have to walk.through..brush, pass around - _-I.. ^ -- illegal immigrant camps, and-through trees on their way to school. -_. ..- .-
Evelyn McKinney, 6525 El Camino Real, Carlsbad stated her concerns focused on safety issues west of
Aviara Phase III. Mrs. McKinney cited a number of illegal and violent activities that have taken place in this
area, and emphasizes her concern over the fact that there is the potential for children to’be exposed or
victimized by such events. Mrs. McKinney went on to cite txvo cases, Do/an v. Tigard and Nollan v. Coastal
Commission to make the point that there must be a demonstrable factual relationship, or “Nexus” between a
development impact and conditions imposed to mitigate. In closing, Mrs. McKinney stated that she believes
there is a nexus here and that area residents need exaction to mitigate it She then urged the Commission
not to approve the Revision to Aviara Phase Ill.
Commissioner Welshons inquired how many residents live
were approximately 13. Commissioner Welshons asked hc
7 who attend both Aviara Oaks and the high school.
re
!d
Chairman Compas requested Mr. Guy Moore to step
speaking for the same five people listed above.
in
Guy Moore, 6503 El Camino Real, Carlsbad stated that I-
Aviara Oaks School by the southerly projection of Cassia :
opeLand, construct Black Rai! Court. Mr. Moore wanted t
appmx. 80’ deep. Poinsettia Hill has two connections, wh
petition9 the City~o~~il to include Black Rail Court in33 C_....w- 2QJ5a&ib0Janagament-E9an, and donations.of existing easements a@ .~~~~~~~~~-os-y~~ therefore.
There being no one else from the audience who wished to speak, Chairman Compas called on Mr. Clemens
for rebuttal.
Applicant Larry Clemens, Aviara Land Associates, 2011 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 266, Carlsbad, stated
that he and Asst. citu.Attnm_ev Rudolf believe-there is some misunderstanding in this matter dealing with the
way the conditions read r~tigaccess,tg the omoertie8Jpthewest -where Aviara terminates at the west
bound~.n&&s@Ij.a. It doesn’t seem to read in the condition that once improvements are made to that
mad of the Cassia link and Poinsm-, there ~s~~n_g_a~~~~.at~j-~~u~dn~t.put.up.a.g~~
@imjn@hg 3~~ ws not the intent. The intent is to make the access better for the pmperty owners to
the west, and by making those improvements, gEgVs&oma access to the parkxd school. Perhaps . . . . ..-m-.0. there should be son%wo%i~g~~~y~e property owners to the west%o%;ib have access to those
road improvements. Another point Mr. Clemens clarified with regard to a statement Mr. Smith made was that
during the time construction of improvements is taking place, Aviara will leave o
Blvd. roadway which serves as access today. One last point Mr. Clemens wanted to emphasize was that
thsht for,- wer Aviara~~@@ybya~bo&&@&o~~@sj&@J& pmpertv and to clarify what Mr.. Smith was - a......... ._....- saying . . ..-I*.--_. ,.., ea.- - that at some point in the future they will get the bad news that they are I-T.= .,._. a_ . . d to fund the street improvements north of Av~a-;s’~~~d~~~oln_~!~~~-R~il Court,- .,: . . . . C.,e,.=:n.^*^...-r,r .*..,. e.-. I..-,-lliUII.l -. -.-- -.- --.-I
37 \ . I_. .’ 6 .._ v . iiANNING COMMA, JON June 19,1996 Page 10
Mr. Moore called the’&nmi&ii& attention to a grant of easement by Gordon and Mary Olden to Frank
Ayres dated August 25, 1959. This document includes covenants regarding an easement for roadway
purposes, and rightof-way for installation of public utilities. Mr. Moore stated that this type of covenant
usually travels with the title, and it traveled from Mr. Ayres to Mr, Hunt, and from Mr. Hunt to Mr. Hillman, and
is still in effect His point was that the easement has already been granted, and, in fact, 60’ of land was
swapped for the dghtof-way that was demanded by the County from Mr. Ayres and himsetf to pmvide
circulation. He feels that now the Cii wants to renege on the agreement Mr. Moore went on to say that Mr.
.-.- - Hillman .has both the authority and the responsibility to build Black Rail Court, which was part of the covenant. .-,_... _- ..,-. - ..-illlmre stated tha~i’Black Rail Court wasn t developed by Aviara, it would probably. never.bed~tox&
Mr. Moore quoted from the minutes of Poinsettia Hill, January 5, 1994, pg. 3, paragraph 8, “Commissioner
Savary requested Mr. Hauser to reply to Commissioner Welshons’ question. David Hauser, Asst. City
Engineer stated, ‘One of the first things staff did in evaluating a pmject was to require the applicant to sit
down with the adjacent property owners and work out an overall circulation access plan. When the overall .__ . --.. --.. I- picture was evaluated, staff concluded that the proposed access is the best available one that would selve
all of the property owners and still maintain the 1300 intersection standard on Poinsettia Lane.” Mr. Moore
stated that the proposed connection to the prop0
and was denied by, the Commission. Mr. Moore
m0m y!!!ys:~~&&,&n
A & /3/ /9PL I standards
secret back
No questions were asked of Mr. Moore. Chairms jGLiLf - : ,,,,
. who wished to speak on this item. There were nor
come back for his rebuttal. : . ,_ ‘i:
Applicant Larry Clemens of A&a Land Assoc
returned to give his rebuttal. Mr. Clemens pointt
from the property owners only this evening,. and h; 3ut that the
testimony given had no rdationship whatsoever w ns’ rebuttal
included the following points: With regard to Tt etween the
property owner’s access and operating the lnfon h 1 serves to
discourage illegal dumping that tends to occur on
that it should be reapected’as such. He added ths
With regard to funding facilities, Aviara has paid il rlic faciliies
that are in detriment here as a result of anythin, . . ..- ._ __-_ =. _ __ _ have been
discussed have taken place over the course of ten years in a public hearing - no back room meetings. He
emphasized that there have been extensive public hearings, done both by the City as well as Aviara to
explain and discuss the project He wefIt on to say that he felt it was an inaccurate statement that property
values have decreased, and mther, have greatly increased as a result of the public facilities and other
amenities that have been added in the Aviara Master Plan. The nuisance factor was addressed by stating it
had nothing to do with the Information Center, but resulted from another source. with regard to Mr.
Mcfinney, the signs he refers to are stop and street identification signs and are on private property- Black
Rail Court is on private property and signs are there for directional purposes. Another point on the
iwr-ment agreement Wx?Bat Avh has .no oblig~ti.~n.~to.~ns~~~~~~~o~. or.%! i.mpro?rq! B&k. Rail . . Court until such time as there is a future intersection, to which Black Rail Court may be extended from -.. -. -..- - - .---- Aviara’s boundary. That would be Poinsettia and B!ack Rail. So until that exists, there is no.oh!igatign-to .--.--- .._^ 4---s--...-. ._. pave Aviara’s section of Black Rail Court Regarding Mrs. McKinney, Mr. Clemens said during the hearing on __-. ._ Poins&<?t-w&?he McKinneys who were disagreeing with Poinsettia being extended, yet tonight the
message was that Poinsettia needed to be extended. He found this to be a conflict in testimony. Mr.
Clemens added that when Aviara installed their section of Poinsettia through the northern tip of its property
next to the park, this Commission and the City Council approved to leave La Costa Blvd. in place while the
construction of Poinsettia was taking place so that the passage way would be just as you have it today.
When Poinsettia is paved, that is when the old mute disappears. Regarding Mr. Moore and the easement he
read to the Commission, it is an easement that is in favor of Aviara. It says that they have access and the
MINUTES
;.. ‘. r, . , :! , ;:; l - n . 5’. &y .p ;., ‘.‘p/
t i\ l-J ‘oc. f 4
\y,. OQ”
l .’
i! m
(‘. . . v
f . .
Y
I- ii
-
! .
!;c;; 7: 3 0, * II *;;,
GRANT OF EASELENT ’ . ;a.;, / r’? . I d.. . ?., LIZ; ;. :.. 2 :- /
*.,n:. .y:cr.i. ’
GORIJON 0. OLTON and WRY JANE OLSON, hfm rife, do
hereby grant to FRANK Il. AYRES L SON, a corporation, an cast-
mcnt for roadway purposes and right-of-ray for instrllatlon
of public utllltlcs and plpclincs over property situated in
the County of San Uicjio, State of California, described aa follorr:
Portions of Section 22 and Section 27 of
Tornshlp 12 South, Nanp 1 west, SOBY, County of
San Dlcgo, St? tc of Ca 11 Cornla, drrcrlbcd as follows:
Ocglnnlnp, at the Intersrct1on of the North-South crntcr llnc nf arid Scctlonr 22 l nd 27 with the Southerly boundary nf S:cctlon 22 Cqcln~ aIS0 th* Northerly boundary
of SectIon 27) thcncc at right angles 91th said ccntcr
llnc Eartcrly JO fc*t; thcner Northrrly parallel r1th
sald crntrsr llnc fifi0 fret: thrncc westerly, at right angles rlth said crntcr Ilnfi Gll feet; thence Enuthetly
parallel with nalcl contrr firm 1980 fret; thence rt
right anKlcr with said CrntPr Iin* 30 fret Cn said
ccntcr I lnc: thrncr Northerly along 8aid ccntcr line
1320 fret mnrr mr lrrs to pnlnt Of brglnnlng.
to h4. . . . . , . . v8rd by thr. Crantcl? CI e .-,. ?..--I.“-7 . ...,,,,acL\:;!hfr rlth oth-rs and thti public .-.. _ --.-na..--.-..-... . . . . . . . .
In gcncral, fnr )iuch rnrdrry purp~~scrc and rlfih!ef-,pf-way for . . . ..\\2l\il .t L--f..... mm....--....-. . . . . . .
lnmt~llatlnn of~31111lir - --.- ---. utllltlrlc and plpcllnr?s, 91th the full ._--..-C. . . . . I.. . - . . -
port-r vrstrtl 111 lhr. Grantee. tar grant nr dcdlcrtc ruch rascmrnt . . . .-- . .- -.;-- . . . - I.
or right-of-...y 111 guy ~lubllr bw(y 38 3 puhllc atrrrl and the L.S.M -....-l.--..--*- “-----U...-~. -.--.--..-I -..A.. ..,*-‘----.I
right to grant io ntlwrr the rlcht tn lay plpcllnr~ nr Install . . . . . . . . _ . . utllltlcr of th<* tr%wI klncl nvcr raft1 prnpcrty. __ . . . . . . . ._ . . . .I..__ .-,_. . .-..- . . ..w. . . . . .
Uatcd: d’
GORIJON U, OLTON
,%hIIY ml; ‘,I.TUN
STATE OF ChI.IFUl~SIA, I .
RR. t
County 0-f San I~I**r.n. f .I
‘(
.
, 1959, bt.fnrc. rnr the unclrr- lralll Cnrlnty and ;;atr, ,,,.r-
OI.TO!* a ml
'iq. t 0 bv
M.\lIY JAKI: lll.TlJ.u, ktrc,.,, to t hr. ,a, I *. *a11 I . It cl:.8 t14mu % arr
$<strunrnt .ifvl .~vI.rt**r Ir *11:e.d
sdrrcrlbn 11 to tht+ ~1 tb:,, thYI thf*y ,*rvrutrrl the. ran, - ‘. . . .‘. .,,a \,lT?*l. -.z : ..,. I, .a?S.l 1~1llr~lal W;ll.
