Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-10-23; City Council; 16400; Villages Of La Costaa 3 a CITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL s L AB# Ib!Ltc0 m: DEPT. HD. MT& /o-16-0/ VILLAGES OF LA COSTA EIR 98-07/GPA 98-011MP 149(Q)/MP 98-011LFMP IOlLFMP z%- CITY ATTY. ’ 11 (B)/CT 99-031HDP 99-Ol/CT 99-04/PUD 01-08/HDP 99-02 DEPT. PLN CITY MGR- RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 200 I- 8 1 g , CERTIFYING EIR 98-07, and APPROVING the Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, GPA 98-01, LFMP 10, LFMP 1 l(B), CT 99-03, HDP 99-01, CT 99-04, PUD 01-08 and HDP 99-02 as recommended for approval by the Planning Commission; and INTRODUCE Ordinances No. PS - b 0 CI and NS - 605 , APPROVING MP 149(Q) and MP 98-01. ~ ITEM EXPLANATION: On August 29, 2001, and September 5, 2001, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the Villages of La Costa project. The Planning Commission by a vote of 6-O recommended certification of the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and approval of the Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; General Plan Amendment; La Costa Master Plan Amendment; Villages of La Costa Master Plan; Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 10; Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment for Zone 11; Master Tentative Tract Map and Hillside Development Permit for The Greens Village; and a Master Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development Permit, and Hillside Development Permit for The Ridge and The Oaks Villages. The Planning Commission approved an EL Camino Real Scenic Corridor Special Use Permit and a Floodplain Special Use Permit for The Greens in addition to a Floodplain Special Use Permit for The Ridge and The Oaks subject to the City Council approving the remaining actions. The project site is located in the southeastern quadrant of the City within Local Facilities Management Zones 10 and 11. The Greens (Zone 10) portion of the site is generally located 2,500 feet south of Palomar Airport Road, east of El Camino Real, north of Alga Road, and west of Unicornio Street. The Ridge and Oaks (Zone 11) portion of the project site is located north and east of La Costa Avenue, south of Alga Road, east of El Fuerte Street, and straddles portions of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road. Proposed land uses include open space preservation and active recreation uses, residential, and non-residential development. The project includes the preservation of 834.9 acres (45%) of the project site as Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) open space. An additional 68.4 acres of non-HCP open space is also proposed for preservation resulting in a total of 903.3 acres (48%) of the project site as open space. Active recreation uses include the 32- acre Alga Norte Community Park site and a trail system that includes citywide and local trails. The residential component of the project includes a total of 2,390 planned dwelling units of various product types and lot sizes. Within 27 neighborhoods a total of 1,796 single-family units are planned. Minimum lots sizes range from 4,500 square feet to 11,000 square feet. Within 6 neighborhoods 594 multiple-family units are planned. Four of the six multiple-family neighborhoods are planned for townhomes or small lot single-family detached units with a maximum of 243 units. The remaining 351 multiple-family units are planned as apartments to be built in two neighborhoods to satisfy the project’s affordable housing requirement. The residential density of the project is 2.96 dwelling units per net acre. The non-residential development consists of a 7.9 acre planned industrial site, two community facilities sites, a possible elementary school site, and two potential sites for Fire Station 6. Construction of or improvements to a number of General Plan Circulation Element Roadways are included as part of the Villages of La Costa project. The circulation element roads involved are El I PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. f b! 400 Camino Real, Poinsettia Lane, Alga Road, Ranch0 Santa Fe Road, and Melrose Drive South (Street “C). Thirty-six people spoke during the public testimony portion of the Planning Commission Hearing on August 29, 2001. The comments made were categorized into the following issue areas: land use compatibility, city public opinion survey-open space and trails, open space/parks, trails, master plan provisions for the transfer of dwelling units, emergency evacuation, wastewater treatment, condemnation, circulation, noise, air quality, lighting, biology, cultural resources, schools, and general EIR comments. City staff, consultants and the project applicant responded to the public comments at the September 5, 2001 Planning Commission hearing. Written comments were also received during the 60-day review and comment period for the Draft Program EIR. A full record of comments and the response to questions and comments from the public can be found in the Planning Commission Minutes dated August 29, 2001, and September 5, 2001 in addition to the Final Program EIR dated July 16, 2001. ENVIRONMENTAL: A Program Environmental Impact Report was processed addressing all necessary approvals needed to develop the project. The report was found by staff and the Planning Commission to have been prepared in compliance with State and City regulations. The project would result in a significant direct impact for landform alteration. The project has a significant cumulative impact in regard to visual quality/aesthetics, transportation, noise, air quality, and hydrology/water quality/drainage. Direct impacts, also referred to as primary effects, are those caused by the project. The cumulative impacts all arise from the marginal contribution the proposed project will make, when combined with the impacts from existing and other future projects, to pre-existing conditions that fail to meet applicable standards currently. Overriding considerations are proposed for adoption for the significant unmitigated impacts and are contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5010 along with the Candidate Findings of Fact. Section 15093 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Statement of Overriding Considerations, is attached for reference as Exhibit 18. FISCAL IMPACT: All required improvements needed to serve this project will be funded by the developer. The Facility Financing Section of the Zone 10 and Zone II Local Facilities Management Plans lists the financing techniques used to guarantee the public facilities needed to serve development within Zones 10 and 11. A report titled, “Fiscal Impact Analysis of Master Plan Amendment 149(Q) and Related Documents, dated December 19, 2000” evaluates the revenue generated by the project and the costs of providing services to it. The report was previously distributed and copies are on file in the Planning Department, both libraries, and at the Office of the City Clerk. GROWTH MANAGEMENT STATUS: Facilities Zones IO&II Local Facilities Management Plans IO& 11 Net Density 2.96 du/ac Special Facility Fee CFD No. 1 PAGE 3 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 1 bj 400 EXHIBITS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. City Council Resolution No. do0 1 * 3 1 r Ordinance No. r,\S- bOq Ordinance No. h) S - b% Location Map Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5010, 5011, 5012, 5013, 5014, 5015, 5016, 5017, 5020,5021, and 5022 Planning Commission Staff Report, dated August 29, 2001 Planning Commission Minutes, dated August 29, 2001, and September 5, 2001 Final Program EIR for the Villages of La Costa, dated July 16, 2001 (previously distributed; copy on file in the Planning Department) La Costa Master Plan Amendment MP 149(Q) (previously distributed; copy on file in the Planning Department) Villages of La Costa Master Plan, dated December 2000 (previously distributed; copy on file in the Planning Department) Zone 10 Local Facilities Management Plan, dated June 2000 (previously distributed; copy on file in the Planning Department) Fiscal Impact Analysis of Master Plan Amendment 149(Q) and Related Documents, dated December 2000 (previously distributed; copy on file in the Planning Department) Master Tentative Map for The Greens - Full Size Exhibits “A” - “DDD”, dated August 29, 2001 (previously distributed; copy on file in the Planning Department) Hillside Development Ordinance Exhibit for La Costa Greens - Full Size Exhibit ‘IEEE”, dated August 29, 2001 (previously distributed; copy on file in the Planning Department) Master Tentative Map for The Ridge & The Oaks - Full Size Exhibits “FFF” - “SSSS”, dated August 29, 2001 (previously distributed; copy on file in the Planning Department) Hillside Development Ordinance Exhibit for The Ridge & The Oaks - Full Size Exhibit “TllT”, dated August 29, 2001 (previously distributed; copy on file in the Planning Department) Landscape Concept Plan for the Villages of La Costa - Full Size Exhibits “UUUU” - “YYYY”, dated August 29, 2001 (previously distributed; copy on file in the Planning Department) Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines. 3 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2001-318 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA CERTIFYING PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 98-07, APPROVING CANDIDATE FINDINGS OF FACT, THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, LA COSTA MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT, VILLAGES OF LA COSTA MASTER PLAN, LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ZONE 10, LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR ZONE 11, MASTER TENTATIVE MAP AND HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE GREENS, AND A MASTER TENTATIVE MAP, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, AND A HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE RIDGE AND THE OAKS FOR THE VILLAGES OF LA COSTA PROJECT ON 1,866.4 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED 2,500 FEET SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL, NORTH AND EAST OF LA COSTA AVENUE, AND STRADDLING PORTIONS OF RANCH0 SANTA FE ROAD IN THE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT WITHIN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONES IO AND 11. CASE NAME: VILLAGES OF LA COSTA CASE NO.: EIR 98-07/GPA 98-011 MP 149(Q)/ MP 98- Ol/LFMP 1 O/LFMP 11 (B)/CT 99-03/HDP 99- Ol/CT 99-04/PUD Ol-08/HDP 99-02 follows: The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as WHEREAS, on August 29, 2001 and September 5, 2001, the Carlsbad Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings to consider a proposed Environmental Impact Report (EIR 98-07) General Plan Amendment (GPA 98-01) La Costa Master Plan Amendment (MP 149(Q)), Villages of La Costa Master Plan (MP 98-01) Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone IO (LFMP IO), Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment for Zone 11 (LFMP 1 l(B)), Master Tentative Map for The Greens (CT 99-03), Hillside Development Permit for The Greens (HDP 99-Ol), Master Tentative Map for The Ridge and The Oaks (CT 99-04), Planned Unit Development Permit (PUD 01-08) and a Hillside Development Permit for The Ridge and The Oaks (HDP 99-02) for project development on 1,866.4 acres of land and adopted Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5010, 5011, 5012, 5013, 5014, 5015, 50’16, 5017, 5020, 5021, and 5022, respectively, recommending to the City Council that they be approved; 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, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on October 23 ) 2001 held a public hearing to consider the recommendations and heard all persons interested in or opposed to EIR 98-07, GPA 98-01, MP 149(Q), MP 98-01, LFMP IO, LFMP 1 l(B), CT 99-03, HDP 99-01, CT 99-04, PUD 01-08, HDP 99-02; and WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report was prepared and submitted to the State Clearinghouse and a Notice of Completion filed, published, and mailed to responsible agencies and interested parties providing a 60 day review period. All comments received from that review period are contained in the Final Program EIR as well as the responses to comments. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That the Environmental Impact Report (EIR 98-07) on the above referenced project is certified and that the Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are approved and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5010, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council except as amended by the following: 2.A. Mitiqation Measure 4.5-6. Sites 11569 and 11570: Prior to issuance of a grading permit in the Oaks area of sites 11569 and 11570, a qualified archaeologist shall prepare a data recovery research plan to be approved by the City Planning Director for the analysis, excavation and data recovery of the sites and preparation of a report placing the sites in historical context. Such analysis, excavation and report shall be completed by the qualified archaeologist prior to disturbance of the sites who shall comply with all legal requirements for Native American monitoring and notification if Native American remains are present. 2.B. The following should be inserted to the CEQA Candidate Findings to add Mitigation 4.5-6 (Archaeological Condition) [to be added on page 48, insert immediately before Section 2.6.1 2.5.4 Archaeological Resources impacts - La Costa Ridge/Oaks. Impact. Sites 11569 and 11570 are located in areas proposed for development in the northeastern portion of La Costa Oaks. -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 Finding. With incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.5-6: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit in the Oaks area of sites 11569 and 11570, a qualified archaeologist shall prepare a data recovery research plan to be approved by the City Planning Director for the analysis, excavation and data recovery of the sites and preparation of a report placing the i sites in historical context. Such analysis, excavation and report shall be completed by the qualified archaeologist prior to disturbance of the sites who shall comply with all legal requirements for Native American monitoring and notification if Native American remains are present. Factual Support and Rationale. Field archaeological studies, site visits and review of prior field investigations and reports identified the potential for significant archaeological artifacts as the investigations indicated the possible use of the sites as possible Native American camp or other activity sites requiring mitigation to avoid potential significant impacts. State law provides for specific procedures and coordination with the County coroner’s office and Native American Heritage Commission in the event that human remains are discovered during the site investigations, which will be undertaken prior to any disturbance by a qualified archaeologist. Carlsbad’s practices and procedures adhere to these State laws as well. The on-site investigation, recovery and preparation of the archaeologist’s prior to any ground disturbance in the area of the sites report will fully mitigate the potential for significant impacts and any Native American remains or other sacred objects will be properly turned over to the most likely descendant, or consultation with that tribe or individual, with respect to any remains or sacred objects. As the Project area is substantially constrained by extensive designation of biological habitat and preserve areas and associated development or impact areas are thereby limited, avoidance was impractical and pre-disturbance on-site study, recovery and preparation of the accompanying report prior to disturbance is the most practical mitigation measure. 3. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval of the General Plan Amendment (GPA 98-01) is approved and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5011, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council. 4. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval of the La Costa Master Plan Amendment (MP 149(Q)) is approved and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5012, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council and Ordinance NS-604 shall be adopted according to law. 5. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval of the Villages of La Costa Master Plan (MP 98-01) is approved and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5013, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council and Ordinance NS-605 shall be adopted. according to law. //I -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 6. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone IO (LFMP IO) is approved and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5014, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council. 7. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval of the Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment for Zone 11 (LFMP 11 (B)) is approved and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5015, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council. 8. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval of the Master Tentative Map for The Greens (CT 99-03) is approved and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5016, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council, except as amended by the following: 8.A. Modify Condition No. 59 J of Planning Commission Resolution No. 5016 to read as follows: Provide for the construction and installation of a fully actuated traffic signal at the intersection of Alga Road and Estrella De Mar. 9. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval of the Hillside Development Permit for The Greens (HDP 99-01) is approved and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5017, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council. 10. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval of the Master Tentative Map for The Ridge and The Oaks (CT 99-04) is approved and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5020, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council, except as amended by the following: 10.A. The future “Hillside Street” between Avenida Diestro and the extension of La Costa Ave. as shown on exhibit ZZZZ and located within Planning Area 3.15 shall be considered a single IoadeGide street. The right of way width for this street shall be 47’ with a single sidewalk located on the west side of the street. The reduction of street right of way shall cause the pad and the slope to be shifted to the east to allow for a greater buffer between homes fronting on Cake Gavanzo and the proposed slopes of this project. The proposed grading and pad configuration shown on the tentative map shall be revised to delineate this condition. 10.B. The following should be added to Planning Commission Resolution No. 5020 as part of condition 63 as new item “G.“: Prospective purchasers of property are hereby notified that the area located east of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road and north of La Costa Avenue is designated for commercial development. -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 1o.c. The Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of a Tree Preservation Plan for all existing Oak Trees located in the area of the proposed extension of La Costa Avenue east of Camino De Los Coaches showing existing onsite trees to be preserved, prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Existing onsite trees shall be retained wherever possible and shall be trimmed as needed. Trees that need to be removed as a result of the grading and improvements shown on the tentative map shall be relocated with the first priority for their new location being Lot 178. Trees determined by a qualified arborist, biologist, or registered landscape architect to be dead shall be replaced on a tree-for-tree basis with minimum 36” box specimens, 11. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval of the Planned Unit Development Permit (PUD 01-08) is approved and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5021, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council. 12. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval of the Hillside Development Permit for The Ridge and The Oaks (HDP 99-02) is approved and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5022, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council. “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 I .16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day following the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than 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 proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California 92008.” EFFECTIVE DATE: This resolution shall be effective upon its adoption, except as to the General Plan Amendment, which shall be effective thirty (30) days following its adoption. /II Ill -5- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 23rd day of OCTOBER , 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Finnila, Nygaard, Hall NOES: None ABSENT: Council Member Kulchin ATTEST: A &%w L@E&ll$ M. WOOD, City Clerk (SEAL) -6- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. NS-604 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE LA COSTA MASTER PLAN BY THE DELETION OF VARIOUS SECTIONS REFERRING TO THE NORTHWEST, RANCHEROS, AND PORTIONS OF THE SOUTHEAST TO REMOVE THOSE AREAS FROM THE MASTER PLAN ON APPROXIMATELY 1,866.4 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD. CASE NAME: VILLAGES OF LA COSTA CASE NO.: MP 149(Q) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California has reviewed and considered a Master Plan Amendment, to remove property referred to as the Northwest, Rancheros and selected portions of the Southwest from the La Costa Master Plan in order that they may be subject to the Villages of La Costa Master Plan (MP 98-01); and WHEREAS, with the approval of Master Plan Amendment MP 149(O) the City Council directed that a new master plan be prepared for the subject areas; and WHEREAS, the La Costa Master Plan is not in conformance with the approved City of Carlsbad/Fieldstone/La Costa Associates Habitat Conservation Plan/Ongoing Multi- Species Plan for the subject property; and WHEREAS, the City Council did on the 16th day of OCTOBER , 2001 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Master Plan Amendment as shown on Exhibit “MP 149(Q)-A” attached hereto, and “MP 149(Q)-B” on file in the Planning Department dated August 29,2001, and made a part hereof. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad does ordain as follows: SECTION I: That Master Plan Amendment 149(Q) dated August 29, 2001, on file in the Planning Department, and incorporated by reference herein, is approved. The Master Plan Amendment shall constitute the development plan for the property still subject to the plan and all development of the property remaining within the plan boundaries shall conform to the 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 SECTION II: That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5012 shall also constitute the findings and conditions of the City Council. 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 the City of Carlsbad within fifteen days after its adoption. INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at the regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council on the 23rd day of OCTOBER 2001, and thereafter. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the day of 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor Al-l-EST: LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk (SEAL) Page 2 of Ordinance No. NS-604 -2- EXHIBIT - “MP ;45(Qj - A” U4 COSTA MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT mj ORIGINAL LA COSTA MASTER PLAN MPW(Q)-AREATOBEREMOVED 0 N 1 Miles 1 +I+ 1 ORDINANCE NO. NS-605 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 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE VILLAGES OF LA COSTA MASTER PLAN, MP 98-01 ON APPROXIMATELY 1,866.4 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT, EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL, NORTH AND EAST OF LA COSTA AVENUE, AND STRADDLING PORTIONS OF RANCH0 SANTA FE ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONES 10 AND 11. CASE NAME: VILLAGES OF LA COSTA CASE NO.: MP 98-01 WHEREAS, with the approval of Master Plan Amendment MP 149(O) the City Council directed that a new master plan be prepared for the subject areas; and WHEREAS, the Villages of La Costa Master Plan is in conformance with the approved City of Carlsbad/Fieldstone/La Costa Associates Habitat Conservation Plan/Ongoing Multi-Species Plan for the subject property as well as current city ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Council did on the 23rd day of OCTOBER , 2001 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Master Plan as shown on Exhibit “MP 98-01” dated December 2090, incorporated by reference. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad does ordain as follows: SECTION I: That Master Plan 98-01 dated December 2000, on file in he Planning Department, and incorporated by reference herein, is approved. The Master Plan shall constitute the development plan for the property and all development within the plan area shall conform to the plan. SECTION II: That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5013 shall also constitute the findings and conditions of the City Council. 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 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 published at least once in a publication of general circulation the City of Carlsbad within fifteen days after its adoption. INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at the regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council on the 23rd day of OCTOBER 2001, and thereafter. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the day of 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor ATTEST: LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk (SEAL) Page 2 of Ordinance No. NS-605 -2- EX- 4 / I LA COSTA I RD . LA COSTA OAKS VILLAGES OF LA COSTA EIR 98-07/GPA 989Ol/MP 149(Q)/MP 98-011 LFMP lO/LFMP 1 l(B)/CT 99=03/HDP 99-OIICT 999 04/PUD 01=08/HDP 99-02 /3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5010 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF A PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR 98-07, FOR THE VILLAGES OF LA COSTA MASTER PLAN (MP 98-01) AND RELATED APPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL, NORTH AND EAST OF LA COSTA AVENUE, AND STRADDLING PORTIONS OF RANCH0 SANTA FE ROAD IN THE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT WITHIN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONES 10 AND 11. CASE NAME: VILLAGES OF LA COSTA CASE NO.: EIR 98-07 12 II WHEREAS, Morrow Development, “Developer,” has filed a verified I EXIWT 5 13 14 15 application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Real Estate Collateral Management Company, “Owner,” described as See Exhibit “EIR-A”, attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 29th day of August 2001 and 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 on the 5th day of September 2001 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the Program EIR, Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Program EIR. 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That the Final Program Environmental Impact Report consists of the Final Environmental Impact Report, EIR 98-07, dated July 16, 2001, appendices, written comments and responses to comments, as amended to include the comments and documents of those testifying at the public hearing and responses thereto hereby found to be in good faith and reason by incorporating a copy of the minutes of said public hearing into the report, all on file in the Planning Department incorporated by this reference, and collectively referred to as the “Report”. Cl D) Findings: That the Environmental Impact Report EIR 98-07, as so amended and evaluated is recommended for acceptance and certification as the final Environmental Impact Report and that the final Environmental Impact Report as recommended is adequate and provides reasonable information on the project and all reasonable and feasible alternatives thereto, including no project. That based on the evidence presented. at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS CERTIFICATION of the Program Environmental Impact Report, EIR 98-07; RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Candidate Findings of Fact (“CEQA Findings”), attached hereto marked Exhibit “EIR-B” and incorporated by this reference; RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Statement of Overriding Considerations (“Statement”), attached hereto marked Exhibit “EIR-B” and incorporated by this reference; and RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“Program”), attached hereto marked Exhibit “EIR-C” and incorporated by this reference; based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find that the Final Program EIR 98-07, the Candidate Findings of Fact, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations have been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Carlsbad. 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and considered Final Program EIR 98-07, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project; the Candidate Findings of Fact (“Findings” or “CEQA Findings”) and the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached hereto as Exhibit “EIR-B” and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“Program”) attached hereto as Exhibit “EIR-C”, prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of this project. PC RESO NO. 5010 -2- /5-- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. The Planning Commission finds that Final Program EIR 98-07 reflects the independent judgment of the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission. The Planning Commission does accept as its own, incorporate as if set forth in full herein, and make each and every one of the findings contained in the CEQA Findings (Exhibit “EIR-B”), including feasibility of mitigation measures pursuant to Public Resources Code 2108 1 and CEQA Guidelines 15091, and infeasibility of project alternatives. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the Program is designed to ensure that during project implementation the Developer and any other responsible parties implement the project components and comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified in the CEQA Findings and the Program. Although certain significant or potentially significant environmental effects caused by the project will remain, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures and any feasible alternatives, there are specific economic, social and other considerations that render the unavoidable significant adverse environmental effects acceptable, as set forth in the Statement. The Record of Proceedings for this project consists of The Report, CEQA Findings, Statement and Program; all reports, applications, memoranda, maps, letters and other planning documents prepared by the planning consultant, the project Applicant, the environmental consultant, and the City of Carlsbad that are before the decision makers as determined by the City Clerk; all documents submitted by members of the public and public agencies in connection with the EIR and the Addendum thereto on the project; minutes of all public meetings and public hearings; and matters of common knowledge to the City of Carlsbad which they consider including but not limited to, the Carlsbad General Plan, Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance, and Local Facilities Management Plan which may be found at 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive in the custody of the City Clerk, and 1635 Faraday Avenue in the custody of the Director of Planning. Conditions: 1. The Developer shall implement the mitigation measures described in Exhibit “EIR- C”, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, for the mitigation measures and monitoring programs applicable to development of the Villages of La Costa Master Plan Project. . . . . . . . . . PC RESO NO. 5010 -3- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of September 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Heineman, Nielsen, and Trigas NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: >> CARLSBAD PLANNIN:~~ISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HNZMIYLER Planning Director PC RESO NO. 5010 -4- /3 EXHIBIT “EIR-A” LEGAL DESCRIPTION l-4 COSTA - NORTHWEST The Greens PARCEJm. 3 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 1188. IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF C.AMFORNk FILED m THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, DECEMBER 20,1972 AS FILE NO. 340334 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION DESCRIBED AS PARCEL ‘A” m . DEED TO LA COSTA LAND COMPANY, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, SEFTEhfBER 7, 1973 AS FILE NO. 73-245058 OF OFFICLAL RECORDS TOGETHER WITH A PORTION OF PARCEL A OF PARCEL MAP NO. 13427, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO. STATE OF CALIFORNIA. FILED IN THE OFFlCE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, AUGUST 16,19&I AS FILE NO. W-031333 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS TOGETHER WTTH A PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDL4N. IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO OFFICLAL PLAT THEREOF. LEGAL DESC’RB’TTON LA COSTA - SOUTHEAST 11 The Oaks THE IAND REFERRED TO HERELN IS SITUATED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNL4 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL x: LOT 5 AND THE WEST HALF OF LOT 6 AND LOT 8 OF RANCH0 LAS ENCINlTAS, LN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALlFORNIA ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 848. FILED IN THE OFFICE OFTHE COUNZY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY. JUNE 27.1898. EXCEPlTNG THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING WITHIN CARLSBAD TRAm NO. 75-9(B) UNIT. NO. 2 KN THE CITY OF CAIUSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 9959. FEED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY. DECEMBER 31.1980 AND -I-UT PORTION LYING SOUTHERLY AND SO IXHWEIERLY OF-l-HE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY THEREOF. AU0 EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING WTFHJN PARCEL MAP NO. 13524, IN THE CRY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DJEGO, STATE OF CA.LIFORN’lpl FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNI?’ RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUKY. OCTOBER 25.1984 AS FITJS NO. 84-303293 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AND THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING SOUTHERLY OFTHE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY THEREOF. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYlNG NOR .lHWEJERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: WXNNING AT THE MOST E.KfJERLY TERMINUS OF THE CENTERLINE OF LA COSTA AVENUE AS SHOWN ON HEREINBEFORE MEN?IONED PARCEL MAP NO, 13524; THENCE NORTH 55”00’00” EAST 200.89 FEET TO -l-HE BEGINNING OF A 1000.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE NORTHWEST-ERLY; THENCE N0RTHEKXEIU.Y ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF HEREINBEFORE MENTIONED LOT 5 OF RANCH0 LAS ENCINITAS. AFFECTS PARCEL NOS. 223-C%&15.223-Ow9 AND 264-72-03. THEWESTHALFOFSECnON32ANDTHEEASTHALFOFSECnON31.ALLBEINGINTOWNSHTPI2SO~ RANGE 3 WEST. SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF Au. BEING IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNI?’ OF SAN DIEGO. STATE OF CALIFORNIA EXCEFITNG THEREFROM THAT FORTTON OF THE EAST HALF OF SAID SECI-lON 31. ALL THAT FORTION THEREOF LYING NORTHWESTERLY OF THE SO UTHEKEaY BOUNDARY OF CARLSBAD TRACT NO. 72-20 t-L.4 COSTA VALE) UNIT NO. 3. IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. C0Twl-Y OF SAN DJEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 7950, FEED IN THE OFrICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGG COUNTY. JUNE 3.1974. /9 ORDER NO. 11263X-l 1 ALSO EXclFI-ING THEREFROM ALL THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING NOR THIXJERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID WEST ONE H4LF OF SAID SEmON 32 THENCE SOUTH 89’53’42” EMT ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID WEST ONE HALF. 268953 FEET TO THE NORTHE4S-T CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUIH 00”36’38” WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID WESl- ONE HALF. 3120.35 FEZ TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF A 200.00 FOOT SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECI-RIC COMPANY EASEMElNT IN BOOK 5208. PAGE 399 OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID SAN DIEGO COUNTY AND BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID EAST LINE AND ALONG SAID EAEMENT LINE NORTH ~“13’23” WEST, T2?26.43 FEEI-; THENCE SOW 72”08’00” WE=. 65.20 FEET TO A POINT ON A LINE SAID LINE BEING 45.00 FEET SOuMwEs?ERL Y. MEASURED AT FUGHT ANGLES AND PARALIEL WITH SAID SOUI-HWESIERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF 200.00 FOOT SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY EASEhfENl-i THENCE NORTH 64O137-3” WEST ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE 1583.36 FEIT TO A POINT ON THE SOmASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID MAP NO. 7950; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID PARAUEL LINE NORTH 64”13’23” WEST TO THE INTERSE’XION WlTH THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID SECI-ION 31. SAID INIEXjECTION BEING THE POINT OF TERMINUS ALSO EXCEFI-ING THEREFROM ALL THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING SO-Y OF THE FOLLOWING LIhE: BEGINNING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID CARLSBAD TRACT NO. 72-20 AS SHOWN ON MAP NO. 7950, SAID CORNER BEING A POINT ON THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT 1230.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE. CONCAVE SOUIHEASI-ERLY, A RADL4L TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 51”54’08” WEST; THENCE COhTNUING ALONG THE SOIXHEASE R&Y BOUNDARY LINE OF CARLSBAD TRACT NO. 72-20. THE FOLLOWING COUKES: NORTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENX-RAL ANGLE OF 14”34’46” A DISTANCE OF 312.99 m, NORTH 38”50’03” EAST. 31.80 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 1480.00 FOOT RAlX-US CURVE, CONCAVE SO WY; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGIE OF 7”19’57” A DISTANCE OF 189.40 FEET; THENCE NORTH 46°10’00” EAST. 1057.78 = TO THE TRUE KXhT OF BEGINNING; THE!!CE IF4VlNG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE SOUTH 43”50’00” EAST, 1685.42 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 53”39’32” EAST. 42.00 FEEI. TO A POINT ON THE ARC OF A NON-TANGEM CURVE. CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH . 53”39’32” EAST: THENCE SOUlHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE IN-IEZECT-ION WtTI-I THE s0mm-f LINEl OF SALD SECTION 31. SAID INI’ERSE~ON BEING THE POINT OF WNuS. ALSO EXcEPTlNG THE IKEREST CONVEYED TO THE COUNlY OF SAN DIEGO BY DEED RECORDED FEBRUARY 16. 1967 AS FEE NO. 21426 OF OFFKL4L RECORDS, LYING WITHIN THOSE PORTIONS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL 66398-A: THAT PORTION OF SECTION 31. TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH. RANGE 3 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN. LYING WITHIN A SiTtIP OF LAND 60 FEET WIDE. 30 FEET ON EACH SIDE .OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTERLINE: COMMENCING AT THE POINT OF IN-IERSECIION OF THE CENTER LINE OF ROAD SURVEY NO. 454, A PLAT OF WIIICH IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER WI-I-H THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SO-AS-T QUARTER BEING DISTANT ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 721.98 FEET FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SOmST QUARTER SAID POINT BEING ENGINEERS STATION 194 PLUS 74.85. POINT PAGE 2 ORDER NO. 11363X-11 ON A 1000 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY ON SAlD CEKIER LINE; THENCE ALONG SAID ENTER LINE As FOLLOWS: SOUlHEX-Y ALONG SAID 1000 FOOT RADIUS CURVE 3654 FEET AND TANGENT TO SAID CURVE S0Ui-H 7?!2’ EAST, 12.41 FEEI- TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING AND THE BEGINNING OF A 1200 FOOT RADIUS CURVE. THE CEKIER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 82”38’ WEST FROM SAID POII’T; THENCE LEAVING SAID CEiNTER I-WI2 SOUI-HWES’TERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENT%% ANGE OF 71’50’. A DISTANCE OF 1504.47 FEET TO ENGINEER’S STATION 210 PLUS 87.12 POINT OF TERh4INAllON ON THE CEWER LINE OF SAID ROAD SURVEY NO. 454. PARCEL 66398-B: THAT PORTION OF SAID SOUI-HEAST QUARTER LYING SOIXHERL y OF PARCEL 66398-A HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED, AND NORTHERLY OF SAID ROAD SURVEY NO. 454. ALSO EXCEFITNG THEREFROM THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO MAG PROPERTIES. .4 CAL?FORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP. BY DEED RECORDED FEBRUARY 1. 1990 AS FIZZ NO. 90-057460 OF OFFIclAL RECORDS. MORE PARTICULARLY DESWBED AS FOLLOWS: PAGE 3 ORDER NO. ll.Xi33-I 1 THAT PORTION OF SECTnON 31. TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH R4NGE 3 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN. IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNL4 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF LOT 494 OF MAP NO. 7950. ON FILE B’J THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SA.ID SAN DIEGO COU-NlY. SAID POINT BEING ON THE WEYIERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF RANCH0 SANTA FE ROAD AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP NO. 7950; THENCE SOUIH 31’00’00” WEST, 46.04 EEr; THENCE SOUR-I 59W’oO” EA!Z. 71.00 FEEI- TO A POINT ON THE EASERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID MAP SAID POINT BEING ON A NON-TANGENT 1520.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY; THENCE SOWI-WESlT3LY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE AND SAID BOUNDARY LINE THROUGH A CENT&U ANGLE OF 9”19’02”, A DISTANCE OF 247.18 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, SAID POINT BEING ON A NON-TANGENT 700.00 FOOT RADIUS RmERSING CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY; A RADIAL LtNE TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 7326’32” WEST; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID 700.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE THROUGH A cJ%lRAL ANGLE OF 26’43’55”. A DISTANCE OF 326.59 m; THENCE SOUTH lo”l0’27” EAST. 474.67 FEEI’ TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT 2400.00 FOOT R4DTUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY; THENCE NORTHEASIERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CEFITUL ANGLE OF 15’24’49”. A DISTANCE OF 645.64 m TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT 1170.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 31’17’17” EAST; THENCE SO- Y ALONG THE ARC OF SAID 1170.00 CURVE THROUGH A CENTIV& ANGLE OF 6O14’41”. A DISTANCE OF 12752 FEET; THENCE s0Ul-H 25”02’36” EAST, 60.00 FEEI- TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT 1230.00 FOOT RADIUS CURE, CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY. A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 25”02’36” EAST; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CEMRAt ANGIE OF 22’45’14”. A DISTANCE OF 488.47 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT 2400.00 RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS S0Ul-E 33”56’33” EAST; THENCE NORmASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID 2400.00 FOOT RADIUS CURSE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 7’35’06”. A DISTANCE OF 317.72 FEET; THENCE s0lXI-l 41’31’39” EAST, 63.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 64O5025” EAST, 265.09 FEET; THENCE sour?l28”2127” WEST. 501.00 FEFT; THENCE SOW 31”16’32” EAST 62.63 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT 700.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY; THENCE SOLTIWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTR4L ANGLE OF 30’22’01”, A DISTANCE OF 371.00 FEFT; THENCE SOW 2821’27” WEST. 470.00 FEET TO THE BEGKN’N’ING OF A 100000 FOOT R4DIUS CURVE. CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY; THENCE SOUTHWKIERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 7’59’01”. A DISTANCE OF 139.34 FEFT; THENCE NORTH 53”39’32” WEST, 42.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 43”50’00” WEST, 1685.42 FEFT; THENCE NORTH 4tfj”lo’Kt” EAST, 465.58 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 1520.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY; THENCE NOR- Y ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 5°50’58”. A DISTANCE OF 155.18 FEET. TO THE TRUE PClKNr OF BEGINNING. AFFECTS PARCEL NOS. 223-050-67 AND 223-050-69; 223-071-05 AND 223-071-07. PARCEL BB: THOSE PARCELS OF LAND SHOWN AND DELINEATED ON THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY ASSESSOR’S MAPS BEING PARCELS 223-05051.223-050-52 223-050-53.223-05054.22305059,X% 050-65 AND ‘Z3-07109 LYING WITHIN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: -I-m-r POR’I-DN OF THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 32; AND THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 31: AND THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECIlON 30. ALL BEING PAGE 4 ORDER NO. ll263%-11 IN TOWNSHIP 12 SOUIH. RANGE 3 WESTi TOGRHER WITH THE NORTHE4ST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36. IN TOWNSHIP 12 SOW RANGE 4 WEST. IN THE COUNIY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID WEST HALF; THENCE SOUTH 89’53’42” EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID WEST HALF. 268953 FEEI- TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH 00”36’38” WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SD WEST HALF, 3120.35 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SO- y MGI-I-I- OF WAY LINE OF .4 20000 FOOT SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRJC EASEMENT. RECORDED APRIL 19, 1954 IN BOOK 5208. PAGE 399 OF OFFICLAL RECORDS OF SAID SAN DIEGO COuN?y; THENCE LEAVING SAID EAsi LINEANDALONGSAlDEAEMENT LINE NORTH 64”13’23” WEST. 2226.43 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 72°08’00” WEST, 6520 FEi3 TO A POINT ON A w SAID LINE BEING 45.00 l=EEI- SOUTHWESTERLY MEASURED AT RlGHT ANGLES AND PARALLEL WrTH SAID SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF A 200.00 FOOT SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY m; THENCE NORTH 64’1323” WEST ALONG SAID PARALI-EL LINE 1583.36 EEI- TO A POINT ON THE SOL- Y BOUNDARY LINE OF LA COSTA VALE UNIT NO. 3. IN THE Cl-I-Y OF CARLSBAD. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CAuF0RN-k ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 7950, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNlY, JUE 3.1974; THENCE NORTH 31”00’00” EAST ALONG SAID BOUNDARY LME. 45.19 FEFT.TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID MAP NO. 7950; THENCE NORTH 64”1373’ WEST ALONG THE NOR- Y BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID MAP NO. 7950. A DISTANCE OF 1326.91 m; THENCE SOUIH 43°3000” WEST 47759 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON- TANGENT 1720.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NOR-Y. A RADLAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 43”30’00” WEST; THENCE NOR- Y ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02°50’00” A DISTANCE OF 85.06 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID CURVE NORTH 43’40’ WEST 445.15 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 455.00 FOOT Pius CURVE. CONCAVE SOMRLY; THENCE NOR-Y. WESTERLY AND SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURE THROUGH A CENTR4L ANGLE OF 96’50’00”’ A DISTANCE OF 768.98 FEZ THENCE TANGENT TO SAID CURVE SOUTH 39°30’00” WEST 15351 FEEI- TO THE BEGJNNING OF A TANGENT 780.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE SOlJ-HEAXERLY; THENCE SOUHWES-IERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTR4L ANGLE OF 08’59’38” A DISTANCE OF 122.44 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF CARLSBAD TR4CT NO. 72-20, UNIT NO. 2 IN THE m OF CARISBAD. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO. STATE OF CALIFORNLA. ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 7779. FILED m THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, OCTOBER 26. 1973: THENCE LEAVING SAID MAP NO. 7950 AND ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF SAID MAP NO. 7779. NON- TANGENT TO SAID CURVE NORTH 71’00’00” m 269.16 ET; THENCE NORTH 44ooo’oo” = 965.00 FEFT; THENCE NORTH 71’1323” WEST 276.62 m; THENCE SOUTH 77’46’50” WEST 290.25 FEI3; THENCE NORTH 59°50’oo” WEST 12123 FEig; THENCE SOuI3I 83°40W WEST 11459 FEIZ: THENCE SOUTH 14”40’00” WEST 230.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 28”20’30” WEST 436.00 FEEI-: THENCE SOUTH 18’2730” EAST 218.11 of; THENCE SOUTH 2500328” WEST 165.00 EIT; THENCE NORTH 64O5632’ WEST 300.00 m; THENCE SOW 0tP2.4’13” WE.!Z 110.03 FEET TO THE INTERSEmON WITH THE SOlXHWE!ZERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN 100.00 FOOT EAEMENT-I-0 SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECmC COh4PANY. FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, APRIL. lg.1954 IN BOOK 5208, PAGE 403 OF OFFiCL4L RECORDS; THENCE LEAVING SAID BOUNDARY OF SAID MAP NO. 7779 AND ALONC THE SOUTHWESE RLY BOUNDARY OF SAID EASEMENT NORTH 64”5632” WEST TO THE MOST SO UI’HERLY CORNER OF CARLSBAD -IT&CT NO. 7E4 (LA COSTA ESTATES NORTH), IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 8302 FIIED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MAY 5. 1976; THENCE LEAv’@JG SAID EASEMENT ALONG THE EASZRLY BOUNDARY THEREOF NORTH 25i”03Z8- EASY 100.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 03002’10” WEST 495.00 m; THENCE NORTH 20”25’10” EAST 280.00 FEFT; THENCE NORTH PAGE 5 ORDER NO. 11263~11 05’30’00” WEI- 130.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 36’55’10” EAST 345.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 52°15’00” EAST 160.00 FEET TO A POINT IN THE BOUNDARY OF PARCEL MAP NO. 10179. IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA FILED Ilrl THE OFFICE OFTHE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNIY, JUNE 27.1980 AS FILE NO. X0-204502 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE LE.hVTNG SAD BOUNDARY OF MAP NO. 8302 AND ALONG THE SOUIHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 10179. SOUTH 26°58’00” EAST 346.13 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89”43’11” EAST 880.46 FEET; THENCE SOVIH 42’13’10” EAST 2813 lZET; THENCE SOUTH 49”46’54” EAST 170.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 42”42’30” EAST 530.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 66?24’35” EAST 17450 FElX; THENCE NORTH 89”58’20” EAST 145.00 =; THENCE NORTH 34”29’10” EAST 30950 FEFf; THENCE SOUTH 74=00’21” EAST 14550 FEET; THENCE NORTH 41”,700” EAST 11350 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 85”44’40” EAST 271.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 31”57’15” EAST 33000 FEET; THENCE NORTH 47?5’05” EXST 129.10 FEET TO THE INTERSECl-lON WITH THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID SECnON 31; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY THEREOF NORTH 89o43’11” EAST 2607.74 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF SECI’ION 25 TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH RANGE 4 WEST. SAN BERNARDINO MERIDLAN, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, 5TA-E OF CALIFORNIA ACCORDING TO THE OFFICLAL PLAT THEREOF LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE SO-Y BOUNDARY OF SAID MAP NO. 8302. EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECITON 32 TOWNSHIP 12 SOUJH. I3 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERRX4N. DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECT-ION 32; THENCE ALONG THE EARERLY LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER S0Ul-H o”3631” WEST. 950.65 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 31”28’50” WEST. 341.61 FEET; THENCE SOUIH 58’42’49” WEST. 456.37 FEFT; THENCE NORTH 76O12’27” WEST 230.37 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 0’36’31” EkST. 77.00 m; THENCE NORTH 8943’29” Wm. 350.00 =; THENCE SOUTH 0’3631” W&57. 265.00 FEEI-; THENCE SOUTH 46”28’07” EAST. 68.28 FEEI-; THENCE SOUR-I 55”28’26” EAST 3.95 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 67”1026” EAST. 76.69 FEEC THENCE SOLTH 89”23’29” EAST. 1 IO.00 FEFT; THENCE NORTH 7X00447” EAST. 92.20 FEET TO A LINE WHICH BEARS SOUTH 0’3631” WEST FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG SAD LINE. NORTH O”363 1” EAST, 263.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM TIt4T PORTION OF THE NORTHERLY HALF OF SECnON 32 TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 3 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN. DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 32; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE THEREOF SOUTH 89”53’42” EAST 496.36 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE SOUTH o”06’18” WEST, 210.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGmG; THENCE SOUTH 89’53’42” EAST. 237.57 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A 470 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE SOlAxERLY; THENCE -Y ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTR4L ANGLE OF 36’03’42”. A DISTANCE OF 295.82 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID CURVE SOUTH 53°5000” EAST, 386.84 m; THENCE SOUTH 35024’00” WEST. 30.75 FEET; THENCE S0UI-H 63”42’00” EAST, 424.18 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 76°40’oO” EALi, 28830 FET; THENCE SOUTH 00”00’00” WEST, 81.00 EET; THENCE SOUTH 72°49’00” WEST, 288.60 EET; THENCE NORTH 89’32’30” WEST, 628.00 FEI3; THENCE SOUTH 87°0S’00” WEST, 618.80 FEi3; THENCE NORTH 47”36CXJ” WEST, 187.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 2”5600” EAST, 166.20 FEET; THENCE NORTH 20”05’30” EAST, 530.37 FEET TO “I-HE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. PAGE 6 ORDER NO. lX26?2211 ALSOEXCEITSNG THEREFROM THAT PORnON OF SEmON 31, TOWNSHIP 12 SOW RANGE 3 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MEFUIXAN. DESCRLBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PARCEL 3 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 10179 ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNh BEING THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECrlON 30 AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAR THENCE SOUTH 89°43’11” WEST ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 3. A DISTANCE OF 48.19 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF ROAD SURVEY NO. 454, ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER OF SAID SAN DIEGO COUNT; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOWHERLY LINE AND ALONG SAID RIGKT OF WAY LINE S0Ul-H 31”32’16” WEST 247.14 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 89°43’11” EAST, 145.34 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF PROPOSED RANCH0 SANTA FE DRIVE; THENCE ALONG SAID NOR- Y RlGI-K OF WAY LINE SOm 12”22’42” WEST. ‘2Jl FEFT TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 1137 FOOT RADIUS CURVE. CONCAVE NORTHWE!ZERLY; THENCE SOLKHWSERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGI+ OF 7”17’27” A DISTANCE OF 144.68 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHWESTERLY RIGKT OF WAY LINE NORTH 69”oo’oo” WEST. 172.47 m TO A POINT ON SAID SOLTHWESIERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE NORTH 31°32’16” EAST. 11550 I== TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Al?i%cTS PARCEL NOS. 223-071-09,223-05Cb51,223~50-52 223-05653. 223-050-54. 223-05@59.223- 050-65. NOTE THIS PARCEL IS DESCRIBED IN A MANNER NOT NORMALLY USED BY Ti-TLiE beers. AS A CO NVENIENCE TO OUR CUSTOMERS. THEREFORE IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THIS DESCRIPTION NOT BE INCLUDED IN ANY CONVEYANCES, AS l-T IS NOT INSURABLE. PARCEL cc: ~WESTHALFOFTHESOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH RMGE 3 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE cfil OF CARLSBAD, COUNIY OF SAN DIEGO. STATE OF CALIFORNL4 ACCORDING TO OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF. AFFECE PARCEL NOS. 223-011-02 223011-03.223-032-01 AND 223Xt32-02. PARCEL DD: -THOSE PARCELS OF LAND SHOWN AND DELINEATED ON THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY ASSESSORS MAPS BEING PARCELS 2X-011-4, 223-011-5, 223-011-6, 223-021-S AND 223-011-ll LYING WKHIN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: PARCELS 3 AND 4 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 10179. IN THE Cl-l-Y OF CARLSBAD. COUNIY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, JUNE 17.1980 AS FILE NO. 8@204502 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION DELINEATED AND DESIGNATED “NQT A PART- ON SAtD PARCELMAP. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTlON LYING WITHIN CARLSBAD TRACT NO. 79-25(B) LlNT’T NO. I, IN THE CITY OF C-BAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PAGE 7 ORDER NO. 11263*11 ACCORDING TO MAF’ THEREOF NO. 10243. FILED TN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNV, OCTOBER 20.1981. ALSO EXCEPTlNG THEREFROM THOSE PORTIONS LYING WITHIN CARLSBAD TRACT NO. 79- 25(B) PHASE VI. IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO. STATE OF CALIFORNLA. ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 10820, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNIY. JANUARY 23.1984, AND CARLSB.4.D TRACT NO. 84-23. IN THE CITY OF CARJZBAD, COUMY OF SAN DIEGO, TATE OF CALIFORNIA ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 11241, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY. MAY 22 1985. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING WITHIN RECORD OF SURVEY NO. 9182. IN THE C’I-IY OF CAJUSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE: OF CALlFORNL4 FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, mOBER 28.1982 AS FILE NO. 82-332144 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 10179 LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF THE CENIERLWE OF THAT CERTAIN RIGHT OF W.4Y AS DESCRIBED IN DEED TO THE COUNTY, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, APRIL 7.1966 AS FILE NO. 58549 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DESCRIBED As FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOmAST CORNER OF LA COSTA MEADOWS. L!NTT NO. 2. ACCORDING TO MAP NO. 6095 ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNI-Y, SAID SOUIHEUT CORNER BEING A POINT ON THE SO-Y RIGHT-OF- WAY OF EL FUERTE SiREfX AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP NO. 6905; THENCE NORTH 68”13’07” EAST 1536.70 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUI-H 68”ol’lo” EASr’ 9951 -;THENCE S0KIH51",54'40" EAST 141.03 EET;THENG SOUTHZ!052u5" WEST191.85 FEET; THENCE SOUlW 57°13’OO” WEST 73.07 m; THENCE NORTH 83%‘OO” WEST 185.97 FEET; THENCE NORTH 34O25’48” WEST 144.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 55O34’12” EAST 100.00 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 322FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRQ ANGLE OF 33’3522” A DISTANCE OF 188.77 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. AFFECTS PARCEL NOS. 223-011~. 223-011-05.223-011-06; 223-021-08.223-021-11. NOTE: THIS PARCEL IS DESCRIBED IN A MANNER NOT NORMALLY USED BY TrI-LE ~sU.RJSS, AS A CONVENIEN CE TO OUR CUSTOMERS. THEREFORE. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THIS DESCRI~ON NOT BE INCLUDED IN ANY CONVEYANCES, AS IT IS NOT INSURABLE PAGE 8 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LA COSrA - RANCHEROS The Ridge THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN IS SlTUATED IN THE STATE OFCALIFORNIA COuhTt OF SAN DIEGO. AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THOSE PARCELS OF LAND SHOWN AND DELINEATED ON THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ASSESSOR’S MAPS BEING 223-050-43, ?.z-o50-49 AND ‘71-010-31 AND LYING !m-HIN “I-HE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: PARCEL BB: THAT PORTION OF THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 32; AND THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 31; AND THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 30. ALL BEING IN TOWNSHIP 12 SOUI-H. RANGE 3 WEST; TOGETHER WITH THE NOR- QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUAR?FR OF SECTION 36. IN TOWNSHIP 12 SOuI?I. R4NGE 4 WEST.. n\r THE COUMY OF SAN DIEGO. SfATE OF CALIFORNlA ACCORDING TO THE Om- PLAT THEREOF DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID WEST HALF; THENCE SOUI-H 89”53’42” EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID WEZX HALF. 268953 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE S0IJ-H 00”36’38” WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID WE?l’ HALF, 3120.35 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHWESIERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF A 200.00 FOOT SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECrRIC EkXMENT. RECORDED APRIL 19.1954 IN BOOK 5208. PAGE 399 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID SAN DIEGO COUNTY; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASI- LINE AND ALONG SAID EASEMENT LINE, NORTH 64O1323” WEST, 2226.43 FEET; THENCE SOUIH 72”OX’OO” WEST, 65.20 FE!ET TO A POINT ON A UN-E. SAID LINE BEING 45.00 FEET’ so-S-IERLY MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGIJZS AND Pw WITH SAID so-SIERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF A 200.00 FOOT SAN DIEGO GAS AND EIECTRlC COMPANY EASEMENT; THENCE NORTH 64”13’23” WEST ALONG SAID PARALIEL LINE. 158336 FEETTOAPOINTONTHESO- Y BOUNDARY LINE OF LA COSTA VALE UNIT NO. 3. IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO. STATE OF CAJJFORNIA. ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 7950. FILED LN THE OFFICE OF THE COuNTl RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COW, JUNE 3.1974; THENCE NORTH 31”00’00” m ALONG SAID BOUNDARY LINE 45.19 FEEI- TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID MAP NO. 7950; THENCE NORTH 64’1323” ‘WEST ALONG THE NOR- Y BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID MAP NO. 7950. A DISTANCE OF 1326.91 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 43”30’00” WEST 47759 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON- .TANcIENT 1720.00 FOOT RADIUS CURE CONCAVE NOR- Y.ARADLde=TO SAID POINT BEARS SOUIH 43”3000” WEST; THENCE NOR- Y ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTR4L ANGLE OF 02”5000” A DISTANCE OF 85.06 FEET; THENCE TANG-EM’ TO SAID CURVE NORTH 43O40’ WEST 445.15 F TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 455.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE SOUFHERLY; THENCE NOR-Y. WESTERLY AND SO~ST’ERLY ALONG SAD CURVE THROUGH A CRTIRAL A.KiLE OF %“50’00” A DISTANCE OF 768.98 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID CURVE SOUTH 39”30’00” WESl- 15351 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 780.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE SOWY; THENCE SOUIHWE!XERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A (3ENTRAL ANGLE OF OS”59’38” A DISTANCE OF 122.44 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF CARLSBAD TRACT NO. 72-20, UNIT NO. 2 IN THE CITY OF C-BAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 7779, FILED IN THE OmCE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, OCTOBER 26.1973; THENCE LEAVING SAID MAP NO. 7950 AND ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF SAID MAP NO. 7779, NON- TANGENT TO SAID CURVE NORTH 71V0’00” WEST 269.16 FEET; THENCE NORTH 44oo(y00” M 965.00 m; THENCE NORTH 71’13’23” Vt’EST 276.62 FEET’; THENCE SOUTH 77’46’50” WEST 29025 E!3; THENCE NORTH 59”50’00” WEST 12123 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 83°40’o0 WEI 11459 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 14°40’oO” WEST 230.00 FEET; ‘THENCE SOUTH 28020’30’ IVEST 436.00 FEET; THENCE S0VI-H 18"27'30" EAST 218.11 FEET; THENCE SOUTH zSOg328” WEST 165.00 FEZ; THENCE NORTH 64O5632” WEST 300.00 I?EET; THENCE SOUTH OCP24’13” WEST 110.03 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN 100.00 FOOT EAEMENT TO SAN DIEGO GAS AND EfECl-iUC COMPANY. FEED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGQ COUNTY, APRIL 19.1954 IN BOOK 5208. PAGE 403 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE LEAVING SAID BOUNDARY OF SAID MAP NO. 7779 AND ALONG THE SOL- Y BOUNDARY OF SAID EASEMENT NORTH 64”56’32” WEST TO THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF CARLSBAD TbKI- NO. 754 (LA COSTA mA’IES NORTH), IN THE Cl-l?’ OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGQ, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 8302 FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNR’. MAY 5, 1976; THENCE LEAVING SAJD EASEMENT-ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY THEREOF NORTH 25”03’28” EAST 100.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 03”02’10” WEST 495.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 20”25’10” EAST 280.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 05°30’OO” WEST 130.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 36O55’10” EAST 345.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 52”15’00” EAST 160.00 FEET TO A POINT l-N THE BOUNDARY OF PARCEL MAP NO. 10179, IN THE CITY OF CARIJBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA FEED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, JUNE 27.1980 AS FIIE NO. 88204502 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE LEAVING SAID BOUNDARY OF MAP NO. 8302 AND ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 10179, SOUIH 26”58’00” EAST 346.13 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89’43’11” EAST 880.46 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 42°13’10” EAST 281.25 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 49"46'54" EAST 170.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 42'42'30" EASI- 530.00 FEFf; THENCE NORTH 66O24’35” EAST 174.50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89’5820” EAST 145.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 34”29’10” EAST 30950 FEFT; THENCE SOUTH 74’=0021” EAST 14550 FEET; THENCE NORTH 41”,7’00” EAST 113.50 FEFT; THENCE SOUTH 85”44’4O” EAST 271.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 31”57’15” EAST 330.00 FEFT; THENCE NORTH 47025’05” EAST 129.10 FEEI- TO THE INTERSECTION WlTH THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 31; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY THEREOF NORTH 89”43’11” EAST 2607.74 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF SECTION 25 TOWNSHIP 12 SOUIH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDLAN, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGQ. STATE OF CALLFORNIA ACCORDING TO THE OFFICJAL FLAT THEREOF LYTNG SOTXHEASTERLY OF THE SOUl-HEASERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID MAP NO. 8302. EXCEITNG THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 32 TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH. RANGE 3 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN. IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CAUFQRNIA ACCORDING TO OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 32i THENCEALONGTHE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER SOm o”36’31” WE!% 950.65 FEETz THENCE SOUR-l 31=28'50" WEsf, 341.61 Eh; THENCE SOLKH 58'42'49" WEST. 456.37 FEET; THENCE NORTH 76’12’27” WEST 23037 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING THENCE NORTH O”3631” EAST, 77.00 FEFT; THENCE NORTH 89?!329” WE.X, 350.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 003631” WEST. 265.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 46-28’07” EAST. 68.28 FEETi THENCE SOUTH 55-28'26" EA!3- 34.95 FEl3; THENCE SOUTH 67"1026" EAST. 76.69 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89O2329” EAST. 110.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 78V4’47” EAST. 9220 FEET TO A LINE WHKH BEARS SOUTH o”3631” WEST FROM THE TRUE i’OINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE. NORTH 003631” EAST, 263.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHERLY HALF OF SE’J-ION 32 TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH. RANGE 3 WEST. SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN. DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTTON 32i THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE THEREOF SOUTH 89”53’42” EAST 496.36 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE SOUTH O'YhS18" WES. 210.00 FE!3 TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOtXH 89"53'42" EAST. 237.57 FEET TO THE BEGINNKNG OF A 470 FOOT RADIUS CURE CONCAVE SOurHERLY; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CBNlRAL ANGLE OF 36”03’42”. A DISTANCE OF 295.82 FEiX; THENCE TANGENT -l-G SD CUR= SOUTH 53"50'00" EAST, 386.84 FEEI-; -I-HENCE SOUTH 35%'00" WEST. 30.75 =; 7XEK.E sow 63"42'00" EAST, 424.18 FEET; TIEWE SOUTH 76%0'00" EAST, 28830 FEFI; THENCE SNl-H 0090'00" WEST. 81.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 72"49'00" WEST, 288.60 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89"32'30" WEST. 628.00 FEEL THENCE SOUIH 87°08'oO" WEST, 618.80 FEET; THENCE NORTH 47°36'OO" WEST, 187.00 FEEI-; THENCE NORTH 2”Xi’OO” EAST, 16620 FEET; THENCE NORTH 20!0"05'30" LGT. 530.37 FEiU TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALSOEXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF SECTION 31. TOWNSHIP 12 S0Ul-H. RANGE 3 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN. IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUN-lY OF SAN DIEGQ, STATE OF C-RN’& DESCRIBED AS mLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PARCEL 3 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 10179 ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, STA-D3 OF CALIl=ORN& BEING THE SOIRXEAST CORNER OF SECTION 30 AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP. THENCE SOUIH 89”43’11” WEST ALONG THE SOUI-HERL Y LINE OF SAID PARCEL 3. A DISTANCE OF 48.19 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF ROAD SURVEY NO. 454, ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER OF SAID SAN DIEGO COtBfI?‘; THENCE IIAVING SAID SOlJ-HERLY LINE AND ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE S0Ul-H 31”32’16” WEST 247.14 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAD RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 89”43’11” EAST, 145.34 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY RIGHI- OF WAY LINE OF PROPOSED RANCH0 SANTA FE DRIVE; THENCE ALONG SAID NOR- Y RIGHI- OF WAY LINE SOm 12=-22’42” WEST, 22.51 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 1137 FOOT RADIUS CURVE. CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY; THENCE SO-Y ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 7’17’27” A DISTANCE OF 144.68 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 69”OO’oO” WEST. 172.47 FEET TO A POINT ON SAID SO-Y RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE NORTH 31O32’16” Et’ZX. 115.50 FEFT TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. AFFECTS PARCEL NOS. 223-05043.223-050-49.223-01~31. NOTE: THIS PARCEL IS DESCRIBED IN A MANNER NOT NORMALLY USED BY TI.ZE INSURERS. AS A CONVENIEN CE TO OUR CUSTOMERS. THEREFORE, IT IS IMPORTANT J’HAT THIS DESCRIPTION NOT BE INCLUDED IN ANY CONVEYANCES, AS IT IS NOT INSURABLE PARCEL DD: THOSE PARCELS OF LANI SHOWN AND DELINEATED ON THE COUNTY OF SAN DEW ASSESSOR’S MAPS BEING 223-010-12, 223-010-18. 22%OlCb19, 223~10-27. 223-010-28. 223-Ol(F29. 223-010-31223-01033,223-01~34,223-010-35.223-010-37,223~21-9. 223~21-10.223-021-12 223-021- 15, 223-021-16, 222-470-23 AND 222-470-25 AND LYING WITH THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: 49 PARCELS 3 AND 4 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 10179. IN THE CTIY OF CARJSBAD. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, JUNE 17,198O As FlLE NO. 80204502 OF Ol=FlCIAL RECORDS. TOGETHER h-‘lTH THAT PORTION DELINEATED AND DESIGNATED “NOT A PART” ON SAID PARCELMAP. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING WllHIN CARLSBAD TRACT NO. 79-25(B) UNIT NO. 1. IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO. sT.4T-E OF CALlFORNlA ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 10243, FILu> IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY. OCTOBER 20,1981. ALSO EXCJZRING THEREFROM THOSE PORTIONS LYING WITHIN CARLSBAD TRACT NO. 79- 25(B) PHASE VT. IN THE Cl-I-Y OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO. SIA-IE OF CALIFORNIA ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 10820, FILED IN THE OFFlCE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIBGO COUNlY..JANUARY 13.1984, AND CAIUSBAD TRACT NO. 84-23. IN THE CIlY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DlEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 11241. FlIED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COLIN-l-Y RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MAY 22.1985. EXCEFTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING WITHIN RECORD OF SURVEY NO. 9182 IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, SIATE OF CALIFORNIA FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNT. OCTOBER 28.1982 As FILE NO. 82-332144 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEPI.ING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 10179 LYING NORTHEAS-IERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF THAT CERTAIN RIGHI OF WAY AS DESCRIBED IN DEED TO THE COW. FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY. APRIL 7,1966 As FILE NO. 58549 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DESCRIBED As FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOlXHEAST CORNER OF LA COSTA MEADOWS, UNIT NO. 2 ACCORDING TO MAP NO. 6095 ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. SAID SOW-HEAST CORNER BEING A POm ON THE SO-Y RIGHT-OF- WAY OF EL FLIER-I-E STREET As SHOWN ON SAID MAP No. 6905; THENCE NORTH 68”13’07” EAST 1536.70 FEEI- TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOLHH 68”01’10” EAST 99.51 FET;lHENCE SOUlX51“54'4O"EAST14l.O3 FEFT;THENCES0UIH22"52135" WEST 191.85 FEET; THENCE S0Ul-H 57°13'OO" WEST 73.07 FEET; THENCE NORTH 83%00” WJZ?l- 185.97 FEET; THENCE NORTH 34”25’48” WEST 144.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 55?4’12” EAST 100.00 FEEI TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 322-FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY; THENCE NORTHEASIERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENlX4L ANGLE OF 33”35’22” A DISTANCE OF 188.77 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. AFFECTS PARCEL NOS. 223-010-12,223-010-18,223~10-19,223-01~27.223-010-28.223-010-29. 223- 010-32 223-010-33. 223-010-34. 223-010-35. 223-01037; 223-021-09, 223-021-10. 223421-12 223-021-15 ~223-021-16;722~70-25AND733~7(FU. NOTE: m~s PARCEL Is DESCRIBED IN A MANNER NOT NORMALLY usED BY mrE msuR=ts. As A CONVENIEN CE TO OUR CUSTOMERS. THEREFORE IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THIS DESCRIF’TION NOT BE INCLUDED IN ANY CONVEY AKES, AS IT’ IS NOT INSURABLE. PARCELEEI PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 13900. IN THE Cl-IY OF -BAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO. STATE OF CALIFORNIA FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COW RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY. AUGUST 6.1985 AS FILE NO. 85-281626 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. AFFECB PARCEL NO. 222-W-80. 31 EXHIBIT “ EIR-B” CITY OF CARLSBAD RESOLUTION NO. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS OF FACT and STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS for the FINAL PROGR4M ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR 98-07) VILLAGES OF LA COSTA MASTER PLAN (2000) MP 98-01 (SCH No. 1999011023) 1. INTRODUCTION The Final Program Environmental Impact Report (hereafter “Final Program EIR” or “FPEIR”) has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act to address the potential environmental effects of the Villages of La Costa Master Plan (2000) and associated actions (hereafter “Proposed Project”) and considered by the City in connection with its public consideration of requested approvals for the Proposed Project. While the fir11 scope of the Proposed Project and associated approvals are more detailed in Section 1.3 below, the Proposed Project generally consists of development of not more than 2,390 residential units and a 7.9 acre business park on approximately 1,866.4 gross acres in the Southeast Quadrant of the City, together with appurtenant public facilities, streets, parks, species/habitat natural preserve areas, other open space and reservation of a elementary school site. The Final Program EIR also analyzed the environmental effects of a range of project alternatives as well. The Final Program EIR and its separately bound technical appendices are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. 1.1 Purpose and Legal Authorities. The California Environmental Quality Act (hereafter “CEQA”) was adopted in 1970 and is codified in California Public Resources Code $9 2 1000 et.seq. (hereafter “PRC 6 -‘I). CEQA is an important environmental law applicable to most public agency decisions to carry out, author&e or approve projects that could have adverse effects on the environment. CEQA does not directly regulate project implementation or CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations 1652724 v3 [Word] Exhibit “EIR-B” 1 g/14/2001 32 approvals through substantive standards or prohibitions, but rather CEQA generally requires only that agencies inform themselves about the potential environmental effects of a proposed project, carefully consider all pertinent environmental information before they act, provide the public an opportunity to review and comment on any environmental issues, and include conditions or other requirements to avoid or reduce potential significant adverse effects of the project or action when feasible. The City has codified environmental protection procedures implementing CEQA and the state administrative guidelines issued pursuant to CEQA in Carlsbad Municipal Code, Chapter 19.04. Chapter 19.04 provides for the protection and enhancement of the environment by establishing principles, objectives, criteria, definitions and procedures for evaluation of both public and private projects, implementing CEQA and the state guidelines and providing for the preparation and evaluation of environmental documents in accordance therewith. The City’s consideration of Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations are key steps in the process of considering the approval of the Proposed Project while concurrently protecting and enhancing the environment. The applicable standards and scope of the City’s responsibilities are detailed in the following excerpts from the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, $8 15000 et. seq.; hereafter “Guidelines fi “). Guidelines $15040. Authority Provided by CEQA. (9 CEQA is intended to be used in conjunction with discretionary powers granted to public agencies by other laws. 0) CEQA does not grant an agency new powers independent of the powers granted to the agency by other laws. w Where another law grants an agency discretionary powers, CEQA supplements those discretionary powers by authorizing the agency to use the discretionary powers to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment when it is feasible to do so with respect to projects subject to the powers of the agency. Prior to January 1, 1983, CEQA provided implied authority for an agency to use its discretionary powers to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. Effective January 1, 1983, CEQA provides express authority to do so. (a The exercise of the discretionary powers may take forms that had not been expected befoie the enactment of CEQA, but the exercise must be within the scope of the power. 69 The exercise of discretionary powers for environmental protection shall be consistent with express or implied limitations provided by other laws. Guidelines $15041. Authority to Mitigate. Within the limitations described in Section 15040, CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 2 8/14/2001 33 (4 A lead agency for a project has authority to require feasible changes in any or all activities involved in the project in order to substantially lessen or avoid significant effects on the environment, consistent with applicable constitutional requirements such as the “nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards established by case law (Nollan v. California CoastaZ Commission (1987) 483 U.S. 825; Dolun v. City of Tigard, (1994) 512 U.S. 374; Ehrlich v. City of Culver City, (1996) 12 Cal. 4th 854.). (b) When a public agency acts as a responsible agency for a project, the agency shall have more limited authority than a lead agency. The responsible agency may require changes in a project to lessen or avoid only the effects, either direct or indirect, of that part of the project which the agency will be called on to carry out or approve. cc> With respect to a project which includes housing development, a lead or responsible agency shall not reduce the proposed number of housing units as a mitigation measure or alternative to lessen a particular significant effect on the environment if that agency determines that there is another feasible, specific mitigation measure or alternative that would provide a comparable lessening of the significant effect. Guidelines $15042. Authority to Disapprove Projects. A public agency may disapprove a project if necessary in order to avoid one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project were approved as proposed. A lead agency has broader authority to disapprove a project than does a responsible agency. A responsible agency may refuse to approve a project in order to avoid direct or indirect environmental effects of that part of the project that the responsible agency would be called on to carry out or approve. For example, an air quality management district acting as a responsible agency would not have authority to disapprove a project for water pollution effects that were unrelated to the air quality aspects of the project regulated by the district. Guidelines $15043. Authority to Approve Projects Despite Significant Effects. A public agency may approve a project even though the project would cause a significant effect on the environment if the agency makes a fully informed and publicly disclosed decision that: 00 There is no feasible way to lessen or avoid the significant effect (see Section 15091); and 0)) Specifically identified expected benefits from the project outweigh the policy of reducing or avoiding significant environmental impacts of the project. (See Section 15093.) Guidelines $15090. Certification of the Final EIR (4 Prior to approving a project the lead agency shall certify that: CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 3 8/14/2001 34 (1) The final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; (2) The final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency and that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the final ElR prior to approving the project; and (3) analysis. The final EIR reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and U-9 When an EIR is certified by a non-elected decision-making body within a local lead agency, that certification may be appealed to the local lead agency’s elected decision-making body, if one exists. For example, certification of an EIR for a tentative subdivision map by a city’s planning commission may be appealed to the city council. Each local lead agency shall provide for such appeals. Guidelines gl5091. Findings. 00 No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: (1) Changes or aherations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. o>) The findings required by subsection (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. w The finding in subsection (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subsection (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives. (4 When making the findings required in subsection (a)(l), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes, which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations 1652724 v3 [Word] Exhibit “EIR-B” 4 8/14/2001 35 significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. W The public agency shall specie the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based. (0 A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings required by this section. Guidelines 515092. Approval. 64 After considering the final EIR and in conjunction with making findings under Section 15091, the lead agency may decide whether or how to approve or carry out the project. @I A public agency shall not decide to approve or carry out a. project for which an EIR was prepared unless either: (1) The project as approved will not have a significant effect on the environment, or (2) The agency has: (A) Eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible as shown in findings under Section 15091, and (B) Determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable under Section 15091 are acceptable due to overriding concerns as described in Section 15093. (c) With respect to a project which includes housing development, the public agency shall not reduce the proposed number of housing units as a mitigation measure if it determines that there is another feasible specific mitigation measure available that will provide a comparable level of mitigation. 1.2 Program Environmental Impact Report Process. In accordance with CEQA, the Guidelines and Chapter 19.04, the City considered an Initial Study. Based on the Initial Study, the City concluded that the Proposed Project could have a significant impact on the environment and that preparation of an environmental impact report was necessary and issued its Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) on December 23, 1998, distributing it to all Responsible and Trustee Agencies, as well as other agencies and members of the public. A number of written responses were received and the city scheduled two separate public scoping sessions in order to increase opportunities for public input. The two scoping sessions took place June 30, 1999 and July 14, 1999 at the City’s Public Safety Center. At the scoping sessions, the public was invited to comment on the scope and content of the EIR. Approximately 155 people signed in at the scoping sessions and comments were received and considered in both verbal and written form. After consideration of all of the foregoing the City developed a detailed “EIR 98-07 - Villages of CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations 1652724 v3 [Word] Exhibit “EIR-B” 5 8/14/2001 La Costa Master Plan Program EIR Scope of Work Letter” dated September 23, 1999 establishing the details of the Program ER requirements. A copy of the Initial Study, NOP, the written comments received in response to the NOP and public scoping sessions and the detailed “Scope of Work” letter are included in Volume I of the Appendices to the Final Program EIR. The September 23, 1999 City “Scope of Work” letter, after consideration of the Initial Study, Scoping session comments and other comments in response to the NOP, identified the need and instructed that the Draft Program ElR to analyze the potential for environmental impacts associated with the following fourteen substantive potential impact areas in the Environmental Analysis section: - Land Use and Community Character - Landform Alteration - Visual Quality - Biological Resources - Archaeological Resources - Paleontological Resources - Transportation - Noise - Air Quality - Geology/Soils - Hydrology, Water Quality and Drainage - Public Facilities and Services - Human Health and Safety Hazards - Population and Housing Additionally, the Draft EIR was directed to include other CEQA substantive sections including Executive Summary, Project Description, Cumulative Effects, Effects Found Not to Be Significant, Growth Inducing Effects and Alternatives. Because of the scope of the Proposed Project, a Program EIR was determined to be the most useful and appropriate form of EIR. Guidelines $ 15 168 establishes the benefits of a Program ElR as follows: Guidelines 515168. Program EIR. (a) General. A program EIR is an ElR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either: (1) Geographically, (2) As logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions, (3) In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program, or (4) As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways. CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 6 8/14/2001 33 @> Advantages. Use of a program EIR can provide the following advantages. The program ER can: (1) Provide an occasion for a more exhaustive consideration of effects and alternatives than would be practical in an EIR on an individual action, (2) Ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case-by-case analysis, (3 Avoid duplicative reconsideration of basic policy considerations, (4 Allow the lead agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program wide mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts, (5) Allow reduction in paperwork. (c) Use With Later Activities. Subsequent activities in the program must be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. (1) If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, a new initial study would need to be prepared leading to either an EIR or a negative declaration. (2) If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required. (3) An agency shall incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the program EIR into subsequent actions in the program. (4) Where the subsequent activities involve site-specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were covered in the program EIR. (5) A program EIR will be most helpful in dealing with subsequent activities if it deals with the effects of the program as specifically and comprehensively as possible. With a good and detailed analysis of the program, many subsequent activities could be found to be within the scope of the project described in the program EIR, and no further environmental documents would be required. (d) Use With Subsequent EIR’s and Negative Declarations. A program EIR can be used to simplify the task of preparing environmental documents on later parts of the program. The program EIR can: CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 7 8/14/2001 38 1) Provide the basis in an initial study for determining whether the later activity may have any significant effects. (2) Be incorporated by reference to deal with regional influences, secondary effects, cumulative impacts, broad alternatives, and other factors that apply to the program as a whole. (3) Focus an EIR on a subsequent project to permit discussion solely of new effects which had not been considered before. (e) Notice With Later Activities. When a law other than CEQA requires public notice when the agency later proposes to carry out or approve an activity within the program and to rely on the program EIR for CEQA compliance, the notice for the activity shall include a statement that: (1) This activity is within the scope of the program approved earlier, and (2) CEQA. The program EIR adequately describes the activity for the purposes of On January 25, 2001, the Draft Program EIR was published and the City duly notified interested Responsible and Trustee Agencies, as well a other interested agencies and sent out over 2,985 “Notice(s) of Completion of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Villages of La Costa Project” to all members of the public who had signed on the interested party list at the scoping sessions or otherwise requested notification, as well as to all property owners within 600 feet of the Proposed Project area based on the most recent tax assessor’s rolls. The “Notice of Completion” commenced an initial 45 day public review and comment period initially expiring March 12, 2001. On February 8, 2001, at the request of a member of the public, the City extended public review and comment period to a total of 60 days, expiring March 26, 2001 in order to give the public additional opportunity to review and comment in writing. The “Notice of Completion” advised that the Draft Program EIR was available, and it was in fact available, for review at four locations: the City of Carlsbad Planning Department (1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008); the City Clerk’s Office (1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008); the Carlsbad Main Public Library (1775 Dove Lane, Carlsbad, CA 92009) and Carlsbad’s Georgina Cole Public Library (1250 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008). Complete copies were also available for purchase, with or without the Appendices, through the Planning Department. The City established the cost of purchased copies at less than the actual reproduction cost. Following expiration of the public review and comment period to the Draft Program EIR, every written comment letter was reviewed and written responses prepared. The written public comments and the written responses thereto are contained in the Final Program EIR. On August 29, 2001 and September 5, 2001, the City Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider, among other things, Certification of the Final Program EIR in accordance with CEQA, the Guidelines and Chapter 19.04. By Planning Commission Resolution No. 5010, the Planning commission certified the Final Program EIR as complete. Resolution No. 5010 is incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 8 1 O/4/200 1 39 1.3 Description of Proposed Project. The Proposed Project overall 1,866.4 acres is geographically divided into three distinct development program areas, called “villages” and named “La Costa Greens”, ” La Costa Ridge” and “La Costa Oaks,” 1.3.1 La Costa Greens. La Costa Greens consists of 660.7 gross acres and proposes not more than (a) 1,038 residential units on 350.8 gross acres, (b) a business park on 7.9 gross acres, (c) a 7.2 gross acre elementary school site, (d) an adjacent public community park on 27.2 gross acres, (e) a community facilities area on 7.9 gross acres, (f) HCP Open Space on 212.6 gross acres, (g) Non-HCP Open Space on 33.4 gross acres and (h) a major road (Poinsettia Lane) on the remaining 13.7 gross acres. See generally FPEIR pgs. 3-6, 3-7, 3-8 and 3-12 for La Costa Greens location and additional planning area development detail. 