HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-11-09; City Council; 15491; Manzanita Apartments!!! P 5’
.
\ -
CITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL \\3 &Jr3 /
AB# /a;#/ TITLE: DEPT. HD.
MANZANITA APARTMENTS
MTG. 11/g/99 ZC 98-09/LCPA 98-06/SDP 98-19 CITY ATTY. 2!F
DEPT. PLN @ CITY MGR-
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council INTRODUCE Ordinance No. NS- 613, APPROVING ZC 98-09, and ADOPT
Resolution No. 99-496 APPROVING a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, ZC 98-09, LCPA 98-06, and SDP 98-19.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
The proposed project is for the development of a 157-unit apartment development with related
recreational amenities and preservation of open space on undeveloped parcels along El Camino
Real just south of its intersection with Cassia Road. The project is designed to cluster the
development in a 9.75acre corner of the site, allowing the preservation of approximately 38 acres of
sensitive habitat and slope areas in open space. The project would require approval to take 1 unit
from the Southwest Quadrant Excess Dwelling Unit Bank and would return 21 dwelling units to the
Southeast Quadrant Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. The proposed apartment units would consist of two
- and three-bedroom units. The inclusionary housing requirements of the project (24 units) would be
satisfied by construction of all required affordable units on-site.
The Planning Commission heard this project at a public hearing on September 15, 1999. At that
hearing, they unanimously approved the Special Use Permit, Hillside Development Permit, and
Coastal Development Permit, subject to pending City Council action of other required permits. They
also unanimously recommended approval of the Zone Change, Local Coastal Program Amendment,
and Site Development Plan with minor wording changes to some conditions of approval and the
addition of one new condition. The wording changes were primarily directed at clarifying some
conditions for improvements. One condition was modified to reduce the number of affordable units in
any one building from a maximum of 6 to a maximum of 5. A new condition added was to ensure
that the balconies facing onto El Camino Real would not be used for storage of items resulting in an
unsightly appearance along the scenic corridor.
The pad elevations for the project will vary along El Camino Real. At the north end, the development
pad elevation will be the same as the roadway elevation. As you move further southward, the pad
elevation will be below the roadway elevation by 6 to 10 feet. At the southern end of the
development area, the project pad elevation will be approximately 8 feet below the roadway
elevation.
There were no comments from the audience regarding the project. Staff received no written
comments from notified property owners.
FISCAL IMPACT:
All improvements required to serve this project will be provided concurrent with development. The
proposed project site is located within both Zones 21 and 10 in the southwest and southeast
(respectively) quadrants of the City. Zone 21 has an approved Local Facilities Management Plan
(LFMP). A draft of the proposed LFMP for Zone 10 is currently being reviewed as part of the project
applications for the Villages of La Costa Master Plan. However, the portion of the project site which
is in Zone 10 will remain undeveloped. The impacts on public facilities created by the project, and its
compliance with the adopted performance standards, are summarized in the table below.
I
F .
. PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL
1 GROWTH MANAGEMENT:
-
GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE ZONE 21
The project is 1 unit above the Growth Management Dwelling Unit allowance of 156 dwelling units on
the west side of El Camino Real (Southwest Quadrant) and 21 units below the Growth Management
Dwelling Unit allowance of 21 dwelling units on the east side of El Camino Real (Southeast
Quadrant).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
A Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been
prepared for this project. The EIA Part II prepared for the project concluded that the project would
result in potentially significant effects on the environment: 1) traffic at the Palomar Airport Road/El
Camino Real intersection; 2) noise from El Camino Real; 3) cultural (paleontological) resources; and
4) biological resources (sensitive habitat on the project site). Each of these potentially significant
impacts can be mitigated to less than significant, and the applicant has agreed to modify the project
to implement all of the necessary mitigation measures. Mitigation measures which would reduce
these impacts to less than significant have been included in a Mitigation Monitoring Plan attached to
Resolution No. 4617. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was issued for the proposed project on May
3, 1999.
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Ordinance No.
2. City Council Resolution No. 3Ez 3. Location Map
4. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4617,4618,4619, and 4620
5. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated September 15, 1999
6. Draft Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated September 15, 1999.
d
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
ORDINANCE NO. NS-5 17
A ZONE CHANGE CHANGING THE PROPERTY’S ZONING
FROM E-A AND L-C TO RD-M/Q ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED ADJACENT TO EL CAMINO REAL
JUST SOUTH OF CASSIA ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONES 21 AND 10.
CASE NAME: MANZANITA APARTMENTS
CASE NO.: ZC 98-09
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does ordain as follows:
SECTION I: That the zoning map, being Carlsbad Municipal Code Section
21.05.030, is hereby amended as shown on Exhibit ZC 98-09 attached hereto.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its
adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be
published at least once in a publication of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within
fifteen days after its adoption. (Not withstanding the preceding, this ordinance shall not be
effective within the Ci@ ‘s Coastal Zone until approved by the California Coastal Commission.)
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City
Council on the 1999, and thereafter. 9th day of November
/i/l
/l/f
/IfI
/l/l
/l/l
/Ill
/l/l
II//
/l/l
///I
3
Ir
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
, 0 0
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council o
Carlsbad on the 16th day of November 1999, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Lewis, Hall, Finnila, Nygaard, Kulchin
NOES: NoNE
BSENT: NONE
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
~
-2-
PROPERTY ZONE CHANGE ZC: 98-09
draft q final 0
Project Name: Manzanita Apts. - ZC 98-09
Legal Description(s):
APN’s: 215-020-22, 13 and 215-021-04
Related Case File No(s): LCPA 98-06/SDP 98-1 S/SUP
98-06/HDP 98-18/GDP 98-73
Zone Change
Property: From: To:
A. 2 15-020-22 E-A RDM-Q
B. 215-020-l 3 L-C RDM-Q
C. 215-021-04 L-C RDM-Q
D.
Attach additional pages if necessary
Approvals
Council Approval Date:
Ordinance No:
Effective Date:
Signature:
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. 99-496
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONI-
TORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND APPROVING
A ZONE CHANGE, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
AMENDMENT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
CASE NAME: MANZANITA APARTMENTS
CASE NO.: ZC 98-09/LCPA 98-06/SDP 98-l 9
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve
as follows:
WHEREAS, on September 15, 1999, the Carlsbad Planning Commission
held a duly noticed public hearing to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program relating to Zone Change (ZC 98-09)
Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 98-06) and Site Development Plan (SDP
98-l 9). At the conclusion of the hearing the Commission adopted Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 4617, 4618, 4619 and 4620 recommending approval of
the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Zone
Change, Local Coastal Program Amendment and Site Development Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 9th day
of NOVEMBER, 1999, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Commission’s
recommendations and to hear all persons interested in or opposed to the Mitigated
Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Zone Change (ZC
98-09) Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 98-06) and Site Development Plan
(SDP 98-19) relating to the Manzanita Apartments project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Carlsbad, California as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the City Council adopts and incorporates the findings of
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4617, 4618, 4619 and 4620 recommending
(;:
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
approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, Zone Change, Local Coastal Program Amendment and Site Development
Plan for the Manzanita Apartments.
3. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City Council’s
independent judgment.
4. That Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6(d), all
the materials that constitute the administrative record in this proceeding are in the
custody of and can be found in the offices of the City Clerk and the Director of Planning
in the City of Carlsbad. The administrative record includes, but is not limited to: the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and all public comments thereon received during the
public review period and responses thereto, and the proceedings of the Planning
Commission and the City Council thereon.
5. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City
Council. The provisions of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, “Time Limits
for Judicial Review” shall apply:
“NOTICE TO APPLICANT”
“The time within which judicial review of this decision must be
sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6,
which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by
Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other
paper seeking 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.”
Ill
Ill
Ii/
III
I//
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Carlsbad on the 9th day of Nov. 1999, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Hall, Finnila, Nygaard, Kulchin
NOES: None
ATTEST:
,’
M&-HFU.G~J~UT@IKRANZ, City Clerk
KAREN R. KUNDTZ, Assistant City Clerk
(SEAL)
-3-
EXHIBIT 3 ..-
MANZANITA APARTMENTS
ZC 98-091LCPA 98=06/SDP 98-l 9/
Y
EXHIBIT 4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4617
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
TO ALLOW A 157~UNIT APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ADJACENT TO EL
CAMINO REAL JUST SOUTH OF CASSIA ROAD IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONES 21 AND 10.
CASE NAME: MANZANITA APARTMENTS
CASE NO.: ZC 98-09/LCPA 98-06KDP 98-l 9/
SUP 98-06/HDP 98-18KDP 98-73
9 WHEREAS, Manzanita Partners, LLC, “Developer”, has filed a verified
10 application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Bons Revocable Living
11 Trust and by Manzanita Partners, LLC, “Owners”, described as
12
13
14
15
16
A portion of the NE and SE % of the SW % of Section 23, T12S,
R4W, SBM, County of San Diego.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program were prepared in conjunction with said project; and
17 I WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day of September, 1999,
5 18
19 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
20 /I
WHEREAS, at said public’hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
21 and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
22 considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
23
II relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
24
25
26
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
27 4
28 W
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration according to “ND” dated May 3, 1999, “PII” dated March 12, 1999,
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
and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto and
made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a.
b.
c* .
d.
Conditions:
it has reviewed, analyzed and considered Mitigated Negative Declaration, the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
thereon, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prior to
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and,
the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program have been prepared in accordance with requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and,
they reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and,
based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
1. This project is approved subject to compliance with the mitigation measures listed
in the Environmental Assessment Part II for the Manzanita Apartments project
dated March 12, 1999, and the developer shall implement, or cause the
implementation of, the project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
PC RESO NO. 4617 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of September, 1999, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Heineman, L’Heureux,
Nielsen, Segall, Trigas, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COURTNEY E. HEINEMAN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOtiMILtiR
Planning Director
/a
PC RESO NO. 4617 -3-
_-
City of Carlsbad
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: On the west and east sides of El Camino Real, immediately south
of the intersection of El Camino Real and Cassia Road, in the City
of Carlsbad, County of San Diego.
Project Description: A 157-unit apartment complex with associated recreational
facilities.
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, the
initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1)
revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the
proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment
would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City
that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the
Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Elaine Blackburn in the Planning
Department at (760) 438- 116 1, extension 447 1.
DATED: MAY 3,1999
CASE NO: ZC 98-09/LCPA 98-06/SDP 98-19/SUP 98-06/HDP 98-18/GDP 98-73
CASE NAME: MANZANITA APARTMENTS r
PUBLISH DATE: MAY 3,1999
Planning Director
/3
2075 La Palmas Dr. l Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 l (760) 438-l 161 - FAX (760) 438-0894
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: ZC 98-09/LCPA 98-06/SDP 98-19/SUP98-06/HDP 98-
18/GDP 98-68
DATE: March 12.1999
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Manzanita Anartments
2. APPLICANT: Manzanita Partners. LLC
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1155 Cuchara, De1 Mar. CA 92014
4. DATE EIA PART I SUBMITTED: October 2.1998
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A nrouosed Local Coastal Proeram Amendment and Zone Change
to change the land use designation for the site from Limited Control (L-C) and Exclusive
Agriculture (EA) to Residential Densitv Multiole. Oualitied Develonment Overlav Zone (RDM-
0) on a 47.6 acre nrouertv. Also nrouosed is a Site Develonment Plan for 157 two and three
bedroom anartment units, a Hillside Develoument Permit. a Coastal Develonment Permit and
Suecial Use Permit. The uroiect site is located at the southwest comer of Cassia Road and El
Camino Real.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
Please check any of the environmental factors listed below that would be potentially affected by this
project. This would be any environmental factor that has at least one impact checked “Potentially
Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” in the checklist
on the following pages.
q Land Use and Planning Ix1 Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services
cl Population and Housing Ix1 Biological Resources q Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Water El Hazards IXI Cultural Resources
Ix) Air Quality txl Noise El Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0
0
0
Ix1
0
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 Mitigated
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 Master Environmental
Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-Ol),
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
Plannerl Signature Date
Date
Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
0 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.
0 “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.
0 “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.
a “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
l Based on an “EL4-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant .
effect on the environment, but @J 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).
l 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.
l 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 IQ
l If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
ElR 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.
0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) b)
c>
4
4
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project? Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or minority community)?
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing?
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a> b) 4 4 e) f)
8) h) 9
Fault rupture?
Seismic ground shaking?
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
Seiche, tsunami, or vOlcanic hazard?
Landslides or mudflows?
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
Subsidence of the land?
Expansive soils?
Unique geologic or physical features?
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff! b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements?
Potentially Significant Impact
q 0
0
El
0
Cl
El
El
El 0 El cl El El
0 El El
0
III
cl
El
q
Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
q III
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 •I El cl
cl 0 q
0
El
0
0
q
Less Than No
Significan Impact t Impact
q lxl 0 IXI
cl lxl
cl lxl
0 lxl
0 lz
0 Ix]
0 lxl
III lxl
0 lxl
cl lxl
5 Rev. 03128196 /g
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
f)
g)
h)
i>
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?
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
Impacts to groundwater quality?
Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies?
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors?
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
. insects, animals, and birds? b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
Potentially Significant
Impact
0
0
0
El
lxl
cl
El
0
lxl
0
0
El
El
El
0
El
El
El
cl
0
cl
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significan Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation Incorporated
0 El Ix1
0 cl lxl
0 0 lxl
0 0 lzl
0 El 0
q 0
q
0 0 0 cl El lxl
q Cl IXI
cl 0 0
0 0 l-xl
Ix1 0 cl
0 0 Ix] lxl 0 cl
IXI q cl
0 cl lxl
q III] lxl
6 Rev. 03128196 /9
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b)
c>
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner?
Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value to
the region and the residents of the State?
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a)
b)
c>
4
4
A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazards? Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards?
Increase fire hazard in areas with flamrnable brush,
grass, or trees?
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
XI.
XII.
PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal ‘have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services?
UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas?
b) Communications systems?
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks?
e) Storm water drainage?
f) Solid waste disposal?
g) Local or regional water supplies?
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway?
b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect?
Potentially Significant Impact
q
q
0
q
q
q
q
q q
q q q q El
q q q
q q q q
q q
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q lxl
q q q q q
q 0 q
q q q q
q q
Less Than Signitican t Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q
q q q q q
No Impact
lxl
lxl
Ix1
lxl
El
lxl
Ix]
IXI q
Ix) El Is1 txl lxl
q lxl q El q lxl
q lxl q Ia q El q lxl
q El q lxl
7 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
c) Create light or glare?
XIV.
xv.
XVI.
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a)
b)
cl
4
Disturb paleontological resources?
Disturb archaeological resources?
Affect historical resources?
e)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
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?
XVII EARLIER ANALYSES.
Potentially Significant Impact
q
q q q q
q
q
q
q
q
q
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation incorporated q
El q q q
q
q
q
q
q
q
Less Than Signitican t Impact
q
q q q q
q
q
q
Ia
q
q
No Impact
Ix]
q lxl lxl lzl
Ix1
Ix1
lxl
q
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration, Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
W Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
8 Rev, 03128196 d/
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated,“ describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined fi-om the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
9 Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Environmental Setting/Site Descrmtion
The project site is a 47.6 gross-acres site located in the southwest and southeast quadrants of the
City. The site is bisected (North/South) by El Camino Real. just south of its intersection with
Cassia Road. (See attached map.) The majority of the site (approximately 38 acres) is on the
west side of El Camino Real (i.e., the “western portion”). This portion of the site is currently
undeveloped, but has previously contained several greenhouses on an existing nursery site. This
portion of the site also contains high power transmission lines within an easement which runs
approximately northwest to southeast through the site. Development of the site will be confined
to a small part of this western portion. The portion of the site which is on the east side of El
Camino Real (i.e., the “eastern portion”) is also undeveloped. This part of the site was not part
of the nursery use. This eastern portion will remain undeveloped. Elevations on the property
range from about 220 feet above mean sea level (amsl) at the western end of the property, to
about 330 feet amsl at the nursery facility.
The -overall site contains numerous sensitive and non-sensitive vegetation communities
(including coastal sage scrub, southern maritime chaparral, coastal live oak, and seasonal
wetlands) and a number of vernal pools. (See Biological Resources discussion below for
detailed discussion.) One pair -of California gnatcatchers has been observed on site previously,
so their continued presence is assumed.
Project Description
The Manzanita Apartments project is a proposed apartment development consisting of 157 two-
and three-bedroom units and related recreational facilities, The proposed development of the site
would be concentrated on 9.75-acres in the northern part of the site on the west side of El
Camino Real. Approximately 6.42 acres of the site would be utilized for the full improvements
of El Camino Real (on both sides) within the project boundaries. The majority of the site would
be preserved in open space (including the entire portion on the east side of El Camino Real and
approximately 28 acres of the portion on the west side of El Camino Real). Thus, a total of
approximately 3 1.47 acres would remain in permanent open space. The site has General Plan
designations of RM and RLM (Medium Density Residential and Low-Medium Density
Residential). The site is zoned E-A (Exclusive Agricultural) and L-C (Limited Control). The
applicant is proposing to rezone the property to RD-M (Residential Density-Multiple). The
western portion of the site is located within the Coastal Zone. The northern part is in the Mello
II Segment, and the southern part is in the Mello I Segment of the Local Coastal Program.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
I. Land Use and Planning
The subject property has two General Plan designations. The western portion of the site is
designated RM (Medium Density Residential), and the eastern portion is designated RLM (Low
10 Rev. #3/28/96 23
is consistent with the General Plan designations. The zoning on the western portion of the site is
L-C (Limited Control) and E-A (Exclusive Agricultural). The zoning on the eastern portion is L-
C. The L-C zoning category is a “holding” category which is applied until the appropriate
zoning for a site can be determined. The applicant is proposing to change the zoning to RD-M
(Residential Density-Multiple). The proposed RD-M zoning would bring the site into
consistency with the RM underlying General Plan designation and would be compatible with
surrounding zoning and anticipated land uses. The proposed project does not conflict with any
adopted environmental plans and would not be incompatible with existing land uses in the
vicinity. The proposed project would include 157 apartment units. The property to the north of
the project site contains an. apartment development which is similar in scale and provides
affordable housing units. The properties to the west and south are or will be developed with
residential uses at compatible densities. The proposed project would not affect agricultural
resources or operations. The site is undeveloped and is not used for agricultural activities and
does not include any agricultural lands designated as significant. The proposed project would
not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community. The project site is
undeveloped. The proposed project would be similar in design, and functionally compatible
with, the neighboring development to the north, which is an apartment development which
provides affordable housing units. Therefore, the project will not result in potentially significant
impacts to land use and planning. The western portion of the site is located within the Coastal
Zone. The northern part is in the Mello II Segment, and the southern part is in the Mello I
Segment of the Local Coastal Program. The project would be consistent with the applicable
Coastal regulations.
II. Ponulation and Housing
The project site is designated for, and therefore expected to be developed with, residential units.
These units are a part of the anticipated build-out of the City. The project would not require a
significant extension of major services or infrastructure. The project would not displace existing
housing. The project site is currently undeveloped. Therefore, the project would not result in
potentially significant impacts to population and housing.
III. Geologic Problems
A preliminary geotechnical investigation was conducted for the project site. This study
concluded that the project site is appropriate for the proposed development, subject to the
recommendations in the study. Since no fault crosses the subject site, the risk of ground rupture
was considered remote. Due to the soils types present, the probability of liquefaction was found
to be negligible. The site contains no known or suspected ancient landslides. Grading activities
for the proposed project would be subject to the City’s adopted grading regulations and the
Landscape Guidelines Manual, which would include requirements for implementation of all
necessary erosion control methods. The site does not contain any unique geologic or physical
features.
Iv. Water
Creation of impervious surfaces does result in potential changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns and/or the rate/amount of surface runoff. However, the proposed project would be
conditioned to comply with all applicable City regulations governing such changes, including
any applicable NPDES requirements. These requirements would ensure that no significant
impacts result from the project. The project would not result in exposure of any people to flood
hazards. It also would not result in changes in the amount of surface water in any water body.
Rev. 03128196
The site is inland and would not result in any changes in currents or the course or direction of
water movements (other than minor drainage pattern changes on-site). The geotechnical study
found no groundwater on the site. No potentially significant impacts to water are anticipated
from the project.
V. Air Oualitv
Air quality impacts from the proposed project would include both short-term/temporary impacts
during grading and/or construction and long-term impacts. During grading operations, some
temporary dust might be generated. This would be confined to areas proposed for grading and
would not be of sufficient quantity to have any long term or materially significant cumulative
impacts. Uniform standard dust control suppression techniques would be utilized.
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the
San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to build-out 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 build-out, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
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.
The proposed project is an apartment complex. This type of use would not be expected to expose
any sensitive receptors to pollutants. The proposed project would not alter air movement,
moisture, or temperature of cause any change in climate. The proposed project consists of 157
apartment units. The structures are designed to comply with all applicable City setback
requirements and height limitations, thus ensuring adequate air movement/circulation. The
proposed use (an apartment complex) is not expected to generate objectionable odors.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
VI. TransnortatiorKirculation
The proposed project would generate approximately 942 average daily vehicle trips and would
contribute incrementally to traffic and congestion on existing and planned roadways in the
project vicinity.
