HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-04-13; City Council; 15139; Poinsettia Shores Planning Area CiL4 h
CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGEWA BILL 77
AB# c/3’? TITLE:
MTG. w 3 POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA C
CT 98-06/CP 98-05/HDP 98-04/CDP 98-27
DEPT. PLN ?f‘
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
DEPT. HD. &@+
CITY ATTY. @L
CITY MGR+
That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. W-/d8 APPROVING CT 98-06, CP 98-05, HDP
98-04 and CDP 98-27 as recommended for approval by the Planning Commission.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On January 20, 1999, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to review a subdivision
map/condominium permit for Poinsettia Shores Planning Area C located south of Avenida Encinas
between l-5 and Windrose Circle in the P-C zone. The Planning Commission recommended
approval (6-O) of CT 98-06, CP 98-05, HDP 98-04 and CDP 98-27 to allow the subdivision of the
9.64 acre parcel into a total of 40 lots with 28 residential duplex lots and 56 condominium units. The
gated development would receive primary access to residents and guests from Windrose Circle and
secondary access for residents only from Navigator Circle. Additionally, the project would provide
access to an otherwise landlocked parcel (Lamb property) located between the eastern boundary of Planning Area C and l-5. The Planning Commission’s decision was based on findings that the
project is subject to and in compliance with the General Plan, Poinsettia Shores Master Plan, West
Batiquitos Lagoon LCP segment, the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20) and applicable sections of the
Zoning Ordinance (Title 21) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
The Planning Commission received three letters of opposition from nearby property owners. In
addition, nine residents spoke in opposition to the project based on the following concerns regarding
project design, Poinsettia Shores Master Plan open space amenities, traffic congestion, air quality,
and Growth Management controls:
ISSUE
View blockage (Lamb
property) due to required
noise walls
Navigator Circle residents Navigator Circle access is
Dnly ingress and egress anticipated.
Construction traffic on
Navigator Circle
MASTER PLAN
REQUIREMENT
A 6’ high noise wall is
required along the Planning
Area C eastern boundary to
mitigate noise levels from l-5
to the City’s standard.
Not applicable
STAFF RESPONSE
The Lamb property, located between
the project &d’I-5,-is not a part of this
proposal. Placement of the wall along
the Planning Area C property line
separating the parcel from the Lamb
property is required noise mitigation.
Although the Master Plan requires
vehicular access to the property, there
is no view preservation requirement.
The Navigator Circle secondary access
is required to satisfy the City’s cul-de-
sac policy. The developer possesses
an easement over Navigator Circle
giving him access rights to his property.
Engineering Department will ensure
that no construction equipment will use Navigator Circle during construction.
P
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA ISILL NO. /% /39
Type of condominium Multi-family townhomes - no The duplex condominium units include
units individually owned lots. one-half the structure and lot
(separated by a line drawn between
the party walls of the structure from the front property line to the rear property
line and extending 15’ below the ground level. Each condominium
owner is responsible for maintenance
of their respective unit (structure and
yard). The duplex lot (15’ below ground level to the center of earth) is
commonly owned by both condo-
minium unit owners. (See attached
Exhibits “X” and “Y”.)
Building pad elevations/ 35’ maximum building height. Although building pads are increased a
unit placement which will maximum of 2.7’ above the existing
obstruct Sea Cliff views grade, the structures do not exceed the
35’ maximum permitted by the Master
Plan from existing grade. The
structures are 30’ in height from
proposed grade and 32.7’ in height
from existing grade. The Master Plan
has no view preservation requirement.
Increases in air and noise Noise study required to The assertion that a short segment of
pollution due to noise wall determine noise mitigation. noise wall along the l-5 right-of-way
along l-5 right-of-way would create a tunnel in which noise
would reverberate and air quality would
be worsened is unsubstantiated.
Poinsettia Shores Master l Planning Area C Trail - l Each trail segment is required to be Plan open space Prior to occupancy constructed and available to amenities not yet available . Planning Area A-3 - Prior residents prior to occupancy of to residents in existing to occupancy units in that Planning Area. units l Planning Area A-4 - Prior
to occupancy
l Master Plan Ret Center - l The Master Plan Recreation Center
August 1999. is scheduled to open mid to late
March.
Project density and its Planning Area C maximum The project is 14 units below the
impact on traffic, public density = 70 units maximum units permitted in Area C. facilities, and commercial Public facilities as required by All public facilities required by the
facilities LFMP 9. Master Plan and LFMP for development east of the railroad including the connection of Avenida
Encinas to Carlsbad Boulevard are complete.
a
h
PAGE 3 OF AGENDA BILL NO. /! /3Lj
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STATUS:
Facilities Zone 9
Local Facilities Management Zone 9
Growth Control Point 6 du/acre
Net Density 5.8 du/acre
Special Facilities CFD No. 1
Schools See paragraph below
The project has been conditioned to mitigate impacts to schools to the extent allowed by applicable
state law as recently amended by Proposition IA and SB 50.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: (SEE ATTACHED MEMO DATED 4/13/W FROM THE PLANNING DEPT.)
The Planning Director issued a Negative Declaration on November 24, 1998, for the project on the
environmental impact assessment findings that no significant impacts would result from the project.
The project is within the scope of the City’s General Plan MEIR in which a Statement of Overriding
Considerations was adopted for cumulative impacts to air quality and traffic. As part of the
Poinsettia Shores Master Plan, the project is also subject to mitigation measures required by the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration. All feasible mitigation measures
required by the MEIR and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been incorporated into the project
including the use of noise walls and landscaping in front of walls to reduce visual impacts.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impacts will result from the project since it is consistent with the Zone 9 Local Facilities
Management Plan. All required public facilities necessary to serve the Poinsettia Shores Master
Plan (east side of railroad) have been completed.
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Resolution No. ?q-/a$
2. Location Map
3. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4460, 4461, 4462, 4463 and 4464
4. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated January 20, 1999 5. Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated January 20, 1999
6. Exhibits “X” and 7”.
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
RESOLUTION NO. 99-128
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, TENTATIVE MAP, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT,
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, AND HILLSIDE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY
INTO A TOTAL OF 40 LOTS INCLUDING 28 DUPLEX
RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 56 CONDOMINIUM UNITS ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF AVENIDA
ENCINAS BETWEEN l-5 AND WINDROSE CIRCLE.
CASE NAME: POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA C
CASE NO.: CT 98-06/CP 98-05/CDP 98-27/HDP 98-40
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as
follows:
WHEREAS, on January 20, 1999, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
public hearing to consider a Negative Declaration, Tentative Map (CT 98-06) Condominium
Permit (CP 98-05), Coastal Development Permit (CDP 98-27) and. Hillside Development Permit
(HDP 98-40) and adopted Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4460, 4461, 4462, 4463, and
4464 respectively, recommending to the City Council that they be approved; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 13th day of
April , 1999, held a public hearing to consider the recommendations and heard all
persons interested in or opposed to the Negative Declaration, CT 98-06, CP 98-05, CDP 98-27,
and HDP 98-40.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval of
the Negative Declaration is approved and that the findings and conditions of the Planning
Commission Resolution No. 4460, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by
reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council.
3. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval of
the Tentative Map (CT 98-06) is approved and that the findings and conditions of the Planning
Commission Resolution No. 4461, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by
reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council. That the City Council add the
following language to Condition No. 26 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 4461 to read as
follows: ” . . .Regardless of whether the City accepts the trail(s) dedication, the subject trail(s)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 .*i:
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 shall be installed and made available to the general public prior to the occupancy of any unit
~ within Planning Area C. In the event that a Citywide Open Space Maintenance District is not
formed, maintenance responsibilities shall be assumed by the Master Homeowners Association.
4. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval of
the Condominium Permit (CP 98-05) is approved and that the findings and conditions of the
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4462, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein
by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council.
5. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval of
the Coastal Development Permit (CDP 98-27) is approved and that the findings and conditions
of the Planning Commission Resolution No. 4463, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated
herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council.
6. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval of
the Hillside Development Permit (HDP 98-40) is approved and that the findings and conditions
of the Planning Commission Resolution No. 4464, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated
herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council. ,
7. That this project could have a potentially significant cumutative: traffic
impact on the Palomar Airport Road/El ‘Camiho.. Real intersection. However, this project has been conditioned to pay its fair share of the Short-term improvements” thereby, guaranteeing
implementation of a mitigation measure’ that ,reduces the potential impact to a level rof
insignificance. .; i: :
8. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4461 is further amended by the
addition of the following conditions:
a) The developer shall pay its fair share for the “short-term improvements” to the El Camino ReaVPalomar Airport Road intersection prior to approval of the
final map or the issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first. The
amount shall be determined by the methodology ultimately selected by Council, including but not limited to, an increase in the citywide traffic impact
fee; an increased or new Zone 9 LFMP fee; the creation of a fee or
assessment district; or incorporation into a Mello-Roos taxing district.
b) The developer shall consult with surrounding homeowners to determine the
most aesthetically pleasing design for walls/fences not required to mitigate
noise that are located along the projects Navigator Circle frontage. The final
design shall be subject to approval of the Planning Director.
CODE REMINDER:
c) Off-site drainage to unapproved drainage courses is prohibited. This shall be enforced and maintained by the Planning Area C Homeowners Association
and/or Poinsettia Shores Master Homeowners Association.
9. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council.
The Provisions of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, “Time Limits for Judicial
Review” shall apply:
-2-
1 “NOTICE TO APPLICANT”
“The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is
governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been
made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code
Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking review must be filed in
the appropriate court not later than the nineteenth day following the date
on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the
decision becomes final a request for the record of the deposit in an
amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost or preparation of such
record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is
extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the
record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney
of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the
record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of
Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA. 92008.”
10 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of ‘the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on.the- 13Qh day of April 1999; by the following- vote, to wit: 7” :.
11 AYES: Council Members Lewis, Hall, FinnSa, .Nygaard and Kulchin
12
,. 29
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. FWUTENKRANZ, City Clerk
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(SEAL)
-3-
EXHIBIT 2
@
POINSETTIA SHORES Pi. C
CT 98=06/CP 98-051
CDP 98-27lHDP 98-40
6
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
EXHIBIT 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4460
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW THE
SUBDIVISION OF 11.2 ACRES INTO 40 LOTS AND 56
CONDOMINIUMS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
SOUTH OF AVENIDA ENCINAS BETWEEN WINDROSE
CIRCLE AND I-5 IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 9.
CASE NAME: POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING
AREAC
CASE NO * . . CT 98-06KP 98-05KDP 98-27lHDP 98-40
WHEREAS, Greystone Homes, Inc., “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Greystone Homes, Inc.,
“Owner”, described as:
Those portions of Lots 1 and 2 and the street between said lots as
shown on Parcel Map No. 13653 in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, January 31,1985 as file no. W-033316
of official records, lying easterly of the northeasterly line of Carlsbad
Tract 85-14, Phase 1 (Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park), in the
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to Map thereof No. 11616, filed in the County Recorder of San Diego
County, September 12,1986.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 20th day of January, 1999,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows: 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration
according to Exhibit “ND” dated November 24, 1998 , and “PIP dated
November 12, 1998, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the
following findings:
Fiadings:
1. The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the MEIR 93-01 and Mitigated Negative Declaration for CT
94-01 (Poinsettia Shores Master Plan/Master Tentative Map) which are appropriate to
this project have been incorporated into this Project.
2. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and
considered the Negative Declaration dated November 24, 1998, the environmental
impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to
recommending approval of the project. Based on the EIA Part II and comments
thereon, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence the project
will have a significant effect on the environment and thereby RECOMMENDS
APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration.
3. The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the independent
judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
4. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Negative Declaration, has been
prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act,
the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of
Carlsbad.
1. Approval is granted subject to the approval of CT 98-06, CP 98-05, CDP 98-27, and
HDP 98-40, subject to all conditions contained in Resolutions No. 4461, 4462, 4463,
and 4464 for CT 98-06, CP 98-05, CDP 98-27, and HDP 98-40.
PC RESO NO. 4460 -2- 9
l(
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of January 1999, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, Nielsen, Noble,
Savary, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner L’Heureux
ABSTAIN:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOWMILLW
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4460 -3- 9
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location:
Project Description:
South side of Avenida Encinas between Windrose Circle and l-5 in
the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan boundaries.
The subdivision of Poinsettia Shores Master Plan-Planning Area C into a
total of 40 lots (28 residential duplex lots, 1 private street and 11 open
space lots) with 56 airspace condominiums. The project includes
regrading of the hillside parcel from terraced pads to accommodate an
attached mutli-family project accomplished as part of the master plan
mass grading to terraced pads to accommodate duplex lots with airspace
condominiums. The proposed two-story duplex condominium units range
in size from 1,874 square feet to 2,250 square feet.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at
(760) 438-l 161, extension 4477.
DATED: NOVEMBER 24,1998
CASE NO: CT 98-06/CP 98-05KDP 98-27/HDP 98-40
CASE NAME: POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA C
PUBLISH DATE: NOVEMBER 24,1998
Planning Director
2075 La Palmas Dr. l Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-l 161 - FAX (760) 438-0894
j3NVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANN-lNG DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CT 98-06/CP 98-OS/HDP 98-04/CDP 98-27
DATE: NOVEMBER 12.1998
CKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: POINSETTIA SHORES - AREA C
2. APPLICANT: AREA C HOMEBIJUJXNG PARTNERS. L.P.
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 4141 JUTLAND DR. SUITE 200. SAN
DIEGO. CA 92117 PHOwk !619?490 6903 -
4. DATE EL4 FORM PART I SUBMITTED: 02-27-98
5. . . . PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The subdivlSlon of Po&&ia Shores Master Plan-P- Area C
located south of Av&a En- between I-5 and Windrose Circle into a total of 40 lots (28 . . . resiw duplex lots. 1 nrivate street and 11 opemce lots with 56 airspace condomuliums, . . . The project tnclu.d.es regradinp of the -de parce 1 from ten-aced Dads to accommodate an
hed mutli - familviect accon@&hed as part of the master -mass to terraced . Padstoomln-~ The ?ro?Josed dud= . <unltsO sauare feet
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
q Land Use and Planning q Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources q Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems q Energy & Mineral Resources q Aesthetics
q Water q Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
[XI Air Quality IXI Noise q Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
-
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
cl
cl
cl
El
cl
-
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negative
Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore,
a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
r/ / a%
Planner Sign&re Date
Planning Directbr’s Si&ature Cl IzolqB Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96 )a
-
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but &I potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
Rev. 03/28/96 13
l If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated”
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
l An EIR musf be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF FNVIRONMENTAL EVATUATIO~. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
Rev. 03/28/96 -14
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than No Significant Impact Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18;#2:Pgs 1-19)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
d) Affect agricultural resonrces or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18;#2:Pgs 1-19)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
q
q
Cl
q
cl
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
lz
Ix]
q q q (XI
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l -
5.5-6)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
cl
q
q
q
q
cl
IXI
lxl
q q q 151
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15;#2:Pgs 1-19)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15;#2:Pgs
1-19)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1.15;#2:Pgs 1-19)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15;#2:Pgs
1-19)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1-15;#2:Pgs 1-19; #5)
g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15;#2:Pgs
l-19/ #5)
h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15;#2:Pgs 1-19;
#5) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5. l-l -
5.1-15;#2:Pgs l-19/#5)
q q
q
q
q
q
cl q
cl
q la cl El
q IXI
q El
q IXI
q 1xI
q
q
Cl
cl
q
q
q
q
q
q Ix]
q I8
q [XI
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, .drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-
11;#2:Pgs 1-19; #i+4)
q q cl ixl
Rev. 03128196 /5- 5
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b)
cl
4
e)
fl
g>
h)
i>
Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11;#2:Pgs 1-19;
W Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11;#2:Pgs l-
19) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11;#2:Pgs 1-19)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11;#2:Pgs 1-19)
Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11;#2:Pgs 1-19)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11;#2:Pgs 1-19)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-
11;#2:Pgs 1-19)
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
5.2-l - 5..2-11;#2:Pgs 1-19)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
1 - 5.3-12)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l
- 5.3-12)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
a)
b)
c)
d)
4
f)
g)
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffk congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l -
5.7.22)
0
0
cl
0
cl
cl
0
0
IZJ
cl
0
0
El
0
0
0
0
0
q
q
q
0
q
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
q
0
q
q
q
q
q
q
Cl
0
q
0
q
0
0
0
q
q
q
0
cl
[xl
Is
El
Ix]
ISI
Ix1
Ix1
IXI
0
(XI
lx
txl
cl
El
El
lxl
[XI
El
El
6 Rev. 03128196 )6
Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
q
Less Than
Significant
Impact
NO
Impact
Lq -
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
4
b)
cl
4
e)
VIII.
a>
b)
c>
in impacts to:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24;#2:Pgs 1-19)
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24;#2:Pgs l-19)
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-
24;#2:Pgs 1-19)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24;#2:Pgs 1-19)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l
- 5.4-24;#2:Pgs 1-19)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
Use non-renewable resonrces in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
1 - 5.13-9)
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5
& 5.13-1 - 5.13-9;#2:Pgs 1-19)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l -
5.10.1-5)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l :Pgs 5.9- 1 - 5.9-
15; #2 - Pg 13; #4)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
1 - 5.9-15;#2:Pgs 1-19)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
Potentially Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
q
q
0
0
0
q
q
q
q
q
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated
0
q
q
0
0
0
0
0
0
q
0
q
0
0
lx
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
q
cl
q
q
q
q
0
0
0
q
cl
0
0
q
NO
impact
[XI
IXI
0
7 Rev. 03128196 17
C
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4)
c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( )
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
5.12.8-7)
XILUTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
a>
b)
cl
d)
4
0
g)
XIII.
4
b)
cl
XIV.
