HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-01-06; City Council; 14511; Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan4 a, $4 a a a,H r-10 aw
om uQ) 4.J h? a,G c *ri $4E
That the City Council ADOPT City Council Resolution No. 9 8 -10
mental Impact Report, EIR 96-01, and APPROVING GPA 95-06, LCPA 96-03, ZC 95-06
and LFMP 87-22(A) as recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and the
Commission, and INTRODUCE Ordinance No NS- $lY I APPROVING SP 210 and ZC 9
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On December 3, 1997, the Planning Commission recommended approval (6-1) of the F
Properties Specific Plan project, located west of Avenida Encinas, east of Carlsbad Boulevi
of Lakeshore Gardens Mobilehome Park and the Ponto Road area, and south of th
Poinsettia Transit Station and Lanikai Lane Mobilehome Park. On October 23, 1997 the
Commission recommended approval (8-0) of the project‘s onsite inclusionary housing comp
cd Gal This project includes a 90-acre Specific Plan and related discretionary applications whic
c -M provide for a transit-oriented development of 923 dwelling units, 6.5 acres of mixed reside : ua aa commercial development; 101,780 sq. ft. of commercial land uses; and, 1.4 acres of oper
lH aJ,d The proposed project complies with all City ordinances and policies and includes the
discretionary actions:
CERTl FYI NG
ua, 0 ua,
4.lf
h 4.J v.4 VI4
*I4 aCJ
.q g au 2 +JaJ (IJ uc
n alu rn# 4 -4 h aclp 2 aa
3 (q
O :a : 25 .d *d u ca a, -d *A 3 2 :E
a, “am .”, “.S 0 ad a u:2 g :;
a, acd e S? uo
EIR 96-01 - Certification of the Program Environmental Impact Report prepare(
project. The EIR addresses all discretionary actions necessary for development o
pursuant to the specific plan. Mitigation measures identified in EIR 96-01 ha
incorporated into the project as mitigating conditions of approval. Overriding consic
are proposed for the cumulative Air Quality and Circulation impacts which re5
regional influences beyond the City’s ability to control.
GPA 95-06 - A General Plan Amendment to delete an Office (0) general plan de
and relocate other land use categories resulting in general plan designations on th
site of Residential Medium (RM), Residential Medium High (RMH), Residential Hi!
Travel Recreation (TR), and Open Space (OS). As part of the General Plan Arne
the project proposes to allocate residential units from the quadrant’s excess dwe
bank. The staff and Planning Commission are supporting this allocation because it (
with City Council Policy No. 43 in that the project is a transit-oriented developmen,
on a transit corrider adjacent to the Poinsettia Commuter Rail Station.
LCPA 96-03 - A Local Coastal Program Amendment to revise the text of the Mellc
Coastal Program as described in the attached staff report, in addition to amending
use map as described above to achieve consistency between the LCP and the Gene
SP 210 - A Specific Plan as defined by Government Code Section 65451. The plan
goals, objectives and policies, as well as development and design standards
u &J
;x 2 :*
rl .d
r-1
.d s4 w u a0 g cda- a
“I4Grn 2 “E-d 5 gcJu 2 oaa
a .I
ma a‘ z
‘O 0 F 0 4
d I
4.J.
.I+ b) ri
c5m
ooa,
u
ad \‘ 44
development of the site.
0 2 3 0 the General Plan . 0
ZC 95-06 - A Zone Change to achieve consistency between the Specific Plan, the
Facilities Zone
Local Facilities Management Zone
Total Number of Units
Growth Control Point
Net Density
Special Facilities
22
22
923
NA
10.04 dulac
CFD No. 3
PAGE 3 OFAGA BILL NO. J 4: s I I 0
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12. EIR 96-01 (previously distributed)
13.
Planning Commission Staff Report, dated November 19, 1997
Planning Commission Staff Report, dated November 5, 1997
Excerpts of Draft Planning Commission Minutes, dated December 3, 1997
Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated November 19, 1997
Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes, dated November 5, 1997
Executive Summary of the study prepared by Onaka Planning & Economics, title
Impact Analysis of Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan", dated, April 7, 1997
Revised SP 21 0 (previously disfribufed)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2 1
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9' 0
RESOLUTION NO. 98-10
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CAFUSBAD, CALIFORNIA CERTIFYING PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, APPROVING
CANDIDATE FINDINGS OF FACT, THE STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND THE MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND
APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE,
SPECIFIC PLAN, AND A LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE
POINSETTIA PROPERTIES SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ON
91.9 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF AVENIDA
ENCINAS, EAST OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD, NORTH OF
LAKESHORE GARDENS MOBILEHOME PARK AND THE
PONTO ROAD AREA, AND SOUTH OF THE NCTD
POINSETTIA TRANSIT STATION AND LANIKAI LANE
MOBILEHOME PARK.
CASE NAME: POINSETTIA PROPERTIES SPECIFIC PLAN
CASE NO.: EIR 96-01/GPA 95-06/LCPA 96-03/SP 210/ZC
95-06/LFMP 87-22(A)
WHEREAS, on November 5, 1997, November 19, 1997 and December
the Carlsbad Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings to consider a
Environmental Impact Report (EIR 96-0 l), General Plan Amendment (GPA 95-0t
Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 96-03), Specific Plan (SP 210), Zone Change (Z(
and Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment (LFMP 87-22(A)) for project dew
on 91.9 acres of land and adopted Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4157, 415
41 6 1, and 41 62, respectively, recommending to the City Council that they be approved; I
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the
, 1998, held a public hearing to consider the recommendations a
all persons interested in or opposed to EIR 96-01/GPA 95-06/LCPA 96-03/SP 210
O6/LFMP 87-22(A); and
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report was prepared and submittc
State Clearinghouse and a Notice of Completion filed, published, and mailed to res
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
0 0
agencies and interested parties providing a 45 day review period. All comments recei
the review period are fully incorporated into the conditions of approval for the project i
conditions will be reviewed through a mitigation monitoring and reporting program s
this project,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1.
2. That the Environmental Impact Report (EIR 96-01) on th
of Overriding Considerations, and the Mitigated Monitoring and E
Program are approved and that the findings and conditions of the
Commission contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 41 57
with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the find
conditions of the City Council.
3. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the ap
the General Plan Amendment (GPA 95-06) is approved and that the find
conditions of the Planning Commission contained in Planning Con
Resolution No. 4158, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated h
reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council.
4. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the ap]
Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 96-03) is approved and
Commission Resolution No. 4159, on file with the City Clerk and incc
herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council.
5. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the ap!
the Specific Plan (SP 210) and Zone Change (ZC 95-06) are approved an(
findings and conditions of the Planning Commission contained in
Commission Resolution No. 4161, on file with the City Clerk and incc
herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council.
6. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the apl
the Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment (LFMP 87-22(A) are i
and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission coni
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4162, on file with the City C
incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of
Council.
That the above recitations are true and correct.
referenced project is certified and that the Candidate Findings of Fact, S
findings and conditions of the Planning Commission contained in
-2-
0
7. That these approvals are further subject to the condition that \
days of approval of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan projeci
California Coastal Commission, the applicant shall provide an agreeme
satisfaction of the City Attorney and the City Manager that the appli
indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officers, employees, and agc
any and all costs of defense including any judgments, attorney fees, (
expenses arising out of an action attacking the adequacy of the envirl
documents or any other approvals pertaining to this project.
8. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City
The provision of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, “Time L
Judicial Review” shall apply:
“NOTICE TO APPLICANT”
“That time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought j
governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has bee
made applicable in the City of Garlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Cod
Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must b
filed in the appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day following th
date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten day
after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the proceeding
accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover th
estimated cost of preparation of such record, the time within which suc,
petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth da:
following the date on which the record is either personally delivered o
mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written
-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
e 0
request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be file
with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drivc
Carlsbad, California 92008.”
EFFECTIVE DATE: This resolution shall be effective upon its adoptio
as to the General Plan Amendment, which shall be effective thirty (30) days follc
adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of
Council of the City of Carlsbad on the day of
to wit:
1998, by the follow
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk
-4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
a 0
ORDINANCE NO. NS-441
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN
210 AND AMENDING SECTION 21.05.030 OF THE
CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO
APPROVE ZONE CHANGES, REGARDING PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF LAKE SHORE
GARDENS MOBILEHOME PARK, SOUTH OF THE
POINSETTIA TRANSIT STATION AND LANIKAI LANE
MOBILEHOME PARK, WEST OF AVENIDA ENCINAS, AND
EAST OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 22
CASE NAME: POINSETTIA PROPERTIES SPECIFIC PLAN
CASE NO.: SP 21OlZC 95-06
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does ordain as folloi
SECTION 1: That the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan (being Exh
referred to in Planning Commission Resolution 4161, dated November 5, 1997), i
adopted.
SECTION 2: The Zoning Map, on file in the office of the City Clerk pu
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.05.030 is hereby amended as set forth on page 2
Specific Plan.
Ill/
/Ill
Ill/
/Ill
/Ill
Ill/
Ill/
Ill/
Ill/
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lo
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 e
SECTION 3: That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commi
set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 4161 constitute the findings and cond
the City Council.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ordinance shall be effective thirty days
adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause
published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation within fifteen days
adoption.
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsl
Council held on the day of 1998, and thereafter
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of said City Council he1
day of 1998, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk
(SEAL)
-2-
__ __ ___ - - - W w
@ NORTH
POINSETTIA PROPERTIES
EIR 96=01/GPA 95=06/LCPA 96-03/
ZC 95-06/SP 21 O/LFMP 87=22(A)
/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
0 EXHi
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4157
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
CERTIFICATION OF A PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL
THERETO, FOR THE POINSETTIA PROPERTIES SPECIFIC
PLAN (SP 210) AND RELATED APPLICATIONS,
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND THE MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF LAKE SHORE
GARDENS MOBILEHOME PARK SOUTH OF THE
POINSETTIA TRANSIT STATION AND LANIKAI LANE
MOBILEHOME PARK, WEST OF AVENIDA ENCINAS, AND
EAST OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 22.
CASE NAME: POINSETTIA PROPERTIES SPECIFIC PLAN
IMPACT REPORT, EIR 96-01 AND THE ADDENDUM
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A STATEMENT OF
CASE NO.: EIR 96-01
WHEREAS, HSLBPMichan, L.P., “Developer”, has filed a verified ap
for certain property, to wit:
See Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated by this
reference.
with the City of Carlsbad, which has been referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for approval of the P
Properties Specific Plan Project (“Project”) as is more fully described in the Final 1
Environmental Impact Report, EIR 96-01 and the Addendum thereto, dated Nover
1997, as provided in Chapter 19.04 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
’
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 5th day of Novemb
the 19th day of November 1997, and the 3rd day of December 1997 hold duly notice
hearings as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all tc
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered a
relating to the project; and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That the Final Program Environmental Impact Report consists of tl
Environmental Impact Report, EIR 96-01, dated July 1997, and tl
Addendum, dated November 13, 1997, appendices, written commc
responses to comments, as amended to include the comments and docu
those testifying at the public hearing and responses thereto hereby found
good faith and reason by incorporating a copy of the minutes of sai
hearing into the report, all on file in the Planning Department incorpoi
this reference, and collectively referred to as the “Report”.
That the Environmental Impact Report EIR 96-01 and the Addendum
as so amended and evaluated is recommended for acceptance and certifi
the final Environmental impact Report and that the final Environmenta
Report as recommended is adequate and provides reasonable informatic
project and all reasonable and feasible alternatives thereto, including no p
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Cor
RECOMMENDS CERTIFICATION of Program Environmental
Report, EIR 96-01 and the Addendum thereto; RECOMl
APPROVAL of the Candidate Findings of Fact (“CEQA Fin
attached hereto marked Exhibit “B” and incorporated by this re
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Statement of Ov
Considerations (“Statement”), attached hereto marked Exhibit “
incorporated by this reference; and RECOMMENDS APPROVAI
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“Program”), :
following findings and subject to the following conditions.
C)
D)
hereto marked Exhibit “C” and incorporated by this reference: base
Pindines:
1. The Planning Commission does hereby find that Final Program EIR 96-01
Addendum thereto, the Candidate Findings of Fact, the Mitigation Monitol
Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations have been 1
in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, 1
EIR Guidelines, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Carlsba
The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analy
considered Final Program EIR 96-01 and the Addendum thereto, the envirc
impacts therein identified for this project; the Candidate Findings of Fact (“Finc
“CEQA Findings”) and the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached 1
2.
PC RES0 NO. 4157 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
l1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
Exhibit “B”, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“Program”)
hereto as Exhibit “C”, prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project
The Planning Commission finds that Final Program EIR 96-01 and the Ad
thereto reflects the independent judgment of the City of Carlsbad 1
Commission.
The Planning Commission does hereby RECOMMEND APPROVAL, accc
own, incorporate as if set forth in full herein, and make each and every one of the
contained in the “Candidate Findings of Fact” (Exhibit “B”).
As is more fully identified and set forth in Final Program EIR 96-01
Addendum thereto and in the Candidate Findings of Fact, the Planning Con
hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA G
Section 1509 1 that the mitigation measures described as feasible in the above r(
documents, are feasible, and will become binding upon the entity assigned tl
implement same.
As is also noted in the above referenced environmental documents describe in t
finding number 4, each of the alternatives to the project which were ider
potentially feasible in Final Program EIR 96-01 and the Addendum thereto i
not to be feasible since they could not meet both the objectives of the project s
the identified significant environmental effects through implementation of
mitigation measures, for the reasons set forth in said Candidate Findings of Fact.
As required by the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the Planning Cor
hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigation Monitoring and I
Program (“Program”) (Exhibit “C”). The Planning Commission hereby find,
Program is designed to ensure that during project implementation the Develope
other responsible parties implement the project components and comply with thl
mitigation measures identified in the Candidate Findings of Fact and the Prograr
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the proje
mitigate or avoid each significant effect identified in the EIR and the Addendum
Even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures and any feasible alt
certain significant or potentially significant environmental effects caused by th
will remain. Therefore, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that
Council of the City of Carlsbad issue, pursuant to Section 15093 of th
Guidelines, a Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth in Exh
which identifies the specific economic, social, and other considerations that r
unavoidable significant adverse environmental effects acceptable.
The Record of Proceedings for this project consists of the following:
a. The Report, CEQA Findings, Statement and Program;
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
~ PC RES0 NO. 4157 -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
e 0
b. All reports, applications, memoranda, maps, letters and other planning dc
prepared by the planning consultant, the project Applicant, the envirc
consultant, and the City of Carlsbad that are before the decisionm
determined by the City Clerk;
All documents submitted by members of the public and public age
connection with the EIR and the Addendum thereto on the project;
Minutes of all public meetings and public hearings; and
Matters of common knowledge to the City of Carlsbad which they 1
including but not limited to, the Carlsbad General Plan, Carlsbad
Ordinance, and Local Facilities Management Plan, which may be fou
office of the City Clerk located at 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Community Development Office located at 2075 Las Palmas Driw
custody of the City Clerk and the Planning Director.
c.
d.
e.
Conditions:
1. The project shall implement the mitigation measures described in Exhil
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, for the mitigation measu
monitoring programs applicable to development of the Poinsettia Properties
Plan Project.
Within 30 days of Certification of EIR 96-01 and the Addendum ther
Developer shall enter into an agreement with the City to indemnify the City
legal challenges of the adequacy of the EIR content or processing in a for
approved by the City Attorney. The City Manager is authorized to execi
Agreement on behalf of the City.
2.
...
.*e
...
...
...
...
...
PC RES0 NO. 4157 -4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 ;:
12
13
14
0 e
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 3rd day of December 199
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Compas, Heineman, Monroy , Noble, Sava
Welshons
NOES: Chairperson Neilsen
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
6 -
ROBERT NIELSEN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
a m EXHIBIT ‘
Parcel 1:
Those portions of Lots 2 and 3 the North 1/3 of Lot 4 and the East Half of the Northea
Quarter of Section 29, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian,
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Official PI
thereof, lying Southwesterly of the Southwesterly line of the 200 foot right of way of tt
Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad and lying Easterly of the Easterly line of Parc
County, Case No. 165983, a copy of which being recorded April 23, 1952 in Book 444
Page 395 of Official’Records, said Easterly line being described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the South line of said Fractional Section 29, distant therec
North 89’49’10” West 325.97 feet from the corner common to Section 28, 29, 32 ar
33, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, said point also beir
distant along said South Line South 89’49’10’’ East 88.23 feet from Engineers Static
196 plus 46.33 on the center line of the Department of Public Works Survey made
I947 between half mile South of San Marcos Creek and 2.2 miles South of Carlsbai
Road XI-SD-2-B; thence along a line parallel with and distant 80.00 feet Easterly (
right angles from the center line of said Survey North 24’45’30’’ West 72.54 feet; thenc
along a tangent curve to the right with a radius of 6,120 feet through an angle 1
4’55’30” a distance of 526.06 feet; thence North 19’50’ West 3628.47 feet; thenc
along a tangent curve to the right with a radius of 19,846 feet through an angle point I
along said North line South 89’55’53’’ West 466.01 feet from the Northeast corner (
said Lot 2, said point also being distant along said North line of Lot 2 North 89’55’5:
east 84.78 feet from Engineer’s Station 240 plus 28.54 on the center line of sal
Survey.
Excepting from said Lot 3, that portion conveyed to the County of San Diego, in Para
2 of Directors Deed recorded December 22, 1966 as File No. 198819 of Officii
Records .
Excepting therefrom that portion described as follows:
Commencing at the Southerly terminus of Course No. 5 of Parcel One of that certa
Directors Deed conveyed to the County of San Diego and recorded on December 2:
1966 as File No. 19881 9 of Official Records, said Course No. 5 having a bearing an
distance of North 13O05’20” West, 20.00 feet: thence along the Southerly prolongatio of said Course South 13’46’30” East 28.75 feet to a line having a bearing of Sout
76’16’30’’ West, said line being South 13’46’30’’ East 28.75 feet from the Northerly lin
of Poinsettia Lane measured along the Southerly prolongation of said Course No. !
thence South 76’16’30” West I1 55.57 feet to the intersection with the Westerly right (
way of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad Company, said point of intersectio
being the true point of beginning and being distant South 21’08’51” East 27.97 fet
from the Northerly line of Poinsettia Lane as measured along the westerly right of wa
Exhibit “A” to Planning Commission Resolution No. 4157 Page 1 of
5-A as described in the Final Order of Condemnation in Superior Court of San Die(
0’22’46’’ a distance of 131.43 feet to a point on the North line of said Lot 2, dista
0 0
of said Railroad Company; thence along said Westerly right of way line North 21’98’5
West 51.43 feet to a line parallel with and distance Northerly 51.00 feet measured
right angles to the above mentioned line having a bearing and distance of Sou
76’16;30: West 1155.57 feet; thence along said parallel line South 76’16’30’’ We
495.77 feet to the intersection with the Easterly right of way of the State Highway i
described in Parcel 5A of Final Order of Condemnation in Superior court of San Dies
County, Case #I65983 filed in the Office of the County Clerk of said county; then(
along said Easterly line South 19’50’1 9” East 51.29 feet; thence North 76’16’30’’ Ea
496.95 feet to the true point of beginning.
Except therefrom those portions previously dedicated to the public use as described
the aforementioned Directors Deed recorded December 22, 1966 as File 0. 198819 1
Official Records.
Also excepting therefrom that portion described as follows:
Commencing at the Southerly terminus of Course No. 5 of Parcel One of that certa
Directors Deed conveyed to the County of San Diego and recorded on December 2
1966 as File No. 198819 of Official Records said Course No. 5 having a bearing ar
distance of North 13’05’20” West. 20.00 feet; thence along the Southerly prolongatic
of said Course South 13”46’30” East 28.75 feet to a line having a bearing of Sou
76’1 6’30” West, said line being South 13’46’30” East 28.75 feet from the Northerly lir
of Poinsettia Lane measured along the Southerly prolongation of said Course No.
thence South 76°16’30” West 11 55.57 feet to the intersection with the Westerly right t
way of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad Company, said point of intersectic
being the true point of beginning and being distant South 21’08’51’’ East 27.97 fec
from the Northerly line of Poinsettia Lane as measured along the Westerly right of WE
of said Railroad Company; thence along said westerly right of way line South 21”08’5.
East 51.43 feet to a line parallel with and distant Southerly 51 .OO feet measured at rig1
angles to the above mentioned line having a bearing and distance of South 76’16’3(
West 1155.57 feet; thence along said parallel line South 76’16’30” West 498.13 feet 1
the intersection with the Easterly right of way line of the State Highway as described
Parcel 5A of Final Order of Condemnation in Superior Court of San Diego County Cas
#I65983 filed in the Office of the County Clerk of said County; thence along sa
Easterly line North 19’50’19” West 51.29 feet; thence North 76’16’30” East 496.95 fel
the true point of beginning.
Excepting therefrom those portions previously dedicated to the public use as describe
in the aforementioned Directors Deed recorded December 22, 1966 as File No. 19881
of Official Records. Excepting therefrom all oil, and mineral rights below 500 fee
without right of surface entry as reserved by A. L. Shipley, Jr., Conservator of the estai
of George H. Capron in deed recorded June 30, 1969 as File No. 116905 and rc
recorded July 23, 1969 as File No. 132460, both of Official Records.
...
Exhibit “A” to Planning Commission Resolution No. 4 157 Page 2 01
e e
Parcel 2:
Those portions of the East Half of Section 29 and the West Half of Section 2
Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsba
County of San Diego, State of California, according to Official Plat thereof, describc
as follows:
Beginning at the Northwest corner of the East Half of the Northeast Quarter of SE
Section 29; thence along the Northerly line of said East half of the Northeast Quart
North 89’58’20” West 294.68 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve conca?
Southwesterly having a radius of 600.00 feet; thence Southeasterly along said cun
through a central angle of 63”10’41” an arc distance of 661.60 feet; thence tangent
said curve South 26’50’59’’ East 389.48 feet to the beginning of a tangent cun
concave Westerly having a radius of 1700.00 feet; thence Southerly along said la
mentioned curve through a central angle of 9’37’29’’ an arc distance of 285.57 fee
thence tangent to said last mentioned curve South 17’23’30’’ East 1187.36 feet to tt
beginning of a tangent curve concave Westerly having a radius of 1250.00 feet; them
Southerly along said last mentioned curve, through a central angle of 23’30’00” an a
distance of 512.69 feet to the beginning of a revere curve concave Easterly having
radius of 500.00 feet; thence Southerly along said last mentioned curve to i
intersection with the Northerly line of that certain Parcel of land deeded to the County
San Diego in Parcel 1 of Directors Deed recorded December 22, I966 as File N
198819 of Official Records; thence South 76’54’40” West along said Northerly line
the easterly line of the 20.00 foot Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Cornpar
Right of Way; thence along said Easterly line North 21’08’15” West to the West line
West, 765.33 feet to the true point of beginning.
Excepting therefrom that portion described as follows:
Commencing at the Southerly terminus of Course No. 5 of Parcel 1 of that certa
Directors Deed conveyed to the County of San Diego and recorded on December 2
1966 as File No. I988819 of Official Records, said Course No. 5 having a bearing ar
distance of North 13’05’20’ West, 20.00 feet; thence along the Southerly prolongatic
of said curve South 13”46’30” East 28.75 feet to a line having a bearing of Sou
76’16’30’’ West, said line being South 13’46’30” East 28.75 feet from the northerly lir
of Poinsettia Lane measured along the Southerly prolongation of said Course No. 1
thence South 76”16’30” West 243.98 feet to the true point of beginning, said poi1
being the Southerly terminus of that certain Course cited as being a curve having
radius of 500.0 feet and an arc distance of 174.53 feet in Parcel 2 in deed to John t
of Official Records of said San Diego County; thence continuing South 76”16’30” We
709.90 feet - record 710.09 feet - to the intersection with the Easterly right of way line 1
the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad Company, said point of intersection beir
distant South 21”08’51” East 28.15 feet from the Northerly line of Poinsettia Lane t
Exhibit “A” to Planning Commission Resolution No. 4 157 Page 3 oi
said East Half of the Northeast Quarter; thence along said West line North 0’02’21
Lusk 81 Son, a California Corporation, recorded January 9, 1973 as File No, 73-00684
0 0
measured along the Easterly right of way of said Railroad Company; thence along SE
Easterly right of way North 21”08’51” West 51.43 feet to a line parallel with and dista
Northerly 51.00 feet measured at right angles to the above mentioned line having
bearing and distance of South 76’16’30” West 709.90 feet; thence along said para1
line North 76O16’30” Eat 719.15 feet to the intersection with a non tangent cur
mentioned curve having a radius of 500.00 feet, a radial from said point bears Noi
82”07’45” East; thence Southerly along a said curve through a central angle of 5’51’1
an arc length of 51.09 feet to the true point of bearing.
Excepting therefrom those portions previously dedicated to the public use as describt
in the aforementioned deed recorded December 22, 1966 as File No. 198819 of Offic
Records.
Excepting therefrom that portion described as follows:
Beginning at the Northwest corner of the East Half of the Northeast Quarter of si
Section 29; thence South 20°27;52: East 869.10 feet; thence South 69”32’08” WE
275.76 feet to a point on the Easterly right of way line of the Atchison, Topeka ai
Santa Fe Railway, being 200.00 feet wide; thence along said right of way line Noi
20’27’52’’ West 154.51 feet to a point on the Easterly line of Lot 1 in said Section 4
thence along said line North O”38’14” East 765.95 feet to the point of beginning.
Also excepting therefrom that portion of the East % of Section 29 and the West %
Section 28, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Official Plat there
lying Northerly of the Northerly line of Parcel “C” as described in the deed to the City
Carlsbad filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, on May I
1984 as File No. 84-186516 of Official Records, and lying Southerly, Easter
Southeasterly on the following described line:
Commencing at the centerline intersection of avenue Avenida Encinas and Poinseti
Lane as shown on Parcel Map 41028, filed November 18, 1985 as File No. 85-4347‘
of Official Records; thence North 13’01’21” West 1.46 feet (North 13’43’30” West 1 .d
feet per said Parcel Map 14028) to the beginning of a curve, as shown on said Parc
Map; concave Easterly, having a radius of 500.00 feet; thence Northerly along SE
curve 133.48 feet through a central angle of 15”17’45” tot he point of beginning throuc
which a radial line bears North 87O43’36” West; thence North 87O43’36” West 42.00 fe
along prolongation of said radial line to the beginning of a non-tangent curve throul
which a radial line bears North 87’43’36’’ West, concave Easterly, having a radius
542.00 feet; thence Southerly along said curve 33.50 feet through a central angle
3”32;27”; thence South 40 29’48” West 33.70 feet; thence South 76’54’40’’ We
298.51 feet; thence South 13”05’20” East 11.81 feet more or less to the point
intersection with the Northerly line of said Parcel “C” and being the point of terminus.
concave Easterly and having a radius of 500.00 feet, and said curve being the abo
Exhibit ‘A’’ to Planning Commission Resolution No. 4157 Page 4 o
e e
Also excepting therefrom, all oil and mineral rights below 500 feet without right
sulface entry as reserved by . L. Shipley, Jr., Conservator of the estate of George
Capron in deed recorded June 30, 1969 as File No. 116905 and re-recorded July 2
7969 as File No. 132460, both of Official Records.
Exhibit “A” to Planning Commission Resolution No. 4157 Page 5 0,
0 EXHIE
POINSETTIA PROPERTIES SPECIFIC PLAN PROGRAM EIR
DRAFT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
and
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
NOVEMBER 13,1997
Table of Conter Poinsettia Properties Spe IC Plan Program EIR e d
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAG
I. INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................
11. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................
111. PROGRAM EIR ............................................................................. .:. ..................................
IV. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ..........................................................................................
V. . TERMINOLOGY/THE PURPOSE OF FINDINGS UNDER CEQA ...............................
VI. LEGAL EFFECT OF FINDINGS ......................................................................................
VII. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM .....................................................................
VIII. IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE INSIGNIFICANT .....................................................
IX. DIRECT SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
AND MITIGATION MEASURES .................................................................................... 1
A. Air Quality ............................................................................................................. 1
B. Noise ...................................................................................................................... 1
D, Archaeological and Paleontological Resources .................................................... .1 E. Agricultural Resources ........................................................................................... I F. Visual AestheticdGrading .................................................................................... .I
G. Water QualityMydrology ...................................................................................... I
CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ............ 2
A. Cumulative Traffic/Circulation.. ........................................................................... .2 B. Cumulative Air Quality .......................................................................................... 2
FEASIBILITY OF POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ..................................... 2
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDEMTIONS ................................................ 2
C. Biological Resources ............................................................................................. 1
X.
XI.
XII.
Poinsettia Properties Sp tl), c Plan Program EIR e Findings of Fac
(Dal
BEFORE THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
RE: Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. INTRODUCTION
The Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR) prepared on this project addressed tl
potential environmental effects of developing 92 acres of land and related off-site storm drainal
improvements. The Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan submitted by Benchmark Pacif
Management, Inc. contained both a land use plan and policy language to guide the long-ter
family residential, travel recreation (commercial), mixed-use, and open space.
In addition to the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan and off-site storm drainage improvement
the FPEIR evaluated four alternatives to the proposed project. These included the No Project/N
Development Alternative, the Development Under Existing General Pldocal Coastal Progri
Alternative, Increased Residential Density Alternative and the Alternative Location.
development of 92 acres. The Specific Plan proposes a mix of single-family residential, mull
11. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan area contains a total of 92 acres. The purpose of tk
Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan is to provide a comprehensive set of guidelines, regulation:
and implementation programs for guiding and ensuring the orderly development of the Poinsetti
Properties in accordance with the City's General Plan. The specific plan defines the allowabl
type and intensity of land use, provides detailed development and design standards and criteri: and describes the method by which the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan will be implemented.
City Council adoption of the specific plan will establish the zoning and development standard
for this property. The Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan will ensure that the subject property i
developed in full accordance with the City of Carlsbad General Plan, Local Coastal Program
Mello I1 Segment, and Zone 22 Local Facilities Management Plan.
The proposed land uses for the Specific Plan reflect a mix of residential and non-residential use!
Proposed uses include single-family residential, multi-family residential, travel recreatioi
(commercial), mixed-use, and open space.
Residential
The specific plan proposes a diversity of housing including mediumlmedium high residential,
high density residential/affordable housing, and high density residential.
Page 1
Findings of Facts e Poinsettia Pr @ rties Specijic Plan Program EI
Mediudmedium high density residential - Areas designated for mediumimedium high densit
residential development may consist of single-family detached units on minimum 2,400 qua
foot lots. Development of this area may also include (but is not limited to) townhome
condominiums, apartments and duplexes.
High density residentiaVafordable housing - High density residential/ affordable housing unii
will be either “for sale andor rent” condominiums or apartment rental units.
’ High density residential - High density residential units will be developed per the RD-M Zon
or Planned Development Ordinance and the development standards/design criteria set forth in th
Specific Plan. The multi-family units may include, but are not limited to town home:
condominiums, stacked flats, carriage units, apartments and duplexes, vacation ownership unit
and residential units over commercialhetail spaces.
TraveURecreation Commercial
The TravelEecreation Commercial area will consist of uses permitted by the Travel/ Recreatio
Commercial land use designations as described in the City of Carlsbad General Plan and a
specified within the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan. Up to 101,750 square feet of buildin
space for this use is allowed.
Open Space
The Specific Plan Open Space program consists of recreation areas, trails and landscapi
parkways from roadways and the landscape pedestrianhicycle corridor adjacent to the railroac
where applicable, per the requirements of the City’s Planned Development Ordinance.
Approximately 13.8 acres or 15% of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan consists of Ope1
Space. Open Space may consist of private recreation areas, natural and manufactured slopes
trails and landscaped parkways adjacent to roads, and the railroad right-of-way and othe
designated areas.
Recreational Facility
Common active recreational facilities will be provided for each residential planning area (excep
residential uses in Planning Area 6). Such facilities can be combined to serve more than on(
planning area. Each recreational facility may include a swimming pool, tennis courts
recreational building, outdoor basketball facilities and other outdoor playing areas.
BicycleFedestrian Trails
Amenities of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan also include public and private pedestrii
trails which will take advantage of access to Carlsbad Boulevard, the Pacific Ocean and thc NCTD rail station. These trails will include bike paths in the road right-of-way, a perimetei
pedestrian trail and internal parkways and trails.
Recreational Vehicle Storage Planning Area
Recreational Vehicle (RV) storage areas will be provided in compliance with City’s Plannec
Development Ordinance.
right-of-way. Additionally, the Po;nsett;a Properties Specific Plan dl1 provide recreation areas
Page 2
Findings of Fac Poinsettia Properties Sp 8 c Plan Program EIR 0
Project Parcels
For planning purposes, the Specific Plan area has been divided into three parcels (A, B, and (
with each parcel being further divided into "planning areas". There are a total of eight plannii
areas within the Specific Plan. The development potential of each parcel is described below,
Parcel A consists of approximately 55 acres and is bordered to the east and north by Avenil
Encinas, to the south by Poinsettia Lane, and to the west by the railroad right-of-way. A Nor
County Transit District commuter rail station is located at the northwest comer of Parcel A.
Parcel A is divided into six planning areas (1 through 6) and is composed of 3.6 gross acres (
Travel Recreation, 6.5 gross acres of TraveVRecreation Commercial/MF, 38.6 gross acres I
single-family residential (Residential Medium and Residential Medium High), 5.6 acres of mull
family residential (Residential High), and 1.4 gross acres of Open Space uses. A total of 3( single-family dwelling units, 203 multi-family dwelling units, and 120,000 square feet Qf trav recreation and commercial development is proposed for this parcel.
Parcel B consists of approximately 19 acres and is located between Carlsbad Boulevard and tl
railroad right-of-way, immediately north of Poinsettia Lane and south of the Lanikai La
Mobilehome Park. Parcel B contains one planning area (planning area 7) and contains 18.7 gro
acres of multi-family residential uses. A total of 215 single-family dwelling units are propost
for this parcel.
Parcel C consists of approximately 17.5 acres and is located between Carlsbad Boulevard su
the railroad right-of-way, immediately south of Poinsettia Lane and north of the existing sing1
family residential/mixed-use enclave adjacent to Ponto Drive. Parcel C consists of two plannin
areas (planning areas 1 and 8) and contains 17.5 gross acres of tourist commercial/single-famil
residential uses. A total of 21,780 square feet of commercial and 150 single-family residentit
units are proposed for this parcel.
Supporting Public Services
The project site lies entirely within Local Facilities Management Zone 22. Facility requiremen
for the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan are identified in the existing Zone 22 Local Facilitit
Management Plan (LFMP), Zone 22 LFMP Amendment, or as superseded by a subsequei
update to the Carlsbad Drainage Specific Plan or the Zone 22 Finance Plan. Public servict
addressed in Zone 22 LFMP consist of city administration, library, wastewater treatment, park
drainage, circulation, fire, open space, schools, sewer and water.
0 ff-Site Improvements
Implementation of the proposed project will involve the installation of a trunk storm drai
immediately off-site, adjacent to the eastern boundary of Parcels B and C.
Project Objectives
The Project objectives are set forth in the FPEIR (FPEIR, p. 3-8 through 3-9) and again set fort on pages 23-24 herein. In arriving at its final decision, the decisionmakers took kt consideration objectives set forth in the FPEIR.
Page 3
Findings of Facts a Poinsettia Pr @ rties Spec& Plan Program El
Discretionary Actions
The discretionary actions taken by the decisionmakers in approving the Project are:
1. General Plan Amendment. The project applicant is requesting an amendment 1
the General Plan. The amendment consists of a change from the General Pls
Land Use Designations as follows:
Existing Proposed
General Plan General Plan
Parcel A RM/O TR/RWRMWRM/OS
Parcel B RMH RMH Parcel C WTS RMWTR
2. Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA). The Specific Plan area is locatt within the Coastal Zone, thereby necessitating the processing of Cotisti
Development Permits.
required in order to maintain its consistency with the City of Carlsbad’s Generi
Plan, and reflect the land use changes proposed in this Specific Plan.
Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment (Zone 22). The amendment
required to reflect adjustments in land use for Zone 22 of the City. Per tl requirements of the Carlsbad Growth Management Program, the Zone 22 Pla
must be updated to be consistent with the General Plan land use designatior
proposed by the Specific Plan. The Zone 22 LFMP Amendment address<
existing and future projected adequacy of public facilities, through buildout of tl
Specific Plan, to City buildout.
Specific Plan. The proposed Specific Plan provides all elements required t
Government Code Sections 65350 et. seq., and will provide land uses ar
development standards for the project site.
Zone Change. The proposed project will require a zone change to change tl
existing zoning designations of the project site (RDM-Q and CT-Q/RDM-Q) 1
proposed zones RD-M (Residential Density Multiple), C-T (Commercial Tourisi
and 0-S (Open Space).
The Mello I1 Local Coastal Program Amendment
3.
4.
5.
Subsequent discretionary approvals that will be required prior to development of the Specifi
Plan areas will include one or more of the following listed below. These approvals are addresse
in the environmental analysis of this Program EIR.
& Site Development Plan
& Coastal Development Permit
b Tentative Subdivision Map
6& Planned Development Permit
b Conditional Use Permit
b Condominium Permit
Page 4
Findings of Fac Poinsettia Properties Spe IC Plan Program EIR
111. PROGRAM EIR
0 9
A program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterize
as "one large project" and are related either: (1) geographically; (2) as logical parts in the chai
of contemplated actions; (3) in connection with the issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or othc
general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program; or (4) as individual activitic
~am(ied out under the WE aiithorkg statutory or regulatory authority and having general
similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways (CEQA Guidelines, 14 C:
Code Reg, 4 15 168, subd. (a).)
Use of a program EIR can provide the following advantages. The program EIR can: (1) provia
an occasion for a more exhaustive consideration of effects and alternatives than would t:
practical in an EIR on an individual action; (2) ensure consideration of cumulative impacts thi
might be slighted in a case-by-case analysis; (3) avoid duplicative reconsideration of basic polic
considerations; and (4) allow the Lead Agency to consider broad policy alternatives an
program-wide mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility t
deal with basic problems of cumulative impacts; and (5) allow reduction in paperwork. (CEQ,
Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Reg. $15168, subd. (b).)
''Use of the program EIR also enables the Lead Agency to characterize the overall program as tk
Project being approved at that time. Following this approach when individual activities withi
the program are proposed, the agency would be required to examine the individual activities I
determine whether their effects were fully analyzed in the program EIR. If the act;v;t;es waul
have no effects beyond those analyzed in the program EIR, the agency could assert that tk
activities are merely part of the program which had been approved earlier, and no further CEQ
compliance would be required. This approach offers many possibilities for agencies to reduc
their costs of CEQA compliance and still achieve high levels of environmental protection."
(CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Reg., discussion following $ 15 168).
The CEQA Guidelines provide that the "degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspon
to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity." (Guidelines Section 15 146.)
FPEIR Addendum
An addendum to the FPEIR has been prepared because the proposed revision to the projec
analyzed in the FPEIR requires only minor technical changes or additions to the document an
none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15 162 calling for preparation of
subsequent EIR have occurred.
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15164 (b) and (c) also indicate that an addendum need not b
circulated for public review, but can be included in or attached to the final EIR, and the decisioi
making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR prior to making a decision on th~
project.
IV. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
For the purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth below, the administrative record of the Cit
Council decision on the environmental analysis of this Project shall consist of the following:
Page 5
Findings of Facts 0 Poinsettia Pro 9 erties Specific Plan Program El
- The Draft and Final Program EIR for the Project, including appendices an
All reports, applications, memoranda, maps, letters and other planning documen
technical reports;
-
prepared by the planning consultant, the project Applicant, the environment;
consultant, and the City of Carlsbad that are before the decisionmakers i
determined by the City Clerk;
All documents submitted by members of the public and public agencies j
connection with the EIR on the Project;
-
- Minutes and verbatim transcripts of all workshops, public meetings and pub1
hearings held by the City of Carlsbad, or video tapes where transcripts are nc
available or adequate;
- Any documentary or other evidence submitted at workshops, public meetings ar
Matters of common knowledge to the City of Carlsbad which they conside
public hearings; and
-
including but not limited to, the following:
- Carlsbad General Plan - Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance - Local Facilities Management Plan
The City has received seven comment letters on the Draft EIR, Those comments are set forth j
Section 9.0 of the final EIR together with the responses thereto. In addition, certain of tl.
comments have been addressed in margin notes to the text of the EIR. The City has considere
all the comments to the EIR and has addressed those comments adequately and properly 1
accordance with CEQA. The City’s responses represent a good faith and reasonable analysi
supported by factual information in the record.
The City’s responses to the comments are proper and as required under CEQA. There is no nee
for re-circulation of the EIR, nor is there any requirement that it be re-circulated. First, tl
comments do not disclose any new significant environmental impacts or any new mitigatic
measures proposed to be implemented. Rather, the environmental impacts raised in tl
comments, if any, have all been previously raised, analyzed and addressed in the EIR. Furthe
no new mitigation measures have been proposed to be implemented.
Second, the comments do not show that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of i
environmental impact. Rather, each of the significant environmental impacts was addressed
the EIR, and appropriate mitigation measures andor alternatives have been identified to reduc
such impacts, where feasible, to below a level of significance. All project specific impacts c:
be mitigated to below a level of significance. The cumulative impact of traffic circulation and a quality will remain significant and unavoidable.
Third, no feasible project alternatives or mitigation measures, which are considerably differe
from those analyzed in the body of the EIR, have been proposed which would clearly lessen tl
significant environmental impacts of the project. Again, as stated above, no new or differe
feasible alternatives or mitigation measures, which are considerably different from othe
Page 6
Findings ofFac Poinsettia Properties Spe 9 JK Plan Program EIR 0
previously analyzed, have been suggested.
Fourth, the EIR was proper and adequate and provided an opportunity for meaningful pub1
review and comment. This is shown by, among other things, the text of the EIR, the analysis SI
forth therein, and the range and depth of comments that were actually received.
The comments do not present significant new information to be added to the EIR. In response 1
the comments, the EIR has not changed, nor should it be changed, in a way that has deprived (
would deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adver:
environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect. The1
is no substantial adverse impact of the project that has been shown for the first time in tl
comments. Nor has there been suggested a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect
Further, the public has had a full, complete and meaningful opportunity to comment upon tf:
EIR including the environmental effects set forth therein. The EIR was properly circulated for
period of 45 days, and the City has received seven comment letters to the EIR. Additionally, tl
Planning Commission held a hearing on November 5, 1997, at which people could appear ar
testify on the project and/or EIR. Finally, the EIR has not been changed in a way that WOUI
deprive the public of such a meaningful opportunity to comment. In sum, the comments do nc
require the circulation of the EIR or any significant changes to it.
An addendum to the FPEIR has been prepared and is appropriate because the proposed revisio
to the project analyzed in the FPEIR requires only minor technical changes of additions to th document and none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 calling fc
preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. In total, the revised project is less intensive tha
the EIR project, because it proposes 18,220 square feet less of non-residential building floor are
and 86 fewer residential dwelling units than the project analyzed in the FPEIR, whil
maintaining the same 1.4 acres of open space.
As documented in the Addendum, environmental impacts associated with the revised project a
less than or similar to those attributable to the project analyzed in the FPEIR. As a result, n
substantial changes are proposed for the project requiring major revisions of the FPEIR due I
the involvement of new significant environmental effects or increases in the severity (
previously identified significant effects. Although implementation of the revised project reducc
certain environmental impacts identified fix the project analyzed in the FPEIR, the conclusior
of the FPEIR regarding overall impact and mitigation remain unchanged for the revised project.
Since the FPEIR was completed recently (July 1997), no substantial changes have occurred wit
respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require majc
revisions of the FPEIR due to involvement of new significant environmental effects or
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
No information of substantial importance has been identified indicating that the revised proj e(
will have significant effects not already discussed in the FPEOR or that the significant effecl
previously examined in the report will be substantially more severe. In addition, no informatio
of substantial importance has been identified indicating that mitigation measures or alternative
which are considerably different or were previously found infeasible, are now feasible and woul
substantially reduce significant impacts.
...
...
Page 7
Poinsettia Pro 9 erties Specific Plan Program El Findings of Facts a
V. TERMINOLOGYKHE PURPOSE OF FINDINGS UNDER CEOA
Section Z 5091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that, for each significant environmental effe
identified in an EIR for a Project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching or
or more of the three allowable conclusions. The first is that "[clhanges or alterations have bee
required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or Substantially lessen the significa:
finding is that "[sluch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction (
another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopte
by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency." The third permissibi
conclusion is that " [slpecific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible th
mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the final EIR."
Regarding the first of three potential findings, the CEQA Guidelines do not define the differenc
between "avoiding" a significant environmental effect and merely "substantially lessening" SUC
an effect. The meaning of these terms, therefore, must be gleaned from other contexts in whic
they are used. Public Resources Code Section 21 08 1, on which CEQA Guidelines section 1509
is based, uses the term "mitigate" rather than "substantially lessen." The CEQA Guideline:
therefore, equate "mitigating" with "substantially lessening." Such an understanding of th statutory term is consistent with Public Resources Code section 21001, which declares tk
Legislature's policy disfavoring the approval of projects with significant environmental effecl
where there are feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that could "avoid or substantiall lessen" such significant effects,
' environmental effect as identified in the final EIR," (emphasis added.) The second potenti
For purposes of these findings, the term ''avoid'' shall refer to the ability of one or mor
mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less-than-significant level. I
contrast, the term "substantially lessen" shall refer to the ability of such measures to substantiall
reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce the effect to a level of insignificancc
Although CEQA Guidelines section 1509 1 requires only that approving agencies specify that
particular significant effect is "avoid[ed] a substantially lessen[ed]," these findings, for purpose of clarity, will specify whether the effect in question has been fully avoided (and thus reduced tl
a level of insignificance) or has been substantially lessened (and thus remains significant).
The purpose of these findings is to systematically restate the significant effects of the Project o
the environment identified in the Final Program EIR, and determine the feasibility of mitigatio
measures and Project alternatives identified in the Final Program EIR which would avoid c
substantially lessen those significant effects. Once the City has adopted sufficient measures t
avoid a significant impact, the City does not need to adopt every mitigation measure brought t
its attention or identified in the Final Program EIR.
It is the policy of the State of California and the City of Carlsbad to not approve a Project if then
are available feasible mitigation measures or project alternatives which would substantialk
lessen that Project's significant environmental effects. Only when such mitigation measures o
Project alternatives are found to be infeasible because of specific economic, social or othe
conditions set forth in these findings may the City approve a Project in spite of its significan
effects.
Another purpose of these findings is to bring focus on Project alternatives in the ultimatl
decisionmaker's decision whether to approve or disapprove the Project. If, after application of al
Page 8
Findings of Fac Poinsettia Properties Spe IC Plan Program EIR
feasible mitigation measures to the Project, significant impacts remain, Project alternativ
identified in the FPEIR must be reviewed and determined to be feasible or infeasible. TI
findings set forth the reasons, based on substantial evidence in the record, that tl decisionmakers conclude any such Project alternatives are infeasible (see further discussion
Feasibility of Alternatives Section),
e 9
VI. LEGAL EFFECT OF FINDING§
To the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in t
Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City
Carlsbad ("City" or "decisionmakersl') hereby binds itself and any other responsible partic
including the Applicant and its successors in interest (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant"),
implement those measures. These findings, in other words, are not merely informational
hortatory, but constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the Ci
adopts the resolution(s) approving the Project.
The adopted mitigation measures are express conditions of approval. Other requirements a
will be effectuated through the process of implementing the Project. referenced in the mitigation monitoring program adopted concurrently with these findings, x
VII. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
As required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City of Carlsbad, in adopting the!
findings, also adopts a mitigation monitoring and reporting program as prepared by tk
environmental consultant under the direction of the City. The program is designed to ensure th
during Project implementation, the Applicant and any other responsible parties comply with tl
feasible mitigation measures identified below. The program is described in the docume
entitled "Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring Program."
VIII. IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE INSIGNIFICANT
The following summary briefly describes impacts determined to be insignificant in tl-
preparation of the EIR.
Land Use Compatibility
+b No impact associated with on-site land use compatibility is anticipated. (FPEI
5.1-8)
- The specific plan provides development standards, policies, and land UI
design that avoids land use compatibility impacts between each of the!
proposed land uses. Buffering techniques proposed in the specific pls
include the use of walls, fences, landscaping, and setbacks between lar
uses. The theme elements proposed in the specific plan provide for certai treatment of transitional areas between neighborhoods and land uses so i
Page 9
Findings of Facts @ Poinsettia Pro 9 rties Specific Plan Program Ed
to blend the neighborhoods and eliminate barriers to pedestrian access Implementation of these techques will avoid land use compatibili
impacts associated with the planned land uses.
b No incompatibility with off-site land uses is anticipated. (FPEIR 5.1-8)
- The specific plan areas will be separated from existing land uses throug
the use of landscaping, fencing, walls, and other buffering techniques.
Q No land use impact resulting fiom the General Plan Amendment is anticipatec
(FPEIR 5.1-9)
b No impact as a result of the amendment to the Mello I1 Segment of the LCP
anticipated. (FPEIR 5.1-9)
The amendment to the LFMP Zone 22, therefore, will not result in a significsu
impact. (FPEIR 5.1 - 1 0)
b
PopulationlHousing
b This increase in population, in and of itself, is not considered significant. (FPEI
5.2-2)
TraffdCirculation
6 No project impact to street segment peak hour levels of service is anticipated
(FPEIR 5.3-16)
b No project impact to peak hourly intersection levels of service is anticipated.
(FPEIR 5.3-16)
Q There is no environmental impact associated with the alternative acces
configuration into Parcel A. (FPEIR 5.3-24)
There is no environmental impact associated with the alternative awes
configuration into Parcel C. (FPEIR 5.3-24) ib
Air Quality
b The project impact to regional air quality is therefore reduced to a less tha
significant level by virtue of the transit oriented development project design. N
additional mitigation measures are necessary to reduce long-term air qualit
emissions. (FPEIR 5.4-6).
The proposed project is consistent with, and implements transportation contrc
measures identified by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District Regional Ai
Quality Strategy as it is a transit oriented development project. The propose1
project is designed to provide support services in close proximity to the existin
transit station, in addition to locating a higher density of residential withi
walking distance to the transit station. The primary goal of the specific plan is t
minimize the need for and maximize the efficiency of the use of the automobile
b
Page 10
Poinsettia Properties Sp@c Plan Program EI. a Findings of Fac,
The design of the project joins all of the neighborhoods and associated land use
by a trail system. The density of the project brings more residential uses closer t
the transit station.
The proposed project also implements Planned Land Use Pattern mitigation
measures identified in the City’s General Plan Master EIR related to air quality.
These include:
b
Q
Development applications should provide for safe, easy pedestrian an
bicycle linkages to nearby community centers, parks, schools, points c
interest, major transportation corridors, neighborhood commercial center
and the proposed Carlsbad Trail System,
Locate multi-family uses near commercial centers, employment center
and major transportation corridors.
Provide linkage to bus, pedestrian and bicycle routes from any new ligl
rail commuter transit facility.
b
b
Noise
b With implementation of City requirements regulating construction hours an
construction equipment noise the short-term construction noise impact is less tha
significant (FPEIR 5.5-2)
No impact to off-site land uses as a result of project traffic generated noise j
anticipated. (FPEIR 5.5-1 0)
&
Biological Resources
On-Site
b No impact to biological resources on-site are anticipated. (FPEIR 5.6-8)
08-Site
[The project will result in an impact to biological resources off-site (see page 12).]
Archaeological and Paleontological Resources
Archaeology
h The impact to site CA-SDI-13739m is less than significant. (FPEIR 5.7-3)
b Site CA-SDI-13739h-I is identified as not important under CEQA criteri
due to the limited range and small number of artifacts identified at the site
Paleontology
[The project will result in a significant impact to paleontological resources (see page 13).]
Page 11
Findings of Facts a Poinsettia Pro ? erties Specific Plan Program EI.
Agricultural Resources
Prime Farmland
6 No significant impact to prime agricultural farmland is anticipated. (FPEIR 5.8-3)
6 No significant impact to a decrease in County agricultural lands is anticipated.
(FPEIR 5.8-3)
Local Coastal Program Policies
[The project will result in a significant impact as a result of development in the agricultw:
overlay zone (see page 13).]
Visual AesthetidGrading
Visual Aesthetics
b The viewhight distance profiles indicate that portions of the project site will b
visible from various locations surrounding the project site @e. east of the I-5), bi
proposed development will not obstruct existing views and blue water ocea
views will not be eliminated. (FPEIR 5.9-2)
Grading
[The proposed project will result in a significant impact as a result of grading (see page 13).]
Public Services and Utilities
6
6
No impact to fire protection services is anticipated. (FPEIR 5.10- 1)
Development under the Specific Plan is not anticipated to significantly affect tb
Carlsbad Police Department’s ability to provide adequate services. (FPEIR 5.1 (
2)
&
6
6
6
b
b
No impact to sewer facilities is anticipated. (FPEIR 5.10-4)
No impact to wastewater facilities is anticipated. (FPEIR 5.10-4)
No impact to water facilities is anticipated. (FPEIR 5.10-7)
No impact to schools or school facilities is anticipated. (FPEIR 5.10- 13)
No significant impact to on-site drainage is anticipated. (FPEIR 5.1 1-5)
No impact to off-site properties is anticipated as the runoff generated by th
project will be collected by facilities proposed on-site, and conveyed to a
existing system to the south of the site. (FPEIR 5.1 1-5)
No impact to groundwater quality is anticipated. (FPEIR 5.1 1-7) 6
Page 12
Poinsettia Properties Sp @I b IC Plan Program EIR
IX.
e Findings of Fac
DIRECT SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT, AND MITIGATION
MEASURES
The Final Program EIR identified the following direct significant environmental effects ((
"impacts") that the Project will cause; all can be fully avoided through the adoption of feasib
mitigation measures.
Air Quality
The proposed project will result in the generation of short-term emissions. (FPEIR 5.4-L
Noise
Portions of Parcels A, B, and C will be exposed to traffic noise and railroad noise whic
is higher than the City's noise standards for residential land uses. This is a significa
impact. (FPEIR 5.5-4, 5.5-8,5.5-9).
Biological Resources
08-Site
The western edge of Parcel A represents a portion of the watershed of the vernal pot
habitat that is located immediately off-site within the railroad corridor right-of-way
Development of the project site will indirectly impact the vernal pool habitat. (FPEI
5.6-8)
On-Site
[No impact to biological resources on-site are anticipated (see page IO).]
Archaeological and Paleontological Resources
. Paleontology
The project site is underlain by geological deposits with a moderate potential fi
producing significant paleontological resources. Development of the project site wi
involve earthwork which may result in impacts to paleontological resources (i.e., physic; destruction of fossil remains). This is a significant impact. (FPEIR 5.7-4)
Archaeology
[Impact to archaeology is less than significant (see page 1 l).]
Agricultural Resources
Local Coastal Program Policies
The Specific Plan area lies within the Coastal Agricultural Overlay Zone of the Mello
Segment of the City's Local Coastal Program. The LCP requires that an agricultur,
feasibility study be prepared or a mitigation fee paid for properties proposing to conve
Page 13
Findings of Facts 0 Poinsettia Pr d rties Specific Plan Program El
coastal agricultural uses to urban uses. Because the project site will convert the vaca
land to urban uses, the project will result in a significant impact. (FPEIR 5.8-3)
Prime Farmland
[No significant impact to prime farmland is anticipated (see page 1 l).]
Visual AestheticsKrading
Grading
The project will be required to obtain a coastal development permit, which is subject t
the development standards requirements of Section 21.203.040 of the Carlsbad Municip;
Code. (FPEIR 5.9-7)
The City’s General Plan Master EIR requires the preparation of a soils report an
submittal to City and County Health Departments for review and approval. (FPEIR 5.5
8)
Visual Aesthetics
[No significant impact to visual aesthetics is anticipated (see page 1 l).]
Water Quality/Hydrology
Grading of the project site may result in increased erosion and sedimentation, resulting i
short-term impacts to surface water quality. (FPEIR 5.1 1-4)
Additionally, construction activities may result in short-term water quality impacts as
result of trash or other surface debris from construction activities, which could E
transfened to nearby surface water bodies. (FPEIR 5.1 1-5)
The impact to surface water quality is significant. (FPEIR 5.11-7)
Mitigation
The following sub-sections describe specific project impacts, setting forth either the reasons wh
they are significant and unavoidable and the mitigation measures adopted to substantially lesse
or avoid them. No proposed mitigation measures are found to be infeasible.
A. AIR QUALITY
Significant Effect:
emissions. (FPEIR 5.4-4)
The proposed project will result in the generation of short-ten
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes (
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid tl
significant environmental effect as identified in the Final Program EIR. The followir
mitigation measures would reduce impact to below a level of significance.
Page 14
Poinsettia Properties Sp @ IC Plan Program EIR e Findings of Fac
During grading and construction, the project developer shall comply with tl
following:
a.
1.
During clearing, grading, earth moving or excavation, maintain equipme
engines in proper tune.
After clearing, grading, earth moving or excavation: b.
1) Wet the area down, sufficient enough to form a crust on the surfs(
with repeated soakings, as necessary, to maintain the crust a~
prevent dust pick up by the wind.
2) Spread soil binders; and
3) Implement street sweeping as necessary.
c. During construction:
1) Use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas whe
vehicles move damp enough to prevent dust raised when leavix
the site;
Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completc
for the day; 2)
3) Use low sulfur fuel (-05% by weight) for construction equipment.
2. Revegetation of exposed soils on-site due to grading activity shall take place
early as feasible in order to minimize wind erosion.
B. NOISE
Significant Effect: Portions of Parcels A, B, and C will be exposed to traffic noise a~
railroad noise which is higher than the City’s noise standard for residential land us<
This is a significant impact. (FPEIR 5.5-4, 5.5-8, 5.5-9)
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid t
significant environmental effect as identified in the Final Program EIR. The followii mitigation measures would reduce impact to below a level of significance.
1. Prior to issuance of a building permit(s), when precise grading plans a
architectural drawings are available, detailed exteriorhnterior acoustical analys
shall be prepared by a licensed acoustical engineer. The project shall comply w
the precise recommendations of the study to attenuate exterior and interior noj
levels to the acceptable levels established in the City of Carlsbad General P1
Noise Element. Noise barriers shall be constructed surrounding the project site
specified in the Exterior Noise Analysis for Parcels A, By and C or the acoustic
study prepared for a site development plan.
Page 15
Findings of Facts Poinsettia Pro 9 erties Specifx Plan Program EIi
2. If second or third floor balconies are planned facing the railroad tracks, balconie
shall not be given credit towards meeting the City’s requirement for recreationa
space unless noise is buffered through the use of Plexiglas (or other suitabll shielding as determined by an acoustical engineer) to the acceptable level definec
in the City of Carlsbad General Plan Noise Element.
Prior to the issuance of building permits for second story residential, along th
railroad tracks, Avenida Encinas, or Carlsbad Boulevard, an acoustical analysi
CNEL interior noise standard. Any required upgrades will be included in th
project building plans and implemented prior to building occupancy.
Mechanical ventilation shall be required for any homes adjacent to Avenid
Encinas, Carlsbad Boulevard, Poinsettia Lane or the railroad tracks. The syster
must supply two air changes per hour to each habitable room including 20% fres
make-up air obtained directly from the outside. The fresh air inlet duct shall be c
sound attenuating construction and shall consist of a minimum of ten feet c
straight or curved duct, or six feet plus one sharp 90 degree bend. AI
conditioning units are an adequate substitute for mechanical ventilation as long a they meet the ventilation requirements specified in the Uniform Building Code.
3.
shall be conducted to determine the required building upgrades to meet the 4
4.
C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Significant Effect: The western edge of Parcel A represents a portion of the watershed c
the vernal pool habitat that is located immediately off-site within the railroad corridc
right-of-way. Development of the project site will indirectly impact the vernal poc
habitat. (FPEIR 5.6-8)
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes (
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid th
significant environmental effect as identified in the Final Program EIR. The followin
mitigation measures would reduce impact to below a level of significance.
1. The site development plan(s) for Parcel A shall include an open space buffi
along the western edge of Parcel A as depicted in Figure 5-16 of the Specific P1a1
The buffer shall extend from the edge of the railroad right-of-way eastward to at
minimum, the centerline of the existing dirt road. The Specific Plan requires
soundwall along the approximate centerline of the dirt road. The soundwall sha
be a minimum of 46 feet east of the railroad right-of-way. The area between tk
soundwall and east of the right-of-way), the following uses may be appropriate:
a.
wall and right-of-way shall comprise the buffer. Within the buffer (Le., west (
A 8- to 10-foot wide pedestrian trail composed of decomposed grani
treated with concrete for stabilizing purposes. The trail shall be located r
more than 21 feet away from the soundwall. The trail shall be a minimul
of 17 feet east of the railroad right-of-way, with drought tolerant nati\
landscaping and interpretive signage in the intervening area.
Page 16
Poinsettia Properties Spe d IC Plan Program EIR e Findings of Fact
Landscaping shall consist entirely of native, drought-tolerant vegetation.
Recommended species include laurel sumac (Malosma laurina:
lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia), Cleveland's sage (Salvia clevelandii:
black sage (Salvia mellifera), flat-top buckwheat (Eriogonul;
fasciculatum), and bush monkeyflower (Mimulus aurantiacus).
A protective chain-link fence shall be installed, west of the trail, at th edge of the railroad right-of-way. The fence would serve as a barrie
between the vernal pools and the trail. The fence will be far enough fion
the trail as to not distract from the enjoyment of the trail, but shoulc
provide adequate protection to the vernal pool habitat.
b.
c.
D. ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Significant Effect: The project site is underlain by geological deposits with a moderat
potential for producing significant paleontological resources. Development of the projec
will involve earthwork which may result in impacts to paleontological resources (i.e
physical destruction of fossil remains). This is a significant impact . (FPEIR 5.7-4)
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes c
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid th
significant environmental effect as identified in the Final Program EIR. The followin
mitigation measures would reduce impact to below a level of significance.
1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for any portion of Parcel A, B, or Cy th
developer shall present a letter to the City of Carlsbad indicating that a qualifie
(A qualified paleontologist is defined as an individual with a MS or Ph.D. i
paleontology or geology who is familiar with paleontological procedures an
techniques .)
A qualified paleontologist shall be present at the pre-construction meeting t
consult with the grading and excavation contractors.
A paleontological monitor shall be on-site a minimum of half-time during th
original cutting of previously undisturbed sediments to inspect cuts for containe
fossils. In the event that fossils are discovered it may be necessary to increase th
per/day in field monitoring time. Conversely, if fossils are not being found the
the monitoring should be reduced. (A paleontological monitor is defined as a
individual who has experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials
The paleontological monitor shall work under the direction of a qualifie
paleontologist.)
When fossils are discovered the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) sha
paleontologist has been retained to carry out an appropriate mitigation program
2.
3.
4.
recover them. In most cases this fossil salvage can be completed in a short perio
of time. However, some fossil specimens (such as a complete large mamm;
skeleton) may require an extended salvage period. In these instances th
paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall be allowed to temporarily direc
divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely manner
Page 17
Findings of Facts 0 Poinsettia Pr d erties Specijk Plan Program El
Because of the potential for the recovering of small fossil remains, such i
isolated mammal teeth, it may be necessary in certain instances, to set up a scree1
washing operation on the site.
Fossil remains collected during the monitoring and salvage portion of tk
mitigation program shall be cleaned, repaired, sorted, and cataloged.
Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, and map
shall be deposited (as a donation) in a scientific institution with permane:
paleontological collections such as the San Diego Natural History Museum
Donation of the fossils shall be accompanied by financial support for initi
specimen storage.
A final summary report shall be completed that outlines the results of tl
mitigation program. This report shall include discussions of the methods use
stratigraphic section(s) exposed, fossils collected, and significance of recovert
fossils.
5.
6.
7.
E. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Significant Effect: The Specific Plan area lies within the Coastal Agricultural Overla
Zone of the Mello I1 Segment of the City’s Local Coastal Program. The LCP require
than an agricultural feasibility study be prepared or a mitigation fee paid for propertic
proposing to convert coastal agricultural uses to urban uses. Because the project site wi
convert the vacant land to urban uses, the project will result in a significant impac
(FPEIR 5.8-3)
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes (
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid tk significant environmental effect as identified in the Final Program EIR. The followir
mitigation measures would reduce impact to below a level of significance.