. . -.* ‘. i . 8 . . t . .
. .
I . ...> -... ’ I<>,>,’
t I i \ ‘.::I. ,.,I.,
t .:,.\ 1 ,&U., I ‘VW
ns
.,.:., ,,,. ,‘ill,,, F<s,m
._ .
236~05-1
SCHEDULE B
This policy does nor insure against loss or damage by reason of the. following:
PART ONE:
1. Taxes or assessments o/hlch are nor shown as existing llrna by the records of any taxing authority that levia (ua
or assessments on real properry or by the public records.
2. Any facts. righrs. tnreresrs,or claims which arc not shown by the public records bur which could b axertxjnd
by an lnspcction of said land or by making inquiry of persons in possrssion thereof.
3. Easemenrs. claims of easemcnr or encumbrances which are nor shown by the public records.
4 DIScrcpancles. conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area. encroachmenu, or any other facts which a corrm gur.
vey would disclose, and which are not shown by rhe public records.
5. Unpatented mining claims; reservations or exccprions
warer rights, claims or ride ro water. in patents or in Acts authorizing the iuuna thermi;
PART -i?WO:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
County and special district taxes for the fiscal year 1966-1967, a lien
not yet payable.
An easement for roadway purposes and right-of-way for installation
of public utilities and pipelines over the Westerly 30 feet of said land
as granted by deed recorded August 26, 1960, as File No. 174500.
An easement over-said land for poles, wires and incidental purposes, as
granted to the San Diego Gas and Electric Company, by deed recorded
June 24, 1965, as File No. 113018.
The route thereof across said land is more particularly described as follows:
Within the Easterly 12.0 feet of the Westerly 30.0 feet of the herein described property.
An easement over said land for poles, wires and incidental purposes, as
granted to the San Diego Gas and Electric Company, by deed recorded
March 31, 1966, as File No. 54149.
The route thereof across said land is more particularly described as follows:
Within the Westerly 50.00 feet of the Northerly 6.00 feet of said land.
An easement over said land for communication structures and purposes
incidental thereto as conveyed to The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph
Company, by deed recorded May 25, 1966, as File No. 87070.
Said structures shall be located on the Westerly 30 feet of said land
and the grant.0 ants for himself, successors and assigns not to place or maintain uilding or structure thereon.
------m---------
Page Three
HINUTES
MEETING OF APRIL 21, 1992
CARLSBAD AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENT REVIEW BOARD
Review Board Members and Advisors Present:
Jason Jackson, Soil Conservation Service
Wayne Schrader, UC Cooperative Extension
Dick Wayman, State Coastal Conservancy
Gary Wayne, City of Carlsbad
Others Present:
Penny Dockry, Palomar-Ramona-Julian Resource Conservation District
Guy Moore and other residents of Black Rail Road area
Imorovements to Black Rail Road: Guy Moore and other residents of the Black
Rail Road area reiterated their proposal that CAIF be used to improve access
to their production facilities. Gary Wayne agreed to discuss the issue
further with City of Carlsbad personnel. There may be a role for CAIRB in the
future.
Use of City of Carlsbad Emplovees for Cost-Share Grant Proqram: Gary Wayne
reported that City of Carlsbad employees would not be available to help
administer the cost-share grant program that was proposed to CAIRB at the
February 25, 1992 meeting. .
Consideration of Competitive Research Grant Proqram: Wayne Schrader presented
a proposal that CAIF be used to establish a grant program that would encourage
research projects for the benefit of Carlsbad agriculture. He will work with
Dick Wayman and the Palomar-Ramona-Julian RCD on a proposal to consolidate the
administration of this research grant program and the PRJ-RCD's cost-share
grant program. This proposal will be presented to CAIRB at its next meeting;
The next meeting of CAIRB was scheduled for Tuesday, May 19, 1992, at 1:00
p.m.
2
C.4 Concentrate more intense industrial uses in
those areas least desirable for residential development -
in the general area ofthe flight path corridor ofMcClellan-
Palomar Airport.
C.5 Protect the integrity and promote the identity
of industrial districts by bounding them by significant
physical features such as primary streets, streams and
railroads.
C.6 Ensure that the physical development of
industria1 areas recognizes the need for compatibility
among the industrial establishments involved and does not
permit incompatible uses.
C. 7 Recognize that the existing boundaries of the
industrial corridor along Palomar Airport Road reflect the
impact of the present size and operation of the airport
especially as it relates to residential type uses. Therefore,
no expansion of the boundaries of the airport should be
considered, without authorization by a majority of the
Carlsbad electorate as required by Carlsbad Municipal
Code Section 21.53.015.
C.8 Require new industrial specific plans to
provide, within the proposed development, a commercial
site designed to serve the commercial needs of the occu-
pants of the business park. Such a site should be located
generally at the intersection of prime, major or secondary
arterials in consolidated centers. At least one comer ofone
such intersection must be developed as commercial unIess
the applicant can show why another nearby site is better.
C.9 Allow, by conditional use permit, ancillary
commercial, office and recreational uses when clearly
oriented to support industrial developments and their
populations. These include but are not limited to commer-
cial services, conference facilities, daycare centers, recre-
ation facilities and short term lodging.
C. 10 Require new industrial development to be
Iocated in modem, attractive, well-designed and land-
\ scaped industrial parks in which each site adequately
provides for internal traffic, parking, loading, storage,
and other operational needs.
C. 11 Regulate industrial land uses on the basis of
performance standards, including, but not limited to,
noise, emissions, and traffic.
C.12 Control nuisance factors (noise, smoke,
dust, odor and glare) and do not permit them to exceed
city, state and federal standards.
C.13 Require private industrial developers to
provide for the recreational %eeds of employees working
in the industrial area.
C.14 Screen all storage, assembly, and equip-
ment areas completely from view. Mechanical equip-
ment, vents, stacks, apparatus, antennae and other appur-
tenant items should be incorporated into the total design of
structures in a visually attractive manner or should be
entirely enclosed and screened from view.
C.15 Analyze the feasibility of zone changes to
redesignate the Commercial Manufacturing Zone and the
Manufhcturing Zone as Planned Industrial Zones. I
AGRICULTURE I
A. GOALS I
A. 1 A City which prevents the premature elimi-
preserves said lands wher-
6. OBJECTlVkS
B. 1 To permit agricultural land uses throughout
B.2 To &serve the largest possible amount of
for agricultural purposes,
through the willing compliance of affected parties.
-.
. E3 Lya- :-
B.3 To develop measures to ensure the compat-
ibility of agricultural production and adjacent land uses.
B. OBJECTIVE
C. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND
ACTION PROGRAMS
To establish the preservation of the natural habi-
tat of the rivers, river banks, streams, bays, lagoons,
estuaries, marshes, beaches, lakes, shorelines and can-
yons as a high priority.
C. 1 Support and utilize all measures available,
including the WiIliamson Act, to reduce the financial
burdens on agricultural land, not only to prevent prema-
ture development, but also to encourage its continued use
for agricultural purposes.
C.2 Participate with neighboring cities and
communities in projects leading to preservation of agri-
cultural resources and other types of open space along
mutual sphere of influence boundaries.
C. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND
ACTION PROGRAMS
e
C. 1 Preserve Buena Vista Lagoon and Batiquitos
Lagoon as visual resources and wildlife preserves.
C.3 Consider theacquisition oflands orproperty
rights for permanent agricultural uses through methods or
means such as tnxts, foundations, and city-wide assess-
ment districts.
C.2 Ensure that slope disturbance does not result
in substantial damage or alteration to major significant
wildlife habitat or significant native vegetation areas
unless they present a fire hazard as determined by the Fire
Marshal.
C.4 Attempt to preserve the flower fields or lands
east ofI- to the first ridgeline between Cannon Road and
Palomar Airport Road, through whatever method created
and most advantageous to the City of Carlsbad.
C.3 Ensure that grading for building pads and
roadways is accomplished in a manner that maintains the
appearance of natural hillsides.
C.4 Relate the density and intensity of develop-
ment on hillsides to the slope of the land tb preserve the
integrity of hillsides.
. C.5 Buffer agriculture from more intensive
urban land uses with mutually compatible intermediate
land uses.
i :
C.6 Encourage soil and water conservation
techniques in agricultural activities.
C.5 Limit future development adjacent to the
lagoons and beach in such a manner so as to provide to the
greatest extent feasibIe the physical and visual accessibil-
ity to these resources for public use and enjoyment. .
ENVIRONMENTAL
A. GOAL
C.6 Ensure the preservation and maintenance of
the unique environmental resources of the Agua Hedionda
Lagoon while providing for a balance of public and
private land uses through implementation of the Aqua
He$&onda Land Use Plan.
A City which protects and conserves natural
resources, fragile ecological areas, unique natural assets
and historically significant features of the community. .
C.7 Require comprehensive environmental r-e-
view in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) for all projects that have the poten-
42. , c..i 1.
tial to impact natural resources or environmental features. i . ; : * ;
. . .
t L
I L
i
I
I
I
I
L
L
L
L
l
L
L
c
!
Page 36 Rev. 8194
-
Chapter 21.07
E-A E?(CLLSItZ AGRXmLTZ’RAL ZONE
Sections:
21.07.010
21.07.020
21.07.030
21.07.040
21.07.050
2 1.07.060
21.07.070
2 1.07.080
21.07.090
21.07.100
21.07.110
2X.07.120
Intent and purpose.
Permitted uses and structures.
Permitted accessory uses and
suucmres.
Uses and structures permitted
by conditionaluse permit.
Lot area. minimum.
Lot width, minimum.
Front yard.
Side yards.
Rear yard.
Building height.
Lot coverage.
Development standards.
21.07.010 Intent and purpose.
The intent and purpose of the E-A zone dis-
trict is to:
( t ) Provide for those uses. such as agriculture.
which are customarily conducted in areas which
are not yet appropriate or suited for urban devel-
opment:
(2) Protecr and encourage agricultural uses
wherever feasible:
(3) Implement the goals and objectives oft&
general plan;
(4) Recognize that agricultural activitikare a
necessary pan of the ongoing charact? 6f Carfs-
back : .’
(5) Help assure the continuation’of a healthy.
agricultural economy in apprqp’riate areas of
Carlsbad. (Ord. 9384 3 2 (pa+ 1974)
21.07.020
id
Permirted uses and suuctuns.
In the E-A exclusive agricultural zone only the
following uses and sm~cturcs are permitted su&
jet! to the requirements of this chapter and to the
development standards provided in Chapters
21.41 and 21.44:
( 1) Canle, sheep. goats and swine production.
provided that the number of any one or com-
bination of said animals shall not exceed oae
animal per halfacre oflot area Said animals shall
not be located within fifty feet of any habitable
Wucture. nor shall they be located within three
hundred feet of a habitable sfructure oa an
adjoining parcel zoned for residential uses. nor
shall they be located within one hundred feer of a
parcel zoned for rekdential uses when a habita-
ble stmaure is not involkd. In any event. the
distance from the parcel zoned for residential
uses shall be the greater of the distances so in&-’
cated;
(2) Crop production: /-
/ (3) Floriculture: p-y i
I (4) Greenhom,eZs._than two thousand
i square fket provided all requirements for yard I
i setbacks and height tie mer:
(5) Horses. p@cate use:
(6) Nurxry, Crop production:
(7) Poultp: rabbits. chinchillas. hamsters and
other srnatf animals. provided not more than
twentyYfiire of any one or combination thereof
shall_be kept within fib feet of any habitable
stnkure. nor shall they be located within three
hu’kdred feet of a habitable stmcture on an
adjoining parcel zoned for residential uses. nor
shall they be located within one hundred feet ofa
parcel zoned for residential uses when a habita-
ble svucture is not involved. In any event. the
distance from the parcel zoned for residential
uses shall be the greater of the distances so indi-
cated:
(8) Roadside stand for display and sale of
products produced on the same premises. pro-
vided that the floor area shall not exceed two
hundred square feet and is located not nearer
than twenty feet to any suttt or highway;
(9) Tree farms:
(10) Truck farms:
( 1 I) Wildlife refuges and game preserves:
(12) Other uses or enterprises similar to the
above customarily carried on in the field ofgen-
erai agriculture: ’
562 , .I
” PAGk 2,4
-
( 13) Signs subject to the provisions of Chapter
21.41;
(14) Satellite television antennae subject to
the provisions of Section 21.53.130 of this code.