4
W
4
4
e>
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
Communications systems? ( )
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.12.3-7)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
5.1 l-l - 5.1 l-5)
Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
5.1 l-l - 5.1 l-5)
Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.1 l-l - 5.1 l-5)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10;#2:Pgs 1-19)
Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10;#2:Pgs 1-19)
Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10;#2:Pgs 1-19)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
5.8-l - 5.8-10;#2:Pgs 1-19)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10;#2:Pgs l-
19)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
5.12.8-7)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
q 0 0 0 0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
q
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0 q 0 0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
q q 0 cl 0
q
q 0
0 0 0 0
0
q
0
0
0
q
q
0
q
No
impact
151
lx
Ix1
lxl
lxi
El
IXI
Ix1
Ix]
lxl
IXI
lxl
lx
[x1
Ix]
Ix]
IXI
lx
Ix]
Ix]
lxl
8 Rev. 03128196 lf
-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable** means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
q
q
0
q
4
Potentially Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
q
0
0
0
Less Than No Significant lmpacf
Impact
q IXI
q
q
q
[xl
9 Rev. 03128196 19
-
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)@). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
4 Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated,“ describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
OJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRON~ SETTING
This project involves the subdivision and regrading of Planning Area C, a 9.64 acre previously
graded hillside parcel located south of Avenida Encinas between I-5 and Windrose Circle in the
Poinsettia Shores Master Plan, into a total of 40 lots (28 residential duplex lots, 1 private street
and 11 open space lots), and the airspace subdivision of 56 condominium units. The proposed
multi-family project complies with the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan regulations governing the
site in that lots are not individually owned and units are airspace condominiums. The proposed
project involves 69,000 cubic yards of grading with 9,000 cubic yards of import required to
convert the site from terraced pads suitable for an attached condominium project to terraced
building pads suitable for duplex lots containing condominium units. Increases in grade
elevations from those approved by the Master Plan mass grading are 2’ or less across the site.
1. Land Use and Planning
The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations on the property
(RM) and is consistent with the Master Plan governing development of the site, which allows the
proposed 56 units. The proposed development is consistent with surrounding existing and future
uses since both are governed by the approved Master Plan which allows a variety of types of
residential development and some supporting recreational and other supporting uses. The site is
currently undeveloped but has been mass graded consistent with the approved Master Plan in
anticipation of this development. Therefore, the proposed project will not disrupt any existing
agricultural uses or any established community. Pursuant to the conditions of the previously
approved Master Plan tentative map (CT 94-Ol), all agricultural conversion fees required for the
development of this Master Plan have been paid or secured to the City’s satisfaction.
10 Rev. 03128196 2220
2. Population and Housing
The project will not result in substantial growth or growth in excess of population projections.
This project was anticipated by the City’s General Plan and the Master EIR adopted with the
General Plan Update through the approval of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. The site is
undeveloped. Therefore, no existing housing will be displaced.
3. Geologic Problems
A geotechnical study was prepared for the project site in January 1998 by Leighton and
Associates, Inc. This report concluded that the project site is suitable for the proposed
development subject to the design recommendations included in the report. When developed as
recommended, the project will not result in any geologic problems, including faults, ground
shaking, seismic ground failure, landslides, or soils problems (expansion). Grading and
construction activities on the site will be governed by the City’s standard regulations for erosion
control. The site contains no unique geologic or physical features. Regrading of the site for the
project will necessitate 9,000 cubic yards of import.
4. Water
The development of the subject site will result in changes to absorption rates over the natural
undisturbed condition. However, all drainage for the project is consistent with the Master Plan
as determined by the LFMP 9 drainage facilities plan and drainage facilities will meet the City’s
Engineering standards. The project will not result in creation of any water-related hazards or any
changes to surface or ground waters. There will also be no impacts to the course or direction of
any water bodies.
5. Air Quality
The implementation of projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General
Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled.
These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic
gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfiu, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major
contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San
Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle tips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
11 Rev. 03128196 d/
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
6. Traffic Circulation
The project, which will generate 448 ADT, is consistent with the parcel’s RM General Plan land
use designation and the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan; therefore, it is within the scope of the
City’s MEIR for the 1994 General Plan update. Roadway improvements have been constructed
in accordance with the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan and Zone 9 LFMP to adequately handle all
traffic generated by development within the master plan boundaries; therefore, no additional
mitigation, in the way of roadway improvements, is necessary. The implementation of projects
that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased
traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however,
12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over
which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange
areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of
roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth
Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include 1)
measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to
develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks,
pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation
strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or
State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to
control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either
been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
6. Transportation/Circulation
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
12 Rev. 03128196
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures
to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian
linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway
onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been
incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
7. Biological Resources
The project site does not contain any biological resources or sensitive habitat. It has been
previously mass graded in preparation for development. Therefore, there will be no negative
impacts to biological resources as a result of this project.
8. Energy and Mineral Resources
The proposed project will not result in negative impacts to energy and mineral resources. The
site contains no mineral resources, and the project is not in conflict with any adopted energy
conservation plans.
9. Hazards
There will be no hazards or health hazards associated with the development of this site with the
planned residential units. The project’s circulation system is designed to comply with any
applicable requirements for emergency response/evacuation plans. The project site is sun-ounded
by similar residential development and will not result in, nor be subject to, increased fire hazard
from brush, grass, or trees.
13 Rev. 03128196 J3
^ -
10. Noise
In accordance with mitigation required as part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration approved
for the Master Plan, a noise analysis has been prepared for Planning Area C by Mestre Greve
Associates which specifies the location, height, and alternative materials of noise walls necessary
to attenuate roadway noise from I-5 and Avenida Encinas to meet City standards. These
recommendations for noise walls have been incorporated into the proposed project; therefore,
exterior noise levels will not exceed the City’s 60 dBA CNEL standard. Interior noise levels
will exceed the City’s 45 dFJA CNEL standard with windows open; therefore, the project will be
conditioned to require mechanical ventilation for all buildings in the project. Additionally, prior
to building permit issuance, the recommendations of an indoor noise analysis performed to
determine the need for building upgrades for residential units adjacent to I-5 must be
incorporated into the final architectural plans.
11. Public Services
The proposed project will not result in significant negative impacts to public services. The
project was anticipated by the City’s General Plan buildout analysis and will be conditioned to
comply with all applicable requirements of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 9.
This condition will ensure that all necessary public services standards are met prior to or
concurrent with the development.
12. Utilities and Services Systems
The proposed project will not result in significant negative impacts to utilities and services
systems. The project was anticipated by the City’s General Plan buildout analysis and will be
conditioned to comply with all applicable requirements of the Local Facilities Management Plan
for Zone 9. This condition will ensure that all necessary improvements are provided prior to or
concurrent with the development.
13. Aesthetics
The proposed project will not result in negative aesthetic impacts in that buildings will be
minimally visible from arterial roadways and a combination of landscaped slopes, enhanced
retaining walls, and enhanced architectural building and roof elements will complement the
physical setting. The project is located adjacent to I-5, however, the project will not result in
significant light or glare since units are separated by a 6’ - 7’ high sound/screen wall and
landscaping.
14. Cultural Resources
No cultural resources are associated with the subject project site. All required
cultural/archaeological/paleontological monitoring required for the development of the Master
Plan was completed satisfactorily during the mass grading of the site. The project site does not
serve any religious or sacred uses.
15. Recreational
The project site does not currently provide any recreational opportunities. When developed as
14 Rev. 03128196 44
proposed, the site will provide recreational opportunities for the residents of the planning area in
the form of private yards and a trail system. The Master Plan also includes a centralized active
recreational area for the residents of the Master Plan area. Because the proposed project is a
different product type from that considered by the original Master Plan, the project will be
conditioned to obtain more park credits or pay additional park in-lieu fees above those already
paid under the original Master Plan project approval.
SOURCE DOCUMENTS: - Note: All source documents are on file in the Planning
Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009, Phone (760) 438-1161.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
certified September 6, 1994.
Mitigated Negative Declaration for Poinsettia Shores Master Tentative Map (CT 94-Ol/HDP
94-03), approved July 6,1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
“Preliminary Drainage Study for Poinsettia Shores Area C” dated January 28, 1998 prepared
by O’Day Consultants, Inc.
“Indoor and Outdoor Noise Analysis for Poinsettia Shores (Planning Area C)” revised
February 15, 1998, prepared Mestre Greve Associates.
“Geotechnical Report for Tentative Map Purposes, Poinsettia Shores, Planning Area C,
Carlsbad California”, dated January 27, 1998 prepared by Leighton and Associates, Inc.
15 Rev. 03128196
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
C h
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO SUBDIVIDE
11.2 ACRES INTO 40 LOTS AND 56 CONDOMINIUMS ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF AVENIDA
ENCINAS BETWEEN WINDROSE CIRCLE AND I-5 IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 9.
CASE NAME: POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING
AREAC
CASE NO.: CT 98-06
WHEREAS, Greystone Homes, Inc., “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Greystone Homes, Inc.,
“Owner”, described as
Those portions of Lots 1 and 2 and the street between said lots as
shown on Parcel Map No. 13653 in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, January 31, 1985 as file no. 85-
033316 of official records, lying easterly of the northeasterly line of
Carlsbad Tract 85-14, Phase 1 (Batiquitos Lagoon Educational
Park), in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California, according to Map thereof No. 11616, filed in the
County Recorder of San Diego County, September 12,1986.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Tentative Tract
Map as shown on Exhibit(s) “A” - “EE” dated January 20, 1999, on file in the Planning
Department POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA C, CT 98-06, as provided by Title
20 (Subdivision Ordinance) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 20th day of January, 1999,
hold a duly noticed public hearing 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
-
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Tentative Tract Map.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
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 Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING
AREA C, CT 98-06, based on the following findings and subject to the following
conditions:
Findings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
That the proposed map and the proposed design and improvement of the subdivision as
condition, is consistent with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan, any
applicable specific plans, Titles 20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and the State
Subdivision Map Act, and will not cause serious public health problems, in that the lots
being created satisfy all minimum requirements of Title 20 governing lot sizes and
configuration and have been designed to comply with all other applicable City
regulations.
That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since
surrounding properties are designated for RM residential development on the General
Plan and the land uses called for by the approved Master Plan (RM residential uses)
implement the City’s General Plan.
That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the
site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the density
proposed, in that the project site can accommodate the proposed residential
development while providing all required setbacks and other amenities required by
the approved Master Plan and any other applicable City regulations.
That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements of record or easements established by court judgment, or acquired by the
public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
That the property is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Land
Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act).
That the design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or
natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, in that the project site is in 99 PC RESO NO. 4461 -2- 91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A -
an area of predominantly westerly winds and has been designed to provide for
adequate circulation within and surrounding the proposed residential units.
7. That the Planning Commission has considered, in connection with the housing proposed
by this subdivision, the housing needs of the region, and balanced those housing needs
against the public service needs of the City and available fiscal and environmental
resources.
8. That the design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat, in that the project site has been previously graded and contains no
environmentally sensitive species or habitat.
9. That the discharge of waste from the subdivision will not result in violation of existing
California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, in that the project has
been designed in accordance with the Best Management Practices for water quality
protection in accordance with the City’s sewer and drainage standards and the
project is conditioned to comply with all applicable National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) requirements.
10. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in
conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the following:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Land Use - The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan since the
proposed density of 5.8 du/ac is within the density range of 4 - 8 du/ac specified
for the site as indicated on the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and is at or
below the density allowed by the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan (8 du/ac) for
the project site.
Circulation - The circulation system is designed to provide adequate access to
the proposed units, and complies with all applicable City design standards
and all requirements of the approved Master Plan.
Noise - The proposed residential development has been designed to include a
noise wall to mitigate noise impacts from the adjacent roadways and the
proposed units will be constructed to mitigate noise impacts to the interior of
the units.
Housing - That the project is consistent with the Housing Element of the General
Plan and the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance as the Developer has entered into
an Affordable Housing Agreement and purchased credits for 90 dwelling units
in the Laurel Tree housing development as affordable to lower-income
households.
Parks and Recreation - The proposed project provides private recreation areas
in the form of private yards and provides a common recreation area in a
centralized location within the Master Plan.
ClP PC RESO NO. 4461 -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
11. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the
applicable local facilities management plan, and all City public facility policies and
ordinances since:
A. The project has been conditioned to ensure that the final map will not be approved
unless the City Council finds that sewer service is available to serve the project.
In addition, the project is conditioned such that a note shall be placed on the final
map that building permits may not be issued for the project unless the District
Engineer determines that sewer service is available, and building cannot occur
within the project unless sewer service remains available, and the District
Engineer is satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the
General Plan have been met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project;
B. Statutory School fees will be paid, or the obligation of the existing Schools
Agreement shall be satisfied, to ensure the availability of school facilities in the
Carlsbad Unified School District;
C. Park-in-lieu fees are required as a condition of approval;
D. All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as
conditions of approval; and
E. The developer has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate
condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment
of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be available
concurrent with need as required by the General Plan.
12. The project has been conditioned to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new
construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional
requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to
Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of
public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project.
13. This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the
Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 9.
. . Condltlons, .
NOTE: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following conditions upon the
approval of this proposed major subdivision must be met prior to approval of a final map.
1. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Tentative Tract Map documents necessary to make them
internally consistent and in conformity with final action on the project. Development
shall occur substantially as shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development
different from this approval shall require an amendment to this approval.
29 PC RESO NO. 4461 -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
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
The Developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar copy of the
Tentative Map as approved by the final decision making body. The Tentative Map
shall reflect the conditions of approval by the City. The Map copy shall be submitted to
the City Engineer and approved prior to building, grading, final map, or improvement
plan submittal, whichever occurs first.
The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan check, a
reduced legible version of the approving resolution(s) on a 24” x 36” blueline drawing.
Said blueline drawing(s) shall also include a copy of any applicable Coastal Development
Permit and signed approved site plan.
The final map shall not be approved unless the City Council finds as of the time of such
approval that sewer service is available to serve the subdivision.
Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the
District Engineer determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of application
for such sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of occupancy. A note
to this effect shall be placed on the final map.
The Developer shall pay the public facilities fee adopted by the City Council on July 28,
1987, (amended July 2, 1991) and as amended from time to time, and any development
fees established by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code or other ordinance adopted to implement a growth management system or Facilities
and Improvement Plan and to fulfil1 the subdivider’s agreement to pay the public
facilities fee dated February 27,1998, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk and
is incorporated by this reference. If the fees are not paid, this application will not be
consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project will be void.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
as part of the Zone 9 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to
that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this residential
housing project are challenged this approval shall be suspended as provided in
Government Code Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this
approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the
condition complies with all requirements of law.
Approval of CT 98-06 is granted subject to the approval of CP 98-05, CDP 98-27, and
HDP 98-40. CT 98-06 is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission
Resolutions No. 4462,4463, and 4464 for CP 98-05, CDP 98-27, and HDP 98-40.
PC RESO NO. 4461 -5 30
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
11. The Developer shall establish a homeowner’s association and corresponding covenants,
conditions and restrictions. Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by the
Planning Director prior to final map approval. Prior to issuance of a building permit the
Developer shall provide the Planning Department with a recorded copy of the official
CC&Rs that have been approved by the Department of Real Estate and the Planning
Director. At a minimum, the CC&Rs shall contain the following provisions:
A. General Enforcement by the City. The City shall have the right, but not the
obligation, to enforce those Protective Covenants set forth in this Declaration in
favor of, or in which the City has an interest.
B. Failure of Association to Maintain Common Area Lots and Easements. In the
event that the Association fails to maintain the “Common Area Lots and/or the
Association’s Easements” as provided in Article , Section
, the City shall have the right, but not the duty, to perform the
necessary maintenance. If the City elects to perform such maintenance, the City
shall give written notice to the Association, with a copy thereof to the Owners in
the Project, setting forth with particularity the maintenance which the City finds to
be required and requesting the same be carried out by the Association within a
period of thirty (30) days from the giving of such notice. In the event that the
Association fails to carry out such maintenance of the Common Area Lots and/or
Association’s Easements within the period specified by the City’s notice, the City
shall be entitled to cause such work to be completed and shall be entitled to
reimbursement with respect thereto from the Owners as provided herein.
C. Special Assessments Levied by the City. In the event the City has performed the
necessary maintenance to either Common Area Lots and/or Association’s
Easements, the City shall submit a written invoice to the Association for all costs
incurred by the City to perform such maintenance of the Common Area Lots and
or Association’s Easements. The City shall provide a copy of such invoice to
each Owner in the Project, together with a statement that if the Association fails to
pay such invoice in till within the time specified, the City will pursue collection
against the Owners in the Project pursuant to the provisions of this Section. Said
invoice shall be due and payable by the Association within twenty (20) days of
receipt by the Association. If the Association shall fail to pay such invoice in full
within the period specified, payment shall be deemed delinquent and shall be
subject to a late charge in an amount equal to six percent (6%) of the amount of
the invoice. Thereafter the City may pursue collection from the Association by
means of any remedies available at law or in equity. Without limiting the
generality of the foregoing, in addition to all other rights and remedies available
to the City, the City may levy a special assessment against the Owners of each Lot
in the Project for an equal prorata share of the invoice, plus the late charge. Such
special assessment shall constitute a charge on the land and shall be a continuing
lien upon each Lot against which the special assessment is levied. Each Owner in
the Project hereby vests the City with the right and power to levy such special
assessment, to impose a lien upon their respective Lot and to bring all legal
actions and/or to pursue lien foreclosure procedures against any Owner and
PC RESO NO. 4461 -6- 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
his/her respective Lot for purposes of collecting such special assessment in
accordance with the procedures set forth in Article of this Declaration.
D. A statement to the effect that no enclosed or unenclosed additions shall be
allowed at any time by any owners, successors in interest, and/or occupants,
except for the allowance shown on the approved “Balcony/Deck, Trellis/Patio
Cover Exhibit.”
E. Maintenance responsibilities for the common open space lots (to be
maintained by the Master Homeowners Association or the Planning Area C
Homeowners association) and for the exclusive use areas (to be maintained
by the owners of duplex lots and/or individual unit owners) shall be as
delineated on the approved “Maintenance Responsibilities” exhibit, and this
information shall also be shown on the detailed landscape plan for this
project. The Condominium Plan (filed with the Department of Real Estate)
shall be in conformance with the “Maintenance Responsibilities” exhibit.
12. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, Developer shall submit to the City a Notice
of Restriction to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction
of the Planning Director, notifying all interested parties and successors in interest that the
City of Carlsbad has issued a Tentative Tract Map, Condominium Permit, Coastal
Development Permit, and Hillside Development Permit by Resolutions No. 4461,
4462, 4463, and 4464 on the real property owned by the Developer. Said Notice of
Restriction shall note the property description, location of the file containing complete
project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions
specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The Planning Director has the
authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice which modifies or terminates
said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer or successor in interest.
13. No outdoor storage of materials shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief. In
such instance a storage plan will be submitted for approval by the Fire Chief and the
Planning Director.
14. The Developer shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan in conformance with
the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City’s Landscape Manual. The plans
shall be submitted to and approval obtained from the Planning Director prior to the
approval of the final map, grading permit, or building permit, whichever occurs first. The
Developer shall construct and install all landscaping as shown on the approved plans, and
maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and
debris.
15. The first submittal of detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be accompanied by the
project’s building, improvement, and grading plans.
16. Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings
so as to be plainly visible from the street or access road; color of identification and/or
addresses shall contrast to their background color.
34 PC RESO NO. 4461 -7-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
. . .
. . .