1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall pay applicab
agricultural conversion fees in compliance with Section 30171.5 of the Coast
Act. The amount of the fee shall be determined by the City Council at the time
considers a Coastal Development Permit for urban development of the property
The fees shall not be less than five thousand dollars nor more than ten thousan
dollars per net converted acre of agricultural land and shall reflect th
approximate cost of preserving prime agricultural land pursuant to Sectio
2 1.202.060(B) of Carlsbad’s Local Coastal Permit Implementation Ordinance.
The fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits for the project. A
mitigation fees shall be deposited in the State Coastal Conservancy and expende
by the State Coastal Conservancy in the order of priority as outlined in Sectio
Section 21.202.060 (B) is amended to allow for a fee of less than five thousan
dollars per acre to be paid for the conversion of agricultural land the Poinsetti
Properties project shall be permitted to pay this lesser fee.
2 1,202.060(B) of Carlsbad’s Local Coastal Permit Implementation Ordinance.
Page 18
Findings of Fac Poinsettia Properties Sp IC Plan Program EIR
F. VISUAL AESTHETICS/GFUDING
0 @
Significant Effect: The project will be required to obtain a coastal development permi
which is subject to the development standards requirements of Section 2 1.203.040 of th
Carlsbad Municipal Code. (FPEIR 5.9-7)
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes (
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid th
significant environmental effect as identified in the Final Program EIR. The followin mitigation measures would reduce impact to below a level of significance.
1. Grading shall comply with the provisions of Section 21.203.040 Developmei Standards of the Carlsbad Municipal Code as part of the Coastal Developmei
Permit. The provisions of Section 21.203.040 shall be attached as conditions I
future Coastal Development Permits for the project site.
Significant Effect: The City’s General Plan Master EIR requires the preparation of a soi
report and submittal to City and County Health Departments for review and approval
(FPEIR 5.9-8)
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes (
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid tl
significant environmental effect as identified in the Final Program EIR. The followir
mitigation measures would reduce impact to below a level of significance.
2. Prior to the approval of site development permits, a detailed soils testing an
analysis report shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer, and submitted I
City and County Health Departments for review and approval. This report sha evaluate the potential for soil contamination due to historic use, handling, (
storage of agricultural chemicals restricted by the San Diego County Departmei
of Health Services. The report shall also identify a range of possible mitigatic
measures to remediate any significant public health impacts if hazard01
chemicals are detected at concentrations in the soil which would have
significantly adverse effect on human health. All recommendations contained :
the report shall be implemented prior to issuance of a grading permit.
G. WATER OUALITYIHYDROLOGY
Significant Effect: Grading of the project site may result in increased erosion ar
sedimentation, resulting in short-term impacts to surface water quality. (FPEIR 5.1 1-4)
Significant Effect: Additionally, construction activities may result in short-term watl
quality impacts as a result of trash or other surface debris from construction activitie
which could be transferred to nearby surface water bodies. (PFEIR 5.1 1-5)
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes (
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid tl
significant environmental effect as identified in the Final Program EIR. The followir
Page 19
Findings of Facts e Poinsettia Pr @ rties Specific Plan Program El
mitigation measures would reduce impact to below a level of significance.
1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a water qualii
protection program for the construction phase for review and approval by the Cii
Engineer. This program shall be prepared to inform construction workers o
containment of paint, fuel, masonry and other construction wastes; use of tras
receptacles to prevent debris in the run-off; and retentioddetention basins.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit a constructio
. phase erosion and sediment control plan for the drainage area under consideratio
for review and approval by the City Engineer. The plan shall be developed an
implemented in accordance with the City of Carlsbad policies, and the drainag
measure identified in the Public Facilities Section of the Specific Plan.
Significant Effect: The impact to surface water quality is significant. (FPEIR 5.1 1-7)
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes (
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid tk
significant environmental effect as identified in the Final Program EIR. The followin
2.
mitigation measures would reduce impact to below a level of significance.
1. Concurrent with submittal of the first site development permit application, tl
applicant shall submit a program of Best Management Practices includin
structural controls and detention basins for the storm drain system for the drainag area under consideration for review and approval by the City Engineer. TE
program shall include, where feasible, the following structural controls: natil
vegetation desilting/detention; trash racks in catch basins; sandgrease traps i
catch basins; and catch basidgutter stenciling. The program shall incluc
adequate provisions for long term maintenance.
Prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map, the applicant shall submit a progrsll
of Best Management Practices, non-structural controls to include, but not 1
limited to: a street sweeping and street flushing program; and communi1
awareness and public participation programs for review and approval by the Cil
Engineer. This community awareness program shall be prepared to inform horr
buyers of: the impacts of dumping oil, antifieeze, paints, solvents, or othi
potentially harmful chemicals into storm sewers; identification of appropria
disposal locations for these materials, the proper use and management (
fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides in home landscaping and gardening practice
the impacts of littering and improper waste disposal; and the need to clean up m
properly dispose of pet wastes. The program shall include adequate provisions fc
long term maintenance.
Grading shall comply with the provisions of Section 21.203.040 Developmei Standards of the Carlsbad Municipal Code as part of the Coastal Developmei
Permit.
2.
3.
...
...
Page 20
Findings of Fac Poinsettia Properties Sp
X.
IC Plan Program EIR e @
CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
A. CUMULATIVE TRAFFICKIRCULATION
Significant Effect: Project-specific impacts will be reduced to a level less than significa:
with the implementation of planned roadway improvements and geometrics. Howeve
previous traffic studies prepared for large-scale projects in the City have identified Seric 7, cumulative impacts to segments of the 1-5 and SR-78 freeways (Kaku Associates). Th
is a result of the proposed project’s contribution of additional traffic on the roadwi
system, in conjunction with the additional traffic generated by cumulative developmenl
The cumulative impact remains significant and unavoidable. (FPEIR 7-4)
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes I
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will substantially less
the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. The cumulatik
impact is anticipated to remain significant. Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (3) of the Stal
CEQA Guidelines, there are no feasible measures that would mitigate the impact below
level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, th
City Council has determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overridin
considerations.
- The proposed project is consistent with, and implements transportation contrc
measures identified by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District Regional A
Quality Strategy as it is a transit oriented development project. The propose
project is designed to provide support services in close proximity to the existin transit station, in addition to locating a higher density of residential withi
walking distance to the transit station. The primary goal of the specific plan is i
minimize the need for and maximize the efficiency of the use of the automobile
The design of the project joins all of the neighborhoods and associated land us(
the transit station.
by a trail system, The density of the project brings more residential uses closer 1
The proposed project also implements Planned Land Use Pattern mitigatic -
measures identified in the City’s General Plan Master EIR related to air quality
These include:
b Development applications should provide for safe, easy pedestrian an
bicycle linkages to nearby community centers, parks, schools, points c
interest, major transportation corridors, neighborhood commercial center!
and the proposed Carlsbad Trail System.
Locate multi-family uses near commercial centers, employment center!
and major transportation corridors.
Provide linkage to bus, pedestrian and bicycle routes from any new ligl
rail commuter transit facility.
6
6
0..
Page 21
Findings of Facts 0
B. CUMULATIVE AIR QUALITY
Poinsettia Pr 9 erties SpeciJic Plan Program E,
Significant Effect: The proposed project will result in the generation of additional mobi
and stationary emissions. The proposed project is consistent with, and implemen
transportation control measures identified by the San Diego Air Pollution Control Distri
Regional Air Quality Strategy as it is a transit oriented development project. The proje
impact to regional air quality is therefore reduced to a less than significant level by virti
of the transit oriented design. Buildout of the area as a result of the proposed project I
deveIopment of other cumulative projects, will result in an increase in air emissions in tl
area due to stationary and mobile sources. The project site is located in a non-attainme
area for ozone and PM10. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a non-attainment area, a~
additional emissions are considered cumulatively significant. Implementation of tl
proposed project will contribute to the emissions in the area. Cumulative air quali
impacts are anticipated to remain significant and unavoidable. (FPEIR 7-4)
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will substantially less
the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. The cumulati-
impact is anticipated to remain significant. Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (3) of the Sta
CEQA Guidelines, there are no feasible measures that would mitigate the impact belom level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, t! City Council has determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overridii
considerations.
The proposed project is consistent with, and implements transportation control measur
identified by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District Regional Air Quality Stratel
as it is a transit oriented development project. The proposed project is designed
provide support services in close proximity to the existing transit station, in addition
locating a higher density of residential within walking distance to the transit station. TI
primary goal of the specific plan is to minimize the need for and maximize the efficienc
of the use of the automobile. The design of the project joins all of the neighborhoods a~
associated land uses by a trail system. The density of the project brings more residenti
uses closer to the transit station.
- The proposed project also implements Planned Land Use Pattern mitigatic
measures identified in the City’s General Plan Master EIR related to air qualit;
These include:
h Development applications should provide for safe, easy pedestrian a
bicycle linkages to nearby community centers, parks, schools, points
interest, major transportation corridors, neighborhood commercial centei
and the proposed Carlsbad Trail System.Locate multi-family uses ne
commercial centers, employment centers, and major transportatic
corridors.
Provide linkage to bus, pedestrian and bicycle routes from any new lig
rail commuter transit facility.
6
...
Page 22
Poinsettia Properties Spe c) JIC Plan Program EIR e Findings of Fac
XI. FEASIBILITY OF POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Because the Project will cause some unavoidable cumulative significant environmental effect:
as outlined above (see Section X), the City must consider the feasibility of any environmental1
more of these alternatives could avoid or substantially lessen the unavoidable significa
environmental effects. Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta (1988) 198 Ca
App.3d 433 [243 Cal. Rptr. 7271; see also Pub. Resources Code section 21002. Because it is
judgment call whether an alternative is environmentally superior these findings contrast an
compare all of the alternatives analyzed in the FPEIR.
In general, in preparing and adopting findings a lead agency need not necessarily address tl-
feasibility of both mitigation measures and environmentally superior alternatives whe
contemplating the approval of a project with significant impacts. Where the significant impac
can be mitigated to an acceptable (insignificant) level solely by the adoption of mitigatio
measures, the agency, in drafting its findings, has no obligation to consider the feasibility c
environmentally superior alternatives, even if their impacts would be less severe than those of th
Project as mitigated. Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University c
California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376 [253 Cal Rptr. 4261; Laurel Hills Homeowners Association T
City Council (1 978) 83 Cal.App.3d 5 15 [ 147 Cal. Rptr. 8421 see also Kings County Farm Burea
v. Ciw of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692 [270 Cal. Rptr. 6501. Accordingly, for thi
Project, in adopting the findings concerning Project alternatives, the City Council considers on1
those environmental impacts, that for the finally approved Project, are significant and cannot b
avoided or substantially lessened through mitigation.
Whereas, in this Project, significant environmental effects remain even after application of a
feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final Program EIR, the decisionmakers mu:
evaluate the Project alternatives identified in the Final Program EIR. Under these circumstance!
CEQA requires findings on the feasibility of Project alternatives. If no Project alternatives a
feasible, the decisionmakers must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard t
the Project. If there is a feasible alternative to the Project, the decisionmakers must decid
whether it is environmentally superior to the Project. Proposed Project alternatives considere
must be ones which "could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the Project." However, th
Guidelines also require an EIR to examine alternatives "capable of eliminating" environment:
effects even if these alternatives "would impede to some degree the attainment of the projec
objectives." [CEQA Guidelines Section 15 126 subd.(d)]
superior alternative to the Project, as finally approved. The City must evaluate whether one c
CEQA provides the following definition of the term "feasible" as it applies to the finding
requirement: "'Feasible' means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within
reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, an
technological factors." The CEQA Guidelines provide
broader definition of "feasibility" that also encompasses "legal" factors. CEQA Guidelines,
15364 ("The lack of legal powers of an agency to use in imposing an alternative or mitigatio
measure may be as great a limitation as any economic, environmental, social, or technologic;
factor.").
Accordingly, "feasibility" is a term of art under CEQA and thus is afforded a different meanin
as may be provided by Webster's Dictionary or any other sources.
Pub. Resources Code, $2 1061.1.
Page 23 1
Findings of Facts e Poinsettia Pr d erties Specific Plan Program El
Moreover, Public Resources Code section 2 108 1 governs the "findings" requirement und
CEQA with regard to the feasibility of alternatives. This provision was recently amended by S
9 19. It states in relevant part:
'I. . . [N]o public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environment
impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on tl
environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless the public agenc
makes one or more of the following findings:
(a)(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, includil
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, mal
infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report."
The concept of "feasibility," therefore, as it applies to findings, involves a balancing of varioi
economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors. See Pub. Resources COC
521061.1; CEQA Guidelines, 515364; Pub. Resources Code, 521081,; see also City of Del M;
v. City of San Diego (1992) 133 Cal.App.3rd 401,414-417.
In City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1992) 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 415-417, the Court (
Appeal found that the City of San Diego had ". . . considered and reasonably rejected . .
[certain] project alternatives . . . as infeasible in view of the social and economic realities in tl
region." a. at 417. The court determined that San Diego had attempted to accommodate tl
feasibility factors based upon its growth management plan which included the propost
development project. Accordingly, the court concluded:
"Assuming this accommodation is a reasonable one (citation omitted), San Diego
entitled to rely on it in evaluating various project alternatives. The cost-benefit analysj
which led to the accommodation is of course subject to review, but it need not k
mechanically stated at each stage of the approval process. In this sense, 'feasibility' undc
CEOA encomnasses 'desirabilitv' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonabl
balancing of the relevant economic, environmental. social, and technological factors. W
accordingly conclude that San Diego did not abuse its discretion under CEQA in rejectin
various project alternatives as infeasible." Id. (emphasis added).
These Findings contrast and compare the alternatives where appropriate in order to demonstrai
that the selection of the finally approved Project, while still resulting in significant environment;
impacts, has substantial environmental, planning, fiscal and other benefits. In rejecting all of tk
alternatives, the decisionmakers have examined the finally approved Project objectives an
weighed the ability of the various alternatives to meet the objectives. The decisionmakei
believe that the Project best meets the finally approved Project objectives with the lea
environmental impact. The objectives considered by the decisionmakers are:
b Create a transit oriented community providing mixed land uses includin
commercial retail, office and residential near the NCTD transit station to reduc
automobile trips for transit users and residents.Join all of the neighborhoods an
system. By design, encourage visitors and residents easy access to the NCTD ra
station via this trail system, especially within a 114 mile radius.
Design streets and adjacent buildings in a scale which encourages pedestrian us
and discourages automobile use.
associated land uses within the Specific Plan by the use of a pedestrianhike tra
b
Page 24
Poinsettia Properties Spe 9 rJ~c Plan Program EIR e Findings of Fac
Q Increase residential density within the Specific Plan to bring more residents clost
to the NCTD rail station. Densities should be required, using transit-oriente
development (TOD) principles, based upon the distance from the NCTD ra
station as follows:
a. A minimum of 15 units per acre will be required within 500 feet of tk
station.
A minimum density range of 7-9 dwelling units per acre will be require
between 500 feet and 1/4 mile from the station.
b.
b Avoid artificial barriers to encourage pedestrianhike access to most used facilitic
and attractions such as the beach, adjacent shopping, the mixed-use area and tk
NCTD transit station.
Create focal community spaces which encourage pedestrian movement betwee
land uses.
Ensure that public facilities and services that serve the Specific Plan area meet th
b
b
applicable City standards as called for in the Carlsbad Growth Management Plan.
b Conform to all aspects of Carlsbad’s proposed amended General Plan, Zone 2
Local Facilities Management Plan, Local Coastal Program and all applicabl
ordinances, regulations and policies.
NO PROJEXT/NO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE
Description of Alternative
CEQA requires the analysis of the No Project Alternative (Public Resources Code Sectio
15126). This alternative assumes that the site would not be developed with the proposed projec
and the site would remain in its existing condition.
Finding
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible this project alternativ
identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
A. This alternative would not meet the City of Carlsbad planning and design objectives fc
the site as expressed in the Specific Plan and Final EIR. These objectives include th
provision of a transit oriented development in close proximity to a commuter rail station.
...
...
Page 25
Findings of Facts e Poinsettia Pr 9 erties Specijic Plan Program El
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN/LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM ALTERNATIVE
Description of Alternative
This alternative assumes that the project site would be developed under the existing approvc
General Pldocal Coastal Program designations for the site. The existing General Pldoc
. Coastal Program designations for the project site consist of Residential Medidoffice on Parc
A, Residential Medium High on Parcel B, and Residential Medium HigWTrav
RecreatiodCommercial on Parcel C. Important distinctions for this alternative from tl
proposed project is the location of the Travel RecreatiodCommercial area on Parcel C, rathc than Parcel A as is proposed with the project and the 50% office/50% residential mix on Parcc
A.
Implementation of this alternative would not require amendments to the General Plan/Loc;
Coastal Program or Local Facilities Plan Zone 22.
Additionally, no transfer of excess dwelling units through the City's excess dwelling unit bar
would occur under this alternative.
The development assumptions for this alternative which are derived from the existing Loc,
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 22 are as follows:
44.7 net acres of Residential Medium/Office. Assuming a 50 percent use mix equals 13
dwelling units and 292,070 square feet of office.
18.7 net acres of Residential Medium High. Buildout assumes 215 dwelling units,
17.4 net acres of Residential Medium High/Travel Service/Commercial. Buildout assume:
100 dwelling units and 113,692 square feet of travel service.
Total buildout under this alternative is 449 dwelling units, and 405,672 square feet of travt
service and office uses.
Finding
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the Existing Generr
Plan/Local Coastal Program Alternative identified in the Final EIR in that:
Facts in Support of Finding
A. This alternative would not meet the City of Carlsbad planning and design objectives fo
the site as expressed in the Specific Plan and Final EIR. The objectives of the project ar
alternative consists of medium, and medium high density residential development, offa
travel recreation, and commercial uses. With total buildout under this alternative at 44
dwelling units and 405,672 square feet of travel service and office uses, there is a muc
greater emphasis on the commercial development than the residential component. Wit
an emphasis of commercial development, development of a transit oriented community i
precluded.
to create a transit oriented community. The Existing General PlanlLocal Coastal Prograr
Page 26
Poinsettia Properties Sp d IC Plan Program EIR 8 Findings of Fac
The goal to create a transit oriented community requires a much greater density (
residential development than what would occur under this alternative. As stated in tl
project objectives, the required densities based on transit-oriented development principlt is to maintain a minimum of 15 units per acre within 500 feet of the station, and
minimum density range of 7-9 dwelling units per acre between 500 feet and !h mile of tlr
station. Achieving this objective requires a higher residential density than could 1
achieved under the Existing General Pldocal Coastal Program alternative.
This alternative would result in greater impacts associated with traffic generation. B.
C. This alternative would result in greater impacts associated with air quality emissions.
D, This alternative would result in greater impacts associated with vehicular generated nois
INCREASED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY ALTERNATIVE
Description of Alternative
This alternative assumes that the project site would be developed with 100% residential at 1
dwelling units per acre on Parcel A, 100% residential at 19 dwelling units per acre on Parcel I
and 50% commercial tourist uses (8.75 acres) and 50% residential (8.75 acres) at 19 dwellin
units per acre on Parcel C. Implementation of this alternative would result in the development (
1,553 dwelling units, and 114,345 square feet of commercial tourist uses,'
This alternative is consistent with the SANDAG's Regional Growth Management Plan, in th;
cities should increase, to the maximum extent possible, residential densities within transportatic
corridors (i.e. 1-5 and the San Diego Northern Railroad). The alternative is also consistent wii
the City's Local Coastal Program which protects tourist commercial uses within the coastal zonc
Finding
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the Increased Residenti
Density alternative identified in the Final EIR in that:
Facts in Support of Finding
A.
B.
C.
D.
This alternative would result in greater impacts associated with traffic generation.
This alternative would result in greater impacts associated with air quality emissions.
This alternative would result in a greater increase in vehicular generated noise.
This alternative would result in a greater demand on public services and utilities.
' Commercial tourist square footage assumes 30% site coverage, which is consistent with the LOC
Facilities Management Plan C Zone 22 (October 1988) assumptions.
Page 27
Findings of Facts e Poinsettia P 8 erties SpeciFc Plan Program Ei
ALTERNATIVE LOCATION ALTERNATIVE
Description of Alternative
This alternative assumes the development of the proposed project at an alternative location
Criteria used in the identification of the site include:
6
6
Site Acreage of a minimum of 90 acres in size
Close proximity to existing or planned commuter rail line (i.e. 1/4 mile)
The alternative location that is most suitable for the proposed project is located in Oceansid
north of Oceanside Boulevard, east of El Camino Real, and south of Mesa Drive. This si would be able to accommodate the entire Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan development, wou meet some of the basic objectives of a transit oriented development project, and could avo
some impacts associated with the proposed project without resulting in additional significa
impacts not associated with the proposed project.
Finding
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the Alternative Locatic
Alternative identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
This alternative is infeasible as the site is not owned by the project developer and it is outside tl
jurisdiction of the City of Carlsbad.
MI. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The Project would have significant, unavoidable impacts on the following areas, described
detail in Section X of these Findings of Fact (Cumulative Significant Effects and Mitigatic
Measures) :
- Air Quality (Cumulative)
- Traffic (Cumulative)
The City has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts. Although
some instances these mitigation measures may substantially lessen these significant impac
adoption of the measures will not fully avoid the impacts.
The City has examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project. Based on tl
examination, the City has determined that none of these alternatives both (1) meets Projc
objectives, and (2) is environmentally preferable to the finally approved Project.
As a result, to approve the Project the City must adopt a "statement of overriding consideration
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15043 and 15093. This statement allows a lead agen
to cite a project's general economic, social or other benefits as a justification for choosing
Page 28
Poinsettia Properties Spe 9 1 IC Plan Program EIR e Findings of Fac
allow the occurrence of specified significant environmental effects that have not been avoided
The statement explains why, in the agency's judgment, the Project's benefits outweigh th
unavoided significant effects.
CEQA does not require lead agencies to analyze "beneficial impacts" in an EIR. Rather, EIR
are to focus on potential "significant effects on the environment," defined to be "adverse". (Pul
Resources Code, Section 21068). The Legislature amended the definition to focus on "adverse
impacts after the California Supreme Court had held that beneficial impacts must also t:
addressed. (& Wildlife Alive v. Chickering (1976) 18 Cal. 3d 190, 206 [132 Cal.Rptr.3771. Nevertheless, decisionmakers benefit from information about Project benefits. These benefi
can be cited, if necessary, in a statement of overriding considerations. (See CEQA Guideline
Section 15093.)
The City finds that the Project would have the following substantial social, environmental an
economic benefits:
1. The proposed project is consistent with and implements the goals and objectives of tl
City of Carlsbad General Plan. The proposed project provides a compatible mixture (
land uses including an assortment of housing project types at densities appropriate for
Transit Oriented Development (TOD). The project includes non-residential uses such ;
mixed-use retail and visitor serving commercial and open space. The mixed u:
commercial is designed to support the needs of the residents and the needs of the trans
users. Both of these are goals of the Carlsbad General Plan. The proposed plan, by i
transit serving nature reduces automobile trips and encourages pedestrian and bicyc
trips, also a goal of the General Plan.
2. The Transit Oriented nature of the project is very compatible with the other approved ar
developed land uses in the area. The visitor serving nature of many of these projects wi
cause a natural influx of visitors to the area. By having a commercial mixed use proje adjacent to the Poinsettia Station which will serve their needs, many visitors will u!
transit as an alternative in visiting the area. This will again reduce automobile trips in tl
area, a goal of the General Plan.
The visitor serving nature of the surrounding projects requires a need for low ar
moderate income employees usually associated with visitor-serving industries. T1
proposed project offers a number of varied types of affordable housing very close to the!
visitor serving uses. By doing so, the proposed project will benefit the economics of tl
City by housing these needed employees. A mix of housing types and alternatives is
goal of the General Plan.
The proposed project will generate fewer average daily and peak hour trips than tl
existing planned office, residential, commercial and hotel uses for the project with
Growth Management Zone 22. The existing general plan designations would genera
21,600 daily vehicle trips compared with 14,058 for the proposed project. The existir general plan designations generate 2,403 AM and 2,565 PM peak hour trips. '
comparison, the proposed project will generate 885 AM and 1,303 PM peak hour trips
The overall impacts to circulation are greatly reduced by the proposed project.
The ultimate development of the proposed project will provide an assortment of housix
types to meet the needs of the City. These include an assortment of affordable housir
types. The proposed project will offer "loft" type units in the mixed use area, a portion (
3.
4.
5.
Page 29
Findings of Facts 0 Poinsettia Pr cb erties SpeciJc Plan Program Eh
which will be rent restricted. In addition the project will include a more traditiona
apartment project, very close to the transit station, all units of which will be rented at a
affordable level. The project will also include a small number of “second dwelling units
which will be affordable. All of the affordable products will be integrated into th
site is located close to both rail and bus public transit as well as being located within eas,
walking or biking distance to retail and recreational uses such as the Pacific Ocean. Thi
integration allows the affordable housing residents the opportunity to become part of
larger community and enjoy the benefits of the project’s pedestrian oriented location.
The proposed project, which is residential in nature, is more compatible to the adjacei
residential neighborhoods than what would be allowed under the present general pls!
designations. The existing general plan designations include 405,672 square feet (
office and travel service uses. These uses are not as compatible as the proposed lar
uses.
proposed project as opposed to being located off site. This is meaningful as the projec
6.
Page 30
0 0 EXH I B
FINAL
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
for the
POINSETTIA PROPERTIES SPECIFIC PLAN
SCH #96081027
EIR 96-01
JULY 1997
Prepared for:
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, California 92009
Prepared by:
Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc.
6310 Greenwich Drive, Suite 220
San Diego, California 921 22
747 East Green Street, Suite 300
Pasadena, California 91 101
e e
POINSETTIA PROPERTIES SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
PURPOSE OF THE MONITORING PROGRAM
The Mitigation Monitoring Program is written in accordance with Section 21081.6 of the
Public Resources Code, which was added by Assembly Bill 3 180 and became effective on
January 1, 1989. The purpose of the program is to ensure that the mitigation measures
Properties Specific Plan are properly implemented. The City will monitor the mitigation
measures required for development and operation of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan
Program EIR. The Mitigation Monitoring Checklist provides a mechanism for monitoring
the mitigation measures in compliance with the Program EIR, and general guide lines for the
use and implementation of the monitoring program are described below.
MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST
The Mitigation Monitoring Checklist is organized by categories of environmental impacts,
(e.g., Biological Resources, Traffic/Circulation, Archaeology). For each impact area, the
impacts identified in the EIR are summarized and the required mitigation measures are
listed. The following items are identified for each mitigation measure to ensure proper
implementation and to establish a monitoring system: MonitoringReporting Agency, When
Applied, Implementation and Mechanism and Status. A description of these items is
provided below.
When Applied
The mitigation measures required for the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan EIR will be
implemented at various times as development proceeds and during operation. Some
measures must be implemented during construction activities, while others must be
implemented when the land use is developed and in operation. For each mitigation measure,
the implementation schedule is identified as Pre-Construction, During Construction and Post
Construction (during operation).
MonitoringReporting Agency
For each mitigation measure, the Monitoring Agency is identified. The monitoring agency is
responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measures are properly implemented. City
departments charged with community development, resource management, infrastructure
and public services are typically assigned monitoring responsibilities. If mitigation
component of the environment, the City can request the agency to prepare a mitigation
monitoring program for those mitigation measures.
required by the Program Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR) for the Poinsettia
measures have been requested by an agency that has jurisdiction by law over some
Poinsettia Properties Specrfic Plan City of Carlsbad
Final Program EIR 1 Jury 1997
0 0
Monitoring Mechanism (i.e., shown on plans, installed on-site)
The Monitoring Mechanism identifies the specific step in the development regulatory
process where implementation of the measure will be required. For example, completion of
in this column tells the Monitoring Agency how specific measures will be incorporated into
the development process and when monitoring should occur.
Status (verified datehnitialed)
The Status column of the checklist has been intentionally left blank. City staff will use this
column to make notes about the progress made in implementing each measure. Upon full
implementation of the measure, the completion date will be entered and initialed.
Frequency to Monitor/Report
Measures will need to be monitored prior to construction, throughout construction, on
completion, during operation, or on violation. The checklist identifies the monitoring
frequency for each measure. Reporting frequency will also vary and will occur once on
completion, on violation, or ongoing. The checklist identifies the reporting frequency.
HOW TO USE THE MONITORING PROGRAM
The Program EIR for the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan identifies a number of
mitigation measures to reduce significant environmental impacts. Some of the mitigation
measures apply to the entire project site and must be implemented before any development
occurs. Other mitigation measures will be implemented during project operations. As a
result, the implementation schedule for each measure varies as described in the table.
geotechnical studies may be required prior to approval of the grading plan. The infomation
Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan City of Carlsbad
Final Program EIR 2 July I99 7
t *E
2'
mc +a
23 st
5: e<
UC
LC
la
i;r: 04
a: =z 2:
LC - SI
3;
E
3;
m
LL - sc a< 0
.. c 1' $1
2: 81
gi s;
si
5:
nI
c.; '01 sc
El 6:
L la I
%
0 W
i Y
n I u
I
5
ighs
:532
ul"a" $z:g
LEGE
&g
2 i 2
0
n mB
Zen
E z 0
a e I- C w cn -
s
v) C uz - m gq a -e% g 3;
z B gu
rn .. =kg c 3 gg 2;
D D ;E
us e?
u E6
2 .gZ 50 X X
2 Ez .. c
"6 25
L u aA-0 ADa-m-aO %
m - P om- 3= c ~mnm.---,&.~.~~-~ In 5- a SC-CLS %E1 25 Lu .Em ms E .cn g sv) g $s35:9a$gzbm
Q CO(.$ av)>co%vs=n - EB ~z 5 m ta.- n~rn~~~ acazGoL LL a2 ." .- v) - 'C 3 .e a ooE 73-5 mDgp - ge 2 n - - =a.E ,,,sz e F E.5jmo, .z%E-@~~.~~~ rn fu 2% g* ; ;po zp Qak,.~~g~,ak @ 3 ms- mm OaY .- u) msg 0'2s E g=<-g m-z a SQ 5.- ;E, 2 =1 my- 8%& m2c.gAzmuaszCmh mr- m a*=.-
~t.(" & E: :.go 8 ---v)%#~~*~ zs .cna O-?= f.Z .GmaE~Eg$~~+; 2i !=z 2=s cij J 0- L QC 0 zz =Bo 3s ;% gas gEe+gH--,s,o aPmp'zg oE &€ S%? 0- =0 spp, -nzancLana
%a aE 2% a-me 0 oT$aaaiijgu,ac.pn Qtl v~ gps.$ i $$?E.E 2 QLL) a %zs
.- - fTi 5 mu) g .=x 2x2 pgg &+$z; E zz gs €5 - 0s ss nj s= +=6 $d&.
-e -0 gr z2-so rrzo v) q zc= .= m og $gZEm-, sg E 0 0 ogu; E= X,pg;;; vu 84 om g mz XL S'E @!
hE ora8 Qa- c zza 0-ma ww W
!- a5 k25Z
rn .G e =x
zg z: 20 $r 2 .z gg LL= mo zaa =ai 52
2=g .ag oam '"8 08
Um
a, = Q mc
c 00 a ..
X 6.2
U Ke a I .-
Is)
v) SP m3coOL5 -ow -
"',,,E s 8v :g a=
m tg. e52 bmTsnaucrcnWu.-z -c m m
.. cn mu5 2 &E.O-.- CrrUS
3% 3 8 UZ
S i;j. Qa 0~9maa3m~manmmo~~am-0
* .o 7 I_ uc - m
.sa
SC COU
% 31 93 = :.g .- % FZ 0 32 z
k g; gz JE UC 2' UT mc -2 S b e: Utl
sc "5 g5 ac -Z 2$ LLc
e s:
- 9:
Lb
so 0 Ea
.. u - l80 "i 20 QE z: Bf tl
0:
3 q
r fd
* .- -- 'of
r, cl
c v)
0 w X 0 a
25;s
e z 2
0
5 a
U. 9;s;
h4" 82;z
n
ZIYn
nn
nZ sgg
LOO s P
0 z 2 !2 2 z
z I- I- w. v)
.I- -
5 8s *s m.Ee UB g? fE %z 25s >EX&$
rtc .- SO~ On
mc sga ag &?! SuZqj O9 Sa 5: -z gC 8SX ncc
-0
-0 a0 (u .- - = q 2 'ZOX
;
hS
s no
i;r
a:
3 2% X "; g5
o v)jW*S- au ow a e- 0) a =a=.ca aw= YcQ, m-
c ; C- m' nm Qa mr &+ s ,5 Q) Q) m.%= %2S2iS4-tF2 a! in 2: 3 g~j~~en 0.~55 gCc 2~~~6
E! ._ c a mn 3 * E vu (uc 0.- m a t a.c c+j 0)+ pijgp 3J c.;;rn&& 8 go ki 8 gz :%:?% i 25 g3% Q, E =-Q) s; 9? m3 E$ ;s a ax qv) E !E s$ ij ag:cg mi= 025 sc
v) &? Q,Z=EU Onz$$z 2% z.CkC.zEU e$=%$ Q,Cn-- u1 0 E< 2 = > a a 05 q)=U325 =;= % z+:+ Q, : 50-smo "rOE.E8mzai -&~aom--nam3U0) Kc s e p-acsg&xi z @g gtp 3 VEZgz pE Q,u 0 C Q,? %g go v E.Ei6 i a'$
X-$ Ipgp.:: &cE8-a Pa* mg - a a~o~gpz~C+Q,o,v)m.' S?ii"oa =u1Ejr=3e .- 0) > m=r 0)= g= SZE L * m g-g $.c E&%.- vz$z
z- g Zmkc3 og!g>e.- L ~5.g~ t em s u aUsUE2 e, a o) o v) 0-z -Q,a=zajlj Q)- =.EEU mm (J~U-- .-.,mz.gz ggg c& ([I c m €2 Q, 2S.S ,mmpL arg-~~.g~ B
8 z&& 0 oz $g E 3 ~$~~~ z.",ggz $g 2 gg 5 Z $g
v) c- - LS -
muz I r v) 3 ma v)+- C z5$s2 tzo) 0) (0 v) g$ asfzs $%?% z
a= 3 a=
.P -s .E > .. t -( 9; E( E!
%l gi
z .!
S!
gsn p m.= 0 m ESC 2.&,-+ ~z= 0 v) % '2 8 t & m =,A2 ai
I mo 22go2 m mmom > >3 +m.E3 a3 u fnlu m u3 3 m
i 7-
0' -. -01 .&%= - - g m".gE
3c:v) z3 urX20 a 3 cL-- Ei
%?.E 8 $2 E' 2g.p g 2zEd x( S a a& CUCO~?~ f m.- v)*
m n.&-n- Oi +-
cIE E5 8.E si!
W 'Oza"" I- a).- >o &
v) am 8 z2 =a sa 2 .u 2 $5 00 Z$ 20, mu
mn=r C .- .- 0
0
.. C 2;
;E 20
mo zg
KO 2;
E5
u=
E
i;c gz
as
-3 2?E
LC - SE
ai:
m
bL 0 .E =L sa
01 Ea
a. u -R 5z
a= %E E5
2: 52 sc 0:
Ea sc
ZC rn4
!2 na
* .-
2:
c
z Y J 2
4 n s I
&ccpc psg
$SiiI
ka.2 nnq$
&Z~Z <u"O
S+C
ti
2 2 k
0
I 0
CnECno
-0au
I z
F
- c
m 0 z
e- m 0 u
ca .- c 0 pc R! 2 $cc d E' 0x8 2 -e :;:-=z 4
OH
e-
a
c :%
- 08 .- 32
i5W L
B
-2 u.= m os a %$ 6 %
g' c B
0 cr
'iz 2 m
ul U c -
-
c.
(I)
'tP I
E?
-0 g! %g 2'
mc 0am "$ zwa "I
05 2c
L 2 gz &
fijv Et
2 22% x X g;
n = oc-sc~-m=!- CnO, orooL2smr=g s Q, m'=r 0 & sgs A mgnr-m,~O.c :l % z $$
m- L.2- 2 6 aIz; * 00 0 nnEg2 LI 5 Q) Q) aqg0 @=gI- cw SLs 0 J g !!sag pag ob- coo so
%gZ 2- ul m Qc
%+a . g';j"- (I) paz 0
a- zz 2'" = = yii,-s &ly-Em- E ZG m.P F.GpLu LCm-LL m 0 r-Eq: Fo-~z- mnpcvi 5. 'L3Q)sy aL'uQ2 wsz2 = g .E= 2&:cG$ i a~ ons83z 22% E mc E?E$S 25 $5 ::-g; op % $;qg .c .Le-
c cJ.,-= m mSo m 0 gs 05% gg .E5 gei %sg zz $f !E8 g oguo"0 5osa %E .Gpo 88s -0.- 'LU
m mng .> 3 -8"o- m 2 0 o+u ,m,J=zmg €9- m - (u L-&Kp@.."g m' .- .- ~u.-ula~om.= .ow a :SF&~ 3agrc mm,g gi 5 zg ?Ea?= 8 5 a= E-& a% m ga g% ocrm.ou ulg$j s%I 3 =I L 2j E* ma:
<.gs 3 > v) 3 Eo(3k W Q> ~,~~.~~ g$z Sgic8 g c - 'EO m c 'r OLE a*- m.= (u 01 E1 bgul2.E . okz o c 6 - gj552.g 3 4
.$.E g P;h& . &= h'ss m s 8
0- mal o A- 9!
I- 0) b-cJ rn2!ZO
v) .E 5
2e 2- 902 'C Qo ag uc
= no - Q cI)w
50 c 00
o .-
X 2 .E 2
a, si
a:
3 ,o .!
3, "S
'u6 o a, al (up uor ou 0) o o o m, ezz gq- L- mi
mU'L a, E2.z~ g g v)s L- m- &=x2 xm ,,.--.E p 2Z.g~ 2.2 gs -
-9 a -2~ EL 0 "3 r=*
~~&~~~m a)(L)To-Q 7m
.. t -
0 >i .- &a =I e-= €Z € E 0 > c *a 0 &E= o m m o-,-g & 0 s L.- L- s m 8-0
v o J n QV). n E ~3 m& Li
0'
5. C( 0 0
E
CI.
-
momov m 2 cc Qcs 5
P-'-u L.-
m U-
5es .-mas
0 m.=W
- Eg€o gE z $%2S$ E
:' 9.E :g
az 2 &3.E%:$ Ex5 Cn*
r( ;t;p 5 E-&& W
- - mm 0 .o am - om .- Z?$% - 0 22* sa .o 2 2 g @
0 oE fous B 580 Lrmo
m OJ
mccY a mntx
0 3 .-
0
t sf
si
r,: %'
S-
mc
LC 2'
01c Sa
wt.
.. a< 0.j 5s g{
2:
LC - E! ,o .I
01
L% - so
5C
0
.. f - m' g;
h; z b! E! oj c, I.
Ui E< 0 01
-4
si 5'
f!
- m .e--
zcc .= rn DB Eg gg
gsw
OEO
w
Dm.6 SF2 sag
2: s:
3
r:
CI .. -.
-1
Oi
P
5:
51 0
- - rnm v .u rn
-ala) 0 (os
So3 = 3,s a 00' 5-m a c a maw- LC m Ws
.I c 0 h= OQ) sza
00 lL=
UP .E6
g5
5: E? em
sf
00 sz
g .s
22
II EB
E?
CT-
&Q m
LL 8 .E
Ea
-
.. v) 3m zg hE 2s %E gs
2: = .= 00
uu st - CS 5: SC ma
i: *s of f'
kc mc +a
g;
5: ec
a#L
ea
j;i g; a#: g;
2;
LC - 51 ,o .:
0)
bb
I so
E< 0
.. ' - m' '; $i 2; :! g?
01
3
c .. -. '01
Ui .E!
gi
5:
i: & g; p;
us mc .Ea 5: g: ea
sf g; &ls
at e: yc - ci s;
¶E
0)
LI
I EO 0
5C
.. c - m' 'i E< Qt
a7 z4 gi
sc
Q(
0' u?.!
Pl
- -.
oj El
zc a<
5:
r: g; 5' SE CTC E' ut rnc Ea 5: oc uc
si 0;
c!
LC - E!
S{
C
Si U* 2?i
02
LI - EL: 0 =e
.. I - m1 $1
2;
;!
hi
%l
al =: L.
S( 0 0
S - 5'
r( v).
.. K 3; gz a€ ero 20 LC CIlO ‘8 5 e Ea
j;t
0 .P gE 32 -tj 2g “c - ES
9 .E
Is)
L.L
I CR
01 Ea
.. u iz= 2< hE 2; %i E5 B .E
sc 0%
E?
EO
SC v)<
fi:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 ’ t3
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
a 0
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4158
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN FROM RESIDENTIAL
MEDIUM DENSITYIOFFICE (RM/O), RESIDENTIAL
MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY (RMH) AND RESIDENTIAL/
MEDIUM HIGH DENSITYITRAVEL RECREATION
COMMERCIAL (RMWTR) TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM
(RMH), RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY (RH), TRAVEL
RECREATION . COMMERCIALRESIDENTIAL HIGH
DENSITY (TR/RH), TRAVEL RECREATION COMMERCIAL
(TR) AND OPEN SPACE (OS) ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
HOME PARK, SOUTH OF THE POINSETTIA TRANSIT
STATION AND LANIKAI LANE MOBILEHOME PARK,
WEST OF AVENIDA ENCINAS, AND EAST OF CARLSBAD
BOULEVARD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE
22.
CASE NAME: POINSETTIA PROPERTIES SPECIFIC PLAN
CASE NO: GPA 95-06
DENSITY (RM), RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY
LOCATED NORTH OF LAKE SHORE GARDENS MOBILE-
WHEREAS, HSLBPMichan L.P., “Developer”, has filed a verified ai
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by HSLBPMichan, L.P.,
described as shown on Exhibit “A’, as attached to Planning Commission Resolution 1
hereby incorporated by reference; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Gen
Amendment, attached hereto marked Exhibit “D”, and incorporated by this refe
provided in Government Code Sections 65350 et. Seq. and Section 21.52.160 of the
Municipal Code, respectively; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 5th day of Noveml
the 19th day of November 1997, and on the 3rd day of December 1997 hold dul
public hearings as prescribed by law to consider said request;
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
0 0
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all 1
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered i
relating to the General Plan Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
A)
B)
That the above recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the
Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of General Plan Amendn
95-06, to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Rc
Medium Density/Offce (WO), Residential Medium High Densit
and ResidentiaVMedium High Densitymravel Recreation Coi
(RMH/TR) to Residential Medium Density (RM), Residential Medi
Density (RMH), Residential High Density (RH), Travel R
CommerciaVResidential High Density (TR/RH), Travel R
authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all
corrections and modifications to the General Plan Amendment doc1
necessary, to make them internally consistent and in conformity with fi
on the project, based on the following findings:
Commercial (TR) and Open Space (OS), as shown on Exhibit “D”.
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herei
amendment to the General Plan Land Use Designations as shown on Exhibit
conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the followi
a) Land Use Element
i) Goal A.l (Land Use Goals) “A City which preserves and enh
beach and open space oriented community.” The project
active open space including an extensive trail system, a
oriented commercial area for residents and commuters of
and detailed transit-oriented development standards
satisfying this general plan goal.
Goal A.3 A (Land Use Goals) “A City which provides for
which through their arrangement, location and size, sup
enhance the economic viability of the community.’’ Th
proposes a variety of land uses which have been carefully p
environment, character and image of itself as a desirable re
ii)
PC RES0 NO. 4158 -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
l
0 0
maximize the best use of the site, and contribute to the redl
traffic trips within the City.
Goal A.l (Growth Management and Public Facilities Goals)
which ensures the timely provision of adequate public facilj
service to preserve the quality of life of residents.” The spec
includes provisions which ensure that all necessary public
will be available concurrent with demand. The specific plan 1
developed to be consistent with, and implement the Zone ;
Facilities Management Plan, as amended.
iii)
iv) Goal A.4 (Commercial Goals) “A City which promotes reci
and tourist-oriented land uses which serve visitors, employe
industrial and business centers, as well as residents of the Cil
residents of the area, in addition to meeting the needs of visii
transit users.
Goal A.l (Agriculture Goal) “A City which prevents the pr
elimination of agricultural land and preserves said lands P
possible.” The specific plan will result in the conversion of thc
site to urban uses. The project will not however, resul
conversion of prime agricultural land to urban uses and no si!
impact to prime agricultural farmland is anticipated.
tourist-oriented commercial uses are intended to accon
v)
b) Housing Element
i> Goal 2 (Quantity and Diversity of Housing Stock) “New
development with a diversity of types, prices, tenures, densi
locations, I 0’ The Specific Plan includes both multiple family
and single family detached housing types at densities rangin! ‘
du/ac to 19 Mac. One planning area (PA 5) has been design
affordable housing. In addition, some rental units of PA 6 a1
59 second dwelling units of Planning Areas 2, 4, 7 and 8 ha
designated affordable. The remainder of the project will
market rate rental and for-sale units.
Policy 3.6.a (Inclusionary) “A minimum of fifteen percent of
approved for any master plan community or residential spec
shall be affordable to lower-income-households. Consistent 1
policy, the Specific Plan includes provisions to provide fifteen
of the project’s units as affordable to be provided in Planning
4,5,6,7 and 8.
ii)
iii) Objective 2S (Mixed Use) “Encourage increased integrr
housing with non-residential development.” Consistent w
PC RES0 NO. 4158 -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
0 0
objective, this project will provide a mixed-use project adjace
transit station. The residential units will create affordab
spaces as space for possible live/work situations.
c) Circulation Element
i) Objective B.1 (Streets and Traffic Controls) “To provide an i
circulation infrastructure concurrent with or prior to th
demand for such facilities.” A phasing plan has been prepare
project which identifies necessary improvements prior to, eacl
development.
ii) Policy C.l (Streets and Traffic Controls) “To requ
development to comply with the adopted Growth Man
performance standards ffor circulation facilities.” A transp
analysis has been prepared for the project which shows the 1
compliance with Growth Management performance standards
iii) Objective B.l (Alternative Modes of Transportation) “To
infrastructure and facilities necessary to accommodate ped
bicycles, and other non-automobile modes of transportatior
specific plan provides a system of pedestrian and bicycl
throughout the plan area, which provide connections to la
within and surrounding the project site.
iv) Policy C.4 (Alternative Modes of Transportation) “LinE
sidewalks to the network of public and private trails system
specific plan provides a linkage for public sidewalks and
surrounding development.
d) Open Space and Conservation Element
Goal A.l (Open Space and Conservation) “An open space s!
aesthetic value that maintains community identity, achieves a
natural spaciousness, and provides visual relief in the cit
Open space will be provided on-site through the proposed gr
areas, greenways and recreation area, which will provide :
value, maintain community identity and provide visual relief.
i>
2. That the project will provide sufficient additional public facilities for the dl
excess of the control point to ensure that the adequacy of the City’s public facil
will not be adversely impacted, in that the Zone 22 LFMP has been amended 1
the Land Uses of the Specific Plan (SP 210) and the revisions ensure a
provision of public facilities prior to or concurrent with need for all develoi
the Specific Plan area.
PC RES0 NO. 4158 -4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 ::
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
e 0
3. That there have been sufficient developments approved in the quadrant at densit
the control point to offset the units in the project above the control point so that
will not result in exceeding the quadrant limit.
That all necessary public facilities required by the Growth Management Ordin
be constructed or are guaranteed to be constructed concurrently with the need
created by this project and in compliance with adopted City standards, in that
22 LFMP (as amended) contains a phasing plan as well as a facility financ
facilities and services.
4.
to ensure the coordination of development with the provision of necessar
Conditions:
1. Approval of GPA 95-06 is granted subject to the approval of EIR 96-01, LCP
ZC 95-06, SP 210, and LFMP 87-22(A) and approval of LCPA 96-03 by thc
Commission. GPA 95-06 is subject to all conditions contained in
Commission Resolution No. 4157 for the Program EIR.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 3rd day of December 19!
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Compas, Heineman, Monroy, Noble,
Savary and Welshons
NOES: Chairperson Nielsen
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: 6- ~-
ROBERT NIELSEN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST: #/$bj!pd p& -
#-,MICM EL / . HOLZMIL~R
Planning irector
E
PC RES0
0 0
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS
PARCELA: T-WRH, RH, RMI-
OS, RM, T-R
PARCELB: RH
PARCELC: RMH
F] OPENSPACE
T-RI COMMERCIAL
RES I DENTIAL-
MEDIUM DENSITY
TRAVEURECREATION RES I DENTIAL-
MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY
El Fl
El RESIDENTIAL-
HIGH DENSITY
-1 -
E e 0 PC RES0
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS
PARCEL A: RM/O
PARCELB: RMH
PARCEL C: RMH/T-R
OFFICE & RELATED
COMMERCIAL
TRAVEURECREATION
El m RES1 DENTIAL- El MEDIUM DENSITY
COMMERCIAL
RESIDENTIAL-
MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY w
-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
e 0
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4159
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CARLSBAD
COASTAL PROGRAM INTO CONFORMANCE WITH THE
GENERAL PLAN, THE NEW SPECIFIC PLAN AND THE NEW
ZONING MAP REGARDING PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE NORTH OF LAKE SHORE GARDENS .
MOBILEHOME PARK SOUTH OF THE POINSETTIA
TRANSIT STATION AND LANIKAI LANE MOBILEHOME
PARK, WEST OF AVENIDA ENCINAS, AND EAST OF
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 22.
CASE NAME: POINSETTIA PROPERTIES SPECIFIC PLAN
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM TO BRING THE LOCAL
CASE NO: LCPA 96-03
WHEREAS, California State law requires that the Local Coastal
General Plan, and Zoning designations for properties in the Coastal Zone be in conform:
WHEREAS, HSLIBPNichan L.P., “Developer”, has filed a verified a€
for an amendment to the Local Coastal Program designations regarding property o
HSLIBPNichan L.P., “Owner”, and described in Exhibit “A” attached to
Commission Resolution No. 4157, hereby incorporated by reference.
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Loca
Program Amendment; to the Land Use Plan map designations for the Mello I1 Seg
shown on Exhibit “E” and a change to Land Use Policy 6-9 as shown on Exhibit “F”:
hereto and incorporated by this reference; and the implementation document, P
Properties Specific Plan, dated November 19, 1997, (Exhibit “G” to Planning Cor
Resolution No. 4161), including the zone change therein and, incorporated by this 1
(LCPA 96-03), as provided in Public Resources Code Section 30574 and Artic
Subchapter 8, Chapter 2, Division 5.5 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regular
California Coastal Commission Administrative Regulations); and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 5th day of November
19th day of November 1997, and on the 3rd day of December 1997 hold duly noticl
hearings as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all t
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered i
relating to the Local Coastal Program Amendment.
WHEREAS, State Coastal Guidelines requires a six week public review 1
any amendment to the Local Coastal Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
A)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
At the end of the State mandated six week review period, starting on
1997, and ending on September 4, 1997, staff shall present to the City (
summary of the comments received.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Coi
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of LCPA 96-03, based on the j
findings, and subject to the following conditions:
C)
Findings:
1. That the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment is consistent with all a
policies of the Mello I1 segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, in that:
a. Consistent with Policy 6-5 of the Mello I1 Segment, restaurants ai
visitor-serving facilities will be provided within the Coastal Z(
Specific Plan area at the intersection of Carlsbad Boulevard and POI
(Planning Area 1) and on Avenida Encinas at the Poinsettia Rail
(Planning Area 6).
As provided for in Policy 8-1 of the Mello I1 Segment, each plannini
this specific plan is subject to discretionary review in the form t
Development Plan or Planned Development Permit. In addition,
development standards have been included for each planning are
Specific Plan to ensure quality development which respects
b.
PC RES0 NO. 4159 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
l4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
topography, provides variation in roof lines, provides for increased
along Carlsbad Boulevard, provides open space corridors and trail
and enhances the visual appearance of structures and the general arc
c. Policy 5-5 of the Mello I1 Segment requires that Poinsett
improvements be completed to Carlsbad Boulevard. This project
designed with all required frontage improvements and the Poinsetti
will be constructed as a Capital Improvement project by the Ci
warranted.
As provided in Policy 4-7 all necessary drainage facilities and runoi
measures will be complied with as evidenced by the drainage imprc
identified in the specific plan.
The Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan, which is the implementation
this area, complies with all policies of the Mello I1 Segment and will
for consistency between the implementation plan and the land use pl;
That the proposed amendment to the Mello I1 segment of the Carlsbad Local
Program is required to bring the designations of the City’s General Plan L
Map (as amended), Zoning Map (as amended), and Mello I1 Segment Land
into conformance.
d.
e.
2.
Conditions:
1. Approval of LCPA 96-03 is granted subject to the approval of EIR 96-01, GP
ZC 95-06, and LFMP 87-22(A) and is subject to all conditions in
Commission Resolution No. 4157 for the Program EIR.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
*-*
PC RES0 NO. 4159 -3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 ::
12
13
14
e 0
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting to the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 3rd day of December 1997, by the
vote, to wit:
AYES : Commissioners Compas, Heineman, Monroy, Noble, Sav:
Welshons
NOES: Chairperson Nielsen
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
6 -
ROBERT NIELSEN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
E e 0 PC RES0
PROPOSED LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
LAND USES
PARCELA: T-WRH, RH, Rb
OS, RM, T-R
PARCELB: RH
PARCELC: RMH
RESIDENTIAL- /I OPENSPACE MEDIUM DENSITY
TRAVEURECREATIOb
COMMERCIAL Fl RESIDENTIAL-
MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY
El pl
RES1 DENTIAL- m HIGH DENSITY
-1 -
E 0 0 PC RES0
EXISTING LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
LAND USES
PARCEL A: RM/O
PARCELB: RMH
PARCEL C: RMH/T-R
OFFICE & RELATED
COMMERCIAL
TRAVEURECREATlOh
COMMERCIAL
El Fl
RESIDENTIAL- m MEDIUM DENSITY
RES1 DENTIAL-
MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY Fl
-2-
EXHl
PC RESO r 0 0
Mello I1 Segment
The Mello I1 Segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan is amendel
. to read as follows:
“The South Carlsbad State Beach campground should be considered for
conversion to a day use beach and upland park if other adequate
campground facilities can be develop nearby. Mixed use development
(i.e., residential and recreational-commercial) shall be permitted by right
except as provided by a Specific Plan or Master Plan adopted to
implement LCP policies on properties fronting Carlsbad Boulevard across
from South Carlsbad State Beach (See Exhibit 4.9, Page 62). This policy
applies only where not in conflict with the agricultural policies of the
LCP.”
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lo
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
l8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4161
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 210 AND ITS ZONING
ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF LAKE
SHORE GARDENS MOBILEHOME PARK, SOUTH OF THE
POINSETTIA TRANSIT STATION AND LANIKAI LANE
MOBILEHOME PARK, WEST OF AVENIDA ENCINAS, AND
EAST OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 22.
CASE NAME: POINSETTIA PROPERTIES SPECIFIC PLAN
CASE NO.: SP 210/ZC 95-06
WHEREAS, HSLBPMichan, L.P., “Developer”, has filed a verified a
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by HSL/BPMichan, L.P.,
described in Exhibit “A”, as attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 415
incorporated by reference.
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Specif
set forth in Exhibit “G”, a notebook dated November 1997, consisting of 137 pages
(2) Appendices, on file in the Planning Department (as referenced in draft CitJ
Ordinance Exhibit “X” attached hereto and incorporated by this reference) (I
Properties Specific Plan) as provided by Government Code Sections 65450 et. se
required by Section II.C.10, Combination District of the Carlsbad General Plan
Element; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 5th day of Novem
the 19th day of November 1997, and on the 3rd day of December 1997 hold du
public hearings as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered
relating to the Specific Plan SP 210; and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
e 0
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Co
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL, of Poinsettia Properties Specific Pla
as set forth in draft City Council Exhibit “X” attached hereto, bas
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein for the
of a specific plan, is in conformance with the Elements of the City’s General P1
on the following:
a. Land Use - The proposed planning areas implement the underlying
Plan Land Use designations, as amended, providing for compatibi
adjacent land uses, providing services to preserve the quality c
residents, and providing land uses which serve visitors and resider
City.
Circulation - The proposed specific plan encourages alternative 1
transportation through the provision of bicycle and pedestrian rout
the rights-of-way, open space parkways and greenways which will
the circulation system of the area.
Noise - Noise reduction requirements in the Specific Plan area will o(
new development consistent with the Noise Element of the General P
Housing - The specific plan contains an inclusionary housing h
consistent with Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Areas 5 and 6 will contain affordable housing units per the
Affordable Housing Agreement. Up to an additional 59 secondary u
be located in Planning Areas 2,4,7 and 8.
b.
c.
.
d.
e. Open Space and Conservation - The Specific Plan includes 15 perce
developable land as open space in the form of active and passive ri
areas, trails, parkways, vernal pool buffer area and gathering areas.
Public Safety - No geological flood, airport or oil production haza
within the Specific Plan area.
f.
PC RES0 NO. 4161 -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
0 0
g. Parks and Recreation - The Specific Plan includes private passive ai
recreation areas. In addition, the project is located just east of th
Ocean and within 2 miles of the new Poinsettia Community Park.
Arts - The Specific Plan encourages the integration of art such as 1
and street furniture, into the architecture and streetscape of the area
. The proposed plan would not be detrimental to the public interest, healtl
convenience or welfare of the City since as identified in EIR 96-01, the projec
cause any significant impacts to public health, safety or welfare, the prc
provide for the orderly development sf the area with compatible uses, prl
convenient amenities and services for residents and tourists of the area, and
circulation to the transit station.
That all necessary public facilities can be provided concurrent with need and
provisions have been provided to implement those portions of the capital imp
program applicable to the subject property. The Zone 22 LFMP has been am
ensure the adequate provision of all public facilities.
The residential and open space portions of the community will constitute an en1
of sustained desirability and stability, and that it will be in harmony with o
compatible variety to the character of the surrounding area, and that the sites prc
public facilities, such as gathering areas, greenways, trails, recreation a
parkways are adequate to serve the anticipated population and appear accepta
public authorities having jurisdiction thereof.
The proposed commercial uses will be appropriate in area, location and overall
the purpose intended in that the uses will serve users of the transit station
and residents of the Specific Plan area. The design and development star
such as to create an environment of sustained desirability and stability in thai
standards ensure quality architecture and that the development is designe
pedestrian. Such development will meet performance standards established b!
as modified in the Specific Plan to create a transit-oriented development.
The streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitable and adequate to carry the a
traffic thereon as identified in Final Program EIR 96-01. Access will be pr
the transit station through PA 6; signalized access will be provided to thc
Lane Mobilehome Park through PA 7; a right-idright-out access will be pr
the Lanikai Lane Mobilehome Park entrance; and future signalized
Carlsbad Boulevard will be provided to property owners south of PA 8.
h.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7. Any proposed commercial development can be justified economically at thc
proposed and will provide adequate commercial facilities of the types neede
location proposed as evidenced in the fiscal analysis report prepared for tE
by Onaka Planning and Economics, dated May 22, 1997, on file in the
Department.
PC RES0 NO. 4161 -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
e e
8. The area surrounding the development is or can be planned and zoned in coordin
substantial compatibility with the development. The surrounding area conti
commercial and residential uses at densities and intensities compati
proposed residential and commercial uses.
Appropriate measures are proposed to mitigate any adverse environmental i
noted in the adopted program environmental impact report (EIR 96-01) for the
The proposed plan will contribute to the balance of land use so that local resic
work and shop in the community in which they live,
Development standards and design guidelines contained in the Specific Plar
land use compatibility with surrounding residential, non-residential and th
station uses, aesthetic impacts of development on Carlsbad Boulevard,
visual aesthetics of the development, and provision of adequate public facil
improvements.
9.
10.
1 1.
12. The Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan amendment is consistent w
implements the Local Coastal Program - Mello I1 Segment (as amended).
The Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan provides for the additional compi
planning and required specific plan to permit combination General Plan I
Designations on the property as required by Section II.C.10 of the Gent
Land Use Element.
13.
14. All requirements of Government Code Sections 65450 et. seq. ha
incorporated into the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan thereby demonsti
compliance with applicable provisions of state planing and zoning law.
Conditions:
1. Approval of SP 210 is granted subject to the approval of EIR 96-01, GP
LCPA 96-03, ZC 95-06 and LFMP 87-22(A). SP 210 is subject to all c(
contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 4157 for the program E11
Staff is authorized and directed to make or require the Developer to make all c(
and modifications to the Specific Plan document, as necessary to make them l
consistent and conform to City Council’s final action the project. Developm
occur as shown on the approved exhibits. Any proposed development different
2.
approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
3. Within 60 days of approval by the Coastal Commission, the applicant shal
to the City five, tabbed binders with copies of all Planning Commissi
Council and Coastal Commission staff reports and signed resolutions.
The text of Specific Plan 210 shall be modified to include the following provi 4.
PC RES0 NO. 4161 -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
0 0
a. In addition to active recreation facilities provided in Planning
Planning Areas 2,4,5,7 and 8, shall each provide a passive recreat
in the form of a neighborhood plaza with some homes fronting on s
Each passive recreation area, a minimum of 10,000 square feet in s
include tables and benches and/or outdoor seating. The portion 01
used for passive recreational purposes may count towards me
common passive recreation requirements of Chapter 21.45 of the
other recreation sites or building separation areas to increase the
usefulness of the plaza; however, in all cases, minimum side yard
shall be maintained.
Benches and/or outdoor seating shall be provided along all pt
pathways including the public street in Planning Area 6.
Planning Areas 1 and 6 shall provide a variety of outdoor seating/$
areas. Outdoor seating may include benches, seats on planters,
eating areas, or other such facilities meeting the intent of providing
gathering facilities.
Planning Area 6 shall provide a square or plaza for outdoor gatheri
space shall include such items as shade trees, sunny areas, a fountaii
tower, tables and seating.
75% of the trees shall be canopy type trees in Planning Areas 7 and I
Municipal Code, The Planning Director may allow for the consoli
b.
c.
d.
e.
The text of the specific plan shall be modified as follows:
a.
5.
Page 19, paragraph C.1.c.: “In addition, Planning Area 6 will satisfy
affordable housing requirements within its boundaries. w=w&h-W Arnn.”
Page 103, line 12: “Allows commercial uses as allowed under the CT
which serve the traveling public and beach visitors including, but no
to restaurants (no drive-thrus), convenience stores (with no gas static
services), and other commercialhetail uses and any other use except 1
stations which may be deemed do meet the intent of the CT Zone.
c. Page 143, line 9: “. . .-2I.Od.O65 of the Carlsbad Municipal (
If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their ten-
implemented and maintained over time; if any of such conditions fail t
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have thc
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuar
future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of 01
issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute lit1
..
b.
6.
PC RES0 NO. 4161 -5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 ::
14 ' 5
16
17
l9
20 21 l8
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
e 0
compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their viol2
vested rights are gained by developer or a successor in interest by the City's a1
this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meetii
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 3rd day of I
1997, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Compas, Heineman, Monroy, Noble, Sav Welshons
NOES: Chairperson Nielsen
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
fi -
ROBERT NIELSEN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST: -
/,2& /? $/ 7l.t
, MICHAEL . HOLZMIL R ff *Iplanning irector
PC RES0 NO. 4161 -6-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lo
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4162
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ZONE 22 ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF LAKE
SHORE GARDENS MOBILEHOME PARK, SOUTH OF THE
POINSETTIA TRANSIT STATION AND LANIKAI LANE
MOBILEHOME PARK, WEST OF AVENIDA ENCINAS, AND
EAST OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD.
CASE NAME: POINSETTIA PROPERTIES SPECIFIC PLAN
CASE NO: LFMP 87-22(A)
WHEREAS, HSL/BP/Michan L.P., ”Developer”, has filed a verified a]
with the City of Carlsbad, regarding property owned by HSL/BP/Michan L.P.,
described as shown on Exhibit “A”, as attached to Planning Commission Resolution 1
hereby incorporated by reference.