(Ord. 9804 9 6 (part), !986:.0rd. 9785 5 2, 1986;
Ord. 9674 5 2 (pan), 1983; Ord. 9427 9 !, 1975:
Ord. 9384 0 2 (pan), !974)
21.07.030 Permitted acs.gssocy_uses.~ ._.- . s_sQ-c- The following accessory uses and structures
are permitted on the same terms as the permitted
uses specified in Section 21.07.020:
(1) Accessory uses and accessory buildings
and structures including but not limited to pri-
vate garages, children’s playhouses, radio and
television receiving antennas, windmills. silos,
tank houses, shops. barns, offices. coops,
lathhouses. stables. pens, corrals, and other sim-
ilar accessory uses and structures required for the
conduct of the permitted uses;
(2) Farmhouse, singie-family dwelling;
(3) Guesthouse:
(4) Home occupation:
(5) Mobile homes certified under the
National Mobilehome Construction and Safety
Standards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. Section 540 I et
‘1.07.020
(3) Poultry, rabbits. chinchillas. hamsters and
other small animals in excess of the number spec-
ified in Section 21.07.020:
(4) Farm employee housing for penons work-
ing on-site, provided the number of units shall
not exceed two per gross acre of land area and no
such housing is located closer than fifty feet from
any lot line:
(5) Hay and feed stores:
(6) Nurseries, retail and wholesale:
(7) Packing sheds and processing plants for
farm crops, similar to’those being grown on the
premises, provided no such procming plant is
located within fifty fett of any lot line:
(8) Public .works projects:
(9) Sanitary landfills. temporary;
(10) Stables and riding academies. public:
(I!) Greenhouses greater than two thousand
square feet. provided all rquirements for yard
setbacksand height a.& met. (Ord. 9545 5 1.1980;
Ord. 9507 5 1, 19.78: Ord. 9427 4 2. 1975: Ord.
9384 8 2 (parth i974)
,/”
seq.) on a foundation systems pursuant to Set-/
21.07.056 Lot area, minimum.
e/minimum required area ofa lot in the E-A
shall conform to the area expressed
less than the number following the
Ord. 9384 4 2 (part), 1974)
21.07.040 Uses _ _.-...-- coaditiQ&w-pgxmit-
Subject to the provisions of Chapter 2 1 JO. the
following uses and structures are permitted by
conditional use permit if’ adjoining land uses are
transitional in nature:
(1) Apiary, provided that a!l hives or boxes
housing bees sha!l be placed at least four hundred
feet from any street. school, park R zone, or
from any dwelling or place of human habitation
other than that occupied by the owner or care-
taker of the apiary;
(2) Aviaries;
zoning symbol on the official zoning map. except
that in no event shall a lot be created into less
than ten acres in area
Example: E-A- I5 sha!! mean fifteen-acre mini-
mum lot required. (Ord. 9384-g 2 (part), 1974)
21.07.060 Lot. width, minimum.
Every lot hereafter created in the E-A zone
sha!! maintain a minimum width at the rear line
of the required front yard of not less than three
hunti feet. (Ord. 9384 6 2 (part). 1974)
21.07.070 Front yard.
No building or suuctun. except as o&wise
provided by this chapter, shall be erected or placed less than forty feet from the Front lot tine.
(Old. 9384 $2 (pm), 1974)
563
-
PAGE j;5 -
21.07.080
21.07.080 Side yards.
Every lot and building site shall have a side
yard on each side of the lot or building site.. and
each side yard. except as otherwise provided by
this chapter.shall be not less than fifteen feet in
width. (Ord. 9384 5 2 (part), 1974)
21.07.090 Rear yard.
Every lot and building site, except as otherwise
provided by this chapter. shall have a rear yard
not less than twenty-five feet in depth. (Ord.
9384 9 2 (part), 1974)
2 I .07.100 Building height.
?Jo building used for dwelling purposes. wher-
ever located. and no building or structure used
for other than dwelling purposes and located less
than one hundred fet from any propeny line.
shall exceed two stories or thirty-five feet in
height. whichever is the lesser. A building or
structure used for other than dwelling purposes
and located one hundred feet or more from any
propeny line may exceed thirty-five feet in height
pursuant to conditional use permit. (Ord. 9384 $
2 (part). 1974)
21.07.1 lo- Lot covenge.
Lot coverage with buildings and structures
shall not exceed forty percent of the lot. Buildings
and smmurcs used for growing or raising plants
are not counted as coverage. (Ord. 9427 $ 3,
1975: Ord. 9384 4 2 (part). 1974)
21.07.120 Development standards.
NO one-family dwelling unit. whether it tX
conventionally built. modular or a mobile home,
shall be located on a lot in this zone unless such
dwelling unit complies with the following devel-
opment standards:
(1) Each dwelling unit shall have a two-car
garage. which is architecturally integrated with
and has an exterior similar to the dwelling unit.
Such garage shah have a minimum dimension of
twenty feet square. -IL
(2) All dwelling units shall have a permanent
foundation. For mobile homes a foundation sys-
tem installed pursuant to Section 18551 of the
State Health and Safety Code shall satisfy the
requirements of this section.
(3) Exterior siding material shall be stucco.
masonry. wood or brick unless an alternative
exterior material is approved by the land use
planning manager. The land use planning man-
ager may approve a siding material other than
those listed in this section only if he finds that use
of such material is in harmony with other dwell-
. ing units in the neighborhood.
(4) All roofs shall have a pitch of at least three
inches in twenty inches unless another pitch is
approved by the land use planning manager. h’o
roof shall be made of cortugated. extruded or
stamped metal.
(5) All dwelling units shall have a minimum
width of twenty feet. (Ord. 126 15 37.1983: Ord.
9599 8 2 (part), 1981)
.- . . / ! ‘L.
564
6-87-680
Page 9
water features, the use of reclaimed water and the runoff control/irrigation
associated with the golf course operations. The plans and/or other
information shall be subject to the review and written approval of the
Executive Director. The information shall specify that neither the use of
water pumped from Batiquitos Lagoon for such features nor the outflow of water
from the water features is proposed: nor that runoff containing pesticides,
herbicides or other toxics Will be collected or concentrated for discharge
into the lagoon.
74. Siqnaqe. Prior to the -issuance of the coastal development permit,
the applicant shall submit a comprehensive sign program for Phase 7 of the
project. The sign program shall prohibit the erectlon or placement of tall
freestanding (other than eight-foot-high monument) or roof signs and shall
prohibit any off-site signs. The sign program shall be subject to the review
and uritten approval of the Executive Dlrector.
. . 15. Laqoon Siltation/Fiih b Wildlife Aqreement: Prior to the issuance of . :
the coastal development permit, the applicant shall enter into an agreement
with the State Department of Fish and Game or other fish and wildlife
management agency acceptable to the Executive Director. The agreement shall
: assure that if, as a result of the proposed development for which the
applicant is directly responsible, siltation occurs within the wetlands of
Batiquitos Lagoon which the Department of Fish and Game or other controlling
agency determines is significantly and adversely affecting the biological
productivity of the lagoon, the applicant shall take all necessary and
feasible steps to correct and restore the lagoon under the direction of the
identified management authority.
IV. Findinqs and Declarations.
The Conission finds and declares as follows:
1. Project Location/Site Description The plan area of the Pacific Rim
Master Plan is located in southern Carlsbad east of Interstate #S. The 1,402 '
acre site includes the majority of the eastern basin and wetlands of
Batiquitos Lagoon (387 acres) and 1,015 upland acres along the north shore of
.the lagoon. The topography of the uplands is characterited by a series of
north-south trending hills and valleys. The valley areas have served as
drainage courses carrying runoff from the northern portion of the watershed to
the downstream lagoon. Many of the hillsides of the site are composed of
slopes of 25% grade and greater and are covered with native vegetation,
primarily coastal sage scrub and chaparral plant communities. A-number of
eucalyptus groves are scattered over the property, generally in the southern
areas. These groves cover between 80-90 acres.
lhe property is currently vacant with the exception of 62 acres in
agricultural production on the mesa top of proposed Planning Area #30. Many
of the other relatively flatter areas of the site have been used in the past .
for agricultural production. The vegetation in these areas is obviously
considered disturbed. lhrough the process of preparing the various LCP
documents applicable to the site, a total of 360 acres of agricultural lands 3
6 87-680
Page 8
Landscaping in Planning Area #s 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10 11, 13, 14, 27 and 28 shall include the use of specimen-sized trees to provided a landscape screen to
buffer development in these areas from view from Interstate 5, La Costa
Avenue, El Camino Real and the lagoon. To assure that such landscape
screening remains effective through the life of the project, the CC&Rs of the
property owners association shall include provisions to prohibit the removal
of the landscape materials and to assure their continued existence'in a
healthy and thriving condition.
The landscape plan shall also include the use of a.landscape barrier along the
south side of golf holes #1 and #la, but inland of the required wetland
buffer, to keep drivers of golf carts and other mechanized equipment away from
8atIquitos Lagoon and its wetlands.
11. Future Development. This permit Is valfd only for the proposals
listed below: . , .
(A) Conceptuai approval of the Pacific 'Rim Country Club and Resort '
Haster Plan, as modified in this permit;
(8) Subdivfsion of porttons of Phase I of the site <II accordance with the
City of Carlsbad's subdivIsIon map CT 85-35;
(C) Implementation of Phase 1 of the Master Plan including: grading in
Planning Areas l-16 and construction in Planning Areas 1, 2, 9, 70,
and 11 as indicated on Exhibit #I of the staff report;
(D) Construction of utility and road improvements outside of the Phase 1 area of the project and offsite as shown on Exhibit #ll;
and
(E) ,Construction of single family homes on the residential lots of
Planning Areas #s 3, 4, 8, 13 and 14, subject.to review and written
.approval of the Executive Director of building plans. The plans
shall be reviewed for consistencywith the development standards set
forth in the Pacific Rim Master Plan as approved by the Coastal
Commission in this permit.
Subsequent implementation phases and elements of the project, including
construction in Planning Area #s 5-7, 12, 15 and 16 within Phase 1 shall
require approval under a separate coastal,development permft(s).
32. Archaeoloqv. A limited testing program followed by a program of
implemental preservation and/or impact mitigation for sites identified in the
EIR for the the project ihall be completed as recommended in the EXR and
required by the City of Carlsbad. Any change in this requirement shall be
reported to and subject to the written of the the Executive Director. ,
.13. Water Quality, Prior to issuance of the coastal development permit,
the applicant shall submit plans and a report, as necessary, for the proposed
- .-
.