The Developer shall display a current Zoning and Land Use Map in the sales office at all
times, or suitable alternative to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. In addition, the
sales office shall prominently display the approved ‘(Balcony/Deck, Trellis/Patio
Cover Exhibit.”
All sales maps that are distributed or made available to the public shall include but not be
limited to trails, future and existing schools, parks and streets.
This project is being approved as a condominium permit for residential home ownership
purposes. If any of the units in the project are rented, the minimum time increment for
such rental shall be not less than 26 days. The CC&Rs for the project shall include this
requirement.
Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map or the issuance of building permits,
whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property
may be subject to noise impacts from the proposed or existing Transportation Corridor, in
a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney.
Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map or the issuance of building permits,
whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property
is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan-Palomar
Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and the City Attorney.
Prior to the granting of occupancy for the first dwelling unit in this planning area
(Planning Area C) the construction of the onsite pedestrian trail located on lot 40
shall be completed.
The Developer shall provide proof of payment of statutory school fees or proof of
compliance with the School Funding and Mitigation Agreement as signed by the
Carlsbad Unified School District and Kaiza Poinsettia Corporation dated August
29, 1994 to mitigate conditions of overcrowding as part of the building permit
application. The amount of these fees shall be determined by the fee schedule in effect at
the time of building permit application, unless the signed School Agreement is
adequately mitigating school facilities impacts.
In accordance with the “Indoor and Outdoor Noise Analysis for Poinsettia Shores
(Planning Area C)” revised February 15, 1998 prepared by Mestre Greve
Associates, prior to occupancy of any of the dwelling units, the developer shall
construct noise barrier walls not to exceed 6’ (exposed) in height as shown on
Exhibits “BB” - “CC” dated January 20,1999.
All project retaining walls, fence walls, fences, and project entry gates shall be located
and constructed as shown on Exhibits “BB” - “EE” dated January 20,1999.
PC RESO NO. 446 1 -8-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
A
Prior to approval of the final map, the Developer shall provide an irrevocable offer of
dedication to the City of Carlsbad for a trail easement for trail(s) shown on the tentative
u within Open Space Lot 40.
The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed
to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
A qualified paleontologist and archeologist shall be present at a pre-grading conference
with the developer, grading contractor, City engineering and planning staff. The purpose
of this meeting will be to consult and coordinate the role of the paleontologist and
archeologist in the grading of the subject site. A qualified paleontologist and
archaeologist are individuals with adequate knowledge and experience with fossilized and
archeological remains likely to be present to identify them in the field and are adequately
experienced to remove the resources for further study. No grading permits shall be issued
until the monitoring plan has been approved by the Planning Director.
The paleontologist and archeologist monitors shall be present during grading as
determined at the pre-grading conference. The monitors shall have authority to
temporarily direct, divert or halt grading to allow adequate recovery of any cultural
remains, artifacts or resources. At the discretion of the monitor, recovery may include
washing and picking of soil samples for micro-vertebrate bone and teeth. As referenced
in the “Archaeological Excavations of Cultural Resources at the Batiquitos Pointe and
Batequitos Bluff Projects” report dated September 10, 1985 by Brian Smith, special care
shall be given to the grading and monitoring of site W-95. The developer shall authorize
the deposit of any resources found on the project site in an institution staffed by qualified
professionals as may be determined by the Planning Director. The contractor shall be
aware of the random nature of fossil and artifact occurrences and the possibility of a
discovery of resources of such scientific and/or educational importance which might
warrant a long term salvage operation or preservation. Any conflicts regarding the role of
the paleontologist and archaeological monitors and/or recovery times shall be resolved by
the Planning Director.
If any resources are recovered, paleontological and/or archaeological monitoring reports
shall be submitted to the Planning Director prior to occupancy of any buildings or
certification of the pads by the City’s Engineering Department. This report shall describe
all the materials recovered, assess their significance, and provide a tabulation of the
number of hours spent the monitors on the site.
Jhwiuggring:
31. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the developer shall
requirements of the City’s anti-graffiti program for wall treatments
program is formerly established by the City.
PC RESO NO. 4461 -9-
comply with the
if and when such a
34
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
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
There shall be one final subdivision map recorded for this project.
The developer shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers,
and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents,
officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void or null an approval of the City, the
Planning Commission or City Engineer which has been brought against the City within
the time period provided for by Section 66499.37 of the Subdivision Map Act.
The developer shall provide an acceptable means for maintaining the private easements
within the subdivision and all the private: streets, sidewalks, street lights, storm drain
facilities and sewer facilities located therein and to distribute the costs of such
maintenance in an equitable manner among the owners of the properties within the
subdivision. Adequate provision for such maintenance shall be included with the CC&Rs
subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
All concrete terrace drains shall be maintained by the homeowner’s association (if on
commonly owned property) or the individual property owner (if on an individually
owned lot). An appropriately worded statement clearly identifying the responsibility
shall be placed in the CC&Rs (if maintained by the Association) and on the Final Map.
Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site
within this project, the developer shall submit to and receive approval from the City
Engineer for the proposed haul route. The developer shall comply with all conditions and
requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the hauling operation.
Rain gutters must be provided to convey roof drainage to an approved drainage course or
street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
The developer shall install sight distance corridors at all street intersections in accordance
with Engineering Standards and shall record the following statement on the Final Map
(and in the CC&Rs):
“No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object over 30 inches above the
street level may be placed or permitted to encroach within the area identified as a sight
distance corridor in accordance with City Standard Public Street-Design Criteria, Section
8.B.3. The underlying property owner shall maintain this condition.”
FeesIAFreements
39. The developer shall pay all current fees and deposits required.
40. The owner shall execute a hold harmless agreement for geologic failure.
41. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, the owner shall give
written consent to the annexation of the area shown within the boundaries of the
subdivision plan into the existing City of Carlsbad Street Lighting and Landscaping
PC RESO NO. 4461 -lO- 35
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
District No. 1 on a form provided by the City.
Gradiag
42. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the
tentative map, a grading permit for this project is required. (the developer must submit
and receive approval for grading plans in accordance with city codes and standards prior to
issuance of a building permit for the project.)
43. No grading for private improvements shall occur outside the limits of the subdivision
unless a grading or slope easement or agreement is obtained from the owners of the
affected properties and recorded. If the developer is unable to obtain the grading or slope
easement, or agreement, no grading permit will be issued. In that case the developer must
either amend the tentative map or modify the plans so grading will not occur outside the
project site in a manner which substantially conforms to the approved tentative map as
determined by the City Engineer and Planning Director.
Dedications/Imurovements
44. Additional drainage easements may be required. Drainage structures shall be provided or
installed prior to or concurrent with any grading or building permit as may be required by
the City Engineer.
45. The owner shall make an offer of dedication to the City for all public streets and
easements required by these conditions or shown on the tentative map. The offer shall be
made by a certificate on the final map for this project. All land so offered shall be granted
to the City free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost to the City.
Streets that are already public are not required to be rededicated.
46. The owner shall grant a covenant of easement for general access, utilities and drainage
easement as shown on the tentative map. The covenant of easement shall also provide
access to adjacent property (APN 216-140-39 “Lamb property”) as shown on the
tentative map. The covenant of easement shall be shown and recording information called
out on the final map.
47. The developer shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The developer shall provide best
management practices as referenced in the “California Storm Water Best Management
Practices Handbook” to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge
to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer.
Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of
the following:
A. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with
established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and
hazardous waste products.
PC RESO NO. 4461 -ll- 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil,
antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other
such fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into
storm drain or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of
pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such
chemical treatments shall meet Federal, State, County and City
requirements as prescribed in their respective containers.
C. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface
pollutants when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface
improvements.
48. Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all public improvements shall be
prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In accordance with City Standards, the
developer shall install, or agree to install and secure with appropriate security as provided
by law, improvements shown on the tentative map and the following improvements:
l The private street system as shown on the tentative map.
l The sewer, water and reclaimed water systems as required by the Carlsbad
Municipal Water District.
l The (2) gated entrances to this project.
l The public trail system and required improvements adjacent to and associated
with development of this planning area.
l Improve any transition and/or damages to Windrose Circle and
Navigator Circle directly fronting Parcel C as a direct result of project
construction.
A list of the above improvements shall be placed on an additional map sheet on the final
map per the provisions of Sections 66434.2 of the Subdivision Map Act. Improvements
listed above shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the secured
improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement.
49. The design of all private streets and drainage systems shall be approved by the City
Engineer. The structural section of all private streets shall conform to City of Carlsbad
Standards based on R-value tests. All private streets and drainage systems shall be
inspected by the City. The standard improvement plan check and inspection fees shall be
paid prior to approval of the final map for this project.
Final I!Qp Notes
50. Note(s) to the following effect(s) shall be placed on the final map as non-mapping data:
A. All improvements within the boundaries of this subdivision are
PC RESO NO. 4461 -12- 37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B.
D.
Water:
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
privately owned and are to be privately maintained with the exception of
1. Sewer and Water main lines within the public
easements granted to the City or to the Carlsbad
Municipal Water District.
No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object over 30 inches
above the street level may be placed or permitted to encroach within the
area identified as a sight distance corridor in accordance with City
Standard Public Street-Design Criteria, Section 8.B.3. The underlying
property owner shall maintain this condition.
Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject
property unless the District Engineer determines that sewer facilities are
available.
Access to adjacent property (APN 216-140-39) is provided as a
covenant of easement through this subdivision.
The Developer shall be responsible for all fees, deposits and charges which will be
collected before and/or at the time of issuance of the building permit. The San Diego
County Water Authority capacity charge will be collected at issuance of application for
any meter installation.
The Developer shall provide detailed information to the District Engineer regarding water
demand, irrigation demand, fire flow demand in gallons per minute, and projected sewer
flow in million gallons per day.
The entire potable water system, recycled water system and sewer system shall be
evaluated in detail by Developer and District Engineer to insure that adequate capacity,
pressure and flow demands can be met.
All District pipelines, pump stations, pressure reducing stations and appurtenances
required for this project by the District shall be within public right-of-way or within
easements granted to the District or the City of Carlsbad.
Sequentially, the Developer’s Engineer shall do the following:
A.
B.
Meet with the City Fire Marshal and establish the fire protection requirements.
Prepare and submit a colored recycled water use area map and submit this map to
the Planning Department for processing and approval by the District Engineer.
PC RESO NO. 4461 .13- 38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
56.
57.
58.
m:
59.
C. Prior to the preparation of sewer, water and recycled water improvement plans,
the Developer shall submit preliminary system layouts to the District Engineer for
review, comment and approval.
The following note shall be placed on the final map. “This project is approved upon the
expressed condition that building permits will not be issued for development of the
subject property unless the District serving the development has adequate water and
sewer capacity available at the time development is to occur, and that such water and
sewer capacity will continue to be available until time of occupancy.”
All potable water and recycled water meters shall be placed within public right of way.
No more than 19 homes shall be served on a single potable water distribution pipeline.
For those locations with more than 19 homes, a looped potable water pipeline system
shall be designed.
Provide additional public fire hydrants at intervals of 500 feet along public streets and/or
private driveways. Hydrants should be located at street inter sections when possible, but
should be positioned no closer than 100 feet from terminus of a street or driveway.
General Condition:
60. If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all
future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy
issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to
compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No
vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of
this tentative map.
. . Code Reminder&
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to
the following:
61. The developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to
prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance
with the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the City Engineer.
PC RESO NO. 4461 -14- 39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
62.
63.
64.
65.
The tentative tract map approval shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date of
the City Council Resolution containing the final decision for tentative tract map
approval.
Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the
Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building
permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and
concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in
substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the
Directors of Community Development and Planning.
Developer shall apply for and obtain Fire Department evaluation of the building plans for
conformance with applicable fire and safety requirements of the state and local fire codes
prior to the issuance of building codes.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given
a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
. . .
PC RESO NO. 4461 -15-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 ABSENT: Commissioner L’Heureux
9 ABSTAIN:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of January 1999, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, Nielsen, Noble,
Savary, and Welshons
NOES:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4461 -16-
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO, 4462
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CAIUSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO SUBDIVIDE
11.2 ACRES INTO 40 LOTS AND 56 CONDOMINIUMS ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF AVENIDA
ENCINAS BETWEEN WINDROSE CIRCLE AND I-5 IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 9.
CASE NAME: POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING
AREAC
CASE NO * . . CP 98-05
WHEREAS, Greystone Homes, Inc., “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Greystone Homes, Inc.,
“Owner”, described as:
Those portions of Lots 1 and 2 and the street between said lots as
shown on Parcel Map No. 13653 in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California, Iiled in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, January 31, 1985 as file no. 85
033316 of offtcial records, lying easterly of the northeasterly line of
Carlsbad Tract 85-14, Phase 1 (Batiquitos Lagoon Educational
Park), in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California, according to Map thereof No. 11616, filed in the County
Recorder of San Diego County, September 12,1986.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Condominium
Permit as shown on Exhibit(s) “A” - “EEn dated January 20, 1999, on file in the Planning
Department, POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA C, CP 98-05, as provided by
Chapter 2 1.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 20th day of January, 1999,
hold a duly noticed public hearing 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
-
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Condominium Permit.
I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
I -3 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
COMMENDS APPROVAL of POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING
AREA C, CP 98-05, based on the following findings and subject to the following
conditions:
Findings:
1. All findings of Resolution No. 4461 for CT 98-06 are incorporated herein by
reference.
2. That the granting of this permit will not adversely affect and will be consistent with
Chapter 21.45 of Title 21, the General Plan and all adopted plans of the City and other
governmental agencies, in that the multi-family project is consistent with the
Residential Medium (RM) density land use designation and Poinsettia Shores
Master Plan and in compliance with all applicable development standards and
design criteria.
3. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary and desirable to provide a
service or facility which will contribute to the long-term general well-being of the
neighborhood and the community, in that the project contributes to housing diversity
in the Master Plan area and is consistent with existing single family development in
the surrounding community.
4. That the proposed Planned Development meets all of the minimum development
standards set forth in Chapter 2 1.45.090, the design criteria set forth in Section 2 1.45.080,
and has been designed in accordance with the concepts contained in the Design
Guidelines Manual, in that: 1) the project is consistent with applicable development
standards for building height, setbacks, private recreational space, private street
widths, and guest parking; 2) the terraced project design is oriented and related to
the hillside topography; 3) duplex lots/units are consistent with surrounding land
uses, circulation patterns and open space in accordance with the Poinsettia Shores
Master Plan; 4) the internal 32’ wide single loaded street system is designed for the
safe and efficient flow of vehicles throughout the project; and 5) the enhanced
architectural design is consistent with surrounding development within the
Poinsettia Shores Master Plan boundaries.
PC RESO NO. 4462 -2- 4!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
-
5. That such use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons
residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity, in that the project is conditioned to conform to all design and development
standards required by the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
6. That the proposed project’s design and density of the developed portion of the site is
compatible with surrounding development and does not create a disharmonious or
disruptive element to the neighborhood, in that the project design is consistent with
surrounding single family development, and the proposed density of 5.8 dwelling
units/acre is within the Residential Medium (RM) density range and does not exceed
the Growth Management control point.
That the project’s circulation system is designed to be efficient and well integrated with
the project and does not dominate the project, in that private gates and streets are
designed to City standards and provide direct access to all units. Guest parking
spaces are provided on single-loaded streets or in bays throughout the project to
avoid impacts to surrounding areas and pedestrian circulation (sidewalks) including
a publicly dedicated trail through the project is included.
. . CondW . .
1. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Condominium Permit document(s), necessary to make them
internally consistent and in conformity with final action on the project. Development
shall occur substantially as shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development
different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
2. Approval of CP 98-05 is granted subject to the approval of CT 98-06, CDP 98-27, and
HDP 98-40. CP 98-05 is subject to all conditions contained in Resolution No. 4461,
4463, and 4464 for CT 98-06, CDP 98-27, and HDP 98-40.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
PC RESO NO. 4462 -3- 44
-
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given
a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of January, 1999, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, Nielsen, Noble,
Savary, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner L’Heureux
ABSTAIN:
COURTNEY HEINEMAN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4462 -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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4463
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO
SUBDIVIDE 11.2 ACRES INTO 40 LOTS AND 56
CONDOMINIUMS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
SOUTH OF AVENIDA ENCINAS BETWEEN WINDROSE
CIRCLE AND I-5 IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 9.
CASE NAME: POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING
AREAC
CASE NO.: CDP 98-27
WHEREAS, Greystone Homes, Inc., “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Greystone Homes, Inc.,
“Owner”, described as
Those portions of Lots 1 and 2 and the street between said lots
as shown on Parcel Map No. 13653 in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the Office of
the County Recorder of San Diego County, January 31,1985 as
file no. 85033316 of official records, lying easterly of the
northeasterly line of Carlsbad Tract 85-14, Phase 1 (Batiquitos
Lagoon Educational Park), in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No.
11616, filed in the County Recorder of San Diego County,
September 12,1986.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Coastal
Development Permit as shown on Exhibits “A” - “EE” dated January 20, 1999,0n file in the
Planning Department, POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA C, CDP 98-27, as
provided by Chapter 2 1.201.040 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 20th day of January 1999,
hold a duly noticed public hearing 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
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the CDP.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
COMMENDS APPROVAL of POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING
AREA C, CDP 98-27, based on the following findings and subject to the
following conditions:
PindingS:
1. That the proposed development is in conformance with the Certified Local Coastal
Program and all applicable policies in that the project complies with all applicable
requirements of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan which is the approved coastal
zone land use implementation document for the project site..
. . Condrtrons . .
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the document(s) necessary to make them internally consistent and in
conformity with final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as
shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different from this
approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
The applicant shall apply for and be issued building permits for this project
within two (2) years of approval or this coastal development permit will expire
unless extended per Section 21.201.210 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall apply for and
obtain a grading permit issued by the City Engineer.
All grading operations shall be limited to the period from April 1 to October 1 of
each year. All areas disturbed by grading shall be planted within 60 days of the
initial disturbance and prior to October 1 with temporary or permanent (in the
case of finished slopes) erosion control methods.
Approval of CDP 98-27 is granted subject to the approval of the Negative
Declaration, CT 98-06, CP 98-05, and HDP 98-40. CDP 98-27 is subject to all
conditions contained in Resolutions 4460,4461,4462, and 4464.
PC RESO NO. 4463 -2- 47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given
a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of January, 1999, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, Nielsen, Noble,
Savary, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner L’Heureux
ABSTAIN:
cr y COURTNEY %rflcMmhairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4463
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO 4464
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO
SUBDIVIDE 11.2 ACRES INTO 40 LOTS AND 56
CONDOMINIUMS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
SOUTH OF AVENIDA ENCINAS BETWEEN WINDROSE
CIRCLE AND I-5 IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 9.