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Local
Management Plan Amendment for Zone 22 (a notebook consisting of 36 pages, date1
1, 1997, on file in the Planning Department, and incorporated by this reference) (LFMP
Amendment), as provided for in Section 2 1.90.125 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; an
WHEREAS, the City Council passed Resolution No. 8797 adopting
Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan establishing facility zones and performance
for public facilities; and
’
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 8110 a
implementing Proposition E approved on November 4, 1986 by the citizens of Carlsbad
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 5th day of Noveml
the 19th day of November 1997, and on the 3rd day of December 1997 hold dul
public hearings as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
e 0
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered
relating to the Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment for Zone 22.
WHEREAS, on December 13, 1988, the City Council approved, the 1
Zone 22, by City Council Resolution No. 88-428.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the
Commission as follows:
A) That the above recitations are true and correct
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Co
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of LFMP Zone 22 Amendment bas(
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findinzs:
1. That Local Facilities Management Plan amendment for Zone 22 is consistent
Land Use Element, and the other Elements contained in the General Plan, in
project is consistent with Growth Management Policies C-1, C-2, and C
Land Use Element of the General Plan., in that:
a. Adequate provision has been made for the provision of public
concurrent with need;
b. All public facilities performance standards will be complied with; ani
c. Funding for all necessary public facilities and services will be gu
prior to any development approvals, grading or building permits.
2. That the Local Facilities Management Plan amendment for Zone 22 is consis
Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Growth Management), and
Citywide Facilities and Improvement Plan, in that this facility plan has been :
consistent with Section 21.90.110, and all facility and service impacts (d
associated with the proposed land use changes effected by the companion i
of SP 210 have been analyzed and adequate development requirements re
to those changes have been incorporated.
That the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 22 and the conditions c
therein will promote the public safety and welfare by ensuring that public facil
be provided in conformance with the adopted performance standards and will be
3.
PC RES0 NO. 4162 -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
0 a
prior to development occurring, in that all public facilities and services req
the development of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan (SP 210), pro
association with this LFMP amendment, are either already in place 01
provided through conditions of approval placed on the future tentative ma
development plans for the specific plan area.
4. The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 22 will control the timing and
of growth by tying the pace of development to the provision of public facj
improvements, in that the Zone 22 LFMP contains a phasing plan as well as
financing plan to ensure the coordination of development with the prc
necessary public facilities and services.
The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 22 will ensure public faci
services are available in conformance with the adopted performance 5
prior to development occurring as it links the rate of development to the 1
of necessary public facilities and services.
5.
Conditions;
1. Approval is granted for an amendment to Local Facilities Management Plan - Z
contained in the plan titled Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 22, dated 1
1997, incorporated herein by reference.
Management Plan, dated August 1, 1997, LFMP Zone 22 Amendment :
approved supplements the Zone 22 LFMP, dated August 1,1997.
Approval of LFMP 87-22(A) is granted subject to the approval of EIR 96-01,
06, LCPA 96-03, ZC 95-06 and SP 210. LFMP 87-22(A) is subject to all (
contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 4157 for the Program EIR.
The amended Zone 22 Local
2.
...
*.-
...
...
...
...
...
***
-3- PC RES0 NO. 4162
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 ::
12
13
14
a 0
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 3rd day of December 19!
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Compas, Heineman, Monroy, Noble, Sav
W els hons
NOES: Chairperson Nielsen
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
($z? -
ROBERT NIEL S EN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
EX, o The City of CARLSBAD Planning Depa 8 I ent A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSIO!
ItemNo. @
May 22, 1996 Application complete date:
Project Planner: Adrienne Landers h Project Engineer: Ken Quon
P.C. AGENDA OF: December 3,1997
SUBJECT: EIR 96-0UGPA 95-06LCPA 96-03/ZC 95-06/SP 210LFMP 87-22(A)
POINSETTIA PROPERTIES SPECIFIC PLAN - Request for the certificatic
of a Program Environmental Impact Report, and approval of Candidate Findin]
of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation Monitoring a3
Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Progra
Amendment. This project has been designed as a 92-acre Transit-Orientr
Development which includes the following uses: tourist commercial; mixed-u
(commercial-touristesidential); multiple family residential; and small-lot, sing
family residential. The project site is generally located west of Avenida Encins
east of Carlsbad Boulevard, north of Lakeshore Gardens Mobilehome Park I
the Ponto Road area, and south of the NCTD Poinsettia Transit Station ai
Lanikai Lane Mobilehome Park in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 22.
Amendment, Zone Change, Specific Plan and Local Facilities Management P1;
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 415
RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION of EIR 96-0 1, ADOPT Planning Commissic
Resolutions No. 4158, 4159, 4161. and 4162, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of GPA 9:
06, LCPA 96-03, ZC 95-06, SP 210, and LFMP 87-22(A), based on the findings and subject i
the conditions contained therein.
11. BACKGROUND
The Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission on Novemb
5 and November 19, 1997. These meetings included a presentation by stdf, a presentation by tl:
applicant, public testimony, submittal of revised documents, response to comments ar
discussion by the Commission. Public testimony was closed on November 19"; however tl
meeting was continued to December 3rd to allow staff time to revise the approving resolutions 1
reflect modified conditions and errata. These changes have been made and are incorporated j
the attached documents. Any required text changes to the specific plan will occur after fin;
approval by the City Council, should the specific plan be approved.
EIR 96-01/GPA 95-0 i@ PA 96-031ZC 95-06/SP 210LFMP 8 9 - 2(A) - POINSETTIA
PROPERTIES SPECIFIC PLAN
December 3,1997
Page 2
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4157 (EIR)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4158 (GPA)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4159 (LCPA)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4161 (SP)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4162 (LFMP)
Draft Addendum to Final Program EIR
a e ATTACHN
POINSETTIA PROPERTIES SPECIFIC PLAN
DRAFT ADDENDUM TO FINAL PROGRAM EIR
NOVEMBER 13,1997
e e
DRAFT ADDENDUM TO FINAL PROGRAM E
A final program environmental impact report (City of Carlsbad EIR 96-01) for the Poinse
Properties Specific Plan was completed in July 1997. An addendum has been prepared to pro\
additional and updated information to EIR 96-01. Since completion of the EIR, the project applic
has modified the project to reduce the intensity of development and address other concerns rai
during the public review process. This addendum described the revised project, considers
environmental effects and mitigation measures, and provides additional information in responsc
issues raised at the November 5, 1997 Planning Commission public hearing
Introduction
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines (Califo
Administrative Code section 15 164), an addendum to an EIR may be prepared when.
(A) The EIR requires minor technical changes or additions; and
(B) None of the following conditions described in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 call
preparation of a subsequent ER have occurred:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which require major revisions of the E
due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or substantial increase in
severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the projec
undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to involvement of r
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previoi
identified significant effects; and
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not h
been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR 1
completed shows any of the following
The revised project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in
Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than sho
Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in f
previous EIR;
in the previous EIR,
be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of
project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure
alternative; or
Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from th
analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more signific
effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigat
measure or alternative.
Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan City of Carl5
Draft Addendum to Final Program EIR 1 November 13, 1
Comparison of
Planning Area(a)
Planning Area 1
Planning Area 2
Planning Area 3
Planning Area 4
Planning Area 5
‘Planning Area 6
Planning Area 7
Planning Area 8
Total Specific Plan
Development
Notes: (a) For the EIR
Poinsettia Properties EIR Project and Revised Project by Planning Are:
EIR Project Development
Non-Residential ( acres or bldg sq. ft.) .
Residential (dwelling units)
Revised Project Development
Non-Residential (bldg sq. feet)
Residential (dwelling units)
Travel Recreation - 40,000 sq A of Travel Recreation - 21,780 sq ft of
building floor area
Residential Medium Density - 114 du
building floor area
Residential Medium Density - 1 SO du;
building height limit - 30 ft/2 stories
Open Space - 1.4 acres
Residential Medium High Density - 178
du; building height limit - 30 ft/2 stories
Residential High Density - 139 du
Open Space - 1.4 acres
Residential Medium High Density - 186
du
Residential High Density - 142 du
Travel RecreatiodCommerciaMixed- Travel RecreationKommerciaUMixed-
Usemulti-Family Residential - 6 1 du &
80,000 sq ft of commercial building floor
area area
Usemulti-Family Residential - 6 1 du &
80,000 sq ft of commercial building floa
Residential High Density - 356 du - Residential Medium High Density - 2 15
building height limit - 35 ft
Residential Medium High Density - 150
du
91.9 acres/120,000 sq ft of building
floor areat1,009 dut1.4 acres open
space
du, building height limit - 30 ft/2 stories
Residential Medium High Density - 150
du; building height - 30 W2 stories
91.9 acres/101,780 sq ft of building
floor areal923 M1.4 acres open space
Project, Planning Areas 1 - 6 are located on Parcel A, Planning Area 7 on Parcel B, a
Comparison of
Parcel
Parcel A
Subtotal - Parcel A
Parcel B
Subtotal - Parcel B
Parcel C
Subtotal - Parcel C
Total Specific Plan
Development
Poinsettia Properties EIR Project and Revised Project by Parcel
EIR Project Development
Non-Residential (acres or bldg sq. ft.)
Residential (dwelling units)
Revised Project Development
Non-Residential (bldg sq. feet)
Residential (dwelling units)
Travel Recreation - 40,000 sq €t of Residential Medium Density - 180 du
building floor area
Residential Medium Density - 114 du
Open Space - 1.4 acres
Residential Medium High Density - 186
du Travel RecreatiodCommerciaLMixed-
Residential High Density - 142 du
Travel RecereatiodCommerciaVMixed-
Usemulti-Family Residential - 6 1 du &
80,000 sq ft of commercial building floor
area
55.7 acres/120,000 sq ft of building
floor areaf503 du/1.4 acres open space
Residential High Density - 356 du -
building height limit - 35 ft
Open Space - 1.4 acres
Residential Medium High Density - 178
du
Residential High Density - 139 du
Usehfulti-Family Residential - 6 1 du &
80,000 sq ft of commercial building floc
area
Building height limit in PA 2 and 4
limited to 30 fV2 stories
55.7 acresl80,OOO sq ft of building floc
areal558 du/1.4 acres open space
Residential Medium High Density - 2 15
du; building height limit - 30 ft/2 stories
~~
18,7 acresl356du . 18,7 acresn15 du
Residential Medium High Density - 150
du building floor area
Travel Recreation - 21,780 sq ft of
Residential Medium High Density - 150
du
Building height limit - 30 W2 stories
17.5 acres/21,780 sq ft of building floa
areal150 du
91.9 acres/101,780 sq ft of building
floor areal923 dul1.4 acres open spacc
17.5 acredl50 du
91.9 acres/120,000 sq ft of building
floor areal1,009 dd1.4 acres open
space
Comparison of EIR
Environmental Impacts
and Mitigation,
Alternatives and L~~~-
Term Effects
Land Use Compatibility
Population/Housing
TrafkXirculation
Air Quality
Noise
Biological Resources
Archaeological and
Paleontological Resources
Agricultural Resources
Visual AestheticdGrading
Public Services and
Utilities
Water Qualityhiydrology
Conclusions for Poinsettia Properties EIR Project and Revised Projf
EIR Project Revised Project
91.9 acres/120,000 sq ft of building floor
areal1.009 du11.4 acres open space
91.9 acres/101,780 sq ft of building floc
areal923 dd1.4 acres open space
Less than sigruficant impact Impact similar to EIR project - less
thari significant impact
Impact similar to EIR project - less
than significant impact
Impact less than ER project (fewer
vehicular trips generated) - less than
significant impact
Impact less than EIR project (fewer
mobile and stationary source emissioi
impact
Impact less than EIR project (fewer
vehicular trips generating less noise
along roadways) - significant, but
mitigable impact
Impact similar to EIR project -
sigruficant, but mitigable impact
Impact similar to EIR project -
significant, but mitigable impact
Impact similar to EIR project -
significant, but mitigable impact
Impact less than EIR project (fewer
structures on Parcel B) - significant,
Less than significant impact
Less than si@icant impact
Significant, but mitigable impact
generated) - sigIuficant, but mitigable
Signifcant, but mitigable impact
Significant, but mitigable impact
Sigruficant, but mitigable impact
Signifcant, but mitigable impact
Signifcant, but mitigable impact
but mitigable impact
Less than significant impact Impact less than EIR project (less
demand for serviceslfacilities) - less
than significant impact
Impact similar to EIR project -
significant, but mitigable impact
Significant, but mitigable impact
Comparison of EJR
Environmental Impacts
and Mitigation,
Alternatives and Long-
Term Effects
No ProjectMo
Development Alternative
Existing GPLCP
Alternative
Increased Density
Alternative
Alternative Location
Cumulative Impacts
Growth Inducement
Significant Irreversible
Environmental Change
Areas of No Significant
Impact
Conclusions for Poinsettia Properties EIR Project and Revised Proji
(continued)
EIR Project Revised Project
91.9 acres/120,000 sq ft of building floor
amd1,m dd1.4 acres open space
91.9 acres/101,780 sq ft of building flo
area1923 dd1.4 acres open space
Environmentally superior to EIR
project, but does not meet basic
objective of establishing TOD
Similar to EIR project -
environmentally superior to re~su
project, but does not meet basic
objective of establishing TOD
Similar to EIR project - not
environmentally superior to revised
project and does not meet most
objectives of establishing TQD
Similar to EIR project - not
environmentally superior to revisec
project, but does meet most
objectives of establishing TOD
Similar to EIR project -
environmentally superior to EIR
project and does meet basic
objective of establishing TOD, but
outside City jurisdiction
Similar to EIR project - significant
cumulative air quality and
traffickirculation impact
Not environmentally superior to EIR
project and does not meet most
objectives of establishing TOD
Not environmentally superior to EIR
project, but does meet most
objectives of establishing TOD
Environmentally superior to EIR
project and does meet basic
objective of establishing TOD, but
outside City jurisdiction
Significant cumulative air quality
and traffic/circulation impact
Not growth inducing Similar to EIR project - not growth
inducing
Similar to EIR - consumption of Consumption of nonrenewable
resources non-renewable resources
Land use compatibility Similar to EIR project -
Populationhousing Land use compatibility
TraEc/circulation (project-leven) Populationhousing
Public services and utilities
Geology/soils Public services and utilities
Energy and mineral resources Geology/soils
Recreation Energy and mineral resources
Traffidcirculation (project-level)
Recreation
e 0
Justification for Addendum
The EIR requires only minor technical changes or additions to incorporate the revised project in pli
of the EIR project. In total, the revised project is less intensive than the EIR project, becausc
proposes 18,220 square feet less of non-residential building floor area and 86 fewer residen
dwelling units than the EIR project, while maintaining the same 1.4 acres of open space As sho
in Table A-3, environmental impacts associated with the revised project are less than or similar
those attributable to the EIR project. As a result, no substantial changes are proposed for the proj
requiring major revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effe
or increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
Since the final EIR was completed recently (July 1997), no substantial changes have occurred w
respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisic
of the previous EIR due to involvement .of new significant environmental effects or a substan
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
No information of substantial importance has been identified indicating that the revised project \
have significant effects not already discussed in the EIR or that the significant effects previou
examined in the report will be substantially more severe. In addition, no information of substani
importance has been identified indicating that mitigation measures or alternatives which ;
considerably different or were previously found infeasible, are now feasible and would substanti;
reduce significant impacts.
Poinsettia Properties SpeciJc Plan City of Carlsl
Draft Addendum to Final Program EIR 6 November 13, I!
rn OPENSPACE RES1 DENTIAL-
MEDIUM DENSITY
RES I DENTIAL-
. RESIDENTIAL- El HIGH DENSITY
TFWVEURECREAT
COMMERCIAL Fl m w MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY
Figure A Proposed General Plan Designatio/
City of Carls
November 13, I
Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan
Draft Addendum to Final Program EIR 7
e 0
RESIDENTIAL DENSITY- OPEN SPACE MULTIPLE ZONE
COMMERCIAL-
TOURIST ZONE Fl
Figure A
Proposed Zoning Designatior:
Poinsettia Properties Spec$c Plan City of Carlst
Draft Addendum to Final Program EIR 8 November 13, 15
EX The City of GARLSBAD Planning Depakt
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSIOll
Item~o. @
Application complete date: May 22, 1997
Project Planner: Adrienne Landers 1 Project Engineer: Ken Quon
P.C. AGENDA OF: November 19,1997
SUBJECT: EIR 96-011GPA 95-06LCPA 96-03/ZC 95-06/SP 2lOLFMP 87-22(A)
POINSETTIA PROPERTIES SPECIFIC PLAN - Request for the certificatic
of a Program Environmental Impact Report, and approval of Candidate Findin1
of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation Monitoring a
Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Progra
Amendment, Zone Change, Specific Plan and Local Facilities Management Pla
Amendment. This project has been designed as a 92-acre Transit-Oriente
Development which includes the following uses: tourist commercial; mixed-u:
(commercial-touristsidential); multiple family residential; and small-lot, sing:
family residential. The project site is generally located west of Avenida Encina
east of Carlsbad Boulevard, north of Lakeshore Gardens Mobilehome Park an
the Ponto Road area, and south of the NCTD Poinsettia Transit Station an
Lanikai Lane Mobilehome Park in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 22.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 415
RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION of EIR 96-0 1 , ADOPT Planning Commissio
Resolutions No. 4158, 4159, 4161, and 4162, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of GPA 95
06, LCPA 96-03, ZC 95-06, SP 210, and LFMP 87-22(A), based on the findings and subject t
the conditions contained therein.
11. INTRODUCTION
This staff report addresses a revised application for the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan hearc
at the Planning Commission meeting of November 5, 1997. In response to citizen concerns, thc
applicants are proposing several changes to the specific plan. The revised plan includes thc
following revisions: 1) reduction of the cjverall number of residential units from 1009 to 923; 2
reduction of density in one planning area; 3) increase of density in another planning area; 4
and, 5) relocation of a commercial planning area. All issues have been resolved.
111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
modification of a product type fiom multi-family to single family dwellings in one planning area
Recently, the applicant on the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan proposed a number of change:
to the specific plan in response to comments raised by community groups, the City Council, anc
t?
EIR 96-01/GPA 95-06 /1F LPA 96-03/ZC 95-061SP 210LFMP 8 -h (A) - POINSETTIA
PROPERTIES SPECIFIC PLAN
NOVEMBER 19,1997
PAGE 2
the Coastal Commission. These changes reduce impacts and create a superior land use desii
that is more compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. The revised project was presentc
at the Planning Commission meeting of November 5, 1997; however, because revisions h:
occurred so late in the review process, it was not possible to revise the specific plan and modi
the staff report and accompanying resolutions. The November 5” meeting also included publ,
testimony on the project. A revised specific plan and accompanying revised resolutions will t
review the highlights of the revised project followed by staff responses to the earlier publ
testimony.
Project Revisions
The applicants are proposing several revisions to the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan whic
changes can be found on the attached redline-strikeout matrix, Table 1, and Tables 2 and
however, the changes are also discussed briefly below.
1.
The applicant is proposing to revert the proposed general plan designation on Parcel B fiom Rl
(15-23 ddac, growth control point of 19) to RMH (8-15 ddac, growth control point of 11.5
which would result in a reduction of units on this parcel from 356 to 215. The product type wi
then change from multi-family dwellings to single family dwellings with a subsequent reductio
in building height (fiom a potential of 35’ to a maximum of 30’ or two stories).
2.
The reduction in density on Parcel B and the relocation of Planning Area 1 (see Item No. :
increase by 66 additional units within Planning Area 2. Residential general plan designation
would remain the same; however, the applicants would be permitted to build to the maximun
density within the range rather than to the growth control point. This would allow an increasec
number of units to achieve one of the goals of Transit Oriented Developments-that of increasec
density near a transit station. Single family and two family dwellings (with a maximum buildin;
height of 30’ or two stories) are proposed in Planning Areas 2 and 4.
3. Relocated Commercial Site
In response to Coastal Commission staff concerns, the applicants have relocated Planning Area 1
from the southeast corner of Parcel A to the southwest corner of Parcel C. During the projec
review process, Coastal staff indicated that they wanted to see a commercial “presence” alonl
Carlsbad Boulevard. Although City staff supported the location of Planning Area 1 (commercia
site) at the corner of Avenida Encinas and Poinsettia Lane, the project was conditioned to bc
applicant met with Coastal staff and agreed to modify the site design to include a commercial sit(
reviewed at the November 19” meeting, The staff presentation on November lSth will brief!
will result in a reduction in the potential number of dwelling units from 1009 to 923. Specif
Reduced Density on Parcel B/Channe of Product Type
Increased Density on Parcel A
below) will result in an increased density on Parcel A. The number of units on Parcel A wouh
redesigned should the Coastal Commission deny the proposal. Rather than take this risk, thr
EIR 96-01/GPA 95-06 P ,PA 96-031ZC 95-061SP 210LFMP 8 B - (A) - POINSETTIA
PROPERTIES SPECIFIC PLAN
NOVEMBER 19,1997
PAGE 3
at the southern end of Parcel C, relocating the proposed intersection approximately 200-250’
the north. City standards with regard to intersection spacing requirements are maintained. Tl
proposed land uses remain the same. Although the applicants have expressed a desire to put
gas station at this location, staff indicated that the proposal could not be supported for th
following reasons:
a.
b.
c.
There are six existing or proposed gas stations within a two mile radius;
There would be considerable traffic, light and noise impacts from a gas statio
located so closely to a residential neighborhood;
A gas station would not be considered a visually aesthetic structure appropriai
along a scenic corridor - Carlsbad Boulevard.
Analysis
Staff has reviewed the land use implications of the proposed revisions and has completed a
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report to evaluate the environmental impacts of th
related changes.
Land Use Implications
The revised project will be more compatible with nearby residential development than th.
previous project. Although principles of transit oriented development seek higher density nea
transit stations, the proposed reduction of 86 units will not severely weaken achievement of thii
goal in Carlsbad. The overall increase of 446 units (transfer permitted by City Council Polic!
43) to the project area is still a significant step in achieving the goal of a livelworkiridt
development. In addition, the relocation of units to Parcel A further SUPPO~~S this concept b!
moving residents closer to the transit station and the mixed-use commercial site.
The maximum building height of two stories on Parcel B and C will be more harmonious wit1
the single story homes in the neighborhood. A lower building height will also reduce visual
impacts for development to the east as well as for the traveling public on Carlsbad Boulevard.
The relocation of the commercial site to Parcel C will ensure consistency with Coasta
Commission policies to provide commercial services to tourists using the beach and traveling
along Carlsbad Boulevard. The proposed site also provides the opportunity to serve as the firs
link for tourist-serving commercial development to the south. This land use decision is alsc
consistent with City land use policies for the area while maintaining intersection spacing
standards along Carlsbad Boulevard.
On October 23, 1997, the proposed project was reviewed by the Housing Commission which
unanimously approved the affordable housing components of the specific plan. These
components remain the same, however, the affordable housing requirement has been reduced
from 152 to 139 units to reflect the reduced project density (Tables 4 and 5).
EIR 96-01/GPA 95-06 @ PA 96-03/ZC 95-06/SP 210LFMP 8 9 - 2(A) - POINSETTIA
PROPERTIES SPECIFIC PLAN
NOVEMBER 19,1997
PAGE 4
Due to the reduction in density, impacts to public services and facilities continue to be less th;
those created by existing land use designations and less than those created by the previo
project (Tables 6 and 7).
Environmental Impacts
Although implementation of the revised project reduces certain environmental impacts identifit
for the earlier project analyzed in the EIR, the conclusions of the EIR regarding overall impa
and mitigation remain unchanged for the revised project. For traffickirculation, air qualit
noise visual aestheticdgrading, and public services and utilities, the revised project will have le
impacts than the EIR project, while other impacts of the revised project are similar to the E1
project. Even though the revised project will create less traffic and air quality impacts at th
project level, cumulative impacts remain significant and unavoidable. EIR project alternative
compare similarly to the revised project and long-term effects are comparable for the EIR projec
and revised project. A summarized comparison of environmental impacts for the EIR projec
and the revised project are provided in the Draft Addendum to Final EIR, Attachment 1 1.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7. Revised Background Data Sheet
8.
9.
10. Revised ExistingProposed Zoning Designation
1 1.
12.
Revised Planning Commission Resolution No. 41 57 (EIR)
Revised Planning Commission Resolution No. 4158 (GPA)
Revised Planning Commission Resolution No. 4159 (LCPA)
Revised Planning Commission Resolution No. 4161 (SP)
Revised Planning Commission Resolution No. 4162 (LFMP)
Revised Staff Report Tables 1 - 7
Revised Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
' Revised ExistingiProposed General Plan Designation
Draft Addendum to Final EIR, dated November 13,1997
Revised Specific Plan, dated November 19, 1997
r a - 5
m .- 0 Y " .I m
m OD
E
a a P .- B
PARCEL GMCP
UNITS
PARCEL A 134
PARCEL B 215
PARCEL C 100
Totals 449
DENSITY INCREASE PROPOSED
UNITS TOTAL UNITS
3 69 5 03
141 356
50 150
560 1,009
Current General Plan Units
449 du X 15% = 67 required affordable
units
After Policy 43 Transfer of Units
923 (449 du + 474 du transfer) X 15% =
139 required affordable units
Planning Method of Implementation # of Units
5 This site is designated for a maximum of 139 affordable 139
6 9
2,4,7
and 8
Area
apartments.
units of which 9 must be rent-restricted affordable units.
Up to 20% of the overall 139 affordable units may be provided
as rent-restricted secondary units. The exact distribution of these
units shall be determined prior to first final map
This mixed-use site may provide a maximum of 61 live-work
TOTAL 148
I
FACILITY
City Administration
Library
Waste Water Treatment
Parks
Drainage
Circulation
Fire
Open Space
Schools
Sewer Collection System
Water
COMPLIANCE
WISTANDARDS IMPACTS
3,209 sq. ft. Yes
1,712 sq. ft. Yes
938 EDU Yes
6.4 ACRES Yes
Batiquitos Lagoon & Canyon de Yes
Las Encinas watersheds
12,779 ADT Yes
Station #4 Yes
1.4 Acres Yes
CUSD; 462 students Yes
206,360 GPD Yes
252,690 GPD Yes
TOTAL ADT
(Average Daily Trips)
A.M. PEAK HOUR
TOTAL ADT
P.M. PEAK HOUR
TOTAL ADT
APPROVED PROPOSED ZONE DIFFERENCE
ZONE 22 22 LFMP
LFMP
21,600 12,779 8,821
1,540 819 -721
1,690 1,222 -468
Site See Above See Above
North RMHP,PM/O RM/PI/O
South PC,RMHp RM/RMWTR
East C-2, RMHP, C-2-Q C/TR
West OS os
Vacant except for the southeastern portion of
Parcel A which is used for the storage of
boxed palm trees
Lanikai Lane Mobilehome Park and the
NCTD rail station
Single-family residencedmixed-uses and
Lakeshore Gardens Mobilehome Park
Commercial development, including motels,
Kaiser Permanente offices, auto dealerships
and Lakeshore Gardens Mobilehome Park
Carlsbad Boulevard and the Carlsbad State
Beach Campgrounds
0 0 CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
(To be Submitted with Development Application)
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
- Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 22 GENERAL PLAN: RH, RMH. RIv
TR/RH. RH, OS, TR
DEVELOPER’S NAME: HSLBPMchan L.P.
ADDRESS; 2892 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad CA 92008
FILE NAME AND NO: EIR 96-01/GPA 95-06/LCPA 96-03/ZC 95-06/SP 210ILFMP 87-22(/!
ZONING: RD-M, C-T, 0-S
PHONE NO.: (760) 729-1677 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 214-150-17,18,21
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 91.9 acres
A. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 3,209 sa. ft.
B. Library: Demand in Square Footage = 1,712 sq. ft.
C. Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) 938 EDU
D. Park: Demand in Acreage = 6.4 acres
E. Drainage: Demand in CFS = n/a
Identify Drainage Basin = D
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
F. Circulation: Demand in ADT = 12,779
. (Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
G. Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 4
H. Open Space: Acreage Provided = 1.4
I. Schools: 462
(Demands to be determined by staff)
J. Sewer: Demands in EDU 938 EDU
Identify Sub Basin = North Batiquitos
Interceptor
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
K. Water: Demand in GPD = 252,690
L. The project is 474 units above the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.
0 0 ATTACHMENT
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS
PARCELA: T-WRH, RH, RMl
OS, RM, T-R
PARCELB: RH
PARCELC: RMH
m OPENSPACE RESIDENTIAL-
MEDIUM DENSITY
TRAVEURECREATION
COMMERCIAL Fl RESIDENTIAL-
MEDl UM-H IGH DENSITY
m Fl m RES I DENTIAL-
HIGH DENSITY
1
e 0
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS
PARCEL A: RM/O
PARCELB: RMH
PARCEL C: RMH/T-R
OFFICE & RELATED
COMMERCIAL
TRAVEURECRUTION Fl COMMERCIAL
la RESIDENTIAL- El MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL-
MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY kl
2
0 e ATTACHMENT
PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATIONS
PARCELA; C-T, RD-MI, OS
PARCEL B: RD-M
PARCELC: RD-M
Fl OPENSPACE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY-
MULTIPLE ZONE PI
F/ COMMERCIAL-
TOURIST ZONE
1
0 e
EXISTING ZONING DESIGNATIONS
PARCEL A: RD-M-Q
PARCEL B: RD-M-Q
PARCEL C: C-T-Q/RD-M-Q
QUAL1 Fl ED DEVELOP1 m OVERLAY ZONE
RESIDENTIAL DENSITY-
MULTIPLE ZONE pl
Fl COMMERCIAL-
TOURIST ZONE
2
EX1 ’ The City of CARLSBAD Planning l,,%ent A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSIOI
ItemNo. @
Application complete date: May 22, 1996
Project Planner: Adrienne Landers 1 Project Engineer: Ken Quon
P.C. AGENDA OF: November 5, 1997
SUBJECT: EIR 96-01IGPA 95-06LCPA 96-03IZC 95-06ISP 210LFMP 87-22(A
POINSETTIA PROPERTIES SPECIFIC PLAN - Request for the certificat
of a Program Environmental Impact Report, and approval of Candidate Findii
of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation Monitoring i
Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Progr
Amendment, Zone Change, Specific Plan and Local Facilities Management P
Amendment. This project has been designed as a 92-acre Transit-Onen
Development which includes the following uses: tourist commercial; mixed-
(commercial-touristesidential): multiple family residential: and small-lot, sin
family residential. The project site is generally located west of Avenida Encir
east of Carlsbad Boulevard, north of Lakeshore Gardens Mobilehome Park i
the Ponto Road area, and south of the NCTD Poinsettia Transit Station 1
Lanikai Lane Mobilehome Park in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 22.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 41
RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION of EIR 96-0 1, ADOPT Planning Commiss
Resolutions No. 4158, 4159, 4161, and 4162, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of GPA
06, LCPA 96-03, ZC 95-06, SP 210, and LFMP 87-22(A), based on the findings and subjec
the conditions contained therein.
11. INTRODUCTION
This application proposes a Specific Plan for the development of the Poinsettia Properties proj
as a transit-oriented development. The Specific Plan provides a comprehensive set of guidelir
regulations, and implementation programs for guiding and ensuring the orderly developmenl
the project site in accordance with the City’s General Plan. The Specific Plan defines
allowable type and intensity of land uses in each planning area, and provides detailed plann
area development standards, requirements, development phasing and the method by wh
development of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan will be implemented. The proposed lI
uses for the Specific Plan reflect a mix of residential and non-residential uses. Proposed L
include single family residential, multi-family residential, travel recreation (commercial),
open space. The proposed project actions are in compliance with all applicable plans, ordinar
and policies. The primary issues on this project include: (1) the allocation of 560 “exc
dwelling units” to the project site; (2) the relocation of commercial uses from Parcel C to Pa
A (see Attachment 15); and, (3) general neighborhood concerns. These issues are discussec
f
EIR 96-011GPA 95-0 !!e CPA 96-031ZC 95-061SP 210ILFMP 8 a -22(A) - POINSETTIA
PROPERTIES SPECIFIC PLAN
November 5,1997
Page 2
detail in the analysis section below.
111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
A. GENERAL BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting approval of a specific plan for an area totaling 92 acres. Approva
the project will allow the development of a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) project wh
will include tourist commercial uses, mixed-use (commercial/residential) development, multj
family developments and small lot single family developments. The following is a list of
approvals requested as part of this project:
1. Certification of the Environmental Impact Report. A Program Environmental Imp
Report (EIR) was prepared for the project. The EIR analyzed the potential impact
development pursuant to the proposed specific plan and related actions. 1
environmental issue areas analyzed in the EIR are Land Use Compatibili
PopulatiodHousing; TrafficKirculation; Air Quality; Noise; Biological Resourc
Archeological and Paleontological Resources; Agricultural Resources; Vis
AestheticdGrading; Public Services and Utilities; and Water Quality/Hydrology .
General Plan Amendment. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Gene
Plan Land Use Map as follows (these changes are shown on Attachment 13):
Existing General Plan Land Use Designations:
Residential Medium High (RMH)
ProDosed General Plan Land Use Designations:
Residential Medium (RM)
Residential Medium High (RMH)
Residential High (RH)
Travel Recreation Commercial (TR)
Open Space (OS)
Local Coastal Program Amendment. The proposal includes an amendment to t
Mello I1 Segment Land Use Plan map and Policy No. 6A of the Mello I1 Land Use P1
(LUP). Also proposed is an amendment to the implementation plan which consists of
zone change, as described below. These changes will ensure consistency between t,
General Plan and Zoning designations, the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan and tl
Local Coastal Program.
2.
Residential MediumlOffice (RMIO)
Residential Medium HigNTravel Recreation Commercial (RMH/TR)
Travel Recreation CommercialdXesidential High (TR/RH)
3.
EIR 96-01/GPA 95-0 fs PA 96-031ZC 95-06/SP 210LFMP 8 (er - 2(A) - POINSETTIA
PROPERTIES SPECIFIC PLAN
November 5,1997
Page 3
4. Zone Change. A zone change is proposed to make the zoning consistent with
proposed General Plan and Local Coastal Program land use designations. The reques
zone change is as follows (these changes are shown on Attachment 14):
Existing Zoning Designations:
0 Residential Density Multiple, Qualified Development Overlay Zone (DM-Q)
Commercial Tourist, Residential Density Multiple, Qualified Development Over]
Zone (CT-Q/RDM-Q)
ProDosed Zoning Designations:
Residential Density Multiple (RDM)
Commercial Tourist (CT)
Open Space (OS)
Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan. The proposed Specific Plan has been designed as
Transit-Oriented Develop (TOD) project. A TOD is a project which integrat
development with transit facilities. The overall objective of a TOD is to arrange lar
project, along with similarly designed TOD projects within the region, will reduc
reliance on the automobile, decrease traffic congestion in the region, reduce auto-relatc
air pollution and noise, and decrease energy consumption. In addition to helping to atta.
regional goals of congestion management and pollution control, transit-oriente
communities can be more desirable places to live. This is because they allow the
residents a diversity of travel options, thereby reducing the dependence on any one wa
of getting around.
The Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan capitalizes on the unique opportunity provided b
to the projects’ proximity to the Poinsettia Transit Station. The vision of the specific pla
is to create a self-sufficient, transit-oriented development, which, when developed an1
occupied, will minimize the use of the automobile, and maximize the opportunities fo
pedestrians. The project has been designed with not only housing, but shops, service,
and gathering places. The various uses are located within walking distance, in i
deliberate, pedestrian-scaled pattern to encourage people to walk ad bicycle. ~ht
proposed mix of housing, business and recreation is intended to allow residents tc
accomplish many of their daily activities without driving. The key design principles o
this specific plan include: creating a pedestrian-friendly environment; making pedestria
facilities a priority; designing building sites to serve many users; providing a mixture oj
land uses; providing appropriate densities; creating interconnected street systems
designing narrower neighborhood streets; and, integrating transit into the community
TOD Development Standards Summary, Attachment 12, outlines the general policies anc
design standards used in the preparation of this TOD project. Consistent with the TOG
policies and standards, this specific plan includes changes to the permitted uses on the
5.
uses and transit facilities so that they are muhnally supportive. It is intended that th
EIR 96-01/GPA 95-0 8 PA 96-031ZC 95-06/SP 210LFMP 8 ? -22(A) - PONSETTIA
PROPERTIES SPECIFIC PLAN
November 5,1997
Page 4
site under the existing General Plan and Zoning designations. In general, the prop05
specific plan will eliminate office uses on the property, relocate tourist-orieni
commercial uses closer to the transit station (making them readily available to tran
users), and, increase the residential unit allocation to the site by 560 units. for a total
1,009 units within the specific plan area.
6. Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment (Zone 22). The amendment
proposed to reflect the changes in land use proposed as part of the specific plan. TI
Zone 22 LFMP has been updated consistent with the proposed uses of the specific plan.
B. SITE DESCRIPTION
The project site is located within the southwest quadrant of the City, within Local Facilitic
Management Zone 22. The project site consists of three distinct parcels (Parcels A. B and C, st
Attachment 15). Parcels A and B are located north of Poinsettia Lane and Parcel C is locate
South Of Poinsettia Lane. The site is bounded on the north by Avenida Encinas and the Non
County Transit District rail station, on the east by Avenida Encinas, on the south by Lakeshor
Gardens Mobilehome Park and on the west by Carlsbad Boulevard. Local access is provided vi
Poinsettia Lane, Avenida Encinas, and Carlsbad Boulevard.
The project site is composed of generally flat terrain on Parcel A, with a few small knolls and fla
terrain on Parcels B and C. The project site has been disturbed by agricultural operations, ant
contains ruderal vegetation limited to non-native grasses and small shrubs. Elevations on the sit
range from approximately 48 feet above mean sea level on the eastern portion of the site, to 71
feet above mean sea level in the western portion of the site. The site is currently vacant with th
exception of the southeastern portion of Parcel A, which is utilized for the storage of boxed trees
No permanent structures exist on the site.
The proposed project is subject to the following plans, ordinances, standards and policies:
A. Environmental Protection Procedures (Title 19) and the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA)
B. Carlsbad General Plan
C.
D.
E. Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan
F.
Mello I1 Segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program
Zone Change, Chapter 21.52 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code
Growth Management Ordinance (Zone 22 Local Facilities Management Plan).
EIR 96-01/GPA 95-0 f@ CPA 96-03/ZC 95-06/SP 210LFMP 8 q /- 2(A) - POINSETTIA
PROPERTIES SPECIFIC PLAN November j9 1997
Page 5
IV. ANALYSIS
The recommendation of approval for this project was developed by analyzing the projec
consistency with the applicable policies and regulations (as amended) listed above. T
following analysis section discusses compliance with each of these regulations/policies utilizi
both text and tables.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROCEDURES (TITLE 19) AND TH
.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
A Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the project in compliance wi
the Environmental Protection Procedures (Title 19) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and tr
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The EIR addresses the environmental impac
associated with all discretionary applications for the proposed project including ultimate buildo
of the entire project. In addition to the sections required by CEQA, the EIR analyzed tl
following areas of potential environmental impact:
1. Land Use Compatibility;
2. Populatioflousing;
3. TrafficKirculation;
4. Air Quality;
5. Noise;
6. Biological Resources;
7. Archeological and Paleontological Resources;
8. Agricultural Resources;
9. Visual AestheticdGrading;
10. Public Services and Utilities; and
1 1 ~ Water Quality/Hydrology
The conclusion reached on the 11 areas of potential impact fell into one of three differen
categories. The three categories are (1) unavoidable significant environmental impacts, (2
significant environmental impacts that can be avoided or mitigated, and (3) impacts considered ii
the EIR but found to be less than significant.
1. Unavoidable Significant Environmental ImDacts
Based on the data and conclusions of the EIR, it has been found that the project will result ir
significant cumulative impacts to air quality and traffc which cannot be fully mitigated. These
cumulative impacts are regional in nature and occur in areas outside the jurisdiction of the City
Cumulative unavoidable traffic impacts occur on certain segments of SR-78 and 1-5.
EIR 96-01/GPA 95-0 dt CPA 96-03/ZC 95-06/SP 210LFMP 8 ? -22(A) - POINSETTIA
PROPERTIES SPECIFIC PLAN
November 5,1997
Page 6
2.
Mitigation measures are proposed for the following environmental impact areas to mitig
significant environmental impacts; (I) Air Quality, (2) Agricultural Resources, (
Archaeological and Paleontological Resources, (4) Biological Resources, (5) Noise, (6) Visi
AesthetkAGrading, and (7) Water QualityMydrology. The mitigation measures are contained
the EIR as well as the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (including all feasit
mitigation measures relating to cumulative air quality and traffklcirculation impacts) attached
Significant Environmental ImDacts That Can Be Avoided or Mitigated
Planning Commission Resolution No. 41 57 for EIR 96-0 1.
3.
The following environmental impact areas were analyzed in the EIR but found to have impac
which are less than significant: (1) Land Use Compatibility, (2) PopulatiodHousing. (
Traffic/Circulation at the project level, and (4) Public Services and Utilities (Fire Protectic
Services, Police Protection, Services, Sewer and Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Wat
Supply/Reclaimed Water, and Schools).
In order to approve the project, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopte
pursuant to Sections 15093 and 15126(b) of the CEQA Guidelines. A statement of Overridin
Considerations has been prepared and is attached to the Planning Commission Resolution Nc
4157 for the EIR. Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission recommend that the Cit
Council certify the EIR and adopt the proposed CEQA Findings and Statement of Overridin
Impacts Found To Be Less Than Significant
Considerations.
Primarv Issues Raised in EIR
In response to comments on the draft EIR, several neighborhood issues were raised including: (1
Ponto Drive access to Carlsbad Boulevard; (2) visual impacts; (3) new, signalized access tc
Parcel B and the Lanikai Lane Mobilehome Park; and, (4) compatibility of land uses adjacent tc
the Lanikai Lane Mobilehome Park. The following is a discussion of these issues.
1.
Residents of the Lanikai Lane Mobilehome Park object to the proposed, multi-family residential
development proposed on Parcel B, based on their contention that the multiple family use is not
compatible with their mobilehome park. The Existing General Plan designation is proposed to
be changed from RMH (8-15 ddac, growth control point of 11.5) to RH (18-23 du/ac, growth
control point of 19); the existing zoning designation is proposed to be changed from RDM-Q to
RDM.
Although the proposed general plan change of RMH to RH will allow more units to be
constructed on the site, the use of the property as a multi-family product location will remain the
same. Furthermore, as noted above, the zoning of this site will essentially remain the same -
from RDM-Q to RDM. The “Q” denotes a requirement for a Site Development Plan application
Compatibility of Land Uses Adiacent to the Lanikai Lane Mobilehome Park
EIR 96-01/GPA 95-0 @ CPA 96-03/ZC 95-06/SP 2 1 OLFMP 8 ? -22(A) - POINSETTIA
PROPERTIES SPECIFIC PLAN
November 5,1997
Page 7
which is proposed to be deleted. This requirement was deleted because the stipulation for furtl
discretionary review has been included in the text of the Specific Plan. In addition. the site VI
be developed under the more stringent development standards of the Specific Plan develop
specifically to address the issues related to the subject site and to provide compatibility w
nearby development. Special design standards of the Specific Plan include: (1) an so-fc
habitable structure setback adjacent to the Lanikai Lane Mobilehome Park (non-habitat
structures, not to exceed one-story or 18-feet in height, are permitted in this area); (2) 40-fc
landscape setbacks adjacent to Carlsbad Boulevard and Poinsettia Lane; (3) low-impact lighti
standards adjacent to the Lanikai Lane Mobilehome Park; (4) varied roof-lines for multiple stc
buildings to reduce building massing; and (5) juxtaposed building footprints to reduce the “w‘
of buildings” effect and to reduce massing impacts. These measures will ensure that tl
proposed multiple family uses on the site will be compatible with the adjacent mobilehome par1
2. Visual Impacts
Concerns regarding potential visual impacts have been raised by nearby residents and the Sta
Parks and Recreation Department. The Specific Plan has been prepared with detailc
development standards to address the compatibility of proposed uses with existing uses. SUC
standards include the provision of compatible architectural styles, enhanced landscaping and tl
reduced massing of structures along Carlsbad Boulevard. They also include increased setbacl
adjacent to the Lanikai Lane Mobilehome Park. A profile analysis of the project was prepared i
part of the Draft EIR. These view cross-sections indicate that the project will be visible fror
existing projects to the east (including Harbor Pointe), and that existing views of the ocean ma
be partially obstructed by the development of the project site. In determining the significance c
visual impacts, a determination is made as to whether implementation of the proposed projec
would result in an obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public or result in tE
creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view. The visual analysis in the Dral
ETR demonstrates that the project will not obstruct public views or create an aestheticall,
offensive site open to public view. As designed, the project will not have a significant impact 01
public views. The City of Carlsbad has no policies to protect private views.
3.
Residents of the Lanikai Lane Mobilehome Park have expressed concern over the new
signalized access to Parcel B on Carlsbad Boulevard which is also intended to provide access tc
their Park. Existing access to Lanikai Lane is from a cul-de-sac on Surfside Lane, located nortl
of the mobilehome park. To gain access to the mobilehome park, Lanikai Lane resident:
currently utilize the Carlsbad BoulevardlIsland Way intersection and then traverse south or
Surfside Lane through the La Costa Downs residential tract to the existing access point at the enc
of the cul-de-sac.
The project proposes a new signalized intersection (see Attachment 18) to be locatec
approximately 1,900 feet south of the Carlsbad Boulevard/Island Way intersection. This new
intersection would provide access to an entry road leading to both Parcel B of the project and to
the Lanikai Lane Mobilehome Park. Recent discussions with Lanikai Lane residents have also
q New Signalized Access to Parcel B and Lanikai Lane Mobilehome Park
EIR 96-01/GPA 95-0 k?! CPA 96-03iZC 95-O6/SP 210,LFMP 8 9 -22(A) - POINSETTIA
PROPERTIES SPECIFIC PLAN
November 5.1997
Page 8
led to the inclusion of a right-idright-out-only access point at the main entrance to 1
mobilehome park. This access will provide residents with a separate entry but will also affc
them the opportunity to utilize the new signalized intersection if they wish to travel south. 7
shared, signalized access on Parcel B would result in a better distribution of traffic on Carlst
Boulevard. The signalized intersection, the right-idright-out access and the Surfside la
approach will permit Lanikai Lane residents to have several safe points of ingress and egress
their mobilehome park.
4.
Owners of property located south of Parcel C and adjacent to Ponto Drive, have express1
concerns over potential future Ponto Drive access to Carlsbad Boulevard (see Attachment 11
Properties in this area currently have full access to Carlsbad Boulevard from the signalizl
intersection at Avenida Encinas and Carlsbad Boulevard. Limited access is also available fron
northbound-only acceleration lane on Ponto Drive that merges with Carlsbad Boulevard.
The project proposes a new signalized intersection on Carlsbad Boulevard, locatc
approximately 1,400 feet south of the Poinsettia Lane intersection. This new street will provic
an entry road for access to Parcel C. In the hture, Ponto Road may be extended so th
properties located south of Parcel C also have access to this entry road and the signalizc
intersection. To avoid traffic conflicts, installation of this new intersection necessitates remov,
of the existing northbound only acceleration lane on Ponto Drive. A cul-de-sac bulb would E:
constructed at the northern end of Ponto Drive, eliminating direct northbound access to Carlsba
Boulevard. This area will continue to have full access to Carlsbad Boulevard from the signalize
intersection of Avenida Encinas and Carlsbad Boulevard.
The traffic analysis prepared for the proposed project assumes that all traffic generated fror
properties adjacent to Ponto Drive will have access to Carlsbad Boulevard at the two location
previously discussed (the new signalized intersection located approximately 1,400 feet south c
the Poinsettia Lane intersection, and the existing Avenida Encinas signalized intersection). Bot
the A.M. and P.M. peak hour levels of service at these two locations are estimated to be we
within the growth management performance standard for intersections.
The placement of the new signalized intersection and the location of the existing Avenid
Encinas intersection is consistent with a study performed by the City which identifie
intersection locations along Carlsbad Boulevard in conjunction with the realignment of Carlsba
Boulevard. The location of the new Parcel C access road at Carlsbad Boulevard provides for th
safe and efficient flow of traffic on Carlsbad Boulevard; meets City standards for intersection
spacing; provides for an additional future access road at Carlsbad Boulevard to the south; and
provides for access at Carlsbad Boulevard to property to the south (via the proposed hturc
extension of Ponto Road). For this project, no additional access locations for Parcel C arc
needed or recommended.
Ponto Drive access to Carlsbad Boulevard
I
EIR 96-01/GPA 95-0 bR CPA 96-03/ZC 95-06/SP 210LFMP 8 9 -22(A) - POINSETTIA
PROPERTIES SPECIFIC PLAN
November 5,1997
Page 9
B, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
LAND USE ELEMENT
The proposed General Plan Amendment (see Attachments 13 and 16) will change the existi
designations of the project site from commercial, office and residential. to land uses consisting
primarily residential uses with supporthourist-oriented commercial uses and open space. 7
proposed project will require modifications to the General Plan Land Use designations
depicted in the General Plan Land Use Summary, Table 1, below. The proposed land uses E
compatible with the surrounding existing commercial, transit station and residential uses oft
area.
TABLE 1
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE SUMMARY
* Assumes 50 percent mix between residential and nonresidential.
3 Units were allocated under LFMP 22 for PAS 1-6 as one Parcel (Parcel A) at a maximum of 13~
units. Units have been proportionately distributed to each PA for illustration purposes only.
Proposed units exceed allowed units under growth management by 560 units (1,009 - 449 =
560). See discussion, below, Density Increase.
4
The Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan implements the Goals of the Land Use Element a:
illustrated below:
1. Goal A.l (Land Use Goals) “A City which preserves and enhances the environment
character and image of itself as a desirable residential, beach and open space orientec
community,” The project proposes active open space including an extensive trail system,
a tourist oriented commercial area for residents and commuters of the area, and detailed
transit-oriented development standards thereby satisfying this general plan goal.
Goal A.3 A (Land Use Goals) “A City which provides for land uses which through their
arrangement, location and size, support and enhance the economic viability of the
community.” The project proposes a variety of land uses which have been carefully
2.
EIR 96-0 I/GPA 95-0 6 ,XPA 96-OYZC 95-06/SP 2 1 OLFMP 8 ? -22(A) - POINSETTI.4
PROPERTIES SPECIFIC PLAN
November 5, 1997
Page 10
planned to maximize the best use of the site. and contribute to the reduction of tra
trips within the City.
Goal A.1 (Growth Management and Public Facilities Goals) “A City which ensures
timely provision of adequate public facilities and service to preserve the quality of life
residents.” The specific plan includes provisions which ensure that all necessary put:
facilities will be available concurrent with demand. The specific plan has been develor
to be consistent with, and implement the Zone 22 Local Facilities Management Plan,
amended.
Goal A.4 (Commercial Goals) “A City which promotes recreational and tourist orient
land uses which serve visitors, employees of the industrial and business centers, as w
as residents of the City.”
accommodate residents of the area, in addition to meeting the needs of visitors and tran:
users.
Goal A.l (Agriculture Goal) “A City which prevents the premature elimination (
agricultural land and preserves said lands wherever possible.” The specific plan wi
result in the conversion of the project site to urban uses. The project will not howeve
result in the conversion of prime agricultural land to urban uses and no significant impa
to prime agricultural farmland is anticipated. The project has been conditioned (se
Mitigation Monitoring Program) to mitigate the conversion of non-prime agricultur:
lands by the payment of a mitigation fee pursuant to the requirements of the Mello 1
Segment of the Local Coastal Program.
3,
4.
The tourist-oriented commercial uses are intended
5.
6. Objective C.5 (Residential) “Locate multi-family uses near commercial center:
employment centers. and major transportation corridors.” The proposed project include
three planning areas (PAS 5, 6, and 7) which will contain multiple family projects. Thes
planning areas are adjacent or in close proximity to the Poinsettia Transit station.
Objective C. 1 1 (Residential) “ Require new residential development to provide pedestria
and bicycle linkages.. .” The proposed project includes an extensive system of pedestria
and bicycle trails which will link each of the planning areas to commercial services and
the transit station.
.
7.
HOUSING ELEMENT
The proposed project is consistent with Program 3.6b of the Housing Element which states that,
“A minimum of fifteen percent (15%) of all approved units in any residential specific plan or
qualified subdivision shall be made affordable to lower income households.” The inclusionary
requirement for this project is based on 15% of the maximum number of units (1009) proposed
for development within the specific plan area. This equates to 152 units and was reached in the
following manner:
/ /
Current General Plan Units
449 du X 15% = 67 required affordable
units
After Policy 43 Transfer of Units
1009 (449 du + 560 du transfer) X 15% =
152 required affordable units
Planning
Area
5
6
4
Method of Implementation # of Units
142
9
30
This site is designated
apartments.
This mixed-use site may provide a maximum of 61 live-work
units of which 9 must be rent-restricted affordable units.
This site may provide a maximum of 64 secondary units;
however, only 20% of the overall (152) affordable units in the
specific plan may be constructed as rent-restricted secondary
units.
for a maximum of 142 affordable
TOTAL 181
EIR 96-01/GPA 95-0 & PA 96-03/ZC 95-061SP 210LFMP 8 2(A) - POINSETTIA PROPERTIES SPECIFIC PLAN
November 5,1997
Page 12
GENERAL PLAN ISSUES
There are four primary issues related to the proposed General Plan Amendment: (1)
elimination of office uses on Parcel A; (2) an increase in the amount of residential deveiopm
within the boundaries of the Specific Plan; (3) an allocation of 560 units fiom the “exc
dwelling unit bank”; and (4) the relocation of tourist-oriented commercial uses fiom Parcel C
Parcel A. These issues are discussed as follows:
1. Elimination of Office Uses
Parcel A is currently designated for development with a mixture of Residential Medium a
Office Uses. The proposed General Plan amendment will eliminate the Office (0) designatil
from this site, and allow it to be developed with a combination of residential and tourist-orient
commercial uses. The elimination of the “office” land use designation would preclude mu1
tenant, professional office buildings that would be most likely to develop on this site. T
Economic Development Department indicates that there is no shortage of professional offi
space in the City and that the department has not received inquiries regarding this type of offil
use. The elimination of office uses will also reduce office employment types of opportunities (
the project site; however, there will be many commercial employment opportunities offered
Planning Area 6 - the mixed use area. In addition, based on the fiscal impact analysis preparc
for this project; this change will not result in significant fiscal impacts to the City. Althoug
office uses have been eliminated and residential density has increased, implementation of tl
project will not result in the overall increase of land use intensities. Furthermore, the propose
land use changes do not result in any significant changes in public facilities requirements.
2. Increased Residential Develonment
The proposed General Plan amendment will increase residential densities on all parcels of th
Specific Plan. The existing land use designation on Parcel A is a split designation of Residenti;
Medium High and Office (RMWO). For facility planning purposes under Growth Managemeni
it was assumed that 50 percent of Parcel A would be utilized for residential purposes. As such
Parcel A was allocated 134 units in the Zone 22 Local Facilities Management Plan. In thl
Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan, Parcel A is planned to accommodate up to 503 units. Pace
B is proposed to be re-designated from RMH to RH in the Specific Plan. This change will allov
356 units on the site, an increase of 141 units over the 215 units permitted pursuant to Growti
Management. Parcel C has a split designation of Residential Medium High and Trave
Recreation Commercial (RMH/TR). For Growth Management purposes, it was assumed that 5(
percent of Parcel C would be utilized for residential purposes. Parcel C is planned tc
accommodate up to 150 units, an increase of 50 units over the 100 units permitted pursuant tc
Growth Management. The increased number of residential units, allocated from the “excess
dwelling unit bank” is discussed further under Item 3, below. See Table 2, below for a summary
of the total unit increase (by Parcel) to the Specific plan.
1 PARCEL GMCP DENSITY LNCIQEASE PROPOSED UNITS UNITS TOTAL UNITS
PARCEL A 134 3 69 503
PARCEL B 215 141 356
PARCEL C 100 50 150
L Totals 449 560 1,009
EIR 96-01/GPA 95-0 8 PA 96-0YZC 95-06/SP 210LFMP 8 9 2(A) - POINSETTIA
PROPERTIES SPECIFIC PLAN
November 5,1997
Page 14
The approved Zone 22 Local Facilities Management Plan allocated a maximum of 449 unit:
the specific plan area. As proposed, with 1,009 units, the project exceeds the GroL
Management Control Point by 560 units. As discussed above, this project has been designed a
TOD project, a primary goal of which is to increase densities near transit facilities. AS such.
applicant has proposed a density increase of 560 units to the project, as may be approved by C
Council under City Council Policy 43. The transfer of 560 excess dwelling units to this site v
leave 888 dwelling units in the City’s “excess dwelling unit bank“ for the Southwest Quadra
The additional 560 units requested from the excess dwelling unit bank are for the sole purpose
developing a TOD project and not for the development of affordable housing units. The projt
is subject to the standard 15% inclusionary housing requirement on the total units proposed in t
Specific Plan area. Staff supports the requested density increase as the project has been design
as a transit-oriented development, is consistent with regional growth management goals,
consistent with General Plan goals, is compatible with surrounding existing land uses, and is in
quadrant with a substantial number of excess dwelling units.
4.
Currently, Parcel C of the Specific Plan has a split General Plan designation of RMHlTR whit
would allow this site to be developed with a mixture of residential and travel recreationaI use:
The proposed General Plan amendment will relocate these travel recreational uses to tw
separate locations - one adjacent to the Poinsettia Rail Commuter station (Planning Area 6) an
the other at the comer of Poinsettia Lane and Avenida Encinas (Planning Area 1). As discusse
below in Section C.2, the travel recreation uses have been relocated to better serve users of thl
transit station, the traveling public, and residents of the Specific Plan area. The propose]
designations will allow for the creation of a transit-oriented development containing residentis
and travel/recreational commercial uses which are compatible with each other, as well as with th
existing uses on surrounding properties. This TOD project is designed with mixed-us(
(commercial/residential) development adjacent to the transit station, and with higher densit]
residential land uses located in close proximity to the station. As shown on Exhibits H and I
Surrounding General Plan and Zoning Designations, respectively, the proposed project is
compatible with surrounding commercial, office and residential uses. Detailed design guidelines
have been included in the specific plan to ensure project compatibility with nearby projects. The
findings contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 41 58, for GPA 95-06, demonstrate
that the proposed land use designations and the project are consistent with the General Plan. See
Section C, Mello I1 Segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program (below), for a detailed
discussion of coastal issues related to the relocation of tourist commercial uses from Parcel C to
Parcel A.
C.
The proposed project is located within the Mello I1 Segment of the City’s Local Coastal Program
(LCP). The LCP includes both land use designations (illustrated on a map similar to the General
Plan Map) and land use policies (found in the Land Use Plan). In addition, the LCP is
implemented in part by the City’s Zoning Ordinance. For this reason, zone code amendments or
specific plans adopted by ordinance create the need for Local Coastal Program Amendments-to
Relocation of Tourist-Oriented Commercial Uses
MELLO I1 SEGMENT OF THE CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
/
EIR 96-01 /GPA 95-0 @ CPA 96-03/ZC 95-06/SP 2 1 OLFMP 8 9 -22(A) - POINSETTIA
PROPERTIES SPECIFIC PLAN
November 5,1997
Page 15
provide consistency between documents. LCP amendments can cause the need for subsequ
actions by creating the potential for changes in Coastal Development Permit ordinances. land 1
policies or procedures, and eventually, changes to the Post-certification LCP Map.
When the proposed project is reviewed by the Coastal Commission, land use changes. zo
changes and modifications to development standards proposed in fhe Specific Plan will
evaluated for consistency with the Coastal Act. The current LUP designations will be revised
establish consistency with the proposed General Plan land uses designations creating
immediate change to the Mello I1 Land Use Plan Map &UP). Zone changes and L(
implementation changes to achieve consistency with the proposed LUP designations are a1
proposed. These changes are shown graphically on Exhibits “E” and “E- 1 ”.
In addition to land use changes, a minor revision is proposed to Policy 6-9 of the Mello
Segment. Currently, Poky 6-9 states, “Mixed use development (i.e., residential a~
recreationatcommercial) shall be permitted by right on properties fronting Carlsbad Bouleva
across from South Carlsbad State Beach...”. The proposed revision would add language .
follows: “Mixed use development (ie., residential and recreational-commercial) shall t
permitted by right except as provided by a specific plan or master plan adopted to implentel
LCP policies on properties fronting Carlsbad Boulevard across from South Carlsbad Sta
Beach ...” This revision provides consistency between the LCP and the Specific Plan and
necessary because the Specific Plan restricts commercial development along Carlsbad Boulevar
for reasons explained in Section 2 below.
The proposed LCP amendment will establish consistency between the General Plan, the Zonin
Map, the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan and the LCP. Major coastal issues are discusse
below.
1.
The Mello I1 LCP Segment contains special provisions regarding the conversion of agricultura
land to non-agricultural uses. The three parcels are designated as Coastal agriculture in tht
City’s LCP, therefore, the developer will be required to pay agricultural mitigation fees ir
compliance with the requirements of Chapter 21 -201 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and Polic!
2.1 of the Mello 11 Segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program.
2.
As explained in the General Plan section above, the Specific Plan will relocate the potential
tourist-serving uses from Parcel C of the Specific Plan to two planning areas (PA 1 and PA 6) on
Parcel A. Parcel C (PA 8) of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan (see Exhibit C) has a split
General Plan designation of RMWTR, which permits the property to be developed with a mix of
residential and tourist commercial uses. These designations were established in 1985, as a result
of the Seapointe Land Use Study. The staff report for that 1985 General Plan amendment noted
that the split designation was placed on the site due to the uncertainty of how property in the area
would develop. The Seapointe S’dy indicated that the site could be used for hotellmotel and
Mello I1 Segment - Conversion of Agricultural Land
Mello I1 Segment - Tourist Commercial Land Uses
EIR 96-01/GPA 95-0 @ CPA 96-03ZC 95-06/SP 210LFMP 8 ? -22(A) - POINSETTIA
PROPERTIES SPECIFIC PLAN
November 5,1997
Page 16
visitor-serving purposes. The major reasons for this recommendation were based on the locat
of the site at a major intersection (Poinsettia Lane and Carlsbad Boulevard) and the proximit)
the site to the Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park (BLEP). The study concluded that touri
oriented commercial uses on this site could complement the uses of the educational pa
however, the Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park did not come to fruition. The new Poinsel
Shores Master Plan now proposes tourist-oriented commercial uses ‘on the land adjacent
Carlsbad Boulevard.
The development of the Poinsettia transit station in the area surrounded by the Poinset
Properties Specific Plan area has provided the City with an opportunity to plan a comprehensi
TOD project. The proposed TOD project includes a mix of land uses, including 10.1 acres
mnmercial tourist uses. The land use mix has been arranged to comply with TOD desi;
principles. In general, the design principles call for the development of transit-servii
commercial uses and high density residential within 500-feet of the transit station, wi
residential densities decreasing the farther the land is removed from the transit station.
The California Coastal Commission staff does not support the proposed relocation of commerci
uses from Parcel C to Parcel A due to their belief that more commercial areas are needed c
Carlsbad Boulevard. The following is the rationale for Planning staff support of the relocation (
commercial uses fiom Parcel C to Parcel A.
a. Transit Oriented Specific Plan
This project has been designed as a livable community with a transit-oriented focus 1
take advantage of the property’s proximity to the Poinsettia Transit Station. This is
very unique opportunity, because most land near transit centers is already develope
making the creation of a true transit-oriented development community difficult t
achieve, In addition, this TOD project implements the recommendations of the Land US
Distribution Element of SANDAG’ s Regional Growth Management Strategy by placin
transit facilities and service development near a transit station. The project has bee
designed to meet specific TOD design principles which include locating commercial use
near the transit station and increasing residential densities around the transit station. Thc
commercial land uses have been relocated from Parcel C to Parcel A to: allov
commercial development to be more accessible to residents, as well as commuters anc
tourists using the train or the freeway.
Access to Commercial on Parcel C
Carlsbad Boulevard is designated as a major arterial in the Carlsbad General Plan. Thc
Engineering Department has requested that the access to Parcel C (see Attachment 15) bf
provided on the southem boundary of the parcel, to avoid more than one additional
signalized access to Carlsbad Boulevard between Poinsettia Lane and Avenida Encinas.
In addition, no access will be permitted on Poinsettia Lane. The placing of the only
aCCeSS point t0 Parcel c on the southern boundary, forces any commercid uses on thal
Parcel to be located at the southern end of the site. This is due to the need for commercial
uses to have direct and easy access fiom major roadways. In addition to poor
accessibility, there is concern for the viability of commercial uses located on the southern i
.
b.