. .
31 f I
EXHIBIT NO. I{
APPLIC;-l-;~Nf’$$ - - b
oCFe,+t
DAVID K. SPEER county Eng1nee.r
H.M.TAYLOR - AssIstant
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER J.W.COLQUllOUN Dep-Admin.
R.J.MASSMAN Dsp-Plan& Trarf.
Bldg. a2, County Operationa Cantar, 5555 Overland Avmur J.F.MULCREW Dep-En~lnesrl,,~
San DImgo, California 92123 Phona : 278-9200 J.W.SETTLES Dep-OperaClans
Novexbcr 24, 1967
Mr. J. Dekema, District Engineer Division of Highways, District 11
Post Office Box 390
San Diego, California 92112
Attention: Mr. John E. Rising
City-County Projects Engineer
Dear Mr. Dekema:
Subject:. (1) Route Location, S. A. 620, Poinsettia Lane
(2) Rollte Location, S. C. l.Zl.0, Kelly Drive
(3) Route Location, S. C. 1320, Carnino Scbre Las Lomas
(4 Route Location, S. C. 1340, Caifillo Way -
Mtnctied for your information are prints of the completed 200 ecale route location study of the subject roubs.
If additional coordination regarding the study is desired, piease contact our Advance Planning Division (27d-9209, extension
283).
Veq truly yours,
‘+&yq, Jq2a-w
D. K. SPEER
DKS:JS:ls
AtLsc:hments
cc: F. B. Julian
. _, . . . I ‘2 -
.
.- - -._ ..-. ., _. _-
.
4; - - --- -. - -_ . . -.- .-- _ _ _ _ __, ___ _ _ _ _. - - . .
ATTACHMENT ‘A’
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
FOR POINSETnA LANE AND ALGA ROAD
PROPOSED CMWD FACILITIES
NAME OF STREET AND LIMITS POTABLE RECLAIMED Size; Proraure
Zone
SEWER SIZE 320; Pressure
Zone
18 (384 HG) lLGA ROAD - From Palomar Airport Road to
Cherry Blossom (in Sambi) 12’ (384 HG) 8’ (local)
(collector)
(375 HG)
(550 HG) 12’ (384 HG) 8’ (local)
(collector)
UGA ROAD - From Cherry Blossom to Poinsettia Lane
24’ (375 HG) l *
(550 HG) ‘*
(So0 note)
12. (384 HG) ~OINSEll1A LANE - From Alga Road to Blackrail Road
Vote: These are parallel waterlines to the &sting
18” steel and 12’ A.C.P. waterlines which
runs parallel and north of Poinsettia Lene.
8’ (local)
(collector)
34 (550 HG) l *
(375 HG) l ,*
(SO@ not.)
12. (384 HG)
(So. Note)
8’ (local)
(collector) ?OINSETTIA LANE - From Blackrail Road to
Ambrosia Lane
w ’ The 30‘ is a replacement for the exjsting 1V
steel waterline. The 12’ reclaimed is a
replacement for tthe existing 12’ P.V.C.
reclaimed waterline located in an easement
34 (550 HG) +*
12, (375 HG)
(So. note)
12. (384 HG) 8’ (local)
(collector) POINSETTIA LANE - From Ambrosia Lane to El
Camino Real
& The 301’ is a replacement for the existing 18’
steel waterline. The 12. reciairned b 8
replacement for the exMing lr P.V.C.
reclaimed waterline located in an ment.
PRESSURE REGULATING STATIONS:
1. Located at Poinsettia Lane and Blackrail
Road.
Located at Poinseffla Lane and east&y
boundary of Aviara Phase Ill.
2 each
4) Propored Water, Recialmod Water and Sow- Factlltt~ to ba In Polruotth Lana and Alga
Road, Par C.M.W.D. Master PIuu
3) Capital Improvement Ptojach are funded by ttw CMWD or subject to nimbunoment and arm
deslgnatrd In tha tablo wtth **
CMWO 9560:
FINANCING METHOD
Facility 6.4
Special Condition
Estimated Cost
Source of Funds Financing Guarantee
Responsible Area
Reimbursement
Alga Road - PAR to Poinsettia Lane
B.2, B-5
%2,355,100 (Ph. I), %1,268,120 (Ph. II)
Developer
Improvement agreement
A-G (all), except parcels located in Assessment
District No. 88-l
LFM Fee
Facility
This facility may be constructed in two phases:
Phase I: Grading for 4 lanes; paving for 2 lanes.
Phase II: Paving for additional 2 lanes.
The street may also be constructed in accordance with the City’s Cul-de-sac Policy,
in order to provide access to developments in Facility Areas C and D.
Source of Funds
This facility shall be funded and constructed by developers in Facility Area C or D.
The City’s Capital Improvement Program (1992-93 to Buildout) plans intersection
improvements at Palomar Airport Road and Alga Road (College Boulevard) and
allocates $160,000 from Traffic Impact Fees. If turn lanes or other improvements as .
described in the most recent Capital Improvement Program are required as part of
the construction of Alga Road, the City shall contribute the applicable amount to the
construction of this facility or reimburse the developer of this facility in accordance
with the most recent Capital Improvement Program, subject to conditions described
in Section VI.B.5, Reimbursement from the City of Carlsbad Development Fee Fund.
Financing Guarantee
Prior to the recordation of any final map in Facility Area C or D, the applicable
portion of this facility per the City’s Cul-de-sac Policy shall be constructed; or an
acceptable security instrument shall be provided to the City; or an improvement
agreement shall be executed. Developments in all Facility Areas, except those on
parcels which were included in Assessment District No. 88-1, shall pay the applicable
153
.
FINANCING METHOD CIRCULATION FACILITIES
Facility 6.7 Poinsettia Lane - East Boundary of Zone to El
Camino Real
Special Condition B.4 (part), B.6 (part)
Estimated Cost % 1,929,280 (Ph. I), $1,038,820 (Ph. II)
Source of Funds Developers of Zones 19 and 21
Financing Guarantee See below
Responsible Area Zones 19 and 21
Reimbursement Not applicable
Estimated Cost
The estimated costs for 2-lane (Phase I) and 4-lane (Phase II) improvements of this
facility are prorated from the estimated costs for construction of Poinsettia Lane
from Alga Road to El Camino Real. The length of Poinsettia Lane from Alga Road
to the eastern boundary of Zone 20 is approximately 3,910 lineal feet; the length
from the eastern boundary of Zone 20 to El Camino Real is approximately 4,430
lineal feet. See also estimated costs for Facility 6.6.
Source of Funds
This facility sha!l be constructed Y:, developers of Zones 19 and 21.
Financing Guarantee
Prior to the recordation of any final map in Zones 19 and 21, the required sections
of this facility shall be constructed, consistent with applicable City standards; or an
acceptable security instrument shall be provided to the City; or an improvement
agreement shall be executed. See also Section VI.B.l, Developer Funding.
158
,
- c - f .
, PLANNTNG COMMISSION June 19, 1996 Page IO
Mr. Moore called the COmmiSSiOn'S altUItiOn to a grant of easement by Gordon and Mary Olden to Prank
Ayres dated August 25, 1969. This document includes covenants regarding an easement for roadway
purposes, and right-of-way for installation of public utilities. Mr. Moore stated that this type of covenant
usually travels with the title, and it traveled from Mr. Ayres to Mr. Hunt, and from Mr. Hunt to Mr. Hillman, and
is still in effect. His point was that the easement has already been granted, and, in fact, 60’ of land was
swapped for the right-of-way that was demanded by the County from Mr. Ayres and himself to provide
circulation- He feels that now the City wants to renege on the agreement. Mr. Moore went on to say that Mr.
Hillman has both the authority and the responsibility to build Black Rail Court, which was part of the covenant.
Mr. Moore stated that if Black Rail Court wasn’t developed by Aviara, it would probably never be developed.
Mr. Moore quoted from the minutes of Poinsettia Hill, January 5, 1994, pg. 3, paragraph 8, “Commissioner
Savary requested Mr. Hauser to reply to Commissioner Welshons’ question. David Hauser, Asst. City
Engineer stated, ‘One of the first things staff did in evaluating a project was to require the applicant to sit
down with the adjacent property owners and work out an overall circulation access plan. When the overall
picture was evaluated, staff concluded that the proposed access is the best available one that would serve
all of the property owners and still maintain the 1200 intersection standard on Poinsettia Lane.” Mr. Moore
stated that the proposed connection to the proposed location is in conflict with the City’s design standards
and was denied by the Commission. Mr. Moore went on to intimate that the City was holding secret back
room meetings.
No questions were asked of Mr. Moore. Chairman Compas asked if there were any others in the audience
who wished to speak on this item. There were none. At that time, Chairman Compass asked the applicant to
come back for his rebuttal.
Applicant Larry Clemens of ,Aviara Land Associates, 2011 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 206, Carlsbad,
returned to give his rebuttal. Mr. Clemens pointed out to the Commission that he had received the letters
from the property owners only this evening,‘and hadn’t had time to review them. He next pointed out that the
testimony given had no relationship whatsoever with his request for the CUP. As such, Mr. Clemens’ rebuttal
included the following points: With regard to Thomas Smith’s testimony, there is not nexus between the
property owners access and operating the, Information Center. There is an existing gate which serves to
discourage illegal dumping that tends to occur on unattended property. This is private property, and he feels
that it should be respected as such. He added that this is not a spite strip, rather it is a protection of property.
With regard to funding facilities, Aviara has paid its share of public facilities, and there are no public facilities
that are in detriment here as a result of anything Aviara is doing. All actions on Aviara that have been
discussed have taken place over the course of ten years in a public hearing - no back room meeting !seY .
emphasized that there have been extensive public hearings, done both by the City as well as Aviara to
explain and discuss the project. He wetlt on to say that he felt it was an inaccurate statement that property
values have decreased, and rather, have greatly increased as a result of the public facilities and other
amenities that have been added in the Aviara Master Plan. The nuisance factor was addressed by stating it
had nothing to do with the lnfomration Center, but resulted from another source. With regard to Mr.
McKinney, the signs he refers to are stop and street identification signs and are on private property. Black
Rail Court is on private property and signs are there for directional purposes. Another point on the
improvement agreement states that Aviara has no obligation to install a continuation or to improve Black Rail
Court until such time as there is a future intersection, to which Black Rail Court may be extended from
Aviara’s boundary. That would be Poinsettia and Black Rail. So until that exists, there is no obligation to
pave Aviara’s section of Black Rail Court Regarding Mrs. McKinney, Mr. Clemens said during the hearing on
Poinsettia, it was the McKinneys who were disagreeing with Poinsettia being extended, yet tonight the
message was that Poinsettia needed to be extended. He found this to be a conflict in testimony. Mr.
.Clemens added that when Aviara installed their section of Poinsettia through the northern tip of its property
next to the park, this Commission and the City Council approved to leave La Costa Blvd. in place while the
construction of Poinsettia was taking place so that the passage way would be just as you have it today.
When Poinsettia is paved, that is when the old route disappears. Regarding Mr. Moore and the easement he
read to the Commission, it is an easement that is in favor of Aviam. It says that they have access and the
, -s
May 28, 1996
D.L. Clemens
2011 Palomar Airport Rd. #206
Carlsbad CA 92009
SUBJECT: CUP 90-07x1 - AVIARA INFORMATION CENTER
The preliminary staff report for the above referenced project will be available for
you to pick up on Friday, May 31, 1996, after 8:00 a.m. This preliminary report
will be discussed by staff at the Development Coordinating Committee (D.C.C.)
meeting which will be held on Monday, June 10, 1996. A twenty (20) minute
appointment has been set aside for you at 9:30 a.m. If you have any questions
concerning your project, you should attend the D.C.C. meeting.