1.3.2 La Costa Ridge. La Costa ridge consists of 493.1 gross acres and proposes not more than (a) 320 residential units on 157.9 gross acres, (b) HCP Open Space on 324.3 gross acres and (c) Non-HCP Open space on the remaining 10.9 gross acres. See generally FPEIR pgs. 3-7, 3-14 and 3-15 for La Costa Ridge location and additional planning area development detail. 1.3.3 La Costa Oaks. La Costa Oaks consists of 712.6 gross acres and proposes not more than (a) 1,032 residential units on 357.5 gross acres, (b) community facilities on 6.6 gross acres, (c) HCP Open Space on 298.0 gross acres, (d) Non-HCP Open Space on 24.1 gross acres and (e) the right of way for a major road (Ranch0 Santa Fe Road) on the remaining 26.4 gross acres. See generally FPEIR pgs. 3-7, 3-l 7, 3-l 8 and 3-l 9 for La Costa Oaks location and additional planning area development detail. 1.3.4 Offsite Poinsettia Lane. Poinsettia Lane is classified as a Major Arterial in the City’s Circulation Element and is intended to provide the primary east/west street bisecting La Costa Greens. If development of La Costa Greens precedes development of the Bressi Ranch property to the east, then the Proposed Project would be responsible to construct offsite Poinsettia Lane easterly from the La Costa Greens boundary to connect to the existing portion of Poinsettia Lane at El Fuerte Street. See generally FPEIR pgs. 3-12 and 3-21 for additional detail. 1.4 Discretionary Actions. The necessary discretionary actions considered and to be acted on by the City, other than certification of the Final Program EIR, include the following discretionary actions on the Proposed Project: 1.4.1 General Plan Amendment @PA 98-01). The General Plan is a comprehensive plan and program for the physical development of the City, consisting of text and maps, setting forth standards, goals, polices and objectives for the development and use of land in the City. The Proposed Project seeks the following amendments: (a) amend the open space boundary on the General Plan’s Open Space and Conservation Element conforming to the proposed HCP Open Space and Non-HCP Open Space areas and implementing the HCP/OMSP; (b) remove the Secondary Arterial designation for La Costa Avenue easterly of Camino de 10s Caches on the General Plan Circulation Element Map; and (c) move the allowable residential CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 9 1 O/4/200 1 40 dwelling units designated for the HCP/OMSP’s “Conserved Habitat Area” into “Impact Areas” of the HCP/OMSP designated for development. 1.4.2 Adoption of New Villages of La Costa Master Plan (2000). The City General Plan designates the Proposed Project Area as “Planned Community.” Chapter 21.38 of the Municipal code requires a Master Plan before development may occur to establish the uses, intensities, character, design and comprehensive development standards and conditions to regulate and control all future development. 1.4.3 Amendment to Existing Master Plan 149(O). Delete the Proposed Project from the old La Costa Master Plan 149(O) area, which plan was last amended in 1990. 1.4.4 Implementation of the HCP/OMSP. Pursuant to the June 7, 1995 Implementation Agreement for the HCP/OMSP, establishing “Conserved Habitat” areas of at least 702.5 acres in the locations provided within La Costa Greens, La Costa Ridge and La Costa Oaks vvas to occur through any subsequent approval process for the Proposed Project and to designate the permissible “Impact Areas”. The Proposed Project actually identifies an additional 132.4 acres of Conserved Habitat Area, designated HCP Open Space, for a total of 834.9 acres of Conserved Habitat Area. 1.4.5 Local Facilities Management Plans for Zones 10 and 11. The City’s Growth Management Program divided the City into 25 zones and requires, among other things, that a Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) be approved prior to any new development within a zone. An LFMP is a public facilities and infrastructure planning program to assure that needed public facilities, services and infrastructure are provided for concurrent with need created by new development, including any phasing of installation and financing options. La Costa Greens is within Zone 10 and a LFMP Zone 10 must be approved. La Costa Ridge and Oaks are within Zone 11, which has an existing LFMP, needing amendment to reflect the Proposed Project. 1.4.6 Master Tentative Subdivision Maps. Two separate Master Tentative Subdivision Maps (“Master TM”) are proposed; one for La Costa Greens and one for La Costa Oaks and Ridge combined. Each Master TM proposes subdivision into separate development planning area parcels pursuant to the California Subdivision Map Act and Chapter 20.04 et seq. of the Municipal Code. Neither Master TM provides for the final mapping of individual residential lots, but represents an interim development condition, with the exception of La Costa Oaks Neighborhoods 3.8 and 3.9 which are mapped at the individual lot level. However, the Final Program EIR analyzes the Proposed Project in both the interim Master TM condition as well as the anticipated overall individual lot configurations. 1.4.7 Street Right of Way Vacations. Four existing street right of way reservations or facilities would be vacated and relocated as part of the Proposed Project. In La Costa Greens, the current proposed alignment for Poinsettia Lane would be vacated and realigned approximately 100 feet northerly. In La Costa Ridge and Oaks, vacations and realignments would occur for the Ranch0 Santa Fe/Meh-ose intersection, Ranch0 Santa FeXadencia and the Ranch0 Santa Fe/Questhaven intersections, and the existing Ranch0 Santa CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 10 8/14/2001 41 Fe Road truck bypass would be vacated upon construction of the new realigned Ranch0 Santa Fe Road which is being undertaken by the City as separate project approved by the City in 1992. 1.4.8 Hillside Development Permits. Under the City’s Hillside Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.95 of the Municipal Code), a separate permit is required when a project proposes disturbing natural slopes with gradients of 15 percent or greater and elevation differentials exceeding 15 feet in order to assure conformity with the special policies and standards contained in the Hillside Development Ordinance. 1.4.9 Scenic Corridor Special Use Permit. El Camino Real is one of the City’s scenic corridors for which Scenic Corridor Guidelines have been developed by the City to improve or protect scenic viewscapes, traffic safety and similar special treatments. As La Costa Greens abuts El Camino Real along its westerly edge, a Scenic Corridor Special Use Permit is required to assure project consistency with the adopted guidelines. 1.4.10 Floodplain Special Use Permits. Under Chapter 2 1.110 of the Municipal Code, a Floodplain Special Use Permit is required whenever grading or development would occur within certain designated flood hazard areas, including floodplain areas as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). La Costa Greens and La Costa Oaks include such grading and are required to obtain the permits to assure compliance with applicable standards and policies. 1.4.11 Planned Development Permit. Under Chapter 21.45 of the Municipal Code, a Planned Development Permit is being processed concurrently with the Master TM for Neighborhood 3.9 of La Costa Oaks. Additionally, other discretionary permits may be necessary from Responsible or Trustee Agencies in the course of the development of the Proposed Project as more particularly described in the FPEIR at pgs. l-6 and l-7. Those permits and approvals are outside the jurisdiction of the City, but the environmental effects are analyzed in the Final Program EIR. 1.5 Environmental Setting. The Proposed Project is located in the southeast Quadrant of the City, in the largely residential and retail/commercial area known as La Costa. La Costa Greens is located northerly of the La Costa Resort and Spa and surrounds nine holes of golf. La Costa Oaks and Ridge are located generally easterly near the southeastern border of the City. The City of Carlsbad encompasses approximately 40 square miles, currently has a population of approximately 78,247 persons and 33,798 residential units. The current General Plan and Growth Management Ordinance anticipate that the citywide population will be in the 135,000 range at buildout with approximately 54,599 residential units and strives to balance jobs, housing diversity, open space, habitat/species protection and recreational opportunities for its inhabitants. The City has a full compliment of public facilities including the Palomar Airport General Aviation Facility, the Encina Electrical Power Generating Station, the Encina Wastewater Treatment Facility and two NCTD Coaster Stations and Interstate 5 to name a few. Additionally, a major employment center is located in the Palomar Airport area that employs approximately 31,000 people daily. A number of significant retail, resort and commercial facilities are also CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations 1652724 v3 [Word] Exhibit “EIR-B” 11 8/14/2001 located in the City, including Legoland theme park, Aviara Four Seasons Resort and Golf Course, La Costa Resort and Spa, Westfield Plaza Camino Real regional shopping center, Carlsbad Company Stores specialty shopping center, 20 automobile dealerships in the Carlsbad Car Country area and the unique downtown mixed use village area near the City’s beaches. Incorporated in 1953, the City is a vibrant, balanced residential and commercial metropolitan area blessed by its beaches and three coastal lagoons. The Proposed Project area is largely undeveloped (one ranch house and associated out buildings on 1,866.4 acres), generally consists of moderately sloping hillside terrain with several north-south draining alluvial valleys and canyons. One of the prominent natural features is the San Marcos Creek and canyon area that separates the La Costa Ridge and La Costa Oaks villages and which will be left in its natural undeveloped state and incorporated into the HCP Open Space preserve system for permanent preservation. Preservation of this natural area, including locally prominent Box Canyon waterfall area, as part of a total 834.9 acre HCP Open Space Preserve area is a key element of the Proposed Project for wildlife and habitat/species protection. Several public facilities are located on the property including two potable water tank reservoirs, an open reclaimed water reservoir, several large electricity transmission lines, water and sewer lines traverse the property, as do several service access roads. La Costa Greens is bordered by El Camino Real on the west and Alga Road on the south, La Costa Ridge is primarily serviced by existing El Fuerte Avenue on the western edge and La Costa Oaks is bisected by Ranch0 Santa Fe Road and La Costa Avenue. More detailed descriptions of the property area and its environs is set forth in the Final Program EIR at pgs. 2-l through 2-21 and incorporated herein by this reference. 1.6 Purpose of CEQA Findings; Terminology. CEQA Findings play an important role in the consideration of projects for which an EIR is prepared. Under PRC 0 21081 and Guidelines 3 15091 above, where a final EIR identifies one or more significant environmental effects, a project may not be approved until the public agency makes written findings supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record as each of the significant effects. In turn, the three possible findings specified in Guidelines 9 15091(a) are: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. In turn, Guidelines 9 15092(b) provides that no agency shall approve a project for which an ELR was prepared unless either: CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations 1652724 v3 [Word] Exhibit “EIR-B” 12 8/14/2001 43 (1) The project as approved will not have a significant effect on the environment, or (2) The agency has: (A) Eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects where feasible as shown in the findings under Section 15091, and (B) Determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable under Section 15091 are acceptable due to overriding concerns as described in Section 15093. Based on the foregoing, the Guidelines do not provide a bright distinction between the meaning of “avoid” or “substantially lessen”. The applicable Guidelines are based on PRC 5 2108 1, which uses the phrase “mitigate or avoid”, and hence it is generally considered that to “avoid” is to include changes or alterations that result in the significant effect being reduced to below a level of significance. In contrast, the phrase “substantially lessen” is used to describe changes or- alterations that materially reduce the significant effect, but not below a level of significance, thus, while mitigated, the effect remains significant. These Findings will distinguish, for the purposes of clarity, between effects that have been “avoided” (thereby reduced below a level of significance) and those that have been “substantially lessened” (and thus remain significant). In combination with the mitigation and monitoring program discussed immediately below, the following Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations are binding obligations of the project to implement all required mitigation measures. 1.7 Mitigation Monitoring Program. Pursuant to PRC 6 21081.6, the City has also adopted a detailed mitigation and monitoring program prepared by the EIR consultant under the direction of the City. The program is designed to assure that all mitigation measures as hereafter required are in fact implemented on a timely basis as the Proposed Project progresses through its development and construction phases. Compliance with the “Villages of La Costa Master Plan (2000) Mitigation and Monitoring Program” (a copy of which is attached to this Resolution as “Attachment B”) is a condition of any City approvals and incorporated herein by this reference. 1.8 Record of Proceedings. For all purposes of CEQA compliance, including these Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, the administrative record of all City proceedings and decisions regarding the environmental analysis of the Proposed Project shall include the following: -The Draft and Final Program EIR for the Proposed Project, together with all appendices and technical reports referred to therein, whether separately bound or not; -All reports, letters, applications, memoranda, maps or other planning and engineering documents prepared by the City, planning consultant, environmental consultant, project applicant or others presented to or before the decision-makers as determined by the City Clerk; CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 13 8/14/2001 J-P-f -All letters, reports or other documents submitted to the City by members of the public or public agencies in connection with the City’s environmental analysis on the Proposed Project; -All minutes of any public workshops, meetings or hearings, including the scoping sessions, and any recorded or verbatim transcripts/videotapes thereofi -Any letters, reports or other documents or other evidence submitted into the record at any public workshops, meetings or hearings; and -Matters of common general knowledge to the City which they may consider, including applicable state or local laws, ordinances and policies, the General Plan and all applicable planning programs and policies of the City. The custodian of the full administrative record shall be the City Clerk’s Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008. 2. FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, REQUIRED MITIGATION MEASURES AND SUPPORTING FACTS. 2.1 Land Use and Community Character. 2.1.1 General Plan Land Use Designation Consistency. Impact. The Proposed Project is inconsistent with the existing General Plan as the existing General Plan Land Use Element provides for development of areas intended to be preserve areas consistent with the previously approved HCP/OMSP and the existing General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element does not provide as much open space as the Proposed Project and HCPIOMSP anticipate, nor in the most advantageous locations. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.1-1. The existing General Plan Land Use Element and the Gpen space and Conservation Element are to be modified as part of the project approvals to conform the location and amount of open space to the approved HCP/OMSP and the Proposed Project open space and development boundaries. Factual Support and Rationale. In each of the Villages, the amount of open space being set aside and preserved is substantially increased beyond that shown in the existing General Plan elements. In La Costa Greens, the total amount of open space being permanently preserved and set aside increases from approximately 170 acres to a total of 246 acres, which represents an increase of more than 35%. In La Costa Ridge/Oaks combined, the total amount of open space being permanently preserved and set aside increases from approximately 242 acres to a total of 657.3 acres, which represents an increase of more than 171%. Combined for the entire Proposed Project, the total amount of open space being set aside and permanently preserved increases from approximately 412 acres to a total of 903.3 acres, CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations 1652724 v3 [Word] Exhibit “EIR-B” 14 8/14/2001 +5 representing an overall increase of more than 119%, more than doubling the existing area. Of the total open space acreage, 834.9 acres would be included within the HCPIOMSP habitat preserve area and a conservation easement to the California Department of Fish and Game (“CDFG”) and then conveyed to an approved wildlife conservation entity together with a permanent endowment for perpetual maintenance of its biological significance in an amount approved by the CDFG and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”). Overall, the Proposed Project site would set aside over 48% of the entire property site in permanent open space. Further, the location of open space in the Proposed Project conforms to the designated biologically significant Preserve Areas for habitat and endangered species protection purposes and is designed and configured to link up with adjoining protected and future habitat preserve areas and corridor migration linkages to improve the protection and recovery of endangered and threatened species and their habitat. (For a more detailed explanation, see FPEIR at pgs. 4.1-15 through 4. l-l 8; and FPEIR Section 4.4 dealing with the Biological Resources). 2.1.2 Consistency with Other General Plan Goals. Impact. In addition to the specific General Plan elements discussed in Section 2.1.1 above, a number of other City General Plan goals set forth in the following elements could be significantly affected by the Proposed Project if mitigation measures are not required: Land Use Element; Circulation Element; Noise Element; Housing Element; Open Space and Conservation Element; Public Safety Element; and Parks and Recreation Element. In order to avoid repetition, each of the goals in the individual elements will be referenced in the Factual Support and Rationale subsection below. Finding. With the incorporation of the mitigation measures set forth in detail in Sections 4.2 through 4.14 of the Final Program EIR (as detailed in Sections 2.2 through 2.14 below), the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.1-2. The detailed Mitigation Measures are set forth in their entirety in Sections 2.2 through 2.14 of these Findings and in Sections 4.2 through 4.14 of the Final Program EIR and are included by reference here to avoid repetition. Factual Support and Rationale. The affected goals are as follows. Overall Land Use Pattern Goal A.1. “A City which preserves and enhances the environment and image of itself as a desirable residential, beach and open space oriented community.” The Proposed Project satisfies this goal by preserving 903.3 acres (over 48% of its area) in permanent open space (834.9 acres of HCP Open Space; 168.4 acres of non-HCP Open Space), while providing a mixture of residential densities, a 7.9 acre business park, 14.5 acres of community facilities (RV storage, churches, day care, etc.), an elementary school site, a 27.2 acre community park, hiking and bike trails and significant transportation improvements. Overall Land Use Pattern Goal A.2. “A City which provides for an orderly balance of both public and private land uses within convenient and compatible locations throughout the community ensures that all such uses, type, amount, design and arrangement serve to protect and enhance the environment, character and image of the City.” In addition to the variety of CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations 1652724 v3 [Word] Exhibit “EIR-B” 15 8/14/2001 residential housing types throughout the Proposed Project, the 27.2 acre community park and elementary school site have been located conveniently to circulation element roads providing access from the larger surrounding community, the 7.9 acre business park is adjacent to El Camino Real and other business/commercial centers and will not abut existing or future residential uses, the community facilities uses are also conveniently located along circulation element roads and generally separated from residential uses, the hiking and biking trails inter- connect with and significantly expand the citywide trail system and the 359 units of Affordable Inclusionary Workforce Housing is integrated into the Proposed Project onsite in two separate locations near public transportation routes. The Proposed Project has located its range of uses and housing types so as locate similar sized lots and single family detached homes adjacent to all existing single family developments on the Proposed Project boundaries. Growth Management and Public Facilities Goals A.1 and A.2. “A City which ensures the timely provision of adequate facilities and services to preserve the quality of life of residents. (A. 1)” “A City which maintains a system of public facilities adequate for the projected population. (A.2)” As part of the City’s Growth Management Program, the city developed a comprehensive Citywide Public Facilities Management Plan establishing performance and adequacy standards for all public facilities necessary to serve and enhance the quality of life of its citizenry. The Proposed Project includes the amendment or preparation of two Local Facilities Management Plans which set forth the phasing and financing for each of the eleven public facilities covered in the Citywide Plan and assures. the performance and adequacy standards will be provided for at all times by the Proposed Project as it develops. If not met, then development is required to stop until the standards are satisfied. Growth Management and Public Facilities Goal A.3. “A City that reasonably deals with the disposal of solid and liquid waste.” The Proposed Project will generate wastewater flows that can be treated at either the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility or the Meadowlark Reclamation Plant, both located in the city. Existing capacity exists, but a standard condition requires the City Engineer certify at all times that adequate capacity exists prior to issuance of building permits. Solid waste would be collected by the city’s fkanchise hauler and the Proposed Project will participate in the City’s curbside recycling program to minimize landfill impacts. The City is satisfied that adequate landfill capacity exists in its current program to accommodate the waste generated by the Proposed Project. Residential Goal A. “A City which provides for a variety of housing types and density ranges...while maintaining the present predominance of single family residences.” The Proposed Project intends to develop 2,390 residential units. In La Costa Greens, 718 detached single family units are planned in neighborhoods with minimum lot sizes ranging from 3,500 sq.ft. to 11,000 sq.ft. in various neighborhoods and an additional 320 multi-family attached residential units. The La Costa Ridge/Oaks combined plans 1,078 single family detached units in neighborhoods with minimum lot sizes ranging from 3,500 sq.fi. to 10,000 sq.ft. and up to an additional 274 multi-family attached units. Minimum lot sizes and residential types will be compatible with adjacent existing residential developments and the average lot size for each neighborhood will be larger than the minimum size. Industrial Goal A. “A City which develops an industrial base of light, pollution-free industries of such magnitude as will provide a reasonable tax base and a balance of opportunities CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations 1652724 v3 [Word] Exhibit “EIR-B” 16 8/14/2001 47 for employment of local residences.” While only 7.9 acres of the Proposed Project is intended for a business park use, it is located in the Northwest portion of La Costa Greens adjacent to the existing primary office and industrial employment area of the city and represents a modest, but consistent expansion of the City’s employment opportunities for balanced jobs/housing. All city businesses are required to comply with stringent local, state and federal stationary source emission and hazardous materials handling and use restrictions. Agriculture Goal A. “A City which prevents the premature elimination of agricultural land and preserves said lands wherever possible.” The Proposed Project area is not presently used for agricultural purposes nor has it been used for such purposes for over many years. As discussed in Final Program EIR Section 4.10, approximately 95% of the soils on the site are not suitable for cultivation of crops, and any such cultivation would be inconsistent with preservation of the 834.9 acres of biologically significant habitat. Environmental Goal A. “A City which protects and conserves natural resources, fragile ecological areas, unique natural assets and historically significant features of the community.” In addition to the 834.9 acres of fully managed habitat preserve area, which amount is in excess of the 702 acres required by the HCPIOMSP, the onsite habitat preserve area is located to connect to other habitat preservation and endangered species areas inside and outside the city through a combination of large adjacent preserve areas and biologically significant corridors and linkages to facilitate the movement and bio-diversity of the affected species. A significant natural feature, the San Marcos Creek Canyon and locally known Box Canyon waterfall and pool will be included in the managed open space habitat areas and all development is pulled back from the canyon. Significant archaeological and paleontological resources are being protected through a combination of preservation, site disturbance monitoring and implementation of data recovery programs where warranted. Special Planning Considerations - Airport Goal A. “A city which maintains land use compatibility between McClellan-Palomar Airport and surrounding land uses.” The northwestern portion of La Costa Greens is located within the designated Airport Influence Area as established by the McClellan-Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. All development within this area is a permitted use under the Comprehensive Plan and written disclosures, and where appropriate, avigation easements will be obtained prior to the sale or development of any affected land consistent with City ordinances and policies. Additionally, the 7.9 acre business park and the adjacent public facilities area is also within the Flight Activities Zone for the Airport and special restrictions on uses and assembly of people will be imposed consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the airport. No residential uses are impacted by the designated Flight Activity Zone area. Streets and Traffic Control Goals A.1.. A.2. and A.3. “A city with an integrated transportation network serving local and regional needs which accommodates a balance of different travel modes based on safety, convenience, attractiveness, costs, environmental and social impacts. (A. 1 .)‘I ” A city with an adequate circulation infrastructure to serve the projected population. (A.2.)” ” A City with a comprehensive network of roads which provides appropriate access to all land uses. (A.3.)” The Proposed Project is designed to assure the comprehensive city wide circulation plan and Circulation Element of the General Plan can be accommodated onsite by providing approximately 40.1 acres for circulation element roadways, in addition to the CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations 1652724 v3 [Word] Exhibit “EIR-B” 17 8/ 14/2001 local residential streets, bikeways, trials, sidewalks and bike lanes serving the Proposed Project and the entire community. The La Costa Greens circulation plan provides improvements to Alga Road, Poinsettia Lane, El Camino Real, Alicante road as well as internal streets. The La Costa Ridge/Oaks plan contemplates additional improvements to Alga Road, El Fuerte Street, Melrose Drive, Ranch0 Santa Fe Road, and construction of internal streets. The designation of a portion of La Costa Avenue easterly of Camino de Los Caches would no longer be designated a Secondary Arterial on the circulation element as a result of the other traffic improvements. Additionally, the collection of traffic impact fees, bridge and thoroughfare fees and installation of traffic control devices would facilitate the implementation of the City’s master traffic and road system, including improvements to major regional facilities including Ranch0 Santa Fe Road, El Camino Real, Poinsettia Lane, Melrose Drive and Alga Road. Streets and Traffic Control Goal A.4. “A City with properly maintained, smooth functioning and safe traffic control systems.” The right of way widths, lane geometries and roadway classifications are designed to assure that the traffic control systems to be installed as part of the Proposed Project will provide for safe and effective operations for vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians. In La Costa Greens, traffic signals will be installed at: El Camino Real’s intersections with Poinsettia Lane and entry to Neighborhood 1.2; Poinsettia Lane’s intersection with Ahcante Road; and at Alga Road’s intersection with Alicante Road. In La Costa Ridge/Oaks, traffic signals will be installed at: Ranch0 Santa Fe’s intersection with realigned Questhaven Road (San Elijo Road);. La Costa Oaks Street C; and La Costa Oaks Street E. Additionally, on the internal streets of the Proposed Project, stop signs will be installed where determined necessary by applicable traffic warrants. Alternative Modes of Transportation Goal A. “A City which promotes, encourages and accommodates a variety of transportation modes as alternatives to the automobile.” In addition to the vehicular traffic capabilities and improvements, the Proposed Project includes Class II bicycle lanes on all arterial roads (Alga, Alicante, El Camino Real, Melrose, Poinsettia, Ranch0 Santa Fe and Street C) as well as off street hiking and biking trail system to interconnect with the citywide system of trails as well as a local trail network. Sidewalks and mass transit are accommodated throughout the Proposed Project area. Public Utility and Storm Drainage Facilities Goal A.l. “A City with a comprehensive network of utilities and storm drainage facilities which provide appropriate public utility and flood control services to all land uses.” A full range of public utility services are engineered for the Proposed Project. A small area of development is designed for the existing FEMA mapped 100 year flood plain, but the reconfiguration of the flood plain area and approval from FEMA will assure that no structures are subject to inundation or located in the revised 100 year flood plain. The Proposed Project on-site storm water runoff retention system is designed to meet the newest Regional Water Quality Control Board numeric sizing and NPDES discharge permit requirements, one of the first master planned communities to do so on a comprehensive basis. Scenic Roadways Goal A. “A City which preserves and enhances the visual, environmental and historical characteristics of the local community through sensitive planning and design of transportation and utility corridors.” The City has designated a number of scenic corridors throughout the city, including El Camino Real, Poinsettia Lane and Ranch0 Santa Fe Road. To date, detailed standards have been established only for El Camino Real and the CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations 1652724 v3 [Word] Exhibit “EIR-B” 18 8/14/2001 Proposed Project will be required to comply with those standards through issuance of the Scenic Corridor Special Use Permit process and will minimize landscaping where vistas exist, conform landscape programs to the common theme and incorporate special setbacks, median treatments and similar provisions. As part of the Villages of La Costa Master Plan (2000), design standards will be developed for the other two scenic corridors and implemented. The roadway system design and locations have been approved by the various environmental agencies and are located to coincide with the HCP/OMSP habitat preserve area to avoid conflicts wherever feasible. Land Use Goals A.1 and A.3. “A City where land uses are not significantly impacted by noise. (A. 1 .)‘I “A City which controls mobile sources of noise to help assure that mobile sources do not significantly contribute to the noise environment. (A.3.)” With one exception, a 3% cumulative impact to an existing road noise/residential interface problem along the south side of Alga Road between El Camino Real and Alicante Road, the Proposed Project’s road and street system avoids adverse noise impacts to existing uses and includes noise attenuation features as walls, slopes, berming and landscaping to assure that noise levels will not exceed applicable city standards. Land Use Goal A.2. “A City with industrial and commercial uses which do not produce significantly adverse noise impacts.” The non-residential uses in the Proposed Project are a 7.9 acre business park and two community facilities areas. In La Costa Greens, the 7.9 acre business park and adjacent public facilities usage area are located in the northwest comer along El Camino Real, a major regional transportation corridor and adjacent to the other office and industrial job center surrounding the Palomar Airport area. These uses are isolated from the nearest residential areas by significant open space, other office industrial areas and public use facilities. In La Costa Oaks, the community use facilities area is located adjacent to Ranch0 Santa Fe Road, but will be screened from future residential uses to the east by landscaping and topography. All areas are required to meet citywide noise standards of 65 Ldn at the property line so as not to significantly impact adjoining uses. Circulation Goal A. “TO provide a roadway system that does not subject surrounding land uses to significantly adverse noise levels.” As noted above, the Proposed Project is designed to comply with this standard, with the one exception of the existing residences fronting the south side of Alga Road easterly of El Camino Real, which are already experiencing road noise problems without the Proposed Project. The City has previously evaluated mitigation measures, but sound walls would block views and require numerous driveway openings for the homes, reducing its effectiveness. A sound wall would not block noise to second floor living areas. In the La Costa Oaks area, Ranch0 Santa Fe Road through the Proposed Project area will be realigned to the east away from existing homes as part of the City’s Ranch0 Santa Fe Road project. The Proposed Project brings no roads closer to existing residences than already exists. Airport Goal A. “A City that achieves long term compatibility between the airport and surrounding land uses.” As previously discussed, only the northwesterly portion of the La Costa Greens is located in the Airport Influence Area and only limited non-residential uses within the Flight Activity Zone, which uses will be limited in accordance with height and occupant load restrictions to assure compatibility. A comprehensive program of disclosures and where the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the Airport requires, an avigation easement will be required over the Proposed Project affected area as determined by the Planning Director based on the CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations 1652724 v3 [Word] Exhibit “EIR-B” 19 8/14/2001 3-0 airport operations noise contour mappings. Further, all residents within the roughly 3 mile Noise Impact Notification Area would be advised prior to purchase through disclosures and covenants, conditions and restrictions that the property may be exposed to periodic single event aircraft noise occurrences. Ouantitv and Diversity of Housing Stock Goal 2. “New housing developed with a diversity of types, prices, tenures, densities and locations and in significant quantity to meet the demand of anticipated City and regional growth.” The City has established a comprehensive Growth Management Program and established build out caps for residential units within each quadrant of the city. The Proposed Project would provide up to 2,390 units in the Southeast Quadrant, which is within the build out cap and below the Growth Management control point for density within the project area, which is the primary device to assure that population and housing starts are limited to the growth standards. Additionally, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects significant population growth for Carlsbad and the entire San Diego region over the next twenty years and allocates to each jurisdiction a allocable share of regional housing stock growth. The Proposed Project will contribute to meeting the City’s goals but not exceed the local Growth Management build out caps or applicable density control point. Groups with Special Needs Goal 3. “Sufficient new, affordable housing opportunities in all quadrants of the City to meet the needs of groups, with special requirements, and, in particular the needs of current lower and moderate income households and a fair share proportion of future lower and moderate income households.” In order to meet this goal, the City has established a comprehensive Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requiring new development construct at least 15% of the total number of units as affordable to low and moderate income households based on SANDAG area median income figures. The Proposed Project anticipates a total of 2,390 units, of which, 359 (15% of 2,390) must be workforce housing meeting City affordability requirements. The Proposed Project will provide up to 180 units in La Costa Greens at a site near transportation corridors and up to 179 units in La Costa Oaks, also located near transportation corridors. The on-site provision of affordable workforce housing fully meets the Inclusionary Housing requirement and policies and will be assured through a City Affordable Housing Agreement. Housing, Jobs, Work Force Balance Goal 4. “Maintenance of a high quality of life and a strong local economy through the balance of residential and non-residential development, in particular, a balance of the skills desired and wages offered by local employers; the skills and education possessed and wages earned by the local work force; and the cost of local housing.” The Villages of La Costa Master Plan (2000) provides for a range of housing from up to 359 units of affordable workforce housing opportunities and up to 2,031 market rate multi-family attached and detached residences on a range of minimum lot sizes in the various neighborhoods from 3,500 sq.fi. to 11,000 sq. ft., plus a 7.9 acre business park and 14.5 acres of community facilities uses. The Proposed Project is predominantly single family detached in character with the surrounding neighborhoods in the La Costa area, but the product and lot size selection will provide a range of housing opportunities in close proximity to the Palomar Airport job centers and employment opportunities as well as near regional transportation access to nearby job opportunities. CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations 1652724 v3 [Word] Exhibit “EIR-B” 20 8/14/2001 X-I Resource Conservation Goal 5. “New and developed housing which conserves natural resources, in particular, energy and water.” A range of energy/resource conservation techniques and elements are part of the Villages of La Costa Master Plan (2000) development standards. Water is conserved as over 45% of the entire area being preserved in natural habitat and open space, and the rest of Non-HCP open space is being vegetated with selected low water vegetation, including street medians, rights of way, adjacent slopes and parks where appropriate. Where feasible and available, reclaimed water dual piping will be installed for use of reclaimed water in these areas. Individual homes and businesses will all be equipped with low flow devices and common area watering will be automatically monitored and controlled. Structures will meet all required energy efficiency standards including dual paned windows, roof and wall insulation, pipe and water heater insulation, and energy efficient heating/cooling systems and appliances. Open Space Planning and Protection Goal A. 1. and Obtaining Onen space Goal A.2. “An open space system of aesthetic value that maintains community identity, achieves a sense of natural spaciousness, and provides visual relief in the city scape. (A.1.)” “A City where new developments provide for the open space needs of the residents. (A.2.)” Over 903 acres (48% of the Proposed Project Area) would be protected as permanent open space of which 834.9 acres is within the HCP Open Space permanently managed habitat and biological preserves, including the San Marcos Creek Canyon and Box Canyon falls/pool area. Additionally, La Costa Greens wraps around nine northernmost holes of the La Costa Resort’s North course and also sets aside a 27.2 acre community park area. Residents are able to enjoy the open space visually and actively through an integrated system of citywide and local hiking/biking trails and preservation of view sheds from both major roads and the existing residential developments surrounding the Project Area. As previously mentioned, the open space system is biologically linked with the overall citywide habitat management program in connecting large preserve areas and corridors linking to County habitat areas and linkages to the east and south. Even where slopes or other open space areas will be initially disturbed, landscape controls and standards call for natural vegetation wherever appropriate to give even manufactured and contoured slopes a natural appearance to compliment the 834.9 acres of undisturbed natural habitat area. Further, the Proposed Project provides a permanent, funded endowment for the ongoing operation and maintenance of the habitat preserve and linkage areas. Special Resource Protection Goal A.l. “Activity that protects environmentally sensitive land and buffer areas.” The HCP/OMSP required a minimum of 702 acres of natural open space areas be preserved and maintained in perpetuity. The Proposed Project increases this HCP Open Space to 834.9 acres and incorporates landscaping, vegetation, setback and brush management requirements to reduce edge effects between developed ,areas and the habitat areas. All brush management areas are outside the HCP preserve area and arterial roads are located and designed to further minimize the edge effects. TraiYGreenwav System Goal A.2. “A City with a Carlsbad Trail system.” The Proposed Project contains several interconnected trails as part of the citywide system and additional local trails. The network connects to offsite trail areas and significantly expands the City’s trail system. CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 21 g/14/2001 54 Fire Risk Management Goal A. “A City in which fire risk presented by native wildland open space is mitigated in a manner that provides a reasonable level of fire protection with sensitivity toward the preservation of natural resources.” The 1996 Harmony Grove wildfire has had a pronounced affect on the awareness and necessity to incorporate wildfire mitigation measures in the Proposed Project. It is a balancing process to preserve natural open space areas while protecting against wildfires. The City Fire Department has established rigorous fuel modification and landscape buffer requirements to minimize the spread of wildfires to developed areas and the city has outlawed wood shingle or other combustible roof materials. The Proposed Project is required to meet these standards’ as well as providing ample fire protection water pressure commensurate with applicable standards. The design standards incorporated into the Villages of La Costa Master Plan (2000) further provide for fire retardant materials. The City, through its Fire Department, annually requires specific weed abatement and similar brush management practices to reduce wildfire risks, and where appropriate, may require certain homes be sprinklered. Air Oualitv Protection Goal A. “A city with clean air.” Regrettably, the entire San Diego Air Basin is a federal non-attainment area for certain pollutants several times a year, predominantly in Santa Ana atmospheric conditions when pollutants originated in the Los Angeles and Orange county areas combine with locally generated pollutants. As a result, further development of any kind in San Diego Region will contribute to a cumulative, unavoidable significant impact as discussed below in the Cumulative Impacts section. On a project level, a number of mitigation measures will be required to minimize air pollution during the construction phase and thereafter. During construction, a construction worker ride-sharing program is proposed to minimize vehicle trips and associated dust and other emissions. Frequent watering while grading to reduce fugitive dust emissions, prompt landscaping requirements for slopes or other disturbed areas and the provision for sidewalks, bicycle lanes and off-street hiking and biking trail systems to promote non-vehicular transportation modes, all help to reduce impacts. The street and road system improvements will assist in moving local and regional traffic through the area thereby reducing emissions from traffic congestion. Water Oualitv Protection Goal A. “A City with a high quality of water resources.” This goal addresses the storm water and surface runoff issue, rather than purity of potable water which is the responsibility of various water agencies. As previously mentioned, the Proposed Project is designed and will be required to meet the new RWQCB storm water discharge NPDES numeric sizing criteria to capture onsite and treat, if necessary, to remove various urban pollutants before they enter the storm water system and eventually flow into Batiquitos Lagoon and the Pacific Ocean. These new standards are the most aggressive in the state and apply both to the construction and subsequent development phases and require funding assurances be in place to permanently maintain these improvements. Historical and Cultural Preservation Goal A.1. “A City in which its existing and continuing heritage is being protected, preserved, recognized and enhanced.” Some forty archaeological sites have been identified as within or immediately adjacent to the Proposed Project, including one site within the off-site alignment of Poinsettia Lane, through extensive field survey and reported finds. Only three sites would be significantly impacted, one in La Costa Greens, one in the La Costa Ridge/Oaks and the third in the off-site Poinsettia Lane CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 22 alignment. These sites will be monitored during the construction process by archaeologists with authority to halt construction until any significant resources can be documented and recovered, in order to mitigate any adverse impacts. General Goal A. “A City which minimizes injury, loss of life and damage to property resulting from fire, flood, crime, hazardous material, or seismic disaster occurrence.” Many City ordinances and standards require compliance with health and safety standards. The Proposed Project will have a Fire Protection Plan and incorporate the requirements into the fuel modification zone and landscaping activities and periodic weed abatement program. The Villages of La Costa Master Plan (2000) requires use of fire retardant building and roofing materials, increased building setbacks in proximity to natural areas, and the requirement for residential sprinklers in certain homes as supplemental protection. All structures will incorporate the latest building codes and standards for fire and seismic safety and no structures will be located within the revised FEMA 100 year flood plain area following grading. The Local Facilities Management Plans establish standards for police, fire and other life safety services and those performance standards must be consistently met. Park Development Goal A.l. “A City that provides a diversified, comprehensive park system utilizing contemporary concepts and planning strategies.” The Proposed project incorporates a 27.2 acre community park location in the northwest portion of La Costa Greens. If the elementary school site is located elsewhere in La Costa Greens, the community park could be expanded to approximately 32.9 acres, as an option. Based on SANDAG occupancy numbers, the 2,390 units at 2.48 persons per household would generate approximately 5,930 residents. Using the City’s Quimby Act standard of 3 park acres per 1,000 population, the Proposed Project would need approximately 17.79 acres (5,930 divided by 1,000 times 3 acres), which is more than satisfied by either the 27.2 acre or 32.9 acre public community park. Additionally, within individual neighborhoods, active and passive recreational facilities and opportunities will be provided, including additional neighborhood private parks. Residents and community members will also enjoy the off-street trail and biking system connecting to the citywide trail network, and benefit from the 834.9 acres of HCP Open Space and 168.4 acres of Non-HCP Open Space. 