EIR 96-01/GPA 95-06 6 PA 96-03/ZC 95-06/SP 210LFMP 8 8 - 2(A) - POINSETTIA
PROPERTIES SPECIFIC PLAN
November 5,1997
Pane 17
portion of Parcel C due to the visibility of the site and compatibility with uses to t
south. Further, the State campground has an existing store that caters to the needs
campers, including general store items and beach equipment rentals, so it is unlikely th
users of the campground will venture across Carlsbad Boulevard for similar touriz
oriented services,
C. Carlsbad Local Coastal Program
The MeIlo I1 segment of the City’s LCP discourages the loss of commercial uses with
the coastd zone. As designed, this project will include 10.1 acres of commercial touri
uses (8.75 acres of commercial uses were estimated on Parcel C in the Zone 22 LFMP
all located within the coastal zone, and easily accessible to tourists, transit users ar
residents of the area. Based on the proposed access location on Parcel C, the commerci;
uses within Planning Area 1 of Parcel A, will be just as close to users of the Stal
campground as would be commercial uses designed on Parcel C. There are no policie
within the LCP which require that commercial uses be developed on Carlsbad Boulevan
however, Policy 6-9 of the Mello I1 Segment, allows for mixed uses by right alon,
Carlsbad Boulevard (although the existing General Plan designation and zoning do not:
As designed, the project does comply with all policies and goals of the Coastal Act ant
LCP.
Adequate Nearbv Tourist-Oriented Commercial Property
With the adoption of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan (replacing the BLEP), 12.1 acre:
of the lad west of the railroad tracks has been designated for tourist-oriented commercia
uses. In addition, there is 11.3 acres of Unplanned Area (UA) designated in the Poinsetti;
Shores Master Plan, which may also be developed with tourist-oriented commercial uses
These areas have good access and visibility, are all located adjacent to one another, and
thus, have the potential to create a well planned and integrated tourist-oriented
commercial node. The uses in this commercial area may include hotels, time share units.
restaurants, and general tourist-oriented commercial businesses. These properties are
located directly across from South Carlsbad State Beach which is a heavily used public
beach with parking and restroom facilities. There is a signalized intersection at Avenida
Encinas, which provides safe and convenient pedestrian access to these commercial sites
from the beach. With a total of 23.4 acres of potential tourist-oriented commercial uses
along Carlsbad Boulevard, there is adequate potential for future commercial development
on Carlsbad Boulevard which is within 2,500-feet of Parcel C. Finally, if Parcel C were
designated for commercial uses, the potential exists to create a long “strip” of commercial
development along Carlsbad Boulevard, from the Batiquitos Lagoon to Poinsettia Lane,
which goes directly against City policies regarding “strip” commercial development.
d.
The proposed amendments to the Mello I1 Land Use Plan Map will revise Local Coastal Plan
designations to be consistent with the proposed General Plan land uses. The amendment is
shown graphically on the exhibits attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 41 59 for the
Local Coastal Program Amendment. The Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan will become the
implementation plan for this area of the Mello I1 Segment of the LCP. Considering the above,
the proposed project is consistent with the applicable policies of the Mello I1 Local Coastal /
EIR 96-01/GPA 95-0 6@ CPA 96-031ZC 95-06/SP 210LFMP 8 -2(A) - POINSETTIA
PROPERTIES SPECIFIC PLAN
November 5,1997
Page 18
Program Segment. Therefore, staff recommends that the commercial uses be allocated
designated in the Specific Plan. If the Coastal Commission denies the proposed project
recommends approval of the project with substantial changes, the applicant will be requireG
process an amendment to the Specific Plan to reflect such changes.
D.
The applicant is requesting approval of a zone change (see Attachments 14 and 17) as descrik
in the project description and background section, above. The zone change is necessary
achieve consistency with the proposed General Plan, Local Coastal Program amendment, a
Specific Plan designations. The residential and tourist-oriented commercial uses allowed by 1
proposed zone change are compatible with the existing, surrounding commercial and resident
uses. The specific design standards of the Specific Plan and required discretionary pern
approvals for each planning area will ensure that allowed uses are compatible with surroundi
land uses and conform to the requirements of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan.
The Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan takes precedence over the proposed zones as it contains
modified list of permitted uses as well as detailed design guidelines not found in the zonil
ordinance. The proposed zone change is consistent with the goals and policies of the vario
elements of the General Plan, in that the rezoning of the site to the proposed designations will:
ZONE CHANGE, CHAPTER 21.52 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE
a. Provide for the development of a community which has been carefully planned .
promote, encourage and accommodate a variety of transportation modes i
alternatives to the automobile in compliance with the Goal of the “AlternatiT
Modes Of Transportation“ section of the Circulation Element.
Permit the development of a transit-oriented community, along with commerci:
uses, which promotes economic development for commercial, industrial, offic
and tourist-oriented land uses in conformance with Goal A.3 (Commercial Goal!
of the Land Use Element.
b.
E. POINSETTIA PROPERTIES SPECIFIC PLAN
Government Code Section 65451 governs the content of specific pIans. The Poinsetti
Properties Specific Plan contains all information required by state law. The plan consists of bot€
a text and diagrams which specify the following in detail: (1) distribution and location of lanc
uses, (2) infrastructure, (3) development standards, (4) implementation measures includini
financing measures, and (5) a statement of the relationship of the Specific Plan to the Genera
Plan.
The Specific Plan proposes the creation of eight planning areas. Development standards anc
design guidelines are specified for each planning area. The proposed planning areas are as
follows (see Attachment 17):
EIR 96-01/GPA 95-0 h CPA 96-03/ZC 95-06/SP 210LFMP 8 9 - 2(A) - POINSETTIA
PROPERTIES SPECIFIC PLAN
November 5,1997
Pane 19
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
It is envisioned that the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan area will develop as a small seasi,
village. Special design standards have been incorporated into this plan to ensure that the uniqi
opportunities to develop a livable TOD community are achieved. Some of the special desil
features of the plan include the following:
1.
Planning Area 1 - Travel recreation and transit-oriented development
Planning Area 2 - Single-family residential
Planning Area 3 - Private recreation area for Planning Areas 2 and 4
Planning Area 4 - Single-family residential
Planning Area 5 - Affordable housing (apartments)
Planning Area 6 - Mixed use of residential and commercial/retail uses
Planning Area 7 - Multi-family residential
Planning Area 8 - Multi-family or single-family residential.
AS a TOD project, the land uses have been planned to support the transit station. ~m
uses supporting the transit station include high density residential and mixed-u:
commercial. Directly adjacent to the transit station is a mixed-use planning area (PA 6
This planning area will contain commercial facilities and services that meet the needs (
transit users as well as residents of the area. Uses encouraged include a day care facili?
restaurants and coffee shops, dry cleaners, book stores and similar uses. Gathering are;
are required within the mixed-use site. These gathering areas could be used for dinini
resting or entertainment.
Special architectural standards have been included in the plan which require buildings t
be designed with the pedestrian in mind. These standards address building massing an
orientation, use of front porches to encourage interaction. . . 1 tding articulation, pedestria
scale lighting and signage, and pedestrian-friendly street design.
A pedestrian parkwaydtrail system has been designed to link all planning areas to on( another, as well as with the transit station. Special design considerations have been givei
to the pedestrian experience, and as a result, deveIopment standards have been included tc
ensure that the trails will be convenient, safe and pleasant to use. Canopy trees will bc
planted along the identified pedestrian parkways and “gathering places” will be providec
for the users of the trail system.
2.
3.
The development standards and design guidelines provided in the specific plan are adequate tc
properly develop the project site. The Standards and design guidelines will be implementec
when the required planned development permit or site development plan for each planning area
is submitted. The proposed standards address typical zoning issues such as permitted uses.
setbacks, lot coverage and building height and will be adopted by ordinance superseding the
normally applicable zoning standards. In addition, the design guidelines address character and
urban design issues relative to the proposed development program, such as, building orientation.
building form and massing, architectural character, building materials, and landscape materials.
FACILITY
City Administration
Library
Waste Water Treatment
Parks
Drainage
Circulation
Fire
Open Space
Schools
Sewer Collection System
Water
COMPLIANCE
WISTAMDARDS IMPACT§
3,508 sq. ft. Yes
1,871 sq. ft. Yes
1,089 EDU Yes
7.0 ACRES Yes
Batiquitos Lagoon & Canyon de Yes
Las Encinas watersheds
14,3 5 8 ADT Yes
Station #4 Yes
1.4 Acres Yes
CUSD; 489 students Yes
244,200 GPD Yes
237,150 GPD Yes
TOTAL ADT
(Average Daily Trips)
A.M. PEAK HOUR
TOTAL ADT
P.M. PEAK HOUR
TOTAL ADT
APPROVED PROPOSED ZONE DIFFERENCE
ZONE 22 22 LFMP
LFMP
2 1,600 14,358 -7242
1,540 909 -63 1
1,690 1,345 -345
EIR 96-01 /GPA 95-0 h CPA 96-03/ZC 95-O6/SP 21 OLFMP 8 a -22(A) - POINSETTIA
PROPERTIES SPECIFIC PLAN
November 5,1997
Page 22
7. Background Data Sheet
8.
9. Disclosure Statements
10. City CounciI Policy 43
11. TOD Standards Summary
12. ExistingProposed General Plan Designation
1 3. ExistingProposed Zoning Designation
14. Specific Plan Map
15. Adjacent General Plan Designations
16. Adjacent Zoning Designations
17. Access on Carlsbad Boulevard
18.
19.
20.
Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan, dated November 1997 (Previously distributed; co]
on file in the Planning Department)
Zone 22 Local Facilities Management Plan, dated August 1, 1997 (Previously distribute
copy on file in the Planning Department)
Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan Final Propam Enviromentd Impact Report, dat(
Apd 1997 (Previously distributed; copy on file in the Planning Department).
ALk
Site See Above See Above
North RMHP,PM/O RM/PI/O
South PC.RMHP WkMWTR
East C-2, RMHP, C-2-Q CITR
West OS os
Vacant except for the southeastern portion of
Parcel A which is used for the storage of
boxed palm trees
Lanikai Lane Mobilehome Park and the
NCTD rail station
Single-family residencedmixed-uses and
Lakeshore Gardens Mobilehome Park
Commercial development, including motels,
Kaiser Permanente offices, auto dealerships
and Lakeshore Gardens Mobilehome Park
Carlsbad Boulevard and the Carlsbad State
Beach Campgrounds
r PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
- Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 22 GENERAL PLAN: RH. RMH. F TR/RH. RH, OS. TR
DEVELOPER'S NAME: HSLBPMichan L.P.
ADDRESS: 2892 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad CA 92008
FILE NAME AND NO: EIR 96-01/GPA 95-06LCPA 96-03/ZC 95-06/SP 210LFMP 87-22
ZONING: W-M, C-T, 0-S
PHONE NO.: (760) 729-1677 ASSESSOR'S PARCELNO.: 214-150-17.18.21
QUANTITY OF LAND USEDEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 91.9 acres
0 0
_.. ___ ~. City - -- of Carlsba
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Applicant’s statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all
applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee.
The following information must be disclosed:
1. APPLICANT
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in :
application.
HSL/BP/Michan, L.P.
5055 Avenida Encinas, Ste. 210
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(see attached sheet for additional names and addresses)
2. OWNER
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in tl
property involved.
HSL/ BP lMichan , L - P -
5055 Avenida Encinas, Ste. 210
Carlsbad, CA 92008
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above.is a corporation or partnershir
list the names and addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the share
in the corporation or owtiing any partnership interest in the partnership.
DouPlas M. Avis Humberto S. Lopez
5055 Avenida Encinas, Ste. 210
Carlsbad, CA 92008 Tucson, AZ 85711
(See attached sheet for additional names and addresses)
1037 South Alvernon, Ste. 200
4. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a
trust, list the names and addresses of any person serving as officer or director 01
the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the trust.
___ . . -.-.
2075 Las Palmas-Dr.-- Carlgbad, CA 92009-1576 - (619) 438-1161 - FAX (G19) 438-0894
/
5. Have you haeore than $250 worth of businessesacted with any rnembe
City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twl
(12) months?
Yes
Director of Housing and Redevelopment
No If yes, please indicate person(s): Evan Becker, former
Person is defined as "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social c
fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, I
and county, city municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group
combination acting as a unit."
..
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary.
Signature of owner /d at e Signature of applicant/date
HSLIBPIMichan, L.P. HSL/BP/Michan, L.P.
BY: HBM Poinsertia, L.P. a Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant
California limited partnership
BY: Benchmark Pacific Management, Inc.
a California corporation, General Partner
BY:
Doug&& M. Avis, President
---
Disclosure Statement 10196 Page 2 of 2
0 0
city of Carlsbad
Disclosure Statemt.iif
1. Applicant
HBM Poinsettia. I.. 1’.
5055 Avenida El,( Iii.ts, Ste. 210
Carlsbad, CA 0,’008
Strata Equity (:,I 1-110r-a t ion
4250 Executive :;(litqire, Ste. 440
La Jolla, CA 91017
HSL Properties
1037 South AlV(*t.itoi1, Ste. 200 Tucson, AZ 8571 I
Benchmark Pacij ic. Poinsettia, L.P.
5055 Avenida Ell(- i ti;is, Ste. 210
Carlsbad, CA 97008
Magellan Corpor.it ions
2198 E. Came1b;ic.k Road, Ste. 325
Phoenix, AZ 85016
3. Carlos Michan
4250 Executive Squ;lre
Suite 440
La Jolla, CA 92037
--
1
-
ATTACt 0 0
Page
Policy No. 43 Date tssued 4 / 221 9 7 Effective Date G/??/97 Cancellation Date Supersedes No.
GJTY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
General Subject: Proposition E "Excess" Dwelling
Unit Allocation
Specific Subject: Formal Procedure Establishing Guidelines for Allocation of
Proposition E "Excess" Dwelling
Units
Copies to:
PURPOSE
To establish guidelines for allocation of "excess" dwelling units when, following the adoptii
of all residential Local Facilities Management Plans within a quadrant, the Proposition
quadrant cap is greater than the number of dwelling units approved or issued after Novemf:
4, 1986, plus the allowable units per the Growth Management Control Points.
STATEMENT OF POLICY
City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
Although it should not be mandatory that excess dwelling units be allocated if they becon
available and it would be desirabie to not attain the ultimate residential dwelling unit ca~
established by the adoption of Proposition E, the following criteria is established to determtn
eligibility for consideration of "excess" dwelling unit allocation, subject to the required findinc in Proposition E.
Projects eligible for consideration in order of priority include:
First Prioritv
1. Housing development for lower-income households where allowable housin
expenses paid by the qualifying household does not exceed thirty percent (30%) G
the gross monthly income, adjusted for household size, at eighty percent (80%) of tht
county median income.
Density transfers, clustering of development and dwelling unit locational adjustment! which are proposed in order to preserve larger areas of sensitive habitat.
Infill Single Family Subdivisions that meet all development standards and where proposed lot sizes will be equal to or greater than adjacent subdivided properties.
2.
3.
---
I\OW\.IIUISEicN?ALIL!WO~U~ DOC /
0 0
Page :
Second PriOritV
1. Senior citizen housing as defined by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.1 8.045.
2. Transit oriented development projects where increased residential density IS be placed in close proximity to major transit facilities and commercial support services.
.compensation, for some significant public facility not required as part of
development process.
3. Projects within the existing general plan density range that provide, with1
Third Priority
1. Housing development for moderate income households where allowable housi
expenses paid by these qualifying household does not exceed thirty percent (30%) gross monthly income, adjusted for household size, at 120 percent (120%) of t
county median income..
Projects proposing a zone change from non-residential to residential based upon tl
following findings: a. The property was zoned for other than residential use on July 1986.
b. The property is compatible for residential use without significant mitigation.
C. The density of the project does not exceed the Growth Management Contr
Points of any adjacent residential property.
lnfill multi-family projects that meet all development standards and where the resultir
2,
3. density does not exceed adjacent, existing multi-family projects.
Application of the priority levels should be based on the total number of excess unit
available in a quadrant. The purpose of having three priority levels is to address the issue c
having only a minimal number of excess units available in a quadrant at any one particuk point in time. If there are only a minimal number of excess units available in a quadrant; the
the units should only be used for a First Priority project. Conversely, if there are a substanti;
number of excess units available in the quadrant, allocation to a Second or Third Priorit
project is acceptable.
Regarding the use of excess dwelling units for affordable housing, the intent of this palicy is
to work in conjunction with and to aid in implementing the programs of the Housing Elemen
including the lnclusionary Housing Ordinance and the Density Bonus Ordinance. If i
substantial allocation of excess dwelling units are being requested pursuant to item no. 1 o the First Priority, the project should then, however, exceed the basic numerical requirement:
of these ordinances regarding the provision for lower income units.
__-
\\Cil~lUr\USERN?A~~~~~U~ DOC
0 0 ATTAC).
TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS SUMMARY
3 Key Design Elements of a Carlsbad TOD Project - Land Use Mix
+ CommerciaVmixed use
+
+
Residential projects within 500’ of transit station: 20+ du/ac
Residential projects more than 500’ ffrom transit station: 7-9 du/ac min.
a Commercial/Mixed Use Design Elements
+ Residential above commercial
+ Gathering places
+
+ Pedestrian-friendly design
Residential Projects within 500’ of Station
+ 20+ du/ac
+ Prohibit single-family detached projects
+
+
Residential Projects 500’+ from Station
+ Minimum 7-9 du/ac
+ Encourage second dwelling units
+
Parking in pockets dispersed throughout project
a
Require neighborhood park or other focal gathering points
Discourage buildings less than two stories
3
Encourage innovative designs (alley, zipper lots, zero lot line, wide and
shallow lots, et.)
Require gathering areas or neighborhood park or other focal point +
= General TOD Design Characteristics
+ Pedestrian-friendly circulation
4 Transit access
+ Pedestrian-friendly architectural design
+ De-emphasis on importance of parking
-_-
0 0
--
-2- -
ATTACH a 0
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS
PARCEL A: RM/O
PARCELB: RMH
PARCEL C: RMH/T-R
OFFICE & RELATED
COMMERCIAL
TRAVEUREC REATION Fl COMMERCIAL
iei RES1 DENTIAL-
MEDIUM DENSITY
RES1 DENTIAL-
MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY
El 1-1
_--
-1 -
0 a
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS
PARCELA: T-WRH, RH, RM
OS, RM, T-R
F] OPENSPACE RESIDENTIAL-
MEDIUM DENSITY
TWVEURECREATION
COMMERCIAL FI RESIDENTIAL-
MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY
RES I DE NTIAL-
El
jRMH)
El HIGH DENSITY
_-
-2-
ATTACI 0 0
EXIST1 NG ZONING DESIGNATIONS
PARCEL A: RD-M-Q
PARCEL B: RD-M-Q
PARCEL C: C-T-Q/RD-M-(
QUALIFIED DEVELOPh El OVERLAY ZONE
RESIDENTIAL DENSITY-
MULTIPLE ZONE
COMMERCIAL- [C-T) TOURIST ZONE
FI
_-_ -1-
0 0
PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATIONS
PARCEL A: C-T, RD-M, OS
RESIDENTIAL DENSITY- F] OPENSPACE MULTIPLE ZONE
TOURIST ZONE
il
FI COMMERCIAL-
__-
-2-
ATTACI SPECIFIC PLAN &
NOTE: du's = Dwelling Units
SOURCE: Poinsettia Properties specific plan
/T\NORh m em 0' 600'
---
ATTACH 0 0
ADJACENT GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS
OFFICE & RELATED El COMMERCIAL
Fl MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY m PLANNED INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL pq n COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
17) NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
TRAVEUREC REATl ON
COMMERCIAL
171 OPEN SPACE
TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR El m
__-
I
ATTACF 0 0
ADJACENT ZONING DESIGNATIONS
RESIDENTIAL DENSITY- 171 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
MULTIPLE ZONE ZONE COMMERCIAL- TOURIST ZONE (1 ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
p/
F]
Fl
171 GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONE
1.1 OFFICE ZONE
Fl TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
FI OPENSPACE
El OVER LAY ZONE
ZONE
RESIDENTIAL MOBILE HOME PARK ZONE FI PLANNED COMMUNlTy ZONE
FI PLANNED INDUSTRIAL ZONE QUALIFIED DEVELOPMENT
___
ATTACI-
c------
,
E:
Pa! DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSI e December 3,1997 e
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
1. EIR 96-011GPA 95-061LCPA 96-03ZC 95-06EP 21 OlLFMP 87-221A) - POINSET,
PROPERTIES SPECtFlC PLAN - Request for the certification of a Program Environmental Imp
Report, and approval of Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Consideratio
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Progr,
Amendment, Zone Change, Specific Plan and Local Facilities Management Plan Amendme1
This project has been designed as a 92-acre Transit-Oriented Development which includes .
following uses; tourist commercial; mixed-use (commercial-touristlresidential); multiple fam
residential; and small-lot, single family residential. The project site is generally located west
Avenida Encinas, east of Carlsbad Boulevard, north of Lakeshore Gardens Mobilehome Park a the Ponto Road area, and south of the NCTD Poinsettia Transit Station and Lanikai La
Mobilehome Park in Local Facilities Management Pian Zone 22.
Chairperson Nielsen announced that if the Cornmission recommends approval of this item, it will I
forwarded to the City Council for it‘s consideration.
Project Planner, Adrienne Landers, presented a brief summary of this item as follows: This project w
reviewed by the Planning Commission on November 5, and November 19, 1997. These meetin!
included presentations by staff and the applicant, public testimony, submittal of revised documenl
response to comments, and discussion by the Commission. Public Testimony was closed on Novemb
19; however, the meeting was continued to this evening to allow staff time to revise the approvii
resolutions to reflect modified conditions and errata. These changes have been made and incorporated
the documents presented to the Commission this evening. Since the last meeting, two additional lette
have been received from Harbor Pointe residents, copies of which are on file in the Planning Departmen
One of the letters expressed comments that have previously been raised by Harbor Pointe residents, ar
are comments that staff has already responded to and will not be further addressed. The second lettl
was from the directors of the Harbor Pointe Homeowners Association. They requested that a 25 fo. height limit be placed on all structures as well as trees. Both of the issues indirectly speak to vis
preservation. As has been mentioned on previous occasions, the City does not have a view preservatio
ordinance and at this time they do not appear to be inclined to adopt such an ordinance. Howeve
approval of this type of limitation would indirectly be heading in the direction of view preservation. Staff
recommendation.on structural height is to retain the standard height limit of 30 feet (or two stories) that i.
now permitted by the zoning ordinance for the R-1 and R-2 Zones. Conversations with the Buildins
Department indicate that a common height for a single family home is 26 to 27 feet. Limiting the singk
family home to 25 feet, would reduce the design flexibility and would have a tendency to make the home!
look very similar. Staff does not support this suggested modification. It is also staffs recommendation tc
not place any limitations on the height of trees as it is the City’s position that trees enhance the natura
scenic beauty of the community, that they are important for erosion control, that they increase oxygen and
combat pollution, and that they create an identity and quality of neighborhood. Staff has included in the
provisions of the Specific Plan, the provision for many canopy trees in the neighborhood. If the
Commission so desires, it may address some of the community’s concerns by adding language such as
“75% of the trees should be canopy trees. Staff believes that further restrictions are unnecessary.
Ms. Landers corrected an error on Page 5, Condition No. 5c, Line 22, in Resolution No. 4161. The
Chapter number referred to is in error and should read, “, . .Chapter 21.94.065 , , ,”
Chairperson Nielsen asked if the applicant was present and found that he was not.
Commissioner Noble stated that he had received a letter from the applicant, Doug Avis, in which he stated
that due to a previous commitment in New Mexico, he was unable to attend this meeting.
_, . .-. - MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSA December 3,1997 0: Pas
Chairperson Nielsen opened the Public Hearing and invited anyone who wished to testify, on a subject
previously discussed, to appreach the podium.
Kent Schnoecker, 6880 Seaspray Lane, Carlsbad, responded to Ms. Landers’ comment regarding. vi
preservation by stating that his homeowners association very effectively Controls tree heights without 2
problems and short trees are just as effective in aiding the environment as tall trees.
Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Schnoecker how many homes there are in Harbor Pointe, to which replied that there are 362.
Seeing no one else wishing to testify, Chairperson Nielsen closed Public Testimony.
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Heineman, and duly seconded, to adopt Planni
Commission Resolution No. 4157 recommending certification of EIR 96-01, adc
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4158, 4159, 4161, and 41t
recommending approval of GPA 95-06, LCPA 96-03, ZC 95-06, SP 210, a
LFMP 87-22(A), based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contain
therein, including the correction to Resolution No. 4161, as indicated by staff.
commissioner Compas requested that the Commission discuss the proposed height limits with regard
the structures and the trees.
To begin the discussion, Commission Cornpas stated that the applicant previously stated that he cot,
”live with” a 28 foot building height limit, but that he would prefer the flexibility of the standard 30 foot limi
Commissioner Compas further stated that he feels that a 28 foot limit is something they should consider,
Commissioner Welshons also suggested that they address the issue of where the road will be placed
relation to Planning Area 8 on Parcel C.
Commissioner Monroy stated that he cannot support the establishment of a 28 foot height limit becaus
by doing so will only add to the cost of development. He stated that the price of housing is already hig
enough and does not need to be increased. Regarding the tree height, the Commissioner stated that h
feels that the current tree height limit is just fine.
Commissioner Noble agreed with Commissioner Compas and stated that he can support the 28 fOG
building height limit but that the project should be landscaped according to the Landscape Ordinance,
Commissioner Welshons stated that to enforce a 28 foot height limit, in this area, sets an unnetvins
precedent in terms of views. She explained that she also paid a premium for a “view” lot, but she canno
control what is developed below her lot. Commissioner Welshons stated that she cannot support a 28 foo
height limit because it would not be fair to the other residents of the City that have been and/or will be
allowed a 30 foot limit. Regarding the road between Poinsettia Properties and the Mittskus property
Commissioner Welshons stated that she understands why the road will be located in Planning Area 8 or
Parcel C, and it is because it is the most practical place for it.
Commissioner Compas asked Assistant Planning Director, Gary Wayne, if it is possible to specify a 2I
foot height without jeopardizing the 30 foot limits that are in place.
Mr. Wayne replied that it can be written into the Specific Plan because the Specific Plan serves as the
zoning for this particular area and becomes unique.
Commissioner Heineman asked Ms. Landers if, in her opinion, the difference of two feet in height wil
I ..
. . ... .. . MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISS I. December 3, 1997 e Pa:
make a substantial difference in the view.
Ms. Landers replied that she does not think it would make a difference for a substantial portion of Har
Pointe. The homes that are located at the lower portion of Harbor Pointe face the street and many of th
homes. Most of the home that have views are located in the upper portion of the development near Pa!
del Norte and will very likely not lose any blue water view.
Amendment No. I:
do not have ocean views at all, except for those who have pked windows on the freeway side of tl
.. ..
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Compas, and duly seconded, to establish a 28 f, building height limit in Planning Areas 7 and 8.
Chairperson Nielsen re-opened Public Testimony and asked if the applicant would like to comment on t
proposed amendment. Since the applicant for Planning Areas 7 8 8 declined to comment, Chaipers
Nielsen closed Public Testimony.
VOTE: 34 Motion failed.
AYES: Nielsen, Noble, and Compas
NOES:
ABSTAI N : None
Heineman, Savary, Monroy, and Welshons
Amendment No. 2:
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Compas, and duly seconded, to establish a requiremc
that 75% of all of the trees in Planning Areas 7 8 8 will be canopy trees.
Chairperson Nielsen re-opened Public Testimony and asked if the applicant would like to comment on ti
proposed amendment. Since the applicant for Planning Areas 7 & 8 declined to comment, Chairpersc
Nielsen closed Public Testimony.
VOTE: 5-2
AYES:
ABSTAIN: ' None
Nielsen, Noble, Heineman, Savary, and Compas . NOES: Monroy and Welshons
MAIN MOTION:
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Heineman, and duly seconded, to adopt Plannin!
Commission Resolution No. 41 57 recommending certification of EIR 96-01, adoF
Planning Cornmission Resolutions No. 4158, 4159, 4161, and 4162
recommending approval of GPA 95-06, LCPA 96-03, ZC 95-06, SP 210, an
LFMP 87-22(A), based upon the findings and subject to the conditions containe
therein, and to include the corrections to Resolution No. 4161, and th
amendment requiring that 75% of all of the trees in the project be canopy trees,
Commissioner Compas stated his overall approval of the project, in that it is better than an earlier propos;
to build offices.
Commissioner Welshons voiced her support for the project as proposed. She pointed out that this i
going to be neighborhood where many are going to want to live but only a relative few will have th2
opportunity. This project will be unique because it combines the flavors of the Midwest, east, and somf
MINUTES / -. ..-.-
Pag 0 December 3, 1997 a PLANNING COMMISSION
areas in &rope and is not just another cookiecutter project. Further, CommiSSiOner WelshOns than'
those who had given input on this project and invited them to continue to participate in the final des@
this project. She concluded by saying that this is an interesting project, it is good for Carkbad, and it fit
Commissioner Monroy stated his'support for the project, calling it unique for Catisbad.
Commissioner Savary concurred with all of her fellow Commissioner's statements of SUPPofi for
project. She-further stated that her questions regarding the Poinsettia Bridge Over the railroad tracks z
the noise attenuation have been answered as thoroughly as possible.
commissioner Heineman voiced his support for the project. He called it an exciting project, Unique
Carlsbad, and stated that it will be a joy to see something besides the cookie-cutter houses that hi been built in the past.
Cornmissioner Noble stated that he had gotten a telephone call from Leslie Tanner, from Lan
Mobilehome Park, during which she asked him to relay a message to let everyone know that althoi
they did not get everything they wanted, that there have been many compromises, and they support
developer's concept as it has been presented.
commissioner Noble stated his support for the project and concurred with the statements of his fell
Commissioners.
Chairperson Nielsen stated his opposition to the project, in that it appears to him that in a transit orieni
community, there have been no provisions made for bus transfers and the expansion of the railrc station. Additionally, the commercial area of this project has been moved and downsized and no provisi
has been made for gasoline service stations. He further stated that a short time ago, a council pers
spoke of the need for more commercial uses in that area and he supports that need.
Noble, Heineman, Savary , Monroy, Welshons, and Compas
'
VOTE: 6-1
AYES:
NOES: Nielsen
ABSTAIN: None
MINUTE MOTION:
ACTION; Motion by Commissioner Noble, and duly seconded, to request that the C Council consider the establishment of height restrictions in the Coastal Zon
west of the Railroad tracks.
VOTE: 34 Motion failed
AYES: Noble, Heineman, and Compas
NOES:
ABSTAIN: None Nielsen, Savary, Monroy, and Welshons
RECESS:
Chairperson Nielsen declared a recess at 6:42 p.m. and the Commission reconvened at 6:59 p.m., wi
seven Commissioners present.
...
.MINUTES . ... . .-.
EXt
PLANNING COMMlSSlO e November 19,1997 0 Page
2. EIR 96-011GPA 95-061LCPA 96-03EC 95-061SP 2101LFMP 87-22(A) - POINSETTI
PROPERTIES SPECIFIC PLAN - Request for the certification of a Program Environmental lmpa
Report, and approval of Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Consideration
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Progra
Amendment, Zone Change, Specific Plan and Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment
This project has been designed as a 92-acre Transit-Oriented Development which includes th
following uses; tourist commercial; mixed-use (cornmercial-touristresidential); multiple famil
Avenida Encinas, east of Carlsbad Boulevard, north of Lakeshore Gardens Mobilehome Park an
the Ponto Road area, and south of the NCTD Poinsettia Transit Station and Lanikai Lan
Mobilehome Park in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 22.
residential; and small-lot, single family residential. The project site is generally located west c
Chairperson Nielsen announced that if the Cornmission recommends approval of this item, it will b
forwarded to the City Council for its consideration.
Project Planner, Adrienne Landers, assisted by Tim Gnibus of CottonlBelandlAssociates, Inc., presentel
the staff report as follows: This is a continuation of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan and all of thl
related discretionary approvals that are required for it. Review of this project was planned to occur ove
two Planning Commission meetings with the first review held on Wednesday, November 5, 1997. Ths
review consisted of a staff presentation, a brief presentation by the applicant, and a period of publi
testimony. As a result of that review, a revised Specific Plan and revised resolutions have been presentel
to the Commission.
Ms. Landers gave a short slide presentation and briefly outlined the project for those who had nc
attended the Planning Commission meeting on November 5. (All of the details of this presentation can b
found in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of November 5, 1997.)
Before concluding the staff presentation, Ms. Landers reviewed an Errata sheet as follows:
1. The addition of a condition to Resolution 4161, regarding inclusronary housin!
requirements.
The deletion of condition 4a of Resolution 4161, replaced by a new condition 4a regardin!
passive recreation facilities in Planning Areas 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8.
The modification of condition 4a of Resolution 4161 to remove the word “town” from “.
.town square or plaza. . .”
Modification of a sentence on page 19, in paragraph C.1.c. of the Specific Plan, to delete
the words . . .”or within Planning Area 5.” and read as follows: “In addition, Planning Are2
6 will satisfy all affordable housing requirements within its boundaries.”
Revise text on page 103, line 12 of the Specific Plan to add the words “except ga: Stations” to “Allows commercial uses as allowed under the CT Zone . . . and any othei
use except gas stations which may be deemed . , .I’
The modification of the code reference on page 142, line 9 of the Specific Plan to remove
“29.060” and replace with, ‘‘, . .Section 21.04.065 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.”
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Also included on the Errata Sheet are two tables which formerly contained clerical errors in the figures but
have now been corrected.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMlSSlO # November 19, 1997 0 Page
Ms. Landers responded to citizen questions and comments and pointed out that the concerns general
fell into two areas; some that are environmental and some that are not. Regarding the non-environment;
issues, Ms. Landers addressed the “future beach parking problems” by pointing out that the City
currently in the process of beginning an analysis to study the possible realignment of Carlsbad Boulevar
and the resulting land uses that might become available with the realignment. Some of the opportunitie
large seaside park, beach parking and other beach recreational uses. The preliminary analysis indicate
that several hundred parking spaces would become available as a consequence of ‘the ‘realignment c
Carlsbad Boulevard. Ms. Landers addressed the question of how the residents of Parcel A will have saf
access to the beach by pointing out that they will be able to use the public access at Poinsettia Lane an
Carlsbad Boulevard. She further pointed out that it is not, nor has it ever been, intended that an
residents cross the railroad tracks to get to the beach. Regarding the trains and the lack of parking at th
train station, Ms. Landers stated that there are currently 332 parking spaces at the station. She.indicate
that NCTD does not have plans to expand the parking facility at this time. However, they will considc
expansion as train ridership increases. Also, she continued, NCTD options are either constructing .
parking structure and/or purchasing adjacent property from the Encina Waste Water facility. There arc
bus “turn-around” facilities on the site but there is currently no bus “transfer” facility. At this time, Ms
type of inter-city trolley system to serve all of the residents of Carlsbad but that has not developed as yet.
Regarding the concerns expressed for the maintenance of the “gathering” locations, Ms. Landers statei
that all of this property will be under the auspices of a Master Homeowners Association which, in turn, wi
have individual planning area homeowners associations that will be responsible for the maintenance an1
upkeep of all of the areas. This arrangement is very similar to other PUDs in the city which haw
functioned without problems for many years. Regarding drainage, both the Specific Plan and the Locz
Facilities Management Plan require the installation of drainage improvements, as identified in the Maste
Drainage Plan, prior to issuance of the first building permit in any planning area, with the exception o
Planning Area 5, which can sheet drain onto Parcel A.
Tim Gnibus, Cotton/Beland & Associates, stated that all of the environmental concerns expressed at the
last meeting have been addressed in the final EIR and Addendum, and even though the project has beer
revised, the overall conclusions remain the same. Mr. Gnibus reported as follows: regarding traffic, thc
analysis provided in the EIR indicates that the project‘s specific traffic impacts are insignificant. However
the cumulative impact of this project and other projects within the community will result in a significant
unavoidable impact. As for air quality, it has been found that the project‘s specific air quality impact car
be mitigated to a level of insignificance. However, the cumulative impacts on air quality would remair
unavoidable. In the case of water quality and hydrology, the short term and long term impacts can b~
mitigated to a level of less than significant with the proposed mitigation in the EIR. The proposed projeci
is consistent with the City’s scenic corridor guidelines and that no significant impact to public views will
result with the implementation of the project. With regard to density, excess population and housing, there
is no significant impact related to population and housing although the increase in units have been
analyzed throughout the EIR in terms of traffic, air quality, public services, utilities, etc. The conclusion, in
regards to population and housing is that there would be no significant impact in and of itself. The
analysis of the water supply in the EIR indicates that the flows anticipated for the proposed project will be
within the capacity anticipated for Zone 22. Finally, regarding schools, the property owners have already
annexed into a Community Facilities District and the impacts will be less than significant. In conclusion
Cotton/Beland feel that the final EIR and Addendum adequately addresses all of the environmental issues
raised, to date, and the documents comply with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Commissioner Savary asked staff to speak to fhe noise attenuation efforts of the noise levels and if it
meets the standards and how the noise attenuation will be achieved.
Mr. Gnibus replied that a detailed noise analysis has been prepared by the noise consultant for this project
for new land uses might be the expansion of the campground, increased public access to the beach,
’
Landers stated that the City Council has indicated that they have a strong interest in developing soml
MINUTES ._
PLANNING COMMlSSlO I? November 19, 1997 0 Page
and the attenuation would come in the form of sound walls, andlor a berm located adjacent to the track
There will be some attenuation required in the structures, depending on whether they have balconies c
the second floor. There is a mitigation measure in the EIR that basically will fine-tune the study. Th
applicant will have to do additional studies that fine-tune what requirements they will need to attenuate th
noise from the railway.
Commissioner Monroy, for clarification, asked if number 3 on the Errata was meant to modify condition 4
rather than 4a as written.
Ms. Landers concurred that the modification is to condition 4d, not 4a.
Commissioner Monroy stated that there is a minimum size requirement for passive recreational areas an
asked if that minimum applies to the “square or plaza” in condition 4d and why there is no minimum siz
stated.
Ms. Landers replied that there is no minimum size requirement in Planning Area 6 because it is a differer
type of land use. She pointed out that in the mix (commercial and residential areas) there may b
opportunities to create an interaction of a pedestrian friendly environment without the need of a 10,OO
square foot town center or a neighborhood plaza. However, she continued, the square or plaza is a ver
important element in Planning Area 6. The developer has indicated a willingness to provide that elemen
and staff will be looking for a plaza or square when the Site Development Plan is submitted.
Commissioner Compas asked if the beach access, at Poinsettia Lane and Carlsbad Boulevard, will bc
through the campground and if so, does the campground allow that access.
Ms. Landers replied that users can access the beach through the campground and they will also be ablc
to go south to the beach area south of the campground. Also, one of the areas that will be looked at in thc
Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment Study will be the area immediately north of the campground.
Commissioner Compas asked if his assumption that there is no shape limitation on the square or plaza i
correct, and also if staff really can envision the developer actually increasing the size wherever possible.
Ms. Landers replied that it certainly is possible that the developer will, in fact, increase the square footagc of those areas because there are incentives for that and it is quite likely that he will take advantage of the
incentives.
Commissioner Compas asked Principal Civil Engineer, Bob Wojcik, if all of the new intersections or
northbound Carlsbad Boulevard will allow U-turns. Mr. Wojcik replied that all of the new intersections wil
have the left turn storage lanes and the ability to make U-turns.
Regarding Planning Area 7, adjacent to the Lanikai Mobilehome Park, Commissioner Welshons askec
staff to explain why there is now only a IO foot buffer planned between the park and the proposed project
when originally there was going to be a 40 foot buffer between the two projects.
Ms. Landers responded by stating that at the present time there is no specific buffer distance called out.
However, there will be a trail connection at that location which will be a minimum of 10 feet, or slightly
larger. With the 10 foot rear yard setback, there will probably be a minimum of a 20 foot buffer.
Commissioner Welshons then asked staff why they settled on a 10 foot wide landscaped separation foi
the trail, while in several other places there are 20 to 40 foot landscaped trail areas
Ms. Landers stated that staff does not believe that a greater setback is necessary because this is a case
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMlSSlO !P November 19,1997 0 Page
of two like land uses backing up to one another and there is no greater impact created by the ne
construction. Therefore, the developer is not required to provide any greater buffer distance.
Commissioner Welshons inquired as to whether this trail area will accommodate both bicycle ar
pedestrian usage.
Ms. Landers replied that it would.
Commissioner Welshons made reference to what appears to be a 3-way intersection in Parcel B an
asked if part of that “Y will go to Lanikai and if it will require a signal or perhaps only a 3-way stop.
Mr. Wojcik explained that what is shown in this illustration is merely a graphical representation and whe
the tentative map for that area comes in, they will then look at the precise design of the intersection.
Regarding the possible realignment of Carlsbad Boulevard, Commissioner Welshons asked Ms. Landers
she is aware of any date when the realignment could become reality.
Ms. Landers replied that she does not have any knowledge of a specific date.
Commissioner Welshons further inquired as to whether it is possible that the people who are now parkin
on Carlsbad Boulevard, whether legally or illegally, will park at the transit station during the propose1
rea I ig n ment.
Ms. Landers responded by saying that while it is certainly possible, it would be a very long walk from thl
transit station to the beach.
Commissioner Welshons then asked Mr. Wojcik if he had an answer to the question of whether thc
campground operators allow non-campers to access the beach through the campground.
Mr. Wojcik stated that vehicular access is limited to approximately 20 minutes, however, his person2
experience has been that the park is always open. There are pedestrian gates at both ends of th
campground which are locked at 11 :00 p.m., while the main gate remains open.
Commissioner Savary asked when the widening of the bridge on Poinsettia Lane, over the railroad tracks
will take place.
Mr. Wojcik stated that the design work for that project will be starting this fiscal year. It is in the CIP an(
the funds have been appropriated to start the design work. He further stated that construction is not like11
to begin for another 1 % to 2 years.
Commissioner Savary then inquired how that time frame will coincide with this proposed project and will i
be timely enough.
Mr. Wojcik stated that it will be accomplished as quickly as they can get to it, since they are starting it a:
soon as they can.
Chairperson Nielsen asked Ms. Landers to review the variances that have been requested for this project.
Ms. Landers stated that there have been no requests for any variances at this time.
Chairperson Nielsen asked if the 10 foot set-backs are the result of a variance.
Ms. Landers replied that that is a variation in the standards but would not call it a variance. She pointec
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMlSSlO @ November 19, 1997 0 Page
out that through a Master Plan or Specific Plan, staff is allowed to modify some of the standards which i
what they did when they required 75% of the homes to have a front porch. By having a front porch tb
front yard setback has been reduced to 10 feet. The remaining 25% of the homes will have a second floc
balcony.
Chairperson Nielsen asked if that is the only modification, thus far.
Ms. Landers replied that there is one other modification, in that if an alley "product" is presented, a 5 foc
setback for the garage would be allowed.
Chairperson Nielsen opened the Public Hearing and offered the invitation to speak. However, h
requested that the speakers restrict their comments to the changes that have been made to the Specifi
Plan.
Don Conners, 921 Begonia Court, Carlsbad, stated his concerns for the Safety of pedestrians trying t
cross the railroad tracks in an attempt to reach the mixed use area. Also, Mr. Conners inquired about th
requirement for 2 emergency entrances for all projects and pointed out that such entrances do not appe:
to be in the General Plan. He also questioned the appearance of there being two additional entrances an
exits between Poinsettia Lane and the timeshare buildings, and whether or not there will be too muc
traffic for the 50 mph speed limit on Carlsbad Boulevard. Mr. Conners applauded the concept of thii
project but suggested that the tree-lined streets should perhaps be a little wider, to better accommodatc
the passage of vehicles traveling in opposite directions. He also gave some suggestions regarding off
street parking and pedestrian walkways. Mr. Conners expressed his interest in seeing the designs fo
each parcel and particularly pointed out that he has not seen any provisions for pedestrian access fron
Parcels B and C, except by going over the Poinsettia bridge.
Hank Litton, 7108 Santa Barbara, Lakeshore Gardens, Carlsbad, stated that he is the Chairman of thc
Neighborhood Development Committee of Lakeshore Gardens. Mr. Litton further stated that hi:
committee has worked very closely with the developers, Doug Avis and Mr. Murphy, and that earlie
reports that the residents of his community are opposed to this project are absolutely incorrect. He statec
that any problems they have had in the past have been resolved and they are very pleased with thi
proposed project.
Riley Cook, 6875 Watercourse Drive, Carlsbad, expressed her concerns regarding traffic congestion, higl
structures, and the height of the trees that will provide the canopies over the streets. She suggested tha
in order to accommodate all sizes of vehicles, including trucks, the trees will have to be very tall at thei
maturity and will become another view obstruction. Also, Ms. Cook voiced some objection to such z
densely populated area and likened it to a ghetto. She also questioned the ability of the transit statior
parking lot to accommodate all of the new commuters that will come with this development.
Bob Barrelman, 361 Chapalita Drive, Encinitas, made reference to Condition No. 11 on Page 8 o
Resolution No. 4161. Mr. Barrelman was unaware that the referenced resolution had been revised an(
Condition No. 11 had been deleted. He stated that from his perspective, it appears that the La Cost:
Downs Specific Plan has somehow been altered by this Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan.
Tom White, 6910 Sandcastle Drive, Carlsbad, stated that with regard to the access opening from La Cost2
Downs to Lanikai, he would like to see the Specific Plan for La Costa Downs honored.
Mehran Mazdy, owner of the property immediately south of Parcel C at 7190 Ponto Drive, Carlsbad
stated that he is opposed to the placement of the proposed intersection to Carlsbad Boulevard, south o
.
Poinsettia Drive.
MINUTES .. ..
PLANNING COMMlSSlO I? November 19, 1997 0 Page
He further stated that this intersection has been moved from its original location to a location 200 fe
north of his property and by doing this, the value of his property will be reduced, it will take away ai
incentive for him to develop and dedicate part of his property for a road to connect to the propose
intersection. Mr. Mazdy pointed out that staffs statement that the proposed intersection will connect wi
an easement on his property is incorrect. On a sketch, Mr. Mazdy showed where the easement stops ai
the difficulty the new placement will cause. Mr. Mazdy also stated that with the new plan, he will be It
with only a back road and a cul-de-sac and he will have to give up 1.2 acres of his 3.66 acres 1
accommodate this change. Also, he pointed out that if the intersection were to be located next to h
property, it would be a great business incentive to him to connect his road to the intersection as soon i
possible. By doing so he would be in a position to help the area to develop. Mr. Mazdy continued t
saying that the only reason he has been given for changing the location of the intersection is that tt
owner wants to create more of a buffer between his residential and commercial developments. He state
that he has been told, by Planning as well as Engineering, that locating the intersection next to h
property will be at least as good as the location now proposed. Mr. Mazdy concluded by stating that h
property is zoned Residential-Commercial and he feels that locating the proposed intersection next to h
property will serve the best interests of all. He also expressed a desire to continue to be involved in tt
overall planning of that area and the location of the proposed intersection.
Ron Zawistowski, 1009 Daisy Avenue, Carlsbad, stated that he wants to see more specific details of tt
project, particularly regarding circulation patterns. He criticized the results of the EIR and suggested th:
the Commission disregard staffs recommendation until all the facts and details are presented. M
Zawistowski stated that he thinks the surveys and studies are old and need to be updated, particularly wit
regard to traffic. He suggested that the studies do not include what the traffic will be after LEGOLAND i
established as well as for several years into the future.
Commissioner Compas asked Mr. Zawistowski if he was at the meeting of November 5, and if he had rea
the EIR.
Mr. Zawistowski replied that he didn’t have to read the EIR and he is judging by the presentation that wa
given.
Thomas A, Snyder, 6840 Watercourse Drive, Carlsbad, read a prepared Statement stating his OQpOSitlO
to this proposed project, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. He further suggested thz
this issue belongs on the ballot for the voters to decide.
Commissioner Noble asked Mr. Snyder if he is aware of the fact that the Growth Management Plan set
forth the total number of units that can be built in the entire quadrant. He also corrected Mr. Snyder’
assumption that 923 units in this project will exceed the Growth Management Plan. He pointed out thE
homes can be moved around but the total number of homes still cannot exceed the total established b
the GMP. He further pointed out that Mr. Snyder’s statement alleges that the City is adding 500 home
above the maximum allowed by the GMP and that his allegation simply is not true.
Leslie Tanner, Lanikai Lane Mobilehome Park, stated that the residents of Lanikai Lane wished to tak
this opportunity to thank the developers of the Poinsettia Properties, Doug Avis, Mike Howes, and Joh
Gamlin for their time and effort in making all of the changes in the original plans for the development, a
well as to thank Dee Landers for all she has done on the project. Ms. Tanner further stated that tht
newest plan, regarding the access between Lanikai Lane and La Costa Downs, is to keep that acces!
open.
Michael G. Walker, 6971 Whitecap Drive, Carlsbad, expressed his concern that even though there wi
now be 2-story structures in place of %story structures, the pad elevations could be higher than Carlsbac
Boulevard and may cause the 2-story buildings to be considerably higher than 25 to 28 feet. Regardin!
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMlSSlO @ November 19, 1997 0 Page
the widening of Poinsettia Lane in Zone 22, Mr. Walker stated his concern that there is no indication tt-
the project will be constructed at the same time as the bridge widening. He suggested that tl
requirements for those facilities should be made a part of the conditions for the project.
Betty Williams, 6854 Watercourse Drive, Carlsbad, stated that it is her understanding that this project h
been in the planning stages for more than 2% years, and now she wants to know why the public has r
heard about it until this past September. She alleged that the residents of La Costa Downs and LaniE
Lane do not pay taxes and as renters, should not have a “say” in what will affect the property owners ai
She stated that she does not agree with the EIR regarding impacts and that an area in which there z,
railroad tracks and high speed trains should not have a residential development. She also inquired as
whether the City of Carlsbad is prepared to take over this project when the lenders refuse to mal
done.
Dan Downing, 7254 Mimosa, Carlsbad, expressed his concern that instead of services keeping up
staying ahead of development, they have to be one step behind because of the way funding works. Fu
Downing referenced a magazine article which speaks to the importance of developing TOD projects ai
complimented the concept and style of this project. Also he stated that he feels that this style beti
mirrors the Carlsbad Village style of neighborhood which Carlsbad has spent so much time and effort
promote and preserve.
Vyto Mittskus 6805 Watercourse, Carlsbad, stated that he had spoken to Doug Avis and that Mr. Avis tc
him that he would not build any building higher than 25 feet. Mr. Mittskus suggested that Mr. Avis be hc
to that statement, in writing, somewhere in the documentation for this development. He pointed out th
by the time building actually begins, Mr. Avis may no longer have a part in this project and the new build,
may build to 30 feet. Mr. Mittskus further stated that if a way Bo limit the height of the trees (lower than tt
tallest building) is not found, concerned citizens will go before the City Council in protest.
Doug Avis, 5055 Avenida Encinas, Suite 210, Carlsbad, began by stating that this project most certain
unique style that has taken 3% to 4 years to develop. Changes have been made which have served
enhance the original concept, not take away from it. Mr. Avis went on to point out that street issues a
City issues, and not an issue for developers. He pointed out that it is important to recognize that tt
property, as it exists today, is zoned for 25 acres of offices and as such would generate considerably mo
trips, traffic, parking at the Coaster station, and far more impacts than a residential community will
Regarding the campground access, Mr. Avis stated that from personal, lifelong experience, and at lea
2,000 bicycle trips through the campground, he has never been stopped or in any way been diverted fro
using that access to the beach.
Commissioner Compas asked Mr. Avis to speak to his conversation with Mr. Mittskus regarding buildir
heights.
Mr. Avis responded by first saying that he had told Mr. Mittskus that there would be no buildings high(
than 25 feet. However, he pointed out the area he controls (Parcel A) is approximately 15 feet lower tha
Parcels B and C and in order to build the product designed in a Normandy style, they will nee
approximately 28 feet.
taxpayers in the southwest quadrant and demanded that this project be put to a vote of the taxpayer
mortgage loans on the properties. She urged the Commission to reject this project until more study
will not look like a ghetto and, on the other hand, it will not look like a lot of other subdivisions. This is
Commissioner Compas also asked Mr. Avis to comment on limiting the tree height.
Mr. Avis replied that he feels that because some very fast growing, seedling Eucalyptus trees wei
planted at places like Alta Mira,. within 4 or 5 years they had grown to a point in the view shed. This t
MINUTES
PLAN N I NG COMM l SSl 0 @ November 19, 1997 0 Page ’
believes created a sensitivity to tree height and the object here is to choose trees that will not excez
building heights at maturity.
Commissioner Compas requested that Mr. Avis comment on Mr. Walker’s suggestion that the pads for tt
2-story buildings could very well end up above the level of Carlsbad Boulevard.
Mr. Avis responded that it is a possibility because there is a point in the middle of the property that
higher than the level of Carlsbad Boulevard and because of grading ordinances, it may not be possible 1
reduce the property level all the way to the level of the boulevard.
Regarding Area 6, Commissioner Monroy, asked Mr. Avis what square footage is proposed for the arc
square or plaza and then stated that in his mind, that is the only square where most of the people in tb
development will come together. The Commissioner also asked if it would be possible for him to agree
a particular size, so that in the event Mr. Avis sells his property, the new owner will be obligated to tt
same square footage.
Mr. Avis answered by stating that he would have no problem with setting a specific number of square fee
He explained that from a commercial standpoint, this property is terrible. Now, he continued, if they war
this project to be successful, the uses that go in there are going to have to be supported by th
neighborhood and primarily by the transit station. Consequently, that immediate area has to be opened u
to the transit station and in order to do so, they have to make it inviting for people getting off the train. M
Avis further pointed out that the only way they can keep people coming to the area is to have somethin
that is very comforting, visible, and open, so if the Commission wishes to set a minimum square footagc
he would be in favor of it.
Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Avis to speak to Mr. Mazdy’s comments regarding the intersectic
now being placed 200 hundred feet from his property.
Mr. Avis deferred to John Gamlin.
Commissioner Compas asked Mr. Avis to give his candid estimate of the number of residents (from Parct
B and C) that would be walking from their homes to the transit station.
Mr. Avis responded by stating that the Transit Oriented Development Guidelines state that people who liv
within 500 feet of the rail station will walk, people that live within 1200 feet (depending upon their age:
attitudes, and general lifestyle) are possibly those who will walk, and people who live beyond 1200 feet w
more than likely drive to the station. Therefore, it is doubtful that many residents from Parcel C will go tc
Parcel A. Some folks from Area B will walk because they will have better access to the trail system alon!
the tracks to the station.
Commissioner Heineman asked Mr. Avis if he feels there is a question of safety regarding people crossin!
the railroad tracks and has that question been adequately addressed.
Mr. Avis replied that because of sound attenuation, they will be building a wall on both sides of the track
for the entire length of the project. There will be trail accesses from the project but on the other side of thc
trail there will be a fence. It is conceivable that there would be access to the tracks but statistics fo deaths on the rail corridor, state that a very high percentage of the deaths are suicides.
Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Avis to comment on the questions raised regarding the improvemen
along Poinsettia Lane and how it relates to the timeline of his development.
Mr. Avis stated that the previous owners of the property built the improvements that are there now anc
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMlSSlO i@ November 19, 1997 e Page 1
because the city did not build those improvements, the city recorded an agreement against the properi
that basically states that the property has no more obligation to construct any Poinsettia improvements
He went on to state that they have done a traffic study and even in its present configuration, they opera1
at a Level of Service (LOS) A. Consequently, it is clear that both from the previous agreement and fro1
the traffic generation, there is no responsibility to build the bridge. Also, if Mr. Wojcik's estimate of th
time needed to complete the improvements is accurate, the early part of the construction of the prop
should run concurrently with the improvements.
Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Avis to estimate what percentage of the traffic from the developmer
would use Palomar Airport Road and Poinsettia Lane, respectively.
Mr. Avis deferred to Mr. Wojcik for the answer to those percentages.
John Gamlin, Magellan Corporation, 42575 Melanie Place, Palm Desert, CA., initially stated that they full
tracks. However, it has become very clear, during the past year as they met with the Coastal Commissio
staff, that they were having a major battle with them as they interpreted the Local Coastal Program. It als
became clear that if they did not try to accommodate them, they would have to come back before th
Commission at some time in the future, with a denial of the plan by the Coastal Commission as the
sought to preserve some commercial opportunities between Encinitas and the Village. Mr. Gamlin pointec
out that in their analysis of it and looking at the land uses within the project, and looking at the intersectior
spacing requirements for what can happen between Poinsettia Lane and Avenida Encinas, they though
that what they proposed does support access in the area, in addition to addressing what they now have a!
a compatibility issue between residential and commercial.
Based on where the road is being proposed, Commissioner Welshons stated that Magellan is not going tc
have to create a buffer whereas Mr. Mazdy is going to have to create a buffer if he builds residentia
adjacent to the commercial.
Mr. Gamlin agreed and stated that except that he believes that Mr. Mazdy's project is more speculativt
since there is no proposal before the Commission. Also, he stated that in past talks with Mr. Mazdy, the;
have discussed the possibility of creating a symmetry between their commercial parcel and his propert:
zone.
Commissioner Compas asked Mr. Gamlin if he would be willing to accept the 25 foot height limitation.
Mr. Gamlin replied that a 25 foot height limitation would be very difficult to deal with but that 28 feet woulc
probably work just fine.
Seeing no one else wishing to testify, Chairperson Nielsen closed Public Testimony.
RECESS:
Chairperson Nielsen declared a recess of the Planning Commission at 8:15 p.m. and reconvened at 8:3(
p.m., with seven Commissioners present.
Regarding the setbacks from Carlsbad Boulevard, Ms. Landers stated that the applicants are providing a
40 foot landscaped area along Carlsbad Boulevard, for the length of Parcels B and C, which will include a
pedestrian walkway. In addition, there will be a front yard setback area and the possibility of an interior
roadway there. There will be sidewalks, parkways, and trees in front of each home. Staffs position,
regarding heights, is that a 30 foot and 2-story height limit is a standard type of height limit for a single
supported the relocation of the tourist serving designation ofl' the parcels, over to the other side of th
which would make a more meaningful area of commercial interest as opposed to some sort of a spO
MINUTES ..
PLANNING COMMlSSl cl) November 19, 1997 0 Page 1
family home. Since this is a Specific Plan, if the Commission wishes to reduce that height limit, it has tt
power to do so. Regarding trees impacting views, this Specific Plan does not have any regulations limitir
the height of trees nor does the city have a view ordinance. With respect to building heights, the height I
structures are measured from the existing grade and regardless of whether or not fill dirt is brought it, tt-
height would still have to be measured from the grade that exists today.
For clarification, Commissioner Monroy asked if he is correct in assuming that Eucalyptus trees are nc
intended to be used in this project.
Ms. Landers replied that Eucalyptus trees are not in the plan and what they are looking for are horizont:
canopy trees.
Mr. Wojcik responded to the question of 2 entries to each development as well as additional signals o
Carlsbad Boulevard, by stating that those are the types of details that come with the Tentative Map an
yes, the Specific Plan shows one access point. That access point only shows that it is feasible to hav
response to the access from La Costa Downs to Lanikai, staff believes that to be a separate issue fror
the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan for La Costa Downs does say that the existing access is temporar
until permanent access is constructed. Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan has no impact on the La Cost
Downs Specific Plan. As far as the timing of improvements on Poinsettia widening and Carlsbac
Boulevard, Mr. Avis answered part of it by stating that the developer has already constructed what is ou
there today, even though they are not using it. Their project alone would not require any further widening
The Local Facilities Management Plan does take some guesses as to when those improvements will bc
put in. Those guesses were based on projected growth rates and the city’s monitoring program. Thc
design for the widening of the bridge is going to begin this fiscal year.
Commissioner Noble asked for comment regarding the earlier proposed road between Parcel C and MI
Mazdy’s property.
Speaking from a Planning perspective, Ms. Landers stated that placing a road between the two propertie!
creates two small parcels of land and more of an opportunity for the appearance of strip commerciz
development. It also places the commercial site on Parcel C closer to the residential development whict
in turn, creates compatibility impacts. Staff has suggested to both the developer and Mr. Mazdy that I
way they could share the access and perhaps have some type of reciprocal parking agreement.
Mr. Wojcik stated that he has informed Mr. Mazdy that either location complies with the engineerin:
standards for intersection spacing.
Regarding the 50 rnph speed limit on Carlsbad Boulevard, Commissioner Welshons asked if that speec
will be lowered with the additional proposed intersections.
Mr. Wojcik replied that he is of the opinion that the speed limit will be reduced.
Chairperson Nielsen asked if there is a legal railroad crossing anywhere in the area of this project.
Ms. Landers stated that there is no legal crossing, at this time, except for the point where a commutei
catching a southbound train is allowed to cross the track. Anyone caught crossing the tracks at any othei
place is cited and there is a $250.00 fine.
Mr. Gnibus stated that the traffic analysis looked at traffic generated by other projects, including
access to the property and the number of entries and signals are in no way limited by the Specific Plan. I
would be beneficial for them to get tog.ether and develop a comprehensive plan for the properties and tha
LEGOLAND, and indeed, the traffic analysis takes buildout of a city into consideration.
. . .~ MINUTES ..
PLANNING COMMlSSlO I$ November 19, 1997 0 Page Id
Commissioner Welshons asked if Mr. Gnibus means that the projections are done on all the parcel
surrounding this area to buildout in the year 2010 and he responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Gnibus to estimate what percentage of the traffic from thi
development would use Palomar Airport Road, Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad Boulevard, and Poinsetti;
Lane, respectively.
Mr. Wojcik stated the percentages as follows:
Palomar Airport Road, between Carlsbad Boulevard and Avenida Encinas - approximately 14%
Avenida Encinas to the southbound on-ramp - 23%
Interstate 5, north of Palomar Airport Road and south of Poinsettia - 34%
Palomar Airport Road, east of 1-5 - 7%
Poinsettia between Carlsbad Blvd., and Avenida Encinas - 23%
Between the 1-5 on-ramps and Avenida Encinas - 56%
Carlsbad Boulevard north of Palomar Airport Road - 7%
Mid-block north of Poinsettia - 16%
Carlsbad Boulevard south of Avenida Encinas - 10%
Chairperson Nielsen asked Mr. Gnibus if the possibility of the MetroLink coming to the Poinsettia Statior
was considered in the train count in the EIR.
Mr. Gnibus stated that the noise analysis accounts for the future assumptions of NCTD.
Ms. Landers stated that the number of train trips she gave earlier, was the number for the trains runninc
today and the Metrolink was not included.
Commissioner Welshons asked Ms. Landers to clarify the annexation into the school district.
Ms. Landers replied by stating that the project has already annexed into Community Facilities District No
3 and the developer has agreed to pay fees. Also, the applicant has met his obligation, with regard tc
school fees and school mitigation. She added that the CFD is the mechanism used to fund schoo
facilities. Ms. Landers pointed out that the real problem is that there was a recession for 4 or 5 years and
there wasn’t any construction occurring to generate the monies to build the school facilities.
Consequently, schools are planned to be built as quickly as possible since money has more recently
become available.
Assistant Planning Director, Gary Wayne, stated that it had come to staffs attention, this evening, that the
city has an incomplete document, in that there are several missing conditions in Resolution No. 4161. Mr.
Wayne further stated that the Commission saw those conditions in the documents before them at the
November 5, 1997 meeting and if they feel comfortable in their knowledge of that document, they can vote
on this item this evening. On the other hand, if they feel uncomfortable having to rely on memory, staff will
bring documents back for their review.
Commissioner Welshons requested that the Commission continue this item to December 3, 1997.
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Welshons, and duly seconded, to continue EIR 96-
PROPERTIES SPECIFIC PLAN, to the regularly scheduled meeting of
December 3, 1997, with staff bringing back revised and corrected documents to
reflect the corrections that have been made between November 5 and November
19, as well as the Errata sheet introduced this evening.