If you need additional information concerning this matter,’ please contact Mike
Grim, at (619) 438-l 161, extension 4499.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
. Assistant Planning Director
GEW:hlG:bk
.
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad. CA 92009-l 576 - (619) 436-1161.- FAX (619) 438-0894 @
y=-/;,- ‘_ *.. 1 I 1, Ja:.,y- ’ .:.e /C *.- .r= .; ;++;- - 1
-/ r+fl... . r
I I I ~~~~~~-_i_----~~ -e-y. --, ./ I q=l _ _._---
“;;I
-I- I I\ i I
ii,
-I- \ -+. ----. j I -e-e, -em- I I I I I
1 i rx
! L
k b
L
I I
I F ,-+ +----+-------~;T- L ---- I I i I ‘\F y
i \ \ -.&A+---~ -- ill f I I . 7 I
I i, I /; I ,t f F;;iyfeJ* ‘g’*- , i L
I ,’ .’
f ‘.:, _ 34. p
-;I; M{
‘6
! +I+ g..,,,,,. +&J /
I :
I 7
.*, - r -. +. ._
$--’
,d jLb;;.ye ; \
8’
I
-k:&;h 1 ,;.;..* 1
I I -!-k L / I I I \ ! I iii
#I
jN c I I. -
\ Q I I
i c ---- ---
I i
I 1 g---L 'a I ---l(J- ----- -p-- -
L ____ ;- I -_: i
0 c, p-!,
- A I I
I
i
; \ 3 I 0 .
I l 6
k
m--e- ---- -/IL------- i
MOTORIST'S BENEFITS
‘A cost comparison of alternate highway routes between
common termini?
Elements evaluated are:
1. Distance
2Design speed (average) each route
3.time to traverse
4.construction cost _
5right of way cost
G-car operational cost-including driver
7average daily traffic (A.D.T.)
8.time of amortization (20 years)
It is apparent that a straight line with a level profile would be
the most economical route,but by how much? If social
values are concerned, like avoiding Ranch0 Carillo, trade
offs or alternates may be considered to mitigate damage
thereto. It helps the decision makers to arrive at logical
conclusions if they have dollar values available for alternate
routes.
This practice can frequently yield startling large costs (in
millions of dollars) because expansion of only 10 cents per
car with 30,000 A.D.T. for 20 years would be $21,900.000
for route ‘A’ while a comparative 8 cent cost for route ‘B’
would be $17,520,000. Therefore cost ‘B’ would be
$4,380,000 ch eaper than route ‘A’. This cost,plus any
difference in costs of construction and right-of-way would be
the total costs saved by the motoring public over a twenty
.year period,
R -‘& F.lfv9c cd
-m.
Evelyn E. McKinney 4355 Huerfano Avenue
San Diego, California
92117
August 5, 1996
City of Carlsbad
City Council 1200 Carlsbad Village drive
Carlsbad, California
92008
RE: Notice of Public Hearing, Aviara Phase III Revision
CT 92-3(A)
Dear Council Persons:
The City of Carlsbad seems to have difficulty in duly notifying it's citizenry of duly noticed meetings. I have put the officials
of the city of Carlsbad on notice numerous times for lack of being
duly noticed on issues that directly pertain to my property.
I understand, from some of my neighbors, that the issue of CT 92-3(A) Aviara Phase III Revision is to be heard by the Council on August 6, 1996. That issue directly affects me as the approved Condition for the secondary access included Poinsettia Lane westward to my property (including the intersection with Black Rail Court) and
then Black Rail Court across the east end of my property. Why was
I NOT INCLUDED in the noticing of the upcoming Council Meeting on
this issue at either of my addresses?
One can possibly understand an noticing error happening once, however, with the history that has occured of the same landowner not being duly noticed over and over, and each time the city having
been put on notice for the ommission, it tends to leave the impression
that perhaps the ommission was not simply an accident.
I am once again putting the City of Carlsbad on notice that I have NOT been duly notified of a Public Hearing on an issue that directly
affects my property. I trust, in the future this type of correspondence
will not be necessary. I therefore request that this Public Hearing be
postponed until a later date when I can be fully prepared to be heard.
Encl:
cc: City Clerk Mike Grimm, Planner
City Manager, Mr. Pa.tchett Aviara Land Associates
Planning Director, Michael Holzmiller Cnrv Wavne
Evelyn E. McKinney 4355 Huerfano Ave.
San Diego, Ca. 92117
(619) 273-4337
April 14, 1996
City of Carlsbad Planning Commission 2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, California 92009-1576
ATTN: Chairman of Commission RE: Discussion Item for meeting on April 17th, 1996, November 1, 1995 Planning Commission Meeting, ie Notice of Public Hearinn.
Dear Commission Members:
I plead with you to be cognizant of the NEED for citizens to be duly notified of Public Hearings on issues of concern to their property or financial holdings. My present concern is with the "Notice of Public Hearing" for CUP - 90-07x1 - Aviara Information Center - Planning Area 23, held on November 1, 1995.
I plead my case on the issue of Past Practice. Past Practice, as you know becomes relied upon as a guarantee of a citizen's right.f.?lX.:it's been recognized before, it should hold to be recognized again.
On November 17, 1993, the Planning Commission had a hearing scheduled
on a tentative map of Aviara Phase III, which was continued until Dec-
ember 1, 1993, as my property at 6525 El Camino Real was affected and
I was not duly notified. See (Attachment #2) That issue was Poinsettia
Lane alignment, this issue involves another road that directly affects
my property, Black Rail Court.
I realize I am beyond the "600' of the real property that is subject of the hearing", however, my property was directly affected by the action the Commission took on November 1, 1995, and therefore I should
have been notified. With either hearing my property was affected
and I should have been notified personally so I could have been heard by the Commission. Past Practice by the Commission gave me false security of being notified. I was further given false security by Mr. Raymond Patchett's statement in his letter of April 5, 1993 to Mr. Guy
Moore, "If your access problem is not resolved prior to the need for an extension of the CUP IN November of 1995, you will have the opportunity
to suggest that a condition be added to the CUP extension which would
require Blackrail Road to be open to traffic from the north." Mr. Guy
Moore is well beyond the radius of 600', but Mr. Patchett assured him
he would have a right to speak. We never had that opportunity as we
were not duly Notified as in Past Practice. (Enclosure # 4 & 5)
In recognition of need for compliance with Car&bad Municipal Code -- Public Hearings Section 21.54.060 as well as a General Law City's requirement to comply with California Government Code -- Public Hearing # 65090, I have a copy of those residents that were noticed by mail
ten days prior to the hearing. Upon close inspection, I find there
were 59 notices set out, qhieh did not include some EESidenrS within
the 600' radius. Mailed notices are necessary if the residents on the
records of the County Assessor's Office are less than 1,000, therefore simply publishing the hearing in the newspapers would not suffice.
I have had numerous occasions that Car&bad's Public Hearings have
not been duly Noticed to me, dealing mostly with City Council. (See
Attachment 6-13). Please note, There was a Special Request on File, from September 25, 1993 with an expiration date of September 30, 1994, and I received NO Notice from Council Hearing on January 25, 1994, which
fell withinThe requested Special Notice year's date.
Based on the above facts, which I feel is substantial evidence that notice had not been given as required, the Planning Commission should continue a hearing for the Extention of CUP 90-07x1, Aviara Information Center - --__ .---- --r- - Planning Area 23 IO?. Iii%?.Ziig iii accordance wath Cai%bad Municipal Code # 21.54.063.
Attachments 1 - 13
” .
d ’ .
. -- commission shall make a final written determin-
ation of the completeness of the application not
later than sixty calendar days after the receipt of
the applicant’s written appeal.
(d) Failure by the city to meet the deadlines
specified in this section shall cause the applica-
tion to be deemed complete. The failure of the
applicant to meet any of the time limits specified
in this section shall be deemed to constitute with-
drawal of the application. Nothing in this section
precludes an apphcant in the city from mutually
agreeing to an extension of any time limit pro-
vided in this section.
(e) Subsections (b) through (d) of this section
shall remain in effect only until January 1,1991,
and as of that date are repealed unless an ordi-
nance which is enacted before January 1, 1991,
deletes or extends that date. (Ord. 9760 9 15,
1985: Ord. 9060 9 2000)
21.54.020 Acceptability of signatures on
applications.
If signatures of persons other than the owners
of property making the application are required
or offered in support of, or in opposition to, an
application, they may be received as evidence of
notice having been served upon them of the
pending application, or as evidence of their opin-’
ion on the pending issue, but they shall in no case
infringe upon the free exercise of the powers
vested in the city as represented by the planning
commission and the city council. (Ord. 9060 5
2001)
21.54.030 Applications a part of permanent
record.
‘.
Applications filed pursuant to this title shall be
numbered consecutively in the order of their
filing, and shall become a part of the permanent
official records of the agency to which applica-
tion is made, and there shall be attached thereto
and permanently filed there with copies of all
notices and actions with certificatesand affida- vits of posting, mailing or publications pertain-
ing thereto. (Ord. 9060 $2002)
.-
.- I
21.54.010
2154.040 Fig fees.
A fee in an amount,established by city council
resolution shall be paid at the time an application
for a development permit for approval or the
approval of a change in zone or general plan
boundaries reclassifications is fiIed. No applica-
tion shall be accepted or deemed accepted until
the appropriate fee or fees have been paid. (Ord.
9760 9 16,1985: Ord. 9568 95,198O: Ord. 9220 $
1,. 1968: Ord. 9060 $2003)
21 S4.050 Setting of hearing.
All proposals for amending zone or general
plan boundaries reclassifications or for the grant-
ing of any development permit or approval
requiring a hearing as provided in this title shall
be set for hearing by the land use planning man-
ager when such hearings are to be held before the
planning commission and by the city clerk for
hearings to be held before the city council. (Ord.
9760 9 17,1985: Ord. 1256 9 10 (part), 1982; Ord.
9060§2004)
2154.060 Notices.
Notice of public hearings shall be given as
follows:
(1) When a provision of this code requires
notice of a public hearing to be given pursuant to
this subsection, notice shall be given in all of the
following ways:
(a) Notice of the hearing shall be mailed or
delivered at least ten days prior to the hearing to
the owner of the subject real property or the
owner’s duly authorized agent and to the project
applicant.
(b) Notice of the hearing shall be mailed
oidelivered at least ten days prior to the hearing
to each local agency expected to provide water,
sewage, streets, roads, schools, or other essential
facilities-or services to the project, whose ability
to provide those facilities and services may be
significantly affected by the project.
(c) Notice of the hearing shall be mailed or
delivered at least ten days prior to the hearing to
all owners of real property as shown on the latest
755 (Carlsbad 3-89)
2154.060
- equalizetissessment roll within six hundred
feet, or three hundred feet for variance applica-
tions, of the real property that is the subject ofthe
hearing. In lieu of utilizing the assessment roll,
records of the county assessor or tax collector
which contain more recent information than the
assessment roll may be used. If the number of
owners to w horn notice would be mailed or deliv-
ered pursuant to this subparagraph is greater
than one thousand in lieu of mailed or delivered
notice, the city manager may permit notice to be
given by placing a display advertisement of at
least one-eighth page in at least two newspapers
of general circulation within the city at least ten
days prior to the hearing.