CASE NAME: POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING
AREAC
CASE NO.: P 98-40
WHEREAS, Greystone Homes, Inc., “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Greystone Homes, Inc.,
“Owner”, described as
Those portions of Lots 1 and 2 and the street between said lots
as shown on Parcel Map No. 13653 in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the Office of
the County Recorder of San Diego County, January 31,1985 as
file no. 85-033316 of official records, lying easterly of the
northeasterly line of Carlsbad Tract 85-14, Phase 1 (Batiquitos
Lagoon Educational Park), in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No.
11616, filed in the County Recorder of San Diego County,
September 12,1986.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Hillside
Development Permit as shown on Exhibit(s) “A” - “EE” dated January 20, 1999, on file in the
Carlsbad Planning Department, POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA C, HDP 98-40,
as provided by Chapter 21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 20th day of January, 1999,
consider said request; and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, at said hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Hillside Development Permit; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A)
W
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING
AREA C, HDP 98-40, based on the following findings and subject to the
following conditions:
Findings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
In accordance with the approved Poinsettia Shores Master Hillside Developmen
Permit, HDP 94-03, and Master Subdivision Map, CT 94-01, which authorized mass
grading including Planning Area C, the Hillside Development Permit for
development of Planning Area C is required to ensure that crib (retaining) walls
and structures are in accordance with the Hillside Development Ordinance, Chapter
21.95, of the Carlsbad Municipal Code
That hillside conditions have been properly identified on the constraints map which show
existing and proposed conditions and slope percentages;
That undevelopable areas of the project, i.e. slopes over 40%, have been properly
identified on the constraints map;
That the development proposal is consistent with the intent, purpose, and requirements of
the Hillside Ordinance, Chapter 21.95, in that 40% slopes created by previously
approved grading are identified and excluded from the provisions of the ordinance,
proposed grading quantities are within the acceptable range, and slopes created by
proposed grading do not exceed 30’ in height.
That the project design minim&es disturbance of hillside lands in that: 1) project
grading is well below the acceptable range; and 2) the project design, through the
use of retaining walls and slopes that do not exceed 30’ in height, enables terraced
building pads separated by landscaped slopes thereby retaining hillside topography.
That the project design substantially conforms to the intent of the concepts illustrated in
the Hillside Development Guidelines Manual, in that units are set back from tops of
slope a minimum of 15’ and roof lines are parallel with adjacent slopes.
PC RESO NO. 4464 -2- -Y
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
Conditions:
1. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Hillside Development Permit document(s) necessary to make
them internally consistent and in conformity with final action on the project.
Development shall occur substantially as shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed
development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
2. Approval of HDP 98-40 is granted subject to the approval of CT 98-06, CP 98-05, and
CDP 98-27. HDP 98-05 is subject to all conditions contained in Resolution No. 4461,
4462, and 4463 for CT 98-06, CP 98-05, and CDP 98-27.
NOTICE
1 Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given
a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
PC RESO NO. 4464 -3- 3-/
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of January, 1999, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, Nielsen, Noble,
Savary, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner L’Heureux
ABSTAIN:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4464 -4-
- 1.
The City of CARLSBAD Planning Department EXHBIT 4
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No. 0 6
Application complete date: August 24, 1998
P.C. AGENDA OF: January 20,1999 Project Planner: Anne Hysong
Project Engineer: Clyde Wickham
SUBJECT: CT 98-06/CP 98-05/CDP 98-27/HDP 98-40 - POINSETTIA SHORES
PLANNING AREA C - Request for approval of a Negative Declaration,
Tentative Tract Map, Condominium Permit, Coastal Development Permit and
Hillside Development Permit to create a total of 40 lots (28 duplex lots, 1 private
street, and 11 open space lots) with 56 airspace condominiums located south of
Avenida Encinas between Windrose Circle and I-5 in the P-C zone and Local
Facilities Management Zone 9.
I. COMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4460
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a Negative Declaration and ADOPT Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 4461, 4462, 4463, and 4464 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
of CT 98-06, CP 98-05, CDP 98-27, and HDP 98-40, based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
The applicant is requesting approval of a tentative tract map, condominium permit, coastal
development permit, and hillside development permit to allow the development of Planning Area
C in the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. The proposed project involves the subdivision and
grading of the 9.64 acre parcel into 28 duplex lots with 56 airspace condominium units, 1 private
street lot, and 11 open space lots. As designed and conditioned, the project is in compliance with
the General Plan, Subdivision Ordinance, Poinsettia Shores Master Plan, West Batiquitos
Lagoon Segment of the Local Coastal Program, and relevant zoning regulations of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The proposed project consists of the subdivision and grading of Poinsettia Shores Planning Area
C to enable the construction of 56 airspace condominium units on 28 duplex lots. The
subdivision would create duplex lots (which are less than 7,500 square feet), private streets, and
airspace condominiums on each duplex lot. Therefore, the project requires approval of a
condominium permit to ensure compliance with the Planned Development Ordinance. Planning
Area C is also a hillside lot requiring approval of a Hillside Development Permit, and its location
CT 98-06/CP 98-05KDP ~8-27/HDP 98-40 - POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA C
January 20,1999
within the coastal zone requires approval of a Coastal Development Permit to ensure compliance
with the West Batiquitos Lagoon LCP segment.
As part of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan mass grading, Planning Area C was graded into
three primary building pads that step down the site to the west to accommodate large multi-
family structures. The proposed grading design is also terraced, however, the majority of the
long narrow parcel is proposed with a combination of retaining walls and slopes necessary to
create a single row of large flat building pads to support duplex lots with private front and rear
yards that are directly accessible from private streets. The southern end of the project widens
significantly, and three terraced pads are proposed at that location to accommodate duplex lots
and private streets along each terrace. Proposed grade elevations adjacent to I-5 are lower than
the existing grade except at the southern end of the site where building pad elevations are
increased a maximum of 2.7’. A combination of slumpstone and fieldstone veneer retaining and
noise walls (separated by landscaping) are proposed along property lines separating the parcel
from the I-5 freeway right-of-way, Avenida Encinas, and Windrose Circle. The approved Master
Plan community entry monument to be constructed of fieldstone veneer and located along
Planning Area C’s Avenida Encinas frontage is included on the proposed plans. The applicant
has proposed to utilize the fieldstone veneer on project retaining walls that begin above the
monument and continue around Windrose Circle.
Primary access to the project is from Windrose Circle via Street “A”, and secondary access for
residents only is provided from Navigator Circle via Street “B”. A gated entry with adequate
turn around and call box is proposed at the main entry for Street “A” and a gated entry that is
accessible to residents only is proposed for Street “B”. Single-loaded, 32’ wide private streets
with guest parking on one side are proposed throughout the subdivision except at the southern
end of Street “C” where the street width is reduced to 24’ as permitted by the Master Plan.
Project entry signage is proposed near the project’s Street “A” entrance in conformance with the
Master Plan sign program.
The proposed duplex structures are designed in three separate configurations. Each duplex
consists of a combination of two of three proposed floor plans which range in size from 1,876
square feet to 2,250 square feet. The two-story duplex structures include a two-car garage for
each unit and private patios and balconies. Private front and rear yards are shared in common by
the owners of each duplex lot. The rear yards are shown on the site plan as divided for exclusive
use of the owner of each duplex unit, and the project CC&Rs are conditioned to address the
maintenance responsibilities. In accordance with the Master Plan, proposed building heights,
which do not exceed 35’ above existing grade, are 30’ from proposed grade.
The project is subject to the following land use plans, policies, programs, and zoning regulations:
A. General Plan
B. Poinsettia Shores Master Plan
C. West Batiquitos Lagoon segment of the Local Coastal Program
CT 98-06/CP 98-05KDP sr8-27/HDP 98-40 - POINSETTIA SHOWS PLANNING AREA C
January 20,1999
1. Chapters 21.201 and 21.203 - Coastal Development Permit Procedures and
Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone of the Carlsbad Municipal Code
D. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 2 1 (Zoning Ordinance) including:
1. Chapter 2 1.45 - Planned Development Ordinance; .
2. Chapter 21.95 - Hillside Development Ordinance;
E. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 20 (Subdivision Ordinance)
F. Growth Management (Local Facilities Management Zone 9)
IV. ANALYSIS
The recommendation of approval for this project was developed by analyzing the project’s
consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. The following analysis
section discusses compliance with each of these policies/regulations utilizing both text and
tables.
A. General Plan
The approval of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan included findings of consistency with the
General Plan. Consequently, all subsequent development of the individual planning areas
consistent with the Master Plan is consistent with the General Plan. Planning Area C is
designated by the General Plan and Master Plan for residential medium density (RM)
development; the Master Plan allows a maximum of 70 multi-family dwelling units. The
proposed project density is 5.8 dwelling units/acre resulting in a total of 56 airspace
condominium units. In accordance with the Circulation Element, all circulation arterial
roadways and local streets required to serve development within the Poinsettia Shores Master
Plan are completed and the project is conditioned to complete all private street improvements
within Planning Area C prior to occupancy. The project is consistent with the Housing Element
in that inclusionary housing requirements for the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan, including
Planning Area C, have been satisfied through the reservation of 90 units in the approved Laurel
Tree affordable housing project.
B. Poinsettia Shores Master Plan
As shown by the following table, the project is consistent with the applicable Poinsettia Shores
Master Plan development regulations for Planning Area C as well as master plan theme elements
including landscape guidelines, project entries and signs, and trails.
POINSETTIA SHORES MASTER PLAN COMPLIANCE
STANDARD REQUIRED PROPOSED
Density 70 Units 56 Units
CT 9%06KP 9%05/CDP ~8-27HDP 98-40 - POINSETTIA SHOkES PLANNING AREA C
January 20,1999
STANDARD REQUIRED PROPOSED
Setbacks: Avenida Encinas
Front Yard
Lot Size
Private Street Width
Access to 216-140-16
Views
20’ Minimum 44’ Minimum
Minimum of 5’ = 11 Units or less 6 Units
Minimum of 10’ = 28 Units or less 28 Units
Minimum of 20’ = 17 Units or more 22 Units
No individually owned lots Duplex lots with
airspace condo-
minimums allowing
individual ownership
of units only;
32’ Parking on one side 32’ parking on one
side
24’ Private street (segment)
serving 10 or fewer units 24’
Unrestricted through Planning Area 20’ wide unrestricted
C gated access
easement
Maximize Views All units have views
to the west
Sight Distance
Gated entry turnarounds
CT 94-01 - Master Tentative
Environmental Mitigation
Conditions:
Noise
Building Height
Entry Sign Location
Trails
AASHTO standards
AASHTO “P” standards
Noise Study
Noise walls/berms (I-5, Avenida
Encinas and Windrose Circle)
35’
Windrose Circle access
Construction prior to occupancy
Designed to
AASHTO standards
Designed to
AASHTO “P” -
turnaround for
passenger vehicles
Noise Analysis
performed
Noise walls not to
exceed 6’ (exposed)
at designated
locations
30’
Windrose Circle
access
Construction prior to
occupancy
CT 98-06KP 98-05KDP v8-27HDP 98-40 - POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA C
January 20,1999
STANDARD
Hillside Development
Ordinance
REQUIRED
Hillside Development Permit
Ensure consistency with hillside
development standards
PROPOSED
Hillside
Development Permit
C. West Batiquitos Local Coastal Program
The project is consistent with the West Batiquitos segment of the Local Coastal Program in that
agricultural mitigation fees for Planning Area C were previously paid. In addition, the
construction of a public trail and the necessary grading and erosion control restrictions, including
prohibiting grading during the rainy season from October 1st to April lst, are imposed by
condition. The site, which has been previously disturbed by grading, contains no sensitive
habitat or other coastal resources. The Poinsettia Shores Master Plan serves as the implementing
ordinance of this LCP segment, and as specified in Section B above, the project is consistent
with the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan.
Dl. Planned Development Ordinance
The proposed subdivision would create duplex lots that are a minimum of 7,000 square feet in
area and airspace ownership of duplex units on each lot. The proposed project is subject to and
consistent with the following Planned Development Ordinance development standards unless the
Master Plan imposed alternate development standards:
STANDARD REQUIRED PROVIDED
Arterial Setbacks See Master Plan Compliance Not Applicable
Front Yard Setback See Master Plan Compliance Not Applicable
Distance Between Structures Not Applicable Not Applicable
(10 structures in a row)
Recreational space
Private: 15’ x 15’ yard 15’ x 15’ yard*
Common: Provided in Master Plan Area M Not Applicable
RV Storage Provided in Master Plan Area E Not Applicable
I Resident Parking I 2 covered spaces/unit I 2 car garage/unit I
Visitor Parking
Building Height
17 spaces
30’ Maximum
82 spaces
30’
*The Planned Development Ordinance building height standard is more restrictive than the
Master Plan building height standard. The rear yard of each duplex lot is divided into separate
exclusive use areas by a fence extending from the structure to the rear property line. This
exclusive use right is established, defined, and protected through the project’s approved site and
landscaping plans, conditions of approval of the tentative map, and eventually the required 57
CT 98-06/CP 98-05/CDP 98-27/HDP 98-40 - POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA C
January 20,1999
Page 6
CC&Rs. The project entry area, streets, slopes, drainage facilities, and other common areas will
be maintained by the homeowners association. Each exclusive use area will be maintained by
the individual homeowner.
D2. Hillside Development Ordinance
The Poinsettia Shores Master Plan requires that a Hillside Development Permit be processed
with the development proposal for Area C for the purpose of addressing structures and crib
(retaining) walls. The Master Tentative Map (CT 94-01) and Hillside Development Permit (HDP
94-03) allowed the mass grading of the entire Poinsettia Shores Master Plan area including
Planning Area C. HDP 94-03 enabled terraced building pads separated by 2:l slopes and
anticipated that development of Planning Area C would involve further grading and utilization of
crib/retaining walls. The proposed project involves 69,000 cubic yards of grading with 9,000
cubic yards of import required to convert the site from terraced pads suitable for an attached
condominium project to terraced building pads suitable for duplex lots containing condominium
units. Increases in building pad elevations from those approved by the Master Plan mass grading
are 2.7’ or less across the site.
In accordance with hillside regulations applicable in the coastal zone, the areas of 40% slope
created by the previous mass grading of the Master Plan area are identified and excluded from
the provisions of the Hillside Development Ordinance. The proposed grading design utilizes a
combination of 6’ high (maximum) retaining walls and 2: 1 slopes to enable deeper building pads
that are approximately the same elevation as the existing highest building pads located along the
eastern property line. The proposed deeper building pads can accommodate 32’ wide private
streets and duplex lots with private front and rear yards. The proposed combination of walls and
slopes is consistent with the Hillside Ordinance in that the overall height does not exceed 30’.
The project is consistent with the Hillside Ordinance architectural guidelines in that the majority
of units, including balconies and patio covers, are set back from the top of slope a minimum of
15’. Roof lines are designed parallel with manufactured slopes and rear building elevations
visible from surrounding roadways include enhanced detailing. A uniform wall and fence plan is
also included in the project to ensure that all fencing visible from surrounding roadways will
visually enhance the development and be consistent with the approved Master Plan Wall/Fence
program.
E. Subdivision Ordinance
The proposed subdivision complies with all applicable requirements of the City’s Subdivision
Ordinance. The site is served by existing public streets and utilities, and the project is
conditioned to construct all necessary private street and utility improvements to serve the
proposed units. The subdivision design orients structures in an east-west alignment and takes
advantage of shade and prevailing breezes.
-
CT 98-06KP 98-05KDP v8-27/HDP 98-40 - POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA C
January 20, 1999
F. Growth Management
The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 9 in the southwest
quadrant of the City. The impacts on public facilities created by the project, and its compliance
with the adopted performance standards, are summarized in the table below.
City Administration
Library
Waste Water Treatment
Parks
Drainage
Circulation
Fire
Qpen Space
Schools
Sewer Collection System
Water
194.7 square feet
103.8 square feet
56 EDU
.39 acres
N/A
448 ADT
Stations No. 2 & 4
Master Plan Open Space
CUSD
56 EDU
12,320 GPD
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff has conducted an environmental impact assessment to determine if the project could have a
potentially significant effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Ordinance (Title 19) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Based on the
findings of the initial study, the project is within the scope of the MEIR for the City of Carlsbad
General Plan update (EIR 93-01) certified in September, 1994, in which a Statement of
Overriding Considerations was adopted for cumulative impacts to air quality and traffic. All
feasible mitigation measures identified in the MEIR which are appropriate to this project have
been incorporated into the project. Planning Area C is also part of and therefore subject to
mitigation measures required by a Mitigated Negative Declaration approved for the Poinsettia
Shores Master Plan (MP175D) and the Master Tentative Map (CT 94-01). All applicable
mitigation measures required by the Mitigated Negative Declaration have been completed or
designed into the project, including noise attenuation through the use of noise walls and
landscaping in front of walls to reduce visual impacts. The environmental analysis performed for
the project revealed that: 1) the site is currently served by existing infrastructure that can
accommodate the additional project demand; 2) the site has been previously disturbed by
grading; 3) the site is devoid of any significant cultural or natural biological resources; and 4) no
visual impacts would result due to the project’s site and architectural design. Based on findings
that no significant environmental impacts would result from the project, the Planning Director
issued a Negative Declaration on November 24, 1998. No comments were received during the
public comment period.
59
- -
CT 9%06KP 98-OYCDP r8-27HDP 98-40 - POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA C
January 20,1999
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4460 (Neg. Dec.)
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4461 (CT)
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4462 (CP)
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4463 (CDP)
5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4464 (HDP)
6. Location Map
7. Background Data Sheet
8. Disclosure Statement
9. Reduced Exhibits
10. Full Size Exhibits “A” - “EE” dated January 20,1999
AH:eh:mh
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: CT 9%06/CP 98-05/CDP 98-27/HDP 98-40
CASE NAME: POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA C
APPLICANT: GREYSTONE HOMES. INC.