In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would
result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concluded
that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan would have
cumulative significant impacts to transportation/circulation in the region. To lessen or minimize
the impact on transportation/circulation associated with General Plan build-out, a variety of
mitigation measures were recommended in the Final Master EIR. Regional related circulation
impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at build-
out of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic.
In addition, the City has recently 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 Section 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. The project site is located approximately 1.5 miles from the PARECR
intersection.
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 would be
conditioned to pay its fair share of the intersection “short-term improvements” thereby
guaranteeing mitigation to a level of insignificance.
The street system for the proposed project will be required to comply with all applicable City
regulations and standards to ensure that no safety hazards result from the design. The project
will also be required to provide adequate emergency access as required by the City Engineering
and Fire Departments. The proposed project would require provision of approximately 366
parking spaces, all of which would be provided on site. The proposed circulation system would
address vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian needs. The street system would be designed to meet all
City requirements, including the provision of bicycle lanes as required, and the provision of
sidewalks and other pedestrian pathways as needed. The site does not include and is not near any
rail, waterborne, or air traffic facilities and would not impact any such activities.
VII. Biological Resources
The project site has been reviewed for sensitive biological resources by Dudek and Associates.
The findings of that review are contained in a “Biological Resources Report and Impact
Assessment - Manzanita Partners Property,” dated December 21, 1998. The following
discussion is a summary of some of that report.
13 Rev. 03/28/96
The biological study concludes that the proposed project would result in direct impacts to
biological resources through the removal of habitat and plant and animal populations as the site
is graded, and infrastructure, buildings, facilities, and landscaping are built/installed.
The project site is in a critical geographic position with respect to habitat connectivity in the
City. Because it straddles El Camino Real, the site could play a key role in connecting fairly
extensive tracts of habitat to the west and south of Palomar Airport Road with the conserved
Bank of America-owned lands to the east. The project site supports an intact southern maritime
chaparral habitat and other natural vegetation. The portion that fronts El Camino Real (on the
west side) has been subject to past greenhouse and current nursery uses and is in a degraded
condition. The site contains one plant species listed as endangered by USFWS: De1 Mar
Manzanita. The site also contains five other species recognized as sensitive by local or regional
agencies: summer-holly, De1 Mar Mesa sand-aster, California adolphia, and Nuttall’s scruboak,
Orcutt’s brodiaea, and ashy spike-moss. One animal species listed as threatened by USFWS was
observed: California gnatcatcher. No other sensitive species were found. The site also contains
several plant communities which are considered environmentally sensitive, including southern
maritime chaparral, coastal sage scrub, coast live oak woodland and vernal pools. (The portion
of the site west of El Camino Real one vernal pool, which has been disturbed. The remaining
seven vernal pools are on the eastern side of El Camino Real. This portion of the site is to
remain in open space.)
The biology report for the project site determined that implementation of the project would result
in the direct loss of approximately 16.17 acres of sensitive vegetation, including impacts to the
following habitat types:
a) 0.0 acre of annual grassland (considered less than significant)
b) 1.39 acres of coastal sage scrub, 1.61 acres of disturbed coastal sage scrub and 0.4 acre of
coyote brush scrub (considered significant)
c) 1.78 acres of southern maritime chaparral (considered significant)
d) 0.1 acre of one disturbed vernal pool associated seasonal wetland habitat (considered
significant)
e) 10.89 acres of disturbed habitat/developed land (considered less than significant)
The impact to (loss of) one pair of California gnatcatchers is also considered significant.
In general, the proposed plan results in the preservation of approximately 31.47 acres of open
space, of which approximately 27.14 acres are native habitats in natural open space, including
100 percent (1.31 acres) of the coast live oak woodland and annual grass land, 92 percent (19.84
acres) of southern maritime chaparral, 82 percent (totaling 0.09 acre) of vernal pools, and
approximately 63 percent (5.79 acres) of coastal scrub. The location and configuration of the
open space land is conducive to long-term viability as it is a single, large, concentrated block of
habitat linked with offsite natural habitat. There will be impacts to habitat supporting one
California gnatcatcher pair.
14 Rev. 03/28/96 d 3-
The following impacts associated with implementation of the proposed development plan would
be considered significant:
a) Loss of 1.39 acres of coastal sage scrub, 1.61 acres of disturbed coastal sage scrub and 0.4
acre of coyote brush scrub. The impacts to coyote brush scrub, coastal sage and disturbed
coastal sage scrub are significant because these plant communities are considered to be
declining.
b) Loss of 1.78 acres of southern maritime chaparral. The impacts to southern maritime
chaparral are considered significant because this is one of the most limited-distribution plant
communities in the County.
c) Loss of 0.1 acre of vernal pool and associated seasonal wetland. The impacts are considered
significant due to the vernal pools are a rare and declining habitat type.
d) Loss of 1 pair of California gnatcatchers.
The project design includes mitigation of direct impacts to southern maritime chaparral, coastal
sage scrub and seasonal wetland through enhancement and restoration of 0.09 acre of wetland
under-story in coast live oak woodland. Included in the project design is the granting of an
irrevocable offer of dedication to the City of Carlsbad or an acceptable entity for an open space
easement over the 31.47 acres of non-developed portions of the site. Since the presence of the
California gnatcatcher was observed onsite, the grading operations would be restricted during the
gnatcatcher’s breeding season, from February 1 to August 3 1 each year.
Based upon the information in the biological study, the proposed mitigation measures, as
generally described above and included in the attached mitigation monitoring plan, would reduce
the project’s impacts to biological resources to a level of insignificance.
VIII. Energv and Mineral Resources
c; The proposed project would not conflict with any adopted energy conservation plan. Carlsbad
(including the project site) has no non-renewable energy resources (e.g., natural gas, oil, coal).
Energy would be consumed at the project site in two phases. The first phase would be during
construction. The second phase would be after the project is completed and is being occupied.
Energy consumed during construction is considered to be short-term and is, therefore, not a
significant impact. Energy consumed after occupancy of the project would not have a significant
impact as building construction must comply with Title 24 of the California Administrative
Code, which sets forth energy conservation requirements for new construction. Measures related
to reducing the demand for automobile fuel would be addressed under the sections dealing with
air quality and traffic.
IX. Hazards
The proposed use (an apartment complex) is not the type of use which would be likely to result
in a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances or which would create any health
hazard. The project also would not interfere with emergency response/evacuation plans. The
circulation system of the project will be required to meet all applicable City requirements to
ensure that emergency vehicles can serve the project site and surrounding areas. The project will
be required to comply with the City’s Landscape Guidelines Manual (including provision of
required fire suppression zones) to ensure that any risk of fire is minimized. Therefore, the
15 Rev. 03128196 2f
project would not result in any potentially significant hazards.
X. Noise
The proposed project (157 apartments) would result in some small increase in the general noise
level in the community. However, this increase would be very small (i.e., not potentially
significant).
The project could result in exposure of some people (the new residents of the apartments) to
increased noise resulting from the adjacent roadway (El Camino Real). A noise study was
prepared for the project by Investigative Sciences and Engineering. The study concluded that
some portions of the project would be exposed to noise levels greater than the maximum 60-dBA
CNEL level allowed by the City. Impacted locations included 1) those portions which were not
shielded from roadway noise by the presence of the garage structures; 2) second and third floor
areas (due to their elevation above the proposed garage structures, and 3) some ground level
patios. Noise impacts to both of these areas can be reduced to less than significant by mitigation.
Mitigation would involve the use of appropriate construction materials and design measures,
which would lower the interior noise level of the affected units to a maximum 45 dBA CNEL
and noise barriers for patios to reduce the external noise level to a maximum of 60 dBA CNEL.
This mitigation requirement is included in the attached mitigation monitoring plan and would be
made a condition of approval of the project.
XI. Public Services
The proposed project would be conditioned to comply with all requirements of the applicable
Local Facilities Management Zone plan, which will ensure that there are no significant impacts
to fire/police protection or other government services or maintenance of public facilities.
Impacts to public schools will be significant, but payment of statutory fees will mitigate these
impacts to a less than significant level.
XII. Utilities and Services Svstems
The proposed project would be conditioned to comply with all requirements of the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 21 (per the City’s Growth Management regulations).
Compliance with these requirements will ensure that all necessary utilities and services can be
provided, resulting in no potentially significant impacts to utilities and service systems.
XIII. Aesthetics
The project site is located along a designated Scenic Corridor. However, the project will be
required to comply with all applicable design guidelines to ensure that there is no significant
impact to this scenic roadway and no generally negative aesthetic effect. The project would
include some typical lighting (for parking areas, etc.). However, this lighting will be required to
be directed downward so that there will be no significant light intrusion to neighboring
properties/uses.
XIV. Cultural Resources
A survey for potential paleontological resources was conducted, and a report (dated August 27,
1998) was prepared by Thomas A. Demere. This report concluded that the potential for the
discovery of fossils during future grading and construction activities was high. This would
16 Rev. 03128196 a9
constitute a potentially significant impact. However, the impact can be reduced to less than
significant by the mitigation required and contained in the attached mitigation monitoring plan.
(This mitigation requirement would also be a condition of approval for the project.)
A Cultural Resource Survey and Evaluation for Archeological Significance was prepared by
Recon (dated November 11, 1998). This survey concluded that any remains found at the project
site (on the west side of El Camino Real) are not considered significant. The portion of the site
on the east side of El Camino Real was not evaluated. However, that site is not proposed for
development. It is to be left undeveloped. Therefore, the project would not result in potentially
significant archaeological impacts.
The site contains no other historical resources. It also does not have any unique cultural/ethnic
value and does not serve as a location for religious or sacred uses.
XV. Recreational
The project site does not currently serve as a recreation site/facility. Therefore, the project would
not reduce existing recreation opportunities. The proposed project would create 157 new
apartments, thereby increasing the demand for recreational opportunities. This additional
demand would be satisfied by two means. First, the project would include a centralized
recreation facility on-site for use by the apartment residents. This on-site facility would include a
swimming pool. Second, the project would be conditioned to pay a park-in-lieu fee as required
by the Local Facilities Management Plan. Therefore, the project would not result in potentially
significant recreation impacts.
17 Rev. 03128196 3s
C. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92009,
(760) 4381161, extension 4471.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Final Master Environmental Imnact Renort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-Ol), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
Renort of Preliminarv Geotechnical Investigation - Manzanita Anartments, dated August
27, 1998, Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. of San Diego, California.
Drainage Study - Carlsbad Site Develonment Plan SDP 98-19, dated December 7, 1998,
Manitou Engineering Co.
Traffic Analvsis for Develonment of La Marinosa Anartments (157 Multi Familv
Housing Units), dated February 2, 1999, Dame11 & Associates.
Biolopical Resources Renort and Imnact Assessment - Manzanita Partners Pronertv,
dated December 2 1, 1998, Dudek & Associates.
La Marinosa Anartments Acoustical Studv, dated August 28, 1998, amended November
19, 1998, by Investigative Science and Engineering.
Paleontological Resources - Manzanita Pronertv, dated August 17, 1998, San Diego
Natural History Museum.
Cultural Resource Survev of the Manzanita Auartment Project and an Archaeological
Sirrnificance Evaluation of SDM-W-109, dated November 11, 1998, Regional
Environmental Consultants @CON).
18 Rev. 03/28/96 c3/
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
iv-&~-&d;;/4 ?~eTVFPi~ [cc
Y i ab, 99
Date I i Signature
20 Rev. 03/28/96 33
-
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIS I : Page 1 of 5
E E
$ 5
t? .a
c .B p! .-
ii E
g .- P
E .8l CT$C o- 0 ‘ij m c m-0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIS I : Page 2 of 5
” -0) 2 0. ‘ul
51-” zr*= 05 E 5 --- 0 L ‘5 ki nmn
-.
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIS I : Page 3 of 5
2:i .
pg.p g&ti;$
E 11 E 5 -2 ,p CL $“$E$ E E ’
z 2 62
i!J a e it m P ‘5 .C 5 E
; a z 2
8
3
6
5
62 .g b
3 g
. . 5 z woq-@
e GE.7 5.r al m rnOC3~ a~‘=’ E I s ‘I. c 5 ;&S
:
oaf0 5 .p .p .g 2 .ez
= II s 2 8.2
lwr”
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIS I : Page 4 of 5
-
ENVIRONMENTAL Ml1 Ibm . l7ON MONITORING CHECKLIS.. age 5 of 5
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4618
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE FROM E-A AND L-C TO
ID-M/Q ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
ADJACENT TO EL CAMINO REAL JUST SOUTH OF CASSIA
ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONES 21
AND 10.
CASE NAME: MANZANITA APARTMENTS
CASE NO: ZC 98-09
WHEREAS, Manzanita Partners, LLC, “Developer’;, has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Bons Revocable Living
Trust and Manzanita Partners, LLC, “Owners”, described as
a portion of the NE and SE % of the SW % of Section 23, T12S,
R4W, SBM, County of San Diego
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Zone Change as shown on
the draft ordinance Exhibit “AA” dated September 15, 1999, attached hereto, MANZANITA
APARTMENTS ZC 98-09 as provided by Chapter 21.52 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day of September, 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, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Zone Change; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of MANZANITA APARTMENTS ZC 98-09
based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
6 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Findinps:
1. That the proposed Zone Change from E-A and L-C to m-M/Q is consistent with the
goals and policies of the various elements of the General Plan, in that the proposed
zoning would replace the existing L-C zoning, which is intended as an interim
zoning designation until proper zoning can be determined, and the existing E-A
zoning, which is often applied on sites which are not yet ready for urban
development.
2. That the Zone Change will provide consistency between the General Plan and Zoning as
mandated by California State law and the City of Carlsbad General Plan Land Use
Element, in that the proposed RD-M/Q zoning implements the existing RLM and RM
General Plan designations on the subject property.
3. That the Zone Change is consistent with the public convenience, necessity and general
welfare, and is consistent with sound planning principals, in that the proposed RD-M/Q
zoning will allow development of the proposed multi-family project, which is
consistent with the RLM/RM General Plan designations on the property and is
compatible with surrounding existing and planned developments.
Conditions:
1. Approval of ZC 98-09 is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and LCPA 98-06,
SDP 98-19, SUP 98-06, HDP 98-18, and CDP 98-73, and the parcel map or lot line
adjustment which consolidates the two western parcels, and is subject to all
conditions contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program and Planning Commission Resolutions No.
4617, 4619, 4620, 4621, 4622, and 4623, and the City Engineer’s approval of the
parcel map or lot line adjustment.
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
PC RESO NO. 4618 -2- + 0
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 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, held on the 15th day of September, 1999, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Heineman, L’Heureux,
Nielsen, Segall, Trigas, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
” COURTNEY E. w, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. H?&ZMtiER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4618 -3-
.
- .-
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT LCPA: 98-06
draft q final c]
Project Name: Manzanita Apts. - LCPA 98-06
Legal Description(s):
APN’s: 215-020-22, 13 and 215-021-04
Related Case File No(s): ZC 98-09/SDP 98-19ISUP
98-06/HDP 98-l 8/CDP 98-73
Local Coastal Program Amendment
Property: From: To:
A. 215-020-22 E-A RDM-Q
B. 215-020-I 3 L-C RDM-Q
C. 215-021-04 L-C RDM-Q
D.
Attach additional pages if necessary
Approvals
Council Approval Date:
Ordinance No:
Effective Date:
Signature:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
.8
9
10
1.1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4619
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CARLSBAD
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM TO BRING THE LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM AND ZONING MAP INTO
CONFORMANCE ON PROPERTY LOCATED ADJACENT TO
EL CAMINO REAL JUST SOUTH OF CASSIA ROAD.
CASE NAME: MANZANITA APARTMENTS
CASE NO: LCPA 98-06
WHEREAS, California State law requires that the Local Coastal Program,
General Plan, and Zoning designations for properties in the Coastal Zone be in conformance; and
WHEREAS, Manzanita Partners, LLC, “Developer”, has filed a verified
application for an amendment to the Local Coastal Program zoning designations regarding
property owned by Bons Revocable Living Trust and Manzanita Partners, LLC, “Owners”,
described as
A portion of the NE and SE % of the SW % of Section 23, T12S,
R4W, SBM, County of San Diego.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Local Coastal
Program Amendment as shown on Exhibit “AA” dated September 15, 1999 attached to
Planning Commission Resolution No. 46 18, MANZANITA APARTMENTS - LCPA 98-06, as
provided in Public Resources Code Section 30574 and Article 15 of Subchapter 8, Chapter 2,
Division 5.5 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (the California Coastal
Commission Administrative Regulations); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day of September, 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 Local Coastal Program Amendment.
WHEREAS, State Coastal Guidelines requires a six week public review period for
any amendment to the Local Coastal Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct,
W At the end of the State mandated six week review period, starting on May 15,
1999 and ending on July 3, 1999, staff had received no public comments on the
proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment.
c> That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of MANZANITA APARTMENTS LCPA 98-
06 based on the following findings, and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1. That the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment meets the requirements of, and is
in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act and all applicable policies
of the Mello I and Mello II segments of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, not being
amended by this amendment, in that steep slopes containing sensitive habitat will be
designated as open space and will be preserved, thus complying with policies
regarding the preservation of steep slope areas.
2. That the proposed amendment to the Mello I and Mello II segments of the Carlsbad
Local Coastal Program is required to bring the designations of the City’s Zoning Map
and the Mello I and Mello II Local Coastal Program segments into conformance.
Conditions:
1. Approval of LCPA 98-06 is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and ZC
98-09, SDP 98-19, SUP 98-06, HDP 98-18, and CDP 98-73, and the parcel map or lot
line adjustment which consolidates the two western parcels, and is subject to all
conditions contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program and Planning Commission Resolutions No.
4617, 4618, 4620, 4621, 4622, and 4623, and the City Engineer’s approval of the
parcel map or lot line adjustment.
PC PESO NO. 4619 44 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2. CDP 98-73 is not valid until LCPA 98-06 is effectively certified by the California
Coastal Commission.
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 to the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 15th day of September, 1999, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Heineman, L’Heureux,
Nielsen, Segall, Trigas, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4619
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. 4620
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SDP 98-19 TO
ALLOW A 157~UNIT APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ADJACENT TO EL
CAMINO REAL JUST SOUTH OF CASSIA ROAD IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONES 21 AND 10.
CASE NAME: MANZANITA APARTMENTS
CASE NO.: SDP 98-19
WHEREAS, Manzanita Partners, LLC, “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with. the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Bons Revocable Living
Trust and Manzanita Partners, LLC, “Owners”, described as
a portion of the NE and SE % of the SW % of Section 23, T12S,
R4W, SBM, County of San Diego
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Site Development
Plan as shown on Exhibit(s) “A” - “X” dated September 15, 1999, on file in the Planning
Department, MANZANITA APARTMENTS, SDP 98-19 as provided by Chapter
21.06Section 21.53.120 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 15th day of September, 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, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Site Development Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of MANZANITA APART-
Yd
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
MENTS, SDP 98-19 based on the following findings and subject to the
following conditions:
Findings:
1. 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 facts set
forth in the staff report dated September 15, 1999 including, but not limited to the
following:
A. Land Use - The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan since the
proposed density of 5.1 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 below the 6 du/ac growth control point.
B. Circulation - The circulation system is designed to provide adequate access to
the proposed units, and complies with all applicable City design standards.
C. Housing - The project is consistent with the Housing Element of the General
Plan and the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance as the Developer has been
conditioned to enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement ‘and will be
constructing 24 rental units on-site as affordable to lower-income households.
2. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 21 and all City public facility policies and
ordinances. The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or
provide funding to ensure that all facilities and improvements regarding: sewer collection
and treatment; water; drainage; circulation; fire; schools; parks and other recreational
facilities; libraries; government administrative facilities; and open space, related to the
project will be installed to serve new development prior to or concurrent with need.
Specifically,
A. The project has been conditioned to provide proof from the Carlsbad Unified
School District that the project has satisfied its obligation for school facilities.
B. Park-in-lieu fees are required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 20.44, and
will be collected prior to issuance of building permit.
C. The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and will be
collected prior to the issuance of building permit.
D. The Local Facilities Management fee for Zone 21 is required by Carlsbad
Municipal Code Section 21.90.050 and will be collected prior to issuance of
building permit.
3. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the
McClellan-Palomar Airport, dated April 1994, in that as conditioned, the applicant
shall record a notice concerning aircraft noise. The project is compatible with the
projected noise levels of the CLUP; and, based on the noise/land use compatibility matrix
PC RESO NO. 4620 -2- #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
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
of the CLUP, the proposed land use is compatible with the airport, in that the project site
is outside of the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour.
That the project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual (Carlsbad Municipal
Code Section 14.28.020 and Landscape Manual Section I B).
That the requested use is properly related to the site, surroundings and environmental
settings, is consistent with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, will
not be detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the area in which
the proposed use is to be located, and will not adversely impact the site, surroundings or
traffic circulation, in that the proposed project has been designed to preserve sensitive
habitat, and has been designed to be compatible with the scale and density of
surrounding existing and/or anticipated developments.