(d) If the notice is mailed or delivered pur-
suant to subparagraph (c), the notice shall also
either be:
(i) published pursuant to Section 6061 in at
least one newspaper of general circulation within
the city at least ten days prior to the hearing;
(ii) posted at least ten days prior to the hearing
in at least three public places in the city, includ-
ing one public place in the area directly affected
by the proceeding.
(2) When a provision of this code requires
notice of a public hearing to be given pursuant to
this subsection, notice shall be published pur-
suant to Section 606 1 in at least one newspaper
of general circulation within the city at Ieast ten
days prior to the hearing. @rd. NW4 0 1, 1988;
Ord. 9758 6 15, 1985: Qrd. 9536 9 1, 1979: Ord.
9428 5 1, 1975: Ord. 9060 3 2005)
21.54.061 Content of notice.
The notice given pursuant to Section
21.54.060 shall include the date, time and place
of a public hearing, the identity of the hearing
bddy or officer, a general explanation of the mat-
ter to be considered, and a general description, in
text or by diagram, of the location of the real
property, if any, that is the subject .cf the hearing.
(Ord. 9758 $ 16, 1985)
21.54.062 Additional notice to persons
requesting it.
Notice given pursuant to Section 21.54.060
shall also be maiIed or delivered at least ten days
prior to the hearing to any person who has ftied a
written request for notice with the city clerk. The
city clerk shalI charge a fee established by city
council resolution which is reasonably related to
the costs of providing this service. Each request
shah be annualIy renewed. (Ord. 9758 $17,1985)
2154.063 Failure to receive notice.
The failure of any person or entity to receive
notice given pursuant to +&is chapter shall not
constitute grounds for any court to invalidate the
action for which the notice is given. If a decision-
making body receives substantial evidence that
notice has not been given as required by this
chapter, then the decision-making body may
continue the matter for hearing after proper
notice has been given. (Ord. 9758 $18,1985)
21.54.064 Applicant’s responsibilities.
(a) The applicant for any action requiring a
noticed public hearing shall provide the city with
a list of persons or entities to whom notice must
be given and the addresses of such persons. The
apdlicant shalI also provide stamped, addressed
envelopes for mailing notice. The list and the
envelopes, if required, shall be provided to the
city not more than forty-five nor less than thirty
days prior to the time the matter is scheduled for
hearing. If the number of persons to whom
notice would be mailed exceeds one thousand
the applicant may, in lieu of providing the
stamped, addressed envelopes, provide an
appropriate display advertisement. The appli-
cant shall verify the accuracy of the list and the
addresses. The secretary of the planning commis-
sion or the city clerk shall be responsible for
informing the applicant of the date a matter is
scheduled for hearing.
(b) The applicant shall pay the cost of provid-
ing the notice required by this chapter., (Ord.
9758 (s 19, 1985)
(C&bad 3.89) 756
April 51993
Mr. Guy S. Moore, Jr.
6503 El Camino Real
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Dear Mr. 2
<n/M
oore: 1
I have been asked to respond to your letter to City Council Members regarding the opening of
Blackrail Road and erosion problems in the Aviara development. City staff met with Council
Members on March 29, 1993, to discuss your concerns and the suggestion to conditionally accept
a dedication of Blackrail Road. This letter will summarize the information reviewed in that
meeting.
Thank you for sending the photographs of the erosion problems. City staff have had ongoing
conversations with Aviara representatives regarding the mixed success of their erosion control
efforts. Fortunately, construction of catch basins were required by the City to prevent eroded
material from reaching Batiquitos Lagoon. Those basins are functioning as planned and the
developer has cooperated with cleaning them out when needed.
As noted in your letter, Blackrail Road was constructed under a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
The road serves as a private driveway to the Aviara Information Center. The City Council would
be able to consider accepting such an offer of dedication as you are suggesti;,g if the developer
made that offer. The most expeditious method of providing access to your property would more
likely be to form an assessment district to fund an extension of the road to the north. The
developer would then be more willing to open the road to traffic from the north. The City would
assist in the formation of the district, in which property owners would be assessed a portion of the
project cost depending upon the benefit they receive from it.
I encourage you to contact Mr. Larry Clemens of the Aviara development concerning such a
proposal. Aviara developers may be interested in contributing to the district because the road could
be used for a s:*:ondary access road necessary for future phases of the development. You may also
wish to speak with Mr. Clemens regarding the possibility of prbperty owners in your area pro?riding
easements for the extension of Poinsettia Lane to the east in return for expediting that project since
\; that road could also serve as the required secondary access.
T------L* If your access problem is not resolved prior to the need for an extension of the CUP in November
0,rtunity to west thq a condition be added to the CUP extension . - -__ -Road’ to-be cpen to traffic from the north. Another option would
be for you to apply for a grant from the Palomar-Ramona-Julian Resource Conservation District.
Information about the grants may be obtained by contacting Patty McDuffee, Adminisuative Grant
Administrator, at 745-2061.
__-.- .-- --_.- - -____ _._.________ -.--
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive 0 Carlsbacf, California 92008-1989 - (619) 434-2821
, -. ’ Mr. Guy S. Moore
April 2,1993 7 , PAGE 2
I have also been requested to respond to some of the concerns raised in your letter to Mr. Jack
Henthom regarding the Zone 20 meeting held on March 4,1993 and your belief that agricultural
areas are being denied the infrastructure necessary for survivaL The City has always been cognizant
of the infrastructure needs of the agricultural industry because of its importance to our community
and have attempted to preserve areas designated for agricultural use in the General Plan whenever
possible.
An attachment to your letter to Mr. Henthom indicates that a clarification of the terms “Mello II
program” (Local Coastal Plan) and “Mello-Roos assessment district” (Community Facilities District
No. 1) might be helpful. I am assuming that your references regarding the “Mello II program” refer
to the major segment of Carlsbad’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) which bears the name Mello II
LCP. The name is taken from the State Senator who introduced the legislation that led to the
adoption of that Carlsbad LCP se_ment. The Mello II LCP, along with other City ordinances,
policies, and programs regulates land use in Zone 20. The MeIlo II LCP also established the
Agricultural Improvement Program which is the source of the grant funding administered by the
Resource Conservation District.
Conununity Facilities District No. 1 (CFD No., 1) was formed as allowed by the Mello-Roos
Community Facilities Act, which is legislation introduced by State Senator Mello and Assemblyman
Roos. The legislation is designed to allow communities to obtain funds for public facilities when
other funding alternatives are not feasible. Only undeveloped property is included in the district.
CFD No. 1 was approved to fund specific improvements of Citywide importance. The extension of
Poinsettia Lane and Blackrail Road are of more local benefit and therefore are not included in the
list of projects to be funded through the district.
I hope the above information is helpful to you. Please do not hesitate to contact the Engineering
Department if you would like assistance or additional information on formation of an assessment
district.
Sincerely,
‘1 1 : CL\- Y\ 7 RAYMOND R.
Ciq Pflanager
c: Mayor
City Council
Communise Development Director
City Engineer
PATCHEIT
November 15, 1993
Ronald McKinney
4355 Heurfano Avenue
San Diego, CA 92117
POINSETTIA LANE PUBLIC HEARING
This letter is to inform you that a public hearing before the Planning Commission beginning 6:00
p.m. on November 17, 1993 will be continued until December 1, 1993, same time. You may
give your comments at either hearing.
This hearing concerns a tentative map, Aviara Phase III, that will establish one section on the
proposed alignment of Poinsettia Lane. This section is easterly from your property, APN 215-
070-10, but the project will be required to complete Poinsettia Lane to at least as far as the
proposed Blackrail Court. Therefore your property is affected.
You may phone me at (619) 438-l 161, extension 4500 about this letter. You may contact Mike
Grim of the Planning Department, (619) 438-1161, extension 4499, for more information about
the Aviara III project.
JIM DAVIS
Associate Engineer
c: Mike Grim
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-q 576 - (619) 438-1161 l FAX (619) 438-0894 633
October 20, 1993
Mr. Ronald C. McKinney
EVON GARDENS
6525 El Camino Real
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: PUBLIC I-EARING NOTICE REQ-S
In response to your letter dated October 10, 1993, I wanted to clear up some apparent
confusion. First, and foremost, I am not disagreeing with your notification rights as a
property owner. There appears to be confusion, however, about the method of
notification.
Enclosed for your convenience is a copy of the text of Sections 21.54.060 and 21.54.062
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code which explains the legal procedures followed by the city
for noticing property owners. These sections apply to the Planning Commission meetings
as well as the City Council meetings.
With regard to Zone 20, I’ve highlighted the portions of the attachment that apply to the
notification process used for those public hearings. Display ads appeared in the September
2, 1993 edition of the Carlsbad Sun and the September 3, 1993 edition of the Blade-
Citizen.
If you will look at Section 21.54.062 on the attachment, you will see that by filing your
letter with us, you have assured yourself of receiving an individual mailing even if the
display ads are used for future notices.
I apologize for any confusion and hope this clears up any misunderstandings.
RAUTENKRANZ
City Clerk
lr
enc.
c: City Attorney
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, California 92008-1989 l (619) 434-2808
L .-
EVON GARDENS
6525 El Camino Real
Carlsbad, California 92008
(619) 9314487
January 20, 1994
City Council
c/o Mayor Lewis
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, California, 92008-1989
Dear Councilpersons:
Once again I find it necessary to put the city of Carlsbad and it's
Public Officials on notice of lack of compliance with the Carlsbad
Municipal Code -- Public Hearings A 21.54.060 as well as a General
Law City's requirement to comply with California Government Code --
Public Hearings # 650?0.
I have NOT been notified of:
tip 177 (G)/GPA 93-6/LcPA 92-l/CT 92-3/PDP 92-4 AVIARA PHASE III
to be heard by the Council on Tuesday, January 25, 1994. I have a
right and a need to be notified, as this item is not only Zone 19,
but traverses into Zone 20 and TOUCHES'MY LA???. I just happened to
overhear a discussion pertaining to this hearing. That is how I
happen to know it is even on the adgenda. Interestingly, in checking
with my neighbors, they haven't been duly notified either.
It seems to be quite often the city of Carlsbad neglects to notify
it's citizens of Public Hearings. I notified the city I needed to
be notified on:
July 22, 1988
Sept.11, 1989
Sept.14, 1993 and now once again on----
Jan. 20, 1994.
Please see attachments.
ATTACHMENTS (3)
cc:
Ray Pachett, City Manager
Aletha L. Rautenkranz, City Clerk
Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer
Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director Marty Orenyak, Director Community Development, Asst. City Mgr.
City Attorney
. .
EVON GARDENS
6525 El Camino Real
Carlsbad, California 92008
(619) 9314487
octcber 10, 1993
Lee Rauteriilanz City Clerk 1200 Carl&ad Village Drive Carlsbad, California 92008-1989
RJF: Your Correnspordence Dated Sept. 30, 1993
DearMsRautenkranz:
Thank vou for your letter dated Sente~ber 30, 1993, and for putting me on the "Rqest ??or Notice" list. Fowever, I taYe this opportun- ity to rerrird you, again, that as a property owner within zone 20 of Carlsbad, I have a lecal richt,according to the Cm- tcode, to autcfraticallv receive Written notification of any Public Pearing 10 days in advance of such heariq. These Warirqs on zone 20 affect me and rqrpronerty, and% code you are ohlicated to duly notifv me, if I have a rquest on file or not.