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Request for approval of a Negative Declaration. Tentative Tract
Map. PUDKondominium Permit. Coastal Develovment Permit and Hillside Development Permit to
create a total of 40 lots (28 duvlex lots. 1 vrivate street. and 11 open space lots) with 56 airspace
condominiums located south of Avenida Encinas between Windrose Circle and I-5 in the P-C zone and
Local Facilities Manapement Zone 9.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Those portions of Lots 1 and 2 and the street between said lots as
shown on Parcel Map No. 13653 in the City of Carlsbad. Countv of San Dieao. State of California. filed
in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County. Januarv 31. 1985 as tile no. 85033316 of
official records. lying easterlv of theeasterlv northeasterly line of Carlsbad Tract 85-14. Phase 1
(Batiquitos Lapoon Educational Park). in the Citv of Carlsbad. County of San Diego. State of California,
accordine: to Map thereof No. 11616. filed in the County Recorder of San DiePo County. September 12,
APN: 2 16- 140-30. -3 1 Acres: 11.2 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 40 J ,ots/56 units
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: Residential Medium (RM) Dens&v
Density Allowed: 4 - 8 du/acre Density Proposed: 5.8 du/acre
Existing Zone: P-C Proposed Zone: Not Apvlicable
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad’s Zoning Requirements)
Site
North
South
East
West
Zoning
P-C
P-C
P-C
T-C
P-C
Land
RM (Residential)
RM (Residential)
T-C (I-5)
RM (Residential)
PUBJ,IC FACILITW
School District: CUSD Water District: CMWD Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 56 EDU
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated: February 27. 1998
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
IXI Negative Declaration, issued November 24. 1998
cl Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
cl Other,
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 at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot
be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print.
Note:
Person is defined as “Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal
organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and county, city
municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit.”
Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be
provided below.
I. APPLICANT (Not the applicant’s agent)
Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of & persons having a financial
interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or vartnershin. include the
names. title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO
INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-
APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-owned cornoration, include the
names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if
~~~~~~~ L (ZZiPartGrevstone Homes, Inc.
Address Address5973 Avenida Encinas Suite 101 Carlsbad, Ca 92008
2. OWNER (Not the owner’s agent)
Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of & persons having any ownership
interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e,
partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a
coruoration or nartnershin, include the names, title. addresses of all individuals owning more
than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES,
PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) 1N THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-
owned cornoration. include the names. titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate
page may be attached if necessary.)
Carp/Pan Greystone Homes, Inc.
Title
Address5973 Avenida Encinas Suite lb1
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
2075 Las Palmas Dr. l Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-11610 FAX (760) 438-0894 @
3. NON-PROFIT Oh&WIZATION OR TRUST
If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonurotit oreanization or a trust. list the
names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-profir
organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the.
Non Profit/Trust Non Profit/Trust
Title
Address
Title
Address
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff.
Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months?
0 Yes w * 0 If yes, please indicate person(s):
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary.
I certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
SignaGe of owner/date Signature of applicant/date
_ mdd Palmaer P=si.dee
Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant
Signature of owner/applicant’s agent if applicable/date
Print or type name of owner/applicant’s agent
H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5198
c3
Page 2 of 2
r
44
ts .*.-.*; *
- h
e
f
5,
6 iQ
19
E
h
3 g
Y
j _ eIIIIIrIIrrlIIIIlIIIlIII~~J~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ H
i b- g e
- -
r - -
t-
m .B71ps+)II,
/
I
z
I I I
z 8 F?
IX utm-.ntw*
i
0
_--- ! rt II t llr 1[ df \
1 % h 1 I f : 1 \ Q
1 t I ;’ : f L
! : i ij ]I /J 1111 r:! dpQ@ : I : I : I : I II
! ’ - 19 c r! \
11 % l ll tt t II t ‘c \ --.
/
69
5
a
.)
a
0 1
. ..-
c !
i
’ j 2 M :I ::
f ‘I I! :;
{, i
: : \:
I*, / 1
1
. ~ ..~ - I
!\
;\. fb
I@$ A .i .,. i’ .~
f$ :.c:: p
If&
‘j* ;
w .,A .?I I I. ,+,q;: I -_
~“‘l; -..” -‘I \I .:, ‘,a- : - .‘r’, { _* :;- ,.; &-/- .< .,:-1: j ‘)p’ Fi
I PY’ ii $:
,i’ :’ #,:I
\/
s
i‘ ;$
<I
x:3 I-’ &; , .
8:; :zi: .‘.I. . ‘.”
1
B i
i;$ E E
s I
1 1 i .\ \ \
\\
. .
r
iI
1’ ‘.,I,-I]
<-- --..gf-
---. - 7 c .--4 I Y I I u -4
-7 T
,7:9w
“oo;okT +
*<o-.9 1 ,,O-.ffi
I- L ..o-,9 ’ ..c-,z9
$y!
,! ‘: *EG:,:
f----y
1 .*;*ei
.O;b+
d
II jf ii ji!;i Ir - I \ i&; i) Sf 1; I p! 1
-
-
-
ir,
;i Li’, cl;
Y .o-.9 1 .,o-.L9 I -!-
u-
tt------ ____-- 3-t 4
,,o-,9z
- I
II I
4 EXHIBIT 5
6. CT 98-061CP 98-05KDP 98-271HDP 9840 - POINSE-ITIA SHORES PLANNING AREA C -
Request for approval of a Negative Declaration, Tentative Tract Map, Condominium Permit,
Coastal Development Permit and Hillside Development Permit to create a total of 40 lots (28
duplex lots, 1 private street, and 11 open space lots) with 56 airspace condominiums located
south of Avenida Encinas between Windrose Circle and l-5 in the P-C zone and in Local Facilities
Management Zone 9.
Assistant Planning Director, Gary Wayne introduced this item, announced that the Commission’s action on
this item is not final and will be forwarded to the City Council for its consideration, and stated that
Associate Planner, Anne Hysong would present the staff report.
Commissioner Anne L’Heureux excused herself from hearing this item, stating a possible conflict of
interest since her husband is the attorney for the Hofman Planning Group.
Project Planner, Anne Hysong presented the staff report and described the project as follows: This project
consists of the subdivision of a 9.64 acre parcel located within the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan
boundaries and identified as Planning Area C. The parcel is located south of Avenida Encinas, between
Windrose Circle and the l-5 freeway right-of-way. The site is designated by the Master Plan for multi-
family development with a maximum density of 70 dwelling units. Parcel C has been previously graded,
as part of the Master Plan mass grading, into large terraced building pads that rise in height from the west
t0 the east. The existing pads were intended to accommodate large multi-family structures. The
proposed subdivision consists of a total of 40 lots, including 28 duplex lots, and 56 air space condominium
units. The proposed grading design reduces the number of terraces and includes a series of retaining
walls and landscaped slopes along the project’s perimeter. This design enables the creation of building
pads which are large enough to accommodate duplex units with front and rear yards and private streets
that provide access to each unit. The proposed grade elevations of building pads adjacent to the l-5
freeway are lower than existing grade, except at the southern end of the parcel where the building pads
are raised up a maximum of 2.7 feet above the existing building pads. Six foot noise walls are required
around rear yard lots located at the northern, eastern, and a portion of the southern boundaries to reduce
exterior noise levels to the City’s 60 dBA standard. The project’s wall and fence plan will require
enhanced and uniform wall and fence treatments throughout the project. Primary access to the project will
be provided from Windrose Circle, via Street A, through a gated entry. A secondary gated access, for
residents only, will be provided from Navigator Circle, via Street B. Guest parking will be provided on-site
along single loaded private streets or within parking bays. The proposed duplex units are oriented on the
lots in three separate configurations. Each 2-story duplex structure consists of a combination of two of the
three proposed floor plans which range in size from 1,876 square feet to 2,250 square feet. Three
different facade treatments are proposed. Each unit includes a 2-car garage, a private patio, and a
balcony. Private front and rear yards will be shared in common by the owners of each duplex lot.
Maintenance responsibilities for the project’s common open space lots and each duplex lot will be
established by the project’s CC&Rs in accordance with the maintenance responsibility exhibit that is on file
in the Planning Department, In accordance with the Hillside Ordinance, the units are oriented on lots so
that roof lines are parallel with the adjacent slopes, and the majority of units are set back a minimum of 15
feet from the top of slope. Also, in accordance with the Master Plan, the proposed building heights do not
exceed 35 feet from the existing grade and in accordance with the Planned Development Ordinance,
building heights do not exceed 30 feet from the proposed grade. The applicant is requesting a
recommendation of approval from the Planning Commission for a Negative Declaration, a Tentative Tract
Map, a Condominium Permit, a Hillside Development Permit, and a Coastal Development Permit based on
the findings that the project is consistent with the Residential Medium General Plan designation, the
Poinsettia Shores Master Plan, the West Batiquitos Lagoon Local Coastal Program segment, the Subdivision Ordinance, the Planned Development and Hillside Development Zoning Ordinances, and the
MINUTES 89
PLANNING COMMISSION January 20,1999 Page 12
Growth Management Ordinance. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was issued for the Poinsettia Shores
Master Plan, which addressed significant impacts associated with development of all of the Planning
Areas within the Master Plan boundaries. All of those required mitigation measures have been completed
or are incorporated into the project. Based on findings that no significant environmental impacts would
result from the project, the Planning Director issued a Negative Declaration on November 24, 1998. Staff
recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the project, as conditioned. Letters
have been received from Lynn Donnelly, Paulina Miller, and John Lamb, copies of which are on file in the
Planning Department.
Commissioner Welshons asked Ms. Hysong to address each of the concerns contained in the three letters
previously mentioned.
Ms. Hysong responded as follows:
1. Letter from Mr. John Lamb stating concern that the sound wall will block his views.
Response: The Master Plan does call for providing access to the Lamb property, through
Planning Area C. The project will provide access through the gated community,
with a separate access gate driveway into the Lamb property.
In accordance with the noise analysis prepared for the project, there is a
requirement for a noise wall around the perimeter, at least adjacent to the l-5
freeway, to reduce the noise levels to the City standard. There is no alternative
for sound walls. The noise analysis did not include the Lamb property. The
height and location of noise walls required to reduce noise levels to the 60 dBA
standard are proposed around the project’s boundaries.
Regarding views, there is no view preservation ordinance in the City of Carlsbad.
The Lamb property is approximately the same elevation as the lots adjacent to
him at the southern end of the project, and it is possible that units constructed on
those lots would obstruct views to the west. The Poinsettia Shores Master Plan
provides for vehicular access to the Lamb property, however, there is no
requirement to preserve existing views..
2. Letter from Lynn Donnelly stating concern regarding construction traffic on Navigator
Circle, which is a private street. She also asked what kind of condominiums these would
be. She expressed concern regarding the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan amenities and
the lack of amenities in the project at this time. Ms. Donnelly also mentioned the fact that
they still have no trails.
Response: Regarding construction traffic, the Engineering Department has stated that
restricting construction traffic from Navigator Circle is not a condition they wish to
impose on this project, because it will be handled during the grading operation.
At that time, the engineering inspectors will see to it that the construction
equipment and traffic will be kept off of Navigator Circle and on Windrose Circle.
Navigator Circle is a private street while Windrose Circle is a public street. Also,
Ms. Hysong has been advised that most of the equipment is kept on-site.
Regarding the condominiums, these are duplex lots with air space condominiums
on each lot. There will be two owners of each lot, and they will share the
common area around the units.
Regarding the Master Plan amenities and Recreation facility, the Master Plan was
approved with a condition requiring the recreation facility to be constructed within
2 years of occupancy of the first unit, which was in Vista Mar (Planning Area B-2).
The deadline date for the recreation facility is August 1, 1999, so it must be
completed and open for use by that date.
Regarding trails, there is a perimeter public trail around the lagoon area of
MINUTES
90
PLANNING COMMISSION January 20,1999 Page 13
Planning Area A-4 which is conditioned to be open before occupancy of any units
in that planning area. There is also a trail on the southern end of Planning Area C
and a condition has been added to require that trail to be constructed and
available for use prior to occupancy of any of the units.
3. Letter from Paulina Miller stating her concern that there is not enough open space in the
Poinsettia Shores Master Plan area and requested that Planning Area C be designated as
open space.
Response: The Master Plan calls for Planning Area C to be a multi-family project. That issue
was decided by the City Council when they approved the Master Plan. There is
some open space at the southern end of the project that includes a trail system,
and the Master Plan’s recreational facility provides the common open space for
Planning Area C.
Commissioner Welshons asked if there are any improvements planned for the Lamb property other than
the gated access.
Ms. Hysong replied that there are no other improvements planned.
Commissioner Welshons asked Ms. Hysong to indicate, on the exhibit, where the public trail will be put in
and open before the first units are occupied in this development, the access point on Navigator Circle
which is ingress and egress only for residents, and asked her to describe the monument signage and
retaining walls.
Ms. Hysong responded as requested and stated that the walls will be constructed with fieldstone veneer
and that wall treatment will extend around the project perimeter. She added that this development will be
constructed with a series of walls that are separated by landscaped slopes with noise walls at the top of
the slopes around the area of the freeway. This wall plan is designed to create uniformity and enhance
the project.
Commissioner Welshons asked why some of the driveways are not 10 feet in length from the streets.
Ms. Hysong replied that the Master Plan has a provision that allows for a certain percentage of lots to
have 5 foot setbacks, a certain percentage to have 10 foot setbacks, and a certain percentage to have 20
foot setbacks, to create some articulation and interest. This project is consistent with the requirement.
Stan Weiler, Hofman Planning Associates, 5900 Pasteur Court, Carlsbad, representing the applicant,
Greystone Homes, stated concurrence with the staff report, all of the conditions of approval, and urged the
Commission’s approval.
Commissioner Compas read a portion of John Lamb’s letter and asked Mr. Weiler to respond to the
gentleman’s statement that Greystone has had several months to inform him of their plans and that recent
telephone calls to Greystone have gone unreturned.
Mr. Weiler replied that he does not understand why Mr. Lamb would say such a thing because
representatives of Greystone have spoken to Mr. Lamb on two occasions and that he has also had a
conversation with Mr. Lamb regarding this project, all prior to the date on the letter. Mr. Weiler stated that
they want to work with him regarding his concerns and will be happy to accommodate him, within reason.
Commissioner Nielsen asked Mr. Weiler to explain the ownership of the condominiums,
Mr. Weiler stated that each owner would own their individual units and the land directly beneath the units
and at the same time they will own the entire lot, in common.
Commissioner Nielsen asked why these are called air space condominiums if they actually own the land
directly under each unit.
Ms. Hysong replied that they are called air space condominiums because when she asked the applicant
M’NUTES 91
C
PLANNING COMMISSION January 20,1999 Page 14
what they were proposing, they replied that they are air space condominiums.
Nancy Scull, Lute, Forward, Hamilton and Scripps, 600 West Broadway, San Diego, stated that there are
many different terminologies used to describe condominiums. Recently, there have been many different
configurations for condominiums. A condominium is composed of two elements; 1) there must be a
separate interest; and 2) there must be an undivided interest in something. Under the Civil Code the
developer is free to put into that separate interest, not only air but also the structure and own to his front,
side, and back yards. Then an undivided interest in some other component of that lot can be created. In
this case, the applicant has proposed that the undivided interest would be all the land situated 20, or 30, or
40 feet below the ground level. The advantages to the structure would be that the individual owners would
be responsible for the maintenance of their home, including the roof, the walls, and the exterior. An
“association” would be formed to make sure that everyone is maintaining their homes in the manner
required. This, in turn, gives the individual the freedom of not always having to seek approval from the
individual next door if something needs to be fixed on the outside of the home. She added that the
applicant will disclose, to each purchaser, that they are buying condominiums and that what they are
buying is a condominium where their separate interest is the home, but they will be required to insure it.
Commissioner Nielsen asked if there will be two sets of homeowners rules.
Ms. Scull replied that there will be CC&Rs that will cover all of the aspects of the project; maintenance,
etc., and would also deal with the rights of the association if an owner should refuse to comply with the
CC&Rs.
Commissioner Nielsen asked if one owner were to fail to adhere to the CC&Rs, does that mean that the
association could then move against both owners.
Ms. Scull replied that if that should happen and if a lien were to be placed, the lien would be placed on the
individual condominium (owner’s separate interest) and their 0.5 undivided interest.
Commissioner Nielsen asked Ms. Scull to explain the difference between this project and a townhouse
project.
Ms. Scull explained that in 99% of the cases, a townhome is a condominium or a single-family subdivided
lot. This project, however, does not have single-family subdivided lots.
Commissioner Savary asked who will be responsible for the maintenance of the back yards and what will
ensure that the yards are done correctly.
Ms. Scull replied that the maintenance of the back yards will be up to the individual owners and the
association will have the latitude to enforce.
Chairperson Heineman opened Public Testimony and offered the invitation to speak.
Karen Donnelly Healy, co-owner of 618 Compass Court, Carlsbad, asked for confirmation that there will
be no construction traffic on Navigator Circle. She asked why Planning Area C is being approved when
private amenities have not been available to the existing homeowners, for over a year, while they have
continued to pay homeowner’s fees for them. She stated that in the final report from the DRE it states that
the recreation center, pool, tennis courts, and basketball courts were supposed to be finished within the
first phase. She also stated that she has a letter from Watt Homes stating that those amenities were
supposed to be finished in April, 1998. Ms. Healy referred to the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan (page 76,
paragraph “A”) that states that the trails will be finished before granting occupancy to homes. Regarding
areas A-2 and A-3, also owned by Greystone, which is supposed to be ready for occupancy in February,
Ms. Healy stated that the trail hasn’t even been started.
Jim Gault, 7552 Navigator Circle, Carlsbad, stated that the homeowners would prefer that the proposed
dual entrance and exit off Navigator Circle be an emergency exit only. He further stated that the street is
a narrow street that does not meet City standards, as far as the width is concerned, and he is concerned
that the street will be easily blocked if one or two people happen not to have their gate controller with
them. Mr. Gault also expressed concern for recreation center traffic using Navigator Circle instead of
MINUTES 9 3
PLANNING COMMISSION January 20,1999 Page 15
Windrose Circle. Another concern, he continued, is that the recreation area does not have a “tot-lot” and
there should be one. Mr. Gault stated his growing dislike for walls and suggested they should integrate
vertical bars with the walls so there will be views through them.
Frank Hutchins, 606 Compass Court, Carlsbad, asked if the City would consider making the dual entrance
and exit gate an exit gate only for everyone and not necessarily just for emergency use.
John Barclay, 7421 Linden Terrace, Carlsbad, stated that his homeowners association has met with
representatives of all of the previous owners of the property now owned by Greystone and have received
reasonable information on everything that has transpired in the last four years. He went on to say that his
association has asked for mitigation against what they consider to be an impact on their property values
and cited the visual impacts to be of great concern. He pointed out that the current plan will leave them
with roof lines that are substantially above the existing ridge line. He stated that all of the homeowners in
Sea Cliff paid premium prices for their properties with a view, and they are very concerned that their views
will be obstructed and their property values will decrease.
Commissioner Welshons asked what kind of mitigation measures Mr. Barclay would propose.
Mr. Barclay replied that the height of the project is of the greatest concern.
Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Barclay how high the Sea Cliff homes are above Highway l-5.
Mr. Barclay replied that the pad height at his home, which is in the top portion of Sea Cliff, is 145 feet.
Commissioner Welshons pointed out that the project height is 30 feet which leaves his property
approximately 120 feet above the proposed homes.
Mr. Barclay responded by stating that the project pads are 120 feet high at the north end of the project,
which is equal to his pad level,
Commissioner Welshons asked how high Mr. Barclay’s house is.
Mr. Barclay replied that it is a two-story structure and is between 25 and 30 feet in height.
Mildred Lerner, 7425 Linden Terrace, Carlsbad, asked the following questions: 1) why are the pads in the
south portion of this project going to be raised and the pads in the north part lowered; 2) who will be
monitoring the architectural aspect of the project; and 3) what is meant by the “existing” pads and what is
their actual height.
Sharon Barclay, 7421 Linden Terrace, Carlsbad, stated that her concern is the density of houses
disrupting the quality of life in general. She also questioned the validity of the Controlled Growth Initiative.
Ms. Barclay expressed further concern for the increase in traffic and the overall impacts to recreation,
shopping, the general quality of life, etc.
Commissioner Welshons asked Ms. Barclay when the Sea Cliff Homes were built,
Ms. Barclay replied that they were built in the mid 1980’s, possibly 1985.
Commissioner Welshons asked Ms. Barclay when she moved there.
Barclay replied that she had lived in Carlsbad for quite some time before moving to that house in 1991.
Eleanor Eisley, 7429 Linden Terrace, Carlsbad, stated that she has lived in Sea Cliff since 1988. She
made reference to an air quality study made in 1994 which is the one currently being used, and stated that
she believes that study to be invalid because of its age. Ms. Eisley stated that the creation of a wall of
condominiums can create an air emissions tunnel carrying carbon monoxide, reactive gases, oxides of
nitrogen, air particles and such, which intensifies the air pollution in the area. The proposed wall
surrounding this project will prevent natural circulation of air and fumes and in other words, creates a
smog channel. The tunneling effect will also increase the noise level on l-5 with the traffic noise
MINUTES 3 9
PLANNING COMMISSION January 20,1999 Page 16
rebounding off the protective walls of the proposed development. Ms. Eisley again stated concern for the
potential for drastic increases in emissions and noises on the homes directly across the freeway on the
east side of the proposed project.
Commissioner Welshons asked if Ms. Eisley’s concerns, in general, are for Carlsbad, for her
development, or for the people who will eventually live in the proposed development.
Ms. Eisley replied that her concern is for the entire community.
Ray Ebert, 7419 Linden Terrace, Carlsbad, echoed the concerns of the previous speakers from Sea Cliff.
Charles Vaslow, 7321 Linden Terrace, Carlsbad, stated that Commission discussion on an earlier agenda
item seemed to indicate that, although there is no view ordinance in the City of Carlsbad, the
Commissioner’s were very concerned about preserving the views. He also stated that the environmental
review seemed to be only concerned about the future residents of the proposed project and not at all
concerned about other neighborhoods located nearby. He asked if the environmental review considers
anything other than the immediate developer involved or does it actually take other communities into
account. Mr. Vaslow suggested that if the Commission recognizes that there are flaws in some of the
thinking, they will do their best to correct it.
Stan Weiler, Hofman Planning Associates, responded to some of the questions from the previous
speakers and stated that the applicant has met with the folks from Sea Cliff and has tried to address their
concerns. He stated that many of the concerns were regarding building heights and grades. He further
stated that they have taken their concerns into consideration and have reduced the grades from 1 to 5 feet
across the site, in different locations. Mr. Weiler continued by stating that they have only raised the pads,
at the southern end, a maximum of 2.7 feet which is negligible when the distance to Sea Cliff is
considered. Regarding the recreation facilities within the Master Plan, Mr. Weiler stated that those
facilities were built per the Master Plan, and Greystone has no control over when those facilities are going
to be up and operational. Watt Homes is the developer and those facilities must be open and operational
within two years after the occupancy of the first unit, that date being in August, 1999. He further stated
that he does not know the reason(s) for the delay in opening those facilities.
Seeing no one else wishing to testify, Chairperson Heineman closed Public Testimony.
Ms. Hysong also responded to questions from previous speakers as follows:
Regarding Ms. Donnelly question about a guarantee that there will be no construction traffic on
Navigator Circle, Ms. Hysong stated that there is no Engineering representative present at this
meeting but in briefings, the Principal Land Use Engineer stated he would see to it that the
grading inspectors are advised that there should be no grading equipment on Navigator Circle.
Since Navigator Circle is a private street, it is reasonable to believe that that would happen.
Regarding the completion date of the recreation facility, that was a condition of a previous
approval and there really isn’t anything that Planning Area C can do about that at this time, unless
the Master Plan were to be amended. The developer for the Master Plan has the recreation
facility close to completion and Ms. Hysong does not know why it isn’t currently open. At some
future date, if they were to revise the facility in any way, that would probably be an issue for the
Master Homeowners Association. If the HOA is unhappy with the existing facilities, perhaps they
could talk to the City about amending that approval and adding different amenities.
Regarding the dual entrance and exit, there were several different proposals including that the exit
be for emergency exit only. The Engineering Department refused that proposal stating that they
want it to be both an entrance and exit. It is a secondary access, and it is gated and available to
residents only. The Engineering Department required that it be both entrance and exit.
Regarding the Navigator Circle access, there are provisions in the Master Plan for it to be the
secondary access and it also says that the alignment could, or should, be off-set and that is how it
was designed.
MINUTES $?1/
PLANNING COMMISSION - January 20,1999 -
Regarding the trail, the vista point, and the trail maintenance (briefly referred to by Mr. Gault), the
trail segment within Planning Area C will be maintained by the Area C Homeowners Association.
There is a condition requiring the developer to make an irrevocable offer of dedication to use it as
a public trail. If the City never accepts that offer of dedication, then the trail will be maintained by
the Planning Area C Homeowners Association, in perpetuity.
Regarding the building height, as stated in the staff report, the project is proposed in accordance
with the Master Plan. The existing grade is the grade that was approved and graded as part of
the Master Plan mass grading. The proposed structures are within 35 feet of that grade. The
Master Plan allows a 35 foot building height. The grade proposed at the southern end of the
project, adjacent to the freeway, is 2.7 feet higher and the proposed structures are 30 feet in
height. Given that, the structures are still within the 35 foot limitation allowed by the Master Plan.
Regarding the reason for raising the grades at the southern end of the project, the grading was
created along this segment (along the freeway) for a private street which has to gravity flow for
sewer and drainage. Also, the grades of the streets, by City standards, are required to be within a
certain percentage. For the most part, the building pads along the freeway are lower which
effectively reduces the height of the structures.
Regarding architectural monitoring, should this Commission recommend approval of this project
and the City Council approve it, the architecture is already in place as shown on the exhibits. If
any changes were to be proposed by any of the residents after the units are occupied, the HOA
would have an architectural review committee that would review any changes.
Regarding density, this development as well as others throughout the City, is within the density
allowed by the Master Plan. The Master Plan actually allows 70 units to occur on this site and
there are only 56 proposed for this project, making the density less than what it could have been.
The Growth Management Ordinance in Carlsbad is facilities driven and that basically means that
development can’t exceed the facilities that are provided, based on a standard that was set by the
City for each one of those facilities. This project does not exceed demand for any facility in the
Master Plan area. All of the public facilities required by development of the Master Plan have
been provided.
Regarding air quality, as part of the City’s General Plan Update a few years ago, the Council
adopted a statement of overriding considerations for air quality impacts so that as long as the
project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and doesn’t exceed the density allowed by it,
then it can go fonnrard.
Regarding noise rebounding from the walls around this project, the noise analysis did not address
that. That would be quite a long distance for any significant amount of noise to travel and be
above the existing noise from the freeway.
Regarding the environmental review, staff looked at the impacts that would result from this project
and then assessed whether there are any significant impacts. Staff believes that between the
Master Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration and the analysis of this project, that there are no
significant impacts that haven’t already been mitigated.
Commissioner Nielsen suggested that voting on this item be postponed until an Engineering Department
representative can be present to give input necessary to make a reasonable decision.
Commissioner Compas asked Ms. Hysong to estimate the percentage of the people that will live in this
development, who will actually use Navigator Circle.
Ms. Hysong replied that her instinct tells her that the residents from the southern end might use Navigator
Circle to exit the project. However, the residents from the northern end would almost certainly use
Windrose Circle rather than go all the way down to Navigator Circle which would be considerably out of
their way.
Commissioner Compas asked if Ms. Hysong feels that the fact that Navigator Circle is a small street would
MINUTES95
PLANNING COMMISSION January 20,1999 Page 18
inhibit people from going that way.
Ms. Hysong replied that that is possible. She added that, with respect to the requirement for an entry and
exit at the secondary access point, the Engineering Department has cul-de-sac standards and they have
to have a secondary access after a certain number of feet and a certain number of units. She further
stated that she believes that to be the case here and that they are saying that to satisfy City standards, the
secondary access has to provide for both entry and exiting.
Commissioner Welshons agreed that it may be advantageous to continue this item until more information
can be acquired from the Engineering Department. She stated that she has questions about the height
perspective from the Sea Cliff Homes across this property. Commissioner Welshons also stated that she
has a question regarding the shared use of a private street for traffic and circulation.
MOTION TO CONTINUE
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Welshons, and duly seconded, to continue this item to
February 17, 1999, for the purpose of having an engineer here to provide
additional information that will assist the Commission in making a decision.
Mr. Rudolf suggested that the applicant be asked if he concurs with a continuance.
Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Sherritt if the applicant would accept a continuance until February 17,
1999.
John Sherritt, Sherritt Development Services, 1842 Guevera Way, Suite 200, San Diego, representing
Greystone Homes, stated that they could accept a continuance but they would like the opportunity to
answer the engineering questions at this time. Regarding the question of ownership of Navigator Circle,
Mr. Sherritt stated that the Master Homeowners Association has an easement over that portion of
Navigator Circle for entrance into that access point. In fact, he continued, they pay a proportionate share
of the maintenance of that street.
Commissioner Welshons stated that although the applicant’s engineer is present, she would prefer to
have the questions answered by City Engineers.
Commissioner Noble stated that he was very thoroughly briefed and would feel comfortable voting on this
project at this time.
Commissioner Compas stated he would like to hear from the applicant’s engineer before voting, one way
or the other.
Commissioner Welshons stated that she appreciates what Commissioner Noble has said, but, she wasn’t
present at that briefing and would not feel comfortable in voting without further information from City staff.
Commissioner Nielsen agreed with Commissioner Compas, in that he would like to hear from the
applicant’s engineer.
Chairperson Heineman re-opened Public Testimony.
Commissioner Welshons agreed to hold her motion, in abeyance, until after hearing testimony from the
applicant’s engineer.
Tim Carroll, representing O’Day Consultants, 5900 Pasteur Court, Carlsbad, Civil Engineers for Greystone
Homes, stated that they did propose an EXIT ONLY for the secondary access. However, he continued,
the City Engineering Department rejected that proposal based on the City’s cul-de-sac policy which states
that they need full access at two different points in the project.
Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Carroll if he can answer what the height differential is between this
project and the Sea Cliff homes across the freeway.
MINUTES 446
PLANNING COMMISSION January 20,1999 Page 19
Mr. Carroll replied that he does not have that exact information.
VOTE ON MOTION TO CONTINUE
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
4-2
Welshons, Nielsen
Heineman, Compas, Savary, Noble
None
Commissioner Welshons asked Ms. Hysong if she can answer what the height differential is between this
project and the Sea Cliff homes across the freeway.
Ms. Hysong stated that she cannot answer that question.
Mr. Wayne interjected and stated that they know the pad elevation Of Mr. Barclay’s home and the pad
elevations in this project and asked Ms. Hysong to comment.
Ms. Hysong stated that if Mr. Barclay’s pad elevation is 146 feet, then the peak of the roof on the most
southerly lots in the project will be 153 feet. Presuming that Mr. Barclay’s pad elevation is 145 feet and he
has a 30 foot high structure on it, the peak of his roof would be 175 feet leaving a distance of 22 feet
between structure heights. Ms. Hysong stated that it is reasonable to assume that the Barclays will be
looking over the roofs of the proposed structures as they look out to the lagoon.
MAIN MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Compas, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 4460, recommending approval of a Negative
Declaration and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4461, 4462, 4463,
and 4464, recommending approval of CT 98-06, CP 98-05, CDP 98-27, and HDP
98-110, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, to
include the errata sheet and the deletion of all references, throughout the staff
report and resolutions, to “airspace” in describing the proposed condominiums.
Commissioner Nielsen stated concerns regarding the narrow private street in that another development
already accesses on that street and that additional two-way traffic may cause an unnecessary burden on
the street.
Commissioner Welshons stated that she would not support an amendment to change the accesses as
these plans were approved by the Fire and Police Departments for safety, and comply with the cul-de-sac
policy.
Commissioner Noble stated that this is only a recommendation to the City Council and if any interested
parties wish, they may attend the City Council meeting when this item appears on the City Council
Agenda.
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
6-O
Heineman, Compas, Welshons, Nielsen, Savary, and Noble
None
None
EXHIBIT "X"
PO,iVS&l SHORES PLANNING AREA 'F"xHlelT 6
TYflCAL OWND?‘SHl? & MAINTFNANCE RE-SPOAKl’lLlTY ARIA L’XiHlB!lT
LOT LINE
K
t
LEGEND: CURB & GUJ7ER
UNIT OHVER A44lNJi!MM’E CONDoMNlU!U UNIT LINE . l . . . ..e..*. .
Rf.WN9WN ARLir m FEME - (PRNATE OWNERSMP) LOT L/NE --em
HOMEOMVER Assoc14m MNTEME RE.S%!NSfBZIN ARLil (ASSOCtil7Oh’ PJ?OPERF) SHEET 1 OF 2
NOTE:
ThVlS DRAMNG IS INKNDED 0VL Y TO BE AN APPROXIMAA MSUAL -4?f&z
ILLUSlRAl7L4V of IHE TYPIC,! O#?VER.SMP AND AfAINIE;NANCE SscaPQnhrM s&i 100 CaIbbM, cnEramia szca “y&-q-q
RES?X&‘SHIIITY AREAS fm EACH LO1 proariq 769-931 -rmo REMiD Z/&‘/99 Fox: 760-93, -mm
F:\JOBS\961019\9619NZO3 2-16-99 10:34:40 a 4
- EXHIBIT "Y"
POlNSU7?A SHORES
PLANNING AREA %’
TYPICAL OWNLEUSHIP & MAINTLNANCC
REP OAKIBILI~Y AREA EXHIBV
0v.f LOT (~/NT OWERSHIP)
I
I UNIT 2’ OWERSHIP
AND MAlNIE;NANCE
RESPM5%i’LlTY AREA
0
LEMZ I
COWEPIUAL
BU/ DING
CWWW OH!ER.ShlF LIMIT
EXKNDS TO THE CENIKR
W RE EARTH
SHEET 2 OF
NOTE:
IhlS DRAMNG IS INIENDED ONL Y TO BE AN APPROXIMA IE MSUAL
ILLUSIRA I7CW OF mf TFICAL OMMERSh’lP AND MAlNTi5NANCE
RE;sIpONSl6lLlTY AREAS FO? EACH 101: REMSifD 2/12/99
F:\JOBS\961019\9619NZO3 2-12-99
..s . . -- - - _ _ _ _ _ - - -
-- - - --- _. - I 700
cc/
AGENMma II ,;7i343--9qq v
a Mayw w- IF
City Counsel,
cww ,:
4/5/99 1
PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE POINSETTIA SHORE AREA C
PAREL # 2116-140-30 to be developed. THE DEVLOPERS
OF THIS MASTER PL4N (joke) have gotten away with
CRIMINAL ACTS OF FRAUD AND MISREP, THROUGH OUT THIS ,,,fl DEVELOPMENT. WHY ARE NONE OF THE COUNSIL HEARING OUR
FLEAS? COME TO THE MASTER ASSOC. MEETINGS AND SEE
THE ANGRY PEOPLE.
NOT ONLY ARE THEY SELLING COMMON AREA IN THE AIR AND
BELOW THE GROUND, PEOPLE HAVE BEEN MISLEAD. WHEN WILL XT
STOP? NOW THEY OPENED A POOL THAT DOES NOT HAVE HEAT OR
THE HOT TUB, BUT ONLY ONE WORKING TOILET. THEY HAVE
NO AREAS FOR CHILDREN,YET SELL FOURiFIVE BEDROOM HOMES.
AREA C IS USED FOR NESTING FOR MANY DIFFERENT
AND RARE BIRDS. IT WILL ALSO BE THE ONLY OPEN SPACE LEFT!!!
PLEASE-P+EASE RECONSIDER THEY PUT (FINDING A TRICKY LET-AS _, . . -
WAY IN SELl,ImUS AIR)
_ -’ ,. . . SINC’jj&y “’ ‘- ., .
mayor leuis city council members coastal comm. dept of real estate
).. ‘~ . . ..- ,/.
( ,_, _.. .. ..--- ‘..
$!rggf=& t i_- ,,
. *-...,.,, I..
.‘... . .
* . . _... .- . -. ..m.-
April 12, 1999 city- ;
city -
cm -may
To: Mayor Bud Lewis and members of the City Count %!!!a?/&
From: South Linden Terrace (Sea Cliff) homeowners
Re: Poinsettia Shores Planning Area C
Our greatest concern is the density of houses disrupting the “Quality of life” in Carlsbad.
Carlsbad used to be a very nice village to live and visit. The older neighborhoods have significant yards all
around each house and green belts between rows of houses, and plenty of open wilderness areas. The recent
projects in Carlsbad are Row houses stacked as close as possible to build the most and biggest houses as possible
(or even not quite possible) on all available land.
Carlsbad has quite a bit of wilderness being developed in the last few years, a real boom. We don’t deny
the landowners the right to build, but the density is too high. There is not enough back yard for children to play
at home; they all have to go to the nearest park, where child safety is questionable. Bad teens have a tendency to
attempt to hang and gang there,
I’ve seen a show recently saying our native hawks are becoming endangered. There used to be a lot more
wildlife around Carlsbad. The developers are willing to leave one inhabited tree but no ecosystem to go with it,
like green belts for the rabbits and squirrels and stuff. Along with all wildlife, the ecosystem is being eliminated
without the proper green belts.