That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in
that the project has been designed to provide all necessary setbacks and separations
between structures and to satisfy all requirements for parking, landscaping, and
other amenities.
That all yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to adjust
the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be
provided and maintained, in that the project incorporates all required front, side, and
rear setbacks, and incorporates landscaping along El Camino Real and in other
locations consistent with the Landscape Guidelines Manual, and no walls or fences
are necessary to make the use compatible with surrounding existing or future uses.
That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic
generated by the proposed use, in that all necessary circulation system improvements
will be provided to City standards, access to the site will be from Cassia road, an
emergency access roadway will be provided, and the proposed project design
includes adequate parking for the use.
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.
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.
Conditions:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to approval of final
map or issuance of the first building permit, whichever comes first.
1. If any of the following 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
PC RESO NO. 4620 -3- 3/8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 J
6. 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
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 Site Development Plan.
Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Site Development Plan document(s) as necessary to make them
internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development
shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development
different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project
are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section
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.
The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, all mitigation measures
contained in the Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
The Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and
hold harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and
representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims
and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the City arising, directly
or indirectly, from (a) City’s approval and issuance of this Zone Change, Local Coastal
Program Amendment, Site Development Plan, Special Use Permit, Hillside
Development Permit, and Coastal Development Permit, (b) City’s approval or
issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in
connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator’s installation
and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all
liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other
energy waves or emissions.
The Developer shall submit to the Planning Director a reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar
copy of the Site Plan reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making
body.
The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan check, a
reduced legible version of all approving resolution(s) in a 24” x 36” blueline drawing
format (including any applicable Coastal Commission approvals).
PC RESO NO. 4620 -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
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
-
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the
Director from the School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to provide
school facilities.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
as part of the Zone 21 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to
that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
Approval of SDP 98-19 is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and ZC 98-09,
LCPA 98-06, SUP 98-06, HDP 98-18, and CDP 98-73, and the parcel map or lot line
adjustment which consolidates the two western parcels, and is subject to all
conditions contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program and Planning Commission Resolutions No.
4617, 4618, 4619, 4621, 4622, and 4623, and the City Engineer’s approval of the
parcel map or lot line adjustment.
Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing
water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that
adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the
time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and
facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy.
If a grading permit is required, all grading activities shall be planned in units that can
be completed by October 1st. Grading activities shall be limited to the “dry season”,
April 1st to October 1st of each year. Grading activities may be extended to
November 15th upon written approval of the City Engineer and only if all erosion
control measures are in place by October 1st.”
Prior to the approval of the final map for any phase of this project, or where a map is not
being processed, prior to the issuance of building permits for any lots or units, the
Developer shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City to provide and
deed restrict 24 dwelling units (such units to be dispersed throughout the development
such that no single building will contain more than 6 affordable units) as affordable
to lower-income households for the useful life of the dwelling units, in accordance with
the requirements and process set forth in Chapter 2 1.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
The draft Affordable Housing Agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Director no
later than 60 days prior to the request to final the parcel map or lot line adjustment. The
recorded Affordable Housing Agreement shall be binding on all future owners and
successors in interest.
The required inclusionary housing units to be constructed for this project shall be
dispersed throughout the development such that no single building will contain
more than 5 rent-restricted, lower-income inclusionary units.
The Developer shall construct the required inclusionary units concurrent with the
project’s market rate units, unless both the final decision making authority of the City and
the Developer agree within an Affordable Housing Agreement to an alternate schedule
for development.
PC RESO NO. 4620 -5- 2-0
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.
The Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of a Final Landscape
and Irrigation Plan showing conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan
and the City’s Landscape Manual. The Developer shall construct and install all
landscaping as shown on the approved Final Plans, and maintain all landscaping in a
healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris.
The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to the
landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Department and accompanied by the
project’s building, improvement, and grading plans.
The Developer shall provide bus stops to service this development at locations and with
reasonable facilities to the satisfaction of the North County Transit District and the
Planning Director. Said facilities, if required, shall be free from advertising and shall
include at a minimum include a bench and a pole for the bus stop sign. The facilities
shall be designed to enhance or be consistent with basic architectural theme of the
project.
Prior to approval of the grading permit, the Developer shall: 1) consult with the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding the impacts of the Project; and, 2)
obtain any permits required by the USWFS.
Prior to the issuance of the first 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 Site Development Plan, Special Use
Permit, Hillside Development Permit, and Coastal Development Permit by
Resolution(s) No. 4620, 4621, 4622, and 4623 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.
Prior to the recordation of the first final parcel 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 (see Noise Form
#l on file in the Planning Department).
Prior to the recordation of the first final parcel 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
(see Noise Form #2 on file in the Planning Department).
The Developer shall post aircraft noise notification signs in all sales and/or rental offices
associated with the new development. The number and locations of said signs shall be
approved by the Planning Director (see Noise Form #3 on file in the Planning
Department).
PC RESO NO. 4620 -6- 5-1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
The Developer shall construct trash receptacle and recycling areas enclosed by a six-foot
high masonry wall with gates pursuant to City Engineering Standards and Carlsbad
Municipal Code Chapter 21.105. Location of said receptacles shall be approved by the
Planning Director. Enclosure shall be of similar colors and/or materials to the project to
the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
No outdoor storage of materials shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief.
When so required, the Developer shall submit and obtain approval of the Fire Chief and
the Planning Director of an Outdoor Storage Plan, and thereafter comply with the
approved plan.
The Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of an exterior lighting
plan including parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and
avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property.
Compact parking spaces shall be located in large groups, and in locations clearly marked
to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
Developer shall construct, install and stripe not less than 366 parking spaces (49 in
enclosed garages, 101 in carports and 174 open uncovered), as shown on Exhibits B
and C.
All visitor parking spaces shall be striped a different color than the assigned resident
parking spaces and shall be clearly marked as may be approved by the Planning Director.
Prior to approval of the grading permit, final map, or building permit, whichever
comes first, the Developer shall submit to the Planning Director a letter from
SDG&E granting permission for the use of a portion of the high power transmission
line easement for provision of required parking for the project for a minimum of a
50-year time period.
The Developer shall pay his fair share for the “short-term improvements” to the El
Camino Real/ Palomar Airport Road intersection prior to the issuance of a grading
permit. 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 21 LFMP fee; the creation of a fee or assessment district; or
incorporation into a Mello-Roos taxing district.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or a building permit, which ever occurs
first, the Developer shall execute a document or documents to the satisfaction of the
Planning Director and the City Attorney which accomplish at a minimum the
following:
A. continued ownership by the Developer or it’s successors in interest in open space
until some future date at which time ownership will be transferred to the City or
its designee for perpetual maintenance;
B. while in continued private ownership, active maintenance to protect and
preserve the quality of the habitat (including but not limited to reasonable
prevention of trespass); and,
PC RESO NO. 4620 -7- 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
C. transfer of ownership and maintenance responsibility at some future date to the
City or its designee simultaneously with transfer of funding or other acceptable
financial mechanism to provide for management and conservation in perpetuity.
(The cost of management is currently estimated to be approximately $75.00 per
acre per year.)
34. The Developer shall revise the project plans to provide adequate screening of the
proposed development from El Camino Real to the satisfaction of the Planning
Director.
35. Management shall impose, enact, and enforce provisions preventing unsightly
conditions on all balconies facing El Camino Real to the satisfaction of the Planning
Director.
Enpineering:
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
Prior to issuance of any building permit, the developer shall comply with the
requirements of the City’s anti-graffiti program for wall treatments if and when such a
program is formerly established by the City.
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.
A. “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 developer shall pay all current fees and deposits required.
The owner of the subject property shall execute an agreement holding the City harmless
regarding drainage across the adjacent property.
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
District No. 1 on a form provided by the City.
This project is located within the boundary of the Aviara Parkway - Poinsettia Lane
Bridge and Thoroughfare Fee District. The developer is required to pay a fair share
contribution towards the improvements identified in the district in accordance with the
approved fee program.
PC RESO NO. 4620 -8- 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
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
-
Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the site
plan, 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.
Developer shall submit proof to the City Engineer that a Notice of Intention has been
submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board.
No grading for private improvements shall occur outside the limits of the project 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 site plan or modify the plans so grading will not occur outside the
project site in a manner which substantially conforms to the approved site plan as
determined by the City Engineer and Planning Director.
Additional drainage easements may be required. Drainage structures shall be provided or
installed prior to or concurrent with any grading or buildingpermit as may be required by
the City Engineer.
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 site plan. The offer shall be
made prior to the issuance of any building permit 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.
El Camino Real shall be dedicated by the owner along the project frontage based on a
center line to right-of-way width of 63 feet and in conformance with City of Carlsbad
Standards.
Cassia Road shall be dedicated by the owner along the project frontage based on a center
line to right-of-way width of 30 feet and in conformance with City of Carlsbad
Standards.
Additional right-of-way may be required to accommodate the offsite improvements
of dual left turn lanes from northbound El Camino Real to westbound Camino Vida
Roble in conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards as required by the City
Engineer.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall underground all existing
overhead utilities along the project boundary.
Direct access rights for the project frontage with El Camino Real shall be waived by
separate deed or document prior to building permit issuance.
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.
PC RESO NO. 4620 -9- 5t’
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
c, 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of
the following:
A. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with
established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and
hazardous waste products.
B. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil,
antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such
fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain
or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides,
herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet
Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective
containers.
C. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants
when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements.
55. 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 site plan and the following improvements:
ON-SITE
W
Cl
W
E)
Full width improvements to both sides of El Camino Real along the frontage
including transitions as approved by the City Engineer. Improvements to
include but not be limited to grading, landscape, irrigation and drainage,
curb, gutter & sidewalk, Fully improved median, and traffic signals or traffic
signal relocation.
% street improvements to Cassia Rd. from El Camino Real to the western
boundary of this project including but not limited to grading, landscape,
irrigation and drainage, curb, gutter & sidewalk and transition to existing
improvements.
Extension of a public sewer to serve adjacent development is required. A
utility plan to show alternate routes and service connections can be
submitted to resolve future connection and service issues.
Downstream drainage improvements or maintenance of existing drainage
desiltation/detention basins may be required. Increased runoff from this
project or diversion of runoff shall be designed to not impact existing
facilities beyond the acceptable capacity.
Downstream erosion protection will be required as part of the final design
for this project. Additional Drainage improvements to include but not be
limited to D-41 outlet structures and energy dissipaters that require little or
no maintenance as required by the City Engineer.
PC RESO NO. 4620 -lO- 33
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.
OFF-SITE
F) Dual left turn improvements on El Camino Real (northbound) at Camino
Vida Roble. Improvements may include but not be limited to grading,
drainage, curb and/or AC berms, traffic signing and striping, and traffic
signal reconstruction. Right-of-way may also be required to accommodate
the proposed improvements. A reimbursement agreement is available for
these improvements.
G) Improvements to west side of El Camino Real shall extend southerly and
connect to Poinsettia Lane improvements as shown on CT 97-15 Dwg # 277-
6. Reimbursement for offsite construction and improvements may be
available.
Note: If reimbursement agreements are applicable for the above mentioned
improvements to El Camino Real and to Camino Vida Roble, the developer shall
obtain approval from the City for such agreements prior to approval of the
improvement plans for this project.
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.
Prior to occupancy of any buildings, the developer shall install wheelchair ramps at the
public street comers abutting the project site in conformance with City of Carlsbad
Standards.
The structural section for the access aisles must be designed with a traffic index of 5.0 in
accordance with City Standards due to truck access through the parking area and/or aisles
with an ADT greater than 500. The structural pavement design of the aisle ways shall be
submitted together with required R-value soil test information and approved by the City
as part of the building site plan review.
Drainage outfall end treatments for any drainage outlets where a direct access road for
maintenance purposes is not provided, shall be designed and incorporated into the
grading/improvement plans for the project. These end treatments shall be designed so as
to prevent vegetation growth from obstructing the pipe outfall. Designs could consist of a
modified outlet headwall consisting of an extended concrete spillway section with
longitudinal curbing and/or radially designed rip-rap, or other means deemed appropriate,
as a method of preventing vegetation growth directly in front of the pipe outlet, to the
satisfaction of the Community Services Director and the City Engineer.
Water:
59. 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.
60. 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
PC RESO NO. 4620 -ll- 56
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
61.
62.
63.
64.
to occur, and that such water and sewer capacity will continue to be available until time
of occupancy.
Water, Sewer and Irrigation laterals shall be located in accordance with City and District
Standards to the satisfaction of the Deputy City Engineer - Utilities.
Laterals for Fire Detector Check Valve Assemblies shall be located within easements in
accordance with all City and District Standards to the satisfaction of the Deputy City
Engineer - Utilities. The locations to be approved may require additional easement
dedication to the District.
All water, sewer and recycled water improvements shall be designed and constructed
substantially as shown on the Site Development Plan in accordance with all City and
District Standards to the satisfaction of the Deputy City Engineer - Utilities.
The Developer will be responsible for extending the existing 8’ PVC sewer pipeline
across El Camino Real substantially as shown on the Site Development Plan in
accordance with all City and District Standards to the satisfaction of the Deputy City
Engineer - Utilities.
Code Reminders:
This project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited
to the following code requirements:
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
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 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.
The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this
project within 24 months from the date of project approval.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall underground all existing
overhead utilities along and within the project boundary.
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
-4 , PC RESO NO. 4620 -12- 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
72.
73.
74.
substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the
Directors of Community Development and Planning.
Prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit the Developer shall provide all required
passive and active recreational areas per the approved plans, including landscaping and
recreational facilities.
Addresses, approved by the Building Official, 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, as required by Carlsbad
Municipal Code Section 18.04.320.
Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance
with the City’s Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval of the Planning
Director prior to installation of such signs.
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. 4620 -13- d-8
1
2
3
4
5
6
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 15th day of September, 1999, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Heineman, L’Heureux,
Nielsen, Segall, Trigas, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. H&!!kItiER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4620 -14-
i
EXHIBIT 5 The City of CARLSBAD Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION a
Item No. 4 0 .
Application complete date: November 12,1998
P.C. AGENDA OF: September 15,1999 Project Planner: Elaine Blackburn
Project Engineer: Clyde Wickham
SUBJECT: ZC 9&09/LCPA 98-06/SDP 98-19/SUP 98-OWHDP 98-18KDP 98-73 -
MANZANITA APARTMENTS - Request for approval of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Zone Change, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Site
Development Plan, Special Use Permit, Hillside Development Permit, and Coastal
Development Permit to develop a 157-u& apartment development on a site
located adjacent to El Camino Real just south of Cassia Road and within Local
Facilities Management Zones 21 and 10.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the’ Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4617,. 4618
4619, and 4620 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, ZC 98-09, LCPA 98-06, and SDP 98-19, and
ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4621,4622, and 4623 APPROVING SUP 98-
06, HDP 98-18, and CDP 98-73 based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained
therein.
. II. INTRODUCTION
The proposed project is for the development of a 157~unit apartment development and related
recreational amenities and preservation of open space on undeveloped parcels along El Camino
Real just south of its intersection with Cassia Road. The proposed apartment units would consist
of two - and three-bedroom units. The project would result in the permanent preservation of
approximately 38 acres of sensitive habitat and slope areas in an open space easement. The
inclusionary housing requirements of the project would be satisfied by construction of all
required affordable units on-site. The project requires a zone change and Local Coastal Program
Amendment to change the zoning and the coastal program zoning designations from E-A and L-
C to RD-M/Q. The development would require approval of a Site Development Plan, Special
Use Permit, Hillside Development Permit, and Coastal Development Permit. A Tentative Parcel
Map or Lot Line Adjustment (to consolidate the two parcels on the west side of El Camino Real)
would be processed following the necessary Planning Commission and City Council actions on
the other applications. The project would take 1 unit from the Southwest Quadrant Excess
Dwelling Unit Bank and would return 21 dwelling units to the Southeast Quadrant Excess
Dwelling Unit Bank. There are no outstanding land use issues .associated with the project. On
the basis of these facts staff is recommending approval of the project. Details of the project’s
compliance with applicable regulations is discussed in detail in the individual sections of this
report.
-
MANZANITA APARTMENTS - ZC 98-09/LCPA 98-06/SDP 98-19/SUP 98-06/HDP 98-
19KDP 98-73
September 15,1999
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The project area is a 47.6-acre site bisected by El Camino Real just south of its intersection with
Cassia Road. (See Exhibit “XX”, attached, for a graphic illustration of the project site.) The
majority of the site (approximately 38 acres) is on the west side of El Camino (i.e., the “western”
portion). The western portion of the site is undeveloped except for some small structures
associated with the Lone Pine Nursery use. The western portion also contains high power
transmission lines within an easement which runs northwest to southeast through the site. The
western portion of the site contains numerous areas of steep slopes. Elevations on the site range
from about 220 feet above mean sea level (M.S.L.) at the western end of the property to about
330 feet above M.S.L. near the nursery site. The southwestern part of this portion contains
relatively large stands of environmentally sensitive habitat. Much of the site, however, has been
previously disturbed by human activities. The eastern portion of the site (on the east side of El
Camino Real) is relatively level and contains seven identified vernal pools. This area has
experienced less disturbance than the western portion.
The proposed project consists of 157 two- and three-bedroom apartment units and related
recreational facilities. The proposed development would be clustered on 9.75 acres in the
northern part of the western portion of the site (i.e., at the southwest comer of El Camino Real
and Cassia Road). The majority of the site would be preserved in open space (including the
entire 7.38~gross acres on the east side of El Camino Real and approximately 28 acres of the
portion on the west side of El Camino Real). Thus, a total of approximately 38 acres would
remain in permanent open space. The project would include construction of full-width
improvements (i.e., curb, gutter, and sidewalks on both sides of the street) to El Camino Real to
City standards.
Currently access to the project site is from existing dirt roads located along Cassia Road and El
Camino Real. Cassia Road improvements have been constructed by the developers of the
Poinsettia Hill project. The Manzanita Apartment development is designed to obtain access from
Cassia Road .at a point aligned with the eastern access location into the Villa Loma Apartments.
For emergency access only, a 20-foot wide secondary access roadway from El Camino Real
would be located at the south end of the project. This emergency access route would be gated.
The proposed 157 apartments would be constructed in a series of 17 buildings. Each building
would contain either 8 or 10 apartment units. Fifteen of the buildings would incorporate both
two- and three-story elements. Two of the buildings would incorporate only two-story elements.
The proposed building placement is such that the two- and three-story elements would provide as
much height variation as possible when viewed from surrounding areas. The buildings would be
in a craftsman architectural style, incorporating concrete tile roofs, exposed rafter tails, simulated
stone veneer, and stucco.
The proposed apartment units would range in size from 1,054 square feet to 1,323 square feet in
three floor plans. A fourth floor plan is included as the resident manager’s unit. The floor plan areas and mix are described in more detail in Table 1 below.
MANZANITA APARTMENTS - ZC 98-09/LCPA 98-06/SDP 98-19/SUP 98-06/HDP 98-
19KDP 98-73
September 15,1999
Page 3
Table 1: FLOOR PLAN/AREA SUMMARY
FLOOR PLAN # OF BEDROOMS SQUARE FEET # OF UNITS
A 2 1,054 56
B 3 1,246 84
C 3 1,323 16
. Manager’s Unit 2 1,248 1
The proposed project would also include recreational facilities. These consist of a central
recreation building, swimming pool, spa, and tot lot. The recreation facilities would be placed at
the northern end of the project near the entry area where they would be convenient to the
majority of the residents. The recreation building contains a total of 2,609 square feet in a 26’4”
high, two-story structure. Adjacent to that would be the pool, the spa, and the tot lot.
Parking for the project’s residents and guests would be provided in a combination of garages,
carports, and uncovered spaces. The project is required to provide a total of 356 parking spaces
(3 14 resident and 42 guest spaces) and is designed to provide 366 spaces.
According to the City’s proposed Citywide Trail System, Link No. 32 of the system would cross
the project site near the southern boundary of the property. Link No. 32 was identified as an
unimproved trail which would utilize existing trails in the area and would follow the alignment
of Poinsettia Lane. However, due to concerns for the sensitive environmental habitat in this
location, the alignment of Poinsettia Lane was changed. Poinsettia Lane, and the trail within the
road right-of-way, will now be located on the Lohf property to the south, resulting in the least
amount of encroachment into sensitive habitat. This realignment would be consistent with the
City’s Open‘Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan.
The project site is subject to noise impacts from flight activities at McClellan-Palomar Airport.
In addition, some units within the proposed development would be subject to noise impacts from
traffic on El Camino Real. Noise attenuation would be addressed by a combination of means.
The garages/carports have been placed between the ‘rksidential units and the roadway to help
reduce exterior noise impacts. However, the incorporation of appropriate construction methods
and materials would also be necessary to adequately reduce noise impacts in some areas of the
project (e.g., ground-level patios of some buildings).
The project site is within “Core Area 6” of the City’s Draft Habitat Management Plan @MP).