OI/GPA 95-06/LCPA 96-03/ZC 95-06/SP 210/LFMP 87-22(A) - POINSETTIA
.. MINUTES
PLANNl NG COMMl SSl 0 @ November 19,1997 0 Page 1
VOTE: 7-0
AYES:
ABSTAIN: None
Nielsen, Noble, Heinernan, Savary, Monroy, Welshons, and Cornpas
NOES: None
EXH 0 0
6. EIR 96-011GPA 95-06/LCPA 96-03RC 95-06ISP 21OlLFMP 87-22(A) - POlNSETTli
PROPERTIES SPECIFIC PLAN - A request for the certification of a Program Environmentb
Impact Report, and approval of Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overridin(
Considerations, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment, toca
Coastal Program Amendment, Zone Change, Specific Plan and Local Facilities Management Plar
Amendment. This project has been designed as a %?-acre Transit-Oriented Development whicl
includes the following uses: tourist commercial; mixed use (commerCial-tourist/residential)
multiple family residential; and small lot, single family residential. The project site is generall;
MINUTE!
page 12 0 November 5, 1997 0 PLANNING COMMISSION
located west of Avenida Encinas, east of Carlsbad Boulevard, north of Lakeshore Gardens
Mobilehome Park and the Ponto Road area, and south of the NCTD Poinsettia Transit Station and
Lanikai Lane Mobilehome Park in Local Fac es Management Plan Zone 22.
Chairperson Nielsen announced that if the Commission recommends approval of this item, it will be
forwarded to the City Council for its consideration.
Project Planner, Adrienne Landers, assisted by Project Engineer, Kenneth Quon, presented the staff
report and described the project as follows: This project is the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan and all
related documents necessary for approval of the plan. Poinsettia Properties is a large, complex project
proposing the development of 923 residential units and related commercial development near the
Poinsettia Transit Station. A slide was presented to show an overview of this evenings agenda to include
project background, the Public Hearing process that will be used at this meeting and again in two weeks,
review of the Specific Plan, and finally, the proposed discretionary actions. This project has been under
About six months ago the project reached a point where all Issues had been resolved, agreement had
been reached on the number of dwelling units and their location, the EIR was completed and circulated for
public review, and the Staff Report was finished about a month ago. At that point there were a number of
neighborhood meetings held to discuss the proposed project. As a result of the citizen input, there were
changes to three planning areas which resulted in a fewer number of proposed units; 923 instead of 1,009
as well as a better land use design.
This presentation will discuss the revised Specific Plan rather than the one presented in the current
documents. Following the testimony heard during this meeting, staff will return on November 19, 1997,
with revised comments, including a modified Specific Plan and an addendum to the EIR, analyzing the
impacts of the revised project. On November 19, Staff Will respond to questions raised during this
meeting, Planning Commission discussion will follow, with a recommendation to the City Council, and in
December, 1997, or January, 1998, the project will be heard by the City Council.
The sites contain three parcels bounded by Avenida Encinas to the east, Poinsettia Lane, to the south,
Carisbad Boulevard to the west, and Palomar Airport Road to the north. Included within this area are
hotels, car dealerships, and the Kaiser Medical facility on Avenida Encinas, the ocean to the west, the Lakeshore Gardens Mobilehome Park, Poinsettia Village, and Lanikai Lane Mobilehome Park Many
years ago these parcels had agriculture activity but at the present time they are nearly devoid of any type
of vegetation. There are thirty-five foot high telephone poles on the west side of Carlsbad Boulevard
which help to indicate what the view will be when the project is finished, as the tallest single family homes
on Parcel B will be no more than thirty feet in height.
The Specific Plan that is being requested for approval includes an area of approximately 92 acres,
Approval of the project will allow development of 923 residential units and will include live/work units,
affordable units, single family homes, about 100,000 square feet of commercial development, and a
combination of residential and commercial in a mixed use area covering about 6.5 acres. There will also
be I .4 acres of open space on land adjacent to the Poinsettia Rail Station.
Poinsettia Properties is planned as a "Transit Oriented Development" (TOD) project which is a relatively
new concept. Ideally, a TOD would be located near or around a rail station or a major transportation
corridor. It would have a mix of commercial uses and appropriate residential densities where people can
live, work, or shop within easy access of a rail line, highway, or major street. A TOD project allows
residents to accomplish their daily activities without driving or at least reducing the number of ADT. This
means making pedestrian facilities a major focus by including commercial areas, using smaller tree lined
connecting pathways or sidewalks. SANDAG reports that population in the San Diego region will increase
dramatically in the next 10 to 20 years and rather than continue the present urban sprawl of more
neighborhoods to the east, the idea is to place homes near transportation corridors to address traffic congestion thereby improving air quality. TODs plan ahead for more people and the traffic that will come
MINUTES
review with the City for several years and has evolved along the way, most recently with citizen input.
streets to slow traffic, building homes with front porches facins the street rather than garages, and many
PLANNING COMMISSIO P November 5,1997 0 Page 1
with them. TODS mean different densities, depending on whether they are located in an urban or ruri
area. For Carlsbad, it means a mix of commercial and residential uses around the station, with a highe
density of around 20 dwelling units per acre, in the first 500’ from the station and going down to arounc
seven to nine dwelling units per acre within a quarter of a mile of the station. Again, a strong pedestriai
focus is needed to pull these pieces together, get people out of their cars, and with the mixed use area
reduce the number of ADT.
Photos of existing projects, very similar to the proposed project, were presented to help promote a bette
understanding of this concept and each photo was briefly described.
This type Of development generally includes higher density development that might be seen in ar affordable housing project and would include a more classic mixed use area which means that there mal
be retail areas on the lower floor with living space above. The streets are pedestrian scale streets, 36 fee
wide from curb to curb with many pedestrian crossings. The streets are also designed with many tree:
and planters. The applicant is also proposing, potentially, an alley product within this development.
Porches are an important element and promote pedestrian use. There are tree-lined parkways also fol
pedestrian use and enjoyment. There will be public areas, including outdoor eating areas, as well as
areas for other types of gathering.
The Planning Areas are described as follows:
The Transit Station Area: This would be the mixed use area utilizing a combination of commercial or
the lower floor with loft unit above.
This area has a potential for 139 affordable housing units.
This area would have a maximum of 178 single-family homes.
This area will be scheduled for a maximum of 180 units.
This area no longer exists at its original location. The revised plan has been
relocated and reduced in size from 3.6 acres to 1.5 acres at the new location.
This area has 250 potential single-family units.
This area has a maximum potential of 150 single-family units.
This area will potentially be a mixed use area, much the same as Planning
Area 3.
Planning Area 5:
Planning Area 4:
Planning Area 2-
Planning Area 1 :
Planning Area 7:
Planning Area 8:
Planning Area 6:
Cottage style homes are proposed, with 75% being required to have porches and second floor balconies
required on the remaining 25%. Garages will be off-set from the homes, tree lined parkways, and two
trees required in front of each home. There will be an extensive system of pedestrian connections to the
transit station and the city-wide trail system. All of the single-family homes will have a maximum height
limit of thirty feet or a maximum of two stories.
There is also an affordable housing component to this project. In accordance with the City’s lnclusionaty
Housing Ordinance, the project is required to provide 15% of the total number of units as affordable. In
this case 139 affordable units must be provided on the project site, which means that each planning area
project will include a variety of housing types and prices within the project boundaries, rather than being
located off-site.
To develop the proposed project, a number of discretionary approvals are necessary, including
certification of the EIR, a General Plan Amendment, a Local Coastal Plan Amendment, the Specific Plan,
the zone changes it proposes, and an amendment to the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 22.
MINUTES
Page 1'
0
November 5, 1997 0 PLANNING COMMISSION
A program EIR was prepared to address the environmental impacts associated with all the discretionaq
applications for the proposed project, including ultimate build-out of the project. The EIR analyzed the
areas of potential impact as well as other sections required CEQA such as alternative locations anc
cumulative impacts. Based on the data and conclusions of the EIR, it was found that all environmental
impacts can be reduced to a level Of less than Significant, with the implementation of the proposed
mitigation measures. However, there are significant cumulative impacts to air quality and traffic which cannot be fully mitigated. These impacts are regional in nature and outside of the city's ability to control.
Cumulative, unavoidable traffic impacts on certain segments of Highway 78 and 1-5. A Statement 01 Overriding Considerations must be adopted to approve this project. According to CEQA, this statement
explains why, in the city's judgment, the project's environmental, economic, or social benefits outweigh the
significant impacts that cannot be mitigated. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was prepared and
is attached to the EIR Resolution. This statement basically states that the project implements the goals of
the General Plan; higher density development near a transit station, fewer facility impacts including less
traffic, a variety of affordable housing, and the project is more compatible with the neighborhood than
office development would be.
Development of the land uses proposed in this Specific Plan require approval of a General Plan
Amendment. The proposed amendment exists of changing designations on the land use map to allow
land uses other than those currently permitted. At the present time, Parcel A allows a mix of residential
and office development, Parcels A, 6, and C allow multi-family residential development up to a maximum
of 35 feet in height. All development is limited to a 35 feet in height limitation.
The applicant is asking for a transfer of 474 units from the excess dwelling unit bank. This is possible due
to city Council Policy No. 43 which establishes priorities for the allOCatlOn Of excess dwelling units within
each quadrant of the city. Currently the southwest quadrant has an excess of 1,448 units which is likely to
increase due to projects in the quadrant continuing to be built below their growth management control
point. Poinsettia Properties qualifies for a transfer, as a TOD, because it is located next to the Poinsettia
Transit Station. Although the City may grant the transfer of the requested number of units, it does not
mean that the City prefers more units rather than quality development. What it actually means is the City
is looking to this project to provide the utmost in quality both in design and product type.
Changes to General Plan designations also require changes to other regulatory documents in order that
all of the documents allow the same type of development. The zone changes, outlined by the Specific
Plan, are necessary to achieve consistency with the proposed General Plan, the Local Coastal Program,
and the Specific Plan designations. The new designations include TouristlCommercial and Open Space. The proposed changes reflect the General Plan Land Uses, however, the zoning provides the
development standards on how the land uses (allowed by the General Plan) can actually be developed.
The last document that needs to be amended to provide consistency, is the Local Coastal Program. The
proposed amendment will define the specific location for commercial development, which will be at the southern Corner Of Parcel c. In addition, there is a minor text change. Currently in the LCP, mixed use
development is allowed by right along Carlsbad Boulevard across from the campground. This means that
commercial development doesn't require any special approval per the Coastal Commission. Staff is
proposing to add language that, "Commercial development is allowed by right, except as provided by a
Specific Plan or Master Plan adopted to implement LCP policies." This creates consistency between
the LCP and the Specific Plan. The LCP land use designations are the same as in the General Plan and
on the Zoning Map.
Coastal Commission staff does support the proposed land use changes, however, it has not been
approved by the Coastal Commission and still needs to go through that formal hearing process.
All facilities and service impacts or demands associated with the proposed land use changes have been
analyzed and adequate development requirements are included to ensure that all facilities and services
are either already in place or will be provided as development occurs. Demands created by the proposed
MINUTES
._
)
PLANNING COMMlSSlO I@ November 5, 1997 e Page 1
land uses are less than those created by the existing land uses and a[$ Ggn&j[cn[ with \he cjty’s gr~w!
management ordinance. Two facilities or services that citizens have expressed concern about are traff
and schools. To evaluate traffic impacts of the proposed project, traffic studies were conducted, looking i
existing traffic volumes on both road segments and intersections in the surrounding area. Proposed traffi
volumes were then added to these figures. The results of the analysis indicate that traffic volumes of th
proposed project generate fewer average daily trips (ADT) than will be generated by the land use
currently allowed. All road segments and intersections meet the City’s requirement to operate at a level c
service (LOS) D or better. In fact, all segments are expected to operate at a LOS of A or 6. As indicate
in the exhibit, there are approximately 21,000 ADT generated by the existing land uses and when th
14,358, from the proposed project, the result is a reduction of approximately 7,000 ADT. Actually, ther
will be less traffic with the proposed project than with the existing land uses, because office land use:
generate a higher level of traffic.
Another concern of citizens is the potential overcrowding of schools in the area. At project buildout, then
will be an increase of 489 new students in the Carlsbad Unified School District. Since school facilities arc
based on a quadrant-wide calculation, these students were already anticipated in the buildout count fo
school facilities in the southwest quadrant. The total number of buildings or dwelling units in the quadrat.
will not change since the transferred units were within the quadrant. As indicated in the Local Facilitie!
Management Plan (LFMP) for Zone 22, the Carlsbad Unified School District has indicated that schoo
facilities will be provided for children living in the quadrant. On all residential projects, the city require:
applicants to provide proof, from the school district, that school facilities will be mitigated or provided prioi
to development. The school district utilizes a Mello Roos program, Community Facilities District No. 3, tc
finance future school facilities. The applicants have already annexed into CFD No. 3. However, recen
discussions with the school district, indicate that they are aware of parent’s concerns regardin:
overcrowding, particularly at Aviara Oaks. They are looking at short time solutions to provide immediate
facilities through methods such as temporary structures or modified class schedules. They are alsc
looking at new construction. A new K through 5 elementary school will begin construction in 1998, at the
intersection of Camino de Los Ondas and Hidden Valley Road.
In conclusion, the proposed project addresses both regional goals as well as the city’s General Plan goals
in providing a variety of housing near a transit station and a pedestrian friendly environment. It is also
compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. It complies with all regulations and staff recommends
approval of the Specific Plan and all related actions.
Calling the Commission’s attention to the extra information sheets and the errata sheet distributed to them
by staff, Ms. Landers pointed out that there has been a deletion of the original Condition No. 13,
Resolution No. 4161, and that it has been replaced with a new Condition No. 13. She stated that the
applicant has assured staff that if the agencies apply any new permit requirements related to the vernal
pools, it will be his responsibility to comply. That letter will remain on file in the Planning Department. In
addition, there have been several letters from neighborhood residents that have been submitted, copies of
which are also on file in the Planning Department. Ms. Landers also reported that 153 post-cards have
been submitted to the city. Those too, are on file in the Planning Department.
Commissioner Welshons asked what the status of parking is, regarding capacity, growth, and overflow
that may result from this development, at the Poinsettia Rail Station.
Ms. Landers replied that there are 332 parking spaces at the transit station. North County Transit has not
indicated any need to expand that parking lot at the present time. However, she continued, as demand
increases, and the need for NCTD to expand the parking facility, it does not appear that they will have any
difficulty in acquiring land, off-site, for expansion.
Commissioner Welshons stated that there is a statement that this project developer may not sell affordable units to other developers, even if they build excess units, and asked MS. Landers if she can
explain that statement.
._
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMlSSlO !P November 5, 1997 0 Page 1
Ms. Landers replied that the statement is correct and that there are no excess affordable units that cou
be constructed. The city's ordinances require a minimum number of affordable units that a develop1 needs to provide, On-Site, through the inclusionary ordinance but it does not define any maximum numbe
Ms. Landers went on the state that in fact, there are no excess units. There are only a minimum numbc
of units and if the developer provides more, that will be his own business decision.
Commissioner Welshons asked Ms. Landers to explain how and why does office land use generate mor
traffic than the proposed predominantly residential project.
John Bridges, preparer of the EIR, Cotton/Beland Associates, 6310 Greenwich Drive, Suite 200, Sz
Diego, responded by explaining that the traffic that would be generated on this site, if it were develope' under the existing plan and zoning, would generate more traffic than the proposed plan. The reason i
because office development generates more traffic per square foot than residential development. Th
number of trips, on Parcel A, would be substantially increased.
Regarding the requested density increase, Commissioner Welshons asked, considering that they coul
build Parcel A with 50% residential and 50% commercial and the traffic would also be 50/50, would the
be competing or would they be compatible.
Mr. Bridges, assuming that the Commissioner was asking about the number of trips, stated that tht
number of trips has nothing to do with the compatibility of land uses. It is simply an average number for i
land use type and if you have a residential area next to an office area, the calculation doesn't account fo
the fact that they are right next to each other nor does it differentiate if they are a mile apart. It is simpl!
an average that is used for traffic generation purposes. Each one generates its own number of trips
independently of the other. Mr. Bridges further stated that the office category has a much higher tril
generation rate (approximately twice as high) than residential development.
Commissioner Compas asked for a description and placement of signalized intersections along Carlsbac
Boulevard as they relate to this project.
Mr. Quon replied by pointing out that there is a signalized intersection on Carlsbad Boulevard at PoinsettiE
Lane. With this project, there will an additional signalized intersection to access Parcel B, north o
Poinsettia Lane. There will be another intersection, south of Poinsettia Lane, that will access to Parcel C
as well as Planning Area 1.
Commissioner Compas asked Mr. Quon to discuss the Ponto connection to Carlsbad Boulevard.
Mr. Quon pointed out that the new intersection that will provide access to Parcel C as well as provide the
potential for the Ponto Drive (presently a private road easement) connection sometime in the future. In
order to avoid traffic conflicts with traffic entering Carlsbad Boulevard from the existing northbound ramp
at Ponto Drive, this project would necessitate placing a cul-de-sac at Ponto Drive. However, the residents
and property owners on Ponto Drive will still have access to Carlsbad Boulevard at Avenida Encinas.
Commissioner Compas asked Ms. Landers to elaborate, for the benefit of those present at this meeting,
the City's position regarding views.
MS. Landers stated that, at the present time, the City does not have (nor does it propose to have) a view
ordinance. It is an issue that is very difficult to enforce. However, Carlsbad is cognizant of trying to
maintain an aesthetic view for people and, like anything else, views change. By example, Ms. Landers
suggested that structures sometimes become the view and not necessarily an obstruction.
Commissioner Compas inquired as to what percentage of this project will be one-story buildings and what
percentage will be two-story.
..
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMlSSlO IJ) November 5,1997 0 Page 1
MS. Landers stated that staff does not know what those percentages are and that issue will be examine
when staff reviews the Tentative Map or the Planned Unit Development for each of the parcels.
Chairperson Nielsen asked if there will be any reduced parking allowances made for the mixed use anc
commercial portions of this project.
Ms. Landers replied that the Specific Plan does not provide for any parking reductions and if the applicar; chooses to do so, he will have to request those parking reductions at the time of the Tentative Map stag1
and there is no proposal to do so at the present time.
Chairperson Nielsen asked if tandem parking is going to be allowed in all of Unit A area.
Ms. Landers stated that at this time there is no tandem parking proposed.
Chairperson Nielsen inquired as to whether there was any consideration given to leaving part of the
commercial designation at the corner of Poinsettia Lane and Avenida Encinas, to accommodate thf
possibility of building a gas station to serve local residents.
Ms. Landers responded by stating that the relocation of the commercial portion was the result o
discussions, by the applicant and staff, with the Coastal Commission’s staff. The Coastal Commissior
feels very strongly that there should be a commercial presence along Carlsbad Boulevard. Although staf
and the applicant felt that a preferable location would be at Avenida Encinas and Poinsettia Lane, thc
Coastal Commission disagreed very strongly. In response to Coastal’s concerns, the applicant decided to
Further, locating commercial at Avenida Encinas and Poinsettia Lane would create a difficult interface, as
well as compatibility problems, between residential land uses and commercial land uses.
Chairperson Nielsen asked why the commercial space was downsized to the new location.
Ms. Landers deferred to the applicant for that information. However, Ms. Landers stated, the applicanl
worked that out with the Coastal Commission staff. Ms. Landers added that staff does not believe that the
proposed commercial site is a bad commercial location and there is probably a need for some types of
commercial uses along Carlsbad Boulevard. It is expected that at some time the area along Ponto may
also develop with commercial development. Ms. Landers went on to state that staff has mentioned to the
applicant that it might be beneficial to him to delay development of this small site until the properties to the
south want to develop and then come in with a comprehensive, well-designed plan.
Chairperson Nielsen asked if staff agrees with displacing the commercial from Avenida Encinas and
Poinsettia Lane.
Ms. Landers responded affirmatively and pointed out that there are several other commercial areas with
gas stations in close proximity and with easy access.
Mr. Quon pointed out that if the developer chose to put a gas station on that corner, it would reduce the
parcel size and bring all the driveways very close to the intersection and that would add further access
and potential traffic conflicts to the Avenida Encinas/Poinsettia Lane intersection.
Chairperson Nielsen asked if there is the potential for a bus transfer station and if so, where will it be
located.
Ms. Landers stated that it would not be within the Specific Plan boundaries and she assumes that if there
is such a station, it would be on the NCTD property.
Chairperson Nielsen stated that the NCTD property is already overcrowded and asked how buses would
be put in there.
go ahead with the Coastal COtnmisSiOn’S decision and relocate their commercial to Carlsbad Boulevard.
MINUTES
PLANNl NG COMMl SSlO 9 November 5, 1997 0 Page ’
Ms. Landers replied that that is a policy issue or a decision that NCTD would have to make and it wou
not be within the city’s jurisdiction to make such a decision.
Chairperson Nielsen suggested that without that jurisdiction, this project is not truly a Transit Orient(
Development.
Ms. Landers stated that this is a true Transit Oriented Development but that the city has certa
jurisdictions and they do not include the NCTD property.
Commissioner Welshons pointed out that NCTD already has buses that service the Commuter Rz
Station and utilize their existing parking lot.
Applicant, Doug Avis, 5055 Avenida Encinas, Suite 210, Carlsbad, stated that he is committed to the TO
concept and described his project as a “suburban” TOD, in that it will not have the density that a TO
normally has. He stated that his staff has spent the past month meeting and working with all th
neighborhoods surrounding this project and have made amendments in an effort to accommodate an
create compatibility with those neighborhoods. Regarding the view issue, Mr. Avis stated that aftc
meetings with several factions, his organization has been able to work out acceptable alternatives to th
original proposal in addition to controlling their product type. He further pointed out that controlling the
product type meant that they voluntarily eliminated apartments, in favor of single-family homes, thereb
reducing building heights to a maximum of thirty feet and solving the “view” problem. Regarding the ga
station issue, Mr. Avis stated that after much time and consideration, he and his staff concluded th:
neither a gas station or a fast food restaurant would be appropriate for the corner of Avenida Encinas an
Poinsettia Lane and abandoned any previous plans for that type of development.
Commissioner Heineman asked Mr. Avis to address the issue of buses with regard to LEG0 and othe
potential sites that will be accessed by bus and if he believes that, from a physical standpoint, the statio1
will be able to handle a number of buses.
Mr. Avis stated that they have spent a lot of time with NCTD and have proposed to build new streets anc
sidewalks to access the rail station and that he, indeed, feels that the station will be able to handle ai
increased bus presence. In addition, Mr. Avis pointed out that the Encina Waste Water District owns thl
property across the street from the station and there is a great opportunity for public benefit of publit
money, to add bus transfer areas and additional parking for the station.
Nick Banche, Attorney, 71 5 Pierview Way, Oceanside, representing Magellan Corporation, stated tha
Magellan has a right to acquire Planning Areas B and C from Mr. Avis and his partners. Magellar
understands that the project is being changed, with regard to Planning Areas B and C, from multi-family tc
single-family and they accept that and support the project as is currently proposed. Mr. Banche alsc
pointed out that if the Commission approves the concept of this TOD, that approval does not give anyone
the right to build anything. It only gives them the right to plan and go through the discretionary process.
Commissioner Noble stated, for the record, that he had spoken to Mr. Banche by telephone and that Mr
Banche did not say anything on the telephone that he did not say at this meeting.
Chairperson Nielsen opened Public Testimony and offered the invitation to speak.
Tommy B. White, 6910 Sandcastle Drive, Carlsbad, read his statement in which he expressed grea‘
concern for both legal and illegal parking in several areas in close proximity to this project. Mr. White alsc
presented a photo survey of beach parking on Sunday, November 2, 1997, along with a copy of his
statement, to the Commission and urged that his project not be approved. A copy of his statement anc
photos are on file in the Planning Department.
MINUTES
PLANNl NG COMMl SSl 0 !P November 5, 1997 0 Page 1
Kent Schnoeker, President of Harbor Pointe Homeowner Association, 6880 Seaspray Lane, Carlsbac
stated that he and his fellow residents were not notified of the impact that this project would have on then
He continued by pointing out that some of the concerns of his organization are: site distance profilc
density excess, an experimental TOD, parking, and water run-off to name a few. Mr. Schnoeker read hi
statement and concluded by stating that he recommends that the Commission approve the Report and th’
EIR as amended. Mr. Schnoeker presented a copy of his statement to the Commission, a copy of whic
is on file in the Planning Department.
Leslie Tanner, Lanikai Lane Mobilehome Park, Carlsbad, stated that most ‘of the residents of he
community are in favor ,of this project, overall, but feel that there are some changes that should be mad
before the final approvals. She complimented all who have had a part in this project and voiced overij
support.
Commissioner Noble asked Ms. Tanner if she has gotten all the changes she has asked for.
Ms. Tanner responded by saying that she really would prefer to see the land developed into a nice par1
with trees, flowers, benches, waterfalls, and more. However, she stated that the changes that have beel
made in this project will result in a quality project that everyone can be proud of.
Ronald Zawistowski, 1009 Daisy Avenue, Carlsbad, questioned the validity of the data and statistics tha
were presented in the staff report and suggested that they be looked at more carefully. He suggested tha
a TOD has unrealistic goals that cannot and will not be achieved. Mr. Zawistowski expressed concern:
regarding traffic, schools, and density. He urged the city to slow the rate of development and to step back
and take a good look at today’s problems before they continue with more development.
Mary Ashworth, 6955 Whitecap Drive, Carlsbad, read a prepared statement, expressing her disapproval o
this project. Her concerns are traffic, air quality, water supply, the inappropriately termed “transit orientec
development“, low income housing, and schools. Ms. Ashworth presented a copy of her statement to the
Commission, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department.
Commissioner Welshons asked Ms. Ashworth if she had read the Specific Plan and the Staff Report.
Ms. Ashworth replied that she had not read the Specific Plan nor the Staff Report, only the EIR.
Commissioner Welshons suggested that she read both of the above mentioned documents because they
will help to fill in some of the information that Ms. Ashworth seems to be unaware of and also because she
would be interested in Ms. Ashworth’s comments after she has read the current documents.
Betty Williams, 6854 Watercourse Drive, Carlsbad, expressed her total opposition to this project. She
voiced concerns regarding density, the close (dangerous) proximity of the railroad to the project, and
schools. She suggested that light commercial or manufacturing should be developed on the property as
well as hotels to accommodate tourism. Ms. Williams presented a copy of her statement to the
Commission, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department.
Rick LeBlanc, 834 Bluewater Road, Carlsbad, expressed he deep concern regarding water run-off that will
cause increased deterioration along the coast at South Carlsbad State Beach as well as other shore
areas. He also stated that the schools are much too crowded and cannot handle more enrollment.
Louis Taschner, 1533 “D” SO. Coast Highway, Oceanside, an attorney representing Dale and Donna
Schreiber (Ponto Storage, Inc.), expressed concerns regarding drainage and suggested that the
developer be required to provide the pipeline(s) that will be needed at build-out, now, rather than allow him
to wait and install them as they are needed. The second issue of his concern is the access to the Ponto
area and stated four suggested solutions, and their feasibility, to avoid cutting off emergency ingress and
egress to Ponto Drive South. Mr. Taschner submitted a copy of his statement to the Commission, a copy
of which is on file in the Planning Department.
.. . .
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMlSSlO 4D November 5,1997 0 Page 2
Dan Downing, 7254 Mimosa, Carlsbad, stated his concerns regarding the supposed lack of adherence t
the Growth Management Plan, that schools and services lag behind the population increase. Howeve
since something will inevitably be built on this property, he stated that he supports the concept of the sty1
of this project and suggested that this style of development is a “must” for all development in Carlsbad
He referred to a 1994 magazine article which suggested that cities need to build new communities that w
rely on mass transit, as opposed to continued reliance on the automobile, or suffer continued gridlock. H
concluded by stating that more people friendly communities are needed.
Michael 8. Walker, 6971 Whitecap Drive, Carlsbad, spoke about what he termed the significar environmental impact Of the project to the visual aesthetics for the residents of the communitie
surrounding this project. Mr. Walker, a Civil Engineer, presented photographs illustrating the loss of vie\
and pointed out that structures higher than thirty feet are in complete opposition to the need to preserv
scenic views as described in the City Scenic Corridor Guidelines. Mr. Walker concluded by stating tha
the wishes of the voters in 1986 should be honored by rejecting an additional 560 units that more thar
doubles the project‘s density. Mr. Walker submitted a copy of his statement to the Commission, a copy o
which is on file in the Planning Department.
Applicant, Doug Avis, 5055 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, stated that his project will meet all parkin!
requirements of the city. Referring to a TOD, Mr. Avis stated that any literature on the subject of TOD!
states that the first thing that should be done is to take away parking, in an effort to force the residents tc
take advantage of the transit and pedestrian orientation of the community. He quickly added, however
that they will indeed meet all of the parking requirements as required by the city.
Regarding Mr. Tashner‘s concern with traffic circulation, Mr. Avis stated that they are attempting tc
address all of the circulation issues and is confident that they will arrive at an amicable solution. As for the drainage, Mr. Avis suggested that by the very nature of this project, they will be installing an eighty inch
drainage pipe, in one or two phases, and will achieve what Mr. Tashner is asking for.
Commissioner Monroy asked Mr. Avis to respond to a remark by Mr. Tashner regarding a cul-de-sac on
the Schreiber property.
Mr. Avis deferred to staff to answer Commission Monroy’s question.
In response to the issue of overcrowding of schools, Commissioner Noble pointed out that it has been
stated that new schools are being built that will not only relieve the current overcrowding but will ultimately
accommodate more enrollment. He then asked Mr. Avis to estimate when this project would achieve
buildout.
Mr. Avis replied that it will probably be about four to five years. He further pointed out that it will probably
be one to two years before the first building permits for the project will be pulled.
Commissioner Welshons asked what the project will be paying in school fees.
Mr. Avis replied that they have annexed into the Mello Ill district and to the best of his recollection, the
principle amount of the fees are approximately $6,700 which goes directly to the schools.
Mr. Quon, responding to the question regarding the Ponto cul-de-sac, stated that it is the city’s intention to
build a standard cul-de-sac. A standard cul-de-sac is one that meets all city standards and are designed
to allow large trucks, such as fire trucks, to turn around without having to maneuver.
Seeing no one else wishing to testify, Chairperson Nielsen closed Public Testimony.
ACTION: By consensus, this item was continued to the next regular meeting of the
Planning Commission on Wednesday, November 19, 1997.
18
MINUTES
0 0 EXH
POINSETTIA PROPERTIES
Fiscal Impact Analysis of
Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan
April 7, 1997
Submitted by:
HSL/BP/Michan, Limited Partnership
2892 Jefferson Street
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(619) 729-1677
Prepared by:
Onaka Planning & Economics
P.O. Box 12565
La Jolla, CA 92039-2565
(619) 535-1420
(OP/E 135)
I( /d
0 0
I. EXECUTNESUMMARY
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to estimate the fiscal impacts of future development in accordanc
with the proposed Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan (City of Carlsbad, 1996~). In this stud:
the future development and the specific plan will both be referred to as the proposed projec
The specific plan, which has been submitted separately to the City of Carlsbad, describes th
zoning and development standards which would be applied to a property located in the southwer
quadrant of the city. The following applications will also be processed concurrently with th
Specific Plan: General Plan Amendment (GPA), Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA,
Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment (LFMP), and Zone Change (ZC). This fisc;
impact study is intended to satisfy the city’s information requirements for these proposed action:
Project Description
The Poinsettia Properties specific plan area consists of three Assessor’s parcels totallin
approximately 90 acres in the City of Carlsbad’s Local Facilities Management Zone 22, in th
southwest quadrant of the city. Uses adjacent to the specific plan area include the North Count
Transit District Station (Poinsettia Station) and Lanikai Lane Trailer Park to the nortf
commercial developments along Avenida Encinas to the east, Lakeshore Gardens Mobile Horn1
Park to the south, and South Carlsbad State Beach to the west. Regional setting and parce
location are shown in Figure 1-1. Parcel number, size, and tax rate area are shown below.
Parcel Assessor’s Parcel No. Gross Acres Tax Rate Area
A 2 14-450-25 55.7 9027
B 214-150-17 18.7 9027
C 2 14- 150- 18 17.5 9027
Total 91.9
OP/E 135 1 Poinsettia Properties FI!
e e
Poinsettia Propert
Sp e cific Pi
Carisba
4
/
Figure 1-1
PROJECT LOCATION
OP/E 135 2 Poinsettia Properties F /
0 e
The proposed project is based on the principles of Transit Oriented Development (TOD), whic
are intended to minimize the need for automobile-based trips within the development a
encourage pedestrian access. This is accomplished in three ways. First, the plan utilizes
trail/parkway system to promote non-automobile circulation within the specific plan are;
Second, the plan provides for "pedestrian scale" in the design of buildings and public space
Third, the plan integrates commercial, retail, and residential uses near the Poinsettia Trans
Station. to enable multiple-purpose trips for transit users.
The specific plan identifies eight planning areas, with a total development of 1,009 housir
units, 120,000 square feet of commercial retail or office, neighborhood recreation, trails, ope
space, and circulation. Total housing units include affordable housing and the associated densit
bonus. Figure 11-1 and Table 11-1 in Section I1 show the locations and buildout development (
planning areas.
Fiscal Impact Study Methodology
Impact on the General Fund
The fiscal impact study examines the effect of the proposed project on the revenues an
expenditures of the city's general fund. Effects on special revenue funds and enterprise fund
are likely to be neutral, since charges may be levied to cover the full cost of providing service:
Effects on capital funds are addressed in a supplemental discussion of public facilities financing
which accompanies the proposed amendment to the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zonl
22 (City of Carlsbad, 1996b).
Average vs, Marginal Cost Analysis
This study analyzes averaye costs, based on the projected revenues and expenditures of the city'
general fund for the current fiscal year (FY) 1996-97. When no significant capacity constraint!
are foreseen or when capacity (Le., capital) improvements are fully funded, the average cos
andysis is more conservative than marginal cost analysis, because the revenues generated by tht
proposed project are assumed to cover not only the incremental cost of additional services, bu
also a pro rata share of fixed costs such as general government, maintenance of buildings an(
grounds, and other citywide services.
OP/E 135 3 Poinsettia Properties FI! ,/ I
e 0
In$lutiun
All revenues and expenditures are computed in terms of 1996 dollars, except where noted
Future revenues or expenditures are discounted to 1996 dollars.
summary of conclusions
At buildout, future development as permitted in the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan i
anticipated to result in general fund revenues exceeding expenditures by about $21,300 annually
or about 2.4% of total revenues attributable to the project. Estimated revenues excee
expenditures in four of the seven planning areas, which are proposed for developmenl
(Planning Area 3 is planned for open space, to be maintained by residents in Planning Areas
and 4.) It is anticipated that commercial development in Planning Area 1, single family housin
in Planning Area 2, mixed-use development in Planning Area 6, and single family or multifamil
housing in Planning Area 8 would generate excess revenues to the general fund. Multifamil:
housing in Planning Areas 4, 5, and 7 would require expenditures in excess of revenues
Planning Area 5 is planned for affordable housing.
For the proposed project, property taxes represent the largest source of revenues to the genera
fund, followed by sales tax revenues. The largest expenditure category is public safety (polic
and fire protection), followed by public works (engineering and community development) an1
community services (recreation and maintenance of streets and other city facilities).
OP/E 135 4 Poinsettia Properties FI
1
v) W
3
z w P
a
-
Y 7-
t n
ti
z.2 <
Zn W 'ax
U n (6
tu n a,
v) .- W K 3
01
t m -
c. W
0
,L cb
au LL
ZW nrz I-W a
-I
3 z z a
E z 3 - -
0 v) I< .-
a
0 l-
v) I- 0 2
0 L
s
2
>.
I P
w*mmC)COrr 0 CUT-bObrQ 0 (DV)bt*r)V)OO d - 5 a qq.._._.j f;;W-40~""bb b ii$i;.i%,( V)ocov)CD(Deu 4
"i (0 69 wmmT- bcu --;{ Y
69 14 2
co_~-d--_m_ (D-*-aI 1
bWcu cum mid fffm 7
*- b- m- (D co- 0- * 7- OOw-b-b-m-(D-bp q 3
m-m-m-00" *-*-m-o- ~-o?rnT_co_kcv~- j 5
01 c0010- 0) -Ig c?b-Q)0Cu-
T- fffa m- mb 7- (D cu m- cu !iq bcum
co (uco OT-ObOINr + ea 03 *err t9 e3 e3
T-mmoobcub mbmo--b co CDcOlno aha b rnrnuqfrind- 8
7- m- cu- co- d-- o- o 01 o!b-m-T--d--co-co b- mQ)mm*mT- *
69 69
fffm-cu7 - ole
b7FalOCD?ln wmmammcu 0
O-u?~-!.(P~---=m- Q, cumamd-m* m
mbcoT- cud-m ad-d-cDcomco
bW cv 1-mmmm r .cv fffr it3 fff
m S cue3 m cu
b com~m mcuco
$
-d-mmmulmo bbammmdb cr& p$rlg3cc& g 2 2 a,
a- 0- b- w r- 0- d * Q-cD_T-T--*-o-a a- cr, m C
t t m n
C a
.- cuocommc\I m* a* NW 69 e369
CW
-
4-
m*mmo*mCo 00 T--com*mco (D m V
ab* T-T-cu *m*mmm.r la
69 5
Ombm T-T-mj* cuwmmcu** m
Qm
a
% 11
U mO3-mobb.r 0 mcom*como * W bmcub bNm b ~oobebm T- U
mcum-b*cv * c bFY 7 d- 69b-m- m- 69 T- -69 69 69 cia
E3 oc
or
fffdrrr a T- oaz
69 63 ma
fffmrcu-
l-69 - Ih cvN 69
* baa- my* d-
a,
o= .- .-
bobgo$,, $1 o(Dcu(DolcDm bCQc7Oc7NO 2 % 5-c
0- cue a- a- e- a d- 1'- a!- u- co_ T s! 0, d: $ ($ W 3
gf
boo(Db0om 0 Q)d-d-'rocom m 0 stl - ol gE-
mmcn
7
(Dol 69 tv 69 .-
mbaloJ00 moFm mm (D m LE g (9 0- cu- * ol c\l 0- m -;
oz
*bX
69-
io' a
Iv) Q
S - - X 3
v)
OP/E 135
ra mn 30 s 2:
22;: .- os r
x mZ.d :; 0 - :? =$Eggs gg v) a .-
A L - v) .c, e .v, a- .o 5 Ix
a5€ $xarnry>.
Q, x7.0 S
a, ma
=Q: X $E$)? E E raz 0, IE
v)2s$$$ap;; - 9 caggE$15 LL siip33Pgg)Z c 0 2 E e: -
ma=>
L CUI- t-xxa,J.o' m-ls
;x;e,.L&; ge=isanll ; =a, S~BELSC 3 3 oQ_ 0 0 I- J hin
Q, X a 0- a W z a-
-2 >avl~rrrn>Of ga CL CL 0 JZ 0 +3
5 Poinsettia Properties F
.. From: Michael Holzmiller
To: Ray Patchett
Date: 1/5/98 11:05AM
Subject: Questions From Councilmember Nygaard
Ray:
I
The following are responses to the questions asked this morning by Councilmember Nygaard:
1) We reviewed the files for the Harbor Pointe project and can find nothing to indicate that the city
placed a height restriction on the project. There is nothing in the conditions of approval or the staff report
to indicate a city concern over height of the homes. The city just approved what the developer submitted
in terms of elevations of the proposed homes. It is possible that the developer placed a private party
restriction on heights when he built the homes but we have no record of any city involement in that. The
city's height ordinance allowed 35' when Harbor Pointe was approved so the developer could have built
the homes to that height.
2)The Seapoint Time Share project height is 35 to the highest point on the westerly elevation visible
from Carlsbad Blvd. and 45' at the highest point on the easterly or rear elevation visible from Avenida
Encina.
3)There was a condition placed on the Brentwood Estates project on El Camino Real(behind Nick
Banche and Jim Geiser's homes) which restricted the height of trees to 25. This condition was placed on
the project by the Planning Commission and was not a recommendation of staff. That is the only instance
where I can recall a condition that specifically limits the height of trees to a specific measurement.
1
I I
/g
1
,..~ru7rum-."-*--^- -. .*.--- - "^---. CR c*! i I
~ I
I
I
I
e e
January 6,1998
TO: MAYOR
CITY CO U N C I L
Marilyn Str w FROM:
PHONE CALLS REGARDING POINSETTIA PROPERTIES
The following citizens have called stating their opposition to Poinsettia Properties:
Lorraine Larson (438-3670)
She is opposed to any high buildings being built near Aka Mira. She is a
resident of Alta Mira and feels no one’s view should be blocked by buildings.
Louise Morgan
Is concerned about this development causing an increase in traffic. Feels it
is already too congested in that area.
Trafford and Mare Morong
Live in Alta Mira IV and are concerned about the building heights along
Carlsbad Blvd.
Selma Sotts
Is a resident of Alta Mira and feels there’s too much uncontrolled development
already in Carlsbad and we can’t meet the needs of the citizens now, so please
don’t approve Poinsettia Properties.
mhs
c: City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
PHONE NO. : 760 438 5988 Jan. 05 1998 02:22PM F
AGENDA ITEM ## 15 0 FROM , : BENCHMQRK PQC I F IC
c: Mayor
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney BENCHMARK PACIFIC City Clerk
5055 Avenida Encinas, Suitc 210
Carlsbad, California 92008
(760) 438-8477
FAX. (760) 438-5980
C'
To: Mayor Claude Lewis
cc:
Members of the Carlsbad City Co~inci).
From: Doug Avis
Rate: January.5, X998
Subject: Recent Rrticle in The Coast News
X have enclosed a copy of an article which appeared recently in the
Beach News.
I believe it best states the problem which we have with some of the
Harbor Point neighbors. We I try to never approach a Public Hearing
without complete agreement with t.he neighborhood groups, in this case
I simply cannot solve their problem. They have a fundamental. belief
that our project will lower the value of their homes because: the single
family homes in our Manning Area 7 will block some of their ocean view.
Ma~lyn Strong is attempting to set meetings with all of you and myself
prior to the hearing on Tueaday night. Thank you for your tjme and
courtesy to meet with me. Hopefully, I will be able to answer any
questions you may have at that time.
Thank you.
PHONE NO. : 760 438 5988 0 Jan. 05 1998 82:23PM F 0 FROM , : BENCHMARK PAC IF I c
January 1,1998 - ?he Cm$t News'- Page 3 . .
coas91 developrnent-setio .b$ak . and Khey wantcd;us .to so!Vcr it, \ve
ground near the Poinsettia transit. would."
station sometime in: 1999- . .: ; ', .Avis has- gained sup~o+:eo~ : .. -
accomodate rhc prnposcd projkt,' park 'neighbm aftc;am
that hobes to incorporate trarisit project's ma$m planr .
oriented develophent principles, However,, Schn will go before the CiIsl~@ City tends the dtvoldpment .will, block ' ' , Council on January 61b. mqny of the Harbor Pointe ,mean- '
'
phase of the project has already down. "It's dl abut property gl: , . .
However, one of the main' spokcspersm.for the Mobilehame. ;.. .
kct. an db to hcr concerns' over the. .
.
.: ... ...
A General Plan arnqdmeri{& 'the 'Lanikai,&ane MobiIe,hke . ..
. .
The Underlying Lad .Uses . $ews,,,driving, property. valucs
received approval from, the ues,'? said Schndeker.. . . . , _/. PIanning Commission. , , , . ,.. Leslie Tanner;acting as the. .
adversaries of ihe plah,"'K~wnt, Park started out.against the pr6jeet. , Schnoeker, calIed 'th
lisbed letter.
S&n?eker is the c+,na:pres- T idem 0.f the Harbot:,Poi,nte , Homeowners Associatibn. a
deveIopmcnt that sits east-of the- proposed multi-uso'cornmunity and the 1-5 freeway. His group
has raised concerns about thc pro-
ject not fitting into the communi-
ty, and plans on openly opposing. the project at the upcoming qoun-
ci! session. ,.. "1 don't .know what they
expcct.: saia. project ilevefoper
Doug Avis; referring - to
Schrioeker's groGp. 'We are he,=
to work with the neighborhoods.
The people who agreed to work with us through the issues were able to solve the issues. I don't.
, .
i "urban swamp" in a. y,fitib- Please fvm to.Page .I3 , , ... . ..
... ':'. ' ..' , i ' ' .. I .(.. ... , ,
*-
..
0 Jan. 05 1998 EIZ:Z~PM F PHONE NO. : 760 438 5980 0 FROM, : BENCHMARK PACIFIC
, . POjflseltfiTa. :.," '.
.: antinuedfmm ,. PqeS .. ,. :. . ' ..
'proposed densiti.-in: one of the
parcels .located. 'O;.:. 'Carlsbad., .... ,
' i.. Tqnertgwght har. cvnwm<i,
.' d&ct]p: before the 'City Coupcil ;
' and-A+is. Tanner'w& able &,con: vince Avis to change thp anginal plan that called for bqfeen 350- ' 380; thrte-story conr+i and apart- ' '
.. ' . menu, to..less ibam ZOO, one-stow exclusiue.singIe fMly?ynes: ' . ,.
,.
., __ ,.- . .. . . ' Boulevard. " : , :,' " ' ''.'
' "Pe@pl~~~old ,& I'd be ciszy
. to go .bef$re the ~a~kik and thb
thc 'idca ,that we c,air. no longer march iniu suburbia, and "extend
walkways I: and' pubtiF areas
. designed to encourage pedestiar
. use and discobage thc.automobile
, , TIw neighborhoods,.or~'"villa~t pods;' prk planncd,to blend togeth
er through a pede?rianlbike va'
.. ' systew'The pbn'hqxs,:to utih the nkit~efficicnt~metM. of ge
.
.. -. . 8. *. ,' I
.. .. .. .. . ..
., " ... 6'
.. . .\
0 Af&iabY& DA ITEM # 6-
AlTORNEY AT LAW
1533 SOUTH COAST HIGHWAY, SUITE D Q Mayor OFFICE: (61 9) 725 RES.: (61 9) 722 City Council OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92054 JANUARY 5, 1998 ci?y Manager
CITY COUNCIL 6i$y 8tbSTIC?y
CITY OF CARLSBAD City Cilerk 1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE. DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
RE: POINSETTIA PROPERTIES SPECIFIC PLAN APPROVAL AND RELATED ACTIONS
HEARING DATE: 1/6/98
DEAR MAYOR and COUNCILMEMBERS:
I represent DALE SCHREIBER, one of the property owners whose property is southerly of Parcel C.
The resolution of the impacts of this project are very important to the hture development of the
"PONTO AREA (PONTO). Ponto is a neighborhood which comprises approximately 15 acres which is
when the zoning is fmally determined for the area. Some of the uses are incompatible with residential and the
old junk yard that the City cleaned up in 1984 must again be addressed.
The impacts caused by development of Parcel C can be addressed as Drainage and Road Access. The
following is a discussion of the issues presented.
developed with a half acre of residential, and the balance of the properties in uses which may be eliminated
DRAINAGE
Since all properties under the spec5c plan are diverting their drainage to the South
to join with the Master Drainage Line constructed under the Poinsettia Shores Specific Plan.
The installation of the rest of the Master Drainage Plan must be in place prior to their drainin1
any of the surface water to the South. Mi-. Schreiber will oppose any surface water draining
into the old easement which came from Poinsettia Shores Mobile Home Park.
issuance of final map or grading permit. However, there is a condition that the "applicant shal
demonstrate the adequacy and availability of public facilities". Since all surface drainage watei
is being diverted, the applicant will have to build the Master Drainage Plan prior to diverting
Page 66 of the Specific Plan only requires that a financing program be in place prior to
any water.
The Zone 22 LFMP is being requested to be amended without the phrase "applicant
shall demonstrate the adequeacy and availability of public facilites". Since this is the only
property in Zone 22 which is undeveloped and proposes to have surface drainage water
diversion to the South, this project must build out any portion of the Master Drainage Plan
required for its development.
The solution is simple: PRIOR TO OR CONCURRENT WITH GRADING, ANY
SURFACE DRAINAGE WATER SHALL BE CONTAINED ON SITE OR DRAINED
INTO THE MASTER DRAINAGE SYSTEM AS DETERMINED BY THE CITY
ENGINEER. Please incorporate the above or similar language into the Specific Plan and the
LFMP if amendment is appropriate.
ROAD ACCESS
Ponto Drive South is a one half mile road fiom Avenida Encinitas, thence North to an
egress to Carlsbad Blvd. The Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan currently proposes a direct
ingress and egress to Calsbad Blvd. which will serve the project but cut off the Carlsbad Blvd
egress from Ponto Drive South.
b 0 0
After discussion and compromise between the developer, Staff of the City of Carlsbad
and the State Coastal Commission, a 1.5 acre site has been placed at the Southerly end of
Parcel C. This small parcel Southerly of the residential portion of Poinsettia Properties with
access to Carlsbad Blvd. provides two important features: The 1.5 acre site is preserved as
Coastal Serving Commercial; and, By placing the Carlsbad Blvd. entrance to Poinsettia
Properties on the Northerly side of the 1.5 acre parcel, the potential of having another
direct access to Carlsbad Blvd, in the vicinity of the Eastmest portion of Ponto Drive is
now preserved.
DALE SCHREIBER strongly supports this solution because his property is
approximately 1/4 mile north of Avenida Encinitas and 1/4 mile south of Poinsettia Properties
Road. A new access to Carlsbad Blvd. will leave the potential for Coastal Serving Commercia
a viable option for his property in the future.
In opposition to this solution is the MASDYASMI property which now is subject to
making public the private easement between the Southerly edge of Poinsettia Properties and
the East/West portion of Ponto Drive which is 1/4 mile away. The new alignment of Poinsetti,
Properties Road requires a Cul-De-Sac on Ponto Drive South and leaves 8 parcels with no
access other than the Cul-De-Sac. A property map of the subdivided Ponto Area is attached.
According to information fiom Staff, the indication is that the Cul-De-Sac will be placed at
the Southerly edge of the MASDYASMI Property.
study for Carlsbad Blvd. Realignment that is currently underway so that a proper tr&c
pattern can be established for the fill economic use of your property and the private
properties in the area. In the event that a new solution should come out of the study, it would
only seem reasonable that the commercial 1.5 acre parcel of Poinsettia Properties should also
participate in the solution.
The specific plan language is "Parcel C shall be planned and designed in such a way thai
an extension of Ponto Road (the private easement owned by Masdyasmi ?) can connect with
the Parcel C entry road that intersects with Carlsbad Boulevard. Other than this access point,
Parcel C shall not be required to make any improvements to Ponto Road.".
This language should be amended so that Parcel C can pay for the CUI-De-Sac and be a
participant in the final solution of road access for all properties because Parcel C is responsibl
for the Cul-De-Sac on the public Ponto Drive and may be forcing the development of the 1/4
mile private easement owned by Masdyasmi.
On behalf of Dale Schreiber, I request that you include the Ponto area in your area of
Therefore, the last sentence of paragraph E. PONTO ROAD set forth on page 30 of thc
Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan (ie, Other than this access point, Parcel C shall not be
required to make any improvements to Ponto Road.) should be deleted.
Thank you for your consideration of the above issues and solutions.
Respectfully Submitted L 72 LOUIS TASCHNER
0. e
.. ..-+.
$ -.
0 a
HARBOR PBINTE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
c/o CAL WEST MANAGEMEKT 535 Encinitas Bhd. Suite 120 Enchitas CA 92
-2- AGENDAKEMt L-2
December 1997 c: ma yo^
Honorable C. k Lewis, Mayor
City Council Members
Dear Council Members;
city Council
City Manager
City Attorney city Clerk
The undersigned residents of Harbor Pointe objected to the Poinsettia Properties Project
reasons; but especially on the grounds of its damage to neighboring communities’ property vali
expressed as ocean views. We totally agree with the attached letter addressed to the Planning C
signed by our Board of Directors.
We recognize, though don’t understand, that the City of Carlsbad makes no guarantee o
other than the categorized 30 A., 35 ft., etc. limitation on building heights. There is no reason,
us, that this coastal city is one of the few that isn’t protecting such a valuable asset as the view (
We appeal that building heights, in this project, be restricted to 25 R. maximum for viev
preservation as it was for Harbor Pointe and the recently build Carlsbad Company Stores.
Building heights are only the first line of control of this problem. Most significant is the
other ocean view obstructers, primarily trees. There will be approximately 2000 trees in this pr
growing taller than the roof line are of no value to the lot owners as they cannot view that porti
tree. Growth above the roof line is seen only by the neighboring residents on the slopes sunoun
project, notably Harbor Pointe, who strongly object to the obscuring ofthe blue water view. E\
residents that do not have an ocean view recognize their property values depend upon their oce
neighbor’s property values.
We request the Council to charge the developer with a requirement for control of build;
and tree types and heights. Twenty five feet maximum for buildings. Twenty five feet maximu
heights west of the railroad tracks. Thirty five feet for tree heights east of the tracks. Anticipati
concern about adding a new code, we recommend the height limit be controlled by the new ass
CC&Rs. . Further this constraint be non-amendable, at some later date, without the approval ol
Respectfblly submitted,
Printed name: Signature: Address in Carlsbad 92009:
i’ Y---Y ------- cx _4/_.X+--&,--- P /fl;+= ------ -i-AZ--&A- ,< Af-- -~~~~~~~~~-~~-~~!~~-~~~~-~~~~-~-~
’/--LL-U ........................... A ------------------ .. ------- 7y / ,&’dd% L d&GL- IwfipZ,~C~.r;,O- d j-0 ti2 f rTiKljI ------ .................................... 1
,
Page 1 CI
AWW L.wwmau Y rimb eY L 01ms1cn seceTn()T 1997
FBSHNS%TTM PROPERTIES .
HARBOX POIWTE SEEKS RXLIgY
Ceflahly th6 Ckj and it’s plamhg hmtion seek to evaluate a proposed devehpmmt of its vduc to the city and thc hipact 011 neighboing com~aanjties.
The YohseUia. Properties, aIthongh in process of definition for 3 years, did not kcoiair
to J hhr P~kite residenb until late August ofthis yex. Wafrai hies and Lake Shore Ga
in c.1~~ proximityto the project and have been working with the developer aII this the, ifarf:
though most fledd, was ~iot approadned by the developers until Sqtcmbcr. FurLEicr Aha I%f
Sea Clig alth~~gh simiiady impacted, were lefi out ofhe picture uek-d a presentahn tQ the !
Quadrant HOA Coalition was mad@ in September.
.r
E’ropcrly b7d~~cs in Harbor Poinie will $ea.easc proportionally $0 each foot of Boiltrsetti
Propei3k-s buikkag bight up to a total as much as $30,008 per 10% &&te-$. A 25 foot buildia will wipe out thc blue of",^ man views for &out 30 homes. A 35 fit building height qat:
%Sf) hwes an# 45 feet decimales 300 homes’ v&,~e.
The developer recognizing a wave of opposition to his early devdopment glatls climg
ren’zils and condos thax may be as hi& as 34 feet to single fily homcs two stories tall. ‘h
IS, up to 1 hour before the Planning Corurmissiotn’s meeting of November 19 tIr, -that they WOL
exced 25 feet in building heeight. Mommts lakt they asked that the 30 fi. height be retained z
plamed lo have the roofs pitched high to create a Europw village appemmce. Aqy. good ,arc
cre:ite a viliagc appearance wij’uout execding the 25 foot level. Other eoataE communities al
fla1 roofs to mahitah view conidon for rcsi&nts living b~ the upper sections ofstratified horn
back ~fihe immediate coast liiie.
In addition to imposing a 25 fmt limit we mgently request n serious attempt be mxdc t
clevdopcr. to invoke con$-o%on trce heights. We estimate about 1 SO0 keds will he installed in
project. Withont limits on tree selection md imposed trimming constraints 3 solid wall of gee
begin blockkg owan views within a relatively few years. Presently there ~PG a dozen or so pal
kpoA~g on CarIsbad BM. These now stamid 40 to 45 feet tall and am above the Izorizon k2e a
ksi ti the Iii@~st locations in Harbor Pokte.
&lQIItrd of kec invasion of neighboring vietvs an be exercised bough a noa-rcvisabk
clause imposed by &IC developer now. Ifthc City GUXIQ~ put the languag; togelher now fur B <
Oiiented De~ebpniefit (COD), similar to their Transit Oriented DeveIoprnenr, at least a relea
project sh~~ld include a sequirement for coniommce to a later release o’fti-ie COD.
i
/ /’ ~i n
‘k-- i ,a& Q& Lq
______^_-_-__----------- -” -L-d ______ -__-- .c-e:wA ___- --L!--.--. --------------- ...................... ‘; Adele McTi&e, D
/ 6 JJ / ?’(
Kent Sch~eker, DiPectorRresident Vyto hfitiikm, DkectorXice President
/
-., , 4
+&&d%,
__________^______________I___ LwA&A-42&--- --I-------- ----
, Director!Treaum iTilliam Boldt. Director
Page 2
l e 0
IC ' /A\/ -1 ' li 7 j I.,.- ac%z: \ A ~ 'c,-;:i;.. / (I\,
-I /7// ,/ / A iil; //!A 1 (?,x 2 1? / I L L J & [ ,/&gg>f,*,~'\~\hy .I;
--0 &C!l%C*Td,,&k ------ I------ ..I------ "--I------------ -----------------I------ ---L-LLd&&- Oj& i i -*&?L;rLk ---_------^ /$ _--I
- LLJ;~~~~ 3 -----e-Y_- L$&2h2L-L& ---- +LLL,J-, 3/% 4.H g?;+ -J 1 z+ ..................... fie70 & ; i'z -"A,:, x/'3L; I---. --yY <-:\ d
g/&&- ,&[ff%c /" && Cr i >? &4?3&;2&-! A',
~~~~~~~~~ POIINTE OBJECTION TO POINSETTIA PROPEK~IES - EE'B"~E
PlriAlltlCd namc: Signature: Address in Carlsbnd 92009:
----------------D--------------------------------------------~------------"-------------------
ry j ri 0 &&' )', u)c I' ,/ '1 , ~-- l-...-.-n----------a-r--..--~
c/,;. ?I-/>/ : !..: --------- ................................................................ . / i
I/ 1 / , ' -- [Lj,df //sy ,- e 7/ : L / L L '/,j,w"/ , ,) 1 7 / / , 4z; J[7/1 ,y
%:?-c -*i.v;//
------.I---------- --------- I-o-s--/B,-,-L",,~-~~-~"~- IllsU"II-UUMs-IOL II"pI.-.#-III --om--.
, L,/ Li &-zur--J
- Rmd2t ----" :jLh,7&!i& --------..---- L-Lk ---- &m@2 --- 7 -- JJL e-u*- ---_------_---------_I_______________. &i&2Ld2kL&+.iaD /g
\I
I/ 1
I
2 pZc... srL(..-, /J ,+ //7 &/ ,/, <?Ay2- +L.L&--.. ,i ____^_ ~ ---------I-- &' LY-'d&4-<L *c --i-z=-i-, --A+ ----A .+ --- -=-+L!
f-r
---"----------~,----~---~~- ----------------Y--I---------p--.l---------------------------------- 4 /' I
x< {
(i, 2 [I -7 i,: ."T A - ! G* - rz.l,iL_l-,-,,, ------------------- ---.
(5 27%-3 U/?Zb
i
Page 3
0 0 HMK POINTE 0WEflION TO PBINSErnIrB PWOII'EKTEES - EET'I'E
~~~~----~z-! " J44-c bn 16.1--dCru r: (
l<&-LL//&."--57- P F r%x-& -?U&?L/&
Ig&J c4J&, Li'CC
Printed name: r3dd~~ in C~lsbacB 92009:
____ ____ II__________
io 8<-0 t ,LA/, i(7,
--P--_-----I--__----_l__l_
c fL/ b yh4fix ',>
-.=--.----------
".--------I- I----- dL --_--- ,e,.& --L*-d$
-D.C.I..-"PIIO~.PIV"~~"~~-~~~~~~~-".~"~~~~~ pd~ -I- -A:l*5L-Ldgi&a 4 ------------- I [d-- +--& Bp?,, -------- e>- ---A ----------------- &v --LL p --__-_----______ LdL &- &c ;!SA
> //,) i. j& J i d(&f ;// ::y(,;.j r -- d h!.L2&UL-- fr
-d--- LLyjp- - ----------- ". -----I--_ %-L- &Pic: -..- &Y&. LEL ~~-L-&- -------- &-
'D&?qJ& c;;~l.&A&Qi'/&~~ Ap-?m..dAZt4
J
'I :i ' !/. 1
[I yy /&&i,c {;!I ,,i )L-;,;, ,r;P 1 L2-X !f ----_--- .L&d&-*+-+..&L2 >! ^--------^-----p---I__u ,-,lr ----- .L--L-.;
k /), 4 k&Jfi 9; c' Lq-71 1 L&.+
/3/-'- ?. / &gBiJ+ 7/ r ,,-
1 pc ,JJ++ (d.&lL ..-91----P- L -- -- &J- u------. _----l-----YIII-----_---^--__-I- if bdi,
----------------m /d.yT--------^-I- ___c1 ---_-_-_--^-^---I---_l___^l__________^_
I ., ., -- -1 _-...-- jP! -,a. ---LL-s-.- ------
Y
_1_o1_----1------1--------------------------------------.----------------------------------------
Page 4
0 0 E
POINTE OBJECTION TO POHNSETTW PROPERTIES - LETT2
$%htb@d 81aIIN: SEnn?Xtu;e: Addircss in CarBsbadl 92009:
------------ Ebb!%&@ f, PfiPFtW
+J+'/ - -.&-'ZL -.------ Ldfl& I-- J$2<:59E /d&$&-
--------_------_-----------1-1--- €u P- P&pLyL f-".- ~--'-"--"""""'-'---~----------------- L $3.1 &!@d-G-& l"c;r
La3~A!$d4,uLrR. -7kL 6wb!y 8. @FUGA ---^--_---u--u----I-_-u.-------~
~~-~~~~~~~~~~.~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
)'c
_----- -IULl---_----~.-__--sPY
------ f&<G /P& --+4F&lfL<
-? /;;I{]- 9 I :,
.........................
'r' p 1; 6. L!. q ,&&<. ,,-, i 1,.-6: .;*AI+ f /&&TI -------
",'??
A:LLi&b&kh-L--2zkL$i -e----- ..LL-.-&--L,- I--- A- -----e-------- ;'B-,L&.- _- c
J
-' i' \ /' I ,/ ,, .- -Q-, 7 &; /!:.-A) c;> /fl ,/L/
:) il <--' ! e?['; p L,,'! ...,' _1 ,p n j-7 ,! / j.1 fi, i;. n 6?
e-,, 9-2,, i , ?'O -~~ ______ *----.pz--cL&L ---- &
P-Pk' .,LL, 2454&
&;j 3 /,x, (-//?,,A,Ti- ,?:; ;,:; s
' 7-2 -7 ,-, '\, ;\ ,/
~ / '7 *Tc;,l ,; &.,,%------ -1 -------E
I' j</cr(c-:- .!
.#Le"..--"-"---- ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,-,,,,------~-------~-~------~----~-~--~-~~-"------~-----~----~------
>/,; -J-L:L-L/ _-__II__-_ * _--..----
,//I /i -~ -$.,?+ -j-. ,. --LLLJ-2--2-2\LL ----. =- /*
*, 67 ,J cj
[: $3 7 ii i.i.,2,-L( c TX&A/& l.: P,,> 2L-.
, ,z-2,L 'r.ltr: .$*-4-, /!!I ' / / \\ C.<h 'y i; c-ph,t >-& LS?:~ .j f? (9 b? 12,
qJ;&z /&).y&/g &ji i siL,&L~G c,;; --& S&.&&$E fi.3=?$j!& cd- . --dl.