2.1.3 Consistency with City of Carlsbad Zoning Ordinances. 2.1.3.1 Special Flood Hazard Overlay Zone. Impact. The proposed development plan would place a small portion of the development area within the existing FEMA 100 year flood plain. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.1-3. Prior to issuance of any building permit for structures within the existing FEMA 100 year flood plain, the applicant shall process and obtain a Flood Plain Special Use Permit from the city and obtain a Conditional Letter of CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations 1652724 v3 [Word] Exhibit “EIR-B” 23 Map Revision from FEMA establishing the new 100 year flood plain boundaries in an area where no structures are to be constructed. Factual Support and Rationale. In La Costa Greens, an approximately 3.07 acre portion of the development area encroaches into the existing FEMA 100 year flood plain (See FPEIR fig. 4.11-4). As the 100 year flood plain exposes property to the potential for flooding in a 100 year storm (a 1% probability in any year), the Flood Plain Special Use Permit requires steps be taken to protect the improvements from the flooding potential and not aggravate surrounding flood conditions. The encroachment area is near the intersection of future Poinsettia Lane and Alicante Road in La Costa Greens and Ranch0 Santa Fe Road and San Marcos Creek in La Costa Ridge/Oaks, all Circulation Element roads. As part of the development of the roads, the flood plain boundary will be modified such that the roads become the flood plain boundary and structures will be adequately protected from risks of flooding as well as the roads. This modification will actually reduce likely flooding in the adjacent golf course area. Additionally, the width of Poinsettia Lane was reduced to minimize flood plain impacts. In La Costa Ridge/Oaks, residential development would not encroach into the flood plain area. 2.1.3.2 Hillside Development Regulations. Impact. Development of the Proposed Project will involve disturbance of slopes with greater than 15% gradient and an elevation differential of greater than 15 feet and therefore create the potential for adverse impacts requiring application of the standards set forth in City Municipal code Chapter 2 1.95, the Hillside Development Ordinance. Finding. With incorporation of the following mitigation measures requiring issuance and compliance with the Hillside Development Ordinance, the identified direct significant impact can be avoided and therefore reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.1-4. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit creating manufactured slopes in excess of forty feet in height, the applicant shall process and obtain a Hillside Development Permit and qualify for an exclusion or modification for such slopes, incorporating contour grading landscaping and similar ordinance requirements. Mitigation Measure 4.1-5. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits to grade property having greater than a 15% slope and height of 15 feet, the applicant shall process and obtain a Hillside Development Permit from the City. Factual Support and Rationale. Chapter 21.95 of the Municipal Code sets forth the detailed standards and policies of the City regarding hillside development. The purposes of the Hillside Development Permit include: (a) implementing the goals and objectives of the land use and open space/conservation elements of the General Plan, (b) assure hillside conditions are properly incorporated into the planning process, (c) preserve or enhance aesthetic qualities of natural hillsides and manufactured slope areas by designing projects which relate to the slope of the land, minimize amount of project grading, incorporating contour grading into manufactured slopes which are in highly visible public locations, and (d) assure that alteration of natural hillsides will be done in an environmentally sensitive manner whereby CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations 1652724 v3 [Word] Exhibit “EIR-B” 24 8/14/2001 J-s lagoons and riparian ecosystems will be protected and no substantial impacts to natural resource areas, wildlife habitats or native vegetation areas will occur. In order to effectuate the foregoing, the Proposed Project grading was evaluated with regard to Chapter 21.95 and the following standards. 1. “Development of natural slopes over 40 percent gradient, having the following characteristics, is not permitted: a) an elevation differential greater than 15 feet; b) a minimum area of 10,000 square feet; and c) the slope comprises a prominent land form feature.” La Costa Greens consists of 660.7 acres, of which approximately 45.2 acres exceed 40% gradient. The Proposed Project would grade 17.3 acres on La Costa Greens with slope gradients exceeding 40%, but none of the affected areas represent prominent land form features. La Costa Ridge/Oaks consists of 1205.7 acres, of which approximately 187.4 acres exceed 40% slope gradients. The Proposed Project would grade 10.1 acres on La Costa Ridge/Oaks with slope gradients exceeding 40%, but none of the affected areas represent prominent land features. With over 45% of the total project area being reserved for natural open space and species protection, the location of the open space areas was driven by biological, preserve area and corridor linkage factors rather than preserving only the steeper portions. As a result, development areas were forced into some steeper sections for efficient project design. The overall project impacts only 27.4 acres of the 232.6 acres over 40% without adversely impacting prominent land forms. 2. “The volume of grading shall be minimized. O-7,999 cubic yards per graded acre (cy/ac) is acceptable, 8,000-10,000 cy/ac is potentially acceptable, and greater than 10,000 cy/ac is not acceptable.” In La Costa Greens, 9,960 cy/ac would occur and in La Costa Ridge/Oaks, 8,950 cy/ac would occur; both within the conditionally acceptable category requiring justification. Several factors make these volumes acceptable under the circumstances. First, the 834.9 acres of biologically significant located natural open space for large preserve areas and corridor linkages occupied some of the flatter terrain and forced development into steeper areas resulting in more grading. Second, alignments and grades for major circulation element roads, including Poinsettia Lane, Alicante Road and Ranch0 Santa Fe Road are generally fixed, thus constraining available development areas, dictating internal street elevations and alignments and thereby constraining developable areas. (It should be noted that the actual grading volumes for circulation element roads is not counted, but the alignment and grades nonetheless dictate adjacent development elevations and locations.) Third, two very large public uses must be sheet graded substantially flat, the 27.2 acre public park and the 7.2 acre school site, which grading totals are included in the overall numbers. Fourth, every effort has been made to avoid blocking views from the existing contiguous residential developments and has contributed to the volume of grading by attempting to further reduce overall building pad elevations on site. 3. “Manufactured slopes shall not be greater than 40 feet in height unless an exclusion is provided pursuant to Municipal code Section 21.95.130.” In the final configuration, thirteen manufactured slopes in La Costa Greens and eleven manufactured slopes in La Costa Ridge/Oaks will exceed 40 feet in height. Exclusions are authorized and appropriate for these slopes because they each meet one or more criteria outlined in Section 2 1.95.130, namely that the alignment of circulation element roads dictate the resulting CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 25 slopes, the roads are in environmentally preferred alignments, or hillside areas have unusual geotechnical or soil conditions that watrant additional corrective grading. Each of the affected slopes are identified in the Final Program EIR at pgs. 42.-l 1,4.2-12,4.2-16 and 4.2-17. 4. “All manufactured slopes shall be landscaped consistent with the city’s landscape manual.” As part of the Hillside Development Permit process, the City requires compliance with the citywide landscape manual for the purposes of assuring the stability, attractiveness and aesthetic enhancement of the particular graded slopes and areas. The final pallette of vegetation is selected to harmonize with the surrounding patterns. Where a slope is adjacent to natural vegetation, the slope is planted to compliment the natural area. Where located adjacent to development or roads, then a different pallette may be used. Whatever the vegetation, assurances are made that the slopes will be appropriately irrigated and maintained. 5 and 6. “Hillside and hilltop structures shall be consistent with the architectural guidelines included in the City’s Hillside Development Guidelines.” “Slope edge building setbacks shall be sufficient to eliminate or significantly reduce views of vertical building form which would be visually incompatible with hillside land forms.” Significant architectural guidelines conforming to the City’s Hillside Development and Design Guidelines have been incorporated into the project through the Villages of La Costa Master Plan (2000) that meet these criteria. As individual areas develop, they will have to demonstrate that all guidelines have been satisfied and the location, setbacks, form and bulk will need to satisfy the Hillside Development Guidelines. 7. “Hillside roadway design shall be compatible with the City’s Hillside Development Guidelines Manual.” Alignments and geometries for Poinsettia Lane, Alicante Road and Ranch0 Santa Fe Road are generally established by the City’s circulation element and traverse the Proposed Project. The location of these roads and their conformity with the Hillside Development Design Regulations is required. As the Proposed Project does not yet establish final design for the internal residential roads, subsequent implementing actions such as subdivision tract maps, planned development permits and associated use permits may require further compliance with the Hillside Development Permit Ordinance. 8. “Hillside drainage shall be consistent with the City’s Hillside Development Guidelines Manual.” Conceptual drainage plans are included as part of the Master Tentative Map applications and the Villages of La Costa Master Plan (2000). The proposed facilities include detention basins, control structures, underground and above ground components, street curbs and gutters, all designed to divert and control surface runoff and the quantity and velocity of waters leaving the site. The slopes incorporate benches, brow ditches and drains, along with contour grading techniques to fully satisfy the Hillside Development Design Guidelines requirements. CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 26 2.1.4 Consistency with the McClellan-Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). Impact. In La Costa Greens, Neighborhoods 1.1 (Business Park) and 1.2 (Community Facilities), are located within the designated Flight Activity Zone (FAZ) for McClellan-Palomar Airport and if unregulated, could pose a potential conflict with the CLUP. Finding. With adoption of the following mitigation measure, the identified direct significant effect would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.1-6: The following restriction shall be included as a condition of all building permits, conditional use permits, and certificates of occupancy for uses and structures located in Neighborhoods 1 .l and 1.2 of La Costa Greens: “No use shall be permitted inside the McClellan-Palomar airport flight Activity Zone which is designed or intended to educate, entertain, accommodate, serve, congregate and/or employ a total of 100 or more persons at one time.” Factual Support and Rationale. As part of the CLUP for McClellan- Palomar Airport, various operational constraints were identified within the larger Airport Influence Area based on aeronautical usage and safety factors. One operational area is known as the Flight Activity Zone, which is generally the ground footprint and airspace for the approach and take-off activity areas on either end of the runway. As this area is subject to higher risks of flight hazard and crashes, the CLUP recommends that uses in the FAZ not assemble more than 100 persons at any one time in order to mitigate collateral personal injury or death should an aircraft accident occur during landing approach or following take-off, generally considered the times when an airport related accident is most likely to OCCUT. By limiting occupancy consistent with the CLUP criteria, risks of injury or death are reduced. 2.1.5 Consistency with Scenic Corridor Guidelines. Impact. Portions of La Costa Greens border El Camino Real, a City designated Scenic Corridor, and development inconsistent with the Scenic Corridor Guidelines could pose a significant adverse impact. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.1-7: Development of Neighborhoods 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 of La Costa Greens shall comply with the City’s El Camino Real Scenic Corridor Development Standards. Prior to the approval of grading permits, the applicant shall process and receive approval of a Scenic Corridor Special Use Permit. Mitigation Measure 4.1-SA: A 50-foot landscaped area shall be provided with a berm between Neighborhood 1.2 of La Costa Greens and the El Camino Real right-of-way. CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations 1652724 v3 [Word] Exhibit “EIR-B” 27 Mitigation Measure 4.1-8B: Where open space occurs adjacent to El Camino Real, fewer trees shall be planted to allow views to the open space landscape. Factual Support and Rationale. In order to provide positive visual and aesthetic experiences on El Camino Real, a major north south travelway through the city, detailed design, landscape and visual standards were developed, including special setbacks, view preservation requirements and other harmonizing components. By requiring compliance with the standards and issuance of a Scenic Corridor Special Use Permit, the Proposed Project will implement the common El Camino Real visual theme, include the special setbacks and view opportunities and the vegetation and median plantings will be harmonized along El Camino Real. 2.1.6 Land Use Compatibility at Project Boundaries. Impact. Compliance with the guidelines contained in the Villages of La Costa Master Plan (2000) would ensure land use compatibility at project boundaries. In Neighborhood Area 3.2 of La Costa Oaks, community facilities uses located adjacent to off-site residential uses would create potentially significant aesthetic and lighting impacts.. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.1-9: Prior to the issuance of building permits in Neighborhood Area 3.2, a Detailed Landscaping Plan and Lighting Plan for Neighborhood 3.2 shall be approved by the City. The Detailed Landscaping Plan shall comply with the City’s Landscape Manual and shall include details for landscaping on all sides of the Neighborhood Area to ensure that the light and aesthetic impacts on surrounding off-site properties are reduced to the maximum extent feasible. Factual Support and Rationale. As evidenced by Figures 4.1.4 and 4.1.5 (pgs 4.1-38 and 4.1-42), the Villages of La Costa Master Plan (2000) has assigned individual neighborhood lot sizes, densities and project types to be comparable to the any existing neighborhoods so as to maximize compatibility at Project boundaries. Higher densities are intemalized within the Project in an effort to minimize any land use compatibility issues at the boundaries. Non residential uses do not conflict with any existing neighborhoods and are located in areas with similar land use patterns and accessibility. In La Costa Oaks/Ridge Neighborhood 3.2, there is a potential that this Public Facilities use designation may abut future off-site residential development in the City of San Marcos (University Commons) and to mitigate any adverse impact, the detailed lighting and landscaping plan shall include sufficient screening and light shall be directed away from the adjoining future residential area consistent with the standards required by the Planning Department. The interface is a relatively small area of approximately .850 linear feet and the interface area on Neighborhood 3.2 will be landscaped to further screen and reduce impacts below a level of significance. CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 28 2.2 Landform Alteration. 2.2.1 Creation of Manufactured Slopes. Impact. Implementation of the La Costa Greens and La Costa Ridge/Oaks Master Tentative Maps will result in the creation of manufactured slopes over 40 feet in height. In its final graded condition, La Costa Greens would contain 11 manufactured slopes over 40 feet in height and La Costa Ridge/Oaks would contain 13 manufactured slopes over 40 feet in height. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the identified direct significant impact would be significantly lessened, but not avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.2-l: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a Hillside Development Permit shall be approved by the City. Mitigation Measure 4.2-2: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for permanent manufactured slopes, the Proposed Project shall apply for an exclusion or obtain a modification pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code 321.95.130 and $21.95.140, respectively, for manufactured slopes over 40 feet in height. Mitigation Measure 4.2-3: The Proposed Project shall comply with the City’s Excavation and Grading Ordinance (6 15.06, Carlsbad Municipal Code). Mitigation Measure 4.2-4: Grading information shall be submitted for review by the City with each tentative subdivision map. Mitigation Measure 4.2-5: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City shall verify that proposed grading complies with the grading standards and manufactured slope revegetation within the boundaries defined by the Villages of La Costa Master Plan (2000). Compliance will minimize and reduce impacts, but not below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.2-6: The Proposed Project shall comply with the Master Plan Landscape Sections and the City of Carlsbad Landscape Manual. Factual Support and Rationale. The Planning and Engineering staff have worked extensively with the applicant to reduce the number, height and length of manufactured slopes over 40 feet tall, as that has been adopted as the City standard for determining significance. Given the controlling features of the topography and the fact that the HCP/OMSP set aside considerable portions of the flatter property for habitat preservation and protection, all slopes in excess of 40 feet have not been eliminated entirely. The adopted mitigation measures will not fully mitigate the impacts, but will substantially lessen them by requiring contour grading, special planting palettes depending on the proximity to native habitat, additional benching and surface drainage structures and additional features intended to minimize the appearance of these higher slopes. A number of the slopes are required in order to construct circulation element roads, where grade and width are factors. The slopes in question are CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations 1652724 v3 [Word] Exhibit “EIR-B” 29 8/14/2001 100 identified in the FEIR at Table 4.2-6 (Greens) and Table 4.2-9 (Ridge/Oaks) and the accompanying figures. 2.3 Visual Quality and Aesthetics. 2.3.1 Appearance of Manufactured Slopes from Public Viewing Areas. Impact. Several manufactured slopes would be created that would be more than 20 feet in height and 200 feet in length that would be located adjacent to or would be substantially visible from a circulation element road, collector street, or usable public open space. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.3-l: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a Detailed Landscaping Plan for the respective village shall be approved by the City. The Detailed Landscaping Plan shall comply with the City’s Landscape Manual and shall include details for manufactured slope treatment that provide visual softening of slope areas. Mitigation Measure 4.3-2: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a Hillside Development Permit shall be approved by the City. Factual Support and Rationale. All manufactured slopes will receive special landscaping and contouring, with the final selection of planting palettes based on proximity to natural open space and other surrounding uses. As all slope areas will be fully vegetated and receive natural contour grading, they will be substantially softened in appearance such that their isolated existence throughout the Project will not be significantly noticeable, nor be overly prominent in bulk and scale compared to the vicinity as a whole. Similar treatment has occurred in other areas in the City for the manufactured slopes and the techniques and end results have proved satisfactory and not obtrusive or overwhelming. 2.3.2 View Blockage of Significant Public Resources and Change in Overall Scenic Quality. Impact. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not block public views to significant public resources, with the exception of views from the future alignment of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road with La Costa Ridge/Oaks, where views to the west would be partially blocked by landscaped slopes. The essentially natural view of the Proposed Project site would change to a largely man-made appearance for approximately one-half of the overall project site which, combined with other development projects in the site vicinity, is regarded as cumulatively significant. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be substantially lessened and reduced, but not thereby reduced below a level of significance. CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 30 8/14/2001 II Mitigation Measure 4.3-3: At least twenty percent (20%) of the residential units along a ridgeline/hilltop, which are visible from a circulation element roadway, shall be single-story. This standard shall apply to Neighborhood Areas 1.6, 1.7 and 1.12 of La Costa Greens, Neighborhood Areas 2.1, 2.2 and 2.5 of La Costa Ridge and Neighborhood Areas 3.1, 3.4, 3.5 and 3.14 of La Costa Oaks, as shown in the Villages of La Costa Master Plan (2000). The City’s Planning Department shall verify the incorporation of the required one-story structures during the review of Planned Development Permits and Site Development Plans as well as prior to the issuance of building permits. Mitigation Measure 4.3-4: Homes adjacent to and visible from Circulation Element Roads [El Camino Real, Alga Road, Alicante Road, Poinsettia Lane, El Fuerte Street, Ranch0 Santa Fe Road, Questhaven Road (off-site) and Melrose Drive (off-site)]. shall receive special attention to detailing on the elevation fronting the roads as required by the Villages of La Costa Master Plan (2000) and the required detailing shall be noted on architectural plans. Mitigation Measure 4.3-5: The City shall verify that proposed structures comply with the architectural and site planning standards contained in the Village of La Costa Master Plan (2000). Mitigation Measure 4.3-6: Walls and fences located 15 feet or less from a public street shall provide recesses for landscaping and variations in materials such that relief shall occur at elevational and directional changes. Long, straight walls and fences without visual relief shall be avoided. Wall and fence locations and respective design details shall be noted on all applicable building plans, and shall be approved by the City Planning Department. Factual Support and Rationale. The Proposed Project represents a large infill project in the already substantially developed La Costa portion of the City. While 834.9 acres of the Project is permanently preserved in natural HCP Open Space, and another 168.4 acres preserved in additional open space, the Proposed Project will convert approximately 5 1% of the total site to suburban development, including housing, businesses, roads, parks, and community facilities areas. Overall, the aesthetic impact resulting from the conversion of undeveloped areas in and around the Proposed Project from natural or undeveloped lands to suburban uses, will result in an overall and cumulatively significant aesthetic impact as our City and the surrounding region continues to develop and provide housing, jobs and public facilities for current and future citizens. 2.3.3 Compliance with the City’s Scenic Corridor Guidelines. Impact. El Camino Real, which borders La Costa Greens to the west is designated as a scenic corridor. Development proposed adjacent to El Camino Real could potentially impact the scenic corridor. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIk-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 31 8f 1412001 6% Mitigation Measure 4.3-7: Development of Neighborhoods 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 of La Costa Greens shall comply with the City’s El Camino Real Scenic Corridor Development Standards. Prior to the approval of grading permits for Neighborhoods 1.1, 1.2 or 1.3 of La Costa Greens, a Scenic Corridor Special Use Permit for El Camino Real shall be approved by the City. Mitigation Measure 4.3-8: Prior to the issuance of building permits for Neighborhood 1.2 of La Costa Greens, a 50-foot landscaped berm shall be provided or assured between development and the El Camino Real right-of-way, as detailed in the Villages of La Costa Master Plan (2000). Where open space occurs to adjacent to El Camino Real, fewer trees shall be planted to allow views to the natural habitat. Factual Support and Rationale. The City has adopted Scenic Corridor Guidelines for development along El Camino Real, the primary north/south transportation corridor traversing the entire length of the City. The goals of the guidelines is to establish a pleasing and consistent visual and aesthetic scheme by requiring adjacent development to preserve significant existing view corridors, set development back further from El Camino Real than elsewhere, have harmonious and consistent median improvements, create a more grand spacious experience for the driver and pedestrians, and avoid incompatible architectural styles and the “hedge podge” appearance that so many main arteries take on in cities where a major thoroughfare transverses multiple land uses and areas in a city. These goals are accomplished through the requirement and standards of the Scenic Corridor Permit which requires compliance with the adopted Scenic Corridor Guidelines. 2.3.4 Visual Impacts from Circulation Element Roadways. Impact. Visual impacts could occur along other Circulation Element Roadways unless adequate landscape setbacks are provided. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.3-9: Prior to the issuance of building permits for Neighborhood 1.3,l. 14 or 1.15 of La Costa Greens, a 30-foot average landscape setback shall be provided or assured along the property’s frontage of Alga Road where the roadway would abut residential development. Mitigation Measure 4.3-10: Prior to the issuance of building permits in Neighborhoods 1.7, 1.17 of La Costa Greens, a 30-foot average landscape setback shall be provided or assured along the property’s frontage of Poinsettia Lane where the roadway would abut residential development. Mitigation Measure 4.3-11: Prior to the issuance of building permits in Neighborhoods 3.1, 3.4, 3.5,3.8,3.9, 3.10 or 3.11 of La Costa Oaks, a 50-foot average landscape setback shall be provided or assured along the property’s frontage of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road where the roadway would abut residential development. CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding .Considerations 1652724 v3 [Word] Exhibit “EIR-B” 32 8/14/2001 43 Factual Support and Rationale. In addition to the El Camino Real Scenic Corridor Guidelines, the City has also required special setbacks from other arterial roads throughout the project, including Alga, Poinsettia and Ranch0 Santa Fe Road. By requiring special landscaped setbacks, the future homes are further removed from the noise and light impacts of roads and importantly, the motorist is also provided a more pleasant and open driving experience. These special setback requirements contribute to the visual and quality of living as well as driving experiences, while also increasing the amount of landscaping and vegetation in our community. 2.3.5 Light and Glare. Impact. Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in the introduction of new sources of lighting. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.3-12: All street and other lighting shall conform to City of Carlsbad standards, or an approved theme lighting program shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. Mitigation Measure 4.3-13: Lighting for community facilities and recreation areas shall be considered an element of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) or Site Development Plan (SDP) Review. Any such lighting that will illuminate a residential area past the hour of 10:OOPM shall be clearly identified on the site plan and shall be approved by the City of Carlsbad prior to CUP or SDP approval. Factual Support and Rationale. The City has established policies with respect to lighting impacts, both within the future development areas and intended to minimize the energy and “dark sky” impacts of development with the neighborhood and driving safety element to be considered. Street lighting is kept to an appropriate level and special concern is required where urbanized uses will interface with HCP Open Space preserve areas. By rigorously controlling the location, intensity and design of new lighting sources through the neighborhood site development design and the other areas conditional use permit process, the City prevents uncontrolled lighting sources from being a significant impact to the community. 2.4 Biological Resources. 2.4.1 Upland Vegetation Impacts - La Costa Greens. Impact. Significant direct impacts to vegetation communities include the loss of Diegan coastal sage scrub (89.8 acres), southern maritime chaparral (3 1.2 acres), southern mixed chaparral (1.5 acres), non-native grassland and native grassland (2 19.1 acres), combined riparian habitats (5.7 acres), and flood plain scrub (46.9 acres). CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 33 B/14/2001 bLf Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.4-1: Significant direct impacts to Diegan costal sage scrub within La Costa Greens shall be mitigated by a combination of on- and off-site preservation. Approximately 33.2 acres (27 percent) of the on-site coastal sage scrub shall be preserved within the HCP/OMSP open space. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit in La Costa Greens, approximately 33.2 acres of on-site Diegan coastal sage scrub shall be dedicated to a third party and encumbered with a conservation easement in favor of the CDFG. In addition, prior to site disturbance in La Costa Greens, the project owner/permittee shall contribute $1,000,000.00 towards the preservation of two off-site open space parcels. Conservation easement locations and habitat management and maintenance funds shall be approved in conformity with the approved HCP/OMSP. Mitigation Measure 4.4-2: Significant direct impacts to southern maritime chaparral within La Costa Greens shall be mitigated by the preservation of 88.8 acres (74 percent) of southern maritime chaparral habitat in the northwest portion of the site. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit in La Costa Greens, the 88.8 acres of on-site southern maritime chaparral shall be dedicated to a third party and encumbered with a conservation easement in favor of the CDFG. Conservation easement locations and habitat management and maintenance funds shall be approved in conformity with the approved HCP/OMSP. Mitigation Measure 4.4-3: Significant direct impacts to southern mixed and grassland within La Costa Greens shall be mitigated by the preservation of 4.5 acres of southern mixed chaparral habitat and 33.9 acres of grasslands on the site. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit in La Costa Greens, the 88.8 acres of on-site southern maritime chaparral shall be dedicated to a third party and encumbered with a conservation easement in favor of the CDFG. Conservation easement locations and habitat management and maintenance funds shall be approved in conformity with the approved HCP/OMSP. Factual Support and Rationale. The City was an active participant and signatory to the 1995 HCP/OMSP, a multi-species habitat conservation program and Natural Community Conservation Program, in which local jurisdictions and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the property owner, with the participation of many environmental and conservation groups, over several years forged a biologically sound program and palette of mitigation and conservation measures to assure the preservation of 62 identified sensitive, threatened or listed species consistent with the State and Federal Endangered Species Acts. While working on the HCP/OMSP, the City was concurrently working on its own Habitat Management Program (HMP) subarea plan as an enrollee in the regional Multiple Habitat Management Program (MHCP) being spearheaded by SANDAG for regional North County, as all the cities are enrolled. The HMP and MHCP programs are still proceeding and include USFWS, CDFG and any number of other stakeholders and environmental groups as active participants. The HCP/OMSP is a completed subcomponent of the City HMP, which in turn is to be a sub-area plan of the larger MHCP. As such, overall standards and biological principles have been developed and applied to all these multi-species programs. CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 34 8f 1412001 19 s With respect to La Costa Greens in particular, the HCP/OMSP required 18 1.09 acres of selected habitat be set aside permanently, a conservation easement be granted to the CDFG and the preserve area conveyed to an entity acceptable to the City, USFWS and CDFG to be maintained in perpetuity with the property owner providing an endowment perpetually assuring adequate maintenance and preservation funds. Additionally, an advisory committee consisting of the wildlife agencies, City and others will monitor and direct the maintenance and conservation efforts. Further, the property owner is to contribute $1 ,OOO,OOO to the acquisition of additional offsite gnatcatcher coastal sage habitat, which has been identified and purchased by the applicant to satisfy its obligation under the HCP/OMSP as well as assist the City in meeting its core area preservation requirements for its HMP as mandated by USFWS and CDFG as condition of approval and biological certification. In fact, the total Proposed Project would exceed the approved HCP/OMSP preservation onsite of quality upland habitat of 702 acres, plus off-site acquisition by permanently preserving a total of 834.9 acres, in addition to off-site acquisition. The permanent preservation of the onsite HCP Qpen Space, combined with the conservation easement and permanent operation and maintenance endowment and offsite gnatcatcher habitat contribution of additional core area, mitigates the impact to species of concern below a level of significance through the onsite and offsite selected habitat preservation and maintenance. The HCP/OMSP findings are incorporated herein by reference as further factual support and rationale. 2.4.2 Wetland Impacts - La Costa Greens. Impact. Significant direct impacts to wetlands regulated by the ACOE include the loss of 5.32 acres of wetlands and 1.03 acres of non-vegetated Waters of the United States regulated by the ACOE. Significant direct impacts to wetlands regulated by the CDFG include the loss of 5.61 acres of wetlands and 1.03 acres of non-vegetated Waters of the United States. (ACOE and CDFG acreages differ due to differences in their wetland definitions.) Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.4-4: Prior to issuance of grading permits in La Costa Greens, documentation shall be submitted to the City of Carlsbad verifying that necessary permits pursuant to 5404 of the federal Clean Water Act from the ACOE, a $401 waiver or certification from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, and a $1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFG have been obtained incorporating actual mitigation measures. Mitigation Measure 4.4-5: Impacts to wetlands within La Costa Greens, including all riparian habitats (5.61 acres using CDFG criteria), shall be mitigated at a 2:l ratio for a total of 11.22 acres. Impacts to non-vegetated waters (1.03 acres) shall be mitigated at a 1 :l ratio. A detailed wetland restoration plan shall be prepared by a qualified biologist that includes information regarding enhancement/restoration, maintenance and success criteria. This restoration shall take place on La Costa Greens south of the future alignment of Poinsettia Lane. If mitigation is initiated prior to project impacts, mitigation ratios may be reduced but would not CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations 1652724 v3 [Word] Exhibit “EIR-B” 35 8/14/2001 11, fall below 1 :l for wetlands and 0.5:1 for non-vegetated waters as permitted by ACOE and CDFG in accordance with applicable standards. Factual Support and Rationale. Of the total of 19.13 acres of wetlands (as used herein, wetlands shall be inclusive of both ACOE and CDFG wetland areas), 12.78 acres or 66.8% are fully avoided by the Proposed Project through design modifications, including the realignment of Poinsettia Road through the site further to the north and reduction in road and shoulder width to avoid wetland impacts and other design/grading modifications. Of the total of 6.64 acres of wetlands impacted, a portion of which is degraded or have significant invasive vegetation adversely affecting their function. The required mitigation, in addition to obtaining the necessary Clean Water Act 404 and 401 permits and certifications from the ACOE and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the 1603 permit from the CDFG, will require onsite creation and restoration of 11.22 acres of wetlands and an additional 1.03 acres of non-vegetated waters, thereby assuring no net loss to wetlands in terms of acreage or habitat value. The mitigation will proceed as directed by the City and permitting agencies (ACOE/USFWS, RWQCB and CDFG) and if approved by them, the mitigation ratios of 2:l for the 11.22 acres could be reduced if mitigation is in place and fully functioning before disturbance of existing wetland areas on site. Based on the evaluation of the quality of impacted wetland habitat, the limited impact to existing lower quality wetland onsite compared with the restoration and creation of additional higher quality wetland will result in an overall biological improvement to the wetland ecosystem on the La Costa Greens as a whole, by improving the quality and total acreage, eliminating invasive vegetation and improving the overall functionality of the wetland resource. 2.4.3 Sensitive Plant Species Impacts - La Costa Greens. Impact. Significant direct impacts to sensitive plant species include the loss of De1 Mar manzanita, thread-leaved brodiaea, summer holly, and Nuttall’s scrub oak due to these species’ high sensitivity. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.4-6: Significant direct impacts to the De1 Mar manzanita, summer holly, and Nuttall’s scrub oak within La Costa Greens shall be mitigated by the preservation of 88.8 acres of southern maritime chaparral on-site. This includes approximately 854 De1 Mar manzanita (83 percent), 1,085 summer holly (99 percent), and 640 Nuttall’s scrub oak (47 percent). Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit in La Costa Greens, 88.8 acres of on-site southern maritime chaparral shall be dedicated to a third party and encumbered with a conservation easement in favor of the CDFG. Conservation easement locations and habitat management and maintenance funds shall be approved in conformity with the approved HCP/OMSP. Mitigation Measure 4.4-7: Significant direct impacts to the thread- leaved brodiaea shall be mitigated by preserving approximately 5,800 individuals (83 percent) within the HCP/OMSP open space on site. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit in La CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations 1652724 v3 [Word] Exhibit “EIR-B” 36 8/14/2001 67 Costa Greens, approximately 212.6 acres of La Costa Greens shall be designated as HCP/OMSP land and shall be dedicated to a third party and encumbered with a conservation easement in favor of the CDFG. Conservation easement locations and habitat management and maintenance funds shall be approved in conformity with the approved HCP/OMSP. Factual Support and Rationale. The selected 212.6 acres of onsite preservation will preserve 83 percent of the thread leaved brodiaea, 83 percent of the De1 Mar manzanita, 99 percent of the summer holly and 47 percent of the Nuttall’s scrub oak. While none of the 10 individual Orcutt’s brodiaea are preserved on site, a large amount, approximately 92 acres of the onsite preserved habitat is well suited for the Orcutt’s brodiaea, which is not a listed threatened or endangered species, but is regarded as a sensitive species of local concern. In addition, the contribution to offsite core area preservation further supplements the onsite preservation of these identified species. As the City has learned throughout its HCP/OMSP, HMP and MHCP efforts, the multi-habitat and multi-species programs must look at the wider biological significance of overall preserve design and cannot, in every instance, preserve every individual plant or animal. The HCP/OMSP targets 62 different threatened, endangered and sensitive species, endeavoring to protect the best examples and habitat for the protection and recovery as a whole. 