The HMP designates the parcel on the east side of El Camino Real as “Proposed Hardline
Conservation Area”. That parcel will include no development and will be preserved in an open
space easement. The HMP designates the parcels on the west side of El Camino Real as a
combination of “Development Area” and “Proposed Hardline Conservation Area”. The project
has been designed to be consistent with those area designations. The applicant is proposing to
place an open space easement on all areas of the site which will remain undeveloped. It is expected that, when the Draft HMP receives final approval, the City will undertake a General
Plan amendment and zoning change to redesignate and rezone the easement areas to open space
General Plan and zoning categories.
MANZANITA APARTMENTS - ZC 98-09/LCPA 98-06/SDP 98-19/SUP 98-06/HDP 98-
19KDP 98-73
September 15,1999
The project site has General Plan designations of RLM (Residential Low to Medium Density)
and RM (Residential Medium Density). The site is zoned E-A (Exclusive Agricultural) and L-C
(Limited Control). The applicant is proposing to rezone the entire site to RD-M (Residential
Density-Multiple). The property to the north is designated RM and is zoned RD-M/Q and is
developed with an apartment complex (the Vi!la Loma development) which includes
inclusionary housing units. The properties to the west are designated RLM and RM and are
zoned L-C and RD-M/Q. These properties are undeveloped. The property to the south of the
project site is designated RLM and RM and is zoned R-1-7,500/Q. That property will be
developed with 73 single-family residences and related open space lots. The property to the east
of the project site is designated RLM and OS (Open Space) and is zoned P-C. This area is
contained within the pending Villages of La Costa Master Plan area and will be preserved in
open space (per the City’s pending Habitat Management Plan).
IV. ANALYSIS
The proposed project involves the following legislative actions:
A. Zone Change from L-C and E-A to RD-M/Q; and,
B. Local Coastal Program Amendment, to implement the zone change in the Local Coastal
Program.
The project is subject to the following regulations and requirements:
C. Carlsbad General Plan and City Council Policy No. 43 (Guidelines for Allocation of
Excess Dwelling Units);
D. Residential Density-Multiple @D-M) Zone and Parking regulations (Chapters 21.24 and
2 1.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code);
E. Scenic Preservation (S-P) Overlay Zone regulations (Chapter 21.40 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code) and the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards;
F. Hillside Development (HDP) regulations (Chapter 21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code);
G. Local Coastal Program regulations (Coastal Development Permit Procedures, Coastal
Resource Protection Overlay Zone, and Coastal Resource Overlay Zone - Mello I LCP
Segment) (Chapters 21.201,21,203, and 21.205 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code);
H. Inclusionary Housing regulations (Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code); and,
I. Growth Management regulations (Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code).
The recommendation for approval for this project was developed by analyzing the project for
consistency with the applicable City regulations and policies. The project’s compliance with
each of the above regulations is discussed in detail in the sections below. k3
MANZANITA APARTMhNTS - ZC 98-09/LCPA 98-06/SDP 98-19&U’ 98-06/HDP 98-
19KDP 98-73
September 15,1999
Page 5
Letislative Actions
A Zone Change
The, applicant is proposing to change the zoning on the project site from L-C (Limited .Control)
and E-A (Exclusive Agricultural) to RD-M/Q (Residential Density-Multiple with a Qualified
Development Overlay). The northernmost parcel within the project site (along Cassia Road) is
currently zoned E-A. The remainder of the project site is zoned L-C.
The purpose of the L-C Zone is to provide an interim zone for areas where planning for future
land uses has not been completed or plans for development have not been formalized. One of the
purposes of the E-A Zone is to provide for those uses, such as agriculture, which are customarily
conducted in areas which are not yet ready for urban development. The Q Overlay is placed on
properties with unusual circumstances (e.g., sites which contain significant areas of steep slopes
and/or sensitive habitat and special treatment areas). Placement of the Q Overlay also ensures
that a Site Development Plan is processed, thus allowing architectural and site plan review of the
project. For this project, the Q Overlay is required for all multi-family development projects.
The RD-M Zone is one of the zones which is intended to implement the RLM and RM General
Plan designations on the project site. Other residential zones (e.g., R-l) can also implement the
RLM and RM designations. However, staff believes the RD-M is a most appropriate choice for
the project site, particularly since the proposed development is concentrated in the RM
designated area, leaving the RLM portion in open space.
The area surrounding the project site is now undergoing development. In recent time, a number
of the properties in this area have been rezoned to allow residential development. The property
directly to the north of the project site is zoned RD-M and is developed with the Villa Loma
Apartment project. Further west and north is the Poinsettia Hills development, which contains
attached single-family housing. The Lohf property ,to the south was recently rezoned to R-l-Q
and will contain 73 single-family homes. The property to the west is zoned L-C. This property
will be rezoned when development is proposed. Staff believes the requested RD-M/Q zoning
would be appropriate to implement the RLM and RM General Plan designations on the site and
would be compatible with the zoning on surrounding properties.
B. Local Coastal Program Amendment
The Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) is required in order to implement the proposed
zone change from E-A and L-C to RIB-M/Q in the Local Coastal Program. The LCPA will result
in the zoning and coastal land use designations for the site being consistent.
No comments were received during the required six-week LCPA public notice period.
Regulatorv Comuliance
C. Carlsbad General Plan and City Council Policy No. 43 (Guidelines For Allocation of
Excess Dwelling Units) 8 hM
MANZANITA APARTMENTS - ZC 98-09/LCPA 98-06/SDP 98-19/SUP 98-06/HDP 98-
19/GDP 98-73
September 15, 1999
Page 6
The project site has General Plan designations of RLM and RM. The project is proposed at a
density of 5.7 dwelling units per acre. The portion of the site on the east side of El Camino Real
is designated RLM and is in the Southeast Quadrant of the City. At a density of 3.2 du/ac (the
growth control point for the RLM designation), this portion of the site would yield
approximately 21 dwelling units. However, the developer is proposing to preserve this area in an
open space easement. The 21 dwelling units allowed on this portion of the site cannot be
transferred to the remainder of the project site because the remainder of the site is in the
Southwest Quadrant of the City. The Growth Management Plan does not allow transfers of units
across quadrant boundaries. Therefore, the 21 unused dwelling units would go into the Excess
Dwelling Unit Bank for the Southeast Quadrant.
The portion of the site on the west side of El Camino Real has a split RLMRM designation and
is located in the Southwest Quadrant of the City. This portion of the site would yield 156
dwelling units. The developer is proposing to build a total of 157 dwelling units. This would
require approval to take 1 dwelling unit from the Southwest Quadrant Excess Dwelling Unit
Bank.
City Council Policy No. 43 establishes the priorities of projects eligible for consideration for
granting of excess dwelling units. The proposed project is of a type which falls into the “first
priority” for eligible projects, as it clusters the development in one area of the site. This
locational adjustment was made in order to preserve larger areas of sensitive habitat. (See
attached copy of City Council Policy No. 43.) The western portion of the project site is
approximately 38 acres in size. However, much of that area contains sensitive resources. (See
Environmental Impact Assessment Part II for a detailed discussion of the habitat on the site.)
The developer has designed a clustered development which will minimize impacts to the
sensitive habitat on that portion of the site. In addition, the proposed project would result in 21
units going back into the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank for the Southeast Quadrant, since the
portion of the project site on the east side of El Camino Real will not be developed at all. Staff
believes the project design is in keeping with the intent-of Policy No. 43 and that the granting.of
1 excess dwelling unit from the Southwest Quadrant Excess Dwelling Unit Bank is justified.
The project is also consistent with other’ aspects of the General Plan. This compliance is
demonstrated in Table 2 below.
Table 2 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
USE, GOAL, PROPOSED USES
OBJECTIVE, OR &
ELEMENT PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS COMPLIANCE
Land Use - Site is designated . Multi-family Yes RLMRM Density for RLMRM development at 5.7 Designations development at 3.2 du/ac
du/ac (RLM) or 6
du/ac (RM)
-.
MANZANITA APARTMWTS - ZC 98-09/LCPA 98-06/SDP 98-19/SUP 98-06/HDP 98-
19fCDP 98-73
September 15,1999
Page 7
. .
D.
Land Use - Preserve natural Project preserves Yes
Overall Land Use features (especially many natural
Pattern - Policy hillsides). features, including
c.2 hillsides and
sensitive habitat.
LandUse- Encourage Development is Yes
Overall Land Use clustering of clustered to protect
Pattern - Policy development when sensitive open space
c.4 compatible. and is compatible
with existing and
future development.
Land Use - Ensure that pubIic All required public Yes
Growth facilities are facilities to be
Management - provided provided with
Policy C.2 concurrent with development,
development. including full-width
improvements to El
Camino Real.
Land Use - Offer a wide range Project provides Yes
Residential - of housing types, multi-family
Objective B.3 styles, and price residential (rental)
levels. development.
Circulation - Minimize the Project takes access Yes
Policy C.4 number of access off of Cassia Road.
points to major and
prime arterials.
Housing - Policy Provide housing Project provides 24 Yes
IV opportunities for affordable
low and moderate apartment units.
income
households.
Residential Density-Multiple (RD-M) Zone and Parking
The proposed project has been designed to comply with or exceed all applicable requirements of
the proposed RD-M Zone and the City’s Parking regulations. Table 3, below, identifies all of the
applicable development standards and demonstrates how the project complies with or exceeds
that standard.
Parking for the project’s residents and guests would be provided in a combination of garages,
carports, and uncovered spaces. The project is required to provide 3 14 resident and 42 guest ”
parking spaces. The developer is proposing to provide a total of 366 spaces, consisting of 49
garage spaces, 101’ covered spaces, and 174 uncovered spaces (all for residents) and 42 visitor spaces. Some of the proposed uncovered parking would be located within the existing SDG&E
high power transmission line easement. The approval of this project is conditioned upon the bd
.
MANZANITA APARTMENTS - ZC ‘98-09/LCPA 98-06/SDP 98-l 9/SUP 98-06/HDP 98-
19KDP 98-73
September 15,1999
applicants’ getting a letter of approval for this arrangement for a 50-year time period from
SDG&E. (SDG&E will not issue such letters until after any necessary City approvals have been
granted.)
Table 3 - RD-M ZONE & PARKING 1
(
Min. Lot Width I 1 60’
Max. Building Height .35’
1 Min. Front Yard
(Cassia Road) (exceptions to 15’ and 10’)
Min. Interior Side Yard 5’
Min. Street Side Yard 10’
Min. Rear yard
Accessory Structures:
Min. Dist. B/t Bldus.
10’
10’
Max. Building Height 14’/1-story w/pitch
Min. Rear yard 5’
Resident Parking 3 14 Total
(Apartments 2-bedrooms (2 spaces/unit)
& more)
Guest Parking
(Apartments)
42 Total
(.5 space/unit first 10 units
& .25 space/unit
subsequent units)
OMPLIANCE
PROVIDED.
Multi-family residential.
47.6 ac
6.2% (of gross site)
30% (of graded area)
940’
34’3% ” max.
(3-story apartments)
26’4” (Recreation Building)
80’ min. (Apartments)
310’ min.
100’ min.
580’
10’ - 15’
13’4”/1 -story w/pitch
(Garages)
13’6”/1-story w/pitch
(Carports)
60’ min. (Carports)
20’ min. (Open parking)
240’ min. (Garages)
70’ min. (Garages/Carports)
30’ min. (Open Parking)
600’ (Garages)
366 Total
(49 in garage spaces;
101 in carports;
174 uncovered)
42 Total
MANZANITA APARTMWTS - ZC 98-09/LCPA 98-06/SDP 98-19NJP 98-06/HDP 98-
19/GDP 98-73
September 15,1999
Page 9
E. Scenic Preservation (S-P) Overlay Zone Special Use Permit (SUP) and El Camino
Real Corridor Development Standards
Projects located along the El Camino Real Scenic Corridor require approval of a Special Use
Permit (SUP) by the City Planning Commission. The intent of these ,regulations is to.. supplement
. the underlying regulations by providing additional development standards in designated areas to
preserve or enhance outstanding views or resources, to enhance the appearance of the environment, and to provide development guidelines for scenic corridors. Exceptions to strict
compliance with these development standards is allowed when the necessary findings can be
made.
The proposed project site is located immediately adjacent to El Camino Real and falls within
Area 5 (Sunfkesh Rose to Olivenhain Road) of the El Camino Real Corridor Development
Guidelines. The project has been designed to comply with all applicable requirements of the El
Camino Real Corridor Standards with one exception, as demonstrated in Table 4, below. The
only aspect of the proposed project design which does not comply strictly with the El Camino
Real Corridor Development Standards is a small area on each side of El Camino Real where the
proposed grade change would be 13’4” (east side) and 1 l-12’ (west side) rather than the 10’
maximum standard. The increased elevation change is necessary to achieve the required
roadway design standards for El Camino Real. Table 5, below, identifies the findings necessary
to approve an exception to the standards and the project justifications for such approval.
Table 4 - EL CAMINO REAL CORRIDOR STANDARDS COMPLIANCE
STANDARD REQUIRED/ALLOWED PROVIDED
Design Theme Old California Craftsman architecture
Sidewalks Per staff determination To be provided on both sides
of El Camino Real
-
MANZANITA APARTMENTS - ZC 98-09/LCPA 98-06/SDP 98-19/SUP 98-06/HDP 98-
19/GDP 98-73
September 15,1999
Paee 10
.
F.
Table 5 - EL CAMINO REAL COR IIDOR STANDARDS EXCEPTIONS
FINDING
That compliance with a particular standard
is infeasible for a particular project.
That the scenic qualities of the corridor
will continue to be maintained if the
standard is not fulfilled.
That the project is designed so as to meet
the intent of the scenic preservation
overlay zone.
Hillside Development (HDP)
RESPONSE
The standard allowing a maximum grade
change of 10’ along El Camino Real is
infeasible for this project. The project is
required to construct full-width improvements to El Camino Real, a
Circulation Element roadway. In order to
construct the roadway to City standards,
the developer must be place fill soils on
the east side of the roadway to a height of
13’4”.
The scenic qualities of the corridor will be
maintained. The area of additional grade
change is not to create a pad for buildings.
The increased elevation area will only
contain the necessary roadway
improvements, thus maintaining the
scenic qualities of the corridor.
The project has been designed to meet the
intent of the overlay zone in that it
satisfies all feasible standards. It a)
adheres to all grade change
limitations/restrictions for all other aspects
of the development (i.e., the buildings); b)
adheres to all building height limitations;
and c) meets or exceeds all setback
requirements for the corridor.
The eastern portion of the project site will not be developed. The western portion of the project
site (where the development would occur) is subject to the Hillside Development regulations in
effect within the Coastal Zone (i.e., the “old” hillside regulations). A Hillside Development
Permit (HDP) is required for the proposed project because the site contains a slope gradient of
15% or greater and an elevational difference of greater than 15 feet. Grading for the proposed
project would involve 37,700 cubic feet of balanced cut and fill grading. Approval of a grading
permit is required. The project proposes some grading into steep slopes. However, this
encroachment can be allowed by the decision-makers pursuant to Section 21.95.090
(Exclusions). The area of grading encroachment into the steep slopes would be limited to
discontinuous areas with a topographic change of less than fifteen feet in height and less than
4,000 square feet in area which are not a part of the surrounding generalized slope. Much of the
project grading is necessitated by the construction of full-width improvements to El Camino Real
(a Circulation Element roadway). In addition the project design preserves a significant amount
(approximately 38 acres) of sensitive habitat in open space. Therefore, staff believes that the 19
MANZANITA AP-ARTMkNTS - ZC 98-09KCPA 98-06/SDP 98-19/SUl’ 98-06/HDP 98-
19/GDP 98-73
September 15,1999
findings necessary to approve the exclusion to the hillside grading regulations can be mqde as
demonstrated in Table 6, below.
Table 6 - HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS COMPLIANCE
PERMITTED] 1 STANDARD
Max. Slope Height
Grading Volume
REQUIRE? PROVIDED
30’ 16’ (worst case)
O-7,999 cylac 3,973 cyfac
Acceptable 4
G. Local Coastal Program Regulations
Only the western portion of the,site (west of El Camino Real) is within the Coastal Zone. Within
that western portion, the northernmost parcel (APN 215-020-22) is within the Mello II segment
of the Local Coastal Program, and the remainder (APN 215-020-13) is within the Mello I
segment of the Local Coastal Program. The site is also subject to the requirements of the Coastal
Resource Protection Overlay Zone regulations, which apply throughout the Coastal Zone; and the
Coastal Resource Overlay Zone for Mello I. Compliance with these requirements is discussed
below.
1. Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone
The Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone is intended to supplement the underlying zone by
providing additional resource protection regulations within designated areas to preserve, protect,
and enhance the habitat resource value of lagoons and sloping hillsides. This overlay zone
applies throughout the City. It provides that steep slope areas (25% or greater slopes) not
containing endangered plant/animal species or coastal sage scrub and chaparral plant
communities are generally to be preserved in their natural state. Limited disturbance of these
areas (i.e., “dual criteria” slopes) may be. permitted, subject to specific findings, when their
preservation would preclude any reasonable USC df the property. ln these cases, the
encroachment may riot exceed 10% of the total steep slope area. The proposed project site
contains numerous areas of such 25%-40% dual criteria slop,es throughout the project site. These
areas total 5.42 acres of the western portion of the site. The proposed project would result in
some disturbance to an area of 0.2 acre of these slopes. The justifications for this encroachment,
and the responses to the necessary findings, are included in Table 7 below.
Table’7 - COASTAL RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY ZONE
FINDING RESPONSE
That a soils investigation be conducted to The geotechnical investigation conducted
determine that the site slope areas are ’ for the project includes recommendations
stable and that grading/development for grading and development of the site impacts are mitigable for at least 75 years which will ensure slope stability. These
or the life of the structure. recommendations include, among other
things, planting of the slopes with an
1 erosion resistant plant material.
MANZANITA APARTMENTS - ZC 98-09/LCPA 98-06/SDP 98-19/SUP 98-06/HDP 98-
19/GDP 98-73
September 15,1999
That grading of the slope is essential to
the development of the site.
That slope disturbance will not result in
substantial damage or alteration to major
wildlife habitat or native vegetation.
For projects of 10 acres or less in size and
which are predominated by steep slopes,
that grading may be allowed only if no
interruption of significant wildlife
corridors occurs.
No grading of steep slope areas will be
permitted unless all environmental
impacts have been mitigated.
damage or alteration because the area of
disturbance is a small discontinuous slope
area at the edge of the proposed
development pad and the bulk of the
The project approvals contain a condition
requiring mitigation of the identified
2. Coastal Resource Overlay Zone - Mello I
This overlay zone applies to properties located in the ujatershed of Batiquitos Lagoon identified
by the California Department of Fish and Game as a unique wetland habitat. This overlay zone
is also intended to protect sensitive resources. The project’s compliance with the applicable
regulations of this overlay zone are discussed in Table 8 below.
Table 8 - COASTAL RESOURCE OVERLAY ZONE - MELLO I
FINDING RESPONSE
Max. density of development shall be 7
units per gross acre.
Underlying zoning shall be either P-C or
RD-M.
The density of the proposed project is 3.9
dwelling units per gross acre (based upon
the gross acreage on the west side of El
Camino Real only).
The proposed underlying zoning is RD-
M. I
MANZANITA APARTMWTS - ZC 98-09/LCPA 98-06/SDP 98-l 9/SUP 98-06/HDP 98-
19KDP 98-73
September 15,1999
H. Inclusionary Housing
The City’s Inclusionary Housing regulations require that a minimum of 15% of all approved
units in any residential specific plan or qualified subdivision be made affordable to lower income
households. The inclusionary housing requirement for this project is 23.55 affordable dwelling
units. The applicant is proposing to satisfy this requirement by providing 24 affordable units. In
addition, at least 10% (2.4) of those affordable units must be a-bedroom units. The developer is
proposing to provide 9 3-bedroom units (36% of the total affordable units) to satisfy the
requirement for 3-bedroom units. Therefore, the proposed project would meet or exceed all
applicable inclusionary housing requirements, as demonstrated in Table 9, below. The proposed
affordable units would be dispersed throughout the development to ensure that they would not be
concentrated in a particular building or group of buildings. Because these are rental units, the
timing of need for and availability of affordable units will vary. Therefore, the affordable
housing agreement will identify a method of monitoring to ensure that the required number of
affordable units is always available.
I.
Table 9 - INCLUSIONARY HOUSING COMPLIANCE
STANDARD I REQUIRED I PROVIDED 1 Inclusionary 23.55 units
Requirements
(Units/Fees)
Location of Units n/a
Mix of Bedrooms (10% 3- 2.4 units
bedroom) 10% of affordable units
Incentives Requested n/a
1. Density Increase
2. Standards
.Modifications
3. Direct Financial
Growth Management
24 units
Dispersed
9 Llnits
36% of affordable units
nfa
The proposed project site is located within both zones 21 and 10 in the southwest and southeast
(respectively) quadrants of the City. Zone 21 has an approved Local Facilities Management Plan
(LFMP). A draft of the proposed LFMP for Zone 10 is currently being reviewed as part of the
project applications for the Villages of La Costa Master Plan. However, the portion of the
project site which is in Zone 10 will remain undeveloped. The impacts on public facilities
created by the project, and its compliance with the adopted performance standards, are
summarized in Table 10 below.