Since I nc%r have a ",vecial Rquest" on file, too, for a -period of ane (1) year, I shxld, and will expect, to have two (2) notices: (a) one as a property owner v;z?ose prone&v is involved, and (b) one because of a Snecial Written Request placed on %.le in yOU?Z office.
Please rote: iyY RTGE ia5 A PROPFW?! mwER TN ZOKE 20 !YYs Nm EXPIRE AT T?F SD OF ONF YEN?! ! ! It is a Decnanant obligation and duty of the City of Cnrlsbad which in-so-far-as-yet, has ?KY?. been d&xx& too, at least on three (3) separate occasions as mentio% in my last corresponclence dated Sent&r 2S, 1993.
I will be lookim forward to receivirq my two (2) notices in a timely manner in the future.
Sincerely,
cc: CityManager
Ronald C. McKinney
City Attorney Planning Director
September 30, 1993
Mr. Ronald C. McKinney
Evon Gardens
6525 El Camino Real
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RF: REQUEST FOR NOTICE
I received your letter dated September 25, 1993, and am treating it as your request to be
notified of public hearing items going before Council concerning Zone 20.
In accordance with Section 65090 of the Govenment Code, a notice will be mailed to you
for those items going before the City Council as a public hearing. Please note that we will
be mailing notices & when items are to be considered at a public hearing before the City
council.
As in the past, your request will be valid for one year and shall expire on September 30,
1994. At that time, you may renew your request should you still desire to receive notice.
If you have any questions concerning the above, please call me.
LEE RAUTENKEWNZ
City Clerk
lr
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, California 92008-l 989 - (619) 434-2808 @
s EVON GARDENS
6523 El Camino Real
Carl&ad, California 92008
(619) 931-8487
.
Septb 25, 1993
City Council c/o Mayor xEwi.s 1200 Elm Avenue Carl&ad, California 92008-1989
DearCouncilpersons:
It has beenkoughttomy attentGntl-attheCity Council of the city of Carl&ad held a Public Hearirq an 5epWnber 14, 1993, on AB#12,393-Zone20 Specific Plan - .FP-203/m 91-3/LFMP 87-20(A). This letter is to notify the Cilqr of Carl&ad, the Myor, City Attorney, City Council, City Eanzqer, City Clerk, City B@%aer ard the CiQ Plannirq Mssion, ski all others concerned, that the above mentioned PubJic Hearinq was m duly noticed to this
P~~P-ty CxJner. Upon checking with my neighbors, it seems none of my imnediatqneichbors received a duly notice of this afore- mention&hearing.
At ev~~meetirq held, which?~s been duly noticed, mining to the ,=ific Plan of Zone 20, Poinsettia Lane ali@ment- develp ment of Zone 20 or any adjoining zones of Zone 20, I haie addressed my concern rqarding the possible result&g disposition of my pro- perty. My wife and I have also met privately with various city officers pertaining to these sarr~ concerns, and have made presenta- tions to the City Planninq carmission. To be very plain, we have ob.jected to the distruction of our business, our oroperlg and our valuable lard .
On July 22, 1988, I rquested the above narr& offices in writirq of mv need to be notifi& of any Public Hearing which might affect my Prow%= On Septfx&ef 11, 1989, I again notified the city of the lack of being duly notified of a Public Hearing winent to ml ww=-W. A&n, on Septesber 14, 1993, a Public Hearing was heldwithout- beinqdulynotified.
The City of Carl&ad and it's Public Officials is her&y put on notice of lack of qliance with the Carl&ad Municipal Code - Public Warinqs #21.54.060 as well as a General Taw City's require- mentto qlywithCalifomiaGove~nt Ccde- PublicEearing, #65090.
‘.
The lack of y beincr duly noticed OF Pu??lic Fearing reprc%rq .nlannincr involvinc p nronerty has occured on three senarate dates, Ghich has de?i& me the right to he Feard. on an issue which involves
mv pr0.pem-W. .
At this time, we are aqain informinq you of our right to be notified in accordaxe witF tile a?x3ve noted Codes.
Sincerely,
rncl :
cc:
Rav Pachett, Ci* Manager Aletha 1,. Raut~z, Cie Clerk Lloyd Pubbs, City Enqipeer Michael Folzmiller, Flanninq Director t??ty Orenyak, Director C3xnnuniiq~ Development Asst. Cie F-Igr.
City Attorney Jack I'entbm
EVON GARDENS
6525 El Camino Real
Carlsbad, California 92008
(619) 9314487
September 11, 1989
Philip 0. Carter
Assistant to the City Manager
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California
92008-1989
Dear Mr. Carter:
On July 22, 1988, I wrote a letter to you asking you to forward
the enclosed letter to the City Engineer, the City Planning
Commission, Mr. Jack Henthorn as well as one to you. The enclosed
letter requests "an advance notice be sent to my attention . . .
regarding any meeting, any possible decision, or any other action
that might involve my property, any adjacent property or the pro-
posed extention of Poinsettia Lane through Zone 20."
I was informed in late August of this year by my neighbor, who
recieved a notice, of a meeting that was to be held on September 14th
dealing with a possible assessment to property owners. My wife called
you on August 28th regarding the proposed meeting and asked why we
were not informed. You did not offer an explanation of why we did
not get a notice, but assured my wife you'd mail one out that same
day. You also assured her that if tie could not make the general
meeting you would hold a private hearing just for us. It is now
three days before the proposed meeting (14 days since my wife's
telephone call) and I still have not been notified of any meeting. -- I do not know time or location of the general meeting and have
heard nothing more of a private meeting.
I now, once again, request a copy of the notice of the proposed
meeting regarding a possible assessment-to the affected property
owners in Zone 20. I also reiterate my original letter of July 22,
1988. (copy of which is attached). I request an advance notice of
any meeting, possible decision, or any other action that might involve
my property, any adjacent property, or the proposed extention of
Poinsettia Lane through Zone 20.
Sincerely,
Ronald C. McKinney
1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92006-1969
Office of the City Manager
TELEPHONE
(619) 434-2621
July 27, 1988
Mr. Ronald C. McKinney EVON GARDENS 6525 El Camino Real Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mr. McKinney:
I forwarded copies at your request to the City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, and the City Clerk concerning your request to issue you advance notice should any decision be made involving the proposed extension of Poinsettia Lane through Zone 20.
If you have any additional questions or need further assistance, please call me at 434-2819.
Sincerely,
PHILIP 0. CARTER Assistant to the City Manager
saf
c: City Manager
July 31, 1996
TO: FRANK MANNEN, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
FROM: Karen Kundtz, Assistant City Clerk
RE: AVIARA PHASE III REVISION - CT 92-03(A)
\ Mr. Guy Moore filed an appeal on the Aviara Information Center (CUP 90-07X1), which is scheduled for the City Council meeting of August 6, 1996. Mr. Moore was provided an advance copy of the agenda bill for his appeal in accordance with your conversation with Lee.
Mr. Moore has also requested an advance copy of the above- referenced related item which is scheduled for the same meeting. The policy is that we are not to provide copies of agenda bills to the public prior to their distribution to the City Council.
However, in order for Mr. Moore to be able to provide the information to the out-of-town interested parties, he was also given an advance copy of the above-referenced Agenda
Bill. Attached is a copy of the additional Aviara agenda
bill which was provided to Mr. Moore today.
EN KUNDTZ Assistant City Clerk
kk
Attachment
August 21, 1996
Aviara Land Associates
2011 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 206
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Re: Aviara Phase III Revision CT 92-3(A)
The Carlsbad City Council, at its meeting of August 13, 1996, adopted Resolution
No. 96-273, approving the Tentative Tract Map Revision for the Aviara Phase III
development, allowing Cassia Road to be used as a secondary access route.
Enclosed is a copy of Resolution No. 96-273 for your files.
Assistant City Clerk
KRK:ijp
Enclosure
1200 Cnrlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, California 92008-l 989 - (619) 434-2808
’ PROOF OF PUBLLATION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the above-
entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of
North County Times
formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudged newspapers of general circulation by the
Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of
California, under the dates of June 30, 1989
(Blade-Citizen) and June 21, 1974 (Times-
Advocate) case number 171349 (Blade-Citizen)
and case number 172171 (The Times-Advocate)
for the cities of Escondido, Oceanside, Cartsbad,
Solana Beach and the North County Judicial
District; that the notice of which the annexed is a
printed copy (set in type not smaller than
nonpareil), has been published in each regular and
entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is troe and correct.
Dated at California, this Aday -
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
I nrs space: IS ror me County Clerk’s Filing Stamp
Proof of Publication of
fldnu 723 /eisz%?& -- ----A-----------------
mavTw=w “‘T +eb.,1.- *--=rrr- I-“. r - *rrrv 7-* .+” -
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CT 92-3(A) - AVIARA PHASE III REVISION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may b affected, that the Crty Councrl of the City of Carl&d will hold public hearing at the City Counctl Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbac California, at 6:00 p.m., on Tuesday, August 6, 1996, to consider a request fc revisron of a condition of approval for a Tentattve Tract Map, to change th secondary access route from the existing route along Poinsettia Lane and Black Ra Court (to the West), to Cnssia Road (to the East), for property generally located alon
future Ambrosra Lane, north of Alga Road, m Local Factlities Management Pla Zone 19. and more particularly described as:
A portion of the east half of the southeast quarter of Section 22. and a portion ofthe north half of Section 27. all in Township 12 south. Range 4 west, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego. State of California.
If you have any questions regardmg this matter, please contact Mike Grim. in th
Plannmg Department. at (619) 438- 1161, extension 4499.
If you challenge the Tentative Tract
Map revision 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 deliver&to the City of Carlsbad City Clerk’s Offrce at. or prior to, the public hearing. The time within which you may judicially challenge ttiis Tentative Tract Map Amendment, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance and is very short.
APPLICANT: Aviara Land Associates CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
Legal 47564 July 26. 1996 ,,.
9sb
AVlAFL4 PHASE III
CUP 92-03(A)
I .
-
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CT 92-3(A) - AVIARA PHASE III REVISION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest 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 a request for revision of a condition of approval for a Tentative Tract Map, to change the secondary access route from the existing route along Poinsettia Lane and Black Rail Court (to the west), to Cassia Road (to the east), for property generally located along future Ambrosia Lane, north of Alga Road, in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 19, and more particularly described as:
A portion of the east half of the southeast quarter of Section 22, and a portion of the north half of Section 27, all in Township 12 south, Range 4 west, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mike Grim, in the Planning Department, at (619) 438-1161, extension 4499.
If you challenge the Tentative Tract Map revision 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 Tract Map Amendment, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance and is very short.
APPLICANT: Aviara Land Associates PUBLISH: July 26, 1996
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
ARPORT 1
POINSETTIA LN 1
AVIARA PHASE III
CT 92=03(A)
--
(Form A)
TO: C1T.Y CLERK’S OFFICE
FROM: MIKE GRIM, PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PU8LIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice
AVIARA PHASE Ill - CT 92-03(A)
for a public hearing before the Clty Council.
Please notice the ftem for the council meeting of ql4d
.
Thank you.
&L&J 11 i I@( 0
ate
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 19, 1996, to
consider a request for a tentative tract map revision to revise a condition of approval regarding
secondary access for property generally located along future Ambrosia Lane, north of Alga Road,
in Local Facilities Management Zone 19 and more particularly described as:
A portion of the east half of the southeast quarter of Section 22, and a portion of
the north half of Section 27, all in Township 12 south, Range 4 west, in the City
of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after June 13, 1996. If you have any
questions, please call Mike Grim in the Planning Department at (6 19) 43% 1161, extension 4499.