What good is it to have windows, when all we see out them is into our neighbor’s window or these 6R
concrete walls that Carlsbad is putting up all over. The walls are ugly and don’t work as well as trees. Unless they
are prison walls, but they are supposed to be for a sound barrier. Concrete is not absorbent. Sound, light, and
Pollution will bounce off the concrete like a racquetball, often into the older development across the way. Trees
are absorbent. They would muffle sound, filter light, and cleanse pollution. Trees give a cleaner, prettier
environment, suitable for all Gods creatures.
We voted for and passed Controlled growth initiatives back in the 80’s. If this were considered controlled
growth, We’d hate to see what it would be like otherwise. This turns out to be for facilities, yet we don’t see the
facilities going in, only some promises. We’ve heard complaints of roads being to narrow and congested to
support the density of the developments. We have traffic issues, there is a traflic crawl on the freeway both north
and south now, and it will become worse. Lines at the grocery store will get horrendous. Beach access does not
exist for the thousands of new people. You’ll have to arrive at the movies an hour early if you don’t want to set
in the front row. ect... Quality of life is so important to the American people that, the government is to unveil the
first installment of a series of actions aimed at the reduction of urban sprawl and improving “quality of life” in
America by reducing congestion!
Carlsbad does not have a view preservation consideration. We think it should. View preservation is equal
to environment preservation, and wildlife preservation and the preservation of the quality of life we all desire.
Why should new developments be allowed to alter the landscape, which could alter an existing view, lowering
the value of existing homes, to give a view to the new development?
Sea Cliff Residents
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
-
CT 98-06KP 98-05/CDP 98-27/HDP 98-40 - POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA C
DESCRIPTION:
COMPLETE DATE: August 24,1999
Request for approval of Negative Declaration, Tentative Tract Map, Condominium Permit, Coastal Development Permit and Hillside Development Permit to create a total of 40 lots (28 duplex lots, 1 private
street, and 11 open space lots) with 56 airspace condominiums.
LOCATION:
This project is within the City of Carlsbad’s Coastal Zone located south of Avenida En&as between Windrose
Circle and I-5 in the P-C zone and Local Facilities Management Zone 9.
ASSESOR’S PARCEL NUMBER:
216-140-30
APPLICANT:
Area C Homebuilding Partners
4141 Jutland Drive, Ste. 200
San Diego, CA 92 117
A public hearing on the above proposed project will be held by the Carlsbad City Council in the Council Chambers,
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, on April 13, 1999 at 6:00 p.m.
Persons are cordially invited to attend the public hearing and provide the decision makers with any oral or written comments they may have regarding the project. The project will be described and a staff recommendation given,
followed by public testimony, questions and a decision. Copies of the staff report will be available on or after April 9,
1999.
If you have any questions, or would like to be notified of the decision, please contact Anne Hysong at the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department, Monday through Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 530 p.m., Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at
2075 Las Pahnas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009, (760) 438- 1161, extension 4477.
APPEALS
The time within which you may judicially challenge this Negative Declaration, Tentative Tract Map, Condominium
Permit, Coastal Development Permit and/or Hillside Development Permit, if approved, is established by state law
and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge the Negative Declaration, Tentative Tract Map,
Condominium Permit, Coastal Development Permit and/or Hillside Development Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad City Clerk’s Office at, or prior to, the public hearing.
1. ADDeals to the Citv Council: Where the decision is appealable to the City Council, appeals must be filed in
writing within ten (10) calendar days after a decision by the Planning Commission.
2. Coastal Commission Appealable Project:
0 This site is located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area.
h3 This site is not located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area.
Where the decision is appealable to the Coastal Commission, appeals must be filed with the Coastal Commission within ten (10) working days after the Coastal Commission has received a Notice of Final Action from the City of Carlsbad.
Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission of the date that their appeal period will conclude. The San
Diego office of the Coastal Commission is located at 3111 Camino De1 Rio North, Suite 200, San Diego, California 92108-1725.
PUBLISH: APRIL 2,1999
@
POINSETTIA SHORES Pi. C
CT 98-061CP 98-05/
CDP 989271HDP 98-40
(form A)
TO: C1T.Y CLERK’S OFFICE
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice
CT 98-06/CP 98-05/CDP 98-27/HDP 98-40 - Poinsettia Shores Planning Area C
for a public hearing before the Clty Council.
Please notice the item for the council meeting of First Available Hearing
.
Thank you.
March 4, 1999
Date
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
SDP 9thOl/CDP 98-04
DESCRIPTION:
COMPLETE DATE: April 21,1998
Request for a Site Development Plan and a Coastal Development Permit, to develop a continuing care
retirement community for elderly residents on a 55 acre site.
LOCATION:
This project is within the City of Carlsbad’s Coastal Zone within Planning Area 3 of the Green Valley
Master plan on the west side of El Camino Real between La Costa Avenue and Calle Barcelona, within
Local Facilities Management Zone 23.
ASSESOR’S PARCEL NUMBER:
216-122-24
APPLICANT: Continuing Life Communities, LLC
800 Morningside Drive Fullerton, CA 92835
A public hearing on the above proposed project will be held by the Carlsbad City Council in the Council
Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, on April 6, 1999 at 6:00 p.m.
Persons are cordially invited to attend the public hearing and provide the decision makers with any oral or written
comments they may have regarding the project. The project will be described and a staff recommendation given,
followed by public testimony, questions and a decision. Copies of the staff report will be available on or after
April 2, 1999.
If you have any questions, or would like to be notified of the decision, please contact Adrienne Landers at the City
of Carlsbad Planning Department, Monday through Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009, (760) 438- 1161, extension 445 1.
APPEALS
If you challenge the Site Development Permit and/or Coastal Development Permit in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad City Clerk’s Office at, or prior to the public hearing
1.
2.
ADDealS to the Citv Council: Where the decision is appealable to the City Council, appeals must be filed
in writing within ten (10) calendar days after a decision by the Planning Commission.
Coastal Commission Appealable Project:
Cl This site is located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area.
0 This site is not located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area.
Where the decision is appealable to the Coastal Commission, appeals must be filed with the Coastal Commission
within ten (10) working days after the Coastal Commission has received a Notice of Final Action from the City of Carlsbad. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission of the date that their appeal period will
conclude. The San Diego office of the Coastal Commission is located at 3 111 Camino De1 Rio North, Suite 200, San Diego, California 92 108- 1725.
CASE NAME: LA COSTA GLEN
PUBLISH: MARCH 26,1999
- -
e
City of Carlsbad
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
COMPLETE DATE: August 24,1998
DESCRIPTION:
CT 9%06KP 98-05lCDP 98-27/HDP 98-40 - POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING
AREA- Request for approval of a &gative Declaration, Tentative Tract Map,
Condominium Permit, Coastal Development Permit and Hillside Development Permit to
create a total of 40 lots (28 duplex lots, 1 private street, and 11 open space lots) with 56
airspace condominiums.
LOCATION:
This project is within the City of Carlsbad’s Coastal Zone located south of Avenida
Encinas between Windrose Circle and I-5 in the P-C zone and Local Facilities
Management Zone 9.
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER:
216-140-30
APPLICANT:
Area C Homebuilding Partners
414 1 Jutland Drive, Ste. 200
San Diego, CA 92 117
A public hearing on the above proposed project will be held by the Planning Commission in the
Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, on January 20, 1999 at
6:00 p.m.
Persons are cordially invited to attend the public hearing and provide the decision makers with
any oral or written comments they may have regarding the project. The project will be described
and a staff recommendation given, followed by public testimony, questions and a decision.
Copies of the staff report will be available on or after January 14, 1999.
If you have any questions, or would like to be notified of the decision, please contact Anne
Hysong at the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, Monday through Thursday 7:30 a.m. to
5:30 p.m., Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009,
(760) 438- 1161, extension 4477.
. . .
. . .
. . .
2075 La Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 576 l (760) 438-l 161 l FAX (760) 438-0894
APPEALS
The time within which you may judicially challenge this Negative Declaration, Tentative Tract
Map, Condominium Permit, Coastal Development Permit and Hillside Development Permit, if
approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge
the Negative Declaration, Tentative Tract Map, Condominium Permit, Coastal Development
Permit and Hillside Development Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues
you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad prior to the public hearing.
1. to the Citv Council: Where the decision is appealable to the City Council,
appeals must be filed in writing within ten (10) calendar days after a decision by the
Planning Commission.
2. Coastal Commission Appealable Project:
0 This site is located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area. q This site is not located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area.
Where the decision is appealable to the Coastal Commission, appeals must be filed with the
Coastal Commission within ten (10) working days after the Coastal Commission has received a
Notice of Final Action from the City of Carlsbad. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal
Commission of the date that their appeal period will conclude. The San Diego office of the
Coastal Commission is located at 3 111 Camino De1 Rio North, Suite 200, San Diego, California
92108-1725.
CASE FILE: CT 98-06KP 98-05KDP 98-27/HDP 98-40
CASE NAME: POINSETTIA SHORES AREA C
PUBLISH: JANUARY 7,1999
POINSETTIA SHORES P.A. C
CT 98-061CP 98-05/
CDP 98927lHDP 98-40
. . . ,
‘
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7519 NAVIGATOR CIR 7517 NAVIGATOR CIR 662 COMPASS CT
'CARLSBAD CA 92009-5405 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5405 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5406
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 658 COMPASS CT 654 COMPASS CT 650 COMPASS CT CARLSBAD CA 92009-5406 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5406 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5406
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 646 COMPASS CT 642 COMPASS CT 638 COMPASS CT CARLSBAD CA 92009-5406 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5406 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5406
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 634 COMPASS CT 630 COMPASS CT 626 COMPASS CT CARLSBAD CA 92009-5406 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5406 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5406
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
622 COMPASS CT 618 COMPASS CT 614 COMPASS CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009-5406 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5406 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5406
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 610 COMPASS CT 606 COMPASS CT 602 COMPASS CT CARLSBAD CA 92009-5406 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5406 CARLSBAD CA 92009
*** 78 Printed ***
- .
OCCUPANT
7417 LINDEN TER 'CARLSBAD CA 92009-4725
OCCUPANT 7411 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4725
OCCUPANT 7405 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4725
OCCUPANT 7331 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4723
OCCUPANT 7325 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4723
OCCUPANT 7319 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4723
OCCUPANT 7313 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4723
OCCUPANT
7522 NAVIGATOR CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009-5404
OCCUPANT 7528 NAVIGATOR CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009-5404
OCCUPANT
7525 NAVIGATOR CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-5405
OCCUPANT
7415 LINDEN TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4725
OCCUPANT 7409 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4725
OCCUPANT 7335 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4723
OCCUPANT 7329 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4723
OCCUPANT 7323 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4723
OCCUPANT 7317 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4723
OCCUPANT 7413 LINDEN TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4725
OCCUPANT 7407 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4725
OCCUPANT 7333 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4723
OCCUPANT 7327 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4723
OCCUPANT 7321 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4723
OCCUPANT 7315 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4723
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 7311 LINDEN TER 7429 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4723 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4726
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 7524 NAVIGATOR CIR 7526 NAVIGATOR CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009-5404 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5404
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 7529 NAVIGATOR CIR 7527 NAVIGATOR CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009-5405 CARLSBAD CA 92009-540s
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 7523 NAVIGATOR CIR 7521 NAVIGATOR CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009-5405 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5405
OCCUPANT
7201 AVENIDA ENCINAS
-CARLSBAD CA 92009-4642
OCCUPANT 7305 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4723
OCCUPANT 7237 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4721
OCCUPANT 7231 LINDEN TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4721
OCCUPANT 7225 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4721
OCCUPANT 7219 LINDEN TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4721
OCCUPANT 7213 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4720
OCCUPANT
7207 LINDEN TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4720
OCCUPANT
7201 LINDEN TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4720
OCCUPANT 7423 LINDEN TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4725
OCCUPANT
7309 LINDEN TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4723
OCCUPANT 7303 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4723
OCCUPANT 7235 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4721
OCCUPANT 7229 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4721
OCCUPANT 7223 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4721
OCCUPANT 7217 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4721
OCCUPANT
7211 LINDEN TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4720
OCCUPANT 7205 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4720
OCCUPANT 7427 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4726
OCCUPANT 7421 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4725
OCCUPANT
7307 LINDEN TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4723
OCCUPANT 7239 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4721
OCCUPANT 7233 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4721
OCCUPANT 7227 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4721
OCCUPANT
7221 LINDEN TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4721
OCCUPANT 7215 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4721
OCCUPANT 7209 LINDEN TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4720
OCCUPANT 7203 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4720
OCCUPANT 7425 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4725
OCCUPANT 7419 LINDEN,TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4725
KAIZA POINSETTIA CORP 23172 PLAZA POINTE DR 1 -LAGUNA HILLS 92653-1477
SHORES M POINSETTIA
750 B ST 2100
92653-1477 SAN DIEGO CA 92101-8177
KEVIN & DEBRA MCCLUSKEY THEODORE P TURCZYN POINSETTIA HOMEBUILDING
7436 CAPSTAN DR 7432 CANPSTAN DR 4141 JUTLAND DR 100
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 SAN DIEGO CA 92117-3658
EBUILDING POINSETTIA HOMEBUILDING
CA 92117-3658
HOMEBUILDING POINSETT$g'HOMEBUILDING POINSETTIA,&EBUILDING 4141 JUTLAND DR 100 DR 100 IEGO CA 92117-3658 SAN &EGO CA 92117-3658 0 ..C!A 92117-3658 _'
OMEBUILDING DR 100 _ 92117-3658
.,
POINSETT&HOMEBUILDING POINSETTIA,&MEBUILDING
4141 JUTLAND DR 100 4141 DR 100
SAN/DIEGO CA
JU@ND
92117-3658 SAN D$.XfGO CA 92117-3658 d
f
POINSEfiIA HOMEBUILDING POINSETTIA HO&BUILDING 4141~ &JTLAND DR loo _r> POINSETTIA HOMEBUILDING DR 100 4141 JUTI+D DR 100 SANDIEGO CA 92117-3658 CA 92117-3658 SAN DIEGO CA 92117-3658 ,'
POINSETTIP HOMEBUILDING POINSETTIArEfOMEBUILDING
4141 JUTLAND DR 100 SAN D 7 tiG0 CA 4141 JUT&AND DR 100 92117-3658 SAN DIBGO CA 92117-3658 i-
POINSETTti<OMEBUILDING .d- ,
4141 J&AND DR 100
HOMEBUILDING D DR 100
SAN DIEGO CA 92117-3658 GO CA 92117-3658
A HOMEBUILDING POINSETTIA HOMEBUILDING LAND DR 100 4141 JUTLAND DR 100 92117-3658 SAN D$&GO CA 92117-3658
POINSETTIA HOMEBUILDING POINSETTIA HOMEBUILDING POINSETTIA HOMEBUILDING 4141 JUTLAND DR 100 4141 JUTLAND DR 100 4141 JUTLAND'~-DR 100
SAN DIEG --CA 92117-3658 P SAN DIBGG CA 92117-3658 + SAN DIEGP'CA 92117-3658 ._1
POINSETTIA&OMEBUILDING POINSETTIA HOMEBUILDING POINSETTIA&MEBUILDING
DR 100 4141 JUTLAND DR 100 4141 JUTZ&ND DR 100
0 CA 92117-3658 SAN DIEGO CA 92117-3658 SAN D F GO CA 92117-3658
POINSETTIA HOMEBUILDING POINSETTI,A~'HOMEBUILDING POINSETTIA-&MEBUILDING 4141 JUTLAND DR 100 4141 JUT&AND DR 100 SAN/<DIEGO CA 92117-3658 SAN D@GO CA 92117-3658
*** 249 Printed ***
JOHN W & DRUCILLA RAND 7314 STARBOARD ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
MICHAEL G MERCHANT 7315 STARBOARD ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
THOMAS E SCHULZ 7327 STARBOARD ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
I’
LUIS R GUERRERO 4141 JUTLAND DR 100 SAN DIEGO CA 92117-3658
__
SCOTTY W HEINSOHN 7444 CAPSTAN DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
92117-3658
/ POINSETTIA ~~MEBUILDING 4141 JUTLAND DR 100 SAN DIEGO CA 92117-3658
CHRISTINE F HARSHBARGER
7310 STARBOARD ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
WESLEY S & LUM LOW 7319 STARBOARD ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
MICHAEL W & CHRIS FLYNN 7331 STARBOARD ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
SAN PACIFIC0 COMMUNITY 4141 JUTLAND DR 100 SAN DIEGO CA 92117-3658
SECRETARY OF HOUSING & 4141 JUTLAND DR 100 SAN DIEGO CA 92117-3658
SECRETARY OF VETERANS A 4141 JUTLAND DR 100 SAN DIEGO CA 92117-3658
WILMER 74440 CAPSTAN DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
OVERTON R & LINDA HALL 7443 CAPSTAN DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOSEPH J WILSON
7306 STARBOARD ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
REVIER 7329 STRABOARD ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