MANZANITA APARTMENTS - ZC 98-09/LCPA 98-06/SDP 98-19/SUP 98-06/HDP 98-
19/GDP 98-73
September 15,1999
Table 10 - GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE ZONE 21
STANDARD IMPACTS PROVIDED
City Administration 545.8 sf Yes
Library 291.1 sf
.Waste Water Treatment 157 EDU
Yes
Yes
Parks
Drainage
Circulation
1.09 ac
Basin D
942 ADT
Yes
Yes
Yes
Fire
Open Space
Schools
Stations No. 2 & 4
15% (7.14 ac)
CUSD
Yes
Yes
Yes
. 39.7 elementary students
10.5 junior high students
21.5 high school students
Sewer Collection System
Water
157 EDU
36,110 GPD
Yes
Yes
The project is 1 unit above the Growth Management Dwelling Unit allowance of 156 dwelling
units on the west side of El Camino Real (Southwest Quadrant) and 21 units below the Growth
Management Dwelling Unit allowance of 21 dwelling units on the east side of El Camino Real
(Southeast Quadrant).
‘ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The proposed project has been reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). This review concluded that the project would result in potentially significant effects on
the environment: 1) traffic at the Palomar Airport Road/El Camino Real intersection; 2) noise
from El Camino Real; 3) cultural (paleontological) resources; and 4) biological resources
(sensitive habitat on the project site). Each of these potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to less than significant, and the applicant has agreed to modify the project to
implement all of the necessary mitigation measures. Mitigation measures which would reduce
these impacts to less than significant have been included in a Mitigation Monitoring Plan
attached to Resolution No. 4617. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was issued for the proposed
project on May 3, 1999.
The project will generate a total of 71.7 students, which will create a potential environmental
impact on school facilities. The project will be required to pay statutory school fees; and the fees
have been determined to mitigate impacts to a level of insignificance because the State limits
facilities mitigation to the payment of statutory fees and prohibits project denial.
73
MANZANITA APARTMENTS - ZC 98-09/LCPA 98-06/SDP 98-19/SUP 98-06/HDP 98-
19/GDP 98-73
September 15,1999
PaPe 15
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4. 5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4617 (Mitigated Negative Declaration)
Pleg Commission Resolution No. 4618 (ZC)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4619 (LCPA)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4620 (SDP)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4621 (SUP)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4622 (HDP)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4623 (CDP)
Location Map
Background Data Sheet
Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
Disclosure Statement .
Exhibit “XX”, Existing General Plan and Zoning Illustration
City Council Policy No.. 43
Reduced Exhibits
Full Size Exhibits “A” - “X”, dated September 15,1999
EB:eh:mh
- A
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: MANZANITAAPARTMENTS
CASE NAME: ZC 98-09/LCPA 98-06/SDP 98-19/SUP 98-06/HDP 9818/GDP 98-73
APPLICANT: MANZANITA PARTNERS. LLC
REQUEST AND LOCATION: a 157-unit anartment develonment on a site adiacent to El
Camino Real iust south of Cassia Road
LEG& DESCRIPTION: a nortion of the NE and SE l% of the SW l/4 of Section 23,
T12S. R4W. SBM. Countv of San Dieeo
.
APN: 2 15-020-22 & 13:2 15-02 l-04 Acres: 47.6 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 3 lots/l 57 du
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: RLM & RM
Density Allowed: Density Proposed: 5.7 du/ac
Existing Zone: E-A & L-C Proposed Zone: RD-M/O
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use:
Zoning
Site E-A & L-C
North ID-M/Q
South R-l -7,500/Q
East P-C
West RDWQ & L-C
General Plan
RLM&RM
RLM8ZR.M
RLM
RLM&RM *
Current Land Use
Vacant & undeveloped
Multi-family residential
Undeveloped
Undeveloped
Undeveloped
PUBLIC’ FACILITIES
School District: CUSD Water District: CMWD Sewer District: CMWD
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 157
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated: 1 O-2-98
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
w Mitigated Negative Declaration, issued Mav 3. 1999
cl . Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
L-l Other,
75
,- i
- CITY.OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPkTS ASSESSMENT FORM
(To be Submitted with Development Application)
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: Manzanita Anartments - ZC 9&09/LCPA 98-06/SDP 98-98-19/SUP
98-06/HDP 98-l 8KDP 98-73
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 21& 10 GENERAL PLAN: RLM/RM
ZONING: E-A & L-C
DEVELOPER’S NAME: Manzanita Partners. LLC
ADDRESS: 1155 Cuchara. De1 Mar. CA 92014
PHONE NO.: /619) 755-8911 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 215-020-22 & 13: 215-021-04
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 157 du’s
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE:
A. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 545.8
B. Library: Demand in Square Footage + 291.1
C. Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) 157 EDU
D. Park: Demand in Acreage = 1.09
E. Drainage: Demand in CFS = 32
Identify Drainage Basin = Basin D
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
F. Circulation: Demand in ADT = 942
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
G. Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 2 & 4
H. Open Space: ’ Acreage Provided = 38
I. Schools: CUSD
39.7 elementary, 10.5 junior high, 21.5 high school students
J. Sewer: Demands in EDU 157
Identify Sub Basin = 21A
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
K. Water: Demand in GPD = 36.110
L. The project is lunit above the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance within the
Southwest Quadrant and 21 units below the Growth Management Dwelling unit
allowance within the Southeast Quadrant. Thus the project would take 1 unit from the
Southwest Quadrant Excess Dwelling Unit Bank and would return 21 units to the
Southeast Quadrant Excess Dwelling Unit Bank.
DISCLOSURE STAT33MENT
Applicant’s statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will requne
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. 1’our 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. tin,
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 propeq owner must be
provided below.
1. 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 comoration or uartnershio. 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
necessac *iI ana Wohlford &
PersonPhilip C. Kidd III -Capr’Part Manzanita Partners, LLC
Title Partner Title
Address1 155 Cuchara Drive Address
De1 Mar, CA 92014
? -. OWNER (Not the ownei’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
cornoration’ or DaitnerShiD. include the names. title. addresses of all individuals owning more
than 10% of the shares. IF NO 1NDlVlDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES,
PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-
owned corporation. include the names. titles. and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate
page may be attached if necessary.) Anthony Bons & Anthony Bons and Dicky Koorevaa.
PersonDicky K. Bons Carp/Part Revocable Livins Trust
Title Trustees Title
Address 25709 Hillcrest Ave. Address Escondido, CA 92025
97
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad. CA 92009-l 576 - (760) 438-11610 FAX (760) 438-0894 @
5. NON-PROFIJ ORG.-. AZATION OR TRUST
If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonrxofit organization or a trust. list the
names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the.
blsRP&iirust Anthony Bons Non Profit/Trust Dick K l Bans
Title Co-Trustee Title Co-Trustee
Address 25709’ Hillcrest Ave. Address25709 Hillcrest Ave.
Escondido, CA 92025 Escondido, CA 92025
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of, Cir>. staff.
.Boards. Commissions. Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months?
cl Yes cl x No If yes, please indicate person(s):
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary.
I certify that all the above informatidn is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
w *
PyJ#
Signature of applicant/date/owner
Print or type name of applicant /owner
w, /qg
dignature of a& cant/date./owner
Print o/rype.name of owneri; D/WA M. w~tt~I%tLD
Print or type name of applicant/ownel
H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5198 Page 2 of 2
78
Exhibit ‘@Xx1*
September 15, 1999
EXISTING GENERAL
PLAN
EXISTING ZONING
r OS I I I
MANZANITA APARTMENTS
ZC 98=09/LCPA 98906lSDP 98-l 91
SUP 98906IHDP 9848lCDP 98-73 . _ 7Y
Page 1 of 2
,
!
7
(
C
L
. :
1
i
E
E il
F
E
1
2
3
L-
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
Policy No. 43
Date !ssued~
!Z!ZGZiW
Supersedes No.
General Subject: Proposition E “Excess” Dwelling
Unit Allocation
Specific Subject: Formal Procedure Establishing
Guidelines for Allocation of Proposition E “Excess” Dwelling
.Units
Zopies to: City Council, City Manager, Cii Attorney, Department and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
‘URPOSE
To establish guidelines for allocation of “excess” dwelling units when, following the adoption
If all residential Local Facilities Management Plans within a quadrant, the Proposition E
quadrant cap is greater than the number of dwelling units approved or issued after November
t, 1986, plus the allowable units per the Growth Management Control Points.
STATEMENT OF POLICY
4lthough it should not be mandatory that excess dwelling units be allocated if they become available and it would be desirable to not attain the ultimate residential dwelling unit caps
established by the adoption of Proposition E, the following criteria is established to determine
eligibility for consideration of “excess” dwelling unit allocation, subject to the required findings
I Proposition E.
‘rejects eligible for consideration in order of priority include:
7rst Priority
Housing development for lower-income households where allowable housing
expenses paid by the qualifying household does not exceed thirty percent (30%) of
the gross monthly income, adjusted for household ‘size, at eighty percent (80%) of the
county median income.
,. Density transfers, clustering of development and dwelling unit locational adjustments
which are proposed in order to preserve larger areas of sensitive habitat.
lnfill Single Family Subdivisions that meet all development standards and where
proposed lot sizes will be equal to or greater than adjacent subdivided properties.
-
- Page 2 of 2
Second Priority
1. Senior citizen housing as defined by Cartsbad Municipal Code S&ion 21.18.045.
2. Transit oriented development projects where increased residential density is being
placed in close proximity to major transit facilities and commercial support services.
3. Projects within the existing general plan density range that provide, without
compensation, for some significant public facility not required as part of the
development process.
Third Prioritv
1. Housing develo@nent for moderate income households where allowable housing
expenses paid by these qualifying household does not exceed thirty percent (30%) of gross monthly income, adjusted for household size, at 120 percent (120%) of the
county median income.
2. Projects proposing a zone change from non-residential to residential based upon the
following findings: *
a. The property was zoned for other than residential use on July 1986.
b. The property is compatible for residential use without significant mitigatibn.
C. The density of the project does not exceed the Growth Management Control
Points of any adjacent residential property.
3. lnfill multi-family projects that meet all development standards and whe& the resulting
density does not exceed adjacent, existing multi-family projects.
4pplication of the priority levels should be based on the total number of excess units svailable in a quadrant. The purpose of having three priority levels is to address the issue of
laving only a minimal number of excess units available-in a quadrant at any one particular
Doint in time. If there are only a minimal number of excess units available in a quadrant, then
ihe units should only.be used for a First Priority project. Conversely, if there are a substantial
Tumber of excess units available in the quadrant, ‘allocation to a Second or Third Priority
3roject is acceptable.
qegarding the use of excess dwelling units for affordable’ housing, the intent of this policy is
:o work in conjunction with and to aid in implementing the programs of the Housing Element
n&ding the lnclusionary Housing Ordinance and the Density Bonus Ordinance. If a
jubstantial allocation of excess dwelling units are being requested pursuant to item no. 1 of
he First Priority, the project should then, however, exceed the basic numerical requirements
If these ordinances regarding the provision for lower income units.
CITY OF CARLSBAL
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
General Subject: PROPOSfllON E TEXCESV DWf3lJNG
UNIT ALLOCATlON
Specific Subject: FORMAL PROCEDURE ESTABUSHING GUIDELINES
FOR ALLOCWION OF PROPOSlTlON E MCESS’
DWELIJNG UNITS.
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, Cii Attorney, Department and
Division Heads, Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
PURPOSE’
To establish guidelines for allocation of “excess” dwelling units when, following the adoption of all
residential Local Facilities Management Plans within a quadrant, the Proposition E quadrant cap is
greater than the number of dwelling units approved or issued after November 4, 1986 plus the
allowable units per the Growth Management Control Points.
STATEMENT OF POLICY
Although it should not be mandatory that excess dwelling units be allocated if they become available
and it would be desirable to not attain the ultimate residential dwelling unit caps established by the
adoption of Proposition E, the following criteria is established to determine eligibility for consideration
of “excess” dwelling unit allocation, subject to the required findings in Proposition E.
Projects eligible for consideration in order of priority include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Housing development for low or moderate-income households as defined by California
Government Code Section 65915.
Senior citizen housing as defined by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.18.045.
lnfill Single Family Subdivisions, Zoned R-l, that meet all development standards and where lot
sizes are equal to or greater than adjacent subdivided R-l properties.
Projects within the existing general plan density range that provide, without other compensation,
for some significant public facility not required as part of the development process.
Projects proposing a zone change from non-residential to residential based upon the following
findings:
a) The property was zoned for other than residential use on July I, 1986.
b) The property is compatible for residential use without significant mitigation.
0) The density of the project does not exceed the Growth Management Control Point
of any adjacent residential property. 84
: i 4 . E : I “.I
Q[[
L
iit 2.i E i : : f e
I 1 ! i
I
I
.{
i
I 3
I
I
..i ,; ..I~
y;{\; f. -iii‘ 4 - L., _‘- ‘-
--, --.i n
,>’
‘.i -<” ‘:
r ‘.# ii
j !!gyg~
.,$ .. -i . . .
\ : r=
\ \/. ?;(..,‘: i i‘ .s t I _.. >\ “,‘;.
I\,
i -{.
\ ’ . ‘. .h a’.. ‘~ \ \ ‘< > .?T.\.
, :.. \ 1:
-, \ :\,.yk*fk
:@., ‘i -.
; ; .. i ‘, \. ;, ,.” \ -: ,..I. \ -. \ *_
I
1,. - ,’ , i /
,, - ._’ ._- ’ j ,_ icy-. . I i 4. : .-r ‘-.. ,_ icy-. . / I .&,::. i c- “--x-.! 4. : .;’ .-r ‘-.. - . -i -L . . - .~ .;,c- 7 : -. ,’ ‘.---y;, I’ *.‘;- .‘< b-r-- -- --- - .’ ___ ,./. I -’ . . -1 ;’ ” ‘?b : :.r.,\... _. ; :6 ‘i -*, -5 : . %.- ,...__ ;^ , I :, - .Y-
:. , -. 1 -y..
4’ .. ’ --. 2 I , E; I ,“? ‘_ - ‘*.I - _ : j: i -‘,; -:
:-. ‘%. .- 1 \ .-. ‘_
.-. .t ‘\ .-. ‘\ Y, --.__.. ,
- .~ .;,c- . . . .&,::. c- “--x-.! q-&F! ..t+=-,, ?- __.__ ( - -.-*..-* -;.. “Je2-,-_ ,_ .;’ -i ~_ >+g. ; y-y,. i ;. .‘.., ,y
,./. ; \ ,’ “---;, . . -1 “i’<) /-. -----i ___- -’ ; ) ;’ ” ‘?b : :.r.,\... _. :6 ‘i -*, -5 : . -. -‘I
%.- 1 -y.. ,-..-_ ;^ :. , -. - 4’ .. ’ --. , I :. i : ---:< g
2 I , E;~, I ,“? ;*.j: -:
r - .I _ ‘,
‘_ - ‘*.I - - i ^. -. _.-,<.. . . ..*..-y;-.. .- I. -~- 1 z “: . -. -------?--- ,- --. ,- --. _,._.__ _I _I r <,-:+ _..-, _..-, / / .’ .’ ; ,’ i ;y ; - F t F t -.-- . . . . .._ ~ “-*.--lm$&-.-%.~;> 1, :.-., ( ..astnr:~,;~ 1, : ., ,~t*r:-l.- .- .- ,’ : j ,’ : . :.-. i- : -,. ‘, . :,-. in . . -,. ‘, _ .._ -----_ _ .._ -__-_
j;/ .’ ‘.. - .: .:/“ \., ‘: ii. - -‘i -.-,--* I‘ (7 ;,i ,,.. -- - __.__+ =*.
,- .I i 1 .’ .-.___- ; ;; I _. --- ‘+ : f i’ i :’ ! 1 i
~_-- -.-_ --.
..-:-----.
‘-. y.i ( ; .z !
i \i
.-;” -, .’ $: j
‘. ,; - 1 ;;: I *” -j-y. --; : ,y-. -I’
l:,& ;.
;, ‘: j ‘;
I
1’ -.- i“‘ --
-.-_ --.
/-..;;-.p ( ~ .-*;----“I $: j
..-:-----.
‘-.
+ _, .’
i 1; ‘. .; - 1 ;;: I *” -j-y. --; : ,y. -I’
l:,& ;.
;, ‘: j ‘;
I
1’ -.- i“‘ --
-. I.. w.. -. -. -. _I.
h
7---i
3 :---A L..-_
/j 1
: :--- ---L ::: /
4iis
/ I
I ;
L-- ---, zg
\ ~ 1 yp _-____: __-_ yy
ti _-_____ - _____ A ___--____--_. x I
.!
5’ .! :a
qi
I tii
i
.
88 -I I 2t lrgll MMD . , . . . . . . .
t . ..” t
5
.t .! :a r/[$j$
--
p-----n-- -F /_ e-n-----q / )
1
i i
~‘-Yl--r4 h---- ---
~---5--T T--a---n ?li
T I c (’
p---
---7 ! o. - p++-f ----------------- *;;---j ---, -i”fl
I/ \I/
I c
I-,-- +
V/‘LJ
/ I ’ .--r-i I
/4 ’
%YrY?i!G
Is- : L ‘- 7 4 j
-5:
I
A--------_----_.-- ____ __ .y---:_------_-- :, (
I
I
,
ilid
7:
r- I 4 I’ 1 ; I Is- _-! 4j I , ,--- -2
4 ir -1
-
“I - I ( ( x p-----n--~ --n------q 4-P . ,
&----Jr--4 Ll----‘J---d-~
Ga
W
r----------
-; ;
* i
m ;
/ t ,
” 1 1------
1;
I 1 I I i
1’
I - , L---------,
t-----t
I .: .
r I .: 0
Y, -: n
t 1 .1 r
5 -
EXHIBIT 6
4. ZC 98-99/LCPA 98-96/SDP 98.IS/SUP 9896/HDP 98.18/GDP 98-73 - MANZANITA
APARTMENTS - Request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Zone Change, Local
Coastal Program Amendment, Site Development Plan, Special Use Permit, Hillside Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit to develop a 157~unit apartment development on a site
located adjacent to El Camino Real just south of Cassia Road and within Local Facilities
Management Zones 21 and 10.
Assistant Planning Director, Gary Wayne stated that Item #4 on the agenda is a request for several actions to allow for the Manzanita Apartment project, which is located in the Coastal Zone. Mr. Wayne
stated that, Senior Planner, Elaine Blackburn, would make the presentation and Clyde Wickham,
Associate Engineer, will be assisting Ms. Blackburn.
Chairperson Heineman asked the applicants if they wish to proceed with the Public Hearing with only six (6) Commissioners present or would they prefer to ask for a continuance in order to have this matter
heard by a full Commission.
Philip C. Kidd, III, Partner, and Dana M. Wohlford, Partner, 1155 Cuchara Drive, Del Mar, CA 92014, stated that they wished to proceed with the Commissioners present.
Senior Planner, Elaine Blackburn presented Item #4 as follows: This item is a request for approvals
necessary to develop a 157-unit apartment complex, which would be located on the West Side of El Camino Real, just south of Cassia Road and across the street to the south from the Villa Loma apartment complex. The necessary permit applications include, a Zone Change and Local Coastal Program
PLANNING COMMISSION September 15,1999 Page 3
Amendment, both related to the zone change; a Site Development Plan, which is required for apartment
projects; a Special Use Permit, which is required for development along the El Camino Real scenic
corridor; a Hillside Development Permit; and a Coastal Development Permit.
The project site includes approximately 48 acres of land. El Camino Real bisects it. The area on the East
Side of El Camino Real, which is approximately 7 acres, is undeveloped and contains several vernal
pools. The project design would preserve that entire 7 acre parcel in open space.
The West Side of the site is also undeveloped. It contains numerous areas of steep slopes and contains
sensitive habitat. The developer is proposing to cluster his development in the northeastern comer of that part of the development, on about 9.75 acres in the northern part of the western portion of the site (i.e. at
the southwest corner of El Camino Real and Cassia Road). Thus allowing a total of approximately 38 acres to remain in permanent open space.
Staff supports the request to change the zoning from E-A and L-C to RD-M-Q. The RD-M-Q zoning is the
appropriate zoning to implement the existing general plan designations on the site, which are RLM and RM. ,We also believe the RD-M-Q zoning will be compatible with the existing and ant/cipated future zoning
of the surrounding parcels. The local Coastal Program amendment is an accompaniment to the Zone Change to maintain consistency between the city zoning and the zoning within the local Coastal Program
segment.
Ms. Blackburn further stated that with regard to the other requested approvals, the Site Development Plan,
the Special Use Permit, Hillside Permit and Coastal Development Permit, Staff has reviewed these
requests and believes that all of the necessary findings to make those approvals can be made. The
project is consistent with the RDM Zone Development standards. The proposed apartment units would be developed in 17 buildings, each building would contain either 8 or 10 apartment units.