The time within which you may judicially challenge this Tentative Tract Map Amendment , if
approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge
the Tentative Tract Map Amendment in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues
you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: CT 92-03(A)
CASE NAME: AVIARA PHASE III
PUBLISH: JUNE 7,1996
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MG:kr
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 576 - (619) 438-1161 - FAX (619) 438-0894 @
THE LEVINE FAMILY -
8929,UNIVERSITY CENTER LN If
SAN DIEGO CA 92 I22
MHPPINC
5414 OBERLIN DR 140
SAN DIEGO CA 92 I2 I
R G T THREE PTNSHP
2832 how AVE
TUSTM CA 92680
1985 PALOMAR OAKS CORP
1985 PALOMAR OAKS WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CARLSBAD I
2255 INDIA ST
LOS ANGELES CA 90039
MHi’PMC _--- ,_
5414 OBERLIN DR b%fJ-. --
SAN DIEGQCA 92121
AIR PRODUCTS & CHEMICALS INC
1969 PALOMAR OAKS WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KAWABE ENTERPRISES
1212 S FLOWER ST
LOS ANGELES CA 900 I5
AKIRA & JOYCE S TABATA
8201 LEGION PL
MIDWAY CITY CA 92655
THE HAWTHORNE FAMILY
PO BOX 708
SAN DIEGO CA 92 I I2
MARGATE ASSOCIATES
6349 PALOMAR OAKS CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
TERRY & MARGARET REITER MICHAEL F SFREGOLA
6 SADDLEBACK RD 1052 HYDE PARK DR
PALOS VERDES PENJNSULA C 90274 SANTA ANA CA 92705
LMDA SUGINO-SHIMOKAJI
I MAHOGANY RUN
COT0 DE CAZA CA 92679
SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BANK
PO BOX 54029 TERMINAL AN
LOS ANGELES CA 90054
WILLIAM P 8c MARJORIE BOWEN
14088 E KAMM AVE
KINGSBURG CA 9363 I
AVIARA LAND ASSOCIATES LIMITED
:v
PALOMAR OAKS BUSINESS CENTER
10960 WILSHIRE BLVD 1225
LOS ANGELES CA 90024
DAVID & OLIVIA MALDONADO
I668 FREDA LN
CARDIFF BY THE SEA CA 92007
SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BANh
y--
AKIRA & TOSHIKO MUROYA
PO BOX 9000-25 1
CARLSBAD CA 92008
YUJIRO YAMAMOTO
I20 I VIA LA JOLLA
SAN CLEMENTE CA 92672
WILLIAM A & ANITA BUERGER
2626 MALLORCA PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
WILLIAM A & ANITA B& 2 LINDA SUGMO-SHIMO#---
-. 2626 MALLQRCA PL 1 MAHOGANYRWQ- 2
7CA92009
yC~92679
AVIARA LAND ASSOCIATES LJMJTE-B
450 NEWPORT C-ENTER-DR 304
YH CA 92660
AVIARA LAND ASSOCIATES LJMJTEI
450 NEWPORT CENTERDR38+-
~RT$EACH CA 92660
WERNER F & IVY ASTL
6892 PEACH TREE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
AVIARA POINT ASSN
225 I SAN DIEGO AVE A250
SAN DIEGO CA 92 I IO
-m&e
SALLY J OSWALD ---
1637 BACCHARISAVE B r~
CARLFCA 92009
AVIARA RESORTS ASSQGIAd
501 W BROADWAY- 1900
YCA 92’o’
GREYSTONE HOMES IN&
495 E RMCON SjX+%
CORONAXdl719
MICHAEL & RHONDA MAHON
6646 TOWHEE LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MACE0 D & VALENCIA WARD
6634 TOWHEE LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
THE HUNTOON FAMILY
6620 TOWHEE LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
- KENNETH & MARIE BERTOSSI AVIAR4 LAND ASSOCIAT
1235 COUNTRYWOOD LN 450 NEWPORT CE-
VISTA CA 92083 BEACH CA 92660
.----
AVIARA RESORT ASSOUATkS AVIARA RESORT ASSOCIAT_EL---
6986 EL CAMIN l&AL B336 6986 EL CAMMO REAL B336
7CA92009
CXR/f%dA 92009
.H
AVIARA LAND ASSOCIA-iES LTD AVIARA MASTER ASSOCIATION
450 NEWPORT CENTER DR 304 201 I PALOMAR AIRPORT RD 206
NY BEACH CA 92660 CARLSBAD CA 92009
GREYSTONE HOMES INC
495 E RINCON ST I I5
CORONA CA 91719
GREYSTONE HOMES INC /
yi
GREYSTONE HOMES MC
WILLIAM D & SHERYL PALMER STAR FLAG CORP LTD
6642 TOWHEE LN 6638 TOWHEE LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
JON & EMMOREY LINKER JAMES K & CALLAHAN CHAPMAN
6630 TOWHEE LN 6624 TOWHEE LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOHN H & VIRGINIA LINDSEY RAYMOND L & JOSEPHINE NISKI
6618 TOWHEE LN 66 I4 TOWHEE LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
RONALD P 6 JUDITH HEMTSKILI --
6610 TOWHEE LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
AVIARA MASTERASSN-’
20’ I PALOh$AR?iIRPORT RD 206
YCA 92009
KENNETH C & MARY COKELEY
6909 THRUSH PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SHELDON 8c JOAN HORING
65 CORNELL DR
LIVINGSTON NJ 07039
TIMOTHY S MITCHELL
69 I2 THRUSH PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JEAN P & GINETTE ROBJNAT
I6 PLACE ST DIE
SAN DIEGO CA 92121
IRVING & JOANNE ABESON
‘7500 MAGNOLIA BLVD
ENCINO CA 91316
RONALD B HEGLI
‘565 CORMORANT DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MICHAEL P & DONNA VOSS
11947 N FOREST DR
MEQUON WI 53092
CRAIG M & JOLLYNE TANNER
‘576 CORMORANT DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
- GREYSTONE HOMES D
495 E RINCON ST I I5
D@ JAMES F & DENISE QUIGLEY
7074 ROCKROSE-TER E/Jfl
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CHET FRANCISCO
6905 THRUSH PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROBERT A & MARY MCCORMICK BENJAMIN P & BETTY SIGLER
6913 THRUSH PL 69 I7 THRUSH PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOANNA B GLASS
6904 THRUSH PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CHARLES D MERRITT
6908 THRUSH PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BRUCE H & PATRICIA SHEET2
6916 THRUSH PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
FRANK GRILL0
6928 THRUSH PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
EDWARD N & BLANCHE CICOUREL
823 INVERNESS DR
RANCH0 MIRAGE CA 92270
PETER S & HELEN WlLKE
‘569 CORMORANT DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
THE OSBORN FAMILY
‘568 CORMORANT DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GARRY D COLE
‘580 CORMORANT DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LYDIA MANTHEI
2573 LACONIA AVE
LAS VEGAS NV 89 12 I
REL E & NANCY SCHMITT
‘550 CORMORANT DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MOIR.4 SOLOMON
4 IO VILLAGE CENTER DR
ENCMITAS CA 92024
DAVID S SMITH
‘560 CORMORANT DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
RICHARD T SCHMITZ
I572 CORMORANT DR
CARJSBAD CA 92009
LEE A CURTIS
I584 CORMORANT DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOAfi M EMMENECKER
6905 AVOCET CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HELEN F PEARSON
69 I7 AVOCET CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GARY D MARTIN
69 I2 AVOCET CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JAMES H & SHARON STEIN
75 DEMPSEY DR 585
PALM DESERT CA 92260
HORTON D R ‘NC
10179 HUENNEKENS ST ‘00
SAN DIEGO CA 92 ‘2’
GEORGE B HERSHMAN
‘625 CORMORANT DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
THE HOOVER FAMILY
I624 CORMORANT DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOANNE GAETA
PO BOX 1347
SUNSET BEACH CA 90742
DAVID E & IRENE HANSON
36 CALLE MERIDA
RANCH0 MIRAGE CA 92270
EDITH E GILBERT
69 I3 GOLDFINCH PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KERRY D PATTERSON
6909 AVOCET CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOAN M DANZINGER
6904 AVOCET CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MARIO E PEYROT
I600 CORMORANT DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ALAN WISE
I6 I2 CORMORANT DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
THE SHARP FAMILY
I6 I7 CORMORANT DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SHARON W GRAY
‘6’6 CORMORANT DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
NORMAN L VETTER
1628 CORMORANT DR
CARJSBAD CA 92009
JERRY & IRIS LAIBSON
‘640 CORMORANT DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROSIE M RANDENBERG
2’0 E 68TH ST 14H
NEW YORK NY ‘0021
RICHARD W STINSON
1304 KUHN RD
BOILING SPRINGS PA ‘7007
BETTY L DODGE
69 I3 AVOCET CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CLARIS R & AUDREY HALLIWELL
6908 AVOCET CT
CARJSBAD CA 92009
LORI M LAWRENCE
1604 CORMORANT DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
THE ROSTON FAMILY
I6 I3 CORMORANT DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DAN & DANA M STATE
‘62 I CORMORANT DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROY W & DORIS WILLIAMS
8360 TURTLE CREEK CIR
LAS VEGAS NV 891 I3
MARTIN D CASPER
‘632 CORMORANT DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DAVID R & JOHANNA LOVELESS
2100 HABERSHAM MARINA RD 30’E
CUMMING GA 30131
HORTON D R ‘NC
10179 HUENNEKENS ST ‘00
SAN DIEGO CA 92121
EDWARD B 8c MANETTA FENTON
6908 GOLDFINCH PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MICHAEL KANTRO WIT2
69 I2 GOLDFMCH PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
- MORTON M POZNAK .-.
6033 N SHERIDAN RD 23B
CHICAGO IL 60660
ALDEA AT AVIARA HOMa FN I ~$-ig$$j2$%w-NERs ;~~~I00
WILLIAM L & ELIZABETH ALTON AVlARA MASTER ASSOCIATIOPC- BARRATI- AMERICAN INC
1613 BROME CT -9 20 I I PALOMAR AIRPORT RD X35 CCXTE DEL NOGAL I 60
CARLSBAL, CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
AVIAIU MASTER ASSOCIAfiON AVIARA MASTER ASSOCJAmOr(r- --= BARRATT AMER CA MC _.a
20110112~OIiT RD 2035 CORTgeDE LJ2e 160
y&Sf%AD CA 92009
MIKE GRIM
PLANNING .DEPARTMENT
,- .
Aviara Land Associates 2011 Palomar Airport Suite 206 Carlsbad, CA 92009
GUY S MOORE
6503 EL CAMINO REAL
CkRLBAD CA 92009
THOMAS AND JANET MASS GEORGE W MANNON SUPT
2851 TORRY COURT CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST
CARLSBAD CA 92009 801 PINE AVENUE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ANTHONY & DICKY BONS
II24 BLUESAGE DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
a CARLSBAD PARTNERS LTD 1601 ELM ST3900
DALLAS TX 75201
Aviara Resort Associat 7100 Blue Heron Place Carlsbad, CA 92009
GEORGE BOLTON
6519 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
FLEN YAMAMOTO
1201 VIA LA JOLLA
SAN CLEMENTE CA 92672