WILLIAM L & SUE SCHECK PO BOX 9515 RANCH0 SANTA 92067
SAN PACIFIC0 AREA A ASS 4141 JUTLAND DR 100 SAN DIEGOCA 92117-3658
SECRETARY
BONNIE L CLEVERLEY 7448 CAPSTAN DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
WILLIAM L & SUE SCHECK PO BOX 9515 RANCH0 SANTA 92067
BRITA MARTINY-HAMER 7443 CAPSTAN DR ESCONDIDO CA 92029
POINSETTIA H&BUILDING 4141 JUTL@D DR 100
SAN DIEG6 CA 92117-3658
-
BROOKFIELD BROCCATO INC KAIZA POINSETTIA CORP WL HOMES L L C
12865 POINTE DEL MAR WA 7220 AVENIDA ENCINAS 20 19600 FAIRCHILD 150
DEL MAR CA 92014-3859 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4661 IRVINE CA 92612-2509
K HOVNANIAN AT OCEAN WA 3991 MACARTHUR BLVD 300 NEWPORT BEACH 92660-3031
POINSETTIA HOMEBUILDING 4141 JUTLAND DR 100 SAN DIEGO CA 92117-3658
POINSETTI
,, " /
POINSETTIA POINSETTIA HOMEBUILDING
DR 100 ~
CA 92117-3658
LDING 0
CA 92117-3658 92117-3658
POINSETTIA HO&-BUILDING
/
POINSETTIA
4141 JUTLAd DR 100
REBUILDING
D DR 100
SAN DIEGdCA 92117-3658 A 92117-3658
/
_.-. .* ” POINSETTIA HOMEBUILDING POINSETTIA H~&ILDING JENNIFER S LESAR
4141 JUTLj$Nb DR 100 7330 STARBOARD ST
SAN DIE,@3 CA 92117-3658 CARLSBAD CA 92009
MSWHAN SACHER
7322 STARBOARD ST PO BOX 2412,
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92018-2412
JOHN R KENNEDY 7533 NAVIGATOR CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009-5405
ROBERT F HAINES
7527 NAVIGATOR CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-5405
JEAN M MOORE 7521 NAVIGATOR CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009-5405
JAMES L GAULT 7552 NAVIGATOR CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009-5404
PAULINA M MILLER
658 COMPASS CT CARLSBAD CA 92009-5406
JUDY M LEE
646 COMPASS CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009-5406
THOMAS P MURRAY 634 COMPASS CT CARLSBAD CA 92009-5406
H KURSHENBAUM
622 COMPASS CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009-5406
MICHAEL A GACNIK 610 COMPASS CT CARLSBAD CA 92009-5406
ANDREW W & CORY SWONETZ
610 NAVIGATOR CT CARLSBAD CA 92009-5402
SAMUEL I & EDNA KELSALL
7531 NAVIGATOR CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009-5405
JOHN R JOHNSON 7525 NAVIGATOR CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009-5405
KEVIN A NELLIS 7519 NAVIGATOR CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009-5405
CLARENCE E DONATO 7548 NAVIGATOR CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-5404
JOSEF & CAROL LAGEDER
654 COMPASS CT CARLSBAD CA 92009-5406
HOWARD LAURENCE
642 COMPASS CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009-5406
MARSHALL H & CAROL ORR 630 COMPASS CT CARLSBAD CA 92009-5406
DONNELLY TR
618 COMPASS CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009-5406
FRANK E & J HUTCHINS 606 COMPASS CT CARLSBAD CA 92009-5406
AVIARA MASTER ASSN 600 W BROADWAY SAN DIEGO CA 92101-3311
SHENG C & YU WU
1331 KNOLL DR
OCEANSIDE CA 92054-5769
RICHARD M & KAREN WELLS
17650 1ST AVE S 294 SEATTLE WA 98148-1729
LAWRENCE POON PO BOX 1256 LA JOLLA CA 92038-1256
ANDRES E DAVIS
662 COMPASS CT CARLSBAD CA 92009-5406
JOHN T MASTRONSKI
650 COMPASS CT CARLSBAD CA 92009-5406
DENNIS & ANN KRAFT 638 COMPASS CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009-5406
KAISER ASSET MANAGEMENT 2225 BROOKHAVEN PASS VISTA CA 92083-8333
JOHN SHUTTLE
614 COMPASS CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009-5406
BEULAH C HAMMIDI 602 COMPASS CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
,_ .--
92101-3311
THOMAS W WERMERS STEPHEN M NOVAK ROSALENA OWNERS ASSN IN
PO BOX 675608 7597 NAVIGATOR CIR 1930 S COAST HWY 110 RANCH0 SANTA 92067-5608 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5405 OCEANSIDE CA 92054-6455
EDWARD FONG DAVID B FARR JEFFREY A MCGEE
602 NAVIGATOR CT 604 NAVIGATOR CT 606 NAVIGATOR CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009-5402 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5402 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5402
ROBERT C WILTSE THOMAS B HANSON LARRY H & ALICE BAKER 608 NAVIGATOR CT 612 NAVIGATOR CT 614 NAVIGATOR CT CARLSBAD CA 92009-5402 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5402 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5402
FRED T & SONIA GREENE KENDALL K & INTER LEE LUPE L HOUSE 616 NAVIGATOR CT 1855 ALPHA ST PO BOX 3125 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5402 SOUTH PASADEN 91030-4216 LA JOLLA CA 92038-3125
JAMES M SOMERS HAYUTIN RUSSELL & RHONA ZANE
611 NAVIGATOR CT 609 NAVIGATOR CT ' 607 NAVIGATOR CT
LOS ANGELES C 90009 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5402 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5402
JACKIE E SCHAFFER RICHARD B HANSEN SHIRIN KHATIBI 1560 SUMMIT AVE A 12875 CHAPARRAL RIDGE R 2605 LA GRAN VIA CARDIFF CA 92007-2434 SAN DIEGO CA 92130-2451 CARLSBAD CA 92009-8110
DAVID A EDWARDS M K & ERICA ROGERS RICHARD A & NOES LEE 7580 NAVIGATOR CIR 7578 NAVIGATOR CIR 7576 NAVIGATOR CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009-5404 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5404 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5404
LOUIS F TORI0 ANDREW D & TANIA DAVIES STEVE V ARNAUDOFF 326 ROSEMONT ST 7572 NAVIGATOR CIR 13372 KEEGAN PL LA JOLLA CA 92037-6032 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5404 SAN DIEGO CA 92130-1240
JACK M MCEACHERN PAUL S & TERESA HO CLAYTON A WALTERS 418 LINCOLN BLVD 7543 NAVIGATOR CIR 7541 NAVIGATOR CIR SANTA MONICA 90402-1936 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5405 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5405
JOHN C ENGSTROM YEN P & YUCHIH CHU SURVIVORS T SCHUYLER 7539 NAVIGATOR CIR 3327 ROCKING HORSE CIR 7535 NAVIGATOR CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009-5405 ENCINITAS CA 92024-5717 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5405
ELEANOR C EISELE ROBY L & ELLEN STEGALL ELAINE F GLINER 7429 LINDEN TER 914 MYRTLE CT 916 MYRTLE CT CARLSBAD CA 92009-4726 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4727 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4727
DONALD C HERSTEDT DOROTHY GRAFMAN CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS
917 MYRTLE CT 915 MYRTLE CT PUBLIC AGENCY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4727 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4727 SAN DIEGO CA 92108-1630
JOHN M LAMB ROSALENA OWNERS ASSN IN JAMES R WEINBERGER 1446 DEVLIN DR 285 WINDROSE CIR 7522 NAVIGATOR CIR LOS ANGELES C 90069-1804 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5401 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5404
MARGARET M TOMLINSON ROBERT & ANNA KAO CARL LACKEY
PO BOX 180389 3309 AVENIDA ANACAPA 7528 NAVIGATOR CIR
CORONADO CA 92178-0389 CARLSBAD CA 92009-9324 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5404
GARBER KENNETH W EC LORI WAGNER NORMAN B & FAYE EISEN 78252 BONANZA DR 7532 NAVIGATOR CIR ' 7315 BORLA PL PALM DESERT C 92211-1208 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5404 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7802
KENNY H & YEN CHU JOANNE T CYR RICK & BONNIE RULE 3327 ROCKING HORSE CIR 1501 WESTPORT RD 7540 NAVIGATOR CIR ENCINITAS CA 92024-5717 KANSAS CITY M 64111-4366 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5404
CAROLYN W ZONDLER KENNETH D LEHMER CHRISTOPHER J DOWDEN 7542 NAVIGATOR CIR 7544 NAVIGATOR CIR 7546 NAVIGATOR CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009-5404 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5404 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5404
DIX FAMILY JOHNNY C & CH01 HO KAMORAS 1017 S CALLE ROLPH 7815 SILVERTON AVE 7581 NAVIGATOR CIR PALM SPRINGS 92264-8590 SAN DIEGO CA 92126-4374 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5405
WENDELL D VANATTA LOUIS J & RITA KOCZELA GARY G & PAMELAABNEY 128 VIA ALICIA 7585 NAVIGATOR CIR 8282 LANKIN ST SANTA BARBARA 93108-1768 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5405 DOWNEY CA 90242-3702
LETA T LABORDE JOHN W & MARY PHILBIN JOHN T SCHMUHL PO BOX 691 7591 NAVIGATOR CIR 7593 NAVIGATOR CIR MILL VALLEY C 94942-0691 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5405 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5405
CHARLES & ELLA VASLOW NANCY J BARKER 1601 SUNSET DR 7319 LINDEN TER LA CROSSE WI 54601-6132 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4723
HAROLD T ROBBINS BEVERLY A SCHWABE BERTHA R EZELL-LEPLEY 7317 LINDEN TER 7315 LINDEN TER 7313 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4723 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4723 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4723
THOMAS L PETERSON DORSEY BEVERLY G IZILDA BAKER
7311 LINDEN TER 918 MYRTLE CT 919 MYRTLE CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4723 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4727 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4727
DANIEL P BRENNAN BETSY CHRISTMAS RICHARD W KLATTE 7411 LANTANA TER 7409 LANTANA TER 7407 LANTANA TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4716 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4716 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4716
ELEANOR L LAKE VIRGINIA T RICHARDS MARILYN STENOIEN 7405 LANTANA TER 21715 SUTHERLAND DR 1 7329 LANTANA TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4716 YORBA LINDA C 92887-2637 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4713
WILLIAM J & LENA HEISER PAUL CIMARUSTI NORMA L BENSON 7327 LANTANA TER 7325 LANTANA TER 7323 LANTANA TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4713 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4713 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4713
NED E & NAN HATCH DAVID S & MARY SANDERS GILBERT J SOT0 7321 LANTANA TER 7319 LANTANA TER 7317 LANTANA TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4713 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4713 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4713
ERIC & GLORIA SUTTON BEACHLER DROOKS 7315 LANTANA TER 7313 LANTANA TER 1632 S SAINT MALO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009-4713 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4713 WEST COVINA C 91790-4838
ANTON10 GONZALEZ WAYNE E KRUSE BURRUSS 7309 LANTANA TER 1026 WHITE DEER DR 7305 LANTANA TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4713 LA CANADA FL1 91011-1863 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4713
-J- _,.’ SEA CLIFF HOMEOWNERS AS OWNERS AS SEA CLIFF HOMEO"tSNERS AS
6120 PASEO DEL NORTE Jl NORTE Jl 6120 PASEGDEL NORTE Jl CARLSBAD CA 92009-1147 A 92009-1147 CARLSB Y 'CA 92009-1147
-
LAKESHORE GARDENS PROPE
10780 SANTA MONICA BLVD
LOS ANGELES C 90025-4749
STILES 7218 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4719
0 G & VIRGINIA LEE 7224 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4719
EDDY I SWIESON 7230 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4719
FREDERICK BOTHMER 77559 MALONE CIR PALM DESERT C 92211-0420
VERONON M BLYTHE 7309 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4723
ANDRE
1801 WOODLAND DR SAN LUIS OBIS 93401-3054
TRUEX 7235 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4721
STEVEN DICKMEYER 3180 LOS VERDES DR FALLBROOK CA 92028-8403
NORMA J TATE 10353 NIAGARA FALLS LN LAS VEGAS NV 89134-1356
JOHN V & CORA HOOD 7214 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4719
DONALD R CAMPBELL 7220 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4719
KITZMILLER PARVIN M 7226 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4719
HERBERT D SCHLAIN 7232 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4719
JACQUE D & CAROL HARVEY 37075 OAK VIEW RD ' YUCAIPA CA 92399-9719
JAMES E & JEAN FARRELL 7307 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4723
SELLARDS 57 LALO KUILIMA PL 0915 BOX 517 KAHUK 96731
STEPHEN I JOHNSON
7233 LINDEN TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4721
EDGAR J MAGNIN 7227 LINDEN TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4721
MARY B WOOLFORD 7221 LINDEN TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4721
NALDA L STAFF
912 N CEDAR ST
GLENDALE CA 91207-1702 .
LINDA METTLING 7222 LINDEN TER ENCINITAS CA 92024
MARY E COLEMAN 6610 OCEANVIEW DR CARLSBAD CA 92009-1022
WILLIAM C & JOAN HEIL 7234 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4719
MILAN R JURCO 7240 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4719
GEORGE & ANNE EISNER 7305 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4723
FIEL TR 7237 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4721
FLORENCE J COWEN
7231 LINDEN TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4721
DONALD E & MARY PIGFORD
800 E 20TH ST
FARMINGTON NM 87401-4207
CHARLES A NICHOLSON 7219 LINDEN,TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4721
GRACE A GARTLAND MILLER SUSAN L ROSALIE TABOR
7217 LINDEN TER 7215 LINDEN TER 7213 LINDEN TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4721 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4721 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4720
TANG JOHNSON GRACE M DEGAN
567 ELINOR DR 7209 LINDEN TER 7207 LINDEN TER
FULLERTON CA 92835-1822 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4720 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4720
WILLIAM H MALLEY L D KING KATHLEEN A DEINES 7205 LINDEN TER 7203 LINDEN TER 7201 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4720 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4720 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4720
SEA CLIFF HOMEOWNERS AS ROBERT W & MARY MARTIN ALDO & MARIA BARONE 3127 AIRWAY AVE A 7433 LINDEN TER 3753 W AVENUE J14 514 COSTA MESA CA 92626-4609 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4726 LANCASTERCA 93536-6304
FIACCO FAMILY MILDRED I LERNER NEIL E & DIANE PATREN 5568 GLENHAVEN AVE 7425 LINDEN TER 7423 LINDEN TER RIVERSIDE CA 92506-3535 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4725 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4725
JOHN T & SHARON BARCLAY RAYMOND P HEBERT SHLEMMER 7421 LINDEN TER 7419 LINDEN TER 7417 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4725 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4725 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4725
RICHARD J ARLEN DENNIS L & JANET OLSON CARROLL D SMITH 7415 LINDEN TER 7413 LINDEN TER 7411 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4725 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4725 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4725
BERNARD E & SALLY COHEN REED T & DEE ALDER MICHAEL P MAUDSLEY 7409 LINDEN TER 18615 E LEADORA AVE 33 SAN JUAN DR CARLSBAD CA 92009-4725 GLENDORA CA 91741-1817 RANCH0 MIRAGE 92270-1973
KARIS A HELWIG JOANNE M SMALL LOREN E & KAY SANCHEZ 7335 LINDEN TER 7333 LINDEN TER 862 W BUFFINGTON ST CARLSBAD CA 92009-4723 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4723 UPLAND CA 91784-1511
DREYER FAMILY NANCY J SVOBODA SHINZO & HIROKO DATE 7329 LINDEN TER 7327 LINDEN TER 7323 LINDEN,TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4723 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4723 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4723
-
CA COASTAL COMMISSION SD COUNTY PLANNING ! CA DEPT OF FISH & GAME
STE 200 STE B STE 50
3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NO 5201 RUFFIN RD 330 GOLDENSHORE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-I 725 SAN DIEGO CA 92123 LONG BEACH CA 90802
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY BRD SANDAG
STE 6 STE 800
9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD 401 BST
SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331 SAN DIEGO CA 92101
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST
801 PINE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS - COMMUNITY PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING DEPT PROJECT PLANNER
SERVICES DEPT - OAK ANNE HYSONG
Sally Lyons 7019 Lavendar Way Carlsbad, CA 92009
Bernard Ponseggi 6947 Whitecap Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009
Marilyn F. Ponseggi & Assoc Attn: M.F. Ponseggi 2117 Jarama Const El Cajon, CA 92019
Kent Schnoeker
6880 Seaspray Lane Carlsbad, CA 92009
April 13,1999
TO:
FROM:
-
1yI”-‘& . .
CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: CT 98-06/CDP 98-27/CP 98-OYHDI ’ 98-04 - Date CI l WC&y POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNIN ‘GAREAC
For the Information of the:
AssLr:m
Please add the following language to the end of the “Environmental Section” of the Agenda Bill
#15.139:
The City has received its annual Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Report.
The Report has recorded an unanticipated intersection “level of service” (LOS)
failure at Palomar Airport Road (PAR) and El Camino Real (ECR) during both
the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. This potentially creates a changed circumstance
negating reliance on previous environmental documentation. Pursuant to $15 162
of the CEQA Guidelines a lead agency must prepare a “Subsequent”
environmental documentation if substantial evidence (i.e., the recorded
intersection failure) determines that a changed circumstance exists. However,
case law has interpreted this section of the CEQA Guidelines to not require the
preparation of a “Subsequent EIR” if mitigation measures are adopted which
reduce the identified impacts to a level of insignificance.
A mitigation measure has been identified which, if implemented, will bring the
peak hours LOS into the acceptable range. The mitigation measure involves
construction of two dual right turn lanes-northbound to eastbound and westbound
to northbound. This project has been conditioned to pay its fair share of the
intersection “short-term improvements” thereby, guaranteeing mitigation to a
level of insignificance.
Please add the following: finding to City Council Resolution No. 99-128;
New Finding 7 and then renumber
That this project could have a potentially significant negative cumulative traffic
impact on the Palomar Airport Road/ El Camino Real intersection. However, this
project has been conditioned to pay its fair share of the “short-term
improvements” thereby, guaranteeing implementation of a mitigation measure
that reduces the potential impact to a level of insignificance.
New Condition 1
The Developer shall pay his fair share for the “short-term improvements” to the El
Camino Real/ Palomar Airport Road intersection prior to approval of the final map
or the issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first. The amount shall be
determined by the methodology ultimately selected by Council, including but not
limited to, an increase in the city-wide traffic impact fee; an increased or new Zone
9 LFMP fee; the creation of a fee or assessment district; or incorporation into a
Mello-Roos taxing district.
April 13, 1999
c-4 J
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: Poinsettia Shores Planning Area C, CT 9%06KP 98-05/HDP 9%04/CDP 98-27
In order to clarify the City’s intent and to ensure that the proposed project is consistent with the
public access provisions of the Local Coastal Program and the Coastal Act, staff is recommending
the addition of the following language to condition no. 26 of Planning Commission Resolution
No. 4461:
Regardless of whether the City accepts the trail(s) dedication, the subject trail(s) shall be
installed and made available to the general public prior to the occupancy of any unit
within Planning Area C. In the event that a Citywide Open Space Maintenance District is
not formed, maintenance responsibilities shall be assumed by the Master Homeowners
Association.
Ail Receive-Agenda hem # 11
For the Information of the:
clTYcouNcIL
Asst.CM-CA&c/
Date W&yMan
City of Carlsbad
April 19, 1999
Greystone Homes, Inc.
Attn: President
5973 Avenida Encinas, Suite 101
Cartsbad, CA 92008
POlt+&ElTlA SHORES Cl 98-06
Enclosed for your reference are copies of Carlsbad City Council Agenda Bill
No. 15,139, and Resolution No. 99-l 28. These documents went before the City
Council on April 13, 1999, when the Resolution was adopted.
Resolution No. 98-128 approved the Tentative Tract Map, a Negative
Declaration, Condominium Permit, Coastal Development Permit and Hillside
Development Permit for Poinsettia Shores Planning Area C.
If you have any questions regarding your project, please call Ms. Anne Hysong,
in the Planning Department,at: 438-l 161 extension 4477.
,cr ‘--;+.“.‘. - .-_.._
c&r
,&. /”
4; / . ..(&.. :.., -;~::* \L .!*Y j t : ‘;r
d ” Kathleen D. Shoup
Sr. Office Specialist
1200 Carfsbad Village Drive * Carlsbad, CA 92008-l 989 l (760) 434-2808 @