There are three (3) floor plans and they range in size from 1,054 square feet to 1,323 square feet. There
is one (1) manager’s unit, which is approximately 1,200 square feet in size. The project will also include
recreational amenities, with a recreation center, swimming pool, a spa and a tot lot.
The residential structures will be just under 35 feet in height, consistent with the regulations that are
applicable. The buildings would be in craftsman architectural style, incorporating concrete tile roofs,
exposed rafter tails, simulated stone veneer and stucco. Access to the site will be through two (2) entry
areas located along Cassia Road. A third entry, a gated emergency access point, is provided at the
southern end of the development.
In addition, stated Ms. Blackburn, the project’s circulation system meets all City standards for approval.
Staff recommends that it be approved as is. Therefore, Staff is not recommending any changes. .
The parking requirements for the project will be met by a combination of garages, carports and uncovered
spaces for a total of 366 parking spaces, thereby, providing 10 more spaces than required.
The project complies with El Camino Real Scenic Corridor Development standards, with the exception of some localized pad elevation changes that are necessary to &commodate the El Camino Real roadway.
There are a couple of areas where the ten-foot typical limitation on pad elevation change would be exceeded by as much as 3’4”.
Special findings are contained in the El Camino Real Corridor guidelines to accommodate that kind of situation and those findings have been provided in approval resolution that accompanies your packet.
The project also complies with the Hillside and Coastal Development regulations, with a minor exception,
for some slight encroachment into dual criteria slopes-steeps slopes containing sensitive habitat. There are findings that are available to justify those small encroachments. Staff believes those findings can be
made because the encroachment is in a very limited discontinuous area of slopes and habitat.
The project meets and exceeds all applicable inclusionary housing requirements. The developer is providing twenty-four (24) affordable units. Of those twenty-four (24) units, 36% of the units will be three
92
PLANNING COMMISSION September 15,1999 Page 4
(3) bedroom units. Typically, 10% of the units are required to be three (3) bedroom units. The developer is therefore exceeding the requirement. The project is conditioned, and the applicant has agreed to that.
condition, to disburse the affordable units throughout the project site. There will be no more than six (6) affordable units in any given building, at any time.
The proposed project requires taking one (1) unit from the southwest quadrant excess dwelling unit bank
and adding twenty-one (21) units to the bank on the southeast quadrant excess dwelling unit bank. The project is in two different bank areas, one net figure-can not be done. Staff believes that the request for
one (1) unit from the bank is fully justified, in that the Project is designed to cluster the development and to
also preserve significant areas of open space, which is high priority for requesting units from the bank.
In conclusion, stated Ms. Blackburn, Staff believes that the project satisfies all applicable requirements
and we are recommending approval. There is an errata sheet containing a few minor technical changes,
as well as some additional conditions and a revised condition.
Chairperson Heineman suggested that the errata sheet be addressed at this time.
Ms. Blackburn stated, the first correction on the errata sheet Resolution No. 4617, Page I, Line 15 - the word “exhibit” should be deleted. The second correction on the Errata sheet deals with Resolution No.
4617, Page 2, Line 1 - the words “and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program” should be
inserted after “PII”. The third correction is Resolution No. 4618, Page 2, Finding No. 2 - the word “zoning”
should be changed to “General Plan”. Item 4 is Resolution No. 4619, Page 2 - Add a new condition (No.
2) to read: “CDP 98-73 is not valid until LCPA 98-06 is effectively certified by the California Coastal Commission.”
Item 5, Resolution No 4620, Page 5, Condition 13 - Revise condition No. 13 to read as follows: “If a
grading permit is required, all grading activities shall be planned in units that can be completed by October 1st. Grading activities shall be limited to the “dry season”, April 1st to‘october 1st of each year. Grading
activities may be extended to November 15th upon written approval of the City Engineer and only if all erosion control measures are in place by October 1st.
Item 6, Resolution No. 4620, Page 6, Condition No. 20 - The words “final map” should be changed to
“grading permit”.
Item 7, Resolution No 4620, Page 7 - Add two new conditions (No. 33 and No. 34) to read:
33.“Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or a building permit, whichever occurs first, the
Developer shall execute a document or documents to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and the Assistant City Attorney which accomplish at a minimum the following:
A. continued ownership by the Developer or its successors in interest in open space until some future date at which time ownership will be transferred to the City or its designee for
perpetual maintenance;
B. while in continued private ownership, active maintenance to protect and preserve the quality of the habitat (including but not limited to reasonable prevention of trespass); and;
C. transfer of ownership and maintenance responsibility at some future date to the City of its designee simultaneously with transfer of funding or other acceptable financial mechanism to
provide for management and conservation in perpetuity. (The cost of management is currently estimated to be approximately $75.00 per acre per year).”
34. ‘The Developer shall revise the project plans to provide adequate screening of the proposed development from El Camino Real to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.”
And renumber the remaining conditions.
93
- .-
PLANNING COMMISSION September 15,1999 Page 5
Item 8, Resolution No. 4621, Page 2, Condition No. 1 - the number “4621” should be changed to
-4622”
Item 9, Resolution No. 4623, Page 3 - Add a new Condition No. 4, to read: “CDP 98-73 is not valid until LCPA 98-06 is effectively certified by the California Coastal Commission.
Chairman Heineman, stated that Commissioner Trigas joined the meeting at 6:18 PM.
Chairman Heineman asked if there were any questions of Staff.
Commissioner Compas stated that, he noticed there are ‘a number of garages facing El Camino Real,
which is a scenic corridor. Commissioner Compas expressed his wncem about what is being done to alleviate the sight of garages on that scenic corridor.
Ms. Blackburn, explained that the condition for the revision of the landscaping had been added to address
this issue, perhaps resulting in a low fence with vines or some other way to achieve a more horizontal
filling in of landscaping.
Commissioner Compas asked if that condition would alleviate the sight of garages. Ms Blackburn stated that Staff felt it would eliminate the viewing of the garages from the scenic corridor.
In addition, stated Ms Blackburn the road and development pad elevations change relative to where you
are on El Camino Real and there will not be a clear and continuous vision of it. Commissioner Compas
agreed. The Applicant has designed the Project in a way that there are garages, and carports, then open
spaces and so forth, so they are not all clumped together, so there is not a repetitious view. More
importantly, staff believes that the landscaping as modified per the errata sheet will address these
concerns.
Commissioner Welshons asked Ms Blackburn about the noise impact, stating that the Staff report
indicated that, incorporating appropriate construction methods and materials would be necessary to
adequately reduce noise impact in some areas of the project, i.e. ground level patios of some buildings.
Commissioner Welshons expressed concerns regarding the buildings fronting El Camino Real, noting that
there are some garages and carports in front of them and wanted to know if there were patios in front and
questioned the terminology, “they will need to do some necessary construction methods.”
Commissioner Welshons wanted to know how the construction methods would be implemented in order to comply with the noise reduction.
Ms. Blackbum’explained that the construction methods were part of the Mitigation Monitoring Program.
The term “they will need to”, does not mean that they have not addressed the issue. The construciion
methods needed to implement the noise reduction issue are stated on the Building Permit Plan check.
Commissioner Welshons referred to page 14 of the Staff Report, Growth Management Compliance for
Zone 21 and another location later in the report. In the compliance it states, “Parks 1.09 acres”, and at a different point in the resolution it is stated that, there is going to be paid a “Park in lieu fee.”
Commissioner Welshons wanted know if acreage was being donated or if a park in lieu fee would be in effect.
Ms. Blackburn explained that the first reference was establishing the impacts. The condition, or second reference, explains how they are satisfying their requirement. This is a way of calculating the requirement
based on the number of units. When it is calculated on the chart, one sees what is the impact in terms of requirements. The way of satisfying it would be through payment of a fee that is equivalent to that
amount.
Commissioner Welshons requested information relating to the private and common recreation
requirements for the Project.
PLANNING COMMISSION September 15,1999 Page 6
Ms. Blackburn stated that this Project is not a PUD and does not fall under PUD regulations, therefore, there is no requirement for recreational amenities. They are, however, providing what Staff considers to
be a greater than reasonable amount of amenities.
Commissioner Welshons referred to Resolution 4620, condition 69; “prior to occupancy of the first dwelling
unit the Developer shall provide all required passive and active recreational areas per the approved plans including landscaping and recreational facilities”, wanting an explanation of the aforementioned resolution
and condition. . .-
Ms. Blackburn stated this is a standard condition. It can be applied to an apartment project as well as a
PUD.
Commissioner Welshons addressed the emergency access point on the southern end of the project. If the
Commission wished to have that as an open access, to get out onto El Camino Real and go southbound on El Camino Real, is there a significant site distance from Cassia Road to that exit for a safe transition
on to El Camino Real?
Associate Engineer Clyde E. Wickham stated that, after Staff took a second look at the transition, they do not believe there is.
Commissioner Welshons wanted to know the culde-sac policy.
Mr. Wickham stated the cul-de-sac policy is a matrix of standards that stem from the number of units: over
50 units a secondary access is required or some other form to provide an emergency access out. This project does have secondary access. In addition, if over 1200 feet before the secondary access, another
access is required.
Commissioner Welshons wanted to know the distance from the primary access off of Cassia down to the emergency exit.
. Mr. Wickham stated that the distance was almost 900 feet.
Commissioner Welshons wanted to know how one would exit if there were an emergency.
1 Mr. Wickham stated that the access on El Camino Real is an emergency gated Knox box access, and
6. Police and Fire have the key to the box. The Manager of the apartment complex would also have a key to
open the gate for evacuation.
Commissioner Welshons wanted to know if signs were going to be posted in the bulb of the cul-de-sac
noting no parking or if parking would be allowed.
Mr. Wickham stated that red-zoning of the area could be added as a condition because it is a minimum bulb.
Of the total number of 366 parking spaces, 42 guest, 49 garages, 101 covered and 174 uncovered,
Commissioner Welshons wanted to know the maximum distance a resident would have to walk to get to their assigned parking space.
Ms. Blackburn stated it depended on whether a space would be assigned to a particular unit and often times in ,apartment complexes parking spaces are not assigned. In terms of where one parks it would be a
first come. first serve basis.
Commissioner Welshons referred to the condition on affordable housing and the maximum of no more
than 6 to a building. Because there may be 8 to 10 apartments in ‘a building, Commissioner Welshons recommended that no more than 5 units of affordable housing be in any one building.
Ms. Blackburn stated that Staff did not have any objections to changing the affordable units per building to
5 and suggested that the Applicant be asked.
PLANNING COMMISSION September 15,1999 Page 7
Commission Welshons noted that the San Diego Gas 8 Electric easement crossed the property, noting
that it was important that they get a letter giving 50 years to the project in order to use the land for parking underneath the easement.
Commissioner Welshons referred to Resolution 4620, Condition 30 regarding assigned resident parking
spaces.
Ms. Blackburn stated that if they choose to assign spaces they would need to follow the direction in
Resolution 4620, Condition 30, but as an apartment complex they may not choose to assign parking.
Commissioner Welshons requested clarification on Resolution 4620, Condition 30.
Ms. Blackburn, stated that, “All visitor parking spaces shall be striped a different color than the assigned
resident parking spaces and shall be dearly marked as may be approved by the Planning Director.” The
condition is to distinguish visitor parking.
Commissioner Welshons referred to Resolution 4621, Condition 1: Approval of SUP 98-06 is granted
subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program and ZC 98-09, LCPA 98-06, SDP 98-19, and CDP 98-73, and the parcel map or lot line adjustment which, consolidates the two western parcels, and is subject to all conditions contained in the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Planning
Commission Resolution No. 4617,4618,4619,4620,4621, and 4623 and the City Engineer’s approval of
the parcel map or lot line adjustment.
Commissioner Welshons suggested including the need of the approval of the letter from the San Diego
Gas and Electric, otherwise this project has to be returned to the Commission..
Ms. Blackburn explained that if one reads further in the condition that it is mentioned, “is subject to all
conditions contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Planning Commission Resolution No. 4617, 4618, 4619, 4620, 4621, and 4623 and the City
Engineer’s approval of the parcel map or lot line adjustment.”
Commissioner Welshons referred to Resolution 4620, Condition 48: Additional right-of-way may be required to -accommodate the offsite improvements of dual left turn lanes from northbound El Camino Real
to westbound Camino Vida Roble in conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards as required by the City
Engineer. . .
Commissioner Welshons asked for clarification of the above mentioned resolution and condition.
Ms. Wickham explained that the final design of that dual left, is an engineering issue; two vehicles come
through an intersection and then merge with driveways and choking a road back down to a 48 curb to curb width. It might not fit. We may have to push that transition a couple of hundred feet further down Camino
Vida Roble. The Applicant would be required to obtain that right-of-way to accommodate that turn maneuver.
Commissioner Welshons wanted to know where it stated that the applicant would be responsible for
obtaining that right-of-way and’paying for it.
Mr. Wickham explained that the City was paying for it, because it is a combination Appiicant and City
Capital Project. He stated further that there is a reimbursement agreement that was identified as a
Condition. We have been working with the applicant on this issue. The applicant is providing the Mitigation for the Project and short-cutting the City’s Capital Improvement Program and providing this
ahead of our needs.
Commissioner Welshons referred to page 10 and asked if they were paying into it under OFF-SITE #F A
reimbursement agreement is available for these improvements, and noted that they were impacting that
intersection.
PLANNING COMMISSION September 15,1999 Page 8
Mr. Wickham replied in the affirmative.
Commissioner Welshons wanted to know if the reimbursement agreement meant that they would pay their
fair share and the City would absorb the rest of the cost.
Mr. Wickham explained that by the applicant administering the work and providing it ahead of our
schedule, that is a benefit to us too, and yes, we-feel that, that is the applicant’s fair share.
Commissioner Welshons referred to page 9 ON-SITE #A, noting that the condition did not mention a distance, from where to where. Referring to the next condition as an example.
A) Full width improvements to El Camino Real including transitions as approved by the City Engineer.
Improvements to include but not be limited to grading, landscape, irrigation and drainage, curb, gutter &
sidewalk, fully improved median, and traffic signals or traffic signal relocation.
Mr. Wickham agreed with Commissioner Welshons that ON-SITE ##A did not specify a distance. He stated
that it should technically say, “... along the frontage of this project.” This project fronts on both sides of El
Camino Real, which is unusual for a project. They are improving El Camino Real wherever they own the
frontage.
Commissioner Welshons suggested that unless it is stated somewhere else, maybe it should be made clear as to distance of the improvements, from where to where.
Ms. Blackburn interjected that the improvement conditions are listed under ON-SITE which, according to
our definition would mean the length of their property frontage.
Commissioner Welshons noted again that the distance was made clear in Condition B, but not in
Condition A and she would like to have the Condition amended to include the exact distance.
Commissioner Welshons requested clarification on the note on Page 10 under #G:
“Note: If reimbursement agreements are applicable for the above mentioned improvements to El Camino
Real and to Camino Vida Roble, the developer shall obtain approval from the City for such agreements
prior to approval of the improvement plan for this project.”
Mr. Wickham explained that, Staff wanted to know about any reimbursement agreement up front, in order
to avoid any problems.
Commissioner Welshons wanted to know what were the improvement plans.
Mr. Wickham explained that what is being done tonight is not an improvement plan, but a concept plan. The final improvement plans are the grading and improvements, utility relocation, signal relocation and 20-
30 sheets of very detailed curb, gutter, sidewalk, asphalt paving, median, landscaping, irrigation and other items that are very, very detailed.
Commissioner Welshons, referring to Resolution No 4610, Condition 71 - Page 12:
71. Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance with the City’s Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval of the Planning Director prior to installation of
such signs.
She stated that she noticed in the plans that the signs were on the wmer of El Camino Real and Cassia.
Commissioner Welshons suggested that because El Camino Real is a scenic corridor, it should be stated in the Condition that they need to be in compliance with the City Sign ordinance, the El Camino Real Scenic Corridor and. be reviewed and approved by the City’s Planning Director.
97
PLANNING COMMISSION September 15,1999 Page 9
Rick Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney explained that this in the portion of the Resolution that is called Code
Reminders as opposed to a condition. It is not really a condition. It is a reminder that the code requires all of that and we do not want the applicant forgetting. Whether or not the applicant would have to do -it in
accordance with the Code.
Commissioner Welshons asked for clarification on Condition 66 which reads: “Prior to issuance of building permits the developer shall underground all existing overhead utilities along and within the project
boundary.” Does the condition include both sides of the road?
Mr. Wickham explained that the Condition covered both sides of the road. Stating that there are leads that
run traverse or angled through the site, which we want to catch. Therefore, we added the wording “along
and within.”
Commissioner Welshons wanted to know how much of the buildings would be seen from El Camino Real
and what is the distance. Is it 30 feet from El Camino Real? Will the garages, carports or buildings be
visible?
Ms. Blackburn referred to the Staff Report noting that the setbacks were identified. The minimum setback to the open parking or carport areas is 30 feet. The building will be back further.
Commissioner Welshons wanted to know how many balconies would be visible. In some places
restrictions have been placed as to whether one can do outdoor barbecuing or store surfboards, etc.,
since it is a scenic corridor.
Ms. Blackburn referred to her earlier statement regarding pad elevation changes along El Camino Real,
relative to the site and the road elevation the view will vary. You will see some of the units. You will also
see the tops of some garages and carports since they are only 12 to 14 feet high.
Commissioner Welshons referred to the Condition that had been added and reiterated by Commissioner
Compas, regarding the view because this is a scenic corridor. Ms. Welshons wanted clarification on . adding a fence with vines.
Ms. Blackburn explained that it was not specifically state that it had to be a fence, because flexibility was
needed for the Planning Director to determine what was going to look best and work best.
Commissioner Welshons referred to the Paseo Del Norte project, noting that the buildings were behind the
garages. The garages are visible from the road.
Ms. Blackburn stated that the building would be approximately 60 feet back.
Commissioner Welshons asked if the enclosed garages were for one car and if there would be storage that had to be provided.
Ms. Blackburn, again reminded Commissioner Welshons that this was not a PUD and not subject to PUD
regulations.
Chairman Heineman asked if there were any other questions for Staff.
Commissioner Segall asked if the applicant agreed with the new conditions in the Errata.
Ms. Blackburn suggested that the applicant be asked directly (Applicant in the audience).
dommissioner Segall wanted clarification on the adequate turnout for North County Transit bus stops. He suggested that the turnouts be placed so that the busses are off of El Camino Real.
Ms. Blackburn replied that there are two existing bus stops in the area. Both are southbound. One is located north of Cassia Road. One is located immediately south of it. This project was routed on more
PLANNING COMMISSION September 15,1999 Page 10
than one occasion to the North County Transit District (NO) for review and comment. NCTD has been
asked to give any conditions they want applied to the project and they did not indicated any.
Ms. Blackburn indicated that she called NCTD to inquire about the two bus stops (i.e. would one be
phases out?), as well as what they might want there. She was informed that there is a high volume of
rider-ship there. NCTD requested that neither of the bus stops at that location be removed. In addition Ms. Blackburn stated that previous discussions with NCTD Staff rendered different feedback regarding
turn-ins. NCT Staff has not seemed happy with turn-in type arrangements. NCTD has not indicated that they want or don’t want turn ins, only that they don’t want the bus stops removed.
Commissioner Segall stated that he has information that the NCTD Board would indeed prefer turn ins, as
there will be the two apartment complexes at this location, Villa Loma and Manzanita, with the potehtial of high rider-ship; this is a perfect opportunity to put into place the turn-ins for the safe on-loading and off-
loading of the busses. Mr. Segall wanted to know if there was anything that could be done at this point to install turn-ins.
Gary .Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, stated that there is an obligation to accept what we get back
from NCTD Staff. They did not request turn-ins. It would require tremendous redesign of the project,
which cannot be done now. Additional rights-of-way would be required and there is a slope easement.
Wayne stated that there is a process for their input and that process is depended upon.
Commissioner Segall stated that he asked the question because he needed understanding of the
resolution.
Chairman Heineman asked if there were additional questions of Staff.
Commissioner Nielsen asked if there were elevators in the buildings.
Ms. Blackburn stated that there were no elevators in the buildings.
Commissioner Nielsen asked if there were provisions for the handicapped; parking and units.
Ms. Blackburn stated the handicapped parking had to be provided by State Law. The applicant would have to provide the information regarding handicap units.
Commissioner Nielsen asked Mr. Rudolf if it was a question of legality.
Rich Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney, stated that it was, but he didn’t know the answer and suggested that
the Applicant would know the answer, because they were building the units and would have to comply wfth State Law. He explained that this was the responsibility of who ever enforces the State Law with regard to
ADA or handicap law.
Commissioner Trigas asked if there was a formula pertaining to how many units had to be handicap units,
Mr. Rudolf stated that he did not know.
Ms. Blackburn indicated that those were state regulations not city regulations. There are no city regulations that require provisions for a certain number of handicap units. We are, however, aware of the .’
handicap parking requirements and comply with State Law.