2.4.4 Sensitive Animal Species Impacts - La Costa Greens. Impact. Significant direct impacts to sensitive animal species include the loss of coastal California gnatcatcher habitat and potential nesting/foraging habitat for raptor species. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.4-8: Significant direct impacts to loss of coastal California gnatcatcher habitat shall be mitigated through the Diegan coastal sage scrub mitigation program cited above as Mitigation Measure 4.4-l. Mitigation Measure 4.4-9: Significant direct and cumulative impacts to potential nesting areas for the northern harrier, loggerhead shrike, burrowing owl, and Coopers hawk shall be mitigated by preserving HCP/OMSP open space on site. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit in La Costa Greens, approximately 212.6 acres of La Costa Greens shall be designated as HCP/OMSP land and shall be dedicated to a third party and encumbered with a conservation easement in favor of the CDFG. Conservation easement locations and habitat management and maintenance funds shall be approved in conformity with the approved HCP/OMSP. Factual Support and Rationale. As with the preceding sections, the variety of sensitive, endangered or threatened animal species onsite were evaluated carefully as part of the overall HCP/OMSP preserve design. The Proposed Project actually will exceed the required on site preservation of 181.09 acres required by the HCP/OMSP, and will permanently protect, conserve and maintain and manage 212.6 acres in La Costa Greens, consisting of CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations 1652724 v3 [Word] Exhibit “EIR-B” 37 8/14/2001 approximately 33.2 acres of Diegan Coastal sage scrub, 88.8 acres of southern maritime chaparral, 33.9 acres of grasslands and 4.5 acres of southern mixed chaparral. These onsite habitats, together with the offsite contribution for core area gnatcatcher habitat, are supportive of the nesting and foraging areas for the California gnatcatcher, loggerhead shrike, northern harrier, Coopers hawk and burrowing owl, onsite. Again, the principles of effective and biologically sound multi-habitat and multi-species preserve areas seeks to configure and link the core areas such that the 62 identified species may survive and recover overall and provide adequate genetic diversity and mixing to improve recovery attributes. 2.4.5 Upland Vegetation Impacts - La Costa Ridge/Oaks. Impact. Significant direct impacts to vegetation communities include the loss of Diegan coastal sage scrub (306.2 acres), riparian (0.38 acre), southern mixed chaparral (106.9 acres), non-native and native grassland (45.1 acres), and vernal pool habitat (4 pools; 0.05 acre). Within the Ranch0 Santa Fe Road realignment (which could be undertaken by the City under a previously certified EIR), significant direct impacts to vegetation communities include the loss of Diegan coastal sage scrub (20.9 acres), riparian (1.13 acres), southern mixed chaparral (10.5 acres), and non-native and native grassland (3.5 acres). Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.4-10: Significant direct impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub within La Costa Ridge/Oaks shall be mitigated by a combination of on- and off-site preservation. Approximately 482 acres (59 percent) of the on-site coastal sage scrub shall be preserved within the HCP/OMSP open space. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit in La Costa Ridge/Oaks, the 482 acres of on-site Diegan coastal sage scrub shall be offered for dedication to a third party and encumbered with a conservation easement in favor of the CDFG. Conservation easement locations and habitat management and maintenance funds shall be approved in conformity with the approved HCP/OMSP. Mitigation Measure 4.4-l 1: Significant direct impacts to southern mixed chaparral and grassland within La Costa Ridge/Oaks shall be mitigated by the preservation of 55.2 acres of southern mixed chaparral habitat and 28.6 acres of grasslands on the site. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit in La Costa Ridge/Oaks, the 55.2 acres of southern mixed chaparral and 28.6 acres of grasslands shall be offered for dedication to a third party and encumbered with a conservation easement in favor of the CDFG. Conservation easement locations and habitat management and maintenance funds shall be approved in conformity with the approved HCP/OMSP. Factual Support and Rationale. The Ridge and Oaks have a combined, contiguous on-site HCP/OMSP Opens Space preserve area of 622.3 acres, which exceeds the preserve area required by the HCP/OMSP by 100.8 acres. As with all HCP/OMSP preserve areas, it will be burdened by a conservation easement in favor the CDFG and will be conveyed to a third party conservation entity to be maintained and managed in perpetuity for wildlife purposes under the direction of an advisory agency consisting of the City, USFWS and CDFG. CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 38 8/14/2001 k9 The property owner will endow the maintenance and management funds as well. Of the 622.3 acres, it will consist of approximately 482 acres of coastal sage scrub, 55.2 acres of southern mixed chaparral and 28.6 acres of grasslands. The preserved habitats are in the biologically preferred locations and connect with the proposed core areas and linkages to the east, consistent with the design of the city HMP and regional MHCP programs, providing for travel and genetic integration generally. While not tied to either the Greens or Ridge/Oaks directly, the HCP/OMSP also requires the applicant to fund $150,000 to the City for its HMP program completion and an additional $50,000 for gnatcatcher research. The City has elected to, and the USFWS and CDFG have approved use of the $150,000 for additional core area acquisition of coastal sage scrub gnatcatcher habitat needed for the City HMP program. The result of these mitigation efforts is to preserve onsite and assist with offsite acquisition of substantial habitat preserves, to be perpetually managed and maintained for multi-species and multi-habitat conservation program purposes. The importance of these preserve areas and configurations are reflected in the HCP/OMSP Findings. . 2.4.6 Wetland Impacts - La Costa Ridge/Oaks. Impact. Significant direct impacts to wetlands regulated by the ACOE and CDFG include the loss of 0.38-acre of wetlands and 0.69-acre of non-vegetated Waters of the United States. In addition, the loss of 1,960 sq. ft. of vernal pool habitat (0.05-acre) is a significant direct wetland impact. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.4-12: Significant direct impacts to 0.045-acre of vernal pool within La Costa Oaks shall be mitigated through preservation and creation or enhancement in the City of San Marcos at the Bent Avenue property. The mitigation parcel would entail the preservation of a minimum of 0.045-acre of existing vernal pool surface area and creation of new pools and/or enhancement of existing pools within the approximately 4.5- acre parcel. A detailed vernal pool mitigation plan shall be prepared by a qualified biologist that includes information regarding enhancement/restoration, maintenance and monitoring, and success criteria. Prior to issuance of the first grading permit in La Costa Oaks, the detailed mitigation plan shall be approved by the USFWS. Mitigation Measure 4.4-13: Prior to issuance of grading permits in La Costa Ridge/Oaks, documentation shall be submitted to the City of Carlsbad verifying that necessary permits pursuant to $404 of the federal Clean Water Act from the ACOE, a 9401 water or certification from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, and a $1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFG have been obtained. Mitigation Measure 4.4-14: Impacts to wetlands within La Costa Oaks, including all riparian habitats (0.38 acre), shall be mitigated at a 2:l ratio for a total of 0.76-acre. Impacts to non-vegetated waters (0.49 acres) shall be mitigated at a 1 :l ratio. Mitigation shall occur in the south-central portion of La Costa Oaks within a restored creek channel immediately upstream of the conserved oak woodland. A detailed wetland restoration plan shall be prepared CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations 1652724 v3 [Word] Exhibit “EIR-B” 39 B/14/2001 7 by a qualified biologist that includes information regarding enhancement/restoration, maintenance and monitoring, and success criteria. The restoration plan shall be approved by the USFWS prior to the issuance of grading permits in La Costa Oaks. If mitigation is initiated prior to project impacts, the mitigation ratio may be reduced but would not fall below 0.5:1. The wetland habitat restoration shall be initiated no later than the first planting season following issuance of the first grading permit in La Costa Oaks and after receipt of necessary state and federal agency approvals. Mitigation Measure 4.4-15. Impacts to non-vegetated waters (0. lo-acre) within La Costa Ridge shall be mitigated at a 1: 1 ratio. Mitigation shall occur in the south- central portion of La Costa Oaks within a restored creek channel immediately upstream of the conserved oak woodland. A detailed wetland restoration plan shall be prepared by a qualified biologist that includes information regarding enhancement/restoration, maintenance and monitoring, and success criteria. The restoration plan shall be approved by the USFWS prior to the issuance of grading permits in La Costa Oaks. If mitigation is initiated prior to project impacts, the mitigation ratio may be reduced but would not fall below 0.5: 1. The wetland habitat restoration shall be initiated no later than the first planting season following issuance of the first grading permit in La Costa Ridge and after receipt of necessary state and federal agency approvals. Factual Support and Rationale. With respect to the non-vernal pool wetlands, the Proposed Project has incorporated design modifications and changes to avoid impacts to 24.85 of the total of 25.865 acres of the combined ACOE and CDFG wetland habitats on site through project design features. Consequently, La Costa Ridge/Oaks development impacts only 1.02 acres of wetlands and non-vegetated wetlands in.addition to the 0.05 acres of isolated and man made vernal pools discussed below. The modest wetland impacts will be fully mitigated through obtaining the required ACOE 404 permit, RWQCB 401 certification and CDFG 1603 permit in compliance with the applicable standards for those authorizations. Additionally, the city is requiring that the .38 acre wetland impact be mitigated onsite with 0.76 acres of wetland creation (2: 1 ratio) and the 0.49 acre nonvegetated wetlands be reestablished on site with a like amount (1: 1 ratio). The restoration plans shall be approved by the City and USFWS and monitored by each. With respect to the 0.05 acre on site vernal pool area, the biological reports establish that the vernal pool area in question is not natural, but the remnants of prior grading activity and of low quality, not supporting the San Diego fairy shrimp or other threatened or endangered species. The City and applicant attempted to locate other nearby vernal pool habitat for offsite mitigation purposes, as suitable onsite habitat does not exist, but none was found. The best vernal pool habitat nearby is the Bent Avenue area in San Marcos and this area has high quality vernal pools with identified fairy shrimp populations and the pot mounding terrain associated with high quality areas. The Bent Avenue site is high on the USFWS protection list and the interests of species mitigation seems best served by requiring acquisition and permanent protection of at least a 0.045 surface acre vernal pool in the Bent Avenue reserve and creation of new pools and/or enhancement of existing pools within the 4.5 acre parcel. CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 40 8’14’2001 3 1 2.4.7 Sensitive Plant Species Impacts - La Costa Ridge/Oaks. Impact. Significant direct impacts to sensitive plant species include the loss of Orcutt’s brodiaea. Within the Ranch0 Santa Fe Road alignment (which could be undertaken by the City under a previously certified EIR), significant direct impacts to sensitive plant species include the loss of San Diego golden star. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.4-16: 4.4-16: Significant direct impacts to Orcutt’s brodiaea and San Diego goldenstar shall be mitigated by preserving approximately 622.3 acres of La Costa Ridge/Oaks as HCP /OMSP open space on site. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit in La Costa Ridge/Oaks, approximately 622.3 acres shall be designated as HCP/OMSP land and shall be dedicated to a third party and encumbered with a conservation easement in favor of the CDFG. Conservation easement locations and habitat management and maintenance funds shall be approved in conformity with the approved HCP/OMSP. Factual Support and Rationale. The disturbance or impact to sensitive plant species on La Costa Ridge/Oaks is limited to10 individuals (plants) of Orcutt’s brodiaea for the Proposed Project; it is also noted that the City’s Ranch0 Santa Fe Road realignment project will impact some 1,500 out of 1,900 San Diego goldenstar sensitive plant species. The extent of other sensitive plant species impacted are not considered significant because of the low sensitivity or small numbers impacted compared to the species onsite. The Orcutt’s brodiaea impacts and the San Diego goldenstar impacts are mitigated below a level of significance through the onsite preservation of 622.3 acres of perpetually maintained and managed HCP Open Space, which provide additional suitable habitat for the impacted plant species such that there survival and recovery are reasonably assured as these were part of the 62 species protected under the HCP/OMSP program and associated Findings. 2.4.8 Sensitive Animal Species Impacts - La Costa Ridge/Oaks. Impact. Significant direct impacts to sensitive animal species include the loss of habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher, Cooper’s hawk and burrowing owl. In addition, although the San Diego fairy shrimp was not detected on-site, it is assumed that the vernal pools on-site provide adequate potential habitat for this sensitive species. Therefore, impacts to the vernal pool habitat would result in significant direct impact to the San Diego fairy shrimp, due to its potential presence of 0.045-acre of vernal pool habitat. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.4-17: Significant direct impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher habitat shall be mitigated through the Diegan coastal sage scrub mitigation program cited above as Mitigation Measure 4.4-10. CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 41 8/14/2001 q-2 Mitigation Measure 4.4-18: Significant direct impacts to the San Diego fairy shrimp shall be mitigated through vernal pool mitigation program cited above as Mitigation Measure 4.4-12. . Mitigation Measure 4.4-19: Significant direct and cumulative impacts to potential foraging and nesting areas for the burrowing owl and Coopers hawk shall be mitigated by preserving HCP/ OMSP open space on site. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit in La Costa Ridge/Oaks, approximately 622.3 acres shall be designated as HCP/OMSP land and shall be dedicated to a third party and encumbered with a conservation easement in favor of the CDFG. Conservation easement locations and habitat management and maintenance funds shall be approved in conformity with the approved HCP/OMSP. Factual Support and Rationale. Impacts to the coastal California gnatcatcher, Cooper’s hawk and burrowing owl are considered significant and have been mitigated through the onsite preservation of 622.3 acres of perpetually managed and maintained habitats suitable for these species. The Findings supporting the approved HCP/OMSP confirm that the USFWS and CDFG, as well as the City, has required sufficient onsite mitigation and habitat to reduce the impacts below a level of significance. Other species noted, such as the San Diego homed lizard, coastal whiptail lizard, San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit and desert woodrat will also be affected, but because of low sensitivity and the fact that the 622.3 acres are preserved onsite, these impacts would.not be significant. It is additionally noted that some raptor foraging habitat would be lost and loggerhead breeding and foraging habitat would also be impacted, but again, the conclusions of the biologists, USFWS and CDFG under the HCP/OMSP Findings conclude that the low sensitivity of these species result in these impacts being less than significant. The 622.3 acres of native habitat preserved onsite will provide linkage with the offsite core areas acquired to the east as part of the HCP/OMSP. 2.4.9 Direct Impacts - Off-Site Poinsettia Lane Alignment. Impact. Significant direct impacts to vegetation communities include the loss of 1.6 acres of coastal sage scrub and 0.2-acre of non-native grassland. No significant wetland, sensitive plant, or sensitive animal species impacts would occur. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.4-20: If La Costa Greens is required to conduct grading for the off-site segment of Poinsettia Lane from the eastern Proposed Project boundary to El Fuerte Street, significant direct off-site impacts to 1.6 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub and 0.2-acre of non-native grassland shall be mitigated in conjunction with the draft Carlsbad HMP. The project proponent shall provide for off-site acquisition at a ratio of between 1 :l and 2: 1, or shall pay a fee consistent with the draft Carlsbad HMP. The location of the off-site acquisition shall be determined in consultation with the USFWS. Mitigation requirements shall be satisfied prior to issuance of a grading permit for the off-site grading of Poinsettia Lane. CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 42 8/14/2001 73 Factual Support and Rationale. Poinsettia Lane is an important link in the overall circulation road network for the City and will need to be completed concurrent with development. Its extension would impact 1.6 acres of coastal sage scrub and 0.2 acres of grasslands, which would be mitigated by the preservation of equivalent habitat at 1 :l or 2: 1 ratios as determined by the City in combination with the wildlife agencies applying the mitigation ratios utilized in the area. If the City I-IMP is finalized prior to the disturbance, it is possible that the impact could be mitigated through the anticipated fee program contained therein for impacts associated with circulation element roads as the City HMP sets aside large, interconnected habitat preserve areas. Alternatively, it will be mitigated as part of the Bressi Ranch habitat mitigation program. 2.4.10 Indirect Impacts. Impact. Potential construction-related noise impacts to the coastal California gnatcatcher would be considered a significant indirect impact in areas where gnatcatcher nests would be exposed to construction noise levels of 60 dbA CNEL or higher, during the nesting season. Urban edge effect impacts, including direct crushing of vegetation, plant collection, release of unwanted species, potential predation, fixed lighting and exotic species invasion could occur and would be considered significant where located adjacent to any of the preserved sensitive plant populations, sensitive animals (coastal California gnatcatcher and nesting raptors), or Diegan coastal sage scrub and riparian habitats. Long-term indirect development impacts include weed invasion, fire management, access control, anthropogenic disturbances and domestic pet predation could occur and would be considered significant where adjacent to sensitive vegetation communities, plant species, and animal species. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.4-21: Prior to and during construction activities, access barriers shall be established at key entry points to the site as determined by the Proposed Project’s construction manager and the City of Carlsbad to limit potential construction vehicle impacts. Mitigation Measure 4.4-22: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the HCP/OMSP open space limits shall be marked in the field by the construction manager and the project biologist, who will ensure the installation of City Engineering Department Environmental Fence which will help to prevent disturbance during construction and to mark .the open space limits. These limits shall be identified on the grading plan. Where disturbance to conserved habitat areas is unavoidable, the disturbance must be authorized by the City of Carlsbad and additional mitigation measures, if warranted, shall be approved by the City of Carlsbad prior to initiation of the disturbance. The project biologist shall monitor construction activities to ensure that conserved habitat areas do not receive excessive amounts of dust or other disturbances. CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 43 8/14/2001 7j Mitigation Measure 4.4-23: Construction storage and staging areas shall be located as far from HCP/OMSP areas as possible. The construction manager shall assure that these areas are kept free from trash and other waste that may attract scavengers. Mitigation Measure 4.4-24 A/B: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a qualified biologist shall determine the presence or absence of occupied raptor nests on the affected area. Grading and construction which creates adverse effects to active raptor nests, including noise levels which would be above 60 dB(A) at the nesting site, shall be restricted to 200 feet from any active raptor nest. This restriction shall be noted on all grading and construction plans. No grading or construction activities shall be permitted within 200 feet of the active nest(s) until the young have fledged. Mitigation Measure 4.4-25: If clearing or grading occurs during the gnatcatcher breeding season (February 15 to July 31), and noise levels exceed 60 dBA hourly LEQ at the edge of the HCP/OMSP, measures to minimize noise impacts will be required, consisting of temporary six-foot high noise berms or other appropriate noise reduction methods. Mitigation Measure 4.4-26: During grading and construction near nesting sites noise levels will be monitored on a regular basis by a qualified biologist to ensure that noise levels are maintained at or below 60 dB(A). Mitigation Measure 4.4-27: Lighting shall be directed away from conserved habitat areas and shielded. Residential lighting shall be designed to not shine on conserved habitat areas. The lighting design shall be noted and graphically shown on construction building and landscape plans and shall be approved by the City of Carlsbad prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Outdoor lighting restrictions for private residential lots located adjacent to the HCP/OMSP shall be noted in the Proposed Project’s CC&Rs. Mitigation Measure 4.4-28: Prior to the issuance of building permits, fuel management zones adjacent to the HCP/OMSP shall be installed in accordance with the Villages of La Costa Master Plan (2000) and shall be designed to minimize impacts to native vegetation. Mitigation Measure 4.4-29: Invasive plant species shall not be used in landscaping adjacent to conserved habitat areas. The landscape design shall be indicated on construction building and landscape plans and shall be approved by the City of Carlsbad. A list of such species shall be provided in the CC&Rs of the homeowners association. Mitigation Measure 4.4-30: Educational materials regarding the sensitivity of the HCPIOMSP shall be given to Proposed Project residents as part of the Project’s CC&Rs. The materials shall state the importance of the conserved habitat areas and ways to avoid impacts to them. Mitigation Measure 4.4-31: An open space management advisory committee shall be established, composed of the Proposed Project master developer and representatives of the City of Carlsbad and resource agencies. The advisory committee shall identify an entity to prepare annual habitat management plans for the Proposed Project’s CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations 1652724 v3 [Word] Exhibit “EIR-B” 44 8/14/2001 HCP/OMSP. On-going habitat management shall consist of monitoring, habitat restoration and enhancement, cowbird trapping, weed control, access control and maintenance, and public education. Conservation easement locations and habitat management and maintenance funds shall be approved in conformity with the approved HCP/OMSP. Factual Support and Rationale. The foregoing list of mitigation measures for indirect impacts to habitat and protected species have been developed over the years in the field, with the input of biologists, the USFWS and CDFG, and have proven successful in substantially limiting the collateral impacts. The access and grading/equipment barriers keep the construction equipment in the disturbance areas, rather than risking damage to the preserved habitat areas. Siting the staging, storage and materials areas some distance from the preserve habitat assists in reducing impacts as does the noise and lighting restrictions should there be nesting or adjacency impacts. The requirement that a qualified biologist approved by the City survey the area to assure that active raptor nests are not disturbed during the grading operation and the further requirement of noise level restrictions at the HCP Open space edges, including temporary 6 foot high noise barriers where warranted. Subsequent to construction, there is carefully designed and monitored fuel modification buffer areas to separate the developed areas from the HCP Open space, the types of plants and landscaping will also be controlled as will lighting programs. The residents and HOA’s will be provided educational information regarding interface with the habitat preserve areas to further mitigate edge effects. The HCP Open Space perpetual management and maintenance will be fully funded by the applicant pursuant to the HCP/OMSP and an advisory committee will be formed to oversee the management program and will consist of the City, the resource agencies (USFWS and CDFG) and others. This active oversight will assure that the HCP Open Space is effectively managed for the habitat and species protection purposes and will include weed control, cowbird trapping, access control and limitations, together with public education, all as needed, to effectively manage and maintain the total 834.9 acres of HCP Open Space preserved onsite throughout the Proposed Project. 2.5 Archaeological Resources. 2.51 Archaeological Resources Impacts - La Costa Greens Impact. Site CA-SDI-4846B is located in the southwestern portion of La Costa Greens and is designated for residential development. Because the site is potentially important under CEQA and the City’s CRG guidelines, impacts are regarded as significant. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.5-l: Prior to the issuance of grading permits in Neighborhoods 1.10 and 1.11 of La Costa Greens, the following measures shall be implemented. (a) The applicant shall provide verification that a qualified archeologist and/or archeological monitor has been retained to implement the archaeological construction CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations 1652724 v3 [Word] Exhibit “EIR-B” 45 8/14/2001 76 monitoring program. This verification shall be documented by a letter from the applicant and the archeologist and/or the archeological monitor to the City. (b) A Treatment Plan/Research Design program shall be prepared by the applicant’s archaeological monitor and approved by the City prior to the issuance of a grading permit which identifies the research focus and sampling methods needed to acquire necessary site data. (c) An additional field investigation shall be conducted by the project’s archaeological monitor to test hypotheses that would place the resource within a cultural context. This shall include an excavation of up to 15 sample units and detailed mapping of the site components to record spatial data, and the submittal of at least one radiocarbon sample per site to establish some chronological association. If additional sampling of these sites demonstrates pervasive subsurface disturbance from historic land use practices, no additional excavation is required. (d) In the event that the site investigation provides indications that CA- SDI-4846B contains intact deposits with sufficient quantity, quality, and variety of artifacts applicable to important research, the sampling efforts should be expanded to explore these sites. Special studies such as ceramic analysis, obsidian sourcing and hydration, and flaked stone analysis should be included in the scope of work if indicated. (e) If warranted, a data recovery program shall be implemented that includes archival research to develop a context within which the physical attributes of the resource can be evaluated. Mitigation Measure 4.5-2A: A qualified archaeological monitor shall be on-site during initial grubbing and excavation grading of CA-SDI-4846B in Neighborhoods 1.10 and 1.11 of La Costa Greens to ensure the protection and proper identification of meaningful archaeological deposits or remains. This requirement shall be noted on the grading plan. Mitigation Measure 4.5-2B: In the event that significant cultural resources are discovered in Neighborhoods 1.10 and 1.11 of La Costa Greens, the archaeologist shall direct the project engineer to divert or temporarily halt ground disturbance operations in the area of discovery to allow evaluation of potentially important resources. Factual Support and Rationale. Field archaeological surveys and examination of the extensive prior studies and investigations were undertaken as part of the ElR preparation and located five sites on La Costa Greens which are located in proposed disturbance or development areas. The field work confirmed that four of the sites were so disturbed or the record and evidence of the materials were unremarkable and not of important or unique archaeological significance. The one remaining Site #CA-SDI-4846B will undergo further testing and recovery prior to the grading or disturbance and therefore, will fully protect and record the significance of the site and any artifacts or materials. Applying professional standards and procedures of an approved and licensed archaeologist, the investigation/recovery program may be expanded based on the significance of the findings. Further, during initial grading or clearing, an approved archaeological monitor will be onsite, with authority to halt further grading CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 46 8/ 14/2001 and recover artifacts, or undertake additional testing, should initial work identify significant additional resources or locations. These mitigation procedures are consistent with standards developed by the City and other jurisdictions and have proven effective. 2.5.2 Archaeological Resources Impacts - La Costa Ridge/Oaks. Impact. Site CA-SDI-4498 Locus A, retains a sufficient amount of integrity to meet CEQA and CRG guidelines for importance. Because CA-SD14498 is located in an area proposed to be preserved in its natural state as HCP open space, the site would be undisturbed and direct impacts would not occur. Indirect impacts to this site may occur, however, due to the potential for increased use of this area by human population. A resource site discovered during the 1999 field study (LCRidge-1) is assumed to be important under CEQA and City CRG criteria. Impacts to this site would be considered significant and mitigation would be required. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.5-3: Site SDI-4498 shall be preserved. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits in La Costa Ridge, areas surrounding the site shall be landscaped with native plant species with deterrent qualities to discourage casual foot traffic resulting from increased public usage of the area. The landscape plan shall be developed by a consultant with experience in landscape design that incorporates native species for the purpose of resource conservation and protection. The native plant Species selected by the landscape architect shall be compatible and in conformance with the HCP and, the landscape plan shall be approved by the City. Mitigation Measure 4.5-4: Prior to the issuance of grading permits in La Costa Ridge, a qualified archeologist shall conduct an archival search to determine the nature of site features, their age and association. Documentation of these features shall be completed with the goal of recording elements of their construction and appearance. Documentation should include the completion of high quality photographs and measured drawings which demonstrate the nature of construction and accurately reflect the appearance of these wall remnants. Factual Support and Rationale. Through the field investigations and surveys, four known sites were identified that might meet the criteria of significance or importance, and a new site (LCRidge-1) were identified. Of the four, only one site, CA-SD1 4498A demonstrated sufficient integrity or importance for further analysis and study. As it is actually located in a non-disturbance area, but near future development, indirect impacts might occur. Special native landscaping/vegetation is required around the site that has deterrent effects to discourage casual foot traffic. This passive approach is generally regarded as a sound approach, rather than fencing or signage, as the latter tends to attract, rather than discourage intrusion. The area will be managed as part of the HCP Open Space as well. As to LCRidge-1, an archival search shall be undertaken by an approved qualified biologist prior to any grading or disturbance and fully document the site with photographs, measured drawings and narrative to CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 47 8”4’20017 8 fully record and preserve the character of the wall remnants, including data regarding age and association. 2.5.3 Archaeological Resources Impacts - Off-Site Poinsettia Lane Alignment. Impact. CA-SDI-9846 is located on a small west-trending knoll near the southern boundary of the Bressi Ranch project area and within the alignment of the off-site Poinsettia Lane right-of-way, which is evaluated as a potential off- site improvement of La Costa Greens. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures 4.15 MB: An archaeological monitor shall be on- site during initial grubbing and excavation grading of CA-SDI-9,846 to ensure the protection and proper identification of meaningful archaeological deposits or remains, if any. The requirement for on-site archeological monitoring during grading shall be noted on the grading plan. In the event that cultural resources are discovered, the archaeologist shall direct the project engineer to divert or temporarily halt ground disturbance operation in the area of discovery to allow evaluation of potentially important cultural resources. The City shall be notified of any such finding. The importance of any discovered resources shall be determined by the archaeologist, in consultation with the City. The City shall respond to the evaluation within 48 hours and City concurrence shall be obtained before ground disturbing activities will be allowed to resume in the affected area. For important historical resources, a Research Design and Data Recovery Program shall be prepared. Factual Support and Rationale. One potentially significant site (CA- SDI-9846) was located within the proposed right of way. Prior to the initial grading or disturbance of the site, an approved and qualified monitor will be on site to halt grading and undertake appropriate evaluation and recovery, if warranted, such that the site is documented and if appropriate, significant artifacts recovered and protected, after which grading may resume. The city shall determine the significance of any items in consultation with the monitoring archaeologist and if deemed necessary, a Research Design and Data Recovery Program shall be implemented to fully catalogue the site before further disturbance. 2.6 Paleontological Resources. 2.6.1 Paleontological Resources Impacts. Impact. Implementation of the Proposed Project would have the potential for significant impacts to paleontological resources in all areas proposed for grading in the Terrace deposits, Torrey sandstone and Dehnar formation areas. CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations 1652724 v3 [Word] Exhibit “EIR-B” 48 8/14/2001 79 Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.6-l : Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide verification that a qualified paleontologist and/or paleontological monitor has been retained to implement the monitoring program. A qualified paleontologist is an individual with adequate knowledge and experience with fossilized remains who will be present during grading to identify them in the field and is adequately experienced to remove the resources for further study. Verification shall be by letter from the applicant and paleontologist and/or paleontological monitor to the City and approved by the City’s Planning Director. Mitigation Measure 4.6-2: The qualified paleontologist or paleontological monitor shall attend any preconstruction meeting to discuss grading plans with the grading and excavation contractor. The requirement for on-site paleontological monitoring shall be noted on the construction drawings. Mitigation Measure 4.6-3: The paleontological monitor shall be on site full-time during the initial cutting of previously undisturbed sensitive areas to inspect for well- preserved fossils. Monitoring may be increased or decreased at the discretion of the qualified monitor, in consultation with the City, and will depend on the rate of excavation, the fossil materials excavated and their abundance. Mitigation Measure 4.64: If well-preserved fossils are found, initial grading activities in the area of discovery shall be diverted, redirected or temporarily halted to allow evaluation and recovery of exposed fossils. The City shall be immediately notified and shall respond to the finding within 48 hours and shall approve salvaging procedures to be performed before initial grading activities are allowed to resume in the affected area. Mitigation Measure 4.6-5: Significant fossil remains shall be cleaned, sorted, catalogued, and then donated to a scientific institution that houses Paleontological collections. Mitigation Measure 4.6-6: A monitoring results report summarizing the results, analysis and conclusions of the above program, even if negative, shall be submitted to the City within three months following the termination of the paleontological monitoring program. Factual Support and Rationale. The geologic nature of the site creates the potential for paleontological resources being uncovered during grading operations. The mitigation measures require a monitoring program and approved qualified, paleontological monitor be present during initial grading, and pregrading meetings, with authority to halt grading if resources are uncovered or evident during the grading process to look for well-preserved fossil remains or other significant items. If identified, then the City and the paleontologist will coordinate a salvage program before grading may resume in the fossil area. Through this process, and the cleaning, storage and contribution of any fossil remains to a museum or other depository, will protect any resources. These procedures, combined with a final report from the CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 49 8/14/2001 monitor, have proven to be an effective program for preservation and recovery, where appropriate. 2.7 Transportation. 2.7.1 Traffic in Year 2005. Impact. The addition of Proposed Project traffic and the construction of Proposed Project improvements in 2005 would result in a potential significant impact to the intersection of Melrose Drivekncho Santa Fe Road. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.7-l: If the planned reconstruction of the Mehose DriveRancho Santa Fe Road intersection is not completed with the widening of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road, the applicant shall improve or provide for the improvement of the Melrose Drive/Ranch0 Santa Fe Road (AM) (no. 18) intersection with an additional eastbound left-turn lane, prior to issuance of building permits or as determined by the City Engineer based on Year 2005 traffic model assumptions Mitigation Measure 4.7-2: Prior issuance of building permits for La Costa Greens, the applicant shall construct or provide for the construction of Poinsettia Lane from El Camino Real to the eastern project boundary. Mitigation Measure 4.7-3: Prior to the issuance of building permits for Neighborhoods 1.8 through and including 1.14 of La Costa Greens, the applicant shall construct or provide for the construction of Alicante Road from Poinsettia Lane to Alga Road. Mitigation Measure 4.7-4: Prior to the issuance of building permits for Neighborhoods 1.4 through and including 1.7 of La Costa Greens, the applicant shall construct or provide for the construction of Alicante Road from the northern project boundary to Poinsettia Lane. Mitigation Measure 4.7-5: Prior to the issuance of building permits for La Costa Ridge or La Costa Oaks or as determined by the City Engineer based on Year 2005 traffic model assumptions, the applicant shall construct or provide for the construction/realignment of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road from Melrose Drive to La Costa Avenue, if Ranch0 Santa Fe has not been previously constructed/realigned. Mitigation Measure 4.7-6: Prior to issuance of building permits for La Costa Greens or as determined by the City Engineer based on Year 2005 traffic model assumptions, the applicant shall provide a fair-share contribution of Carlsbad Traffic Impact Fees for impacts to the El Camino RealKamino Vida Roble (no. 6) intersection. The fees will pay for the construction of a dual right turn lane. CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 50 8f 1412001 Mitigation Measure 4.7-7: The applicant shall construct or provide for construction of a southbound right turn lane at the intersection of El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue (unless previously completed by others). This improvement shall occur within the existing right-of-way and can be achieved through restriping. Factual Support and Rationale. [NOTE: The following preliminary comments regarding City standards, methodology and involvement in the traffic studies and analysis are equally applicable to the subsequent discussion of factual support and rationale for the succeeding findings on traffic and transportation impacts, but in the interest of brevity, will not be repeated each time.] In 1986, the City established a comprehensive Growth Management Program and ordinances to address the buildout of the City. Not only were land uses and densities of use evaluated and significantly reduced, but a critical part of the Program was establishment of citywide performance standards for public facilities, including traffic and transportation. By setting performance standards, then adequacy of facilities could be measured, and if performance standards were not being met, then projects significantly affecting those underperforming facilities could be conditioned, or phased, to require the facilities performance levels be assured before development could proceed. These performance evaluations are assured through the requirement that Local Facilities Management Plans be approved before development may proceed in the various development zones throughout the City. Underlying the performance standards is the principle that facilities must be provided for concurrent with the need generated by the subsequent development. As the Proposed Project is one of the few remaining larger infill areas in the La Costa portion of the City and represents the bulk of the land left for development in that area, special analysis was applied by City staff planning and engineering, to confirm that the traffic assumptions and citywide traffic modeling program used for the analysis was the most current and complete. In that regard, the generally used SANDAG traffic models and assumptions were reviewed and updated for the Carlsbad and surrounding areas before the Proposed Project traffic modeling was run, such that the City would be confident of the resulting analysis and conclusions, and importantly, that the analysis was calibrated to reflect the currently anticipated City buildout under the Growth Management Program and General Plan. Among other things, it was required that the Proposed Project evaluate impacts to arterial or major intersections whenever the modeling demonstrated the Proposed Project would contribute 50 or more trips during either AM or PM peak hours as a consistently applied standard of impact, and in turn, the Citywide intersection performance standard of LOS D is applied consistently for all intersections within the Proposed Project’s influence area. The assumptions, methodology and rules for the study was established by the City before the study was undertaken so that reliable and consistent conclusions could be achieved. Additionally, over 300 pending and potential future projects were evaluated prior to undertaking the selected Year 2005,201O and 2020 impact scenarios and to determine what additions to existing traffic flows were likely or anticipated. In this effort, the study went far beyond the Carlsbad City limits and evaluated projects and conditions over a significant regional area. As Carlsbad is located along Interstate 5 and also includes many regionally significant and impacted major corridors such as Palomar Airport Road, Ranch0 Santa Fe Road and El Camino Real to name a few, the traffic loads and current and future background CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations 1652724 v3 [Word] Exhibit “EIR-B” 51 8/14/2001 levels were calculated without regard to origin, whether it was local or regional traffic. In this way, the methodology and assumptions were targeted to provide the most accurate projections of impacts and areas of concern. The findings and results of all studies and reports were carefully reviewed by City Staff for accuracy and consistency. As part of the City Growth Management Program, the City enacted several traffic impact and improvement funding programs intended to generate funds to be used for area or citywide facilities. Those programs include the City CFD No. 1 Communities Facilities District, which includes all the Proposed Project. As new development occurs, it is required to pay special taxes to the City who then uses the taxes, or leverages future taxes to sell bonds, to finance a range of city facilities, including major roads. Additionally, the City has certain Traffic Impact Fee programs, that raise additional funding. The Traffic Impact Fee programs are coordinated with CFD No. 1 where applicable. For streets that largely serve only a particular development, the developer is required to construct and finance them outside the citywide fee programs. Finally, in certain circumstances such as the City’s Ranch0 Santa Fe Road realignment project, special funding programs may be established, or combinations of funding sources utilized. The La Costa Ridge/Oaks are included in the Ranch0 Santa Fe Road funding program that requires a $10,250 per single family residential unit (adjusted for multi-family and nonresidential) payment at final map in addition to the other citywide traffic fee programs. Year 2005 Traffic-La Costa Greens. Poinsettia Lane extension east of El Camino Real is needed to serve La Costa Greens, including the proposed park and school site. Therefore, its construction is required concurrent with development of La Costa Greens fkom El Camino Real to the eastern project boundary. Neighborhoods 1.8 through 1.14 take access off Alicante Road and its construction needs to be provided before building permits may be issued for those affected neighborhoods. Similarly, north of Poinsettia Lane, the construction of Alicante Road from Poinsettia northerly to the Project boundary is required before building permits are issued for Neighborhoods 1.4 through 1.7. The Camino Vida Roble intersection with El Camino Real will also be impacted by Proposed Project traffic and regional traffic and may need to be improved prior to 2005, based on the determination of the City Engineer. The Proposed Project will be required to contribute its fair share of impact fees to be used for the construction of dual right turn southbound lanes. Similarly, the intersection of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue will be monitored by the City Engineer and when warranted, the Proposed Project will be required to provide, through restriping, an additional southbound right turn lane within the existing right of way if not already improved by others. Year 2005 Traffic-La Costa Ridge/Oaks. The main area of concern here is the City Ranch0 Santa Fe Road realignment project improvements and the intersection with Questhaven Road. It is anticipated that the City will commence construction of the Ranch0 Santa Fe Road realignment in Fall, 2001. However, if it is not underway or delayed, then the applicant will be required to cause the road to be constructed prior to the issuance of building permits for the Ridge/Oaks as determined by the City Engineer. The same requirement is mandated for the Ranch0 Santa Fe Road/Questhaven Road intersection, if that has not already been improved, to provide for an additional eastbound left turn lane as intersection performance warrants. These improvement requirements will be monitored by the City Engineer in accordance with the CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 52 8/l 41200 1 citywide intersection performance standards and improvements will be triggered when warranted. Intersection Outside City Jurisdiction. The detailed traffic study and modeling, however, shows that one intersection, Ranch0 Santa Fe Road and Linda Vista Drive in the City of San Marcos, will be cumulatively impacted by the Proposed Project traffic and other traffic and fail to meet the LOS D performance criteria applied by Carlsbad, unless improvements are made. Under CEQA Guidelines 15091, such mitigation measures are within the jurisdiction and responsibility of San Marcos, just as intersections within our city fall under our jurisdiction. The intersection should be improved by the City of San Marcos, as it appears it will not meet performance standards regardless of the Proposed Project’s direct impacts. It is the understanding of Carlsbad that future improvement of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road fkom Carlsbad to Highway 78 freeway is anticipated, and improvement plans have been prepared for several of the segments. 