S>/jL,i i .Ii>.- (31 b. 5 (- &? p2+ r i Y2.ykL<A 4. L. \5 &\ %;,,I, .J&f&L L?/& /? /$:-7 &,. d -. AJ b I_- ,,,,,,,.,m.,,,,.,d, ~L~-ll..lll-l-181.-~-~=~~~~~"~--~-~ (&&-- -eruc,;n r-.n--.u~~*~-4;* igZ&i*i
bdOQ&i A STd$k&&S && Q+
'< -. 1 + (7) , 'Jl
.:---e-..- I--y____ LL.d --s-------- I --------- .L-,...,,~,,-,, -- y----s~-.y-k"L-L ----e .&.A ----e
.-- ,i I t.3 (1 . .. L t c, E L L A, J9 $,')j c +I PI -- 4; -. cp 9 1 -3- dLL&J.-&.JLLL - L!A-mL=LxiLL _____-- L- &-&A -^--- ------ ---------... L-?---
P
---------^-r-i-------------lr-----------------------~------------------------------------------------. .- . !7 ,1 &A',J+?:-c,2 ~ 2'
I' ,& ,
if-l
j q;, 7 &,', --. /r. -<i' /: ./' .d (3 - /),,<(, ,.,'<-': /'' \. ,/ . ,.> /, g>7yv, --~- ___________________ ld!-LL&!L I--_-_ Lz2e -----I---- - ----- L ---e---- -------&L---
$;/a r' /I,, ~ 1) .--- / ,AN/
/.LC> J C__.._____R__ i $ - t p L/ ----'-------~---~ ,?/ :Ic?n$ [~,~!J[J-$~~~~~ --- - -,y,,~~L------------------------------ 6 rl . . j .\ ) ,; (, ~,~~~-~~~>L~~;L+,L--.
__-_ , -----------e------------------e-----43--~~-----------~----, -----------.-------------------"
4 (1 f.
,.A
I
4 It] /. :yv / I L. ' -x/ +f k.,/ .L, 7, ,"-/ ./e / i J ,,
J
Page !
--
0 0 ,e
EI !,AB< MI R lYB IN'II'E 0 KJ l!! CTION 71'0 POI N s K'rTLi PRO 1' Bi RT B KS - 1, &;'y'[' b; 17
',\,J 2' c ',. u; c /-(L jALE, *wf c: , ~ _, --..--------------- ---- ---- ------ 1 ----- b ----_ d --_-- ~~=-~~t,,r--,,,-r-_i ----e
P'rinlcd name: Signature: /address in {ladslhad 9200'):
,. ..
;'j ,& ,y I-;- c::; !-LC 1- --~ t ,/,I79 T-
---------I-- L--!
(. :* pi
l:-LL2LdA-&L2 -I ,-;,
, .,
-9 \ ,, ".-",S j,'
-----L-------L--.
n. ,: ,\
I.
,.
*I
' ' t, ;. i -------"-------------~.----,,L,,-',ill,,----,-'i-;,',,,~i,-,',,,,,,,,,_,__,i;.-,,,,-,,,,j;-~-,,-,. >{: I' 1 I .-.' : . ' ., , 1. i
-,,:I .. .. .~
?' i) !' ' -: - ;f,; : :.
\ I.
,J j .~ ' x /,I I,) ,. ; ,' ! i 1) ,;/ i ,~$$
L i'l: - hL-- i/{ [l/i ---------------- Ll -L., [i ' /{, ( ie ---- I- i'. /L. ' ---A- 1.: ; ['j ' r ----------- h,L.. * i k-!------ k-L-L-- ___-____ .L ,-Liz c- ______I______ ( ) !.,( -..(-1.pd- _________: (.)- (
/(Fr: ' ), , ii , fL.(/' .. ~--~-~-~~~-~~-~-~-~-~~~~~~-~~~~~ -------- hL.kl/ _i -----..-------.. I
4--l-2-<cL.lLL ---^I- ,'7 JJ~22-5-~-d.Ak2-i:<L~ /i. 7. /+? I'i 8 - ,,
..--- I-,kA-,,,,--, B 8. . 3p*,,- i
y \, lyy;y, I\ i :'Li ,I'
,. (!, > i. ,-I; / ;I: j.. %. :? : ,I i ,- ,I -. i& '?P, ,,, ,L,,-.,,*' . I' ~ -----------_____l_______________ I--.
i/ c 'L -- . ) j 1, ~ <>'i ---- k ______ .L-J!!&-CLl.
: ; *t '
7 -_- /
.. ,I, , z. .~. ..
/ i, /' ' j',
' . -!L I j-c, , >~, --2Z!Y 4 ------ __^-----------------__________Iy I------------ i _____-____---- - ---I-.
;; *'J,tLj 'A,- ,L
-c -_-_ 2LLk ---_- _-LLL .................... 34 ----- 4 ----- LL.-A-.-& ------- "--'__-i--i~-lil;--;_-i.
, r- /'
c , f ' I' ., 1 [ "i'..,,p.\,, i. 2 yv PP 1
',, , ,
/'" ' .' >~ \, ' -> 1
t .x 1'L \ ~ :i!i, i,J - / i ' 3 ii ;c! . ' ' \\L,,;7!'ji
8- I , - ,I' ,;I [- \ , * / .? -j 1,' - ' //
k <Ti, I' ;: ,vue
'1. :', c )-L;,/ .-
I .A ..~ .- ,,, . x.
i ._ :-. : . L :. i_ ,: , c , Lf: '. 1 ' , , ../ - .................................................................... _____-_____________---------.
J\ . .>.-~: i -? _- -~------ - -* ---------- i-- J-LL -------- -----.---------- -,------C-.L-c. i"l j I t, .- qJi p i"\ ;Q1 9 7 \ p,;
---lzLLkM-L I---- llL2-GT ____________ L 1 ,i ., ~
- -3
Q .. \,A-
r I ,-, L . ! - %I .-, I j
__-- i-A-LLlIL--.&L ?":2 ----- 14. k a: ----- ------------
------l-:----i~--2;.----- 4 ;,*- L *(; t)r :,yip -.c, $
pjlp,, !O , ''Ai-/ ;.' $L! [q ;
__ /-I //F,,?c ____ _____ T, d---L-& ,$;irG ____ LLb\ __-__ a L .,. ---I,--- ,
/iy.y. 1 E-, zL,,f4 5 5
I/ ? I!
I. '2
' /: / < ,x <7 *.' ii ,.,-)pi ,; ' .', 7 ,'
, ..-. , .? /
4, ,*. , I.. Y ,,/J ,/ -
i_.i--------,-l-l-..,,---"/I--I----------."----------------------------- 6-
,I>,, , ?r , 1, .._' j
r f i( C!'
'2 I ;j I ! , '\ ' .,' P it , .
I " , -I ________-_____-_-__------------------ 'd&i) 1 I x/[, ,,\ i t{.,A k A2-i ___c__--____________--------------- i--'--- ALL---
LI ____ +--L _______ 5 ------- __-- "---LL ---I---- LL+-!L-L2--
c, 1.5- ~,~ ,( ; . \, -! ,&: i
1Z-L. j/; -0 __------ i-ilLiL.,--iL---'-~..
;/ !.. '1
,I .. c; 0 /' i ,i :; i ;> c' I > ;I (. - ( ,,/, , <\L/i '. y: - ( , ,/; ' /.: i i' \; Y 'is.. 1 2- ,KT)L
., , I t4
I
.,x 1
I -. ,, ,.. i //, k,, i ;:+,f,-\ c . .kVI--Lk:Li --------------- 2-F ----- dkLL-L..
-A,., T <<[.I" /(,x- $/ LC, -=.-/< /---7 ------------ ___________-------------- --------------..---- ---------------- ---------------1 6B7f st?GqL
CPIQ-l-5h3Q (
' ; '.:> q $ +. -<x,,,'
IT
-------_--------------------------------,---------------------------------------------------------- (iL(&-f&?.Q b 05-7d /z??&.J k
.I 'r --..._
' j \ /iL %(' ~~bb,.~<~,~
---T _________ c-- ____A ___-______-____--_-_--- 2 --------1-----------------------
Fzge 6
--. -. ...
0 a
R BO'B[NTE QbWECTION TO PO3rlilNSETTIA PROPERTIE$ - ]LETTER -- Printed nramc: Signature: Address In Carlsbnd 920639:
/-
(-77p ,&- L; ,/ . /?p&r ':.-E
---." ."-< -b-r.--- ~~..-&."2~~~&L-A.--_ -----
t I ,/)JdpJ ,'LC. /-ac)
/'
/7 ip I?.. :f ,;{ ,5..'/ I---
*--~&!;J~-Y~~m&
1-3 ,,-4 GdU\j . I ,\,c ?<-- (.'+ c 5: 5 /fc->;2. &,,,+:;-4-.,i 5 -*-,"2 --*-...----- LL2 --_I L&. I-y---o-oo-------l-p_------ L--L.:: ----- LAd.LL---- --Y----.-- I -_.. ", ------ ~
I--I,,,,,,,,,,,--,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ...!>+ 171 p$ li) L;; p( ~. 'yx:L. b-[-'
I;i,jc; &i,
.,'I, -. j r, ,. I--'- r.,L *--
' . F-; b L.;5 r-
___I_y *_ ----
_-_------__-----_--_--------..------------,--~-----~=~~~---,~~~---~-~~~.~~~~~--~-~~--"~------~~~--
Page 7 cl
* 0 a
I-EIARBOW POHNTE 0WErnION TO POINSETTIA PROPEWTIES - LE?"B'EI:F
13rinted nam: Sign at we: Address in Carlsbrad 92009:
---""-I--- Le$ ' ~5sc>AJdAe -----e----- l-------o--l-l-- 4% ----c&ca ---- -9cc: L +- rn)J.-y@d 695% 39.1 accc ~
------..-----l----.-- fi+! x fi. ---- -----__
-------------------I---- L77 ------ 87- &/2&224. I______________
~-~~~~-~~~~~~-~~"~~~~~___-_I___-I- I dh&- ~~~"~"~~~~~~~~~~~~~"~~~-~ if5ziiid&L&?L
........................ 69/36 $?dm
------- ----- ---- -- ...........................
A 1 Fr60 /"7n J @/1/ &ed-J &yVLk;
--------------- ---I -I---_^________
_-I ---%.- ,,,-': g-&&
- h~ ---- F --_--"--------------_SI__ NORTE~S
49=ZflDCML4
-----P--_------I_"I-__Iy_______lol
s--l_------u--------_____________I______------------
_l---_l----l-------l_---I--------
................................ ----------I-^---------- c- - 4-Y2-f-A-d---J-!
Gr6 _J>/&J 7%. O{*
c/t3 by83 SLwdcde ( v--- .........................................
_-9-----------------__I ---------I-----------
_-".."-.a---"
Page 8
e 0 .c
POlNTE OMEnHON TO POIINSETTHA FROPERTIES - 1,E'l"i'EE
Pria1tcd name: signat we; AddTW§ iSn Cr%i"hlbQd 92009:
LMKl --e-- fi-&klL&L _--_ &AFp %%----- L-WL5-d
~&qa ?-MY j?/z .r 1 wf? fi 3 - 7 32+d<Y/<5al --__------------------------~-------------_----_---------------------------------------.
--------------------------------------------------------------------.----------~-- 1i&ila7 F. j'C(&- L.iA*t,< P $&,!, v". f (-g~ iA LLdY .i j?d e&?--.- &gG ----.----- G+$
--~-~~~--~-~~-~~~-~~~ ------------ 9 ..-.. &*--@- l_l______ kZYZ.Lk<&
-------..I_- ;Iq yjLga--h E
------ CI @ -------- l"4,jw ----I --------I----- ------ r/
\
4 Ed,k c. p I &J& 5 c (4- /s_ L-L k-k& c> &J &&q &GC,7 Sd
---_--_1------------- ---------- P ------- ..- -kka _____- .%-e ___l__l_______
@
---------- /f@?y --- ._----_-------------_---------------------: ELLI'S st/,; t:'t L,y;d Jfi& ____.
< .~
--------------I----.---I---------,. Lf52 s&c/Lc5ff@ #7/
fli&de --- ----------- kk -2---------
Go- GWWL
-b3---GiJJ*& ---I-..
,~"II"I~IBIwY~~I"IIoI~.~~~~-~~-~~~
Jlkxm2--&d:L!l2-""" ----- 1' h---- '..+&-+---I_--------------^--------------- G 7 s 7 &/I dm sf/e
c5yTc-. --I ----------- , 4 ------- d(J---$&& ....................... 429 ,,/' -_I__-_ ' --_-- - bq5f -- --+ -_------_- sL,w$-q)* .--- I ----_-
____-____------------ KaOra /..&+-ti%- ----- ---------- ~L/LW-,? ----------__- ---_____----_-----_".______p_____________--- b y3/ &/f0&<5#A
(9237 LQ&Lct& F kk: -----_-..----- - - ---- --------- JcJddE ------------- QSd /iJ ---------l------_.Y--- -- --------.---d
b Tu; ,5/-f/$if/%7k/ _A j ./'.a2 _-_-----______--^__I------------------ ...
(9) \\ i, ~>v:b-cxj%~ G-&c
' [& &Le@q
p / / ..i --i"*"L$f ---I------------- 3- u+ 1 i; - ------- --I--.
' ,..- '\ ! 'i, \ L--<7.fyL ,,1
*I "4 ____I-I --__----- A2 -4/ry-"..--"". ------ I ---_"--__"_--I-_---------------
.+- J. (:. . (- - ,
.I . I <: !. l 1 ;+&> 1, i
C'., -3 - iL--T ,> L. / i J L<.j 8 ( 'I /,.J (/ LC. L -.:Y<:~s
!,/;: q j -)- 5,.; N 2 { c: ) 7
/--I 1 /*
/<> -
Y r
<-\ t I< J- f% r
Jl i., ,/
! f \, /(pJ-: >
, ** ,I c- ./.' - 1 '' r,[( c-\&iL:(Cf l"ic.:.I I4
..',/j ..
j ," ----r--.li.r--r--.d-
T,T-- - .......................
/
i' ,, ti I. ~~~~~~~%~~-~~L~-~~~LS ---------
..- .,,,, J, 1 ,, ;;A- \ ', b:; ,, < ,* b
i"
~. f -. ---
-,,-,-,,,,,,,--,,,-----,------------------~---~-~---~.---~--~----------------------------------------
- r '\ /,'i ,. :; , <; I-' 2) / , , &; i,--,j -1 __ +.",&- --- ,--c,-------,--------,,-----,,,,-,,-,,,------------
< , ., , :.. -, 1: )) .-I : ,7; 2 _, ,(? ). (!' ['' ,/ .- ' ,ij :A- ,L _. ,.&.A,fl .* L,. ( c~ 7 2 91,'
i
[ I*( n 4 c /,.I E /,/ < ! ',, jJ ,,,,,,,--I-,,---,,,,~---,,------k--------------------------------
'\ (' (:
r,
/ ',, i' ' 1 * : '<* "k; ,,G
/j
#i! li,lGy ,& ,L? I(-.I (./ . . ./
Page '
0 e
HQ[I%KBHBK 1'OINTE QHLJEalTION TO P0IlalSK'I"B'IA pRePpEB'M?'HES - ~J~'y~-~$
.k1dra~s in dlraslsbad 92009:
c?.&$f'f I? .L-] ,,
-7 lP ri I it col namc : Signature:
--bhD-&L-d I-J-JLi L6L-b-h- WQ \&%&/ --- -- -ad vi-------*. r )gJ& ---- L ----c &-Ld- -L.L -L4&kL!g.
.n",-_"_-.._1_---
. ,q
I,
0--;h'J . G! $ q.7 .L&l'LL fz c. I; Q/ /$it 7 P/"ci.?i/r.i J- &:,A/SL=QL, )j044L-I ($1.' '+Lb ...................................................... ------- -,--,---..-,-,,-,.-,,,,,------~------ v J gyc74 ' -.
(/1 ____________________________________ //X$?OLO ~@/EdU- DL@ - __-__--_----- LZJ E ---------_ &zJ-2:-&~iLft:cdf-oL
.4',; /A
'>, i?y. / ~~~~~~--~~~~-~~~~~~~~~~~~/ ---+-+=y&e2=-- %-J h2$!L.'t4h&&v-JL "-2-L & f//7@L&2f @
ll____l_________----____________^_______---- A&OUb- /* dPLc&Z&G % _- -a& -I----- -&-----I----------------- ---
,TA7 ---T
~~-.~-~~-~-~~---~~-~~-~ ------ 22-&-%ddGM--- /?/y e- - ----- J*~;qL~& -----.- --- -d---<
/p?pzz 'wd &752-&/4f&&dJ# 1 &-&!--&aHcee<-E ------------------- c ----- ---I---- - --------- - --------------y-I--I------ 2.-,
i
.-----.,' / __
n-71 ~~~~~-~~,-~~-~-,~-~----~~-~ &?~*~&~ ----_--_____________----------,. 7 k/'h 7k.d /
G=., yp13 --------"---------..-------------.---~-"-~-------..-------~--~~~~-~-~~-------"------------ @vTu?s Lwd#g&gd!& bp$/ ul/a& 4
--\
x..
I n 0,
..-h * r\- ,_ i" r^ \ ''. ''? r: ,, 1.1 I/ i p,." ; . i !/'.>\.y:',\- j).W ( i.,L--.u a*~,k(;y f-&t2 G 4 95.. 2jJ&l( 2 CL;, -i >- ,___-__,-,--_--_,,---,-_,,,_,__,,,,__,_,__,---,-,_--,-----,--,---,-,------------------~----~~~----. 1 /---,,
Page 10
._ ..... -
'I 0 0
I.I.ARMlK POIN'H'E OHJECFIOY 'P'O POINSE'X"XIIA PWOHPEHa'il'9[ ES - l,E'yl'l<!
I'riatcd nsmc: Si nature: :Iddress in Carlshud 92009:
--I%*& ----------- L/T ------------------ k53Z-E *-r - - --- -e--- --^-I----- w - ------ I -------------____I_____ 67~ w'& .+$ _____ C I
13eqhrfl cf &ydIu ---------- ___--__-__.A&--- 7--------- -.
.C
Lf4j w-Li-@ c,
: $-&
--...--------- -------- -..-------------_e
@4/3&&& a 1 @&C\ 9 fi--=- 3--- --Gq3 LdglwQp 0
- i.:eol, L-lr0.n"e.l j):$~gyeqscm _-I- --"---"--" RJ&Yg8, - .. -- 111PYI.-.l-...... &UC$td - -------__--___ 6"r%
-%-b--R:-B-2k%ke ---- TaPdk- ------___________ G ""p~z. &A-l-XGQP---B
^----uI------------yI_____________ LLUwE M 'BuLJ-kk ~~~~~~~~~~--~~~~~-~~~-~~-~~~~
-dLZt--d&!LC.-! -e-& ---- &kt8 ---^-_-___-----I--------- 7u- -I----- djya -__ I- __-____ LJ@'pC*r~JA: ________
----I- .......................................................................................
..
_----
LqCgiJ Ccrtim=m bri. - --------------------_____^___________
LDJ 2 hi
-I---- &I* -------I------
/ ,? .> -ci [: ;- L< , , ._; ii ,~ *~ I ! 0 L.o,-~, ,i. ,.!. < i ...__ .,~ ':,Gd-,%L/, / -,~,-,iL~,-,,,,,i,-,------d ------------------.I--s-l---l--,--,,,'c-----e-----------
..' . ' . j /fi'fl ..j-
_--_I---------------_I^
P- P q7c --- ---- L?J&C.'Tg -----I ---- cP#-
___ *-pyQ _l______l___--------------------------- A /tf&q@&.l) &<dJ&& - --------------------_II___________ 6?,=QL&U "r"p--- 4 - ------
i "I
f .f .l. .r,- c_ / i ., ' ;/,/ '7 1 -: . x ; >' ., Ti .I , . e7 I y-, , /- ,I !L i-)$j I;.. ,L*! +-,Y;/-k,. L .-> 7
-:z-L22.iiK-y& t I J-c,LL. ____ zi ______ ' ---iL-- ---i ___-_ L--L ------ ~~~-~.~~~~~~---~~L~,--~ c -- .& .; ~Lc..., _. - -JLi5j-:w i37Al$2 _____ &_--L ---- - _____________--_---- - .............................. :-
_-__ _______^_______---^I----------------------------------------------------------------
_/
.. .. I, . n , L . .'\ f-J ;?+ lbi -. !-! --,, i pL.,v*G *' ,,! (J,L,kb<:+ 4 1 iP, 43- ril n,,~.+ 4
<-
\t 'I . -- . i\ .:.; ' /
Page il
0 0 HsaOw POIINTE 0 EmION TO PBINSEmHA PROPERTIES - EETTE
1/ e i&& ~(,,/&j 2- i I' I&--.--- -u-o---_---u -----I-- :--. h&---- .-"a+ U__Y.----- -L .,
16.. -&,-,- f,,jj 5 1 =&.L..-.-.-- .i: e:.i 5;
Printed name: Fig nature: Address -- in Carlsbaad 92009:
/ - .. " /.YJ ., . ,P
_- / T _. i' ~ - __ > &/c.j C' 1 ,;pi..> e>? 4: -i-L-.L 11 ,<
- . '?---
0; ] 1/ 1
j ' ,. -\rj .) /
/
/ -_ I ,,' ',
-1 ,'. . &<g*.& Ak/Jyl,&L ; ;q&?.;/ 495 / 6 4 q j ....,~~,.~/~~;,,~~i/~ r: .
f,
-.J - 'i -c ' -$!-~------------ p 3
-' ,, -j Y < ,i .-i-'
j ..->& 9
(9 :, (; .,;" . . (; "/
..a/ d.; ~ d..-iyc ---I_^------. .1"5"7 '7 ': % ,. ,I
'/ I I 1 ;7,, ' I ( i,'!! !(<. (LA ( / (;;' f., (;I-
%'.~LoA-E t. 'c AL ,... /.-&%KT
-----.------L--- -------..
., ;*;?A A?.<. 11-! c-:- /./Ob, ,;,> ;rF; k<kyd "".'>,Lc<-L <I -. 1 T
-----e--.---- ----I------ -_----_--------s----__s__pw___pII_______-----~
( ,- .
0 L! G-) \r-qhy~5~cGuL~>e 1 42LL. ----u_-__--I---Iu-_-----p-----)-u--p---.
l&L.e++ 5fl //
1
n
--v
(; \xLL&+q, IZX->-&L,A';. E)- 1 i-:i2- i ' &~r~-\.,~f&k,k2~&.&e
jpu~ h,s.gN/qL,Gi -Y- --+.&- T)L,~K - - 1------1-- I Lc b,fy -- /dcbf -.-&LC .r: - --
i
.. \$lc/f,4 P u/cc -------- d;-w5 .- .- ~LccLyd-- P / k32& /i: -I-- (' .A) i7 ---P--_------------ 2 7 .g./t+:: i: [
/+";;".l* LL- / f '. -L&k2:2 -&L 'L-
"-"-."- &<GL .._-----^-----_-----__________1___11____-----~-*,.--~-- br /4ff12
~&&jj+!:L-l&-L I---- .,+L;L-y--..-.---~y-*.--p". ---o ____-__,~______-_ ----- P-II--"
-7' j] ,$ /- / bq(p dj,,,&-LL . 4 //
.j cj [ ,? I, ( I 'b t c 1. . Ch LJA ,(pi+ --" ?I-^-"..-.--------
(7
-LLL" I----------
-~~-~~---~.~-~~~~-~~~-~~-~-~-~--~~~-~ j,/*\ 1-4 1% i y q- P, ... pL/L< -------- is'i <.,:. :-L2:-m:-Ld-LLa-w" 4 '.C.Q c' <- <
/-A)-- ,,,I ,;/ 7 -; ., 4 ,, /% (?;j,5 /;.. /;7 /L/ r 4' ;J (2L 6 ;-., 'p'
4 LJ /dyd,f 3 ,?;-.,/ /&y/$J4,$& ,/&[{ J j/ ;'
r: . L//y .- c
c: CjL && c , 2;;- c? .i/C 9 /' id ,,,I. ;+-,-/ /I . ,!; 6 . 5. i _;_ ti , ,fiA b p !?[ rfiJ
i , ,/p L)-
-1 vel /.: , -
------rr)rur-.L---.---.-o----------- 0- -I.* J: --.,. -.. ----. --u--
> I /3 ? ;;' ,r n g"r---"-'---
/ .// /,) /// / /-. ? A ,,: j ' ,/L .I . .I
w- ...d-li------&L.4- Y-9 ..,.. ~-ppl&.--p.&.."-
i, ' ., ~! p] b ;?2 /-Ti. -VI,/ (1 /f L: (7JF ------ L- .&...---d-L , - ./-- ./.. p 'i
'-7T"--;- l;/ATF/L-2-- 4 / L <$Ja:, ( ----I-------- /7(7Li .2A ----L?---L
.T IC /c (<
v --_-I -."-+- ---------I---I---L-- 1
Page 12
... ,
* a 0
~~~~~~~~~~ - LEflE;
C:arlsbad 92089:
(5 ./ -\ f _i>i( I/ i /I /- . ~F"~;~i~,y~ />I?/)< c^ -L.------ u
L.,U ti ?cJ5d4h,Gra --?-- -------
.%. 7;) i'l -' / . d I z /4* .,. , ;' //L. ' L/" ; ,/
i p '; ,Q -___9- jJ y'G i & /-' ;.,JJjl iq P .&. ,7 ~;<L{,LJ? / ~-~~~--~~~~~~~~~--~~-~~~
4- . x ,p . (?., 7 i-4 ,7
! ' 6.<. 4 4-7Z-c %<dL + ff&L&.i 1&.-2< kc*:-
--vIp-s.--Pusp- -- &Ld- -A&-*,,
bV*+iCJ i \ !(I 3 p,-,, , ?+ h. :..".
I-') q
'I
L,--., (\ 0 -; $->:,*. ..-~- %V) \,.><. &):\ ;,.y);,,:L
./ p. 7r-z$& L-.. fj /pu-z4 j /i,%~k,t /fL;(- ('!,,
a~~~-~~~,---~-.~~~-~~~~ -. 'a- Sa i! y) ;$, .!a8 I' '
i/ ; ,,,\ 3 / -\t, 'f--.-- -b ( (
*CZ?f? &&$=[&~:.y JPd (~-flcL:;&Q'-'
i Vel -- -5- ii ) / /:\.-<./ -/&
y-&.-~-A,,,,%L.,, ,"-'%,? I I?(.&& /A-LL ?- -[ ' -- --b -------"----- ... ?> / [) y-3L!q ~~~~-~~,-~--~~~-~---~ i/
.__--- -A---.%-..--..-~"...L....& ------ -.IIIpp....--,--.-d-...Ld-L~ rF--
*>
%./
----------d&.-....-. 5 _-- '--a,- --------...---.....
---
s--u-
-_---.
J
Page 13
.- -. .- ...... .. .
0 e
~~~~~~ POIINTE BdErnHON TO PQlEisaSErnM PROPERTEES - EErnE!
.-*=+@A ,)- x 3 *l gv c v ( LL/^R j;
Prhted name: s 4m-atn4 re: Address in Cadsbad 92009:
----~-~-m"*..-~-______yu I--------
Y-OLLU&/tQ vz Ld 5
//'
Tyt&&&;s 1 :'I,
CP 6L44 ,ir-"" &&& x& /.!7Ad4 / L.-.P I-:
- 7 13 13 --- /de Lbqp2I ---
- -__o
i7&4,0 6 /yaaL9~~ ----"- 5~ 6's --".-." w~~ -
_-------I-..c-
--..-11-1
---I _-I-_u---I--_u_--_-s_------------- *..e-- --I-
Page 1L
L -__...--..--_... n_l _., -1 ,/--,. --
0 0
OR POINTE OBJECTION TO POWNSETTHA PROPERTIES - LE'mE
aineea name: Sl?JnaEture: Adcllscss in Carlsgaad 92009:
7 v , y' I-,; x/: .-- ' r / 'L
c / A*
/ /, --------~--_-- < I, v .-,
1 ---L".---- ,Pz7"t L y,/y--ff{(:'/ / i I/ I.< 6 &&&/[/ *_ r.. /
4 '/ !,$'++ ;f /.$--- I w: -J*.,.LL$d.--- f i t Jir- Jh$>[/$/,w?:,>~ I- --- ',, +-- .//J /, --- .."wnll.II...
P\ ~
i ,, TT - '---- ______ '4 . $1 dp ,_---- \- -Ak2!;------ I----------__.
/- ,e 7, j7 J L -&&4J / i .i /i _m-_l^---_UDO---I-~-____.
1' "'-f j /J-;/ ; . (
- /J 2 //'
--A..'J~*na---6=;p*-mLL-~* ...--.
I -. p i *r"A n 3 - \:y qr/ (-- / 'r 1J s c ,.\ r()d/'L[ /n, yc 'I' ' ,I, _, yL, J, LL!- LLk-,,,, _------_u -..,9--",,,, --...-
// ,
r( /, -u/:i. I--- ,o:,, -----wp f,;u,c I: /l+L ,
TI
----.r------------. // /
/
- ---- ----___u x"- "_. - .-.. -- -~-- _~---11_----_- rr - --xlsnnn-m- ,. __r ___rr__---
0 0 HA.FtBOR POINTE OBJECTION TO POINSETTIA PROPERTIES - LETTER
Address in Cadsbad 92009:
i.
.------ <-: ,-
---------------------I---- &.-3 c,drdQc:ir-- L--"d 7------ CqgL5i:d I x
__^_ $, ,"_ k:fik-- -%;?x/&,&{& e:-- - &L - tid -_-- ---- 5, --------------- L/ ?, &k>k.'&&..Z --------------------,--,,,,,,,,,: d,' ,$. Li,
i,
j:
Page 1
, 0 0 \e -
t! HA R ]I% 0 Et PO H Nl' E 0 B%II E 631' 10 X 'HI PO IN I$: EI'T 1.4 PHBOP~ ils RT B E S - LE'~''~' b:
Prieited nanc:
d b!kYJ!-- -^-I-I--- G-Od-&S-
-- /Ibni -- ----...------- a"/nowd ----uI---- ~J$~&kli-&d--&$~&
,,ia A- _i! u 4LQuJ&JQLm \
J
; // ' h , ; ,-;&-L--L--&--,&;
---_-----_--I------__I__________________------------~-~-----------------------~---------------------___
-lL
------II------------l________l_ :-
-~----I~-yI-------I--L--R-.
-__y_---_---I-_----I---------------~--------------------~-~----~-------------~----------.
Il~hl~lllnl.l~VII6,~U~~~~~~~RIIP~.lllll~Illl.l~~~~~~~~~I~~~-~"l~~~~~M~~~~~~~~~~~U~U~~~~W~~~~~~~-~~~~~~~~~-~~~~~~~.
1________1______-___I___I__________u__^_------~----------~-------~----------------------------
II___-______IN-__U_--~~-~-----~~--~-"~------------~~-~~~~~~~---,~"~~--"---------"----"~-~~~-~-----~~-~~~~
---_---------_"---------------.----------------------------------~--------~----~
I_UI_________I_I_____Y--..-I-------------------~----~-------~-~---~----------------"-----------~-----
Page 1' -
0 0 %/4Y “Y
fl[ARBOR POINTE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
ch CAL WEST MANAGEMENT 535 Encinitas Bhd. Suite 120 Encinita CA 92(
Dwember 1997
Honorable C. A. Lewis, Mayor
City Council Members
l)eap* Coiincil Members;
?lie undersigned residents of Harbor Pointe objected to the Poinsettia Properties Project f
reasons; but especially on the grounds of its damage to neighboring communities’ property vah
expressed as ocean views. We totally agrze with the attached letter addressed to the Piatming C(
signed by our Board of Directors.
We recognize, though don’t understand, that the City of Cdsbad makes no griarantez of
othw than the categorized 30 ft., 35 fi., etc. limitation on building heighQ. There is no reason, 0’
us, that Illis coastal city is one of the few that isn’t protecting such a valuable asset as the: view OJ
We appeal that building heights, in this project, be restricted to 25 ft. maximum for view
preservation as it was for Harbor Pointe and the recently build Carlsbad Company Stores.
Building heights are only the first line of control of this problem. Most signifkaiir. is the c(
othcr ocean view obstructem, primarily trees. There will be approximately 2000 trees in this proj
gron hg taller than the roof line are of no value to the lot owners as they cannot view that portkt
tree. Growth above the roof line is seen only by the neighboring residents on the slopes swroundi
project, notably Harbor Pointe, who strongly object to the obscuring of the blue water view. Ever
residents that do not have an ocean view recognizz their property values depend upon their ocem
nei&.bor’s property values.
We request the Council to charge the developer with a requirement for control of building
and tree types and heights. Twenty five feet maximum for buildings. Twenty five fe& rnaxiniurn
: heights west of the railroad tracks. Thirty five feet for tree heights east of the tracks. Anticipatini
~ corn m about adding a new code, we recommend the height limit be controlled by the new assoc
CCPcRs. . Further this consqraint be non-amendable, at some later date, without the approval off1
RespoctMly submitted,
Printed name: Signature: Address in Carlsbad 9200%
.Q 15 f ~-~~-~-~~~~~-~~~~-*-~--~~~~~~~~~---“~-~5-~~~-~~:-~-~~~~~~~~
&k-L -_ 68oF WA-13 g-th uL! P-
------1-- -------..--------------.-.. .‘-..II-”*..)*...,.-.---”.-*,
/+
\I‘{-.f-o r-i 1 7-7- SKU 5 .----e- ---“1-^_-_-----_----_I_______________
Page 1 o
t
Y 0 0
I-IAKI30K YOINTE OBJECTIQN 10 POINSETTIA PROPERTIES - H,E'I'?'Ek
I Pririted namc: Simature: Address in Carlsbad 92009:
I&
---
%LIL ------------- dJVE5,-oM --------..--------- &L! ----____- 4i & - - 22. ----- dA&dk _____
rtln@Tonl€ -------------------------------------------.-------------------------------------------- ,N. WESTdW /%+j&j$& &.J/ &-\A .
~~~~~~-~,-c--~-~--~ ----- L222-&!&p/GS-
~~-~~-~-~-~--~~-~-~-~-~~~~---~~~~~-~--~-~-~~-~~~~~~~
--&Lg---&dd4C ----I- - -- di?B&&d-&--_g+-g ---- Lxyr- -d &LFA<
I/
f
-
---.L \ ol%m*--zyyie--h- ~~g44mMwwalmm"mm.. Gx L yu- 7 . I _-_ %t€KW-rS
~~~-~~~-~~~.n.~~--~~~~~--~-~-~:~-~~
______- fl * _-------------- & /7y - ----- d = ........................ /dly/ ---.A ------------_-^---------:L 4/7 lL%wd --------- Oeffflt
G&zd: --Crn/kLl - -& PJ@---dXo?--&Gi=Q2Ls
__ - --_____ ------___ ---------- ---------- ................................................... E- wv LC1tLIW
--------I-----------____________. 6wb kLLwoL*r
--a-wL--2-dmLG--- &$ --- -------- ------- 25k&k -------- &[+A- --- - -& - - --_- -- ---____ - __ --
-- 4k -- --k!&I--d hi ---- ,"l,"l\,WG I-------- Q-Jqk-y-: ---------------- 63'7 Lura%e?-52G-
huqcil-r +
-L!E-?L&-!l-&EX4_lY ---------------- L y. ----- g-4 -------^----^-----I----------- 6f96. LJ- h
----- .a.kfl ------------ A. a ....................... dmJ% &L-gLqa ................................. & 63 7jdi I
@VO't LL)&h~~L4V-S-e. p
ope _1d4&/L 369
GPO0 do&-
,-----------I-,---- %kkI30 $?ALL _________________-_^------------------------------ \<K\\Cd Le< ------__---- -- --------
__----__------ ----------------
......................................... I
.................................. (e8(6 kba&
___-__-- 67%- - ----------- - ------- w
Page 18 of
* 0 0
HARBOR BOINTE QBMECgION TO POINSETTIA PWOPERgIEs - EE’I[’TE~; -- Printed mamc: Add~ss in CrarDslbad 92009:
I
1 CL4..&--&L&dy --e- - __________I_____ k5 @F ___ Ugaegzge. . 0 .................... j/3;3/)q -----I ------- &JGK - ---- ------------ A -.&& -------.
I
E..) --------- flQc,I<LQR --^i----------------____L___________I___-------------------------------------------- P- q&-+c.&4+ GC=i2.w-c~~M-092
8 x4bq r ~dd 5nn **& 6 82g u4 7-e.amf5+
YR,ST& K J1 fiwh.j
--i-- (qfiw ............................ fa Mci?eiy ---
......................... Qaby% 7-TpcXq --------
- @@&3-hj& - .................... -- -------------------I---------------- &Of ----------------- /g’&m - --,!
PF
_-------------------_____l____l_ ..............................................................
................................... --
r - - - --- --- - I --- ----- -- - - -- --------- d&GLL ZQff .KAZOEZ-- --dZAL&H-rLK-C-!
_______^______________I_________________-------------------------------------------------------
- ____________________---------------------------------------------------------------
_____________________________________^__-------------------------------------------~-----------------
I __-_______I____-____----------------------------------------------------------------.----------------
___^__---_-------__________________I____--------------------------------------------~-----------
...................................................................................................
>age 19 c
0 0 .. . January4. 1998
Mayor Claude A. Lewis
City of Carlsbad
I200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mayor Lewis,
This letter is to challenge the Environmental Impact Report, General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program
Amendment, Zone Change, Specific Plan Amendment for the Poinsettia Properties project, EIR 96-0 1/GPA 95-06
96-03/ZC 95-06/SP 210LFMP 87-22(A). Please present this letter to the City Council for the public hearing schec
for January 6, 1998 at the City Council Chambers.
EIR 96-0 1
The notification process for the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report did not provide the homeowners
Harbor Pointe with our legal opportunity to review the draft EIR and comment during the review period that bega:
August 1996. The City of Carlsbad did not notify us by a mailed notification of the draft EIR process. Harbor Poi,
within six hundred feet (600') of the Poinsettia Properties project; thus requiring mailed notice to the residents. We
demand that the City of Carlsbad re-circulate the EIR so that the residents of Harbor Pointe can provide comments
can be used to reduce the significant impacts. Some examples are as follows:
Land Use Compatibility - The existing residential land uses adjacent to the project are Lakeshore Gardens
Mobilehome Park and Lanikai Lane Mobilehome Park, which consist of single family mobile homes primarily oc(
by senior citizens. The project described in the EIR proposes to put tourist commercial, multiple family residential
single family residential uses on 92 acres. The multiple family is incompatible adjacent to a senior citizen commu
due to its transient nature and high percentage of children. Noise from the children will be a constant irritation to tl
seniors. Rental units are to be constructed above commercial businesses. This will increase the crime rate in the arl
business owners will be absentee landlords. renting to a transient population. These rentals will become tenement
flophouses that draw drug addicts and criminals and will require full time City Police surveillance.
Air Quality - The EIR states that the cumulative impact remains significant and unavoidable. The EIR also
that the long-term project specific air quality impact is less than significant by virtue of the transit oriented develor
(TOD) project. The EIR, however, does not contain any details showing how or why the impacts are reduced due
TOD design. No figures or calculations are provided to judge the effects of a TOD on air quality. This project will
1009 garages which will accommodate 2018 cadtrucks with no guarantee or assurance that the residents will use i
Coaster or the bus.
TrafficKirculation - The EIR states that the cumulative impact remains significant and unavoidable. The pi
project will produce 14.358 new trips per day to this small area of 92 acres. The alternatives chosen for comparisi
the EIR make the 14,358 new trips look appealing because those alternatives provide for even more trips. Why not
consider a General Plan Designation of RM at 6 dwelling units per acre, which would only produce 5520 trips per (
Don't increase the residential units by more than 125% (560 units) without any assurance that the residents will use
transit services.
Biological Resources - The EIR does not address any possible impacts to biological resources to be found i
railroad, Poinsettia Lane or Carlsbad Blvd. rights of ways. All of these rights of ways have established growth con
of ice plant and other native plant species. as well as various animals and their habitat. These areas will be disturbe
not destroyed, during construction. Re- circulate the EIR and review these areas for endangered species and critical
habitat.
Visual Aesthetics/Grading - Carlsbad Blvd. is a "community theme corridor", Interstate 5 and Poinsettia La,
"community scenic corridors", and the SDNR is a "railroad corridor". Visual amenities to be preserved include blue
views. natural stretches of coastline and beaches. lagoons and related wildlife and public parks. These view corrido
be lost as a result of this project. The views will be obstructed because the proposed buildings can be as high as 35
and will block views from the railroad. Poinsettia Lane and many other locations. The EIR view-cross sections sho,
the impact to private property, i.e. Harbor Pointe and Sea Cliff. but not to the railroad or Poinsettia Lane. The EIR :
be re-circulated and these views analyzed so that the project design will not impact these important \. flews.
cp/.r7&,Afirt;3 A-C?
rilrnmk GAP
e 0
Public Services and Utilities - Aviara Oaks Elementary school is at full capacity now according to their scl
district Operations Superintendent and a recent newspaper article in the North County Times. The EIR states the r
project has no impact on schools. Aviara Oaks has 917 students in K-6 grades. It was built to accommodate 650. r
project will add 269 students or 41% above its intended capacity. This appears to be a significant impact.
General Plan Amendment
We object to changing the General Plan designation on Parcel A from Residential Medium Density (4-8 ddac) an
and Related Commercial (RM/O) to Residential Medium-High Density (8- 15 du/ac) and Residential Medium-Hig
Density (15-23 ddac) (RMWRH). The current General Plan designation will provide a much better Transit Orienl
Development because it would locate jobs next to the Coaster Station. We object to changing Parcel B from RMH
ddac) to RH (15-23 ddac) due to the added traffic. school students and decreased air quality that will result from
higher density.
Local Coastal Program Amendment
We object to the Local Coastal Program Amendment due to the project's impact to visual amenities on Poinsettia
the railroad and Carlsbad Blvd. These important view corridors should be preserved.
Zone Change
We object to the proposed zone changes as stated in the "General Plan Amendment" paragraph. No gas service sta
will be allowed in the project. The existing zoning would allow gas service stations. Over 2000 vehicles will come
the project, but gas service will be prohibited.
Specific Plan
We object to the project's Specific Plan due to the impacts on land use compatibility, air quality, traffic/circulatior
biological resources. visual aesthetics/grading and public serviceshtilities.
Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment
We object to the project's Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment. as it does not provide for the constructic
the widened Railroad Bridge for Poinsettia Lane. An additional 560 units will be added to Zone 22 of the Local Fa
Plan. Zone 22 is only planned for 598 units and will therefore be increased by 94%. This large increase in addition
should not be allowed just because they are available within the southwest quadrant of the City's Growth Managen
Plan. Excess units from other zones should be eliminated and not concentrated in a small 92-acre area. Adding the
will impact existing residents.
City Council Policy Concerning South Carlsbad State Beach Park
We object to the policy of the City Council to convert the current RV/campground to day use only. South Carlsbac
Beach Park is one of the most popular campins parks in the State's system and should not be converted to day use
Within the last year the State spent in excess of SI million to rebuild and improve the camping sites and restroom
facilities. Maintaining these camping facilities provides an inexpensive recreational option to many California fan-
Project Safety
Children will be playing within very close proximity to the railroad tracks. A high wall without openings should b
constructed to prevent the children from going onto the tracks. This wall should be completely separated from the
backyards of the houses by an alley or maintenance road. Design a buffer of office buildings for at least 100" on ei
side of the tracks. east and west. Both of these desisn features will block children's access to the tracks. Carlsbad S
District does not provide buses to transport school age children to Aviara Oaks. Children will have to walk several
to school along Poinsettia Lane. including crossing the very busy 1-5 freeway bridge. The project has not given adc
consideration to its children's safety.
0 I) 1.
Policy 8- 1. Mello I1 Segment of Local Coastal Program states. "city should enforce appropriate height limitations
through construction, as well as minimize any alterations to topography." For this project, buildings on Parcel B s
be limited to 25' in height as well as all future trees through homeowner association control. Also do not allow bu
pads to be elevated above natural ground. The City has set precedence with building height control at the new out
located just west of the flower fields. The commercial buildings average 26' in height and do not block the view o
flower fields.
Summary
This is to demand that this project be sent back to the planning stage for re-evaluation of all of its elements. The E
should be re-circulated for citizen input. Transit experts should evaluate different designs to determine if a succes
transit oriented development is practical at this location. Incentive programs to increase Coaster ridership should 1
evaluated. Additional biological review should take place in existing rights of ways. A train safety element shoulc
added to the EIR. Height limitations and other restrictions should be required to preserve ocean views. Incornpatil
uses should be eliminated. Appropriate school facilities should be provided as well as widening the Poinsettia La1
their legal rights to participate during the preparation of EIR 96-0 1 as required by CEQA, state statues and court
decisions.
Sincerely,
Railroad Bridge prior to beginning construction of the project. The citizens of Harbor Pointe should be provided 1
MGWImgw
cc: Councilwoman Ramona Finnila
Councilman Matt Hall
Councilwoman Ann Kulchin
Councilwoman Julie Nygaard
City Manager Raymond R. Patchett
City Attorney Ronald R. Ball
0 JANUARY 6, 1998 @
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
Mayor and Councilmembers. I am Mary Ashworth, I reside at 6955 Whitecap Drive, Carlsbad, Ca.
The Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan . We ask you to delay your decision until the E.I.R. has been
reopened for ow comments, as our complex, within 600 feet of the project , was not pin writtin notice
of opportunity for public comment in the E.I.R. and we are sigmficantly impacted by the development.
POhlsettia Properties Specific Plan was not made aware to us until late July and early Aug~st,
1997 and only through casual conversation with friends. We inquired at the Planning Dept. as to
what was being proposed and asked if we could make comment to the E.I.R. Was advised the
E.I.R. wasn’t available and the time frame to make comment was closed. As a result, we copied
description of the project from the Planning Dept. book. We couldn’t believe such a large project
with significant impact affecting So. Carlsbad (LaCosta) area had been keep so secret, as no one
seemed to be aware of the plan. No press releases were given to the newspapers , no work shops
were made available by the City Council or the Planning Dept.. We are residents of the South.
Carlsbad community that will look at and absorb the impact of many features not mentioned in the
E.I.R.
ITEM 1. E.I.R. has a study on traffic circulation. It makes no mention of projects in progress
affecting Carlsbad Blvd., such as the Poinsema Shores with 564 units, Lacosta Downs with 40 units ayld
the proposed extension of 17 units of the Timesbares. Those projects alone generate over 4800 daily trips,
not to mention the Aviara build out of over 2861 units, Four Seasons Hotel all using the Poinsettia,
Palomar krport Road and 7-5. Now we have a high density proposal for 923 units which will generate
daily trips of over 8,000 on these same roads.
ITEM 2. Lamkai Mobil Park is an example of an existing T.O.D. No study was made in the E.I.R. of
the coaster riders from withn the park to determine percentage of future riders these 923 units might
generate. The project will add over 9,000 daily auto and truck trips on Carlsbad Blvd, Avenue Encinas
and Poinsettia Lane. It has been estimated 20% of the residents will ride the NCTD train to and from the
workplace. What about the other SO%?
ITEM 3. Schools , E.I.R. states they are mitigated to the Carlsbad school &strict whch is presently at
capatity. Therefore, it is time to declare a moratorium on building houses until such time that our
schools can absorb the anticipated milux of children from our current housing construction. Their is no
school located in the proposed area nor is their one in the planning stage so these chIdren will have to
be transported, once again, on these busy streets.
5.4 air quality, summing up cummulative impact. “the development anticipated under the proposed
project will have sigtvficant and unavoidable cummulative impact on the regions air quality”. We also
have an increase in truck traffic along the 1-5 corridor since the implementation of N.A.F.T.A wh;ch
should be added into the E.I.R. This affects our quality of Me in Carlsbad. ITEM 5 Water supply makes ones quality of life pleasant or unpleasant. Just a few years ago we were
being rationed water here in Carlsbad, how soon we forget. BuilQng lugh desnity housing will needlessly
overtax our water supply.
ITEM 6. T.O.D. Ths project is inappropriatly being termed a transit oriented development. The rail
line running through the middle of the project is a hgh speed freight and passenger traffic conmnection
between Los Angeles and San Diego. The freight cargo on these lines remove trucks from 1-5. Even
though walls and fences are proposed to discourage crossing of tracks, and fines of $250.00 , the
residents of these units are going to cross from East to West (ocean) and West to East by means of the
N.C.T.D station. There are two walking pads across the tracks that pedestrians are permitted to use. We
believe the non stop fast freight & Amtack passanger traffic impose a great safety and liability risk for the
City of Carlsbad.
mention of this safety risk is in the E.I.R.
ITEM 4. As trac increases our air quality decreases. Please refer to E.I.R. page 5.4-8 under section
This is also a hazard to the affordable housing units just East of the station. No
9/dT&,41/7zb /47- @ff L/NvclL-
Mlrd7, */ If‘ 1 1
L 0 0
- ITEM 7. Affordable Housing. Each housing development must include a percentage of
affordable housing , Aviara Properties has no affordable housing on site . Their percentage is
known as Villa Lorna. Poinsettia Shores has no low income housing on site, but perhaps Laurel
Tree serves the purpose. Placing low income housing or aBordable housing by a hgh speed rail line
is hazaradous and could be considered discriminatory. We also object to placing 400 square feet
granny flats throughout the project.
In conclusion, m2fions of dollars have been spent on the Batiquitos Lagoon to preserve Wild life
quality and we consider creating a densly populated area as suitable for human quality of life. It
appears this city is not run by the people, for the people, but by the developer for the developer and
the elected officials.
*
&& *7
e e
January 6, 1998
City of Carlsbad
City Council
Carlsbad, California
RE: OPPOSITION TO TOD 923 UNITS ON 92 ACRES
Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council:
We, Karen and Tom Snyder, live at 6840 Watercourse Dr., Harbor
Pointe, Carlsbad, CA 92009 for which we paid a premium price due
ocean. The Homeowner's Association of Harbor Pointe guarantees to maintain the un-obstructed view by limiting the growth of
trees and shrubs that would infringe on our ocean view. Now we
are threatened with the loss of our panoramic view by Poinsettia Properties' plan to build an unacceptable, ridiculous number of housing units crammed into 92 acres of land.
Initially, this developer intended to build 1,009 units in an
area planned for no more than 500 units. And, to build up to three stories at a height of 35 feet, thus destroying the beach and ocean views. This, in turn, would have an adverse effect on
our property values.
After a storm of protests from citizens who would be affected by
the unnecessary congestion, blockage of scenic views and
devaluation of properties, Poinsettia Properties has made a
breath-taking sacrifice. They would now be content with a PALTRJ
FEWER THAN 500 UNITS WERE PLANNED FOR THIS AREA!
ALSO, in their grand generosity they would be WILLING TO STOP AT
30 FEET HIGH, NOT 35 FEET HIGH! WHY ONLY 5 FEET LESS HEIGHT? WHY NOT 25 FEET AS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT?
The development of this area should be and can be another jewel
in Carlsbad's crown. The plan Poinsettia Properties has propose(
will create unmanageable congestion, traffic and undesirable living conditions when a railroad is the centerpiece of the development. These dangerous and unhealthy factors will, within a short period of time, turn this (what could be a show place)
into Carlsbad's ghetto.
We call your attention to the Carlsbad Master Plan for the
Villages of La Costa which has been under development since 1976
well-thought through. You are planning 1,073 homes on 485 acres
as opposed to 923 units jammed into 92 acres proposed by Doug Avis of Poinsettia Properties.
to the excellent, un-obstructed, scenic view of our beautiful
923 UNITS - 86 FEWER THAN THE 1,009 UNITS THEY WANTED! REMEMBER,
The plan for density in the La Costa Valley project has been
J/'57&&d 4-7- 00
hCW7dJ Vq7p
0 0
All they expect is your approval of:
1. The OLD environmental impact report,
2. An AMENDMENT to the general plan,
3. An AMENDMENT to the local coastal plan,
4. An AMENDMENT to the local facilities management plan
5. APPROVAL of the specific plan,
6. APPROVAL of the ZONE CHANGES it proposes.
for Zone 22,
With all due respect to the City Council, there are too many loose ends, changes and unresolved questions in this entire
scheme. This issue belongs on the ballot for the voters to
decide.
If it becomes necessary, we (residents adjacent to the area in
question) are prepared to circulate a petition to put this matter
on the ballot. We are also prepared to file a class-action law
suit to recover any loss of property values caused by this proposed development.
Respectfully, PLfle2y& Thomas A. Snyder
w& Karen L.Snyder
3
*. ” .‘. 0 e
PUBLIC COMMEN:
FROM: KENT SCrnOErnR
E: POWSETTL4 PROPERTES
TO: CITY ATTORNEY
RONALDR. BALL
2,<7&,&m A( cfly ew,
me.-&& /&/yR &w k
/#k.L-Ae - > /.F AJ/-
6. 0 e
Public Comment by Kent Schnoeker
Re: Poinsettia Specific Ran : OFFICIAL RECORD:
My name is Kent Schnoeker, I live at 6880 Seaspray Lane, Carlsbaad.
The reason I am here before you tonight Is to protect .the pr@perZy values of
Harbor Poinie, which is where i Eve. ?rope@ vdues of all of South Carisbad
will be affected by the implementation of the Polinsettisb Specific Plan also.
ITEM: I
Pules and bylaws of the new development ~ non-intrusive structures and vegetation
on the lots called Parcel A and Parcel €3. We at Harbctr Pointe have in our CC&R's
protective measures that have been in place since the start ofH.P.The rules have been
effective since the opening of that development in 1985. Our property values are
linked to the proper implementation of these des. The major fwus of the proposal
is the 25 hot building heigth limit. This implementation would restore and protect this
Visual Resourse for ai1 of South Carlsbad. Not just the residents at Harbor Pointe.
Section 3025 I of the Coastal Act states in part:" The scenic and visual qualities of coastal
areas shali be considered and protected as a resourse of public importance. Permitted
development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and aiong the ocean and
scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms and to be visually
compatible with the character of surroundiug areas.The current plan is not consistant
with Coastal Act guidelines The Specific Plan for La Costa Downs requires a 25 foot
building height limit. Why is one development held to 25 feet and not PoinseRia
Properties? Is view protection limited to some b~rt not all? Please consider our pro-
posal on this matter.
ITEM: 2 EXHIBIT "F"
recomends the removal of South Carlsbad State Beach Campg0t.d. In its place
a mixed use development of commercial structures will be constructed. I object ! The
urhole community objects. Carlsbad State Beach Campground should remain untouch-
ed! X do not agree with the zone change of the Planning Ccmmission that bulldozing
the State park is part of implementing the Speck P1an.K RES0 N0.4 159 states
"WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considerkg all testimony and
arguements, of all persons desired to be heard, the Commission considered all factors
relating to the Local Coastal Amendment. State Guidelines requires a six week public
review period for any amendment to the Local Coastal Program.
kine 12 in the resolution states,"That the foregoing recitations are true and correct." by
the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad,regarding the six week review period
and evidence presented at the public hearing." taches and gentlemen, this is not true!.ln
this curious rush to approve ths project ,whsch this hearing ah, was being rushed over
the holidays, the notification process was cornpletly left out.
Our objective is to &scuss the options for the Plan. That which will include in the
kc 3, 1997, RES0 NO. 4159 passed by the Planning Commission which
'. -1 0 e
ITEM: 3
IRES0 NO. 4 159 significantly changes the scope and parameters of the Plan. No
public comment or information, has to my knowliege , been circulated for public review
on the conversion of the campground. I request that revised portions of the EIR
be recirculated for public participation and comment, prior to certification of the EIR.
ITEM: 4
Traffic studies and parking provisions are inadequate in the EIR. Figure 12 on page
26 of the Transportation Analysis indicates1,260 vehicles turning east onto Poinsettia
Lane from the 1-5 northbound off-ramp. Figure 16 on page35 shows 840 vehicles
at the same location in the year 2010. Please explain the decrease in future traffic?
I think the public would like to hear the explanation.
Included are pictures taken along Carisbad Boulevard to demonstrate the current
RECIRCULATION OF EIR 96-0 1/GPA:
Traffic Circulation and Parking:
parking situation,
#5L/ /Jd
4
h. i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
e e
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4159
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL, OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CARLSBAD
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM TO BRING THE LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM INTO CONFORMANCE WITH THE
GENERAL PLAN, THE NEW SPECIFIC PLAN AND THE NEW
ZONING MAP REGARDING PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE NORTH OF LAKE SHORE GARDENS
MOBILEHOME PARK SOUTH OF THE POINSETTIA
TRANSIT STATION AND LANIKAI LANE MOBILEHOME
PARK, WEST OF AVENIDA ENCINAS, AND EAST OF
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 22.
CASE NAME: POINSETTIA, PROPERTIES SPECIFIC PLAN
CASE NO: LCPA 96-03
WHEREAS, California State law requires that the Local Coastal
General Plan, and Zoning designations for properties in the Coastal Zone be in confom
WHEREAS, HSL/BP/Michan L.P., “Developer”, has filed a verified a
for an amendment to the Local Coastal Program designations regarding property
HSL/BPNichan L.P., “Owner”, and described in Exhibit “A” attached to
Commission Resolution NO. 4157, hereby incorporated by reference.
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Loci
Program Amendment; to the Land Use Plan map designations for the Mello I1 Se
shown on Exhibit “E” and a change to Land Use Policy 6-9 as shown on Exhibit “F’
hereto and incorporated by this reference; and the implementation document, 1
Properties Specific Plan, dated November 19’, 1997, (Exhibit “G” to Planning Co.
Resolution No. 4161), including the zone change therein and, incorporated by this
(LCPA 96-03), as provided in Public Resources Code Section 30574 and Artic
Subchapter 8, Chapter 2, Division 5.5 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regula
California Coastal Commission Administrative Regulations); and
U. -i 0 a EXH. PC RES0 1 (4
Mello 11 Segment
The MeIlo I1 Segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan is amendec
to read as follows:
'. The South Carlsbad State Beach campground should be considered for
campground facilities can be develop nearby. Mixed use development
(;.e., residential and recreational-commercial) shall be permitted by right
except as provided by a Specifc Plan or Mmtm Plm adupfed to
impiemmf LCP policies on properties fronting Carlsbad Boulevard across
from South Carlsbad State Beach (See Exhibit 4.9, Page 62). This polic)
applies only where not in conflict with the agricultural policies of the
LCP."
conversion to a day use beach and uplmd park if other adeqmte
-. *t 0 e
The project by Poinsettia Properties will cause parking problems in and around tE ’&,
development.
When Mr. Avis, of Benchmark Pacific, spoke at Harbor Pointe Home Owner Association
several weeks ago he assured residents of Harbor Pointe that plenty of parking would be
provide within the Poinsettia Properties project. He said that the city requires two parking
spaces per household, however he would try to have this reduced to 1.7 because not every
resident would have two cars and the proximity of the project to the transit station would
fbrther reduce the need to have a second car. He also indicated improvements along
Carlsbad Blvd. in front of his project would be developed for additional parking.
Benchmark Pacific forgot that Carlsbad is a beach community and people come from
many inland cities and Carl&ad to the beach, every Begal and sometimes illegal parking
spot is usually taken over the weekend and during the summer. I did a photo survey of
beach parking this pass Sunday, Nov. 02, 1997.
A. Parking south of South Carlsbad State Beach Campgrounds -- Full
B. Parking at Poinsettia across from South Carlsbad State Beach Campgrounds
C. Parking north of South Carlsbad State Beach Campgrounds -- Full
D. Parking at the view point south of Palomar Airport Road -- Full
F. A few cars in the transit station parking lot, will this become over flow
parking for Poinsettia Properties.
-- 15 cars.
E. Parking at Palomar Airport Road and Carlsbad Blvd. -- Full
In my mind the parking at Poinsettia Properties will be very similar to the timeshare on
Carlsbad Blvd. if adequate parking is not provide. Cars are parked all over the place.
There are even cars in the transit station parking lot.
Who will be competing for parking along this stretch of Carlsbad Blvd.
a. Carlsbad city and Inland city residents
b. Family and friends of time share owners and Poinsettia Properties.
c. 6 - 8000 visitors or a large portion of the visitors from LEG0 Park.
d. New housing projects (300 units) south of Ralph’s Supermarket.
e. Local hotels
Look at the pictures of the timeshare, is this what you invision for Carlsbad Blvd.?
My last comment regards how residents from the Poinsettia Project, adjacent to transit
station, will get to and from the beach? Visualized about 500 plus people crossing the
railroad tracks through the gate at Lanikai most northern border pass the timeshare to the
beach. Is this an accident waiting to happen?
. e e
INTE CIATION
c/o CAL WEST MANAGEMENT 535 Ench.hs Blvd. Suite 120 Encisitas CA 9
Dt;cmba 1997
Honorable C. A. Lewis, Mayor
City Council Members
Delas Council Mmhm;
The undersigned residents of Harbor Pointe objected to Qhe Poinsettia Propaties Rojec
grounds of its damage to neighboring communities property values; expressed as ocean views
agree with the attached letter addressed to the Planning Coession signed by our Board of E
We recognize, though don’t und-4 that the City of CaPlsbad makes no guarantee
other than the categorked 30 Bt. 35R etc. 1h.hti011 on builchg heights. There is no reason, (
that this costal city is one ofthe few that isn’t protecting such a valuable asset as the view of
Building heights are only the first line of control ofthis problem. Most significant is thc
other ocean view obstmcters, prk~ady trees. Trees growing taller than the roof he are of no
lot owners as they cannot view that portion of the tree. Growth above the roof line is seen onlj
neighboring residents on the slopes surrounding the project, notably Harbor Pohnte, who objec
obscuring ofthe water blue. Even those residents that do not have an oeem view recognize th
values depend upon their neighbor’s property values.
We request ttne Council to charge the developer with a requirement for control of tree t
heights, in homesites west of the rail road tracks, though the project‘s association C@&h. FI
constraint be non-mm&ble 7 at some later date by the aissociation members, without the e m. Anticipating your concern about adding a new code, we believe this approach should eli
minimize the need ~QI- the City to monitor the situation in the hare.
RespeGtfully submitted,
9
8
A!-k RECEBlVE a 0 A
c: %2
City JANUARY Cod 6,1998 Members %&
CityofCarlsbaA
CarJsbtui VieDr.
C&sbad, a, 92008
DearMqordCouncilMembers,
Thank you for listeningto my concerns rtt your meeiing &is ev&g As you heard my
of us tire very concerned about the project and it's d3ii on our prom values. Ms. De Landerrs WG Q02; any pidms hm m): jprupatj', ifshe had she wwld bavc sw
that 1 have an almost a completely unobstructed 180 degree view to C8rlsbar.l Blvd and the
ocean. She or any of her staffme wdcome as wd as the council to take a look at what
would happen ifthe homes were within five (5') &et of the top of the light pies. My view
wouid be gone and so would one of the reasons my wife and I decided to settie in Cdsbad
I am enclosing a copy ofthe notes I rad iiorntouifshf udmy I became nervous and
I was usmg up to muchtimc, so f hope* you will considerthem as you mRke your
decision qyp B.G.Ponseggi -
6947 Whitecap Dr. Carlsbsd, Ca., .92009-3747
760143 1- 1787
1' * I WOULD LII~E TO START 4m SAYING z ~c1 NOT AGAXXST TlcE DmLOPLEhT OF POl?4XSElTM
PKOPbREIlhS, 1 1WK '1HxI A WD DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHOULD BE SUPPORTED AS LO" AS lT 1
NOT A DETRIMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. EVEN THOUGH I HAD MANY FRIENDS OPPOSSED TO TI
LEGGO PROJECT I WORKED FOR ITS APPROVAL AS I THOUGHT rr WOULD BE BENEFICIALTO THE cr
AND THE ~IGHBORHOOD, UNFORTUNATELY 1 CANNOT SAY THE SAME FOR TZIIS PROJECJT.
I HAVE FEW PROBLEMS AND QUESTIONS THAT I WOULD LEE THE ClXY COUNCIL TO ANSWER THIS
EVENING AS THEY PERTAIN TO POINTSE?TIA PROPERTIES AND THE WAY THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN
HANDLED TO THE DETKIMENT OF AL3, OF THE ClTlzENS h3XG AEJACEi" TO 'I3.I RXNTSEIXA
PROPERTIES. WHEN I WAS A S'uP?ORTEX OF THE LEGGO PKOGMM I WAS NOTIFIED OF EVERY Am
BOTH AT THE PLANNING, ENVIOKh4ENTAL AND ClTYCUWCXL MEETINGS EVEN THOUGH I HAD NE'
REQUESTED EITHER FORMALLY OR INFOPAMLLY TO BE PLACED ON THE MAILING LET. PZTER
ATTENDING A MEETING HELD WlTH T€€E HOME OWNERS OF HARBOR PODITE I .@KE9 WHAT DID I
HAVE TO DO TO GET A COPY OF THE EIR WHEN I FIRST HEARD ABOUT THE PROJECT I HAD REQUE
A COPY THIS WAS IN JULY/AUG TIME FRAME AND EVERY TIME I CALLED I WAS TOLD THAT IT
WASN'TREADY. ATTHEMEETINGIWASTOLDALLIHADTODOWASTOASKFORA~PY
AT THE PLANNING DEP'T WHICH I DID THE NEXT DAY AND AT THE COUNTER I WAS TOLD 'r"HEXE 7
NONE AVAILABLE, AFTER INSISTINGTKAT DEE LANDERS MAD SAID THEY WERE AVAILABLE T€E WE= FINAUY ABLE TO FIND ACOPY. AT TIIE SAME TIME I LEFT, WlTX THE CITY PL-G DEI
A LETTER REQUESTING THAT I AS WELL AS. MF. PONSEGGI & ASSOC. BE SENT INFORMATION
WHENEVER A"G CONCERNING THE POINTSE'ZTIA PROJECT WAS ON ANY AGENDA I WAS N
ASKED TO PAY POSTAGE FOR THE MAILING WHICH THE CITY CAN REQUEST AND WHICH I WOW
HAVE GLADLY PAID BUT I DID EXPECT THAT THE LEITER WOULD HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT TO IN:
NOTIFICATION BY ?'HE C11Y. TO DATE 1 -\X YET 1U MCEIVE ANY NOllFICATION. I ONLY HEA
ABOUT THZS MEETING FROM ANEIGHEOR ON WEDNESDAY DEC.31,1997.