Commissioner Trigas then asked if there should be a provision stating that the Applicant must follow state
law with regard to providing handicap units.
Mr. Rudolf explained that there is a condition in all of the resolutions that the Applicant must comply with
applicable State, Federal and Local laws. He indicated that during the plan check, the Building Department would make sure that all of the application regulations were being followed.
Commissioner Trigas asked if the entryways would be a certain width to accommodate all visitors.
99
PLANNING COMMISSION September 15,1999 Page 11
Mr. Rudolf replied that accessibility was part of the plan check.
Chairperson Heineman asked if there were any additional questions. Being that there were none, he
asked the applicant to make a presentation.
Dana M. Wohlford and Philip C. Kidd, III, Manzanita Partners, 1155 Cuchara Drive, Del Mar, California
Ms. Wohlford acknowledged the efforts of the City Staff, the Wild Lie Agencies, and members of their team who have worked together to create a project that will make Carlsbad the special place that it
already is, while fulfilling a need within the city. Unlike many applicants that wme before you, we are a husband and wife team, who plan to be long term owners of our project and active in its management. We
are thrilled to be in Carlsbad and plan to be active in the community. We have reviewed the conditions of
approval including the errata sheet and find them all acceptable. Tonight we ask only for your support in making our dream come true, by approval of Staffs recommendation. Technical questions ‘should be
directed to other members of our team.
Chairperson Heineman asked if any one had questions for Ms. Wohlford or Mr. Kidd
Commissioner Compas wanted to know if the project were financially viable
Mr. Kidd stated that the project is financially viable.
Commissioner Compas stated that it looked as if it might be tight.
Mr. Kidd explained that they have worked to be accommodating to the HMP and also provide places for
people who want to rent and live in Carlsbad.
Commissioner Segall, expressed a concern regarding cluster of apartments or homes and the resident’s
access to stores and local amenities. At the south end of the project there is an emergency access area. . Mr. Segall wanted to know if it is possible to put in a pedestrian entrance and exit at that point.
Mr. Kidd replied that access would be provided for the resident’s to enter and leave from the south.
Commissioner Nielsen questioned the disclosure statement and why it listed Mr. Kidd as the Applicant and not the owner.
l Mr. Kidd explained that we are both. There are two parcels of property. The southern portion we do own
and the northern portion is owned by Anthony and Dicky Bonds Trust and we are in escrow with that. We
have paid for a portion, we have not paid for another portion.
Commissioner Trigas asked if the partners knew how many handicapped units they will have to provide
and any structural changes that would have to be made.
Mr. Kidd stated that they will not have to make any structural changes and that they would meet till ADA
and handicap codes. We do not want to limit.our market. We want to be accessible to all citizens of
Carlsbad. Mr. Kidd stated that meeting the codes was not an issue at all. It would be done because it is
the correct thing to do.
Ms. Wohlford stated that they would meet all requirements when the project is built.
Commissioner Welshons wanted clarification on the assigned parking and the distance the residence would have to walk to get to an apartment.
Ms. Wohlford stated that the longest distance from a parking space to an apartment would be 180 feet.
PLANNING COMMISSION September 15,1999 Page 12
Mr. Kidd stated that they have looked at both sides of the issue and have not determined whether parking
will be assigned or not. The plan is to have professional third party Management Company, that is in the
business of managing upscale apartments, to help determine this issue.
Commissioner Welshons wanted to know if the determination as to who gets a covered, uncovered or
garage parking space would be decided by economics. .
Mr. Kidd indicated that the determination has not been made. That is one of the areas that the Management Company will advise them on.
Commissioner Welshons wanted to know if this project would be built in phases and where would they
start.
Mr. Kidd indicated that there would be one (1) phase.
Ms. Wohlford indicated that the building of the project would begin at the Recreation Center and begin
around the front along Cassia and work back towards the south end of the project, but the project will be
built all at once.
Commission Nielsen asked if there are no assigned parking spaces, how did one know how far it would be
to the apartment from the parking space.
Brian Reagan, with Manta Engineering, 350 West 9th Avenue - Suite B, Escondido, California.
Mr. Reagan stated that the furthest distance from a comer unit to a parking space was determined to be
180-200 feet. The project is unique in that it offers covered, uncovered and garage spaces.
Chairperson Heineman opened the floor for public testimony. There were no requests to speak and public
testimony was closed.
Commissioner Welshons referred to the Mitigation on Page 14, and indicated that there will be impacts to
habitat supporting one pair of California gnatcatchers. She wanted to know what had been learned as to
the ability of the birds to adopt and relocate.
Senior Planner Blackburn explained that the experts have been asked. The Mitigation has been set up to provide consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wild Life Service and the California Department of Fish and
Game. What has been determined on this project, because this is a coastal site, is that they are-subject
to the normal winter grading prohibition. If thereaare birds on the property in this project, and the need to grade is present, they need only stay 100 feet away from the birds.
Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Wickham if he now had the information regarding the from where to
where, under Condition 52- A on El Camino Real.
Associate Engineer Wickham stated that it was along the property frontage.
Commissioner Welshons stated that they must say both sides of the road on El Camino and wanted to know the exact language that would be added to Condition 52-A.
Commissioner Welshons is interested in a Condition that states “No Parking” in the cul-de-sac bulb where
the emergency access is and that is it striped or signed. Also that the affordable units will be reduced
from 6 units per building to 5 units per building and adding language to condition 52A defining from where
to where on El Camino Real on both sides.
Commissioner Segall asks for clarification of the 6 to 5 affordable units per building reduction and also
asked if the Applicant was amenable to the change.
PLANNING COMMISSION September 15,1999 Page 13
Commissioner Welshons stated that the affordable units should be disbursed throughout the complex, thereby, allowing no more than 5 affordable units in any one building. There are 17 buildings and 24
affordable units.
Chairperson Heineman asked if the Applicant had any objections to that. There were no objections from
the Applicants.
Commissioner Welshons stated. that .-she was-glad that Staff added the additional screening along El Camino Real. The Q overlay does allow us to apply additional conditions. The screening along El Camino is important and she would like to take it further to include balconies facing El Camino Real
Corridor should not have junk sitting on the balconies. This has been done on the Poinsettia transit
center.
Commission Compas stated he would like to hear the language for condition 52A.
Ms. Blackburn read the revised language of condition 52A, “full width improvements to both sides of El
Camino Real along the property frontage and to include in transitions.
Assistant Planning Director, Gary, Wayne, explained that one could not park on a 42 foot radius cul-de-
sac. There will not be parking there. It generally comes as a condition from the Fire Department that it be
red curbed and it is posted. That will also happen at building permits when the building plans are
reviewed. The condition can be added, but is not needed.
Chairperson Heineman asks for a Motion as a basis for a discussion.
MAIN MOTION:
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Compas, and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolutions 4617, 4618, 4619, 4620,
recommending approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, ZC 98”09/LCPA 98-06/SDP 98-19 and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions 4621,4622,4623, approving SUP 98-061HDP ’
98-18 and CDP 98-73 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, and including the errata sheet of September 15th.
Chairperson Heineman asked Commissioner Compas if he wished to include the changes, which were
made by Staff.
Commissioner Compas replied unless someone objects, .he would also include the changes made by
Staff.
DISCUSSION ON MAIN MOTION:
Commissioner Welshons asked if there was a homeowners association.
Ms. Blackburn stated that there are no homeowners. The project is an apartment complex.
Commission L’Heureux, stated that this was the best project she had seen on a difficult piece of land and
that she liked the project.
Commissioner Compas agreed with Commissioner L’Heureux. Regarding the three proposals put forth by Commission Welshons, he does not support her on the cul-de-sac bulb parking because it is taken care of, he does support her on number 2, regarding the 6 to 5 affordable units. He stated that they have
already agreed upon number 3.
Commission Nielsen commented on the restrictions regarding the use of the balconies facing El Camino Real. He asked, if some kind of restriction pertaining to the use of the balconies can be applied to protect
the integrity of the building.
-
PLANNING COMMISSION September 15.1999 Page 14
Assistant City Attorney, Rich Rudolf stated that legal authority was available via the SUP because of the
scenic corridor and the site development plan. The issue what is going to be required and is it workable.
Commissioner Compas related the provision that was included in the Hotel project on Carlsbad Blvd
should be included in this project.
Commissioner Segall asked what-was done at .Poinsettia Properties-because that was the most recent
and it is very clearly almost the same item that is being dealt with now. Commissioner Welshons asked if the exact wording could not be defined, could the Planning Director
accomplish it, once everyone understand the concept to be achieved.
Assistant City Attorney, Rich Rudolf explained that if the Applicant understands and agrees with what you
are trying to do, it could be worked out administratively. The questions being, do they understand the
hotel provision and is that acceptable to them?
Chairman Heineman indicated that the Applicants do not understand the “hotel provision.
Commission Compas stated that it was something along the lines that one can not put a bunch of junk on
the balconies.
Assistant City Attorney, Rich Rudrlf explained that management was required to establish internal rules
and enforce the rules, that prohibited hanging items from the balcony such as towels, surfboard, etc.
Ms. Blackburn indicated that the added condition would indicate that, “Management shall establish and
enforce a rule which prohibits storage of (what ever items) are to be included on outside balconies visible
from El Camino Real, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.”
Commissioner L’Heureux stated that the condition should apply to the entire project.
Commissioner Compas indicated he didn’t think one should be concerned about the entire project.
Chairman Heineman indicated that it should be for those balconies facing the scenic corridor.
AMENDMENT 1:
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Welshons, and duly seconded, that the appropriate
conditions be amended.. The affordable housing units are to be reduced from 6
per building to 5 per building. .
VOTE: 7-o
AYES: Heineman, Compas, L’Heureux, Segall, Trigas, Welshons, Nielsen, Trigas
NOES: . None
Commissioner Welshons indicated that Commissioner Compas included the amendment to 52A in his
main motion and she accepted Staffs explanation that the emergency access point will be properly stripped so that no parking will occur there.
Chairman Heineman informed Mr. Kidd that there were items that needed some indication. form him and
Ms. Wohlford. One was dealing with limiting the affordable units in each building to 5 (five) units per building. The second was dealing with the restriction of the balcony use, so the balconies would not be unsightly.
Mr. Kidd expressed no objections to the limiting of the affordable units to five (5) per building, but indicated
strongly that they would prefer to police the property themselves. Mr. Kidd stated that, they may want to
allow tenants to have gas barbecues on the balcony, a final determination has not been made. Mr. Kidd indicated that each unit would have a washer and dryer and storage space. Mini storage will be provided
and we will police our project to the high standards of Cartsbad. Mr. Kidd indicated that the Project would
PLANNING COMMISSION September 15,1999 Page 15
be an example of how to do things in the right way and again stated that he preferred not to have the
condition. Mr. Kidd indicated that they would be good corporate citizens to the community.
Commissioner Compas asked what would happen when they sold their property to someone that wasn’t
as good.
Ms. Wohlford stated that they intended to pass this property on to their children. She explained they had
no intentions of selling their project --
Chairperson Heineman asked if it would acceptable to the Applicants, lf there were a condition, that every
six-(6) months a finding would be made by the Planning Commission indicating whether or not the
balconies were being maintained in occurrence with what we think should be done
Mr. Kidd indicated emphatically, their desire and ability to police themselves.
Commissioner Segall indicated the bottom line, was that the Commission did not want the balconies used for storage, no towels, or bikes or other unsightly items. The balconies are not to be used for storage.
Commissioner Trigas asked if the wording of a condition could indicate that the Applicant would be
sensitive to the fact that the balconies fronting El Camino Real and those units would be sensitive to the
view corridor. Thereby, the Applicant would police the area, but there is an acknowledgment of the
sensitivity of the scenic corridor.
Mr. Kidd stated that wording to that effect would be acceptable.
Commissioner Nielsen stated that it sounded as if the Applicant was going to do what we are asking them
to do and therefore, there would be no problem conforming to what the requirements are as long as the condition is worded as Commissioner Trigas suggested.
Mr. Kidd stated again, they preferred to police their project.
Commissioner Welshons agreed with Commissioner Nielsen, that there is a need for a condition to be
applied to the balconies. The intent is to preserve the scenic corridor. She stated that the Commission
had the authority to do that. She further stated that Commission Trigas’ proposal was a very conservative
direction.
Commissioner Welshons stated that the wording could state including prohibiting towels, surfboards, and
bikes, but not limited to those types of examples. Commissioner Welshons mentioned prohibiting banners
as well.
Chairman Heineman asked Commissioner Welshons if she were proposing that kind of amendment.
Commissioner Welshons stated she didn’t have the exact wording, unless Ms. Blackburn has some
wording on it.
Senior Planner Blackburn stated that she had concerns.
Assistant City Attorney Rudolf indicated that the Housing Redevelopment Director pointed out that part of * the project is affordable housing and there has to be a management agreement with regards to the
affordable housing units. An appropriate place for this type of concern regarding the balconies would be in
that agreement.
Chairman Heineman thanked Mr. Rudolf and authorized a five- (5) minute recess at 7:25 PM.
Chairmen Heineman called the meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:31 PM. He stated that
the problem before the Planning Commission was how to incorporate some type of agreement, that would assure the Planning Commission that balconies facing El Camino Real will be kept presentable, and
asked Jack Henthorn, representing the applicants, to read the proposed amendment.
PLANNING COMMISSION September 15, 1999 Page 16
Mr. Henthom stated the following, “Management shall impose and enforce conditions preventing unsightly
conditions on balconies facing El Camino Real to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.”
Chairman Heineman asked if there were any questions.
Commissioner Welshons asked if a small list could be included.
Chairman Heineman stated that a list would not be included, because something may be left off of the list. He stated that a general statement satisfied the overall need.
Chairman Heineman stated that “unsightly conditions” is the key word and that surely should wver it.
Commissioner Welshons asked if that implied it would be an ongoing condition.
Chairman Heineman stated that, the way it was written meant it would be an ongoing thing.
Commissioner Welshons wanted clarification that it was not just a construct deal, but that it would be
enforced for the life of the apartments.
Chairman Heineman indicated that it was quite clear.
Assistant City Attorney Rudolf indicated that he did not think it was that clear. He stated that the Applicant
needed to understand what was being imposed. Mr. Rudolf explained that he would add, “prior to
occupancy there would be a draft presented to the Director and the Director would either approve or disapprove the draft and it would be imposed.
Commissioner Welshons asked how the amendment should be changed in order to have it go on for ever
and ever.
Assistant City Attorney said he wouldn’t, but if was requested, some language would have to put in that
would indicate, “subject to periodic review and revision and approval of the Director.”
Chairman Heineman asked if Mr. Rudolf was happy with the amendment as it was read by Mr. Henthom.
Assistant City Attorney Rudolph indicated that he was happy with the amendment as read by Mr.
Henthorn.
Chairman Heineman asked if there were any additional comments.
AMENDMENT 2: ’
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Segall, and duly seconded, incorporate the wording by
Mr. Henthorn.
VOTE: 7-o AYES: Heineman, Compas, L’Heureux, Segall, Trigas, Welshons, Nielsen
NOES: None
Commissioner Segall expressed his agreement with Commission L’Heureux about the quality of the
project, the design integrity and the layout, and his support of the project.
Commissioner Welshons stated that, it was the first time she witnessed a developer coming to meetings
prior to their project coming here, to learn about the system, to design a quality project. We welcome you into the City. She stated it will be an excellent project and that Staff did an outstanding job going through
the questions asked this evening.
PLANNING COMMISSION September 15, 1999 _. Page 17
Chairman Heineman asked if there were any other comments. He then stated that he felt that this was an
exceptional solutions to a very difficult piece of property. In addition, he expressed that he was very much
in favor of the project.
VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION:
VOTE: 7-o AYES: Heineman, Compaq L’Heureux, Segall, Trigas, Welshons, Nielsen
NOES: None . Chairman Heineman closed the public hearing. .
PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident
of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk
of the printer of
North County Times
formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have
been adjudged newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of
San Diego, State of California, for the cities of Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad, Solana Beach and San Diego County; that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper
and not in any supplement thereof on thr following dates, to-wit:
Oct. 29, 1999
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury tha
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at San Marcos , California
this 29th day
Oct. 1999 of
Signature
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
This space is for the County Clerk’s Piling Stamp
Proof of Publication of
Notice of Public Hearino
-
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ZC 9%09/LCPA 9%06/SDP 98-19
MANZANITA APARTMENTS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will
hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive,
Carlsbad, California, at 600 p.m., on Tuesday November 9, 1999, to consider a
request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, Zone Change, Local Coastal Program
Amendment and Site Development Plan for a 157~unit apartment development on
a site located adjacent to El Camino Real just south of Cassia Road and within
Local Facilities Management Zone 21 and 10 and more particularly described as:
A portion of the NE and SE % of the SW % of Sections 23. T12S,
R4W, SBM, County of San Diego.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the
public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on or after November 5,
1999.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, or would like to be notified of the
decision, please contact Elaine Blackburn in the City of Carlsbad Planning
Department at (760) 43 8- 116 1, extension 447 1.
If you challenge the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, Zone Change, Local Coastal Program Amendment and/or
Site Development Plan in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues
raised by you or someone else at the public hearing described in this notice, or in
written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad City Clerk’s Office, at,
or prior to, the public hearing.
APPLICANT: MANZANITA PARTNERS, LLC
PUBLISH: October 29,1999
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
.
sn
MANZANITA APARTMENTS
ZC 989091LCPA 98-061SDP 984 91
(Form A)
TO: C1T.Y CLERK’S OFFICE
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice
zc g&Og/LCPA 98-06/SDP 98-19 - Manzanita Apartments
for a public hearing before the City Council.
Please notice the Item for the council meeting of First Available Hearing
. ASAP
Thank you.
Assistant City Han-- a
October 14, 1999
Date
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200
Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, (DATE), to consider
approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, Zone Change, Local Coastal Program Amendment and Site Development Plan for a
157~unit apartment development on a site located adjacent to El Camino Real just south of
Cassia Road and within Local Facilities Management Zone 21 and 10 and more particularly
described as:
A portion of the NE and SE % of the SW % of Sections 23. T12S, R4W,
SBM, County of San Diego.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after (DATE). If you have any
questions, please call Elaine Blackburn in the Planning Department at (760) 438-l 161, extension
4471.
The time within which you may judicially challenge this Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Zone Change, Local Coastal Program
Amendment and Site Development Plan, if approved, is established by state law and/or city
ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, Zone Change, Local Coastal Program Amendment and/or
Site Development Plan in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone
else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to
the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: ZC 98-09/LCPA 98-06/SDP 98- 19
CASE NAME: MANZANITA APARTMENTS
PUBLISH: DATE
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
- -- FJLE fJg‘j
City of Carlsbad
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
COMPLETE DATE: November 121998
DESCRIPTION: .
Request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Zone Change, Local Coastal
Program Amendment, Site Development Plan, Special Use Permit, Hillside Development
Permit, and Coastal Development Permit to develop a 157~unit apartment development.
LOCATION:
This project is within the City of Carlsbad’s Coastal Zone located adjacent to El Camino
Real just south of Cassia Road and within Local Facilities Management Zones 21 and 10.
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER:
215-020-13
2 1.5-020-22
215-021-04
APPLICANT:
Manzanita Apartments
1155 Cuchara Drive
De1 Mar, CA 92014
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 September 15, 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 September 9, 1999.
If you have any questions, or would like to be notified of the decision; please contact Elaine
Blackburn 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-l 161, extension 4471.
.
. . .
2075 La Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 576 - (760) 438-l 161 l FAX (760) 438-0894 @
APPEALS
If you challenge the Mitigated. Negative Declaration, Zone Change, Local Coastal Program
Amendment, Site Development Plan, Special Use Permit, Hillside Development Permit, and
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 prior to the public hearing.
1. Anneals 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:
El This site is located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area.
$1 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.