2.7.2 Traffic in Year 2010. Impact. The addition of Proposed Project traffic and the construction of Proposed Project improvements in 2010 would result in a significant direct impact to the first unsignalized access east of El Camino Real on Alga Road (Estrella de Mar). Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.7-8: The City shall monitor the first unsignalized access on Alga Road east of El Camino Real (Estrella de Mar) to determine whether major street volumes materialize or if side-street vehicles incur difficulties. If warranted, and as determined by the City Engineer, the applicant shall close the median break at the first unsignalized access on Alga Road east of El Camino Real (Estrella de Mar). Factual Support and Rationale. The traffic studies and modeling indicate that the projected future traffic along Alga Road, including Proposed Project traffic, may result in difficult or dangerous left turn movements from existing unsignalized Estrella de Mar to Alga Road westbound. As the distance between this intersection and El Camino Real does not permit an additional signalized intersection because of spacing and safety standards, the performance will be modified and the Alga Road median closed by the applicant, if the City Engineer determines that traffic requires limiting Estrella de Mar movements to right turns only. This would then require those wishing to head west on Alga Road or trying to get to El Camino Real, make a U-turn at the signalized Alga Road/Alicante road intersection, or travel southerly on Estrella de Mar a southerly existing signalized intersection with El Camino Real. 2.7.3 Traffic in Year 2020. Impact. The addition of Proposed Project traffic and the construction of Proposed Project improvements in 2020 would result in a significant impact to the intersection of El Camino Real/Palomar Airport Road. Cumulative impacts would occur at several other CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 53 8/14/2001 intersections within the City where the Proposed Project would contribute greater than 20% of the projected traffic (the intersections are identified in the mitigation measures below) and to two intersections outside the City of Carlsbad. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance for all intersections within the City of Carlsbad, but not the intersections impacted outside the City limits, and there will remain a cumulative significant impact unless those intersections are improved by others. Mitigation Measure 4.7-9: Prior to issuance of building permits for land uses assumed to Occur between 2010 and 2020 by the traffic model and as determined by the City Engineer, the applicant shall provide a fair-share contribution of Carlsbad Traffic Impact Fees for impacts to the El Camino Real/Palomar Airport Road (PM) (no. 4) intersection. The fees will pay for the construction of dual northbound and westbound right turn lanes at this intersection. Mitigation Measure 4.7-10: Prior to issuance of building permits for land uses assumed to occur between 2010 and 2020 by the traffic model and as determined by the City Engineer, the applicant shall provide a fair-share contribution of Carlsbad Traffk Impact Fees for impacts to the El Camino Real/Faraday Avenue (PM) (no. 3) intersection. The fees will pay for the construction of an additional westbound right-turn lane at this intersection. Mitigation Measure 4.7-l 1: Prior to issuance of building permits for land uses assumed to occur between 2010 and 2020 by the traffic model and as determined by the City Engineer, the applicant shall provide a fair-share contribution of Carlsbad Traffic Impact Fees for impacts to the El Camino Real/Palomar Airport Road (AM) (no. 4) intersection. The fees will pay for the construction of a right-turn overlap lane (RTOL) on the northbound and westbound legs at this intersection. Mitigation Measure 4.7-12: Prior to issuance of building permits for land uses assumed to occur between 2010 and 2020 by the traffic model and as determined by the City Engineer, the applicant shall provide a fair-share contribution of Carlsbad Traffic Impact Fees for impacts to the Melrose Drive/Alga Road (PM) (no. 17) intersection. The fees will pay for the construction of an RTOL on the eastbound right-turn lane at this intersection. Mitigation Measure 4.7-13: Prior to issuance of building permits for La Costa Greens for land uses assumed to occur between 2010 and 2020 by the traffic model and as determined by the City Engineer, the applicant shall provide a fair-share contribution of Carlsbad Traffic Impact Fees for impacts to the Ranch0 Santa Fe RoadIQuesthaven Road (AM) (no. 23) intersection. The fees will pay for the construction of an additional northbound thru lane and additional southbound left, thru, and right-turn lane at this intersection. Mitigation Measure 4.7-14: Prior to issuance of building permits for La Costa Ridge/Oaks for land uses assumed to occur between 2010 and 2020 by the traffic model and as determined by the City Engineer, and as a part of the Proposed Project (unless previously CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 54 8/14/2001 completed by others), the applicant shall improve or provide for the improvement of the El Camino Real/Alga Road (PM) (no. 8) intersection with a RTOL on the eastbound leg. Mitigation Measure 4.7-15: Prior to issuance of building permits and as a part of the Proposed Project (unless previously completed by others), the applicant shall improve or provide for the improvement of the Ranch0 Santa Fe/Melrose Drive (PM) (no. 18) intersection with an additional right-turn lane and a RTOL on the eastbound leg, which may require additional right-of-way. Mitigation Measure 4.7-16: Mitigation for the potentially significant traffic impact to La Costa Greens at the intersection of Alga Road and the first entrance east of El Camino Real (Estrella de Mar) for the Year 2020 shall be mitigated by Year 2010 mitigation measure 4.7-8 above. Factual Support and Rationale. A particularly busy and important intersection in the city for both local and regional traffic uses is the intersection of El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road. It is projected that two additional improvements may be called for in the 2010-20 horizon, or as earlier determined by the City Engineer, and the Proposed Project is conditioned to contribute its fair share to these improvements, namely construction of dual northbound and westbound right turn lanes and a right turn overlap on the northbound and westbound movements. These improvements and the funding will be triggered when the City Engineer determines them to be necessary, but are expected in the designated time horizon. Similarly, as determined necessary by the City Engineer, the Proposed Project is required to contribute its fair share funding to the construction of an additional westbound right turn lane at the intersection of El Camino Real/Faraday Avenue. The identified improvements and payment of the Proposed Project’s fair share to intersection performance for Melrose Drive/Alga Road, further improvements to Ranch0 Santa Fe Road/Questhaven Road, El Camino Real/Alga Road, and Ranch0 Santa Fe/Melrose Drive, will also assure the performance of these intersections will meet the performance standards. Because the time horizon of 2010-20 is somewhat speculative, the intersections will be monitored by the City Engineer in the intervening time and will be able to trigger the fair share contribution when necessary. As to the two intersections outside the city, namely, Ranch0 Santa Fe Road intersections with Linda Vista and Grand Avenue, both in the City of San Marcos, the City of Carlsbad does not have jurisdiction and under CEQA Guidelines 15091, the responsibilities are those of the City of San Marcos, and should be undertaken by them. Carlsbad understands that the City of San Marcos does have future improvement plans for Ranch0 Santa Fe Road from Carlsbad to Highway 78, including the subject intersections. 2.8 Noise. 2.8.1 On-Site Vehicular Noise. Impact. Vehicular noise on El Camino Real, Poinsettia Lane, Alga Road, Alicante Road, El Fuerte Street, Mehose Avenue and Ranch0 Santa Fe Road has the potential to significantly impact proposed residential uses located adjacent to these roadways. CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 55 8/14/2001 Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.8-l: Prior to determining that a discretionary review application is complete, an acoustical analysis shall be provided to the Planning Department for all residential and non-residential projects for neighborhoods located directly adjacent to El Camino Real, Poinsettia Lane, Alga Road, Alicante Road, El Fuerte Street, Melrose Avenue, or Ranch0 Santa Fe Road. The subsequent acoustical analysis shall be prepared by a qualified acoustician, and shall identify all necessary noise control requirements on building and site plans necessary to meet the City of Carlsbad interior residential standard of 45 dB CNEL and exterior standard of 60 CNEL, or, as applicable, City of Carlsbad non-residential interior and exterior noise standards for sensitive receptors as identified by the City of Carlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual. The consulting qualified acoustical analyst/acoustician shall provide verification in writing on the project plans that these requirements are met. Building permits for development adjacent to these roadways shall not be issued until the subsequent noise report acoustical analysis is accepted by the City of Carlsbad Planning Department. If architectural features are needed to achieve the interior noise standard, such features shall be noted on the building plans. A statement certifying that the required architectural features have been incorporated into the building plans, signed by the acoustical analyst/acoustician shall be located on the building plans. The architect shall also include his registration stamp in addition to the required signature. All noise level reduction architectural components shall be shown on the architectural building plans, and shall be approved by the City’s Planning and Building Departments prior to the issuance of building permits. Factual Support and Rationale. For new development, the City requires that exterior and interior noise levels be addressed through a combination of architectural, design and landscaping features that reduce the noise levels to the indicated levels. This approach, based on acoustical studies and modeling, has proved an effective way to address noise impact concerns for new development neighborhoods. The reliance on acoustical studies and incorporation of measures prior to the issuance of building permits for the affected homes have proved successful. 2.8.2 Off-Site Vehicular Noise. Impact. The Proposed Project’s three dB contribution to the existing vehicular noise south of La Costa Greens where existing single-family homes have direct street frontage on Alga Road is considered cumulatively significant. Finding. No feasible measures are available to mitigate this cumulative impact and the cumulative impact remains cumulatively significant and unmitigable. Factual Support and Rationale. The existing noise levels along the south side of Alga Road and the resulting impact on multi-family and single family residences is a difficult problem. Individual single family yards and driveways exit directly onto Alga Road between El Camino Real and Alicante Road, and two story condominium units have close CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations 1652724 v3 [Word] Exhibit “EIR-B” 56 8/14/2001 proximity to travel lanes. The existing road noise exceeds the 45 dB CNEL interior and 60 dB CNEL exterior standards at various times during the day from traffic. The City General Plan Noise Element Policy C.8 states: “Recognize the mitigation of existing or future noise impacts from Circulation Element roadways, AT&SF railroad or McClellan-Palomar Airport for existing or future development within the City, shall not be funded by the City. However, the City shall assist applicants with processing of necessary permits for mitigating noise on private property, which permits may include right-of-way permits, encroachment permits, retaining wall permits and zoning variances. The City shall also assist property owners in the establishment of assessment districts, to fund noise mitigation improvements, in accordance with established City policies and procedures.” The number of exiting driveway cuts and the fact that two story condominium homes front Alga Road preclude use of sound walls as the “driveway breaks” and height do not substantially block the road noise based on the acoustical studies and analysis, resulting in no effective means of significantly lessening the existing noise levels. Further, the incremental contribution of the Proposed Project, less the 3 dB ( which is undetectable to the human ear) does not justify the imposition of mitigation on the Proposed Project directly, as to do so would be disproportionate to its impacts and is unauthorized. Regrettably, this is a condition for which no effective mitigation presently exists. However, pursuant to Policy C.8 noted above, should the affected property owners wish to independently pursue a resolution, then the city would facilitate as indicated. In the past, there has not been a uniform or generally accepted remedy presented by the affected properties. Elimination of impacted homes and condominiums is not a feasible alternative. 2.8.3 Aircraft Noise. Impact. Residences located within the McClellan-Palomar Airport Influence Area could be subject to significant aircraft noise. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.8-2: New residents within the McClellan-Palomar Noise Impact Notification Area as defined by the CLUP shall be notified as part of the sales disclosure package and through CC&Rs that the project area is outside the 65 db(A) CNEL airport noise impact area, but still subject to intermittent single-event noise impacts, sight and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan-Palomar Airport. Mitigation Measure 4.8-3: The following condition of approval shall be placed on all projects within the McClellan-Palomar Airport Noise Impact Notification Area: “Prior to the recordation of the first final (tract/parcel) map, or the issuance of the building permits, whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a notice that the property is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations 1652724 v3 [Word] Exhibit “EIR-B” 57 8/14/2001 88 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)” Factual Support and Rationale. Some of the future residents in La Costa Greens will be within the “McClellan-Palomar Noise Impact Notification” area as defined in the Airport Land Use Plan. Consequently, prospective home purchasers will be notified in writing that the home is subject to intermittent single event noise impacts from airport operations through the use of sales materials, written disclosure programs and through the CC&R’s in accordance with the City’s policy and standards. Additionally, prior to any final tract map in an affected area, the developer must record against the property a notice to the effect that the property is subject to overflight, sight and sound impacts from the airport operations. By imposing these requirements, future homebuyers are notified in advance of their purchase as to the airport proximity and related noise and overflight potential so they can make an informed determination whether to proceed with the purchase. 2.9 Air Quality. 2.9.1 Construction-Related Equipment. Impact. Significant construction related equipment and mobile source emissions would occur for the specific pollutants Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Nitrogen Oxides (NW. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.9-l: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit for approval a trip reduction plan to the Planning Department which is designed to achieve a 1.5 AVR (average vehicle ratio) for construction employees. Such plan may include a construction employee shuttle service. Mitigation Measure 4.9-2: Grading and building contractors shall indicate on all grading and building plans the source of electricity to be used during construction. Prior to issuance of grading and building permits, electricity sources shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. When available as a viable option during construction, as determined by the Engineering Department, electricity shall be used from power poles whenever feasible rather than temporary gasoline or diesel power generators. See also Mitigation Measure 4.9-3 below requiring the use of methanol, natural gas, propane or butane powered onsite mobile equipment when feasible, instead of diesel or gasoline powered. Factual Support and Rationale. In addition to standard equipment and vehicle pollution equipment requirements, the City will require a trip reduction plan to reduce construction related vehicle trips. By reducing the number of vehicle trips by increasing the occupancy to a 1.5 AVR, the construction related vehicular trips will be reduced resulting in effective mobile source reductions. The requirement that gasoline or diesel powered electrical CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 58 S/14/2001 Y9 generators be avoided will further reduce diesel and gasoline emissions from grading or construction operations. The requirement that the type of equipment be submitted for prior Planning Department approval will further reduce gasoline and diesel emissions where alternative, less polluting fuels and equipment can be substituted. 2.9.2 Construction-Related Fugitive Dust Impacts. Impact. Significant short-term fugitive dust impacts (PM,lO) would occur during grading of the Proposed Project site. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.9-3: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the grading contractor shall submit an inventory of the on-site mobile construction equipment to the Planning Department. The inventory shall indicate the number and type of vehicles, including the type of fuel used in each vehicle. Methanol, natural gas, propane or butane-powered on-site mobile equipment shall be used when feasible, rather than diesel or gasoline. Mitigation Measure 4.9-4: Prior to approval of grading permits, an accelerated construction dust abatement management program shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Carlsbad for approval. The dust abatement program shall be made a condition of the grading permit and shall be monitored by the City Public Works Inspector through periodic inspection during grading. Dust abatement should consist of, but not be limited to, the following measures. a. In disturbed areas and on manufactured slopes, groundcover shall be replaced within 30 days following the completion of grading activities. b. Areas graded flatter than 6:l and not scheduled for improvement within 6 months of completion of rough grading shall be planted with a cover crop or covered with jute mesh in conformance with Section E.3-1.2-2.1 of the City Landscape Manual. C. Exposed stockpiles (i.e., gravel, sand, and dirt) with 5% or greater silt content shall be enclosed, covered, watered twice daily, or applied with non-toxic soil binders according to manufactures’ specification. d. Areas being actively graded shall be watered twice daily e. AI1 excavating and grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph as measured at the Oceanside Station of the National Weather Service. It shall be the responsibility of the grading contractor to ascertain and record daily wind speeds during the grading process. These records shall be available for inspection by the Public Works Inspector. f. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., minimum vertical distance between CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations 1652724 v3 [Word] Exhibit “EIR-B” 59 S/14/2001 _ top of the load and the top of the trailer) in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code Section 23 114. ii3 Paved streets shall be swept at the end of each working day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public paved roads (recommended water sweepers with reclaimed water) h. Unpaved roads, parking areas and staging areas shall be watered three times daily or non-toxic soil stabilizers shall be applied to these areas according to manufactures’ specification. i. Posted traffic speeds on all unpaved roads shall be 15 mph or less. j- Construction roads that have a traffic volume of more than 50 daily trips by construction equipment or 150 total daily trips for all vehicles shall be paved. Paving may include gravel. k. Construction access roads shall be paved or graveled at least 100 feet onto the project site from the main road. Factual Support and Rationale. The foregoing fugitive dust and dirt remedies will be effective in reducing air born dust and particulate emissions from grading operations. The combination of onsite watering, sweeping of pavement, load requirement limitations, surfacing onsite construction roads with controlled trip frequencies and suspension of grading activities when winds exceed 25mph have proven to be effective in mitigating construction dust and particulate emissions. 2.9.3 Mobile Source Emissions. Impact. The proposed Project would generate 36,620 ADT. Mobile emissions would be below significance thresholds, with the exception of CO and NOx. Finding. No feasible measures are available to mitigate this cumulative impact and the cumulative impact remains cumulatively significant and unmitigated. Factual Support and Rationale. The reliance on the automobile for the future household primary mode of transportation , given the entire San Diego air basin’s non- attainment status, makes the incremental contribution from the Proposed Project to be cumulatively significant. While the air quality in the region has been improving, the overall resolution will need to wait cleaner burning, or less polluting, modes of personal transportation, and shifting the travel patterns from single occupancy vehicles to carpooling, bus, bicycle and walking modes. This represents as much a cultural as well as facility shift, but cannot realistically be fully implemented with this Proposed Project. The Proposed Project does incorporate bike lanes, bus stops and a range of hiking and walking trails in addition to sidewalks. Its proximity to employment centers and recreation opportunities will also serve to reduce overall driving distances as will the location of the multi-family housing near the transportation and employment centers. CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Ovemiding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 60 S/14/2001 v 2.9.4 Residential Fixed Emission Impact Potential. Impact. The burning of wood in fireplaces could exceed allowable PM 10 generation thresholds. This could result in a potentially significant cumulative impact. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.9-5: Gas-burning fireplaces shall be offered to homebuyers as a home-buying option as an alternative to wood-burning fireplaces. Factual Support and Rationale. Requiring natural gas burning fireplaces as an option to wood burning will reduce the particulate emission potential from the project by substitution a cleaner burning fuel alternative. 2.9.5 Emission Levels from Architectural Coatings and Treatments. Impact. The use of paint products and coating compounds are known contributors of VOC’s and their use considered a potentially significant impact. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.9-6: The building contractor shall indicate on the building plans the type(s) of paint to be used. Prior to issuance of building permits, paint types shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Department. When available as a viable option as determined by the Building Department, water based paints shall be utilized rather than conventional solvent based solutions. When available as a viable option as determined by the Building Department, powder coatings (where applicable) and zero-emission paints shall be utilized. Factual Support and Rationale. Controlling the volatile organic compound emission from paints through regulation of paint types at the building permit stage will result in lower emission levels. 2.10 Geology/Soils. 2.10.1 Seismic Earth Shaking and Surface Rupture. Impact. Although no active faults are located within the Proposed Project site, a major earthquake on the nearby Elsinore or Rose Canyon Faults could cause moderate to severe shaking at the site. Based upon the underlying geology of the site, lurching or cracking of the surface due to distant seismic events is not considered a significant hazard, but is a possibility at the site. The seismic risk for the Proposed Project area is not considered to be significantly different from that of other similar properties in the Southern California area, and the subsurface CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 61 S/14/2001 94 investigations conducted for the sites concluded that from a geologic standpoint, the property is suitable for development as proposed. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.10-l: Prior to issuance of building permits, the City shall review and approve all construction documents to ensure adherence to the applicable foundation recommendations contained in the geotechnical report (the geotechnical report to be used shall be the most current report on-file with the City at the time of building permit application). Factual Support and Rationale. Extensive soils testing and geologic investigation is required and as part of the building permit approvals, the structural and foundation requirements and recommendations shall be satisfied. This requirement is in addition to Uniform building Code and other structural and earthquake requirements contained in state or local regulations. 2.10.2 Landslide Potential. Impact. Several landslide features are located within the Proposed Project area. Areas of the Project where grading is proposed, in the vicinity of landslide debris and/or the relatively weak clay stones of the Dehnar Formation, proposed cut slopes may be unstable. This is regarded as a potentially adverse and significant impact. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.10-2: Prior to the commencement of grading in areas containing landslides, a new geotechnical study shall be performed to investigate the depth and extent of on-site landslides. The study shall determine the geometric limits of the landslides and the appropriate technique for stabilization of the slides. In addition, the geotechnical investigation should address such items as the numerical factor-of-safety of existing and proposed slopes, proposed slope stabilization recommendations, removal and recompaction of existing fills, foundation recommendations, bridge structure foundation, and a slope maintenance program. The geotechnical studies shall be submitted to and approved by the City prior to the issuance of grading permits. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City Engineer shall review and approve all grading plans and require that grading will be performed in accordance with the geotechnical investigation. Factual Support and Rationale. The requirement that further focused studies be undertaken in areas where the existing soils and geologic investigations suggest landslide potential will reduce the adverse risk by requiring specific engineering measures and precautions to avoid problems, or to assure that any problem area is fully remedied. The city CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 62 S/14/2001 93 Engineer will assure that all grading plans address the areas of concern and conform to the geotechnical studies. 2.10.3 Soils. Impact. The Proposed Project site would be subject to potentially significant project-related erosion impacts. Isolated areas of the site contain landslide debris, alluvium, fill, topsoils and slopewash which are not considered suitable for direct support of structural loads in their present condition, resulting in a potentially significant stability impact. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.10-3: Prior to the placement of structural fill or fill loads, all compressible soils, topsoil, slopewash, alluvium mantle and landslide debris shall be removed and/or recompacted to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and in accordance with uniform engineering standards. Drained buttress and stability fills shall be required to stabilize slopes underlain by potentially unstable geologic features. Mitigation Measure 4.10-4: All potentially compressible topsoils and alluvium in areas of proposed development not removed by planned grading shall be removed to firm natural ground and/or properly compacted prior to placing additional fill. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City shall review and approve all grading plans to ensure adherence to this requirement. Factual Support and Rationale. The standards for grading, based on the geotechnical investigations and soils reports, as approved by the City engineer will assure that sound engineering and grading techniques are applied in the field to assure #at grading will be properly compacted, placed and slide debris corrected. Regular inspections by the City and professional geotechnical onsite supervision has proven effective in avoiding grading problems. 2.10.4 Erosion. Impact. Development of the Proposed Project would include grading activities which would remove vegetative cover, thereby exposing soils to increased runoff and leading to greater erosive potential. Erosion potential is considered substantial when more than 20 acres of soils, having high erosion characteristics, are left bare after clearing and/or grading. Therefore, erosion is a potentially significant impact. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.10-5: The following erosion control features shall be implemented as part of the La Costa Greens Master Tentative Map: CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 63 S/14/2001 w a. The Master Tentative Map (Master TM) for La Costa Greens shall use a minimum of three temporary desiltation basins during site grading and construction. Each of the basins shall be designed to accommodate projected sediment influx from associated drainage areas. These basins shall be installed prior to site grading to trap sediment eroded during and after construction, thereby preventing sedimentation of the on-site tributary to San Marcos Creek and downstream areas. b. The temporary desiltation basins shall be removed after completion of construction, and erosion-control landscaping shall be established to the point that downstream erosion and sediment transport meets regulatory standards. Mitigation Measure 4.10-6: The following erosion control features shall be implemented as part of the La Costa Ridge/Oaks Master Tentative Map: a. The Master Tentative Map (Master TM) for La Costa Ridge and La Costa Oaks shall use a minimum of 38 (21 La Costa Oaks, 17 La Costa Ridge) temporary desiltation basins during site grading and construction. Each of the basins shall be designed to accommodate projected sediment influx from associated drainage areas. These basins shall be installed prior to the commencement of grading to trap sediment eroded during and after construction, thereby preventing sedimentation of San Marcos Creek, Encinitas Creek and downstream areas. b. The temporary desiltation basins shall be removed after completion of construction, and erosion-control landscaping shall be established to the point that downstream erosion and sediment transport meets regulatory concerns. C. In addition to the temporary desiltation basins, the La Costa Ridge/Oaks shall include four permanent detention basins located along key drainage areas between the site and San Marcos Creek and/or the unnamed tributary of Encinitas Creek. These basins shall range in capacity from approximately two acre-feet to 45-acre-feet. While primarily intended to control flow volumes, these basins will settle out eroded material I?om runoff leaving the site. Mitigation Measure 9.10-7: Before beginning any construction activities that would modify the drainage pattern on the property, all applicable federal, state, and local permits shall be obtained. Such permits include the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Mitigation Measure 4.10-8: The following Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be implemented to mitigate pollution from construction activities to the receiving streams: a. Practice Good Housekeeping - perform activities in a manner that keeps potential pollutants from leaving the site by managing pollutant sources and modifying construction activities. CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 64 S/14/2001 Li- b. Contain Waste - dispose of all construction waste in designated areas and keep storm water from entering or leaving these areas. c. Stabilize Disturbed Areas -provide temporary stabilization of disturbed soils whenever construction is not occurring on that portion of the site. Provide permanent stabilization after fine grading operations and landscape the site. d. Control Site Perimeter- runoff from the project site should be free from excessive sediment and other pollutants. e. Control Internal Erosion - detain waters that contain sediment and other pollutants from the disturbed areas of the site. Mitigation Measure 4.10-9: Erosion control measures shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer in accordance with the City’s grading and erosion control requirements (Municipal Code $15.16. et. seq.). The locations of all erosion control devices shall be noted on the grading plans. Mitigation Measure 4.10-10: All grading permits issued authorizing grading during the rainy season (November 16th of any year to April 14th of the following year), shall require the installation of all erosion and sedimentation control protective measures in accordance with city standards. Erosion and runoff control measures shall be designed and bonded prior to approval of grading permits by the City. Mitigation Measure 4.10-11: All slopes shall be planted with erosion control vegetation, drained and properly maintained to reduce erosion within 30 days of completion of grading. Erosion control and drainage devices shall be installed in compliance with the requirements of the City as approved by the City Engineer. Mitigation Measure 4.10-12: All erosion and sedimentation control protective measures shall be maintained in good working order throughout the duration of the rainy season unless it can be demonstrated to the City Engineer that their removal at an earlier date will not result in any unnecessary erosion of or sedimentation on public or private properties. Mitigation Measure 4.10-13: Subdrains shall be placed under all fills located in drainage courses and at identified or suspected potential seepage areas observed during grading. Subdrain locations shall be noted on the grading plans. Factual Support and Rationale. Extensive engineering analysis has gone into the preparation of grading plans and programs to prevent siltation from entering natural drainage areas, including San Marcos Creek, Encinitas Creek and of course, Batiquitos Lagoon into which both creeks ultimately flow. The Proposed Project has incorporated the newest point source stormwater pollution and sedimentation prevention standards recently enacted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and will fully comply with those standards as well as those of the City. Combinations of facilities will be employed throughout the course of construction to prevent siltation and other unacceptable runoff, and permanent sedimentation CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 65 S/14/2001 91: basins and water quality control basins will be constructed and permanently maintained through the respective homeowner associations such that the facilities will continue to capture the first approximately .6 inches of surface runoff settle and clean the “first flush” through mechanical or natural means in the sedimentation basins or water quality basins such that siltation and urban pollutant loads, such as tire residue, fertilizers, oil, gasoline and insecticides concentrations are reduced below the Clean Water Act water quality standards form point source stormwater pollution as established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. In the city, the Proposed Project is one of the first to come forward and include in their Project design the new stormwater discharge standards. These standards are among the toughest in the State and are enforceable by the City and the RWQCB as well. Compliance is assured through onsite inspections, particularly in the grading and construction phases when sedimentation runoff risks are the greatest. The City requires sedimentation control plans as part of the grading permit approval process and these sedimentation plans are supported by qualified surety performance bonds or otherwise secured such that financial assurances are in place to guarantee the control plans will be effective. 2.10.5 Groundwater. Impact. Numerous water seeps are located along the northern and eastern boundary of La Costa Greens. A permanent groundwater table was observed within alluvium and alluvium/terrace deposits in the San Marcos Creek drainage in La Costa Ridge/Oaks, and a tributary to Encinitas Creek within La Costa Oaks. Grading and construction in these areas poses a potentially significant impact to groundwater. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.10-14: Periodic observations shall be made by the soil engineer or engineering geologist during grading and/or construction for the presence of groundwater. Removal of colluvial, alluvial and undocumented fills and the placement of a “canyon” subdrain within the bottom of the removal areas shall be undertaken to reduce the potential for groundwater build-up within the canyon fills. Prior to the issuance of building permits for the project, the soil engineer or engineering geologist shall submit in writing to the City Engineer verification that the Proposed Project has complied with the requirement to conduct periodic groundwater observations and any necessary remedial measures per the project’s geotechnical report. Factual Support and Rationale. Part of the grading and improvement plans and City inspection programsj include protection of any ground water resources encountered, or likely to be encountered , on the site. Special subdrains, lateral drains and other drainage facilities are incorporated into the final grading to protect any groundwater resources. CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 66 S/14/2001 G7 2.11 Hydrology, Water Quality & Drainage. 2.11.1 Drainage Patterns. Impact. The proposed Project would not create uncontrolled runoff or substantially modify existing drainage patterns. The development of natural areas will cause an increase in the amount of runoff as a direct result of creating impervious surfaces which may create a potentially significant impact. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.11-1: Jn conjunction with the implementation of any tentative subdivision map, the project engineer will install or cause to be installed, detention facilities, an underground drainage system network and curbs and gutters that capture and direct storm water flows. Such improvements shall be developed in substantial conformance with the Conceptual Drainage Plan provided within the Villages of La Costa Master Plan (2000) and shall be designed by a registered civil engineer and meet all regulatory standards. Mitigation Measure 4.11-2: Prior to the recordation of any final map, issuance of a grading permit or building permit, for any specific subdrainage area within the Proposed Project, the drainage area fee established in the current Drainage Master Plan shall be paid or assured through an agreement. Mitigation Measure 4.11-3: Prior to the recordation of any final map, issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, the construction of storm drain facilities in substantial conformance with those provided for within the proposed Zone 10 LFMP shall be paid or assured through a financial guarantee for that development phase within La Costa Greens in which the improvement is necessary. Factual Support and Rationale. The City assures that drainage patterns will not be significantly changed and adversely impacted through a series of measures. First, drainage area fees are assessed at final map stage to assure the financing source for city wide stormdrain facilities that are located offsite of the project. These public stormdrain systems are maintained by city. Additionally, through the Engineering Department, onsite stormdrain systems and other improvements elsewhere are reviewed as part of the subdivision improvement engineering plans and specifications to assure adequate drainage facilities will be incorporated into the Project. With the addition of the detention basins and water quality basins designed into the Project, and careful review of the grading and improvement plans, surface water and drainage patterns are protected. 