I HAVE A PROBLEM IN UNDEXSTANDIXG HOW YOU COULD CALL THIS MEETING IN THIS TlME FR
UNLESS SOU WlZm IIOPING PEOPLE WOCZD NOT RECEIVE NOTICE BECAUSE OF TIE IOLIDAYS 1
IT WAS TO LATE FOR Sow OF Us TO ATLEND, WHEH I CUI) 'IlU CLIY CUKECS 01'fiICB WUIN
AFI'ER I FOUND OUT ABOUT THE MEETING AND ASKED WHY I HAD NOT BEEN NOTIFIED I WAS T(
My NAME WAS NOT ON THE LIST BUT IF I WANTED A COPY OF THE AGENDA I WOULD BE CALIXI
SOON ASlTBECAME AVAILAl3LE AND INTHE MEAIUTlMk . MYNAME WOULD BE PUT ON TEE MAI
IT SEEMS MY LEl'TER HAD NEVER BEEN SENT OVER FKOM THE PLANNINGDEP' T.
.?
AMAZINGLY ErJOUGH Ala hi"G A FEW CALCS FRIDAY To &S'T CRY
AlTOlWEY AND FINALLY CONNECTING AFTER PLAYING PHONE TAG I ASKED ABOUT AFEW THIN<
THAT DISTURRED ME ABOUT THIS PROfECT AND ABOUT THE LACK OF NOTIFICATION AM) THEN I
HUNG UP. ABOUT AN HOUR LATER 1 CALLED THE CITY CLERK TO PUT M.F. PONSEGGI& ASSOC.
ON THE LIST I WAS TOLD THAT THEY RECEIVED MY ORIGINAL TETTER FROM THE PLANNING nEPT
IS THIS THE METHOD THE CITY I8 USINGTO GET AWAY WrmOuT GIVING A 10 DAY NOllCE AS
RJZQUIRED BY LAW? STRANGE, ISNT lT I REALLY AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY THE CI?"y IS
TRYINGTO KEEP US INTHE DARK, ID0 KNOW THA.TSOME OF THE "GS ARE WHAT1 WOULD CA
LONG ARM TRANSACTIONS AND IF THE CGUNCL IS XOT FAMILIAR Wi ?"XAT TERM I vT'nvTI *vuuw n DL ,-.,-
PLEASED TO EXPLAIN IT. HAVING LIVED IN CAL SINCE 1956 AND HAVING ATTEXDED S%3Ar
PLA"G COMMISSION MEETINGS IN OTHER PARTS OF THK STATE I HAVE BEEN LED TO BELIE-
THAT THE INTENT OF CEQUAIS FOR TIMELY PUBLIC DISCLOSURE AND IT IS NOT LrP TO US TO MM
THE APPLICANT, EXCEPT AT PUBLIC MEATINESS OR FORUM, AWARE OF OUR DISPLEASURE'S
ESPECIALLY WHEN WE WERE C0"UOUSLY DENIED ACCESS TO THE MATERIAL WE NEEDED TO
MAKE AN INTELLIGENT RESPONSE.
I HAVE BEEN A SUPPORTTEK OF THE CITY BUT I FEEL IT HAS NOT BEEN HONEST ABOUT
THIS PROJECT. WE WERE TOLD ONE "G AND ANOTHEZ XAS DONE. WHAT IS THE DENSITY?
WHAT IS THE HEIGHT LIha ACTUALLY GOING TO BE AND WHERE IS TIE HEIGHT WING TO BE
MEASURED FROM? I HAVE ALSO BEEN DISTURBED BY STATEMENTS I HAVE HEARD AND READ IN
PAPER THAT THE BUILDER MADE PUBLIC STATEMENTS THAT HE DOESN'T CARE WH.4T .ANY OF m
THINK AS WELL AS HE DOESN'T CARE WHAT HAPPENS TO THE PROJECT N.'I'ER HE LEAVES AS HE'
NOT BE LIVING HERE. I REALLY WOULD LME SOME ANSWERS, WILL WE GET THEM THIS EVENINf
THEClTY HAS DENIED US THE RIGHT AND TIME TO KEVlEW THE EIRIN ATlMELY MANNER BY NO
HAVING IT AVAL4i3U 'PJHE7U"KE S-KZZ 3OIi E, THE ClTS HAS NEVER NOTIFIED US, KESIIjENTS (
EWRWR PONE AS REQUEE3 i3f' LAW EYEIS TEiouGii EAX3OR POINTE WAS IDENTIFIED AS AN P
THAT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTED AS ADDRESSED IN THE VISUAL QUALITY SECTION 01
EIR. CALIFORNIA CASE LAW DEFINITELY SUPPORTS OUR POSl"I9N ON THls MATTER. THE
ADDENDWOR REVISION WAS PASSED WITHOUT RESIDENCE BEING GIVEN A CHATWE TO COMMl
ON ITEVEN THOUGH THERE WERE STATEMENTS THAT WERE MAKKETLY DIFFERENTTHAN WHAl
DISCUSSED AT THE MEETING WlTH THE HOME OWNERS AND THE PLANMNG COMMISSION
MEETING. I AM ALSO PUZZLED AS TO WHEN THE ClTY DECIDE THAT CARLSBAD STATE REACH
c 0 0
SHOULD BE TAKEN OVER BY THE CITY FOR THE USE OF AND THE BENEFTT OF P0INTSETTI.A
PROPERTIES DEVELOPERS? WAS THE STATE PARKS DMSION EVEN CONSULTED? WHAT AM) WHER
ARE THE COMMENTS OF THE STATE PARKS DMSION?
Bernard G.Ponseggi
6947 Whitecap Dr.
carlsbad, Ca 92009-3747
760143 1- 1787
9 0
TELEPHONE MESSAGE
January 13,1998
TO: MAYOR
CITY CO U N C I L
FROM: ERIC GORDON - ALTA MlRA ##4
603-8298
Mr. Gordon called to relay the message that the residents of Alta Mira #4 are equally
and deeply concerned as are the Harbor Pointe residents, about the impacts of
Poinsettia Properties. Concerns relate to environmental issues and views. He doesn’
want Carlsbad to turn into the La Jolla Village Drive area with major high density.
He wanted to stress that it was important that Alta Mira go on record with their
opposition, and stated some concerns about the short amount of time residents had tc
comment once they heard about the project. He stated that he had spoken to nearly
every resident in the complex and they all want their opposition heard. He said the on
reason that you hadn’t heard directly from too many of the residents is because most (
them are elderly and can’t come to the meetings and even have a hard time making
phone calls. He also mentioned that if it would have any additional impact, he would t
happy to gather signatures for a petition (providing the Council would consider a
continuance), encouraging you not to make a hasty decision.
Mr. Gordon will be attending the meeting tonight, and although he understands the
public hearing was closed last week, he indicated he would speak to these issues if
given the opportunity.
Incidentally, he wanted to thank Matt Hall for taking the time to speak with him at the
Planning Commission.
c: City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
I
0 0
January 12,1998
TO: MAYOR
CITY CO U N C I L
FROM: Council Member Hall
NCTD EIR - POINSETTIA STATION
Attached for your information are several points included in the EIR prepared by NCTL
for the Oceanside-San Diego Commuter Rail Project, which specifically pertain to the
Poinsettia Commuter Rail Station. There is also some information from the Lanikai
Lane Noise Assessment.
W4LU
MATT HALL
Council Member
mhs
Attachment
c: City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
a 0
u va O o Y Y- ao ah Y-w m m m~v e 8 -. c - o eo Y L- w m LLc-- e LCuL--OLYlu -omcoR~o E-m.OLmm ue sz2 u**
q
4
I
q
4
4
1
4
4
3
4
w
9
3
1
3
1
1
B -
a aa- u-mv - *ZL L-aLO-- ai ow- L- -2 v- -25 E fm2'u=mmt~~~cc?bu~Z Z:m%';au L3 2-m 0-
; YICU dW1Ec %moucum CE c- ::; OXl W--
E --- 0 ~~:~w~zw2~aw~--** -R~UE r u *--v * r3 "Zgg; Y m ma0 m- ao c -n d -
EC~$ug-~Onr saw g L*:- t5 k: z=g * -- LO - *o DYOMZ ,g -au Y- -- 0- 2. .Zati,,.ZZii Zi$ZSZ'zo 'CA:5,0tC mEd -LE
e*u -- -w- P)- ~~3~4 -v aCmwOZZ?;oE cm cwZLo, Y od,o."S Z-: =sZ - -0 :; +.r, pLUg~- ::ou*= hs?-.=o'v gLy2 a- - en nL e-wI.9 -- ebS0"5i::c =---m-sw= macc c 00 -3-m Z2-G o 6 vmYa*- 2 z z= 2 - = m L y m -0mOW -e ULIIY
aad m Y a-- uIwYmoa1.EvP c -LI c - gza ----yo mm 25 w ova- c(Y -0- y qw;z tPJ LTd :zgLg := pp;';E" 0 -w-8=2 ~ZH~.;C= >me ZZ; Moa=& zgkma 05 0- --o v m -c- PS=Z=~XJ~'*~=F, Y--I.L.Y - t-YLzz: geg ZY z5"* Cwr UL.--* 2; gL:roz=m.m *-mu moa-- -mwuzora VU -aerrY uSZSaV*i
0 EO Y-C 0- L1 - -oc~g;-'q pa f==k @:e $c';G mh- c m- z m u C-- dm -OIY =mu
C- - m z-- L~Y:m~%~~w~~ u m uootwm :=,c 2'03: .*uL mu 1 CU d Cw-waYL c IIP sa. o I - 0 - *- Y m-- L Y I u t- SfY2, -Tu- Om- * f: CC~L. maoz;ZZvZ omc g:: wa =E-;," mu=.*
LoaU :aagYw m a Y c- -- -09 ==.E,-;& Y- 01.- xc Y -vocw 0- f!;-:&r E{= ZyZF
0- -clZ s; ZXJ: - u- r SG-f 5; %:p-=mWgp mwuf-,3Z'5m =zm mlOZmv =mAi~ vm -L==a YLo,,eC,1Y cL cm :sE e- O"=r m - -.*Oh - mw -O=O -mmew--vc-o *.cl =*ex LZ ZmZ Ss;: Ymc *- B*~L m u 3 aEm t --ma ev=u ;C 5 ==-pz c=g~=i~ Lo- oa- --vu Lm- ewmZ
-t=,u= tw ow- L-..dm-uuurcg-CZ amm*mLom a?= 2SZE m-msL$ m c L- u =2 .z:gOcmY~= uo * -Z,'o? a s,.s=;rUz~ e- 8-y :mop
oaa o~ v= =,Q-CI -a= -om moo 0 -- m L .;~~~g~aom~ vSF~~~= .I P mc e -- L -us- a ,- rsmy 0 aw-- CW - -w L Y ac--O*C --* bww m *@wI ,, 2*r2gi b mar01 m-1 a?? -5 E = b E- e- L ., .,m=~3g L-: tzi s?;v ===E z 2:; z z '* -- u= - WN L - m Y Y * m--- L. m- L a e-- a- rgzzo;; Uz SZS,-~--- .*vmL*+Lcdm -omcmbr yy, Y=sh - L LZU Y -0 &:E4 s; gg23.=t: ZZ12~ p !i= E I LZ;;'; :; E 2s =-"Sf
3 m maav- - - mmw L- -sc ais cr y cI - w w--m m ou YUC-~ tzzg W- qU Y a=-* m
x - m m ac E m cr L- a= *aZ EE2 E e m -V L m II e=?
L=-aa.a ao-= OS a*O -=I
3- .r . -= *=e ?=as oU~T22mP gz- m-
C c~=~g,~~--~~4w1.w LI m mmv.)Cv - mr a wuu -m
La- YUL - .f~~a&1.'~;aV 2
-== *hub-- L *LO= Y*Y~OYY~O~YL,~ --koa0 w .Y a k300t;: 05 ~ZY-L -o=~--YYu -Y= 1m-01
c u--..-- - - = a 0)- c o w o LgSZZ S2Zm-3S "3: k e 3-2 0 u.-
ocm
L -b mrrCEt aw
u
m c- 01 0 W % 10 W
h - h W 01 10 10 rn I c- OL. 1 1- Y
i -0
a - '5 -E: cr 2 fa -LC Y h. 0- YLL -e*-- I mcu
& p" - :3te je x;,' o',.% 5 L-0 OlL -0-- O"--i:,o 0- ..LO .x: O'g;;22 0 - +25 z
2c5= cz ""t%S% me *ou-o-&L-- L CI .b '$'8g02h 2eg:
'm-L rL err rio ~IcI mDO..--mm*.i
LDI 0 pu0-r 0 u -- yrnsti5 8.i:zu ::
4-a L 0- 22!!5=9 4 0 0-r 8 t 5
L7 - 0
0.K c a<-0
os -0 z- ** gto:==5 LC L. L*rn a ECO e- fs-:rzgie-adpE
CU Omra *nCa 0 ~80~'. IVY.
-0c
4-V) oc u a a- 0 < -a oum un o cz rn
0.. 00 e ore - u *oz, 5Z;ao- LLO
N-CC LM 0 0 .- 0-40 cna L- 0 a- Y uu-
0-- et8:,, 8- 0 Lps; 0.6 ~o-a-obaao ' L bO0'm#~+fl Our UIC -8LL eo-oY ucu- Sa
a.2,. L.r - c sa= Oti~ -c.=-e dsm mmm 0- O-I)UCC-'L - meet-• 2-a Ye BWL E; 0 rllu'-z2
Y c onma -ob - eo e
a '0. oc -=- -- 'YQ.
L, e; Qy am.% - * gf8 :: EO;: 0-cuca oSSp:Ez F t -22 :: obos bmZg2Zg18XIC .
ZXLd! =ULZ '"gL memL-rxn~~og~~ --¶- LW v--
30C Y co*mSZ -eo e*~c~;~aoco-b~
LL *e t -- 0
-a 0. LI OL
0-00 UP 00 0 0 -=-- rruao~?Sq~~l~~ -5! 85
:LE5 22 PC CIIU gg'g :z:ull I- YIY
OL 0 ": L-.Oe 0":;;. uz'9 - E ;::I, hoe +-a*(. o'~ 3.m- EOCC uu L aeazre-. w oIcoL g~-~~~~;;.~e~- OX-: e0 a: -0 :ue08aSP 4 nou-t cr..f-m;:orb~z:f * or -a r.C.-u;: u 5,:: 2' :;ow 0" :q:.,Y
-0-0 LO 'I u.:.: f; &:a:: :g rYe~eO~~ ?to 0 -0-4
m=avee-m - -0~0 0 0-u 0- a=-& e
O5CO Om 82-0 2;
:Lo- L. Sf$Zrn.rd' om== e- @run 2. E s 10 a-- -* a - 0
s-ga *X 0 - 3% t ' ; .u meam. mL.0- ZB CO.OCOOLmr00
E LD m OLL. pi Le Ob x'uu-u- e-.* aL- do GC t rau-aooi 8 ~~~~r 6: CL3-,8
Y MY Le 0 =0 - co 0 L-c.
I Y a-b -ab $2
c 0- -- 0 Lr
001e ai
'850 uz -oaccc - LP
- bun- --
':go~s,o .z.kO- O--u.-am MHt 0 --ou I
re. 00 mu-rCu *
cax
ori8- CAS Io g -zZc ~2 mm--..b ezt-5
YLSX I3
.s-mo-c
;e:: ec e: = 3 -mL.-os iPt.affS ' - 0 E s2'ti y --YL*. Id +&; 8 80:Se.'::00
'.GO --C1Q LOU Em me.. -- u ..--Ob
.0am 8 i; ;~~;~~$=" r moo .I mm o*%'o't" COO. e ., aca~df.nrarr
(X:?,, gage a a 1
At the Encinitas station, proposed facilities and Operatjans could he 50m what incompatible with the Hacienda De La Playa condominiums east of Falc
Street and north of 0 Street, A futuro impact could occur if parki
demand exceeds proposed station parking.
At the proposed Lomas Santa Fe station, development would require acquis tion of approximately four acres of private property and possib relocation of the Western Lumber Yard. This station could be incompatibl with the adjacent multiple family residential uses east of Cedros Avenue It may also be incompatible with the Central Elementary School and sing1 family residences further north along Cedros. At the prooosed Solan Beach Via de la Val7e Site (Alternative Site 2) a parking deficit of abou
200 spaces could occur. The Brigantine (Site 3) and Via de La Valle Sout (Site 4) sites would be somewhat incompatible with nearby residential uses
The Hiramar Station may have a shortfall of parking spaces by the yea] 2010. Given parking constraints in the area, this would be a significanl impact.
The Miramar Curve realignments may result iR actions inconsistent with the
goals of the open space elements of cornunity planning for University City
and Hira Mesa.
Mi t iaat i on measures
Mi tigation measures recomended for the above-referenced potential impacts to a level of insignificance are as follows:
Carlsbad (Grand) station: Site planning for this station shdd- yJll- in- clude efforts to separate and buffer residences west of Washington Street from the station and bus parking and transfer activities.
Poinsettia station: Site planning for this station sk&d Will include ef- forts to separate and buffer existing mobile home residents from the station as well as associated parking and transit facilities. The City of
Carl sbad specific plan approval process should mitigate land use incom- patibil i ties associated with the Newport National development proposal and
with the future proposed residential development west of the tracks.
Encinitas station: Site planning for this station sW8-m include ef- forts to buffer residences east of Vulcan Avenue from the station as we17
as associated parking and bus transfer facilities. The loss of the municipal parking lot could be partially mitigated by improving existing informal parking area south of E Street. The impact represented by the removal of off-street parking presently used by La Paloma patrons can be mitigated through an agreement allowing night time theatre patron use of station parking. If year 2010 patronage develops as predicted, additional land for parking could be acquired by use of the exlstfng railroad right- of -way.
Lomas Santa Fe station (Salana Beach/Del Mar Alternative Site 11. NSDCTDB is required by law to pay fair market value for the land and improvements
needed to construct the station. Procedures in accordance with the California Relocation Act would be used to mitigate impacts to the Western
1
4
II
P
4
1
1
I
P
P
]I
I
4
1
4
1
f
1 Lumber Company.
81
0
(DEiR, page 01
Oceanside Transit Center: This station site is located at the exisi Oceanside Transit Center. The station site would be within the exist railroad right-of-way adjacent to the Transit Center. It is estimated t approximately 250 parking spaces will be required to sewe comnuter r passengers. However, the proposed project makes no specific provision these spaces. This additional required parking will be provided b related project, the expansion of the existing Oceanside Transit Cent That re1 ated project includes acquini tion of property and expansion Oceanside Transit Center parking to serve all modes which uses the tram center, i .e. buses, Amtrak, and commuter rail . That expansion is be. evaluated as a separate project by the County of San Diego and will be t subject of a separate Jnitial Study €~4rewneMd-.Impc4-U~&. 7 County will evaluate the cumulative impacts of expansion of the Oceansi Transit Center to accomnodate additional parking needs related to a modes. Location of the comnuter rail station adjacent to the Oceansi Transit Center will enable easy interface with other regional modes [ trave] including Amtrak and the North County Transit District bus system.
Carlsbad (Grand): This station site in downtown Carlsbad is proposed to k located on approximately 2 1/2 acres of existing railroad right-of-way (se Exhibit 12). Approximately 420 parking spaces will ultimately be provide east of the railroad right-of-way. The first phase will consist of 151 spaces. A bus transfer facility west of the tracks will permit convenien transfers. Required land for parking will require relocation of Bauel Lumber Company. This issue is discussed in the land use impacts section oi this EIR.
Poinsettia: The Poinsettia station is envisioned as one of the major origin points along the commuter rail line. This station (see Exhibit 13) will be designed in conjunction with a major proposed mixed use project on what is now vacant land. The property owner, Newport National, has agreed
to incorporate the comnuter rail station into the project due to the advantage of having such a facility as an integral part of the project. It is expected that approximately 350 parking spaces for comuters will be
provided on about three acre$ of 'land at this facility. The parking will be
shared with parking uses for whose need occurs outside of peak commuter
parking demand times.
Encinitas: The Encinitas station will be located in downtown Encinitas at
D Street, behind the La Paloma theatre building (see Exhibit 14). This station will include approximately 250 parking spaces on approximately two acres. The basic station features and landscaping may be enhanced by the city and or surrounding property owners in order to be customized to the surrounding development. This station will incorporate the bus transfer facility currently located in Cardiff. The highest number of buses to be in the bus facility at one time during peak hours is eight. Exhibit 14 is the conceptual plan for the station including location of bus parking.
Solana Beach/Del Har: Four sites =*were under consideration for the Del Mar station. (A racetrack site located on an approximately 3 acre parcel adjacent to the training track in the northwest corner of the Del Mar fairgrounds site was studied but eliminated. It is dlscussed in the "Final Assessment of Candidate Stations".)
a
3l
q.
N
1p
a
4
1
1
4
a
1
1
f
1
f
1
1
q
85
e 0
IDEIR, page 29)
possible. The Amtrak platform will be located where the easternmost tr, is presently located, requiring the relocation of about 1300 feet of tra
from just south of Broadway to just north of "A" Street. This will replaced by two new tracks. One will parallel the Amtrak platfom. 1
other will branch off this track about 200 feet north of the Amtr platform and parallel the first track on the east side, passing along 1.
west side of the comnuter platform. This track will then contin southward and connect back into the main track just south of Broadway
Convention Center: During preliminary studies of this comnuter service,
was proposed that a possible station at the new $an Diego Convention Cent be considered The site would be located at the southern end of Fir Street or Fifth Street, between Harbor Drive and the ATUF tracks. To t
west of the site is the city's new convention center. An HTDB LRT statil
is also proposed for this location. At present, ATLSF owns 100-foot righ of-way through this site, with MTDB owning a 50-foot parallel right-of-wa:
The convention center site was added to the list of candidate sites by tf
Technical Advisory Comittee in order to allow for direct service frc North County to the convention center area. Use of this station fc commuter rail is subject to decisions regarding daily train storage an Santa Fe Depot track 7 ayout. Since ~-a8~iiierra~--rigkt-ef-~--~6-8 reqtti+cd--and- this would be a comnuter rail destination station, th Convention Center station has little potential for environmental impacts.
It is proposed that if implemented, this comnuter rail station be a specia use stop, primarily serving special events at the Convention Center wner
LRT cannot acconodate demand.
Commuter Rail beratins Plan
The exact type of equipment to be used for the comnuter rail service has not been finalized. However, given the limited nature of the service, electrification is not justified as an investment. Therefore, equipment is most likely to be diesel powered and will consist of either locomotive hauled cars or multiple unit diesel rail cars.
The fare collection methodology is to be compatible with the practices and procedures of other transit systems serving the $an Diego area. The proof of payment system in use on the MTDB light rail system will most likely be
used.
The proposed service would provide four to six round-trips per day during commuter peak hours, with trips operating southbound from Oceanside to San Diego in the morning, and returning from San Diego back to Oceanside in the evening comnute. In other words, four to six trains would leave Oceanside each morning and terminate in San Diego allowing cOmUterS to arrive in time for work in downtown $an Diego. During the afternoon peak hours, four to six trains would begin in downtown San Diego and return comuters back
up the coast to terminate at the Oceanside Transit Center. One reverse comnuter train is also contemplated. Comnuter service is proposed to begin in late 1992. Ultimately, the service could add trips if demand warrants, for a total of 8 round trips in the long-term future.
A sample operating timetable is indicated in Exhibit 19. The actual schedule will be based on up-to-date patronage and other data confirmed prior to initiation of service.
86
I
4
4
1'
3
4:
g Q: Y
p =p:
4 !2
q io' S
4 zz
P
4
1
q
4
i
4
c 0 u
az U -Ia ww
a p:
3w C'Z =I-
00 VD w Oa
a 10 Ub VYCC
Ly a= -0 VYY
wc1 ow Ob c1 mz '1E a
VY z
Q Y) I a 2
S
c 0
Y 4 cn
-C
.P
.C
Y =
1,
mu, or ca ul- v). =we YO
4 Y)Y EU
-% I
v)
e
Low aE c ca a ul- c on n
=ac c, -0 E
ls Wc, Ea EU na -cc a Oc, cc0L
e mu, nr CQ
V- E aa 0 v) -r =a= c, yo u
5Y)c, L EUCI L u, -%a ul oc ccOL ct *-I
-0 Wac E*
€E OL
nn VY --- Q e-- F-c 3
L 0-u, *o' u Y 72 bceL
>I OF; an -4c 4;;
v) Lo": LOU -2 LOU
L nt CL ala .z &=
Z6 CLQl
>o us >O m v *'
OL c - uu
04Q
-uu L
04a n L ec L'$ L0.E 3
E 0 E 0 =* cc, -- u c, ==I U EL =I 4- L
Vu, c, or v) c mo QU Y Q
'COD WnE
U3 Q3
WO
ccm 00
-I-
0) c
E E a
0
U
a ul
.r
c
0
UU U am
LL L a EL ua 0
be0 cc 00 0
IC,
Q * I .C.P 2 re: -- c c* c -0 :$ L a e: my u cc co 0 n
>, V
0 I
EO OI u WL c ?u *O
c
>, &
u zs *a - z!2 z a0 c, a(c 7
aca w0-w --* u,* v) u - 3w QLQ) =c, 3 -wa cc =-I- 0) kcuo)
a a c, c,
a
c, Lu, at UI
we c a a E rc, -
- -I-
.C n2 u, u,
:
% ->
v E
IC 0- c,
0 UL
c -
Y)
Eu, ar
a-
B a
cc 0-
cc Y 0 uu
E
=a
*a
.C
-Y)
0' v): cc
a-' XL uo -- c, .C E *- r CE uo aT c
Ea OL 2% -I- ~n 32 L
*2 a& *2 tact.= hL 0 maw
zg
-0) i! aut, -=* a0 01 L .L.
?E amc *a 5
o n.m a
** u,* am cu UE a 0 a- L* OIL. L>
*a I- a c,9. -I- Ot4r .pa UP 14p ua
v)- .c E> >
E
01 ow L. UL
mu,
tY V- +a
.cc 0-
-c un zu
I z2! a- Lu,
ccc c OQ 0 r m- EY.
a- cc
a-
E .c
..
L L 01
.c
-a cc .c
LC .. L 'c c,c cc
e* *= Pa -u *- 6-
E a 0 cc ccQ) *I cc c, a Q P
uu, v) 'pu, Ea
0 * as c, e ea Lr a- aa
ao1 =U *t a we E 60 v)-
: u3 *
SL La4 .c
I aac a
ae c,
Eu, 60
c ow -a
aul E
auc 0
rul - =a * rC
E u
a QU
so - =a
0 eL> u c,H >=a E -4)
f Fi
: 2% - a-
gE 4 6U ILI ulL
a nr
n .c -- P * U ..
v)-
4 nu at a
mu a U A. d -, n n a m N
0 0
Lanikai Lane Noise Study
Page 8
period without the Coaster operations would be 61.5 dBA for Site A, and 64.4 dBA for Site B. In other words, the Coaster operations added 2.2 &A to the CNEL values at Site A, and 0.7 dBA to the CNEL levels at Site B.
It should be noted that during our measurementperiod no freight trains were obsenred. Also a review of the nighttime data when no person was present, would seem to indicate that no freight train operations occurred during the unattended time periods either. Freight min operations normally have a very long time duration, and none of the nighttime events had such a duration.
If nod frtight train operations (i.e., one freight during the day, one during the evening, and 2 during the night) were added to the mix, the CNEL noise levels at Sites A and B would be about 70 CNEL. If this were the case, the Coaster operations would add less than 0.5 dBA to the total CNEL Icvel.
In community noise assessment, changes in noise levels greater than 3 dB are often identified as significant, while changes less than 1 dB will not be discernible to local residents. In the range of 1 to 3 dB, residents who are very sensitive to noise may perceivea slight change. Note that there is no scientific evidence is available to support the use of 3 dB as the significance threshold. In laboratory testing situations, humans are able to detect noise levd changes of slightly less than 1 dB. In a community noise situation, however, noise exposures are over a long time period, and changes in noise levels occur over years, rather than the immediate comparison made in a laboratory situation. Therefore, the level at which changes in community noise levels become discernible is likely to be some value greater than 1 dB, and 3 dB appears to be appropriate for most people.
Therefore, it does not appear that the addition of the Coaster trains could be ranked as signrficantly increasing the noise level. The increase in CNEL levels ranges from less than 0.5 dBA up 22 dBA.
Are OveralI Noise Levels Acceptable?
The City’s noise standard is 60 CNEL and this is the primary criteria by which acceptabil;ty of
noise should be evaluated. Using this criteria it is clear that the noise levels at the mobile home park exceed the 60 CNEL Criteria. The measured CNEL values ranged from 63.7 to 65. Z dBA when apparently no freight train operations were operating. With freight train operations the CNEL. values could easily be as high as 70 dBA. Therefore, the overall noise levels at the mobile home park would have to be classified as unacceptable.
What are the Impacts of the Friday Coaster Operations?
According to our information there are four more Coaster operations on Friday than during dre rest of the week. These four operations are distributed as folIows: 1 during the day period, 1 during the evening, and 2 during the night time period. The incrtasedFriday opcmtions cause the CNEL due to the Coaster done to increase by 1.8 dBA over its nonnai weekday CNEL. If
the Coaster noise levels were adiusted acco rdinglv the Fridav CNEL wo uid be 61.4 dBA at, Site A and $8.7 at Site B. The delta increase in total noise levels due to the Fridav Coaster
Mestre Gnvc AssoGiates
,
QPem tions wouId be 3.0 dBA at Site A and 1 .O dBA at Site B ,The table below summarize^ the results,
Lanikai Lane Noise Study
Mestre Greve Associates
Page 9
Table 3 Effect of Friday Coaster Operations
Site A Site B
CNEL w/o coast= 61.5 64.4
Friday Coaster CNEL 61.4 58.7
Total CNEL 64.5 65.4
Delta due toFiiday Coaster Ops. 3.0 1.0
Fiiy, it should be noted that the CaMtiaDepartmexnt of Aeronautics, by law, has defined CNEL as annual noise scale. The U.S. EPA, the California Department of Health Services, and other agencies also view the CNEL scale as an annualizednoise measurement. ‘Ihe point is, that looking at a single day of the week is interesting, but it should not be used to make the final determination on the significance of the impact. The Coaster operations on Friday increase the CNEL noise levels by less than 3 dBA, and this generally is not considered a significant increase. However, as statedin OUT report, the noise levels at the mobile home p
are higher than the City’s criteria of 60 CNEL and this would have to be unacceptable.
AGENDAlTLM# 7 0 0
City Of Carlsbad c: Mayor
Carlsbad City Council City Council
Carlsbad California City Manager
City Attorney
Subject: Proposed Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan.
Mayor Lewis, and Council Members:
w
Preliminary studies and measurements indicate that the height of any 2 story
building located next to Carlsbad Boulevard in Parcels 7 & 8 will impact the
ocean views ofthe various HOAs residents.
Parcels 7&8 appear to be, two high density bedroom type communities whose
area hasbeen furtherconstricted bythe 40' setback. School problems arevery
possible when the children iiom the 923 new homes andthe many new
children who will soon bemoving into 750 Altamira homes, now eligible
and available, all start school.
2b=&q 4T-y yp&&+=2 y
0 AGENDA ITEM si 7
c: Mayor
City Council City of Carlsbad
Carlsbad City Council City Manager Carlsbad California City Afl~rney
C Clerk.
Subject: Proposed Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan. jy_c__, pi;
Mayor Lewis and Council Members:
The roofs of 30' hi& homes proposed to be built in area 7 Parcel B and area 8
Parcel C will destroy ocean views enjoyed by the many, many residents of Harbor
Pointe, Altamira, Sea Crest and others.
The total monetary value of the existing ocean views is a very large number, At the
present time a condominium in the Marea project sells for $ 100,000 more,with an
ocean view,than an identical condominium at Marea without an ocean view. The
going price for other views is $65,000. These are recent well established, and
published, view lot premiums in Zone 22.
Fortunately, Council has the responsibility and power of control of building
heights on this Specific Plan.
We ask that you not rush to judgement on building heights and trees for the
following reasons.
1- You may not have to decide. Solutions are still being sought to correct the loss
of view sight line problem.
2- Consider that you are being asked compare and trade off the aesthetic and
enormous monetary value,of existing ocean views of four large Home Owners
Associations for the aesthetic value of adding 5' additional ginger bread on the top
of a standard 19' two story with a 6' high roof, mostly to be obscured by trees.
3- Consider that one HOA is now in an uproar, and the likely spread of discontent
and unhappiness to the other hillside HOAs.
4- Consider that their is no objection to 30' rooffs anywhere in this fine and
deserving project if they do not obstruct the ocean views of others.
Consider how esay it would be just to limit 25' building heights. This would not
be fair to the developer as they are still working to correct the problem. Give us a
limited amount of time to solve this problem with facts and specifics ,as we have
on previous occasions. aI05z*4
0 0
a 697 1 Whitecap Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009 AGENDA ITEM ##
c: Mayor
City Council
City Manager city ,&mDrnay
January 12, 1998
Mayor Claude A. Lewis
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mayor Lewis,
This is to transmit 198 signatures of homeowners in Harbor Pointe who were not notified that the review period for
the Environmental Impact Report (96-01) started on August 1996 for the Poinsettia Properties project as I indicated
in my letter to Mayor Lewis dated January 4, 1998. Harbor Pointe residents demand that the City of Carlsbad re-
circulate the EIR so that residents of Harbor Pointe can provide comments that can be incorporated into the EIR, th
can be used to reduce the significant impacts on our community due to the project.
Sincerely, _....- - 'i
,.'I *br
p !p;@d;$L- #I; 91
I. ichael L . Walker
Enclosures (2)
MGWImgw
cc: Councilwoman Ramona Finnila
Councilman Matt Hall
Councilwoman Ann Kulchin
Councilwoman Julie Nygaard
City Manager Raymond R. Patchett
City Attorney Ronald R. Ball
January 4. 1998 e 0
Mayor Claude A. Lewis
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad. CA 92008
Dear Mayor Lewis.
This letter is to challenge the Environmental Impact Report, General Plan Amendment. Local Coastal Program
Amendment, Zone Change. Specific Plan Amendment for the Poinsettia Properties project, EIR 96-01/GPA 95-01
96-03/ZC 95-066P 2lOLFMP 87-22(A). Please present this letter to the City Council for the public hearing schei
for January 6, 1998 at the City Council Chambers.
EIR 96-0 1
The notification process for the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report did not provide the homeowners
Harbor Pointe with our legal opportunity to review the draft EIR and comment during the review period that bega
August 1996. The City of Carlsbad did not notify us by a mailed notification of the draft EIR process. Harbor Po
within six hundred feet (600') of the Poinsettia Properties project; thus requiring mailed notice to the residents. W
demand that the City of Carlsbad re-circulate the EIR so that the residents of Harbor Pointe can provide comment
can be used to reduce the significant impacts. Some examples are as follows:
Land Use Compatibility - The existing residential land uses adjacent to the project are Lakeshore Gardens
Mobilehome Park and Lanikai Lane Mobilehome Park. which consist of single family mobile homes primarily OCI
by senior citizens. The project described in the EIR proposes to pur tourist commercial, multiple family residentia
single family residential uses on 92 acres. The multiple family is incompatible adjacent to a senior citizen commk
due to its transient nature and high percentage of children. Noise from the children will be a constant irritation to t
business owners will be absentee landlords. renting to a transient population. These rentals will become tenement
flophouses that draw drug addicts and criminals and will require full time City Police surveillance.
seniors. Rental units are to be constructed above commercial businesses. This will increase the crime rate in the ai
Air Quality - The EIR states that the cumulative impact remains significant and unavoidable. The EIR alsc
that the long-term project specific air quality impact is less than significant by virtue of the transit oriented develo
(TOD) project. The EIR. however, does not contain any details showing how or why the impacts are reduced due
TOD design. No figures or calculations are provided to judge the effects of a TOD on air quality. This project wil
1009 garages which will accommodate 2018 cars/trucks with no guarantee or assurance that the residents will use
Coaster or the bus.
Traffic/Circulation - The EIR states that the cumulative impact remains significant and unavoidable. The p
project will produce 14. 358 new trips per day to this small area of 92 acres. The alternatives chosen for comparis
the EIR make the 13.358 new trips look appealing because those alternatives provide for even more trips. Why no
consider a General Plan Designation of RM at 6 dwelling units per acre. which would only produce 5520 trips per
Don't increase the residential units by more than 125% (560 units) without any assurance that the residents will us
transit services.
Biological Resources - The EIR does not address any possible impacts to biological resources to be found
of ice plant and other native plant species. as well as various animals and their habitat. These areas will be disturb1
not destroyed, during construction. Re- circulate the EIR and review these areas for endangered species and critics
habitat.
railroad. Poinsettia Lane or Carlsbad Blvd. rights of ways. All of these rights of ways have established growth co
Visual Aesthetics/Grading - Carlsbad Blvd. is a "community theme corridor". Interstate 5 and Poinsettia L:
"community scenic corridors". and the SDNR is a "railroad corridor". Visual amenities to be preserved include blL
views. natural stretches of coastline and beaches. lagoons and related wildlife and public parks. These view cord
be lost as a result of this project. The views will be obstructed because the proposed buildings can be as high as 35
and will block views from thc railroad. Poinsettia Lane and many other locations. The EIR view-cross sections shc
the impact to private property. i.e. Harbor Pointe and Sea Cliff. but not to the railroad or Poinsettia Lane. The EIR
be re-circulated and these views analyzed so that the project design will not impact these important views.
0 0 ~ '7- ~
Public Services and Utilities - Aviara Oaks Elementary school is at full capacity now according to their sc
project has no impact on schools. Aviara Oaks has 917 students in K-6 grades. It was built to accommodate 650.1
project will add 269 students or 4 1 % above its intended capacity. This appears to be a significant impact.
General Plan Amendment
We object to changing the General Plan designation on Parcel A from Residential Medium Density (4-8 ddac) an
and Related Commercial (RM/O) to Residential Medium-High Density (8- 15 ddac) and Residential Medium-Hig
Density (15-23 ddac) (RMH/RH). The current General Plan designation will provide a much better Transit Orien
Development because it would locate jobs next to the Coaster Station. We object to changing Parcel B from RMH
ddac) to RH (15-23 ddac) due to the added traffic, school students and decreased air quality that will result from
higher density.
Local Coastal Program Amendment
We object to the Local Coastal Program Amendment due to the project's impact to visual amenities on Poinsettia I
the railroad and Carlsbad Blvd. These important view corridors should be preserved.
Zone Change
We object to the proposed zone changes as stated in the "General Plan Amendment" paragraph. No gas service sta
will be allowed in the project. The existing zoning would allow gas service stations. Over 2000 vehicles will cornc
the project, but gas service will be prohibited.
Specific Plan
We object to the project's Specific Plan due to the impacts on land use compatibility, air quality, traffic/circulation
biological resources. visual aestheticslgrading and public serviceshtilities.
Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment
We object to the project's Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment. as it does not provide for the constructic
the widened Railroad Bridge for Poinsettia Lane. An additional 560 units will be added to Zone 22 of the Local Fz
Plan. Zone 22 is only planned for 598 units and will therefore be increased by 94%. This large increase in additior:
should not be allowed just because they are available within the southwest quadrant of the City's Growth Manager
Plan. Excess units from other zones should be eliminated and not concentrated in a small 92-acre area. Adding the:
will impact existing residents.
district Operations Superintendent and a recent newspaper article in the North County Times. The EIR states the r
>
City Council Policy Concerning South Carlsbad State Beach Park
We object to the policy of the City Council to convert the current RV/campground to day use only. South Carlsbac
Beach Park is one of the most popular camping parks in the State's system and should not be converted to day use
Within the last year the State spent in excess of SI million to rebuild and improve the camping sites and restroom
facilities. Maintaining these camping facilities provides an inexpensive recreational option to many California fam
Project Safety
Children will he playing within very close proximity to the railroad tracks. A high wall without openings should b
constructed to prevent the children tiom going onto the tracks. This wall should be completely separated from the
backyards ofthe houses by an alley or maintenance road. Design a buffer of office buildings for at least 100" on si
side of the tracks, east and west. Both of these design features will block children's access to the tracks. Carlsbad S
District does not provide buses to transport school age children to Aviara Oaks. Children will have to walk several
to school along Poinsettia Lane. including crossing the very busy 1-5 freeway bridge. The project has not given ad€
consideration to its children's safety.
0 @ 1 ugr J
Policy 8-1, Mello I1 Segment of Local Coastal Program states. "city should enforce appropriate height limitations
through construction, as well as minimize any alterations to topography." For this project. buildin, 0s on Parcel B s
be limited to 25' in height as well as all future trees through homeowner association control. Also do not allow bu
pads to be elevated above natural ground. The City has set precedence with building height control at the new out
located just west of the flower fields. The commercial buildings average 26' in height and do not block the view c
flower fields.
Summary
This is to demand that this project be sent back to the planning stage for re-evaluation of all of its elements. The 1
should be re-circulated for citizen input. Transit experts should evaluate different designs to determine if a succes
transit oriented development is practical at this location. Incentive programs to increase Coaster ridership should t
evaluated. Additional biological review should take place in existing rights of ways. A train safety element should
added to the EIR. Height limitations and other restrictions should be required to preserve ocean views. Incornpatit
uses should be eliminated. Appropriate school facilities should be provided as well as widening the Poinsettia Lari
Railroad Bridge prior to beginning construction of the project. The citizens of Harbor Pointe should be provided \
their legal rights to participate during the preparation of EIR 96-01 as required by CEQA, state statues and court
decisions.
Sincerely,
M,~&,.,/~&, &/& GYP &.Ahe &~Jc, &@em W-u-j f. &&&&A WMY /B/;nn;&&/KeR GP7/ mh Ir-Ce2@. h-++k!A.
/cd mY '~~~~~~~~~~~n#~*../-:iir G77>5 /- I.' Le/s',,r;.CAP r9x. CAg
-.y ,hne j ,a ac-. . & py ,c;r.j/,..c;;/ Rue./ Ch&<
SF'., 3'.' / /$& &( (+d
,&&JJmZ . 6Uc80 5@?+?-4j pp..? ' C;r&'J, &* 920
&kd& &&A? /&&&&' lY*-&'&7&,&M/ * A/d&
-JH~ 6S77 "n"A;*CG-fh* Y-ckEk
:".lL?W
4 &#-- Lbfi li /b/ r aliitfi( 8" if
p[&,[.;-p /m*
MGW/mgw
cc: Councilwoman Ramona Finnila
Councilman Matt Hall
Councilwoman Ann Kulchin
Councilwoman Julie Nygaard
City Manager Raymond R. Patchett
City Attorney Ronald R. Ball
0 e
PETITION FOR THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING
LACK OF NOTIFICATION TO HARBOR POINTE RESIDENTS
FOR THE POINSETTIA PROPERTIES PROJECT EIR 96-0 1
We the undersigned residents of Harbor Pointe were not notified when the draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR 96-01) for the Poinsettia Properties Project was circulated for review in August 1996. The notification
process for the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report did not provide the homeowners in Harbor
Pointe with our legal opportunity to review the draft EIR and comment during the review period. The City of
Carlsbad did not notify the homeowners by a mailed notification of the draft EIR process. Harbor Pointe is
within six hundred feet (600) of the proposed Poinsettia Properties Project; thus requiring mailed notice to the
Residents.
This petition challenges the EIR notification process required by the Cahfornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
State Statues, City Ordinances and procedures. and court decisions. We demand that the City of Carlsbad re-circulate
the EIR so that the residents of Harbor Pointe can provide comments on the draft EIR that can be used to reduce the
significant impacts caused by the project
NAME ADDRESS DATE
&Y/y&2+&--d -- - A& 72 dB&X<-/ <w* /f%$dFE 5 @/?,A /-y - >>*f
d&&&&4.JibJ. 5& y KWJiA,d LLI / 4G -7-G CT
fLy ld:;i-w&- [Jd // - 1; - ;<3
' /-
I --
'J 1 ax%#!L2 4 b $yj &i
r
I
b
0 0
PETITION FOR THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING
LACK OF NOTIFICATION TO HARBOR POINTE RESIDENTS
FOR THE POINSETTIA PROPERTIES PROJECT EIR 96-0 1
We the undersigned residents of Harbor Pointe were not notified when the draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR 96-01) for the Poinsettia Properties Project was circulated for review in August 1996. The notification
process for the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report did not provide the homeowners in Harbor
Pointe with our legal opportunity to review the draft EIR and comment during the review period. The City of
Carlsbad did not notify the homeowners by a mailed notification of the draft EIR process. Harbor Pointe is
within six hundred feet (600) of the proposed Poinsettia Properties Project, thus requiring mailed notice to the
Residents.
This petition challenges the EIR notification process required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
State Statues, City Ordinances and procedures, and court decisions. We demand that the City of Carlsbad re-circulate
the EIR so that the residents of Harbor Pointe can provide comments on the draft EIR that can be used to reduce the
significant impacts caused by the project.
NAME ADDRESS DATE
/
~~~~~~~~ p/5 $@~/9~FTl&Is Qk-LT&) .d/ I;A 4 q..@ j
1' - /-r
F - -4 tzjicii.c .c&&,\y..p "I )(<. 4 s 4!L ,&e ;; Lfl 4 < :A+/JV> k-c-A 4' f i"
IJ
0 0
PETITION FOR THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING
LACK OF NOTIFICATION TO HARBOR POINTE RESIDENTS
FOR THE POINSETTIA PROPERTIES PROJECT EIR 96-0 1
We the undersigned residents of Harbor Pointe were not notified when the draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR 96-01) for the Poinsettia Properties Project was circulated for review in August 1996. The notification
process for the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report did not provide the homeowners in Harbor
Pointe with our legal opportunity to review the draft EIR and comment during the review penod. The City of
Carlsbad did not notify the homeowners by a mailed notification of the draft EIR process. Harbor Pointe is
within six hundred feet (600) of the proposed Poinsettia Properties Project; thus requiring mailed notice to the
Residents.
This petition challenges the EIR notification process required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
State Statues, City Ordinances and procedures, and court decisions. We demand that the City of Carlsbad re-circulate
the EIR so that the residents of Harbor Pointe can provide comments on the draft EIR that can be used to reduce the
significant impacts caused by the project.
NAME ADDRESS DATE
/-.. - /' ?\ I\ '1 \
\ ,%cy?
&-&L)iy"13 if4 5 vu$) e,:lw4 r" - ,-.
< 1 -3- &L./ L- ~ &p..-,A ~ <-: ,?I ( c;' ,&, .~ ' -/ /,, ?t *y ; , i;
[ '\ J
(/-- p;t- Leu I
A< -
- 8 I; 5i7~fi djf/~-~ ,//i/vz
1 ,? I ' 7
' $1
,x - C' -,
e 0
PETITION FOR THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING
LACK OF NOTIFICATION TO HARBOR POINTE RESIDENTS
FOR THE POINSETTIA PROPERTIES PROJECT EIR 96-0 1
We the undersiped residents of Harbor Pointe were not notified when the draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR 96-01) for the Poinsettia Properties Project was circulated for review in August 1996. The notification
process for the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report did not provide the homeowners in Harbor
Pointe with our legal opportunity to review the draft EIR and comment during the review period. The City of
Carlsbad did not notify the homeowners by a mailed notification of the draft EIR process. Harbor Pointe is
within six hundred feet (600') of the proposed Poinsettia Properties Project, thus requiring mailed notice to the
Residents.
This petition challenges the EIR notification process required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
State Statues, City Ordinances and procedures, and court decisions We demand that the City of Carlsbad re-circulatf
the EIR so that the residents of Harbor Pointe can provide comments on the draft EIR that can be used to reduce the
significant impacts caused by the project
NAME ADDRESS DATE
- Ll: c4gc / iL&Gq- iicK&LLlZCU 5 1( T"* c bl!-by=-T&3 b 12- /-I(
/ J // .-G$ C,' ' .v*"/" p & f2 /q,zJ$; 5, &;q%Q,,,;- 6 / J f , &o/uq L&ruf ,\
L ,7 /* - C,/ // ,//? fl r 5 'r, 1 / - I , , ,??$6&~ -_ , &-&.e -. I f-//-/ ,.4 - .;; e- L,/ /I' i
0 0
PETITION FOR THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING
LACK OF NOTIFICATION TO HARBOR POINTE RESIDENTS
FOR THE POINSETTIA PROPERTIES PROJECT EIR 96-0 1
We the undersigned residents of Harbor Pointe were not notified when the draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR 96-01) for the Poinsettia Properties Project was circulated for review in August 1996. The notification
process for the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report did not provide the homeowners in Harbor
Pointe with our legal opportunity to review the draft EIR and comment during the review period. The City of
Carlsbad did not notify the homeowners by a mailed notification of the draft EIR process. Harbor Pointe is
within six hundred feet (600) of the proposed Poinsettia Properties Project; thus requiring mailed notice to the
Residents.
This petition challenges the EIR notification process required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
State Statues, City Ordinances and procedures, and court decisions. We demand that the City of Carlsbad re-circulate
the EIR so that the residents of Harbor Pointe can provide comments on the draft EIR that can be used to reduce the
significant impacts caused by the project
DATE
!
J /&L-] L--l /”$ .J :,q L 4 JL ... il ;c$C, p. I I i; ; t;q
’;/ I - 1’
e 0
PETITION FOR THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING
LACK OF NOTIFICATION TO HARBOR POINTE RESIDENTS
FOR THE POINSE'TTIA PROPERTIES PROJECT EIR 96-01
We the undersigned residents of Harbor Pointe were not notified when the draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR 96-01) for the Poinsettia Properties Project was circulated for review in August 1996. The notification
process for the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report did not provide the homeowners in Harbor
Pointe with our legal opportunity to review the draft EIR and comment during the review period. The City of
Carlsbad did not notify the homeowners by a mailed notification of the draft EIR process. Harbor Pointe is
within six hundred feet (600) of the proposed Poinsettia Properties Project; thus requiring mailed notice to the
Residents.
This petition challenges the EIR notification process required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
State Statues, City Ordinances and procedures. and court decisions. We demand that the City of Carlsbad re-circulate
the EIR so that the residents of Harbor Pointe can provide comments on the draft EIR that can be used to reduce the
significant impacts caused by the project.
NAME ADDRESS DATE
a-
a,
d
k L i V'
0 0
PETITION FOR THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING
LACK OF NOTIFICATION TO HARBOR POINTE RESIDENTS
FOR THE POINSETTIA PROPERTIES PROJECT EIR 96-0 1
We the undersigned residents of Harbor Pointe were not notified when the draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR 96-01) for the Poinsettia Properties Project was circulated for review in August 1996. The notification
process for the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report did not provide the homeowners in Harbor
Pointe with our legal opportunity to review the draft EIR and comment during the review period. The City of
Carlsbad did not notify the homeowners by a mailed notification of the draft EIR process. Harbor Pointe is
within six hundred feet (600) of the proposed Poinsettia Properties Project; thus requiring mailed notice to the
Residents.
This petition challenges the EIR notification process required by the California Environmental Quallty Act (CEQA),
State Statues, City Ordinances and procedures, and court decisions. We demand that the City of Carlsbad re-circulate
the EIR so that the residents of Harbor Pointe can provide comments on the draft EIR that can be used to reduce the
significant impacts caused by the project.
NAME ADDRESS DATE
~
a, -
-
___
~ /
I ,- ,-A -
I i
0 0
PETITION FOR THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING
LACK OF NOTIFICATION TO HARBOR POINTE RESIDENTS
FOR THE POINSETTIA PROPERTIES PROJECT EIR 96-01
We the undersigned residents of Harbor Pointe were not notified when the draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR 96-01) for the Poinsettia Properties Project was circulated for review in August 1996 The notification
process for the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report did not provide the homeowners in Harbor
Pointe with our legal opportunity to review the draft EIR and comment during the review period The City of
Carlsbad did not notify the homeowners by a mailed notification of the draft EIR process. Harbor Pointe is
within six hundred feet (600) of the proposed Poinsettia Properties Project: thus requiring mailed notice to the
Residents.
This petition challenges the EIR notification process required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
State Statues, City Ordinances and procedures. and court decisions. We demand that the City of Carlsbad re-circulate
the EIR so that the residents of Harbor Pointe can provide comments on the draft EIR that can be used to reduce the
significant impacts caused by the project
NAME ADDRESS DATE
t <#
A!/@* 16L 8 f /I i4 &*e.”
/ %4$q-Fh /$$*-gq> (7 G la“. Wqg&*<,$&~ pk-
n ?qg!&‘W\ y rn.&&,q4 \P LI /-.i’Z& y y4G&&@ ’,(+, j/&-&,L. L 1 - (/ - L
\-
r i
0 0
PETITION FOR THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING
LACK OF NOTIFICATION TO HARBOR POINTE RESIDENTS
FOR THE POINSETTIA PROPERTIES PROJECT EIR 96-0 1
We the undersigned residents of Harbor Pointe were not notified when the draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR 96-01) for the Poinsettia Properties Project was circulated for review in August 1996 The notification
process for the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report did not provide the homeowners in Harbor
Pointe with our legal opportunity to review the draft EIR and comment during the review period. The City of
Carlsbad did not notify the homeowners by a mailed notification of the draft EIR process. Harbor Pointe is
within six hundred feet (600') of the proposed Poinsettia Properties Project; thus requiring mailed notice to the
Residents.
This petition challenges the EIR notification process required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
State Statues, City Ordinances and procedures, and court decisions We demand that the City of Carlsbad re-circulate
the EIR so that the residents of Harbor Pointe can provide comments on the draft EIR that can be used to reduce the
significant impacts caused by the project.
NAME ADDRESS DATE
L'
0 0
PETITION FOR THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING
LACK OF NOTIFICATION TO HARBOR POINTE RESIDENTS
FOR THE POINSETTIA PROPERTIES PROJECT EIR 96-0 1
We the undersigned residents of Harbor Pointe were not notified when the draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR 96-01) for the Poinsettia Properties Project was circulated for review in August 1996. The notification
process for the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report did not provide the homeowners in Harbor
Pointe with our legal opportunity to review the draft EIR and comment during the review period. The City of
Carlsbad did not notify the homeowners by a mailed notification of the draft EIR process. Harbor Pointe is
within six hundred feet (600') of the proposed Poinsettia Properties Project; thus requiring mailed notice to the
Residents.
This petition challenges the EIR notification process required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
State Statues, City Ordinances and procedures, and court decisions. We demand that the City of Carlsbad re-circulate
the EIR so that the residents of Harbor Pointe can provide comments on the draft EIR that can be used to reduce the
significant impacts caused by the project.
NAME ADDRESS DATE
i
e 0
PETITION FOR THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING
LACK OF NOTIFICATION TO HARBOR POINTE RESIDENTS
FOR THE POINSETTIA PROPERTIES PROJECT EIR 96-0 1
We the undersigned residents of Harbor Pointe were not notified when the draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR 96-01) for the Poinsettia Properties Project was circulated for review in August 1996. The notification
process for the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report did not provide the homeowners in Harbor
Pointe with our legal opportunity to review the draft EIR and comment during the review period. The City of
Carlsbad did not notify the homeowners by a mailed notification of the draft EIR process. Harbor Pointe is
within six hundred feet (600) of the proposed Poinsettia Properties Project; thus requiring mailed notice to the
Residents.
This petition challenges the EIR notification process required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
State Statues, City Ordinances and procedures, and court decisions. We demand that the City of Carlsbad re-circulate
the EIR so that the residents of Harbor Pointe can provide comments on the draft EIR that can be used to reduce the
significant impacts caused by the project.
DATE
0 a
PETITION FOR THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING
LACK OF NOTIFICATION TO HARBOR POINTE RESIDENTS
FOR THE POINSETTIA PROPERTIES PROJECT EIR 96-01
We the undersigned residents of Harbor Pointe were not notified when the draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR 96-01) for the Poinsettia Properties Project was circulated for review in August 1996. The notification
process for the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report did not provide the homeowners in Harbor
Pointe with our legal opportunity to review the draft EIR and comment during the review period. The City of
Carlsbad did not notify the homeowners by a mailed notification of the draft EIR process. Harbor Pointe is
within six hundred feet (600) of the proposed Poinsettia Properties Project; thus requiring mailed notice to the
Residents.
This petition challenges the EIR notification process required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
State Statues, City Ordinances and procedures, and court decisions. We demand that the City of Carlsbad re-circulate
the EIR so that the residents of Harbor Pointe can provide comments on the draft EIR that can be used to reduce the
significant impacts caused by the project.
NAME ADDRESS DATE
.- 7, .s ..
-*k$ 2 py &$&J. gc3 &&&Qmj 22., /-[E -Q;
0 0
PETITION FOR THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING
LACK OF NOTIFICATION TO HARBOR POINTE RESIDENTS
FOR THE POINSETTIA PROPERTIES PROJECT EIR 96-0 1
We the undersigned residents of Harbor Pointe were not notified when the draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR 96-01) for the Poinsettia Properties Project was circulated for review in August 1996. The notification
process for the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report did not provide the homeowners in Harbor
Pointe with our legal opportunity to review the draft EIR and comment during the review period. The City of
Carlsbad did not notify the homeowners by a mailed notification of the draft EIR process. Harbor Pointe is
within six hundred feet (600') of the proposed Poinsettia Properties Project; thus requiring mailed notice to the
Residents.
This petition challenges the EIR notification process required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
State Statues, City Ordinances and procedures, and court decisions. We demand that the City of Carlsbad re-circulate
the EIR so that the residents of Harbor Pointe can provide comments on the draft EIR that can be used to reduce the
significant impacts caused by the project.
NAME ADDRESS DATE
a 0
PETITION FOR THE CARLSB AD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING
LACK OF NOTIFICATION TO HARBOR POINTE RESIDENTS
FOR THE POINSETTIA PROPERTIES PROJECT EIR 96-0 1
We the undersigned residents of Harbor Pointe were not notified when the draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR 96-01) for the Poinsettia Properties Project was circulated for review in August 1996. The notification
process for the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report did not provide the homeowners in Harbor
Pointe with our legal opportunity to review the draft EIR and comment during the review period. The City of
Carlsbad did not notify the homeowners by a mailed notification of the draft EIR process. Harbor Pointe is
within six hundred feet (600') of the proposed Poinsettia Properties Project; thus requiring mailed notice to the
Residents.
This petition challenges the EIR notification process required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
State Statues, City Ordinances and procedures, and court decisions. We demand that the City of Carlsbad re-circulate
the EIR so that the residents of Harbor Pointe can provide comments on the draft EIR that can be used to reduce the
significant impacts caused by the project.
NAME ADDRESS DATE
/
i !
0 a
PETITION FOR THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING
LACK OF NOTIFICATION TO HARBOR POINTE RESIDENTS
FOR THE POINSETTIA PROPERTIES PROJECT EIR 96-01
We the undersigned residents of Harbor Pointe were not notified when the draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR 96-01) for the Poinsettia Properties Project was circulated for review in August 1996. The notification
process for the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report did not provide the homeowners in Harbor
Pointe with our legal opportunity to review the draft EIR and comment during the review period. The City of
Carlsbad did not notify the homeowners by a mailed notification of the draft EIR process. Harbor Pointe is
within six hundred feet (600) of the proposed Poinsettia Properties Project; thus requiring mailed notice to the
Residents.
This petition challenges the EIR notification process required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
State Statues, City Ordinances and procedures, and court decisions. We demand that the City of Carlsbad re-circulate
the EIR so that the residents of Harbor Pointe can provide comments on the draft EIR that can be used to reduce the
significant impacts caused by the project.
NAME - ADDRESS DATE
,- //
, Xi/&-+=+- /4j//;,&<pq J !/ (&,F$$ &,$/#rc;;. d c@o /-/++~ E9 , ,/ - -
lqD.47 p,q2J'iazg,:%~T*A /%1 &Ql+ A>' r.FifiB 3- /IC - i ._ Ti - 5/19
e 0
PETITION FOR THE CARLSB AD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING
LACK OF NOTIFICATION TO HARBOR POINTE RESIDENTS
FOR THE POINSETTIA PROPERTIES PROJECT EIR 96-0 1
We the undersigned residents of Harbor Pointe were not notified when the draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR 96-01) for the Poinsettia Properties Project was circulated for review in August 1996. The notification
process for the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report did not provide the homeowners in Harbor
Pointe with our legal opportunity to review the draft EIR and comment during the review period. The City of
Carlsbad did not notify the homeowners by a mailed notification of the draft EIR process. Harbor Pointe is
within SIX hundred feet (600') of the proposed Poinsettia Properties Project: thus requiring mailed notice to the
Residents.
This petition challenges the EIR notification process required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
State Statues, City Ordinances and procedures, and court decisions. We demand that the City of Carlsbad re-circulate
the EIR so that the residents of Harbor Pointe can provide comments on the draft EIR that can be used to reduce the
significant impacts caused by the project.
NAME ADDRESS DATE
-, I 7 c =' 7'
/
0 0
PETITION FOR THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING
LACK OF NOTIFICATION TO HARBOR POINTE RESIDENTS
FOR THE POINSETTIA PROPERTIES PROJECT EIR 96-01
We the undersigned residents of Harbor Pointe were not notified when the draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR 96-01) for the Poinsettia Properties Project was circulated for review in August 1996. The notification
process for the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report did not provtde the homeowners In Harbor
Pointe with our legal opportunity to review the draft EIR and comment during the review period. The City of
Carlsbad did not notify the homeowners by a mailed notification of the draft EIR process. Harbor Pointe is
within six hundred feet (600') of the proposed Poinsettia Properties Project; thus requiring mailed notice to the
Residents.
This petition challenges the EIR notification process required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
State Statues. City Ordinances and procedures, and court decisions. We demand that the City of Carlsbad re-circulate
the EIR so that the residents of Harbor Pointe can provide comments on the draft EIR that can be used to reduce the
significant impacts caused by the project.
NAME ADDRESS DATE
.i
f
I.
I
JyL /& - -/*:,.h 'p-L !i fi'q 1 //L kLpLjdL k"jh&/ 3'
i f
<, J ,J ,>'
0 0
PETITION FOR THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING
LACK OF NOTIFICATION TO HARBOR POINTE RESIDENTS
FOR THE POINSETTIA PROPERTIES PROJECT EIR 96-01
We the undersigned residents of Harbor Pointe were not notified when the draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR 96-01) for the Poinsettia Properties Project was circulated for review in August 1996. The notification
process for the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report did not provide the homeowners in Harbor
Pointe with our legal opportunity to review the draft EIR and comment during the review period. The City of
Carlsbad did not notify the homeowners by a mailed notification of the draft EIR process. Harbor Pointe IS
within six hundred feet (600’) of the proposed Poinsettia Properties Project; thus requiring mailed notice to the
Residents.
This petition challenges the EIR notification process required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
State Statues, City Ordinances and procedures. and court decisions. We demand that the City of Carlsbad re-circulate
the EIR SO that the residents of Harbor Pointe can provide comments on the draft EIR that can be used to reduce the
significant impacts caused by the project.