CASE FILE: ZC 98-09/LCPA 9&06/SDP 98-19/SUP 98-06/HDP 98-18KDP 98-73
CASE NAME: MANZANITA APARTMENTS
PUBLISH: SEPTEMBER 2,1999
-
SITE
MANZANITA APARTMENTS
ZC 98909iLCPA 98-06lSDP 98-l 91
SUP 98=06/HDP 98-l 8/CDP 98-73
Sbooth Feed SheetsTM . _- Use template for 5160*
CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST CITY OF ENCINITAS
801 PINE AVE 505 S VULCAN AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008 ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NORTH COAST HWY CITY OF VISTA OCEANSIDE CA 92054 PO BOX 1988
VISTA CA 92085
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY SANDAG
STE B STE 800
9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD 401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331 SAN DIEGO CA 92101
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST SD COUNTY PLANNING
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR STE B
SAN DIEGO CA 92123 5201 RUFFIN RD SAN DIEGO CA 92123
U.S. FISH 6 WILDLIFE CA COASTAL COMMISSION
2730 LOKER AVE WEST STE 200
CARLSBAD CA 92008 3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NO
SAN DIEGO CA 92108
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING
SERVICES DEPT
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT PLANNER
ELAINE BLACKBURN
a & AvERV@ Address Labels
** CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
STE 50 330 GOLDENSHORE
LONG BEACH CA 90802
LAFCO 1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
I.P.U.A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND URBAN STUDIES SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
CITY OF CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
laser 5160@
-
MANZANITA PARTNERS LLC
1155 CUCHARA DR
DEL MAR CA 92014
BOWEN,WILLIAM P & MARJOR
14088 E KAMM AVE KINGSBURG CA 93631
BRESSI,MARY E TR
PO BOX 1666
CARLSBAD CA 92018
WOLFE,AUGUST A & LAURIE
6901 QUAIL AVE D CARLSBAD CA 92009
STRELIC,LORA M 10092 BEVERLY DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH C 92646
CRAIG,STEPHEN
6901 QUAIL PL F
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LO,PRISCILLA
3133 HATACA RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LANGNER,CATHERINE M
667 COVE RD 4
STAMFORD CT 06902
MASKELL,STUART C
6903 QUAIL PL H CARLSBAD CA 92009
STEPHENSON,ARLENE
112 NEPTUNE AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
li
BONS,ANTHONY & DICKY K MALDONADO,DAVID
25709 HILLCREST AVE 1590 BASSWOOD AVE ESCONDIDO CA 92026 CARLSBAD CA 92008
SFREGOLA,MICHAEL F TR WHITNEY,ROBERT
1052 HYDE PARK DR 850 DEL MAR DOWNS
SANTA ANA CA 92705 SOLANA BEACH CA 92075
WHITNEY,ROBERT L & NINA REITER,TERRY
850 DEL MAR DOWNS RD 316 6 SADDLEBACK RD
SOLANA BEACH CA 92075 PALOS VRDES CA 90274
BLETH,DOROTHIE l
3141 AVENIDA TOPANGA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
REAL ESTATE COLLATERAL
PO BOX 9000-685
CARLSBAD CA 92018
TRUP FAMILY LIVING TRUST BENDIK,JOSEPH 1747 EDGEFIELD LN 467 CARROLL ST
ENCINITAS CA 92024 SUNNYVALE CA 94086
PIRO;GARY K & HELEN L COMORRE,SANDRA M
2641 VALEWOOD AVE 6901 QUAIL PL G CARLSBAD CA 92008 ' CARLSBAD CA 92009
LATHROP,JERRY R THOMPSON,TAMARA
6903 QUAIL PL C 7104 DAFFODIL PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
PIRO,GARY K & HELEN L
930 BOARDWALK D
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
SPENCER,MARIA R
2230 BROOKHAVEN PASS
VISTA CA 92083
ROSS,JOHN W SMEDSTAD,SARAH L
1006 ARDEN DR 4885 FINASA WAY
ENCINITAS CA 92024 SAN DIEGO CA 92124
SHIVELY,JAMES W
150 JOHNSON,KENNETH E
30012 IVY GLENN DR 6905 QUAIL PL C
LAGUNA NIGUEL CA 92677 CARLSBAD CA 92009
MINERD,CHARLES E
6905 QUAIL PL G
CARLSBAD CA
GIKAS,NICHOLAS
5858 EDISON PL
CARLSBAD CA
BOBB,ANDREW B
6909 QUAIL PL D
CARLSBAD CA
DERBY,FRANCIS A C
5275 MIDDLETON RD
SAN DIEGO CA
92009
92008
92008
PATRIC
92109
KRANTZ,MARTIN & RICHARD
L5863 VINCENNES ST
SEPULVEDA CA 91343
MILLS,SCOTT G 6911 QUAIL PL E
CARLSBAD CA 92009
POLOME,SERGE R
6911 QUAIL PL H
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ZIEGLER,WILLIAM L C DANA
1836 CAMPESINO PL
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
DAVIS,KENNETH H
6913 QUIL PL G
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CAMPBELL,LOWELL L
6905 QUAIL PL F
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CALIGIURI,MICHAEL P
2413 LA PLANCHA LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SCHEIBE,PAUL
PO BOX 1349
SOLANA BEACH CA 92075
SELVAGGIO,GAETANQ & DORO
2775 TORRY CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MAGGIORE,EDWARD D
2 VILLAGE PARK WAY
SANTA MONICA CA 90405
NGUYEN,KIM H
8912 CHANNING AVE
WESTMINSTER CA 92683
TRUMPIS,BRUCE D & BARBAR
2720 LUCIERNAGA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SAYER,JUDY L
6913 QUAIL PL A
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BRIMNER,TRACY & TAM1 M
7637 RUSTIC0 DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
WOOD,JUNE .d
PO BOX 232134
ENCINITAS CA 92023
MCGINNIS,MICHAEL K
620 STATE ST 122
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
HEBERT,MARY
205 PASEO MARGUERITA
VISTA CA 92084
COPES FAMILY TRUST
21941 CONSTANCIA
MISSION VIEJO CA 92692
ZITTEL,JIM A
6911 QUAIL PL A
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BUITEN,SHEILA
6800 WATERCOURSE DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
MCGINNIS,MICHAEL K
6911 QUAIL PL G
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KROHN,ELENOR J
2931 LONE JACK RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
GARCIA,RAFAEL
6913 QUAIL PL H
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROGGE,MARTIN E HOFMANN,ANDREW W MCNANIE,ROSALYNN M
6915 QUAIL PL D 6915 QUAIL PL C 6915 QUAIL PL B
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
-.
ADAMS,CHRISTOPHER T
6915 QUAIL PL A
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JONES,LORI A
3384 SHERWOOD LN
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
AULET,RAPHAEL A & ANGELA
6919 QUAIL PL B
CARLSBAD CA 92009
PARRA,NORBERTO
6919 QUAIL PL E
CARLSBAD CA 92009
COATES,REX S
6919 QUAIL PL H
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HAHN FAMILY REVOCABLE LI 110 N HIGHWAY 101
ENCINITAS CA 92024
PADUA,REGINO A JR
8250 MIRA MESA BLVD B
SAN DIEGO CA 92126
LASTUCK,ROBERT C & CLAY
6907 QUAIL PL A
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DRALLE,MARY
6907 QUAIL PL D
CARLSBAD CA 92009
PHAM,QUYEN V
6907 QUAIL PL G
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MEEKS,TERI J
6458 EDMONTON AVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92122
MCLAIN,JULIE D
9823 AMANITA AVE
TUJUNGA CA 91042
CORBIN,NORMA V 745 OCEAN CREST RD
CARDIFF CA 92007
AMADOR,LINDA *
6919 QUAIL PL F
CARLSBAD CA 92009
VERNA,NANCI M
6921 QUAIL PL D CARLSBAD CA 92009
HOVERSON,JEFFREY T
6816 XANA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LICKHALTER,WILLIAM
6921 QUAIL PL F CARLSBAD CA 92009
GROSS,BARBARA L
4940 ARTESIA RD
SHINGLE SPRINGS CA 95682
KUEHL,STEPHEN M
400 N THE STRAND 2
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
RAY FAMILY LTD PARTNERSH
6907 QUAIL PL H CARLSBAD CA 92009
JIN,SONG
6915 QUAIL PL G
CARLSBAD CA
KATZ,EDWARD J
6919 QUAIL PL A
CARLSBAD CA
KNAPP,SUSAN E 6919 QUAIL PL D
CARLSBAD CA
FULLER,SUE C
.7
92009
92009
92009
12443 CARMEL POINTE
SAN DIEGO CA 92130
ORDMAN,MARTIN G
6921 QUAIL PL C CARLSBAD CA 92009
COVIELLO,KELLY C MIKE
6921 QUAIL PL H CARLSBAD CA 92009
KULCHIN,LESLIE A
3014 GARBOSO ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CARTAGENA,JORGE
205 PASEO MARGUERITA
VISTA CA 92084
PETROWSKI,PHILIP G
10085 SW FLICKA PL
BEAVERTON OR 97008
BARSUK,ANN M
1926 SWALLOW LN CARLSBAD CA 92009
GARBER, FELIX WONG ,SHAIN BAKKEN,STEVEN E
1922 SWALLOW LN 1918 SWALLOW LN 1914 SWALLOW LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
ZICCARELLI,KATHLEEN SNYDER,DENNIS P ETAL
1910 SWALLOW LN 1928 SWALLOW LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CAA 92009
MALUBAY,ELIZABETH G
1924 SWALLOW LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DAHI,ALI & BAHAR BAKER,ROBERT J C LINDA M EDIC,DONALD F & LEONA M
1920 SWALLOW LN PO BOX 958 1912 SWALLOW LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009 BLUE JAY CA 92317 CARLSBAD CA 92009
BURNAND,PERRY H TR
4407 MANCHESTER AVE 201 ENCINITAS CA 92024
SALMI,ELLABLANCHE K 1940 SWALLOW LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROSEN,ELLIOTT R & CARYN
2390 BOTELLA PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BECKER,BRADLEY S & CATAL PARMAN,D MICHELE GAUTHIER,MARK D 1948 SWALLOW LN 1952 SWALLOW LN 1938 SWALLOW LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
GROTH,TIMOTHY R MITCHELL,JOAN H WINSLOW,CLEON W
1942 SWALLOW LN 1946 SWALLOW LN PO BOX 780 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 ' MONARCH BEACH CA 92629
SOPCZYK,STANLEY R & BERG
1954 SWALLOW LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
THOMPSON,LORRAINE P
1960 SWALLOW LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
J&E INC
6721 CANTIL ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
BRIGHAM,H WARREN WOTHERSPOON,BEVERLY W, TR SERRIN,ARTHUR J
6994 EL CAMINO REAL 1972 SWALLOW LN 4423 SALISBURY DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92008
ADAMS,LISA K CLARK,DEANNE M MITCHELL,JOHN T
1962 SWALLOW LN 1966 SWALLOW LN PO BOX 738
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 GREAT FALLS MT , 59403
SURPRISE,CAROL MCGINNIS & SPENCER TR SCHUTH,NANCY J 1974 SWALLOW LN 1978 SWALLOW LN 1977 SWALLOW LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
SIMS,DEIRDRE M
1973 SWALLOW LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MEYERS,NORMAN H
PO BOX 1792 RANCH0 SANTA FE CA 92067
KITARIEV,DMITRI
1971 SWALLOW LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BEDFORD,CATHERINE & DONA
1953 SWALLOW LN CARLSBAD CA 92009
INNIS,MURIEL F MWJT INN1 FOREMAN,ROBERT J & JEANN HENKELS,THOMAS A
1941 SWALLOW LN 1937 SWALLOW LN 1955 SWALLOW LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
BALLECER,CONRADO R JR & NEIPRIS,LEAH D DRIVER,GORDON R 221 W CONRAD DR 1947 SWALLOW LN 1943 SWALLOW LN
PHOENIX AZ 85023 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
KLAS ELAINE R FAMILY TRU
1021 WILLOW DR
HEMET CA 92543
WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING STEINER,JOSEPH R & MARIA
2385 CAMINO VIDA ROBLE 1 6675 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
LEVATINO,NOREEN L ETAL
22121 MALIBU LN
HUNTINGTON BCH CA 92646
NOLINA ESTATES ETAL
6453 BLUEGRASS LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BARNES,PAULA D
1969 SWALLOW LN
CARLSBAD CA
LABOS,PIACARINA
1979 SWALLOW LN
CARLSBAD CA
SMITH,PETER J
1967 SWALLOW LN
CARLSBAD CA
MILES,PETER
92009
92009
92009
,
6363 RANCH0 MISSION RD 4 SAN DIEGO CA 92108
PEGGY EHARRISON TRUSTEE SUDDUTH,JACK & PATRICIA 972 NOLBEY ST 1301 FORTSIDE DR
CARDIFF BY THE SEA 92007 FORT WASHINGTN MD 20744
DODSON,NINA BETTS,CHARLES R & CHRIST
1781 NERINE WAY 1772 VERDIN CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA , 92009
MAXWELL,ROBYN K FLYNN,CYNTHIA A 6434 LILIUM LN 6438 LILIUM LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
.i
KNOWLES,B J TR
1965 SWALLOW LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SCHMIDT,GORDON J
1975 SWALLOW LN CARLSBAD CA 92009
BRISKIN TRUST
1963 SWALLOW LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LEWIS,JEANETTE M
1945 SWALLOW LN CARLSBAD CA 92009
SASKA,ISABEL R TR
6721 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
POINSETTIA HEIGHTS HOA
2385 CAMINO VIDA ROBLE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HARTSHORN,DANA
1782 CALLISIA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
NG,BRENDA Y
1786 CALISSIA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
RENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA
CURRENT RESIDENT
107 6419 TOBRIA TERRACE
SAVIGNANO,PAUL V & JILAN
1794 CALISSIA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GEIST,WILLIAM A & SARITA
1801 CALLISIA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CURRENT RESIDENT , 102
6419 TOBRIA TERRACE
CARLSBAD, CA 92009
CURRENT RESIDENT
105
6419 TOBRIA TERRACE
CARLSBAD, CA 92009
*i MAXWELL,ROBYN K
6434 LILIUM LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
7” CA 92009
CURRENT RESIDENT
108
6419 TOBRIA TERRACE / .
CURRENT RESIDENT
106 /
TOBRIA TERRACE
92009
CARLSBAD, CA RLSBAD, CA
CURRENT RESIDENT T RESIDEN
202
6419 TOBRIA TERRACE
CARLSBAD, CA 92009
CURRENT RESIDENT NT RESIDEN
205
6419 TOBRIA TERRACE 9 TOBRIA TERRAC
CARLSBAD, CA CARLSBAD, CA
CURRENT RESIDENT
201
6419 TOBRIA TERRACE
CARLSBAD, CA 92009
CURRENT RESIDENT
204
6419 TOBRIA TERRACE
CARLSBAD, CA 92009
CURRENT RESIDENT
207
6419 TOBRIA TERRACE
CARLSBAD, CA 92009
CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT
208 301
6419 TOBRIA TERRACE
CARLSBAD, CA 92009 I 92009
CURRENT RESIDENT
304
6419 TOBRIA TERRACE
CARLSBAD, CA 92009
Skoth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160*
H:WMIN’,LABELSUCP
INTERESTED PARTIES
CITY OF ENCINITAS
COM DEV DEPARTMENT
505 S VULCAN AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
TABATA FARMS
PO BOX 1338
CARLSBAD CA 92018
UPDATED 3-99
OLIVENHAIN M.W.D.
1966 OLIVENHAIN ROAD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
REGIONAL WATER QUAL. BD
EXECUTIVE OFFICER
SUITE B
9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD
SAN DIEGO CA 92124
KENNETH E SULZER
SANDAG - EXEC DIRECTOR
1 ST INT’L PLAZA, SUITE 800
401 B STREET
,SAN DIEGO CA 92101
CRAIG ADAMS
SIERRA CLUB
SAN DIEGO CHAPTER
3820 RAY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
GUY MOORE JR
6503 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JAN SOBEL
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
PO BOX 1605
CARLSBAD CA 92008
LESLIE ESPOSITO
1893 AMELFI DRIVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CYRIL AND MARY GIBSON
12142 ARGYLE DRIVE
LOS ALAMITOS CA 90702
BILL MCLEAN
c/o LAKESHORE GARDENS
7201 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LANIKAI LANE PARK
SHARP; SPACE 3
6550 PONTO DRIVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JOHN LAMB
1446 DEVLIN DRIVE
LOS ANGELES CA 90069
SPIERS ENTERPRISES
DWIGHT SPIERS
SUITE 139
23 CORPORATE PLAZA
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660
KIM SEIBLY
SAN DIEGO GAS 81 ELECTRIC
PO BOX 1831
SAN DIEGO CA 92112
MARY GRIGGS
STATE LANDS COMMISSSION
SUITE 100 SOUTH
100 HOWE AVE
SACRAMENTO CA 95825-8202
SUPERVISOR BILL HORN
AlTN: ART DANELL
COUNTY OF SD, ROOM 335
1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
PERRY A LAMB
890 MERE POINT ROAD
BRUNSWICK MAINE 04011
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
PLANNING & LAND USE DEPT
JOAN VOKAC - SUITE B-5
5201 RUFFIN ROAD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
LEE ANDERSON
CRA PRESIDENT
5200 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
RICHARD RETECKI
COASTAL CONSERVANCY
SUITE 1100
1330 BROADWAY
OAKLAND CA 94612
ANTHONY BONS
25709 HILLCREST AVE
ESCONDIDO CA 92026
FLOYD ASHBY
416 LA COSTA AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
DALE/DONNA SCHREIBER
7163 ARGONAURA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MR/MRS MICHAEL CARDOSA
6491 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
GEORGE BOLTON
6583 BLACKRAIL ROAD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
COPIES TO:
+ CITY CLERK
+ MAIN LIBRARY
+ BRANCH LIBRARY
or WATER DISTRICT
U.S. FISH 8, WILDLIFE SERVICES
2730 LOKER AVE WEST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
a .& AvERV@ Address Labels laser 5160@
LABELS - 5 163
LCPA MAILING LIST (GOVERNMENT AGENCIES)
APPENDIX A (LIST IS REQUIRED BY COASTAL
COMMISSION)
SANDAG (SAN DIEGO COUNTY)
WELLS FARGO PLAZA
SUITE 800
401 B STREET
SANDIEGO CA 92101
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
ROOM 700
110 WEST A STREET
SANDIEGO CA 92101
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
350 MCALLISTER STREET
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94 103
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
OFFICE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
PO BOX 3044
SACRAMENTO CA 95812-3044
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
STEVE SHAFFER, AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
ROOM 100
1220 N STREET
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION & HSG AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
WILLIAM G. BRENNAN ROOM 5504
DEPUTY SECRETARY AND SPECIAL COUNCIL 1120 N STREET
SUITE 2450 SACRAMENTO CA 958 14
980 NINTH STREET
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
DISTRICT 11 CALTRANS
BILL FIGGE, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
MAIL STATION 65
2829 SAN JUAN ST
SANDIEGO CA 92138
RESOURCES AGENCY
RM 1311
1416 NINTH STREET
SACRAMENTO CA 95812
U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
SUITE 130
3310 EL CAMINO AVENUE
SACRAMENTO CA 95821
ENERGY RESOURCES, CONSERVATION
AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
CHUCK NAJARIAN
15 16 NINTH STREET
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
MARINE RESOURCES- REGION, DR & G
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES SUPERVISOR
350 GOLDEN SHORE
LONGBEACH CA 90802
I, COASTAL CONSERVANCY
’ SUITE 1100
; 1330 BROADWAY
I OAKLAND CA 94612
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
GAIL PRESLEY, CHIEF
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
RM 1341
1416 NINTH STREET
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
DOUG WICKIZER, ENVIROMENTAL COORD
RM 1516-2
1416 NINTH STREET
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
SOUTHERN REGION SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION
JOHN WALSTROM, TECHNICAL SERVICES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
8885 RIO SAN DIEGO DRIVE BILL TRAVIS
SAND DIEGO CA 92108 30 VAN NESS AVENUE
SANFRANCISCO CA 95814
STATE LANDS COMMISSION
DWIGHT SANDERS .,
SUITE 1005
100 HOWE AVE
SACRAMENTO CA 95825-8202
WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
PO BOX 100
SACAR4MENTO CA 95801
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
SUITE B
9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD
SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
ATTN: GARY
RESOURCE CONSERVATIONIST
SUITE 102
2121-C SECOND STREET
DAVIS CA 95616
PACIFIC REGIONAL MANAGER
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMIN - OCRM, 55MC4
N/ORM - 3
1305 EAST-WEST HIGHWAY
SILVER SPRING MD 20910
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
LILY ALYEA - SUITE 702
333 MARKET STREET
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105-2197
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
611 RYAN PLAZA DR STE 400
ARLINGTON TX 7601 l-4005
It
BARRY BRAYER, AWP-8
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
WESTERN REGION
PO BOX 92007
LOS ANGELES CA 90009
USDA - RURAL DEVLOPMENT
430 ST DEPT 4169
DAVIS CA 95616
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
CHAIRMAN
722 JACKSON PLACE NORTH WEST
WASHINGTON DC 2006
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT ENGINEER
PO BOX 2711
LOS ANGELES CA 90053
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
COMMANDANT, ELEVENTH NAVAL DISTRICT
DISTRICT CIVIL ENGINEER
SANDIEGO CA 92132
U. S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
2135 BUTANO DIUVE
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
U. S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
LOWER COLORADO REGION
PO BOX 427
BOULDER CITY CO 89005
SUPERINTENDENT
CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK .
190 1 SPINNAKER DRIVE
SAN BUENAVENTURA CA 93001
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
RONALD M. JAEGER
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
*1
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
CLIFFORD EMMERLING, DIRECTOR
SUITE 350
901 MARKET STREET
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVE
DUNCAN LENT HOWARD, REGIONAL ADMIN
450 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102
.
U. S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
MID-PACIFIC REGION
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
DOUGLAS WARNOCK, SUPERINTENDENT
REDWOOD NATIONAL PARK
DRAWERN
11112ND STREET
CRESCENT CITY CA 95531
CALlFORFJIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SUITE 200 ‘.
3 111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH
SAN DIEGO CA 92108