2.11.2 Groundwater. Impact. Grading and construction of the Proposed Project would have the potential to impede the natural flow of underground water. Any substantial decrease in subsurface flow would be considered a significant impact. CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 67 S/14/2001 9a Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.11-4: In conjunction with the implementation of any tentative subdivision map, sub drains or other engineering solutions that relieve the potential for buildup of hydrostatic pressure and directs water flow to suitable outlets shall be installed. Such subdrains or other engineering solutions shall be provided in conformance with the City’s Grading Ordinance and shall be designed by a registered civil engineer and meet all regulatory standards. Mitigation Measure 4.11-5: In conjunction with the implementation of any tentative or final subdivision map for Neighborhoods 2.1, 2.2, or 2.5 of La Costa Ridge, the City’s Engineering Department shall verify that the improvement plans call for appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) and facilities to minimize any adverse impacts to down gradient property owners as recommended by a professional registered civil engineer and geologist. Such facilities include a combination of storm drain systems, brow ditch systems on graded slopes, cutoff drains, backdrains, and subdrains, consistent with the City’s Grading Ordinance. Factual Support and Rationale. Two elements are involved here. As a general proposition, grading and drainage plans are reviewed by the City Engineering Department to avoid hydrostatic buildup in order to permit subsurface drainage to continue to percolate in controlled areas to add to existing groundwater resources, coordinated with the surface water control mechanisms and structures. However, a preexisting subsurface seepage condition exists in some of the homes down gradient to the northeast from future Neighborhoods 2.1,2.2 and 2.5. This condition is being addressed in two ways by the Proposed Project so as not to exacerbate the condition. First, the natural drainage area, or watershed acreage, that drains toward the existing homes will be reduced as a result of the grading and surface drainage design and program. Second, the Engineering Department will verify the grading and drainage plans and improvements employ best management practices, and where appropriate, include stormdrains, brow ditch systems, cutoff drains and subdrains as appropriate based on professional engineering and geology recommendations. 2.11.3 Sedimentation and Erosion (Surface Water Quality). Impact. The Proposed Project would have a cumulative short-term water quality impact to San Marcos Creek and Batiquitos Lagoon. Sediment carried by runoff from the project site to the above waterways would be considered a potentially significant impact. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.11-6 A/B/C: Development conducted under the auspices of the Proposed Project shall comply with all requirements of State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) Order No. 90-42 (NPDES Permit No. CO108758) and the most current order. In accordance with such permits, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations I652724 v3 [Word] Exhibit “EIR-B” 68 S/14/2001 99 a Monitoring Program Plan shall be developed prior to the issuance of grading permits, and a complete and accurate Notice of Intent (NOI) shall be filed with the SWRCB meeting all regulatory standards. A copy of the acknowledgment from the SWRCB that an NO1 has been received for the Proposed Project shall be filed with the City when received. A copy of the completed NO1 from the SWRCB showing the construction permit number for the Proposed Project also shall be filed with the City when received. Best Management Practices shall be included in the SWPPP and shall be designed in accordance with standards for SWPPPs, as outlined in the general permit. The Proposed Project’s SWPPP also shall include control measures for chemical and waste management to minimize impacts from chemicals and wastes used or generated during construction. Mitigation Measure 4.11-7: The applicant shall submit an erosion control plan to the City Engineering Department for review and approval. The erosion control plan shall identify seeding and planting guidelines, dust control measures, stabilized construction entrances, silt fences, straw bale barriers, sand bag barriers, storm drain inlet protection, and sediment basins. Erosion control measures shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer in accordance with the City’s grading and erosion control requirements (Municipal Code 6 15.16. et.seq.). The locations of all erosion control devices shall be noted on the grading plans. Note: Mitigation Measures 4.1 O-5 through 4.1 O-l 3 will also apply. Factual Support and Rationale. During the period the Draft EIR was out for public review (January 25, 2001 to March 26, 2001), the Regional Water Quality control Board finalized the new point source storm water discharge regulations and standards as part of the new San Diego Municipal Storm Water Permit (Order No. 2001-l) pursuant to the Clean Water Act, which now becomes part of the NPDES Permit CA 0108758. As such, the storm water discharge standards and requirements for new development have been significantly increased. The Proposed Project has anticipated those new regulations and included detention basins and water quality basins in order to capture the first 0.6 inches (approximately) of rainfall onsite, so that sediment and urban pollutants can be eliminated or removed prior to the storm water entering the watercourses, lagoons and ultimately the ocean. The water quality will be improved through a combination of natural and mechanical filtration or sedimentation traps, thereby substantially improving the water quality of storm water discharge in new development areas such as the Proposed Project. These efforts will require, among other steps, a Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB, as well as meeting all the new storm water discharge requirements through a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and associated NPDES permit and authorization. These new, higher standards are intended to improve the overall municipal storm water quality before it discharges through the public storm drain systems into Batiquitos Lagoon. Under Order No. 2001-1, the City, as a co-permitted, will have the primary responsibility for enforcement of the permits and authorizations. The detention basins and water quality basins will be maintained by the applicable homeowner associations as part of the common area. CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations 1652724 v3 [Word] Exhibit “EIR-B” 69 S/14/2001 / 2.11.4 Urban Pollutants (Surface Water Quality). Impact. Development of the Proposed Project site would result in an increase in the cumulative amounts of urban pollutants entering San Marcos Creek and Batiquitos Lagoon. Although the cumulative contribution to urban runoff would be minimal and would not result in water pollution and/or contamination that would significantly impact human health and safety or biological communities, impacts are regarded as significant. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance, but the Proposal Project’s cumulative contribution to cumulative impacts would remain significant and unmitigable. Mitigation Measure 4.1 l-8: The Proposed Project shall design and incorporate the current Best Management Practices and Best Available Technologies (BMPs and BATS) available at that time for pollution control and erosion/siltation control, as referenced in the “California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook” and meeting all regulatory standards. Examples of BMPs and BATS include but are not limited to: 00 energy dissipation structures and rip-rap at stormwater discharge points to stabilize flow and reduce velocities; (b) desilting basins for pollutant and siltation control during construction, resource based if possible; w mulching cleared or freshly seeded areas for erosion/sedimentation control; (d) geotextiles and mats for erosion control during construction; w storm drain inlet/outlet protection for siltation control; slope drains for erosion control; k> silt fences/sand bag barriers for siltation control during construction; O-0 the use of low-water requirement vegetation for landscaping; (9 selection of slope planting species with low fertilization requirements; ci) requiring permanent (or temporary per City direction) irrigation systems to be inspected on a regular basis and properly maintained. Design and implementation of these measures shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 70 S/14/2001 lOI Mitigation Measure 4.11-9: In conjunction with the sale, rental or lease of a residence or business property, all prospective owners and tenants shall be notified in writing that they shall: (a) Establish or work with established disposal programs for the removal and proper disposal of toxic and hazardous waste products; 09 Not discharge or cause to be discharged any toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds, such as gasoline, motor oil, antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives and other such fluids, into any public or private street or into any storm drain or storm-drain conveyance; (4 Use and/or dispose of all pesticides, fungicide, herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments in accordance with Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed on their respective containers; (4 Employ BMP to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants when planning any changes to the landscaping and/or surface improvements. Mitigation Measure 4.11-10: Applicable standards of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the San Diego County area shall be met. Factual Support and Rationale. The previous discussion about the new storm water point source discharge requirements apply to urban pollutant elimination as well. In addition, the Proposed Project will be required to educate occupants as to the need to eliminate or reduce general residential pollution entering the storm dram systems, and the resources available, one of the largest source of urban pollutants, household chemicals, insecticides, automobile residue from tires, oil and gasoline and pet waste that routinely enter the storm drain systems. Regulating the source, plus onsite detention and filtering, all consistent with the RWQCB order No. 2001-l) will further reduce urban pollutants from entering the lagoon and ocean. 2.11.5 On-Site Flooding. Impact. Grading of the Proposed Project would eliminate a small portion of existing loo-year floodplain and allow development to occur at these locations. Because development would occur in the existing FEMA mapped loo-year floodplain, potential flooding impacts are regarded as significant. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.11-11: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLMR) shall be obtained from FEMA. CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [word] 71 S/14/2001 m Mitigation Measure 4.11-12: The applicant shall comply with 921.110 of the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code and shall apply for a Floodplain Special Use Permit for areas within the existing loo-year floodplain at the time of Tentative Map application. Factual Support and Rationale. The Engineering Department has approved the reconfiguration of the existing flood plain area along the Poinsettia Lane/Alicante Road alignments as part of the construction of circulation element roads. In order to assure that the reconfiguration meets all requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the applicant must obtain appropriate conditional and final letters of delineation. Additionally, the City requires issuance of a Floodplain Special Use Permit for work in the flood plain for the purpose of assuring that the work will not adversely affect any property or impact downstream areas as a result of the improvements. Current engineering standards and practices are applied. 2.12 Public Facilities and Services. 2.12.1 Police Service. Impact. The need for 4.6 additional officers would be considered a significant impact so as not to exceed the City’s service standard of 0.77 officers per 1,000 population. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.12-1: Development of the Proposed Project would result in the generation of an increase in taxes and fees that would be paid to the City’s General Fund and made available to fund the hiring of additional police personnel. Use by the City of a portion of these increased revenues generated by the Proposed Project to retain enough police personnel to meet the City’s adopted standard of 0.77 offricers per 1,000 population would reduce the identified impact to below a level of significance. Factual Support and Rationale. The city funds police and fire through the general fund. General fund sources include the City’s share of property taxes, sales taxes, transient occupancy taxes and other revenue sources. Capital improvements are funded in part through the Capital Improvement Fee Program requiring all new development to pay a fee equivalent to 3.5% of building permit valuation. The Proposed Project is required to pay all applicable fees and will generate adequate tax and other revenues to continue police staffing levels at the existing per capita levels as evidenced by the approved fiscal impact analysis prepared for the Proposed Project. 2.12.2 School Service. Impact. The Proposed Project would add students to the Carlsbad Unified School District, the San Marcos Unified School District, the Encinitas Union Elementary School CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 72 S/14/2001 19 3 District, and the San Dieguito Union High School District and is regarded as a potentially significant impact. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.12-2: Prior to the issuance of each residential building permit(s), school fees shall be paid in accordance with the requirements of the State of California (Senate Bill 50), or the applicant shall enter into a mitigation agreement with the Carlsbad Unified School District, the San Marcos Unified School District, the Encinitas Union Elementary School District, and the San Dieguito Union High School District. Mitigation Measure 4.12-3: Prior to the development of Neighborhood 1.7 and within 12 months of approval of the General Plan Amendment for the Villages of La Costa Master Plan (2000), the CUSD shall determine if a school site is needed as reserved in Neighborhood 1.7. If needed, the site shall be offered for sale to the CUSD. Factual Support and Rationale. While the City remains vitally concerned about school facilities and needs, the City no longer has the legal ability to set school facilities impact requirements, as those are established by State Law. However, the Proposed Project is conditioned on paying the fees, or otherwise entering into a mitigation agreement with each of the school districts that serve the Project. The City is aware that the applicant has entered into a mitigation agreement with the Encinitas Union School District, participates in the San Dieguito Union School district Mello Roos program as mitigation in that school district, and as part of the mitigation program, has petitioned for annexation into the Carlsbad Unified School District Mello Roos program and is in discussions with the San Marcos Unified School District. Further, the Proposed Project has set aside an elementary school site in La Costa Greens for a Carlsbad Unified school. The determination of the acceptability of the site and any decision to build the school is within the control of the School District. 2.12.3 Water Service. Impact. Although the average potable water demand generated by the proposed La Costa Greens and La Costa Ridge/Oaks development is below the demand anticipated for the existing and proposed facilities outlined by the proposed LFMP for Zone 10 and LFMP for Zone 11, respectively, at build out, the Proposed Project would have a significant water supply and storage impact because it would increase water demand. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.12-4: In conjunction with the purchase of each domestic water meter, La Costa Greens shall pay a major facilities fee based on water meter size to the Carlsbad Municipal Water District and any capacity charge levied by the San Diego County Water Authority. CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 73 8/14/2001 /ofl Mitigation Measure 4.12-5: At the time the on-site segment of Pointsettia Lane is constructed, La Costa Greens shall construct or cause to be constructed a 16- inch potable water line within the Pointsettia Lane right-of-way from El Camino Real eastward to the east boundary of Zone 10, with reimbursement for oversizing.. Mitigation Measure 4.12-6: In conjunction with the purchase of each domestic water meter, La Costa Ridge/Oaks shall pay the appropriate water fees established by the Vallecitos Water District or the Olivenhain Municipal Water District. Mitigation Measure 4.12-7: A new water line from the existing 12-inch stub in Corintia Street to El Fuerte Street shall be installed, with reimbursement for oversizing, in conjunction with the development of La Costa Oaks as required by VWD. Mitigation Measure 4.12-8: All water system improvements shall be sized at the final engineering stage of development. All appliances such as showerheads, lavatory faucets and sink faucets shall comply with efficiency standards set forth in Title 20, California Administrative Code Section 1604(f). Title 24 of the California Administrative Code Section 1606(b) prohibits the installation of fixtures unless the manufacturer has certified to the California Energy Conservation compliance with the flow rate standards. Low flush toilets shall be installed as specified in California Sate Health and Safety Code Section 17921.3. Mitigation Measure 4.12-9: Irrigation shall be properly designed, installed, operated and maintained to prevent the waste of water. Water application techniques which conserve water, such as but not limited to, soil moisture sensors, drip irrigation, and automatic irrigation systems shall be incorporated in publicly owned or homeowner associated owned landscape areas. Irrigation system design shall be identified on the project’s Landscape Plans and shall be approved by the City of Carlsbad. Mitigation Measure 4.12-10: Plants of similar water use shall be grouped to reduce over-irrigation of low-water-using plants. Plant groupings shall be identified on the project’s Landscape Plans and shall be approved by the City of Carlsbad. Mitigation Measure 4.12-11: La Costa Greens and La Costa Oaks shall be required, subject to the terms and conditions of the governing Water Districts, to install dual piping for irrigation systems to use reclaimed water. (Reclaimed water lines are not required for La Costa Ridge because the demand for reclaimed water in this Village will be low.) Factual Support and Rationale. Portions of the Proposed Project are within three separate water service districts, the Carlsbad Municipal Water District, Vallecitos Water District and Olivenhain Municipal Water District. The applicant and the districts have identified the major water service facilities that will be needed, and in addition, all connection and capacity fees and charges will be paid as a precondition to water service. The Proposed Project is within the service territories and the applicable master plans of the respective districts. In order to further reduce potable water consumption, the Proposed Project is conditioned to install water efficient plumbing and fixtures and in common landscaped areas, water conservation techniques are required for irrigation and reclaimed water usage and dual piping will further conserve potable water resources consistent with the City’s policies and regulations. CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations 1652724 v3 [Word] Exhibit “EIR-B” 74 8/14/2001 2.13 Human Health and Safety Hazards. 2.13.1 Aircraft Accident Potential. Impact. The potential exists for the assembly of 100 persons or more in proposed Neighborhoods 1.1 and 1.2 of La Costa Greens. These areas are located in the FAZ of McClellan-Palomar Airport, in which assembly is limited to under 100 persons by the CLUP. This is regarded as a potentially significant impact. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.13-1: The following restriction shall be included as a condition of all building permits, Conditional Use Permits, and certificates of occupancy for uses and structures located in Neighborhood Areas 1 .l and 1.2 of La Costa Greens. “NO use shall be permitted inside the McClellan-Palomar Airport Flight Activity Zone which is designed or intended to educate, entertain, accommodate, serve, congregate and/or employ a total of 100 or more persons at one time.” Mitigation Measure 4.13-2: All owners/lessees in Neighborhood Areas 1.1 and 1.2 of La Costa Greens shall be notified through ownership disclosure statements and/or lease agreements that the area is located in the Flight Activity Zone of the McClellan-Palomar Airport. Factual Support and Rationale. While all intended uses throughout the Proposed Project are fully consistent with the McClellan-Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP), the non-residential uses in Neighborhoods 1.1 and 1.2 of La Costa Greens are partially located within the designated Flight Activity Zone (FAZ) for the airport. In order to reduce the risk of injury to persons as a result of an aircraft incident, no uses shall be allowed which congregate more than 100 people at a time within the FAZ. This limitation will be assured through prior review of any conditional use permits, site development plans or building permits as applicable. 2.13.2 Hazardous Materials. Impact. An existing above-ground diesel fuel tank is located on La Costa Greens, and its presence is regarded as a potentially significant impact. Business park development proposed in Neighborhood Area 1.1 of La Costa Greens and existing adjacent off- site industrial development may include uses that use and store materials considered to be hazardous under state and local regulations. This also is regarded as a potentially significant impact. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 75 8/14/2001 /ob Mitigation Measure 4.13-3: Prior to the issuance of building permits in La Costa Greens, the existing above-ground diesel storage tank shall be removed in accordance with all applicable regulations, requirements and practices. Mitigation Measure 4.13-4: All businesses in Neighborhood Area 1.1 of La Costa Greens, shall comply with standard requirements of the State Department of Health Services, San Diego County Health Department and the City of Carlsbad regarding the use and storage of hazardous materials. Factual Support and Rationale. The old, existing above ground fuel storage tank in La Costa Greens will be removed pursuant to the applicable state and local regulations for tank removals and a suitable closure report filed. Any required mitigation will be implemented. Further, as with any business areas, any future business uses within the Proposed Project will be required to meet all applicable health and safety regulations regarding the use and storage of hazardous materials. Compliance details depend on the nature of the materials and could range from simple posting of notices to the preparation of detailed hazardous materials handling, storage and reporting requirements. 2.13.3 Wildfire Hazards. Impact. The Proposed Project would place residential homes and other uses adjacent to high fire hazard areas, which is regarded as a significant impact. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereb.y reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.13-5: Prior to Final Map approval for a residential neighborhood, a Fire Suppression Plan shall be approved by the City of Carlsbad Fire Department for any areas designated as a Fire Protection Zone on the Proposed Project’s Landscape Concept Plans, and for structures located either adjacent to any natural open space area or adjacent to a manufactured slope that transitions to natural open space. Mitigation Measure 4.13-6: Prior to the issuance of building permits for structures either adjacent to natural open space or landscaped manufactured slopes that transition to natural open space, the City of Carlsbad Fire Department shall insure that the applicant has complied with the following Fire Protection Plan for fuel modification: 1. Condition A - Manufactured Slope Fire Protection. a. Section A-l: Area measured horizontally 20 feet outward from the outlying edge of structure(s) shall be planted with low growing shrub species (less than 3 feet in height) known to have fire retardant qualities. No trees or shrubs shall be allowed. This area shall be irrigated. b. Section A-2: Area measured horizontally 20 feet outward from the outlying edge of Section A-l shall be planted with low water use CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 76 8/14/2001 Id7 naturalizing plant species known to have low fuel characteristics. No trees shall be allowed. This area shall be irrigated. C. Section A-3: Area measured outward from the outlying edge of Section A-2 to include the remainder of the areas between Section A-2 and high risk fire areas. The horizontal distance from the structure(s) to untreated high risk areas shall not be less than 60 feet. Section A-3 shall be planted with low water use naturalizing plant species known to have low fuel characteristics. Trees are allowed, but shall not be planted closer than 20 feet apart. This area shall be irrigated. 2. Condition B - Native Slopes - Wildland Fire Suppression. a. Section B-l : Area measured horizontally 20 feet outward from the outlying edge of structure(s) toward the environmentally restricted area as defined by the City. In this area, high fuel and moderate hazard species shall be removed. Planting shall consist of groundcover or low growing shrub species (less than 3 feet in height) known to have fire retardant qualifies or as otherwise required by the City. No trees or shrubs shall be allowed. This area shall be irrigated. b. Section B-2: Area measured horizontally 20 feet outward from the outlying edge of Section B-l. In this area, high fuel species shall be removed. Moderate fuel species shall be removed through selective pruning of up to 60 percent of the volume. Replanting shall occur with naturalizing low fuel plant species. Trees and large tree form shrubs which are being retained shall be pruned to provide clearance equal to three times the height of the understory plant material or 6 feet, whichever is higher; dead and excessively twiggy growth also shall be removed. This area shall be temporarily irrigated. C. Section B-3: Area measured horizontally 20 feet outward from the outlying edge of Section B-2. The outer edge of Section B-3 shall extend horizontally to a point at least 60 feet from structures. In this area, high fuel species shall be removed. Moderate fuel species shall be removed. Moderate fuel species shall be removed through selective pruning of up to 40 percent of the volume. Trees and large tree form shrubs which are being retained shall be pruned to provide clearance equal to three times the height of the understory plant material or 6 feet, whichever is higher; dead and excessively twiggy growth also shall be removed. This area shall not be irrigated. Mitigation Measure 4.13-7: Prior to the issuance of building permits for structures in La Costa Ridge/Oaks identified by the Fire Chief as having additional risk from wildfire, special architectural features such as indoor sprinklers and roof eve treatments shall be implemented as required by the Fire Chief. CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 77 8/14/2001 lo8 Factual Support and Rationale. The City is cognizant of the danger of wildfires and the need to establish brush management and landscaping restrictions. The precise techniques and limitations are established by the City Fire Department relying on the current professional and scientific data and facts available. The brush management zones and landscaping restrictions and control are augmented by the City’s annual weed abatement programs. The City has established joint response arrangements with other fire departments and in recent years have increased the training and equipment, including communications improvements, to address wildfire risks. Additionally, the City prohibits wood shake or other combustible roofing materials on new construction. The city Fire Chief is also charged with determining whether any of the homes in the Ridge/Oaks present unique wildfire risks, and if so, special residential treatments such as roof eve modifications or indoor sprinklers may be required prior to the issuance of any building permits. 2.13.4 Dam Failure Flooding. Impact. The Proposed Project would place residences of La Costa Oaks within an area which could be subject to dam inundation in the event of the failure of the Stanley A. Mahr Reservoir Dam. The Proposed Project grading and engineering design would reduce the velocity and extent of flood waters resulting from dam failure inundation to non-significant levels for human life hazards. Loss of property due to flooding caused by dam failure could occur, and is considered a potentially significant impact. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.13-8: New residents located with the Dam Inundation Area of the existing Stanley A. Mahr Reservoir shall be notified as part of the standard ownership disclosure package and CC&&s that their property is inside the Stanley A. Mahr Reservoir dam inundation area, and is subject to flooding, resulting in the potential loss of property, in the event of dam failure. Factual Support and Rationale. The Stanley A. Mahr reservoir is owned and maintained by the Vallecitos Water District. It was built in 1981 and meets all existing standards for construction and design, including all earthquake safety standards according to the District. While the risk of failure seems low, the proposed Project has designed its grading and surface water systems to reduce the risk of any loss of life or significant property damage to very low levels. Nonetheless, any prospective buyer of a residence within the potential inundation area identified in the inundation study will be notified in writing in advance so that they may make an informed decision as to the potential, however remote, of property damage in the event of a dam failure. 3. FINDINGS OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, DIRECT AND CUMULATIVE, AND SUPPORTING FACTS. 3.1 Finding of No Direct Sign&ant Impact. The following potential areas of significant impacts were evaluated in the Final Program ElR and found to have no significant CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations 1652724 v3 [Word] Exhibit “EIR-B” 78 8/14/2001 adverse impacts, and therefore, no mitigation is required. The Supporting Facts and Rationale for each item is set forth immediately following the item description. 3.1.1 Consistency with the Planned Community Zone Ordinance. The Proposed Project is currently zoned Planned Community (P-C) pursuant to Chapter 21.38 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Under Chapter 21.38, the primary requirement for P-C Zoned property is that no development may occur unless a comprehensive Master Plan is first approved to establish uniform standards and polices regulating development. As the Villages of La Costa Master Pan (2000) has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 21.38, there is no significant impact and the requirements of the P-C Zone are fully satisfied. 3.1.2 Consistency with the Growth Management Program. The comprehensive citywide Growth Management Program is set forth in Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Among its principle features and requirements, it: a) limits the number of residential units in each quadrant of the City; b) establishes a mid-point density control range for each General Plan residential land use category; c) divides the city into 25 separate zones and requires that before development may occur within that zone, individual Local Facilities Management Plans must be approved by the City establishing that the available public facilities and services will be timely provided concurrent with development in satisfaction of the citywide standards for facilities and services. The Proposed Project is in the Southeast Quadrant of the City, proposes not more than 2,390 residential units, which amount, when added to the existing and projected future units will not exceed the Growth Management cap of 17,328 residential units for the Southeast Quadrant of the City. None of the Proposed Project neighborhoods exceed the applicable mid-point density ranges for the applicable General Plan land use designations. A new Zone 10 Local Facilities Management Plan is being processed to cover La Costa Greens and the existing Zone 11 Local Facilities Management Plan is being amended to cover La Costa Ridge/Oaks as part of the Proposed Project. 3.1.3 Consistency with Adopted HCP/OMSP & Implementation Agreement. The June 6, 1995 Implementation Agreement and associated HCP/OMSP program was a four party agreement and Habitat Conservation Program in compliance with all applicable Federal and State Endangered Species Laws involving the City, CDFG, USFWS and the property owner. Under the Implementation Agreement and HCP/OMSP, a 702.5 acre area was identified to be preserved for permanent open space habitat maintenance and protection, and all development was to occur within the remaining “Impact Area.” As planned, the Proposed Project increases the preserve area to a total of 835.4 acres, thereby increasing the permanent open space habitat areas by an additional 132.9 acres (18.9%). All development is constrained within the original designated “Impact Areas”. See FPElR at pgs. 4.1-10 through 4.1-12 for more detail. 3.1.4 Consistency with the City’s Landscape Manual. The City’s Landscape Manual applies to both private and public projects requiring discretionary permits. Its standards and guidelines have been incorporated into the Proposed Project through the Villages of La Costa Master Plan (2000) and associated approvals. 3.1.5 Consistency with City’s Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan (OSCRMP). The City’s adopted OSCRMP establishes criteria, planning CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations 1652724 v3 [Word] Exhibit “EIR-B” 79 8/14/2001 principles and design guidelines for public parks and recreation areas, trails, school siting and other public facilities. The Proposed Project includes public parks, a school site, trails and public facilities areas consistent with the standards of the OSCRMP. With well over 900 acres of HCP Open Space and other Open Space, the Proposed Project well exceeds the City’s 40% goal. 3.1.6 Consistency with the City’s Subdivision Regulations. Title 20 of the Municipal code sets forth the procedural and substantive standards and polices for processing and approving subdivisions. The Proposed Project includes two Master Subdivision Tentative Maps, which have been prepared in accordance with the applicable standards and policies. The extensive list of conditions and requirements assures conformance. 3.1.7 Development of Natural Slopes of Over 40 Percent. As discussed in more detail in Section 2.1.3.2 above, as none of the affected existing slopes are prominent land forms, disturbance, under the limited circumstances described is considered insignificant as only 27.4 acres of non prominent 40% slopes are affected out of a total of 232.6 acres of 40% slopes. Further, the HCP Open Space, for biological purposes, consumed substantial flatter topography, pushing the developed portions into some steeper topography. 3.1.8 Volume of Grading. As discussed in more detail in Section 2.1.3.2 above, the City’s Hillside development Ordinance establishes grading volume limitations expressed as a quantity of grading per acre (cy/ac) of development area, exclusive of arterial roads. As the grading volume in La Costa Greens is 9,960 cy/ac and the volume in La Costa Ridge/Oaks is 8,950 cy/ac, both are within the conditionally acceptable category and meet applicable standards. 3.1.9 Construction Noise. Detailed acoustic studies and models were evaluated in the Final Program ER at pgs.4.8-8 through 4.8-12, including the rock crushing operation sites depicted in Fig. 4.8-2. As the sites are quite large, the predominance of the construction activity will be generally located some distance from the nearest homes and the rock crushing sites will be no closer than one-fourth (l/4) mile, approximately. At these distances, the noise will not exceed applicable standards. While it is recognized that in some limited areas construction will occur in near proximity to existing residences and may be annoying to some people, the duration of such activities is short lived, and on the whole, does not represent a significant adverse environmental impact. The City has enforceable noise level regulations applicable at property boundaries as well as ordinances requiring all construction equipment have noise attenuating devices. 3.1.10 Carbon Monoxide (CO) Hotspots. Extensive modeling and analysis to determine the potential of CO hotspots (pockets or locations where CO levels would exceed applicable air quality standards) for both construction equipment and vehicular traffic were undertaken and the results set forth in the Final Program EIR at pgs. 4.9-13 through 4.9-16. Those models demonstrate that no significant risk of CO hotspots will occur. 3.1.11 Business Park Emission Stationary Source Impact Potential. The limited acreage and location of the 7.9 acre business park use in the Northwest portion of La Costa Greens combined with rigorous air pollution and hazardous materials City and countywide regulations eliminate the potential for stationary source emission incidences. The City has a CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations 1652724 v3 [Word] Exhibit “EIR-B” 80 8/ 1412001 large and vigorous employment area in close proximity having a range of industry and uses similar to those that would be permitted within the business park area. The City has not had any frequent or serious emission problems and the complement of regulations have proven effective. 3.1.12 Impact to Air Quality from Offsite Water Reclamation Facility. Adjacent to a portion of La Costa Ridge/Oaks, the Vallecitos Water District operates a water reclamation facility for the purpose of producing reclaimed water. While its operation is known to involve ammonia, carbon monoxide and dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, methane, dust and associated endotoxins, human health and safety requirements are already in place at the site to protect workers and will likewise be effective in protecting future residents in the Proposed Project from any significant health or safety risk. 3.1.13 Agricultural Suitability. As only 88 acres of the entire 1,866.4 acre site has either Grade 1 or 2 soils suitable for cultivation and no agricultural use is evident for many years, development poses no significant risk of loss of viable agricultural property. 3.1.14 Down Stream Flooding. The Proposed Project is designed to assure that the surface and other storm discharge waters do not impose any down stream flooding risk as applicable engineering design standards have been incorporated based on specialized studies and reports as more detailed in the Final Program EIR at pgs. 4.1 l-26 through 4.1 l-27. 3.1.15 Fire Services. The entire Proposed Project is within the required response time as established by the Citywide Public Facilities Performance Standards and the Growth Management Ordinance. Further, as detailed in Alternatives Section, the City is evaluating the relocation of the existing interim Fire Station at La Costa Avenue and Levante Street to one of three alternative locations within La Costa Oaks. Any relocation would only further improve response times throughout the Proposed Project. See FPEIR at pgs. 9-26 through 9-35. 3.1.16 Reclaimed Water Service. The City has a long-standing program and requirement for new development to incorporate use of reclaimed water for public/common area and median landscaping wherever available. As detailed in the final Program ElR at pgs. 4.12- 13 and 4.12- 15, the Proposed Project is in close proximity to the two main sources of reclaimed water in the City and the Proposed Project incorporates dual piping and other reclaimed water distribution facilities in conformity with the adopted policies and standards. 3.1.17 Sewer Service; Wastewater Treatment. Portions of the Proposed Project are served by three different wastewater treatment providers: Carlsbad Sewer Service District; Leucadia County Water District; and Vallecitos Water District. As detailed in the Final Program EIR at pgs 4.12-16 though 4.12-22, the Proposed Project incorporates adequate collection facilities meeting the standards of the respective districts and each district has adequate treatment capacity to process the wastewater from the Proposed Project. 3.1.18 Solid Waste. Solid waste collection and disposal at county owned and operated landfills is franchised in the City to Coast Waste Management and includes curbside pick up recycling programs for all residential areas. The Proposed Project would increase the volume of solid waste that is directed to landfills as well as curbside recycling volumes. As CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations 1652724 v3 [Word] Exhibit “E&B” 81 8/14/2001 14 detailed in the Final Program EIR, adequate landfill capacities exist and the Proposed Project creates no significant adverse impact. 3.1.19 Dry Utilities Services. The Proposed Project will increase demand for electricity, natural gas, telephone and cable television facilities similar to other residential areas within the City. The Proposed Project includes connections to the various utilities and adequate capacity exists in the local distribution networks for these services. While in the recent year or so, electricity rolling blackouts have occurred sporadically throughout the State of California, the State Government has stepped in to secure long term forward delivery electricity contracts and increased the licensing of new electrical generating facilities. The electrical generating and distribution issues and network is regional, statewide and to a significant extent, national in scope and while important, are beyond the realistic reach of the City. 3.1.20 Recreational Services. The Proposed Project includes park land, off street hiking and bike trails, which meet or exceed the citywide performance standards under the Growth Management Program. 3.1.21 Library Facilities. The City library system consists of two libraries, the Main Library in La Costa and the Georgina Cole Library in the downtown Village Area. The Proposed Project will not overload these facilities as they continue to exceed the citywide performance standards for library facilities under the Growth Management Program. 3.1.22 Disaster Preparedness. Although the Proposed Project would increase population in the City, additional street and transportation improvements are included which will improve the overall evacuation route network and would not. adversely affect the City’s Emergency Plan. 3.1.23 Electromagnetic Fields. Several existing high voltage electrical transmission facilities owned by SDG&E traverse the Proposed Project and are adjacent to several future residential areas. The Proposed Project does not include any new overhead transmission facilities nor the relocation of existing facilities. From time to time, the issue of potential adverse health effects form proximity of high voltage transmission facilities have been the subject of studies, reports, litigation and public debate, a survey of the generally recognized materials do not establish a scientific credible link, and therefore, any adverse impact would be speculative. See FPEIR at pgs. 4.13-7 through 4.13-10. 3.1.24 Population and Housing. Only a single old residential unit is occupied by a caretaker. The Proposed Project does not displace significant existing residents or workers. The Proposed Project will provide up to 359 units of affordable workforce housing consistent with the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (requiring 15% of the total housing be income qualified affordable units) within the master plan area and provide for a range of types and densities of market rate housing opportunities. As the number of units overall is within the Southeast Quadrant unit cap, the Southeast Quadrant does not exceed the mid-point density range for the various areas, it is fully consistent with the General Plan and Growth Management Program population and housing requirements. CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 82 8/14/2001 113 4. FINDINGS CONCERNING FEASIBILITY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES. 4.1 Applicable Standards. Under CEQA, whenever a public agency considers approving a project for which the EIR concludes that notwithstanding the incorporated mitigation measures, there will nonetheless remain significant impacts that are not avoided or lessened below a level of significance, the public agency must consider and make findings regarding the feasibility of alternatives discussed in the EIR. As stated in CEQA (PRC $2 1002): “[It] is the policy of the state that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects. . . . The legislature further finds and declares that in the event specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.” Here, the FPEIR concludes that after the incorporation of the specific mitigation measures outlined in Section 2 above, the Proposed Project will still have the following significant, unmitigable environmental effects: A. Direct impact on Landform Alteration from converting approximately half the project area from largely open space to a variety of residential, public facilities, commercial, street and recreational uses. B. A cumulative impact, in combination with other existing and planned development in the vicinity, to Transportation (2 intersections in the City of San Marcos at Year 2005 and 2020), Visual Quality-Aesthetics (from the overall residential and business growth and urbanization of the region), Noise (as a result of the minimal contribution in existing Alga Road traffic noise impacts to the existing residences just east of El Camino Real), Air Quality (as a result of the entire San Diego Air Basin being a Non-attainment area for NO-x (ozone) emissions and Hydrology/ Water Quality (as a result of the incremental contribution to urban pollutant runoff into storm drain system receiving waters such as Batiquitos Lagoon). The determination of the infeasibility of alternatives is necessarily an evaluation of the many elements of specific economic, social or other considerations. (Guidelines $15091). Elsewhere in the Guidelines $15364, “feasible” is defined as ” . ..capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.” At the same time, infeasibility is not equated with impossibility and case law recognizes that an alternative or mitigation measure may also be infeasible if it is undesirable or impractical from a policy standpoint. As an example, a conflict between project alternatives and a city’s growth management policies and programs supported a finding of infeasibility in City of De1 Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 CA3d 401. The Court went on to describe the alternatives analysis under CEQA necessarily involves the balancing of economic, environmental, social and technological factors within the province of the decision makers. CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 83 8/14/2001 lit’ In undertaking the comparative analysis called for under CEQA in considering the feasibility of project alternatives, it is also necessary to keep in mind the Project objectives as expressed in the FPEIR. The overall Project Objectives are set forth at Pages l-7 and l-8 of the FPEIR as follows: 1. Citv Plans and Policies. Conform to and implement the City’s Growth Management Program, General Plan and associated policies, ordinances and goals. 