1 /)[As/ ’1 iij rf L /i< &/ i~/d it L q2> )-A s- -/yLL!FT & b t bj<(- ;Izdcg /h~/
/ f
?
s/ci /*
4
,,c”’
e e
PETITION FOR THE CARLSB AD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING
LACK OF NOTIFICATION TO HARBOR POINTE RESIDENTS
FOR THE POINSETTIA PROPERTIES PROJECT EIR 96-0 1
We the undersigned residents of Harbor Pointe were not notified when the draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR 96-01) for the Poinsettia Properties Project was circulated for review in August 1996. The notification
process for the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report did not provide the homeowners in Harbor
Pointe with our legal opportunity to review the draft EIR and comment during the review period. The City of
Carlsbad did not notify the homeowners by a mailed notification of the draft EIR process. Harbor Pointe is
within SIX hundred feet (600') of the proposed Poinsettia Properties Project; thus requiring mailed notice to the
Residents.
This petition challenges the EIR notification process required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
State Statues, City Ordinances and procedures, and court decisions. We demand that the City of Carlsbad re-circulate
the EIR so that the residents of Harbor Pointe can provide comments on the draft EIR that can be used to reduce the
significant impacts caused by the project
NAME ADDRESS DATE
f3c &Lud&?d 1w / --/& -79
&LLU& &LW .$JJ /.&&-&83344/ 1 -BG - 3y.
)-,.'&- 4'fy x i (L /r &f/+ - < ,535 lu,h;ci c c c4 77T.
i.. ;: _Ji,Pt.(& ' L 4 1,- -
/ -J/ \
i 6 L ( b '/-P , L, +. /ir_ "b ! $4 6 J/L I:,( t.h .. ,* . #: ~
j r' Lj
0 e
PETITION FOR THE CARLSB AD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING
LACK OF NOTIFICATION TO HARBOR POINTE RESIDENTS
FOR THE POINSETTIA PROPERTIES PROJECT EIR 96-01
We the undersigned residents of Harbor Pointe were not notified when the draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR 96-01) for the Poinsettia Properties Project was circulated for review in August 1996. The notification
process for the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report did not provide the homeowners in Harbor
Pointe with our legal opportunity to review the draft EIR and comment during the review period The City of
Carlsbad did not notify the homeowners by a mailed notification of the draft EIR process. Harbor Pointe is
within six hundred feet (600) of the proposed Poinsettia Properties Project; thus requiring mailed notice to the
Residents.
This petition challenges the EIR notification process required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
State Statues, City Ordinances and procedures. and court decisions. We demand that the City of Carlsbad re-circulate
the EIR so that the residents of Harbor Pointe can provide comments on the draft EIR that can be used to reduce the
signtficant impacts caused by the project
NAME ADDRESS DATE
7ipW 7&&-&d 6276& cz- A ///o /9z
5~&2Ld 4f&-- d'>F 7' ,T L / -&L- t ze &. /,/Lh f 'v
i/ /* /-'
a -1 $1
0 0
PETITION FOR THE CARLSB AD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING
LACK OF NOTIFICATION TO HARBOR POINTE RESIDENTS
FOR THE POINSETTIA PROPERTIES PROJECT EIR 96-01
We the undersigned residents of Harbor Pointe were not notified when the draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR 96-01) for the Poinsettia Properties Project was circulated for review in August 1996. The notification
process for the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report did not provide the homeowners in Harbor
Poinle with our legal opportunity to review the draft EIR and comment during the review period. The City of
Carlsbad did not notify the homeowners by a mailed notification of the draft EIR process. Harbor Pointe is
within six hundred feet (600) of the proposed Poinsettia Properties Project: thus requiring mailed notice to the
Residents.
This petition challenges the EIR notification process required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
State Statues, City Ordinances and procedures, and court decisions. We demand that the City of Carlsbad re-circulate
the EIR SO that the residents of Harbor Pointe can provide comments on the draft EIR that can be used to reduce the
significant impacts caused by the project
NAME ADDRESS DATE
&.ud AL4$!!P? a (2 ,/
(-- .+ &.LA\ x< i;TS&@ $8E4W&MTERS CAfi&m c5-5
$?5L 5 5 UJ%;-, :%Trn-S C&2L<WS, c6J
-
P P*
1
b
0 0
PETITION FOR THE CARLSB AD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING
LACK OF NOTIFICATION TO HARBOR POINTE RESIDENTS
FOR THE POINSETTIA PROPERTIES PROJECT EIR 96-0 1
We the undersigned residents of Harbor Pointe were not notified when the draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR 96-01) for the Poinsettia Properties Project was circulated for review in August 1996 The notification
process for the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report did not provide the homeowners in Harbor
Pointe with our legal opportunity to review the draft EIR and comment during the review penod. The City of
Carlsbad did not notify the homeowners by a mailed notification of the draft EIR process. Harbor Pointe is
within six hundred feet (600') of the proposed Poinsettia Properties Project; thus requiring mailed notice to the
Residents
This petition challenges the EIR notification process required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
State Statues, City Ordinances and procedures, and court decisions. We demand that the City of Carlsbad re-circulate
the EIR so that the residents of Harbor Pointe can provide comments on the draft EIR that can be used to reduce the
significant impacts caused by the project.
NAME ADDRESS DATE
0 0
PETITION FOR THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING
LACK OF NOTIFICATION TO HARBOR POINTE RESIDENTS
FOR THE POINSETTIA PROPERTIES PROJECT EIR 96-01
We the undersigned residents of Harbor Pointe were not notified when the draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR 96-01) for the Poinsettia Properties Project was circulated for review in August 1996. The notification
process for the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report did not provide the homeowners in Harbor
Pointe with our legal opportunity to review the draft EIR and comment during the review period. The City of
Carlsbad did not notify the homeowners by a mailed notification of the draft EIR process. Harbor Pointe is
within six hundred feet (600) of the proposed Poinsettia Properties Project; thus requiring mailed notice to the
Residents.
This petition challenges the EIR notification process required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
State Statues, City Ordinances and procedures, and court decisions. We demand that the City of Carlsbad re-circulate
the EIR so that the residents of Harbor Pointe can provide comments on the draft EIR that can be used to reduce the
significant impacts caused by the project.
DATE
-, I- L. c '- - -
/ - I< -
L c /I -, \ /
, ,, ,cy , r -_r ~ . -- - \- -,, *' /' ' - , P_ ' i 'J/ 41 ' - J ,/ - /
- \
-
0 0
PETITION FOR THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING
LACK OF NOTIFICATION TO HARBOR POINTE RESIDENTS
FOR THE POINSETTIA PROPERTIES PROJECT EIR 96-01
We the undersigned residents of Harbor Pointe were not notified when the draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR 96-01) for the Poinsettia Properties Project was circulated for review in August 1996. The notification
process for the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report did not provide the homeowners in Harbor
Pointe with our legal opportunity to review the draft EIR and comment during the review period. The City of
Carlsbad did not notify the homeowners by a mailed notification of the draft EIR process. Harbor Pointe is
within six hundred feet (600') of the proposed Poinsettia Properties Project; thus requiring mailed notice to the
Residents.
This petition challenges the EIR notification process required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
State Statues, City Ordinances and procedures, and court decisions. We demand that the City of Carlsbad re-circulate
the EIR so that the residents of Harbor Pointe can provide comments on the draft EIR that can be used to reduce the
significant impacts caused by the project.
NAME ADDRESS DATE
e e
PETITION FOR THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING
LACK OF NOTIFICATION TO HARBOR POINTE RESIDENTS
FOR THE POINSETTIA PROPERTIES PROJECT EIR 96-0 1
We rhe undersigned residents of Harbor Pointe were not notified when the draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR 96-01) for the Poinsettia Properties Project was circulated for review in August 1996. The notification
process for the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report did not provide the homeowners in Harbor
Pointe with our legal opportunity to review the draft EIR and comment during the review period. The City of
Carlsbad did not notify the homeowners by a mailed notification of the draft EIR process. Harbor Pointe is
within six hundred feet (600) of the proposed Poinsettia Properties Project; thus requiring mailed notice to the
Residents.
This petition challenges the EIR notification process required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
State Statues, City Ordinances and procedures, and court decisions. We demand that the City of Carlsbad re-circulate
the EIR so that the residents of Harbor Pointe can provide comments on the draft EIR that can be used to reduce the
significant impacts caused by the project.
NAME . ADDRESS DATE
a.
,/-
r- i : \,
: r'.-. F,' i,' k' r- p//, '7,f r-. -I
'L 16L,-,df, -.- %A<;;!&:;- ,?' 2; "d .JQj4*&, <;x/,&,
,; */' ,,,p *v 1
-
-
0 0
AGLNDA!TEM# 7 ~
C: Mayor
*
siq QUMi\\
January 9,1998 City Manager City Attorney city enersc Councilwomqn Ann Kulchin
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
- -
Dear Councilwomqn Ann Kulchin:
Thank you so much for taking the time to meet with Kent and myself last Thursday. It
was a pleasure to meet you personally, and we appreciate the opportunity to air our
concerns regarding the Poinsettia Properties.
At your request, I am providing you with highlights from EIR 96-01 that I believe
warrant additional attention. Due to my work and family commitments, my preparation
time was limited. Therefore, this is not as comprehensive as I believe it could be. I am
presenting only the areas I had the time to research, and thank you in advance for your
consideration. I have listed the page you will find the information, along with a brief
summary. Attached, you will find a copy of that page directly from the E.I.R.
Pg. 2- 1 Executive Summary-Significant Impacts
and traffic which cannot be fully mitigated.
Pg. 3-1 Background
900+ residences will not be working within the development and are not likely to ride the
coaster. As we agreed, the North County Transit District is not “user-friendly” for
commuter transportation within and south of North County, Unless significant changes
are made in this system, the concept of a TOD in this specified area is not applicable.
Pg. 3-9 Project Phasing
adequate public services are available as specified in the 1986 Growth Management Plan.
Pg. 5.3-3,3-4 1995 Existing Street Segment Levels
project alone will triple the traffic count.
Based on data and conclusions, project will have significant impacts to air quality
This will be a designated, but unproven TOD. The first of its kind in Carlsbad.
No regulation: Buildings could go up “overnight”, without time to insure that
We believe that based on the number of cars this development may bring, this
Pg. 5.5-4 Parcel A Total Noise Exposure
0 0
Traffic noise level at this location will be between 49.3 -66.3 CNEL. This is a
significant impact and cannot be mitigated.
Pg. 5.9-1 City of Carlsbad Scenic Corridor Guidelines
view open to the public as listed on pg. 5.9-1 paragraph 3. The 30-ft homes and
unregulated canopy trees could obstruct these views.
Pg. 6-2 No Project/No Development Alternative
Significant impact would occur if project obstructs any of the listed scenic vista or
Conclusion is “no-proj ect” is environmentally superior to the proposed project.
Pg. 6-3 Table 6-1
noise, biological resources, archaeological/paleontological resources, visual, agricultural
and water quality.
9.0 Responses
This report indicates the project will have a significant impact on air quality,
1. Please review the letter from Edward Navarro: Although responses were given
for each issue, the bottom line is that the density will significantly impact the
park and beach. Secondly, this does not take into consideration the adjacent
build-out at Poinsettia Shores, or the expansion of the time-shares.
2. Please review the letter from Cal Trans: Cal Trans doesn’t believe the traffic will
“lessen” with this project (see G-3). Secondly, this traffic analysis does not
reflect or include the impact of the Poinsettia Shores or Aviara build-out.
Additional proof of this is attached. One argument is that residents will use
alternative routes to 1-5 via Canon & Palomar Airport Road. Do they believe
people will actually access the freeway other than by Poinsettia that is closest?
Volume I1 - Poinsettia Properties Final Program-E.I.R. Impact Report
Please review the letter from Jim Gault regarding accommodations for children.
Although open space has been allocated, it does not talk about a play area for children.
Nor is this open space safely accessible for children, unaccompanied by their parents.
The homes within this development will have backyards too small to play in, little if no
front yards, and narrow streets and sidewalks. Please remember that the GMP requires
you insure appropriate public facilities.
These are just a few of the areas in the E.I.R. I wanted to bring to your attention Ms.
Kulchin. I believe this project needs to be re-evaluated. If not halted completely, at the
very least, reduce the density of dwelling units allocated.
In my opinion, this report is flawed, in that the traffic, air and public facilities impact do
not include the build outs already in progress at Aviara, Poinsettia Shores, Legoland, and
Carrillo. Secondly, most of the impacts cannot be mitigated. Once impacted, quality of
life is reduced forever.
0 0
Although you are legally bound to the 1986 GMP, as you said in your own written
article(attached), the GMP requires that timely provision of adequate public services be
provided to citizens of Carlsbad before significant density increases impact us. I believe
if you approve this project, you will be in violation of the very document that binds you.
Finally, you assured me in our meeting that the Carlsbad School Board has assured you
they can absorb the children these projects will bring. Aviara Oaks is a classic example of
poor planning and forecasting. I challenge the board and the city council to tell the
parents of children currently attending Aviara, that they are offering the best environment
and facilities to educate our future leaders.
Thank you again, for giving us some of your valuable time last week. It is reassuring to
know your constituents really matter to you, and that you are willing to listen!
Sincerely,
f/&lu 9 L
v/
Lisa Houston
6828 Watercourse Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
0 0
2.0 EXECUTIVESUMMARY
THE PROJECT
The proposed project is the development and operation of the Poinsettia Properties Specific
Plan and related discretionary actions as proposed by the applicant, HSLBPiMichan, L.P
Related discretionary actions include a General Plan Amendment; Local Coastal Progran
Amendment; Zone Change; and Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment (Zone 22)
Approval of the project will allow the development of commercial, multi-family residentia and single-family residential uses on approximately 92 acres of land.
PROJECT LOCATION
The project site encompasses approximately 92 acres located in the northwestern Sa
Diego County in the City of Carlsbad. The project site is located within the southwes quadrant of the City of Carlsbad. The site lies within the boundary of Local Facilitie
Management Zone 22. Regional access to the project site is provided by Interstate 5
Local access is provided via Poinsettia Lane, and Carlsbad Boulevard.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The City of Carlsbad determined that an EIR is required pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines
The environmental issue areas identified in the environmental Initial Study are Land Usc
Compatibility; PopulatiodHousing; TraffidCirculation; Air Quality; Noise; Biologica
Resources; Archaeological and Palentological Resources; Agricultural Resources; Visua
Aesthetics/ Grading; Public Services and Utilities; and Hydrology/Water Quality. I
summary of the environmental impacts and mitigation measures is provided in Table 2-1
A summary comparison of impacts between the proposed project and alternatives i
provided in Table 2-2.
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Based on the data and conclusions of this EIR, the City of Carlsbad finds that the projec will result in significant cumulative impacts to air quality and traffic which cannot be full mitigated. These cumulative impacts are regional in nature and occur in areas outside th
jurisdiction of the City. If the City of Carlsbad chooses to approve the project, it mu
adopt a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" pursuant to Sections 15093 and 15126@
of the CEQA Guidelines.
Significant project-level impacts have also been identified for air quality, agricultm
resources, archaeological and paleontological resources, biological resources, noise, vhz
aesthetics/grading, and water @ty hydrology. These significant impacts can be reduce
to a less than significant level with the implementation of identified mitigation measure!
I
L.
Poinserria Propenies Specific Plan Ciiy qf Carlsh Final Program EIR 2- I July 1%
0 0
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan area (project site) is located in northwestem :
Diego County in the City of Carlsbad. Regional access to the project site is provided
Interstate 5 (I-3, located approximately 500 feet to the east of the easterly boundary of
project site. The project site is shown in its regional perspective and local vicinity
Figure 3-1.
The project site is located within the southwest quadrant of the City of Carlsbad, wit Local Facilities Management Zone 22 (LFMZ 22) as established in the City’s Gro7 Management Plan. The project site consists of three disjunct parcels adjacent to the :
Diego Northern Railroad right-of-way. Parcels A and B are located north of Poinse Lane and Parcel C is located south of Poinsettia Lane. The site is bounded on the nc
by Avenida Encinas and the North County Transit District (NCTD) rail station, on the c by Avenida Encinas, on the south by Lakeshore Gardens Mobile Home Park and on
west by Carlsbad Boulevard. Local access is provided via Poinsettia Lane, Aven Encinas, and Carlsbad Boulevard.
The project site is composed of generally flat terrain on the eastern parcel and a few sn
knolls on the two western parcels of the site. The project site has been disturbed agricultural operations, with ruderal vegetation limited to non-native grasses and sr
shrubs. Elevations of the project site range from approximately 48 feet above mean
level at the eastern parcel, and 70 feet above mean sea level in the western portion of
The entire project site consists of approximately 92 acres. The site is currently vacant 1 the exception of the southeastern portion of Parcel A along the Avenida Encinas fronti
which is utilized for the storage of boxed palm trees. No permanent structures exis site.
Existing land use immediately surrounding the site consists of vacant land, the Lan; Mobile-home park and the Seapointe Resort timeshare to the north; Carlsbad Boulev, the Carlsbad State Beach Campgrounds to the west; single-family residences/mixed-i
and the Lakeshore Gardens Mobile Home Park to the south; and commercial developm including two motels, Kaiser Permanente offices, and auto dealerships to the east. NCTD rail station is located at the northwest comer of the project site.
project site.
BACKGROUND
The Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan bas been designed as a transit oriented developr
(TOD) project. The primary goal of the TOD project is to reduce reliance on automol for transportation. The project has been designed to provide for the basic needs ol
users of the transit station and residents of the area. Elements of the plan inc providing convenient pedestrian access to the station and to each planning area, pedes1 friendly design standards for each of the planning areas (Le. pedestrian scale), requ commercial services in the two commercial planning areas and interconnected street L \
Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan City of Curl Final Program EIR 3- I July
0 0
development (TOD) principles, based upon the distance from the NCTD rail station
as follows:
a. A minimum of 15 units per acre will be required within 500 feet of the station.
b. A minimum density range of 7-9 dwelling units pe fyFir?T[ 500 feet and 1/4 mile &om the station.
Avoid artificial barriers to encourage pedestrianbike access to m
and attractions such as the beach, adjacent shopping,
NCTD transit station. Wd
Create focal community spaces which encourage pedestrian movement Detween ianc
uses. bVGZS-C ___ +.- -- - b@I Ensure that public facilities and services that serve the Specxnc rm-area-meet tlii
applicable City standards as called for in the Carlsbad Growth Management Plan.
Conform to all aspects of Carlsbad’s proposed amended General Plan, Zone 22 Loca
Facilities Management Plan, Local Coastal Program and all applicable ordinances
regulations and policies.
PROJECT PHASING
The Specific Plan is a planning document, however it does not regulate the rate o development within the Poinsettia Properties. Development within the Poinsettia Propertie:
will be controlled by general market conditions and the availability of adequate public
facilities, in addition to the public facility phasing requirements for LFMZ 22.
The Zone 22 Local Facilities Management Plan and Amendment were prepared pursuant tc
Section 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The Zone 22 LFMP Amendment require
that a financing program guaranteeing the construction of required facilities must bi
approved prior to recordation of any final map, issuance of a building or grading permil
whichever occurs first in the Specific Plan Area (Zone 22). The finance plan will lid
specific facility improvements to the Planning Area requiring those facilities fo
development.
Together the LFMP documents and the required Zone 22 Finance Plan will: (1) demonstrat
how and when each required facility and improvement will be constructed to accommodat
development within the Specific Plan, and (2) provide a complete description of how eacl
facility and improvement will be financed when mitigation is necessary. The need fc
facilities will be determined as development occurs within the Specific Plan area. An
Planning Area or portion of the Specific Plan may develop so long as adequate facilities ar
provided to serve that Planning Area. In addition, prior to recordation of a final mal
issuance of a grading permit or building permit for each planning area, the applicant sha
demonstrate the adequacy and availability of public facilities and services.
Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan City of CarLrix Final Program EIR 3-9 July I95
\ \
0 e
155,000
SOURCE )(x,xxx -CITY OF CARLSBAO. JHK AND ASSOCIATES 1994 TRAFFIC MOMTORWQ REPORT.
xx,xx~SANDAG 1994 TRAFFIC FLOW MAP ((993 VOLUMES)
-. SOURCE: Urban Systems, June 1996 Figure- 5-4
I995 Existing Average Daiiy e!! Tm-m nottoscale Traffic Volumes
Program EIR 5.3-3
- .. . Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan City of Carlsbad
0 m
TABLE 5.3-1
1995 EXISTING STREET SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE
Cannon Road - Palomar Airport Road Palomar Airport Road - Island Way Island Way - Poinsettia Lane
Poinsettia Lane - La Costa Avenue
Palomar Airwrt Road
Catisbad Boulevard - Avenida Encinas
Avenida Encinas - Interstate 5
Interstate 5 - Paseo Del Norte
Poinsettia Lane
Catisbad Boulevard - Avenida Encinas
Avenida Encinas - Interstate 5
interstate 5 - Paseo Del Norte
Island WavlSurfside Lane
Carlsbad Boulevard - South End
Avenida Encinas
Palomar Airport Road - Coaster Lot
Coaster Lot - Poinsettia Lane
Source: Urban Sys~hs~~kUt~. Inc. QMNOZ bencbOl.wbf
LEGEND: A 0.00-0.60
6PA = 6 Lane Prime Arterial B 0.61-0.70
4MA = 4 Lane Major Arterial C 0.71-0.80
4SA = 4 Lane Secondary Arterial D 0.81-0.90
2SA = 2 Lane Secondary Arterial
2C = 2 Lane Collector
2L = 2 Lane Local
VPHPL = Vehicles Per Hour Per Lane
CPL = Capacity Per Lane (1,800 Vehicles per Hour)
E 0.91-1.00 F 1.01-Up
' ._
Poinsenia Properties Specific Plan City of Carkbud Final Program EIR 5.3-4 July I997
0 0
Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan
Noise Impact from Project and Cumulative Traffic
I
Assumptions: vg speed exist: 56.3 35.0 mph 94% AutoS
future: 56.3 35.0 mph 4% Medium Trucks
future 6.1 20.0 feet from centerline 70% Day
Simplified to 2 lanes 6.1 20.0 feet from centerline 2% Heavy Trucks
Noise path decay parameter for soft site 15% Evening
15% Night
Calculations using methods of Federal Highway Administration "Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model,' December, I
I L
c:ksprof954 \
0 0
TABLE 5.5-2
RtiILROAD NOISE LEVELS PARCELS A, B, AND C
Distance (Feet) 100 200 400
CNEL 67.9 63.9 58.2
Source: Mesne Greve Associates
Parcel A
Traflc Noise
As depicted in Table 5.5-1, a person in the rear yard along Avenida Encinas would be
exposed to a maximum unmitigated traffic noise level of 63.6 CNEL. Persons in rear
yards along Poinsettia Lane would be exposed to a maximum unmitigated traffic noise level of 66.4 CNEL.
Railroad Noise
In order to assume a worst case scenario for noise exposure, an exterior living area is assumed to be approximately 150 feet from the railroad tracks. In other words, the closest backyard to the railroad track in Parcel A would be approximately 150 feet from the
railroad tracks. The grading and site plan infoxmation was obtained from the “Constraints
Map” by O’Day Consultants and the “Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan”. Grading details
are preliminary, as precise grading plans will be prepared concurrent with future discretionary actions. The noise barrier requirements have been analyzed at the nearest home locations based on the open space setbacks specified in the Specific Plan. As
indicated in Mitigation Measure 1, detailed acoustical analyses will be prepared when
precise grading plans and architectural drawings are available. At this location, if
shielding is not present (i.e. no soundwall), the worst case noise level associated with train
operations is estimated to be 66.3 CNEL.
Total Noise Exposure
The southwest comer of - Parcel A will - be exposed to traffic noise and railroad noise.
Projecting the traffic evels and combining them
logarithmically results I A. Figure 5-13 depicts the
Aroiected noise contq
Calculations have established that the first floor railroad noise level at 150 feet from the
railroad tracks is 66.3
- -x-* - - _, r ____ __ --An.
L -
significant impact.
Poinsettia Propem-es Specific Plun City of Curkbad Final Program EIR 5.5-4 July I997
0 0 I I i
5.9 VISUAL AESTHETICS/GRADING
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site consists of generally flat terrain on Parcel A, and a few small knolls
located within Parcels B and C. The project site has been previously utilized for
agricultural operations, although irrigated agricultural production on the site has not
occurred for approximately 20 years. Vegetation on the project site consists of ruderal
vegetation limited to grasses and small shrubs. Elevations of the project site range from approximately 48 feet above mean sea level on Parcel A to 70 feet above mean sea level in the western portion of the project site on Parcels B and C. There are currently no
significant land features on the project site as it is currently vacant, anu has been graded in the past for agricultural uses. Parcel A is relatively flat, while Parcels B and C both contain small knolls.
Existing views on to the project site are available from immediately surrounding land uses which include commercial, residential and park land uses. Portions of the project site and
some blue water views of the ocean are available from areas east of the 1-5 Freeway.
These views are limited due to existing intervening development ('.e. the existing motels,
car dealerships, office buildings) which are primarily three stor-;s in height and located
along Avenida Encinas, i
City of Carlsbad Scenic bVxLxu- VI__--..-
views, natural stretches of coastline and beaches, lagoons and related wildlife, flower fields
and nurseries, and public parks.
Scenic corridor visual amenities identified for Interstate 5 include occasional "blue water"
views of the ocean, flower fields and nurseries, and freeway landscaping; Poinsettia Lane
visual amenities include occasional "blue water" views of the ocean, flower fields and
nurseries.
i L
Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan City of Carlsbad Final Program EIR 5 9-1 July 1997
0 e
Local Coastal Program
The Mello I1 Segment of the Local Coastal Program addresses visual resources through
Policy 8-1. This policy states that sites considered for development should undergo
individual review to determine if the proposed development will obstruct views or
otherwise damage the visual beauty of the area, and that the Planning Commission should enforce appropriate height limitations and see-through construction, as well as minimize
any alterations to topography.
Additionally, Chapter 21.203 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code contains coastal grading
policies and mitigation for projects located within the coastal zone. These policies address
the preservation of steep lopes and vege tion, drainage, erosion, sedimentation, habitat,
[ei&$,i,s andPy& bai , seismi #a hazards, and floodplain development.
cur if implementation of the
ny scenic vista or view open to the offensive site open to public view.
ion of the proposed project
inance and policies related to
*K
f*(
itd’ .. -
ENVIRONMEP
The proposed project will introduce urban development on a currently vacant site. A line-
of-site analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect the project may have on surrounding
views. The analysis was prepared based on general assumptions for building form,
location and massing for the project site as site development plans have not been prepared
for the specific plan area. The general development assumptions are consistent with the
development standards identified within the specific plan. Development standards include
minimum structure setbacks of 30 feet adjacent to public roadways. AdditionaIly, the
maximum height in Planning Areas 1 through 4 of Parcel A is 30 feet and 2 stories; and
the maximum height is 35 feet and 3 stories in Planning Areas 5 and 6. For development
within Parcels B and C, the maximum height is 35 feet and three stories.
Figures 5-18 through 5-20 provide the line site analysis. Figure 5-18 indicates the location
of each cross section.
Proposed development within Parcel A will be located at the same elevation and will be
of the same height as existing development located east of Avenida Encinas. The viewhite
distance profiles indicate that the existing development intervenes views onto and through the site. Of greater concern may be the structures that will be located on Parcels B and C,
as these structures, although they will not exceed 35 feet in height and three stories, will
be approximately 20 feet higher than proposed development in Parcel A. The view/sight
distance profiles indicate that portions of the project will be visible from various locations
Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan City of Carlsbad Final Program EIR 5 9-2 July 1997
0 0
Alternatives Under Consideration
The alternatives considered in this EIR include:
1. No Project/No Development Alternative
2. Existing General PldLocal Coastal Plan Alternative
3. Increased Residential Density Alternative
4. Alternative Location
6.1 NO PROJECT/NO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE
2 Description of Alternative
CEQA requires the analysis of the No Project AJternative (Public Resources Code Secl 15126). This alternative assumes that the site would not be developed with the propc
project, and the site would remain in its existing condition.
Under this alternative, a majority of the impacts identified in this EIR would not oc(
No short-term impacts related to air quality, noise, or erosion during construction wc
result as construction activity would not occur on the site. Long-term impacts incluc air quality emissions from stationary and mobile sources, noise, traffic/circulati
archaeological and paleontological resources, public services and utilities,
hydrology/water quality will not result.
Conclusion
The "No Project" alternative is considered environmentally superior to the propc
project since no new significant environmental impacts would result. This alternative (
not meet most of the basic objectives of the proposed project as defined in Section 3.
this document. These objectives include the provision of a transit oriented developn
in close proximity to a commuter rail station. - ---_ ___
I (Ep pjl I !
J3 7' 1 I
I
I i
City of Car Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan Final Program EIR 6-2 July
Impacts
WiU Project Result In:
1. Land Use Compatibiiity
Significant Impact?
Mitigation Required?
Impact After Mitigation
2. PopulationIHousing
Significant Impact?
Mitigation Required?
Impact After Mitigation
3. TraffklCirculation
Significant Impact?
Mitigation Required?
Impact After Mitigation
4. Air Quality
Mitigation Required?
Impact After Mitigation
5. Noise
Significant Impact?
Mitigation Required?
Impact After Mitigation
6. Biological Resources
Significant Impact?
Mitigation Required?
Impact After Mitigation
Paleontological
Resources
Significant Impact?
Mitigation Required?
Impact After Mitigation
7. Archaeological and
da No Mitigation Applied - Less Than Significant
Proposed Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
Project Noprojectl Exkting Increased Alternative
No GP/LCP Residential Location
Development Designations Density
No No No No No
No No No No No
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA
No No No Yes No
No No No Yes No
N/A Nf A NIA - NIA
,--
No No No No No
No No No No No
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA
- Yes ~
Yes No Yes Yes
- NIA -- -
Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Yes No Yes Yes Yes
- NIA - I -
Yes No Yes Yes NO Yes No Yes Yes No
__ NIA I NIA -
t *+
.P ~ :Nog by Yes No Yes Yes
Yes No Yes Yes No
- N/A - -- N/A %;I
Impacts Proposed Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
Project No project/ Existing Increased Alternative
Will Project Result In: No GPLCP Residential Location
Development Designations Density
8. Agricul~ral Resources
Sigruficant Impact? Yes No Yes Yes No
Mitlgabon Required’ Yes No Yes Yes No
I NIA Impact After Mihgahon - NIA --
9 VISUal
AesthetlcslGradmg
Sigmficant Impact? Yes No Yes bS NO
Mihgatlon Required? Yes No Yes Yes NO
Impact After Mitigatlon - N/A _I - NIA
10. Public Services and
Sigmficant Impact?
Fire No No No Yes No
Law Enforcement No No Yes Yes Yes
Sewer No No No Yes No
Water No No No Yes No
Schools No No No Yes No
Mitlgatlon Required? No No No Yes No
Impact After Mihgahon NIA NIA NIA - NIA
Reclaimed Water No No No Yes No
1 1. Water Qualiry/Hydrology
Sigruficant Impact? Yes No Yes Yes No
Mmgahon Required? Yes No Yes Yes No
Impact After Mibgatlon I NIA -- _I -
n/a No Mihgatlon Applied - Less Than Sigmficant * Significant, Not Fully Mingable -
0 0
c 0; Z?GT2Q)GQ)U0C OJovvlQ -- e OJ G& Q) 0;iijO P)
'3 2z.z0 552 5.2 6 (J5z;d cl-.w= -a "5.g4 .- 9" a as 52s m s&SG
L. .- 319 -2q~ln* bYi32 2% = 52- E 3zx 2 s 3 gaz 2;s 5 =.= 23 L'- 1-
3-u
E2-G -%EPcm 'g 'j m3-Q)= .- =- c E 5 $5 a2 2-i 2 0 3.2
v &la%," 9
ES
-om 2.2 5 E'G .z 2 4 3.a p 1; o 7
iz; .- rn %Am 2 g)zQ.;%
cJ 0 'Z _- 5422 c - 2 3 '.E5 01; 3 2 8 v)z 2 53.p Y Qw-~&:kps~
a& . !2%% O.Y 2 a a.Ec
t c O 0 a-cb v- $2 Q)zz 2L a2.s z s::$e - .c .z s a ?.= g Ll;: 2u-o c 3 go gs rJ 0 5.;umiam "2 o 3 .6 0 .- - .SG 5 b) a 5 5 2 g 2 $ $8 2 3.2 00 5auo T.g'= g ~5 $6.2 2 m L nu $.E - L 0 u ?/i 2.~5s.2- - vj .? .e .I? .s 'I 8*g.s~~y ~ f m.cE;SZ s Si?$% g p = rn--;i a%% x ~~.SQ$ @c ss'ss 0s- %=om G.s ?j..S.F 6 pz uQ :Ei 3% "8&5&2~222 -23 ngE zzs-.- 13Z...> 9 $O.Z,i.F 0 .E E k.5 v w8m.o 0 L '0' utf.~, L a g% $23 0 --rS g -.L op.4: TJ 5 z
&.-,a gg-9 cg m22J-$z; 6 &Eo ;AU< 9 moogzO 3 g..z w g- 89 8% g+ to> p.0 '3 8 3 3g 2 $2 3 $3 &J q F; .j 9 ' .ca-s S2U,~W~
ss 8 5 .=Zs.8 23, 3.u 2au Q p3.s !q qp ggs 22 Q, s m 5zqs 2 Q c) 3 '2 .zz ; zs3 zjg$g8(aoa- ao;1(- w20 L. MmO.-g 0" d E5: g urrq z! sa .1ue s v) a3 ,a53 a e E 2 5.5 0 WS~8'.1 E9.2$ a. 3 m 3u maug Q)
b, = 8 &.g zs g&$ c.2. 2s.: vI.- ; $2 &g 0 L& 4=-gr aeucx?o D8 g,Czg.-$ 5 .&.s g -0
dQ) v, rn Q &p,, g[ d h~ < 3 %Z $ma-c:mguo ms 0 Lo o d 3 5 z .z 8 b v3
ww rmq
.- mom
2 G4>-~aoQ)gn~
a b $5 Q) 9 00.g =SA& Q) OCL %g= L-v.g 5.ey.r .-. ~R~JE*~~~Z ma ?=a= Rv ;z@j$
20 5g: -btuz52Y6L 6 g.z+; ?/i vI& m 0'Cu p2es.k
822.s $ i$.$ D.a
0 sQ5&:$fi"tsn" mi
-0 3 v- 0-z L E 3.2 g Q) Q).zu.p g.= man
4- - g3uQ 5 oa:-Q2 r-TJ.=gE= 5 c 0: x cJ7 .o_ a$g sg: +3 v"-2c00.500c.~m& 2.z-5 gFz% le3 ."; 8 +g.$ E & v) - a0 m OLZ.
0 - - - - ? e, C nlJ ,. cli - u c .- uL.- - zEz 2) =zY:4*b;:3m
ca p. -bx0 zE;x c ,S56fe.;,, 0- o E R :<.?'E = "g $ ...Evoi:.---;iOp€.~~.5.V~~ s E 3 t ='I; -0 22 3 2 s 5'G'Z.E - 2 2
= ;> yc-0 op@a_a-z .t7 gz-5 qgZ&.2=" c s+ ?$ p: ; 2 a I z'2"2; :: E g%%Y u 'j - <E-
L y 0 ,, o-;; ~ WEag s =z g.5 :,jj e cu 5E 2.; 5 rJ 2::; gj;3&E 5 3.:tL=. .nu c, .- z Y,- E = 0 2 - D ,c $ -g gs 2 g ;;g8%~~~&..=c=-P=-= ~~S~ *- E.:5s !ymc~-PuOo"SE~.B~y~ ~c,~G~.=~~~.Ez 22 - -m rr. 2 2 k'= .j % 0 5 =T.,"';Z-Z = aJ a = 2.-
2 +-<'g22m 3 2.E s 0 --OK aoE;$o.2z-, 4 I,- .- -22 5 = ? 0 ZCL.? =a? -.E='; CJ.So,e 53 2 s eu;i;E= c il 0.2,; ; y ; 4 ;.: E L=- E m 8- v as22 2 z 4 z < 2 ,x3 - E .a 5 e s 3 t o d ~ 4& 26 p .Y
0 zw -2 u? ;5"ua,3= -22 013 ,-+x -%.E:, ..o2f':x;Z:f u c = CJ $S
e ,&gg<z n.2 E .,, .t .=l a " = til%:k us -c. = ; -0 (I - - ; i z 2 ,i -2 .g y :% 4 f g ET .E 5 E 2 :< ..-;;2'y .-
b ~$~-WC ~ GZP5, 3E;z-s=aa 0 r<~~~~L%~~~~~ Z-RZ~ cz .- - ncLg$& -33aaE-~MW5:-z ~E~LL-"~ gz L b.- 2g";Zz- (i- s? - sczu-. =sbg.-Gzz:e .- F~>:~:~g~$p=.z-c Iz t2
,Y Li0",EZE2E - 4 > .< ---- MI = ~:Zs - 0 0 SI., g i; 3 .? 0
~ 2 uz,z,q,.--"c ~d~-xu~~~~~~.=s~~~~ f= .? 3 2 p p 4 <g:g.=: : yZC3 cg>z2s ,=x 3 zg:.c2%&c: $:$;? z c"
2 : 5.g 5.2. = z E- u % 0s -" - gg Zz,gr4-4E 2 iz - E: c,m: Ez f '. 3 m= 2:
p::=s re,g."E - --5- 5 abQU.5 UE s-5 x=U, 0; yzf; $ Gas 2<5=js1 , ~~ 2 2 *; 4 ~ ,.3 3 7 3 = - = = z - 2 y - =.-n so a3 gJ.-.o-ZZ 9 5 E~.z.",.~- = = .- 3 9.5 -13 ~=~;z~&~$.S= =T 0 3-a Lr- . .- 2 p~05~ez~v&.~.2E=~= 0" c T>,zz:mz .i? Z.? -5 -zz - ,zz C= o-ugzE>-.=3q -=c252zEm. ?! - c ez2ZG$ =.E L, - n CI = 0.'- ?,,v.&, z 5.2 0 0 g,r?U.:;:~c~~egy'i 22 525 3 3;; . cm" E z.5 E z u > z; 92 $s=:.z ;.o<;= 0 - - z
& - &2o:PE:L3a2y isi' o"8--um$uk;E z: i -2.; < 2 % c 5 $5 0 0 3 E z E., =, ~ 5.52 u e,,-zz2:32;.;:G5 5
L"
v : - 2sg: ='a m $2
3 u?
cx-Ez- ; s -= : ., z - ;;zz 8jm$;,gxazgv 5 5rw
FCt'flo.S& zz E 0 GO 2 0 v;
e - il.
-a ir: - gz:,Km cb-csT u" c-pdgzsg'g. =&
mE 2 : = -- oil) 3 OrC- - L'- E ux G m .- - -. ohS5 g, - .. -
,e
.,= s s 0
r- - - c u =3+G$% -- TS7 v-L us I u.zu uz geT7 -.- ofsE,; ~&Z32~0U := c ; 2 '= 2 2 2 -2 2 $2 z z gz 5 ,I 2 g 2 f c, sz=s=& -=co,:: E 2 :: 2.3 .'J 2 - 2 - 8 g.2
cLE;- .-* - 22 z+/.Kz.; =
n E x.% " .z "2 - c v) la VJ-*>%~!" "uP"~~$!!~f~ 2% Ir u .- n- 3 'c - - _- - y .p" % E.:
.- TU - I >? zg.2 E E.2W y 2 -
0
w-
o= 3. c.:r-Y- z
- .- u .I 0: =c>.;--
c, .= -
z
UU" z .a E€ c ,Z." ?jz= 2 ' u d -I)-
'1. i.
e x = =
0
C
I .-
II. - - ., .- == - .- --
<, - -
5 2 h 2 2 z.5 r 2.52 "55 2 << 2 e E % f a E Y '2 - *J C-,,4 "22
c-
CI
.-
L v=c: 2 u c2g"z1E li 0 m - - i Q\c n F > LcmG2s2 - c, 7. - T 3 L; ii r;:
u wu = Q) OOZCa
0 w-mo
s5 =.g
0 .z .g 3 's 2.z 5 : g g=.- (II e,'?
(11 p) ~m n5.C $2 rn- e, c mu T* - 2=:fV)b,'55dS om.$= 1 3 .-
i VI sg c% 2 c.%c L a v, 02 00~~0v)O ckt:-r,,um, a 6 $..:.=? 06 WJ - We a a e: 0 a2z E.2 .5 8 g sSu (11 cJ s2oz w"."%-o ,922 .Erne,> % acg 52 i?i 83; 3 ;::.g.;.J? Q g $32 *c 3 2 Ek 0 0 m pJag.E.=%zg e, aL >+ e, 0, Es '~.5.2~ 'io0 -2 d > sp oc5'3cL s;z%a umOO> :z; g$ g: E:> zz x =%'j e, Q 5 a 2 m 53~a+ ggzg
--7=-Ci $j Q) 3n5--O5= 8-2 "os~p9$zD5 -e '$,EZ$ -t"o L 5-0 -2 233 ss5~2sS8~5 LL.5Zb (II-CiE %bt $2 29 ;5zOlh" cg52-5cs: ZSSZU Uwm2$= zzgg
g~.~&:*vO la02 02=."-: " 0 "a8 Eu- 9 2 g m 92 Lf: 8 .s:$*zs $ > f v) g v 5 igg% 011 o 3.- &\ 9 L m E E; 5.2
d co.agg; qG& =5 .-c-Ciamz E ju E s2ez = ZQ 2 Cgg Q Y;e.o--$&.~& i7 2 2'- g$a;;:8"" 0 5-5 096 yo )-& ".G3da~ p.52 g.55 : &% gJg g23% c 26 g E5 .- rna-.5g, 3 =-z.g 3 5 ~3~~ "p.
.d ~OGE, m zu!:lj -&a- 8 ti "gy 8.2 @2*:
Q3 65 03@mc;a $4 95qsm - "Q%gg$.E5 .I 352g-U cdc 54 5 +-zgs mQ,$p$ o0 =a e, 8 g Q)5 5 PQ), 83; - z 522 2: . 24 1 .o 23 b*q 0.2 kg+ 3 f$ - QE qa--ps4 - " 0- .pq ~2.~-55y~p:~ a Q)-Cig: g3= 2 E42 s - >.-Q.~~~$~80--?z ?2Ese.i !=-ADS-; $3 32 g4 p--pJQs-pg OTj e,sBgO gge,-s .- 8.?" m W'Z (IIa*.2 3s u2m 0 w3 %2%;3,2* J q;32 sc .s = PL L > .7 ;;gg Fmgo s%;--;ag 0) 3.- 63S.Z xE% 3 25; .$s * E-, gz 3 2% Q) $ d: e,g',g 2 g da<2 5 0 3 c.-k L.c=: 3 33 k ~5.z 1+]me5 zd + oa (11 nc a; ~2
GI
~~$~~*yL-nmm Y O B 5.52 8ii -c e,ud-z2e,%=u 2..+mz 2: vc z% 0 pj ",;E ma
0 3 'C .p, '5 > .g 5 k ZZ zss-gca-,,g.= xa - E?& omo>
50 03 A0
'.\, c;raE~Goo~+jP,ce,
of e, ou Q.
-om
$8U s acz 3: a gt&: E gw
$a 3 0
8oas a'P g 2 5 02
3 sz o.= o
Lgo%z =*E s8Ez9ZGI~3E, ~.~oUzo
0
?J.s g >
gz
E-- 8CQm gL7 cz-
.e c) .- Q)
- 82 vr--5> *m os
or Q)
m -- .- a-a.c&q22ap E: 0 589g .f3n
Q) 00
! i
J - - e - s'. 22 mE 8 h.= .- 22 2 ,e -2; uEssg c 2=
KUZ - 2 2.5 $E5 u E3 $
- - ::E x
.- cl - 2 2 g.sQ +€.5g;,52g g: - -.A- 4 0 v CL 3 ug~Lng.~s2z~E zg-. SEE gcZof?=~ u CI c-0 3 .E mz 2'- Tj2-W 3 0 c c'= x2: 5: :x'53=2229 uo-~p~ *g@E.eE = 2~2~&~,z y-2 go.5 3 55 02- "p" 03.- uc - 5z.~u.s23 b2s""'g%g;e- cm" $5 0" E u :+jEi'c." vu E2.Z E"33'" c': - ~u~~L=o~~ KL=Z%TZ'-=Z;$~Z ~ s I x 5 $52 gg 4 = -q
5*-5sB= fi'=z '2: LZZT g 2 2 y.z,g%x z 2 - 2 ~
ma;= 2 Sa s 3 5 5- 3$ p< ze gs g t.c,o 3 - 2% cv, cv) z z.2 6,"s $E 5 - 0; :03~g;~I&2ggQ "';E v-ancus- &,"-"2 2.: 0 a- 5 t 2 .=" 2" p =: z 2 <s z zs:. EG -,LL?S - :: 5X'YS 0 I" 0 23
u, O -0 E; -z= A,s Z$*g;+yZ=& ;:g ,7,z:z5--?'.; ".c 2 2 Sf "ZDS* 20 =zz2 E 3 us 0 ,'.=ZC 5 g.; $Y x-? r = L 2: 3- 0 v,3.gs,'- t
-2s kxz 9=, -0g2;:!2 a ?-if 5 25 g<zw~ r gog c," 52 o$,*gysz - zs7; x- 3.- ac=z? -o-gg 2 (0" ,E 5 5 Fi 3 = z 5 8: - c ,f 2 ,E v. 'C, i7 Y SY *- 8 ,- ..,sglz 3 Z.Z.3 t CI w, y13Q gL zzg - g?z c.z U E C 0 0 fc> - ~~~~~~~~~,~~3~~~~~~~.~.~~- -LT*G2=s:;*% zrt 22 ., ?-- p L O UCOl SZz 5- -ac vz 3 a.~Fs~.~-z.. -= g u - s * 0 25 y'30.z "5 2 E.?% ;:.sc,.z 2% %Z LO-= SGA , x J 2 E; i g.g'z.;zF 2s Wm q.= ,%-=jEUG"""5 y.-du.g.;202.F?YetL -
5 .- LrP _P - . fz.ze2 7Gu e'= 5 2 g C_EY~~= p 5 ,o r;f r(lE a 2kL-C.Y u + c=- sl nmmbgE .a =b L.3 --ts~.~cs~: - = &E y- g ?-Zz.e z .- y ; s 0 E A= : =- - -
g;: w- c: c&5L-u zauT~ &EY~~$DW~~~~<~~~~~~ u z 2. =v u-- L G .- - - a $4 gzG2<.zs2z _- - - 4 z w 5 5 z 2 5 : ;5 ,E 5 .c :: ;; 5 .E 2 c 2 5 c't ~ ,c yI & " ;; 6 c.0 LI 5 =. ;o.V'n2~.f:um t- g c: m yggE 2- Eu>gugg * 2gok~uD~=-= ---
E;;" c 22 2gcx= r iL LC, y ~ o ~E 5 =.zF UT L - 0 2.3 t = ;; -2 ~,E n 5 E .yz g, .,,; 5 5 ;E s L g,g E; 'L2&25 e 2 3,s; k; E-25 zux 1. -c t ";'L;;;J+2;i -= ._
~ r 52 ?; F= ;e ;.-" E? x2 g $ z z : 2 ? c, 2 = n 7 .- u 511: : 3 = ,, ? _, Vtfg;-= ~~ yl 5 ;a 'u c! 5z o z"ur., ='- ObU v 5 1- L3~~L-.J~:: % LY= PJ-; ,- ;~g~o..c$s$'''" L. 2=Y=c~~w~~~=~~Y UEADW, ==2 2 X&= 'J 0 37's 7 5 5; e =c r," L pz 2.5 .II 3 =25 x%'- - -
6 cI 2 y ? = 5 c; 2- i 3 ;$< 2: % 2 23- a3.z p Z,?, 5: 4s"- ?+ v - r - = :=b LO ==a c--z z E z 5 g & ~ = = 5 g g ;.! 2 T 5 y 4 h cF 2 L ~ i g G
cwc .o 9
- .-
E u- 0 clD=
2-c 4 - z2
03;: - ,d _I
cu
oc- e) C? -_ I-
d = W1V n w.
LI J - jc= - u '" -
L'2 Gz%;=-nL EZZCL 2 - Ea.~~m ;zE 0 E c .a, 5 t. .> L ^I g 'u LS
.s? u u .-
c- 5c-
O-" -5 w .T = = =$T 2% z :E: $3 8 E?;, c' c ~~ c~~~~=~7= La.;=zE; Crzz
?.:E ?or-"- 2;r: \Ti;- - ;- u z;35
, c mz5=L.-
zz; --7$=s;;z!J2d;- cgw~~,=g<~O~=~~o -u = 'I c, .gkGG-=z'-- OUiF =: z
c, .- .- = 3 2% ,- u - 7.2q7~,d~.-a~v. - L- -_ y 0 u. -= z r ==
--0 -
>'W ly3UI-L -_- -
Y~N =.i o 'J _O C,iu
e)- 5-2 _w
u,&= 2 2. I-, ---
>llT7---: 2 -- - - .. . h >, - - L
T
yr
w, z L
1~52 ;?sa v CY :gz~z~5~ z - =cab- p 53
5:2;2;2= -E: u; ID
..
a o Q) " hu a$ E: nm
.\
25 i $5 8 E z 25 2 fr y!g
s, gsz$""b. ea& J=QO... Qgc 5gps1$2& 0 -7 5-103
.eSoca Aqj "P)b)P gzmgza=~~ 2.222 g.g2 zoos 2 '5 3.: *E ; :z g 2 .; $ gg Tab) g?ZjEjEg" L a .d .-
$$$%.=gg ;-g5 2 s;z.z Tm
vnn 2 2 ;z $2.82; -e$$
g2 --a mEs$ om 8.3"
Ej b) $gOO.Fs-- 6e8; &f&E,5F,"gz 523c
5 +-qa+g zag
4.3 mo3nz3 Liz -2: $5 42 &8 " b) L
.$ 2 g d =.Ed
%Ea
ZbbLQ
-aLS G-~ 5.5 Q - 52"" 9
*,-,"k
a3 2.s~ ov3-ov Q 0 e *u5
c5-0 %c 8 g $Q.S-g? 05
c5ou o90, >"?,, .- v)s :: 5 Z$& c Q.5 0 5 g2=
ga~e~e$na~ $tu
UE n.02.E g-p"Q E G &s 5%
oazy
70 -';a3 8
Qa~~E __
n$ta o z g 2 g
I- $2
se2 2 s $3 0 3 zsmc UL =E:
&? 25
=ex =ex s 99 99
-0 mvl
OW 2.2- 2.u
0 a I =!.
3 &2
=ex zz 02" 2 2 $5 p$ ze: oQ= l-w >E= mo 0-cn 0 = 2
I 0-d b)
00, -- > 3 do0 3c
p! - .? 3 'E "
g 0.2 =!! Zi) 2 0.J 3 5 .g
%a 0 552 =
so," 352
Ess gss d% 288 .sgg __ 52-2 w
LZV, AZm p 5s
-- v! a - si >
s-0 I .-,
-Q 0 n8 2. " .? v) r=
mo 4 wo
- 7 0- --
00 0
LD 8 "3 z 2 s
II
2 52.; k
<2$ moo @$ moo -g&
A e
d a am0 .30u
.- > 0.z
0 0
Ez%mLo v,
m e, Mt o= ob
03 az-30.g E
.s*gss 2=ss er--- 3~4 j-l a 0 o om - u= 0)
o5~~)5~ S E 3 "23 E jg 5 %'E 5 2m :: g
~"e~@&.~ v) 0 6v)Z gg
-2-5-c v) yp! 2 L 56 L 5 8 0 2.5 *z pzc- o3 : "2s o E.s.5~ - g3-z 6.8 -g 5 \ 4g,Grsua - a% 2ggg
g2.g 5 gz z g 53 E.2: 8 g '5 =I 8 aEw ?Z ~=~f,,~g .=-&6 oa-5 z;.g O Ea &-;
0 j cu d !&- $m-- a grn o m :$ z ,E$8 $84 0 $t&- 3.2 $2 5.;
a62 cg3y2 8 c"#5! MG;" eJ GGO- b) Ma 6)
k 0) 5%.GPZ% % g-- n= j : 2 2 .& L.2 z 3 0 i;i 5 2 Z.,,O% -22 ao,dY% g q.s-s5$ o < ~gSgggS?-~ aJ Moooog, a== =
UJ L-2 H- 09- $33 lz= - 9 2.5'3 B
i 55 .z g g'i; uco .s .s s
.I 00~~~~ ~p.~-2~~~ o
em- ' b9 k! i2g.z L 33.i8e-3 9 8 a
E EJ
".~ v) ozsz 0 2
mv 2s.~ E >.= a 0 a2 m-
0 ask- 8 2 g.g n'Ei.;:AuS =-+ t * 3
5i;ats- a m 00
u 0 E:
v) 4==CJQ~ wtQ33e,'gv) E2 $5 E.&o u C --ssg';ij nE i;iv)z,v 3.s 0 ' yg iZ2.g m 816,g.&i 2 nPMg'3 u v;' z~EFfg$ '0
L. c LL.
01 t< -
PCQ zq
zE zs 7, \ $5
0 LrJ '-. '3Q zi yps:
2% &\ 2; 23
$2
mm am ,-.a
"9 - .= -v vm s $%@ n
2% -s?L - 7.n
2. c "SI
v? 'Y ,a.
L- 2s
SB
"a - x2
P $Z
cc
z5
KP
%E 3 rA u c_3 2 =z<
-C? - 0 22L - Ll!
L. c) Am - " - z - - - m. c ', - c
/ / 0 0
Poinsettia Properties Impact Report August 26, 1996
Safety is a primary concern for all developments. Unfortunately
developers and Planning Commissions frequently consider aItematives that provide "more for the buck" than the down-stream
effects on a community. There is nothing more devastating to a
family, accident participants, and a neighborhood than an accident
with fatalities or serious injury. Once the streets are in, the buildings
are erected, and recreation areas are defined, there is little that
homeowners can do to enhance safety for their children and
themselves. That is why Safety should be an initial concern.
Carlsbad is a city with wonderful regional parks. However, the
parks are situated in areas that the normal child or aduit cannot walk
to, particularly when they have only a short time to play or
excercise. There are no areas where one can shoot baskets, play
tennis, catch or tag football south of Palomar Mountain Road and
west of the freeway. Back yards are too small and this results in
children playing in the streets or making too much noise for
homeowners living next to or above a development's pool area.
Poinsettia Shores preliminary design shows a 3 acre park lined
with trees but no place for children to play. The design is pleasing tc
The area is not centered in the development and some children will
have to cross busy streets to get there. My concerns are:
1. The recreation areas should be readily accessible to all
children of the community and not where a parent has to take them
and pick up.
intolerable to adjacent homeowners.
and also the adults of the community ?
outside their homes for a few minutes.
the eye but contains latent issues that need to be addressed nowI
2. Noise from this area should be buffered so it is not
3. The recreation area should be suitable for children of all agc
4. Designs should provide Safety for those that are playing ju5
a. The streets should be of city wide widths and not the
substandard widths that Carlsbad permits for private
streets unless privacy gates are provided.
b. The driveways should be long enough to allow childre
to ride trikes, skates and toys on sidewalks without
having to go in the street to pass a vehicle parked in the '\
\\
\ ',
\ '1
\ \
0 0
driveway. This is also a concern for people just taking a
walk.
c. Garage doors should be of the roll-up type and not the
single piece rotating type that requires one to park 3 feet
away from door in order to open it. (This contributes
to the item b. issue).
d. The sidewalks should be wide enough for children to
play and others taking a walk.
e. Privacy gates should be erected at entrances to keep
out drivers testing new cars or those looking for a
shortcut.
f. There should be sufficient parking for residents and for
visitors so they don't have to park in the street and
obstruct visibility of small children that may run after a
ball.
g, The access roads should be adequate to allow rapid
ingress /egress of emergency vehicles. Part of Poinsettia
Shores has a single entry point that could deter
emergency vehicles when the entrance is clogged.
h. All houses should have sufficient storage space so
residents won't have to use the garage for storage
and have no place for parking their cars.
Jim Gault 431 -8408
Growth mwgement a collabq).ative,marr
’- ANN KULCHIN . . mendations of he committee. growth according to adopted 3 In December 1985, the City Coun- mance standards.” There arc cil approved a general.plan amend- formance standards, includ
he city of Carlsbad’s growth ment that reduced residential density for traffic circulation, libraric
management plan is an exam- ranges citplde. This amendment ef- schools, fire stations and opt
ple of a growth plan prep&ed as fectively reduced the city‘s estimated Unless these performance s
a joint effort - or partnership population at build-out from 208,000 are met, no new growth and ment can occur. - between Carlsbad citizens and its people to 135,000. elected officials. In January 1986, the City Council Developers of new projt
The origins of the plan go back to placed a six-month moratorium on the put in the facilities upfron
the mid-1980s. The city was experi- pay their share of the cost of
encing a very high level of growth at ities so that the city can (
this time. Unfortunately, the city did them when they are needec the performance standards. Cartsbad’s plan is an As mentioned previously not have a formal, ironclad mecha- nism in place to ensure the necessary level of public facilities and services example of citizens and also reduced density ci& tablishing a limitation on 1 their elected officials mum number of future re were in place. to serve the new
units that could be bJt k r Citizen concern ‘regarding this working cooper&ively matter began to intenslfy. As a result, To further emphasize th
the City council appointed a 25-mem- rather than independently . ship between the citizen
ber citizens committee to review the managing growth. elected officials in the meal
issue and make recommendations. growth management plan, t
The committee delivered its report in induding the dwelling-unit
July 1985. The report contained nu- - was voted on and ratifi
merous recommendations, but among citizens of Carlsbad in the f
its primary recommendations were November 1986.
two that led to ‘the preparation of the Not only did this vote pl?
growth management plan. izens‘ stamp of approval or
The first called for “managing but, more importantly, it n
growth’to ensure timely provision of the plan cannot be delet
adequate public services,” and the ment plan was prepared over the next components amended second was to “significantly reduce dwelling-unit limitation
overall residential density in the city.” without a subsequent vote
izens committee struck a responsive Carlsbad’s growth ma
chord with the City Council, and plan is now a little over 10
month, the CO~ncil adopted an emer- result of the ph. Major pt
gency ordinance that required all new projects to comply with the recom- P PART
T
guowth.
acceptance of new development appli- cations and directed staff to draft a growth plan based on the recommen- dations contained in the citizens com- mittee report. The growth manage-
six months and was formally adopted by the City Council in July 1986.
changed the way the city operated with respect to growth and the ap-
opment projects. The plan reqdres that public facilities and services be provided concurrently with new
The recommendations from the cit- , The growth management plan zens of Carlsbad.
rapid changes ensued. Within a proVal and implementation of devel- and mu* has been accomp
, . ~ ...... - .
Ann Kulchh IS a Carlsbad councilwor
0 0
c: Ci4-y Coclnc
Clty Pr*y ci+y GlevF
January 7, 1998 city my.
Mayor Lewis 5( City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Dr.
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Dear Mayor and Council:
Re: Ordinance #NS 441. Poinsettia Properties.
I attended the meeting on January 6, 1998 and since time was
a factor I elected to write to each of you instead.
I noticed that a few important topics were not visited by stal
#l. Parking for the anticipated increase in Coaster riders
#2. How to keep beach visitors from parking at the depot
parking lot?
Also, please be advised that Mr. Doug Avis attended one of OUI
Harbor Pointe H.0.9. meetings and said that a 25' height limil would be observed. Then at the first Planning Dept. meeting,
he told our group that he could live with a 28' limit. I don
believe that any home in Harbor Pointe is over 25' and they look very nice.
Also, staff showed you a slide of the view from HarSor Pointe
looking west from the entrance which is the highest point in the complex. On Watervcourse Dr. there are several view
lots that are about 10' lower.
I am aware that you cannot protect views and you are aware
that we paid about $30,000 for a view lot.
Having said that, it is my opinion that Mr. Avis would work with you on lowering the height of the homes in the developmei if he was asked.
and parking for more NCTD Buses. Is there room to expand?
This would make a lot of retirees living at Harbor Pointe hap]
With warm regards. That was my first visit to a council meeti You have a tough job. You have my respect.
Sincerely,
Jim 9 Z Eleanor Nance
6845 Watercourse Dr.
Carlsbad, Ca. 92009
Ph. 929-8599
PARCEL
PARCEL A
PARCEL B
Totals
PARCEL C
GMCP DENSITY INCREASE PROPOSED
UNITS UNITS TOTAL UNITS
134 424 558
215 0 215
449 474 923
100 50 150
0 0
AREAS OF CONCERN
EIR
0 LandUse 0 Views
0 Air Quality 0 Water
0 Traffic 0 Schools
0 Biology 0 Noise
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY
BUILDING HEIGHT dk PAD ELEVATIONS
TREE HEIGHT
BASEBALL & SOCCER FIELDS
POINSETTIA BRIDGE WIDENING
DRAINAGE
LANIKAI ACCESS THROUGH LA COSTA DOM
PONTO ACCESS
EMERGENCY ACCESS
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT
EIR
0 Biology 0 Views
Air Water
Traffic Schools
Noise
Inadequate notification
Land use compatibility
Presented by consultant
Notice of Preparation
Notice of Completion
Property owners within
3 Planning Commission
1 City Council meeting
Compatible with
600' '
meetings
surrounding developmenl
Reduce building heights to
25 feet
Reduce tree height to 25 feet
Shortage and maintenance of
baseball and soccer fields
Maximum of 30’ and 2
stories if 3:12 pitch
provided or 24’ and 2
stories if less pitch is
provided
Parcel B - same elevation
as Carlsbad Blvd.
Parcel C - 2’ above at
north, 5’ above at south
75% of trees required to
be canopy trees
Athletic field standards
exceeded (now & at
buildout)
school districts
sites
community use
Joint use agreement with
City maintains fields at 8
City schedules fields for
Poinsettia Bridge should be
widened before construction
Drainage should be provided
to Ponto Area before
construction
Surfside Lane access should
remain open
Access to Ponto Area should
be moved south
Secondary access should be
provided
Carlsbad Boulevard
Realignment
Bridge design completed i
Construction to start in
fiscal year 1998
2000-2001
Drainage facilities
constructed concurrent
with development
Access must be gated per
La Costa Downs Specific
Plan
Proposed access is at best
location
Two access points provide
for all planning areas
Presentation by staff
* e e
1
PROJECT DENSITY/ACRE
Alta Mira* 6.6
HarborPointe* 6.7
Seacliff* 4.9
Lanikai Lanes* 10.3
Lakeshore Gardens* 7.4
PA2&4 5.9
PA 5 15.3
PA 7 6.6
PA 8 7.0
* Density would be higher if constrained areas were
subtracted
CURRENT
(POP 12,000)
AVIARA OAKS
POINSETTIA
TOTAL FIELDS
STANDARD 1/4000
SURPLUS OR
SHORTAGE
BASEBALW SOCCER
SOFTBALL
3 2
1 1
4 3
3 3
+I 0
FALL '98
(POP 20,000)
AVIARA OAKS
POINSETTIA
TOTAL FIELDS
STANDARD 1/4000
SURPLUS OR
SHORTAGE
BASEBALL/ SOCCER
SOFTBALL
3 2
3 3
6 5
5 5
+I 0
BU I LDOUT
(POP 20,000)
AVIARA OAKS
POINSETTIA
ZONE 19
TOTAL FIELDS
STANDARD 1/4000
SURPLUS OR
SHORTAGE
BASEBALL/ SOCCER
SOFTBALL
3 2
3 3
2 2
8 7
7.4 7.4
+.6 -.4
BUILDOUT (POP
126,552)
TOTAL FIELDS
STANDARD 1/4000
SURPLUS OR
SHORTAGE
BASEBALL/ SOCCER
SOFTBALL
40 33
31.6 31.6
+8.4 +I .4
P~Z~AZVX? k/dkW- Ak~fl
&,*kCd#D I&! AT- /$d4wffh~ ,h.k%;Pl "@
35d.nk &-=5$&3,gjJ a&oj lH$p &22&V&5%
@PA
32pTj ,&&y&&iD &fic// L&fli? &LZwfi
A&&& L/f Lw3m hdz 1; 111''
.&=A/ &5,gp &F'?&aS
//!E-
AT& LJ /-// L'flB-%&!L> 6LPz/f &%?-/ .L?&L~Y&