2. Residential Buildout Limits. Limit the maximum number of dwelling units at bellow the Growth Management control point to avoid exceeding the City and Quadrant General Plan and Growth Management buildout limits. 3. Housing AffordabilitvDiversitv. Assure that not less than 15% of all residential units constructed in the project area will meet the City’s affordable housing program requirements thereby adding to the City’s affordable housing stock and inventory of safe, clean and diverse housing opportunities. 4. Circulation Facilities. Contribute to the City’s completion of its overall trafYfic and transportation network of roads and streets, bike lanes and pedestrian trails by constructing, improving or financing important arterials such as Ranch0 Santa Fe Road, El Camino Real, Alga Road, Alicante Road, Poinsettia Lane and others while providing public and alternative transportation opportunities with bike lanes, bus facilities and pedestrian trails linking to other citywide facilities, helping to complete the entire area network in addition to providing safe, adequate neighborhood level streets, walking and biking opportunities. 5. Onen Space, Natural Habitat. Parks and Recreational Facilities. Provide extensive open space, viewsheds, managed natural habitat preserve areas, and active and passive recreational and park opportunities by establishing extensive permanent open space, multi-species natural habitat preserves, a public community park, bike and walking trails strategically located throughout the Proposed Project area and providing connectivity to surrounding open space, natural habitat and trails networks. 6. HCP/OMSP. Preserve environmental resources and implement the Habitat Conservation Plan/Ongoing Multi-Species Plan (HCP/OMSP) in accordance with all local, state and federal laws, regulations and policies. 7. Administrative, Fire, Police, Drainage, Sewer, Water, and Related Facilities. Assure adequate levels of services and required public facilities through participation in construction and financing programs to achieve City standards adequacy, design and safety. 8. Schools, Libraries. Assure adequate, available facilities through participation in site location and financing programs to meet City, school district and state standards. 9. Neinhborhood Oualitv and Landform Compatibility. Establish comprehensive grading, building and landscaping design standards to create balanced, attractive resident friendly neighborhoods internally complimentary and compatible with surrounding neighborhoods; provide for permanent maintenance funding and enforcement of standards by creation of one or CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 84 8/14/2001 //r more homeowner associations. Protect significant viewsheds where feasible and otherwise satisfy all landform alteration ordinances and policies. 10. Product Design, Phasing and Overview. Permit residential design flexibility to meet market demand and allow for the incorporation of positive technical advancements. Allow individual villages to develop at their independent pace based on phasing necessary infi-astructure improvements and response to market conditions. Establish overview procedures to regulate project development while providing necessary flexibility for individual, site specific adjustments to occur without affecting the Proposed Project as a whole. 4.2 Findings on Project Alternatives. The Final Program EIR evaluated a range of potential project alternatives, as well as consideration of three fire station site alternatives for possible relocation of the City’s existing Fire Station No. 6 from its interim site to a La Costa Oaks location better enabling it to serve its primary service area. The findings regarding the fire station site alternatives will be addressed separately from the overall project alternatives. The project alternatives included a No Development Alternative, a No Project Alternative, a Wetland Avoidance Alternative and the Reduced Development/Canyons Network Alternative suggested in the EIR public scoping meetings conducted prior to the preparation of the EIR. CEQA requires consideration of the No Project and No Development alternatives and the City selected the others on the basis they represent a reasonable range of alternative project proposals that appear to be potentially compatible with most of the overall Project Objectives. Applying the criteria discussed above for considering the feasibility of project alternatives and considering the totality of the information in the Final Program EIR, testimony and information received during the public hearings and the evidence in the administrative record as a whole, the City has determined that the identified project alternatives are not feasible in light of the Project Objectives, the City’s programs and policies and general legal principles applicable to a landowner’s right or privilege to make beneficial use of its property in accordance with all applicable laws, polices, standards and land use regulations uniformly applied. The factual support, reasoning and analysis supporting this conclusion will be set forth below with respect to each of the Project alternatives evaluated in the Final Program EIR. 4.2.1 No Development Alternative. (FPEIR Section 9.4) The No Development Alternative retains the entire project area in substantially its existing condition and assumes no further development. While initially seductive in that the No Development Alternative would avoid all impacts from the Proposed Project, it is not realistic or feasible given economic, social, policy, environmental and legal considerations and factors at work. A. The private property owner has legal rights of reasonable beneficial use of its property consistent with uniformly applied policies, ordinances, regulations and constitutional protections. The No Project Alternative is essentially a denial of all beneficial use. CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 85 8/14/2001 /)6 B. The No Project alternative is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan, Housing Element and Growth Management Program which identifies and permits a range of housing types and other uses on the property. No development would be inconsistent with the city’s responsibility under State Planning Law to adopt and implement a General Plan providing for a range of land uses, including residential, employment, open space and other areas to provide for the orderly and balanced range of uses. If no development were to take place in the areas designated for development, the City would fail to meet its local, regional and state obligations to provide housing and job opportunities not just for the existing residents, but for the future population growth forecast for the city and the region generally. C. The Proposed Project will provide a range of useful and needed public facilities and other infrastructure that is needed by existing residents to enhance and improve the quality of life. Those include the large community park and school site in La Costa Greens, hiking and biking trails throughout the Project, the financing or construction of critical circulation element roads to complete the City’s circulation element road system (Poinsettia Lane, Ranch0 Santa Fe Road, Alicante Road as examples) which are needed to support existing local and regional tEtffiC. D. The Proposed Project would add approximately 359 units of workforce affordable housing in the City to assist the City in meeting its obligations under State law to provide its regional fair share of affordable housing. The No Development Alternative would not contribute to the affordable housing obligations of the City. E. While the property would remain undeveloped, it would not dedicate the 834.9 acres of HCP Gpen Space, protect it with permanent conservation easements in favor of the California Department of Fish and Game, convey it to a natural habitat management organization acceptable to the City, USFWS and CDFG, or permanently endow the owner with sufficient funds such that the HCP Gpen Space can be managed and maintained in perpetuity for multi- species habitat protection purposes as required by the HCP/OMSP in exchange for development of the balance for private and public purposes. The entire property could be closed off to the public as it would remain private property and tax revenues would be reduced if no use or development is permitted. The open space would not be managed for the benefit of endangered species through the private habitat endowment funding, nor would there be a public education component for preserve management. F. The City’s efforts to provide a balance of jobs and housing opportunities would be adversely affected as both needed housing stock and some employment land would remain unbuilt. The city’s analysis shows approximately 70% of the people who live in Carlsbad commute elsewhere to work and roughly 70% of the people employed in Carlsbad commute from other cities or the county. G. By the property remaining undeveloped, existing surface water runoff and sediment would remain uncontrolled and unfiltered. Without water quality control devices the No Development Alternative would continue contributing sediment and urban pollutants discharge to receiving water such as Batiquitos Lagoon. CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 86 8/14/2001 )/7 H. The City, by not benefiting from the range of development fees and exactions, as well as increased tax base would be adversely impacted in terms of tax revenues to support public facilities and infrastructure that would be built or financed by the Proposed Project. The City’s Growth Management Program and facilities performance standards would be jeopardized as the cost of additional facilities and infrastructure to serve existing and future citizens, and the sources of those funds and facilities, were spread proportionately for future development to finance and construct. This financing shortfall could affect a range of citywide facilities such as libraries, fire support, police, city government, parks, recreation as well as transportation and the needed road network. In other words, the Citywide capital infrastructure funding mechanism would be jeopardized. 4.2.2 No Project Alternative. (FPEIR Section 9.5) Under CEQA, the No Project Alternative is analyzed to represent the impacts if the area were to be developed under the existing plans, ordinances, policies and requirements, instead of the particular Proposed Project. The No Project Alternative, assumes then that future development would occur consistent with land use regulations. A. The overall density permitted under the existing land use regulations would allow approximately 3,070 dwelling units at the Growth Management control point density ranges for the various areas, resulting in approximately 680 more units than proposed, thereby, incrementally increasing the environmental impacts directly related to population and number of units, such as traffic, air pollution and similar impacts. B. The Proposed Project will set aside 834.9 acres of managed, maintained and funded HCP Open space as the Proposed Project implements the HCP/OMSP. Development in accordance with the existing General Plan and land use regulations of the City would not protect as many acres of habitat and open space nor would the open space configuration be planned and located, with substantial habitat core areas and linkages, in order to obtain the maximum species protection and recovery opportunities as the UFWS and CDFG approved HCPIOMSP. Further, development under existing regulations would not implement the HCP/OMSP nor assure funding or coordination with the City’s HMP or regional MHCP programs. Under existing regulations, the property could develop piecemeal and habitat and species preserve protections would likewise be piecemeal and potentially fragmented. While future development would have to obtain authorization, there is no assurance that future development would result in a comprehensive management and funding program superior to the comprehensive HCP/OMSP preserve system. C. As less of the project area would be preserved in open space generally under the existing regulations, the amount of landform alteration, grading and associated visual and aesthetic impacts would be exacerbated. 4.2.3 Wetland Avoidance Alternative. (FPEIR Section 9.6) The Wetland Avoidance Alternative was included to evaluate the comparative impacts of a project design that avoided all Federal and State wetland jurisdictional waters, which include both wetlands and other jurisdictional waters of the United States. As the State and Federal CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations 1652724 v3 [Word] Exhibit “EIR-B” 87 8/14/2001 definitions vary slightly, for ease of reference, the following references will use the more expansive State definitions and totals, and collectively refer to the entirety as “wetlands”. The FPEIR contains a detailed chart of the individual components of the wetlands for La Costa Greens (Table 4.4-6, pg. 4.4-27/28) and La Costa Ridge/Oaks (Table 4.4-7, pg. 4.4-32). The impact to Federal wetlands is administered through the US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) under the Clean Water Act through the issuance of ACOE 404 permits and the State wetlands are regulated through the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) through the issuance of CDFG 1603 permits. The Proposed Project impacts relatively little wetlands, a total 5.61 acres for La Costa Greens (total 19.42 acres of wetlands onsite of which 12.78 is conserved) and a total of 1.02 acres for La Costa Ridge/Oaks (total of 25.865 acres of wetlands onsite of which 24.85 is conserved). Nonetheless, to completely avoid the impacted wetlands would result in a total of 94.3 fewer graded acres, but the loss of approximately 712 units as arterial roads and other facilities would have to be pushed into otherwise habitable areas. In addition, 13 or 14 bridge structures would be required to carry the various streets and circulation roads over the wetlands. After evaluating the environmental benefits of the Wetlands Avoidance Alternative and considering the FPEIR, the evidence presented at the public hearings and the entire administrative record, the City has concluded the alternative is not feasible within the meaning of CEQA. A. While wetlands are important biological resources, considering the entire Project area is 1866 acres and would only disturb a total of 7.66 wetlands while preserving 37.63 acres of wetlands onsite is vastly disproportional considering the loss of approximately 712 units, representing approximately 30% of the residential units. Further, the reduction in units would mean approximately 107 fewer workforce affordable units would be constructed. The combination of market rate and workforce affordable units would adversely affect the ability of the City to provide adequate housing in order to meet its housing needs and goal of providing a suitable jobs/housing balance. B. The 7.66 acres of wetlands impacted are of relatively low quality and will be replaced onsite by new wetlands and restored wetlands so that the overall wetlands will suffer no net loss in acreage, and will actually function more effectively through the rehabilitation and replacement. As to the 0.045 acres of vernal pools in the Oaks area, these are not naturally occurring and are so isolated as not to provide significant benefit compared to the preservation offsite of high quality vernal pool resources and habitat. Further, biological analysis establishes no endangered or threatened species are present. From the biological information available, it supports the offsite preservation of vernal pools as there does not appear that comparable, quality vernal pool habitat is available elsewhere in the City. C. The construction of approximately 13 bridges would be very expensive. Estimates are that the bridges would cost approximately $6 Million more to construct than normal surface streets as well as considerably more in ongoing maintenance. Using the estimated additional cost alone and spreading it to the fewer remaining market rate units would significantly add to the cost of each house, thereby making housing even more expensive in our CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 88 8/14/2001 ll? City and increasing our street maintenance costs for no discernible advantage or benefit as the impacted wetlands areas will be replaced and overall wetland performance enhanced. D. While approximately 94.3 fewer acres would be graded, the additional bridges would result in adverse visual impacts in that landscaped streets would be replaced with stark bridge structures in the numerous crossings, detracting from the visual quality and atmosphere of the residential areas affected. The Proposed Project includes a wetland bridge structure in the most abundant wetland area near the intersection of Poinsettia Lane and Alicante Road, which is in the major wetland habitat and course. Bridge structures do not add positively to the residential character of the remaining areas and standard street and landscaping solutions are preferred. The Wetland Avoidance Alternative would also adversely impact the size and configuration of the Community Park and elementary school site. E. The City is also mindful of the provisions of Guidelines 15092(c) which states that for projects involving housing development, the public agency considering the project shall not reduce the proposed number of dwelling units if it determines another feasible mitigation measure is available to provide a comparable level of mitigation. As discussed -above, the modest 7.66 acres of wetland resources impacted onsite will be fully replaced and superior vernal pool habitat preserved elsewhere. Because the total amount of wetlands in the project area will be equal or greater under the Proposed Project in both amount and function, effectively reducing the residential units, both market rate and affordable, by 30% is not supportable under these circumstances. F. The proposed alternative would be inconsistent with the designation of development areas in the completed HCPIOMSP and would jeopardize the successful implementation of that plan as the development area would be significantly altered. If the HCP/OMSP is not implemented, then not only is the preservation of the 834.9 acres of HCP Open space not assured, but the $l,OOO,OOO contribution to inclusion of offsite gnatcatcher core area habitat and the $150,000 contribution to the City’s HMP would be lost, as well as an additional $50,000 toward gnatcatcher research. While additional open space would be preserved, its permanent private funding and maintenance would not occur, thereby adversely affecting its habitat value. 4.2.4 Reduced Development/Canyons Network Alternative. (FPEIR Section 9.7) The Reduced Development/Canyons Network Alternative was suggested by the Canyons Network group at the public scoping hearings. The Canyons Network group has been an advocate for preserving the Box Canyon waterfall feature in San Marcos Creek canyon area and for expanded open space and natural habitat conservation generally. Under the Reduced Development/Canyons Network Alternative, the La Costa Ridge development area would be left undeveloped and La Costa Oaks Neighborhoods 3.1, 3.3 and 3.5 would also remain undeveloped. The effect would be to reduce the total residential units by 580 (320 in Ridge and 260 in Oaks) , eliminate an additional 87 workforce affordable units, and increase the open space by an additional 258 acres generally (increasing the existing HCP and Non-HCP Open Space acreage from 657.3 acres in the La Costa Ridge/Oaks out of a total of 1,205 acres). As the Box CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 89 8/14/2001 I@ Canyon area is already fully preserved and protected in the Proposed Project’s HCP Gpen Space area, this alternative would not have a direct impact on Box Canyon. After considering the environmental benefits of the Canyons Network Alternative set forth in the FPEIR, the evidence presented in writing and personally at the public hearings and the entire administrative record, the City has concluded the alternative is not feasible within the meaning of CEQA. A. The Canyons Network Alternative would significantly reduce the future residential units in the Proposed Project area by 580 homes and increase open space by 258 acres in the La Costa Ridge/Oaks area only. Reducing 580 units would also result in reduction of 87 workforce affordable units, thereby adversely impacting the City’s ability to provide both market rate and affordable living opportunities for existing and future residents. The City’s General Plan and Growth Management Program is based on the balance of residential, job, open space and recreational land and the need to maintain appropriate balance throughout the City. As the City nears buildout, residential units not provided as planned in one area would not likely be made up in other areas as community opposition and City policies generally disfavor zoning and density increase over existing planned levels. B. A reduction in the number of units would adversely affect the financing of needed public infrastructure, including Ranch0 Santa Fe Road (each unit is required to contribute $10,250 to financing Ranch0 Santa Fe Road improvements), would eliminate the completion of El Fuerte Road widening and sidewalks in the vicinity of La Costa Meadows Elementary School, as well as significantly reduce the public facilities fees, traffic impact fees and taxes generated by the omitted units which funds are used for capital projects such as libraries, parks, fire, police and other public services and facilities. Further, reduction in units would lower Project parkland dedication requirement, thereby increasing significantly the public funds necessary for 27.2 acre community park and threaten its financing. C. The alternative would be inconsistent with the HCP/OMSP and jeopardize its implementation, risking the availability of 834.9 acres of HCP Open space, the $1 ,OOO,OOO contribution to acquisition of offsite gnatcatcher core area habitat, the $150,000 contribution to the City HMP program and the $50,000 contribution to gnatcatcher research, as well as public trails and access. If the HCP/OMSP is not implemented, then the guaranteed private funding for the permanent management and maintenance of the HCP Open space for habitat purposes is jeopardized and the quality and protection of the remaining open space areas would be jeopardized. The additional 258 acres of open space is not high quality habitat, and based on studies, would preserve range for only 3 pairs of gnatcatchers. The HCP/OMSP studies concluded this area was much less biologically significant than other areas. D. Under CEQA Guidelines 15092(c), the City cannot reduce the number of residential units of a Proposed Project if it concludes other mitigation measures are available to reduce the adverse impacts. On those issues that the FPEIR concludes would not be reduced below a level of significance, the Canyons Network Alternative, while marginally reducing traffic through the elimination of units and reducing the development area, thereby reducing visual impacts, it does not result in fundamentally different overall environmental impacts, just proportionately less. The scope and range of mitigation measures would remain the same for the CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations 1652724 v3 [Word] Exhibit “EIR-B” 90 8/14/2001 jat Canyons Network Alternative as for the Proposed Project and therefore does not incorporate significant environmental advantages overall. E. The supplemental wetlands protection is minimal; less than one acre in total. F. The Reduced Development/Canyons Network Alternative, by substantially reducing residential units by 24.3%, but without proportional reduction in circulation element roads, back-bone infrastructure, results in a significant increase in the infrastructure costs allocation to the remaining units. This result would further exacerbate housing costs in the Carlsbad area for existing and Mure residents. 4.3 FIRE STATION ALTERNATIVE. The potential significant impacts of the three separate Fire Station Alternative locations are discussed in detail in the FPEIR, beginning at Section 9.8 (pg. 9-26). Alternative Site “A”. The first site is the existing City owned 0.5 acre parcel located on the western side of the existing alignment of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road north of the Cadencia Street intersection. However, upon the relocation of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road to the east, this site would be surrounded by HCP Open space and need an extended driveway connection to Ranch0 Santa Fe Road through more HCP Open Space and the future connection with realigned Ranch0 Santa Fe Road would not meet the City’s intersection spacing safety standards. Further, since its access would not be at an already controlled intersection, “emergency access signaling” would be required. City experience demonstrates that such emergency access signaling is less safe and noticeable, than is emergency access at a regularly controlled intersection. Alternative Site “B”. The second site is slightly further north at the southeast comer of the realigned Ranch0 Santa Fe Road and future Street ‘Y-I”, which will be a controlled intersection for access to the east to La Costa Oaks Neighborhoods 3.6 and 3.7, and to the west to Neighborhoods 3.3 and 3.5. Site “B” is presently designated for multifamily affordable housing and the site, approximately 1.0 acres, including slopes, is larger than needed for a fire station, but would not leave enough room for shared or joint use. The displaced multifamily affordable housing would have to be relocated to and the density increased to accommodate the fire station at this site and the City would have to spend more money to acquire the oversized useable area, thereby increasing the costs. Alternative Site “C?‘. The third site is immediately across Street “H” from Site “B” and would also get access to realigned Ranch0 Santa Fe Road at the Street “H” controlled intersection. While the site itself is 1.9 acres, including slopes, the useable area is appropriately sized for the fire station and while proximate to the proposed multifamily affordable housing planned in the area, the site itself is not particularly suitable for multifamily development because of the grade separation from the adjoining site. Site “C” would provide a self-contained location for the fire station and a desirable “downhill” start for the heavy tire equipment to initiate their rollout response, thereby improving response times. Conclusion. The sites are comparative as far as environmental impacts are concerned, with the exception of Site “A” which would occupy space that would otherwise be habitat CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations 1652724 v3 [Word] Exhibit “EIR-B” 91 8/14/2001 /aa preserved and managed as part of the HCP Opens Space and potential safety hazards/concerns with equipment entering Ranch0 Santa Fe Road at a below desirable standard for intersection spacing and at a an emergency controlled access point. Based on the comparative analysis, including environmental impacts, cost and effkiency, Alternative. Site “C” is the preferred location which will provide the best overall response times to the service area, access at a regularly controlled intersection, will not displace multifamily affordable housing that will increase effective densities elsewhere and will afford the City an appropriately sized location. 5. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS. As discussed in Section 4.1 of these CEQA findings, the FPEIR concludes that the Proposed Project, even with incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures and consideration of alternatives, will nonetheless have significant direct impact on Landform Alteration and cumulative impacts on Transportation, Visual Quality/Aesthetics, Noise, Air Quality and Hydrology/Water Quality. The cumulative impacts all arise from the marginal contribution the Proposed Project will make, when combined with the impacts from existing and other future projects, to pre-existing conditions that fail to meet applicable standards currently. The City has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts, which may have substantially lessened the impacts, but have not been successful in reducing them below a level of significance. In the case of the cumulative Transportation impacts, available mitigation measures are within the province of another jurisdiction, the City of San Marcos, which should cause the necessary improvements to the intersections irrespective of the Proposed Project . The City understands that future improvement plans exist for the Ranch0 Santa Fe Road intersections in the City of San Marcos. Under CEQA, before a project which is determined to have significant, unmitigated environmental effects can be approved, the public agency must consider and adopt a “statement of overriding considerations” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15043 and 15093. As the primary purpose of CEQA is to fully inform the decision makers and the public as to the environmental effects of a proposed project and to include feasible mitigation measures and alternatives to reduce any such adverse effects below a level of significance, CEQA nonetheless recognizes and authorizes the approval of projects where not all adverse impacts can be fully lessened or avoided. However, the agency must explain and justify its conclusion to approve such a project through the statement of overriding considerations setting forth the Proposed Project’s general social, economic, policy or other public benefits which support the agency’s informed conclusion to approve the Proposed Project. The city finds that the Proposed Project has the following substantial social, economic, policy and other public benefits justifying its approval and implementation, notwithstanding not all environmental impacts were fully reduced below a level of significance: A. Citv General Plan and Policies. The Proposed Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and Policies in that it provides for primarily residential development in the La Costa area with a predominance of single family detached neighborhoods. The range of product types are compatible with existing neighborhoods in the area and are located so as to harmonize CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 92 8/14/2001 /a3 and largely complete the residential neighborhoods and supporting amenities for that portion of the City until buildout. B. Growth Management Program; Zoning. The Proposed Project is fully consistent with the density limitations, including the Growth Management control point, and the Southeast Quadrant cap on total housing units and has not sought an increase in zoning or density. The Proposed Project has completed a Master Plan setting forth the uses, densities and development standards that will guide the entire buildout of the Proposed Project and the Local Facilities Management Plans setting forth the phasing and timing of needed public infrastructure. These programs assure the Proposed Project will develop as a balanced whole and needed public infrastructure and facilities will be provided commensurate with need in order to meet the performance public facilities performance standards of the City’s Growth Management Program. C. Housing and Emnlovment Onnortunities. The Proposed Project will have a maximum of 2,390 residential units, a 7.9 acre business park located adjacent to the City’s major industrial/office area and two designated Community Facilities areas to support the surrounding residential areas. The range of housing types vary from multi-family, townhomes and small and larger lot detached, located and sized to compliment the housing types in surrounding neighborhoods. These units will assist Carlsbad in providing sufficient, desirable and safe housing and neighborhood opportunities for existing and future residents and improve the jobs/housing balance. D. Affordable Housing. The Proposed Project will provide 15% of all units as workforce affordable housing within the Villages of La Costa Master Plan boundaries in full compliance with the City’s Affordable Housing Inclusionary Ordinance and policies. This commitment represents about 359 units that will be owned and managed to provide workforce housing to Carlsbad employees who meet the income limitations beginning at 80% of the area median income levels. This represents the continuation of an existing successful policy and is necessary to meet the City’s obligations and commitments to increased housing opportunities in Carlsbad. E. Parks and Recreation. The Proposed Project includes a 27.2 acre community park site with fully improved access from Poinsettia Lane/Alicante Road in La Costa Greens. It is anticipated that a community swim complex will be located at this site as well as a range of other public park and recreational facilities. Other neighborhood parks and recreational facilities will be dispersed throughout the Proposed Project as will biking and walking opportunities. Additionally, the Proposed Project includes a number of off street hiking and biking improved trails that will connect up with the citywide trail network as well as providing localized opportunities. F. School Site. As proposed, the 7.2 acre elementary school site for Carlsbad Unified School District is located in La Costa Greens, Neighborhood 1.4 adjacent to the community park. However, the City has determined it wishes to designate the elementary school site reservation in La Costa Greens Neighborhood 1.7 as the preferred location. G. Citvwide Road Network Improvements. The Proposed Project will construct portions of Poinsettia Lane east from El Camino Real, a critical east/west circulation element CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations 1652724 v3 [Word] Exhibit “EIR-B” 93 8/14/2001 /at’ road as well as portions of Alicante Road north from Alga Road, an important alternative circulation element road paralleling El Camino Real through La Costa Greens. In addition, the Proposed Project will further improve portions of El Camino Real, Alga Road, El Fuerte and Melrose Avenue. The realignment of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road through La Costa Oaks is a major road improvement undertaking of the City and the Proposed Project Ridge and Oaks are within the financing area required to pay $10,250 for each unit to finance the road project. These road improvements are each important elements of the overall road network of the City supporting local as well as regional traffic. H. Onen Space and Natural Habitat Protection. The Proposed Project would set aside 834.9 acres of managed and maintained HCP Open Space, representing approximately 46% of the overall site. The HCP Open Space is 132.4 acres more than required under the HCP/OMSP and Implementation Agreement signed by the City, USFWS, CDFG and prior landowner in 1995 after several years of work and effort to establish a viable, comprehensive habitat management plan for the project area applying biological standards and criteria under the State and Federal Endangered Species Acts, the California Natural Communities Conservation Program, and similar multi-jurisdictional efforts to assure viable multi-species habitat preserves. Similar programs elsewhere include the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) in the southern portion of the county. The HCP/OMSP is also a completed sub-component and complimentary to the city’s proposed Habitat Management Program (HMP), which in turn is a sub-area plan for the North San Diego County regional Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP) managed by SANDAG for the incorporated cities in North County in cooperation with the USFWS and CDFG. The 1995 HCP/OMSP was one of the first of its kind in the area and its successful implementation is a critical step in the process for multi-species habitat protection programs. In addition to the 834.9 acres of HCP Qpen Space,’ the Proposed Project will contribute $l,OOO,OOO to the offsite acquisition of additional gnatcatcher core area habitat which is critical to the approval of the I-IMP, $150,000 to support the City’s HMP program and $50,000 to support gnatcatcher research. The HCP/OMSP is also unique in that it requires the property owner to permanently endow a conservation entity who will take title to the HCP Open space with sufficient funds to pay for the ongoing maintenance and management of the HCP Open Space subject to the oversight of an Advisory Committee including the City, USFWS and CDFG. In this way, the HCP Open Space will be permanently preserved and protected for species habitat purposes without becoming a drain on municipal or other public tax funds in the fidure. I. Fiscal Contributions to the Citv. General Fund. Revenue contributions and impacts on the City’s General Fund were analyzed in a report titled “VILLAGES OF LA COSTA Fiscal Impact Analysis of Master Plan Amendment 149(Q) and Related Documents” prepared by Onaka Planning & Economics, dated December 19,2000, using City General Fund data for the City’s FY 2000-2001. According to the report, the Proposed Project will contribute General Fund revenues to the City of approximately $2,683,100 annually and consist of the following components: CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 94 8/14/2001 /as- (4 the City’s share of real estate property taxes, both secured and unsecured, estimated to be $1,69 1,100 annually; O-4 the City’s share of sales taxes estimated to be $433,700 annually; cc> vehicle license in-lieu fees estimated to be $255,900 annually; (4 real property transfer taxes estimated to be $86,400 annually; other state subventions estimated to be $60,200 annually; and business license taxes estimated to be $11,700 annually. The grand total estimate of $2,683,100 is without regard to any other indirect sources. Excluding the mandated affordable housing components of the project, the residential and limited business park development will essentially break even running a cumulative negative estimated to be $3,500 annually (which amount represents a positive $133/unit for La Costa Greens, a positive $l,776/acre for the La Costa Greens Industrial, and a negative $11 l/unit for La Costa Ridge and La Costa Oaks). However, compared to existing development on a per unit basis, this “break even” is far less than the current average negative of $426 per residential unit. The above figures do not include, and are offset by, the following additional indirect fiscal contributions to the City’s General Fund: (x) contribution to Landscape and Lighting District Zone M that will maintain the future Ranch0 Santa Fe Road median through La Costa Oaks which amount is estimated to be $16,700 annually, (y) excess parkland land value subsidy under the 1996 Parks Agreement wherein the Project will sell to the City that portion of the 32.9 acre community park in excess of the project dedication requirements at $175,000 per acre for the approximately 22.661 being sold ,(approximately 10.239 acres are being dedicated without cost), which represents several millions in parkland subsidy compared to its development market value, and (z) the Project has expended approximately $3.2 Million for acquisition of primarily gnatcatcher offsite habitat lands needed by the City for its HMP, which represents an interest free loan for the monies advanced. Additional Public Infi-astructure Capital Contributions. The City’s Growth Management Program and land use ordinances provide a series of public facilities fees and exactions that are charged to new development, which are generally payable at either time of final subdivision map or issuance of individual building permits. Based on the Project as proposed, these public infrastructure capital contributions are estimated to be $48,408,202 for the construction of public infrastructure and facilities on a Citywide basis, including city administrative facilities, parks and recreation improvements, fire stations, libraries, roads, storm drainage systems as well as public water and sewer facilities. These capital contributions are in addition to the infrastructure being constructed on site and represent the Project’s share of citywide infrastructure needs. The Proposed Project’s $48,408,202 capital public facilities contributions consists of the following components: CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 95 8f2Ol200 1 ,a6 1. Ranch0 Santa Fe Road Fee at $10,250 per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) for La Costa Ridge/Oaks only. 2. Growth Management Local Facilities Fees estimated at $3 10 per EDU. 3. Citywide Community Facilities District No. 1 estimated at $3,127 to $4,954 per EDU and a per square footage charge for business park based on the actual use; this CFD funds major area Interstate 5 bridges/ramps at La Costa Avenue, Poinsettia and Palomar Airport Road along with other citywide transportation facilities. 4. Traffic Impact Fee estimated at $540 to $840 per EDU and per square footage charges to the business park based on type of use; this fee pays for various other road, signal, intersection and similar transportation impacts throughout the City. 5. Public Facilities Fees estimated at $3,278 to $5,517 per EDU and a business park charge, both of which are based on 1.82% of the “construction valuation” of the improvements; this fee is used to finance city administration and maintenance facilities, parks, libraries, fire stations, the police station and similar city infrastructure. 6. Drainage Fees estimated at $35 to $57 per acre depending on location; this fund used to construct master stormdrain facilities. 7. Sewer Connection Fees estimated at $1,824 to $3,950 per EDU (also applies to business uses) depending on sewer district and additional sewer benefit fee estimated at $626 per EDU within the Carlsbad Municipal Water District service area: these fees represent the facilities capacity and connection charges for sanitary sewers and treatment plants. 8. Water Capacity Charges estimated at $1,580 to $2,400 per EDU (also applies to business uses) depending on the water district and additional meter connection fees estimated at $130 to $160 per meter; charges and fees represent facilities capacity and connection charges for water facilities and distribution/storage systems. The foregoing amounts may be subject to periodic adjustment and escalations in accordance with the underlying ordinance or laws applicable thereto. The total amount of $48,408,202 represents public facilities capital contributions only and does not include (a) park fees as the Project’s park obligation is being handled entirely through dedication of additional land for Alga Norte Park, (b) any school fees or mitigation as the Project’s impacts on school facilities is being addressed directly with the affected school districts, and (c) various city processing, application and plan check charges for processing approvals. These fees and exactions are necessary to construct and replace important public improvements in order to fund the public facilities and infrastructure necessary to maintain our community’s quality of life for existing and future residents in Carlsbad. CEQA Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “EIR-B” 1652724 v3 [Word] 96 8/20/2001 /a7 EXHIBIT “EIR-C” E d n . ; . i I- . i i [ I I I e h 1 = 2 E II b P .- .P g 2 ” ‘5 P at 2 9m s .E ‘G; L i e *‘t 0 d ned di ‘i; 02: EO .I .I cl3 FI’ .- .k g s-f 2 :I a I k 0 Eg .I .- cz 2s .k g se 2 1 Pa * .B ‘ii; i 1 CO I : 0 .= t 1 Q’,c 2 2:“E M s 8 B g ‘3 & .- .Z E ir: 7 .;: .Z f = .s 2 ‘= p 0 c .c z f b a z r = .P C& d 7% ZE oE z E .’ E b c. =- c :a = z = v. .= = -z 2 ‘;; -- 7- c = g I 2 5 o- Y- 1 - = =! ‘g 2% E-2 2 ;i L .- M “Z .= 8 ‘a c&c,‘.2 E $& J5 L c.5 g E % QC EO .I - bz F y .t E :a u-f B P= f .E ‘;; L 1 CO o= 1 35s d sz v) t B $ a 0 P 8 ‘S *- z PW p .E g L 5 .s - a=; 2s % = 0 2 g;i ZEtj -1 a=I. u f .‘I J E=e’* E ? to CE L 5CZ88ti w -Z .- .Z E L: .P 2 s s s 0 ii c /37 % at EO .- .- bt % y La .- 3a aa 2 g CO 1 0 .* ; ==c Bi 8 2 T El s ‘J & ‘Z .- z P 9 j, 5 i . 3 ; i : > 3 2 z E c .$ a .g iii 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ; i : ) I I i I I I I I I I I I 1 / : ; I i i I I I I I . % QC EO .- .- bP FS .k2 s-x d 8 s s E s -= 3 -5 .- E CL ir a 5: .- .- .Z .Z E E $ .s s t w 0 ; 6 E i i s z z ti 0 j ‘3 0 ; = Ez ; E i < w E )E ii= z 2 0% % 5 0 xu 00 x-c M zmc -CS= 2 + ‘E c * ‘E -C 22s 4 z -C +uE z z 2iam L-u6 2 2 J E E .Z z .M .=: E L: 2 E C B c .1 i3l-j VI- 66-2 7-J fg F’e *r e 0% .Z e= 2”i L 0 UC EO .- .- GE *g =$ sq 2 % 0, Eo .- - ;; LPI .- a= u* d fti e & .c_ c .P E g E .- = .- r g .- =* 4 .u .g z ” .E 5 Tg 8 F”-’ 85M2 .g .s v 8E ” 6s 5 ‘5 E’Z E .4 g.r z e+o-’ c.52 8 &wsg ‘E: 5.r ,g LET” Z.E5 2 u’ 8 vi j .z 2 =E ‘C b& -z ‘- c 2 -F ‘51 .E EG 2 8M ‘C L &C 2 E nv J B .F g EL n 3 B b gf E 3-j 2 .z xa e Ou M A z M.Z c .- %!.$g G c, ‘E w= j .K:oUy: = FUWC CGE g .- cwa s c&P SUE y1is L &,oS --@ .g Dh 28 EC:“;; =.3+5 ¶ M 5 8 E c .s a .J” .I E d ; I i ; 3 1 . ; : . v. 3 C” =v: .= 2 5 E- ; v; Ef J 5 “0 Fe T =E g 22 I = n8 .: W- 2 3 i: : w g 2 S ‘2 2 Z% - 2 ZP r 5. .” .= f & .c z -$ s 2 G n 2 v -; .” .= E ii .s + 2 ” e 2 2 i I I I , ; i : ! e 0 1 i ; &+a =v ‘C e *8 tz c= SE s Ez .I .- +z z .g .c g $* 62 &e ‘C c *P .Z 0” & 22 L 0 Qa Eo .- .I cz FG .kg s-x sx v) 2 3 3 z c .e 3 .F *= E = .c L: s .s f 0 4 2 Y g L s z CT. z u e E .4 lz CT? = 2 .E 0 s v1 M-- ‘1 =,’ -0 8 .E v: e mu j .z SEO: v. s >* ‘; f’-. c0.c e -CU E g L 0 B 3-j F XU M ‘6 c ‘E 2 2s Ei cub WY j iEGE % WC Eo *- ‘C bea u 2 2 ‘L -E= aa dr” SF ‘G;Z i C *i 0 .z nLld Jr” B k B E c .g CD .J” .- E rT. 7 T- .‘-- k-’ Y = 5’ .- ” ‘0 c w ” .r .= -8 .Z - c 2 5 EZ ; % f = z Ef L CE J ,z - .= k-O Ti; 7” -7 - “‘i E E G ._ = C ! I (i ‘; k Z’ 3 .g .s w- w- z 2 5 2 .s s2 2 0 E ‘=, s Y P 3 y .E .$ ij E g v 1 zz ; -.z .3 s 3% a z EP P s c 3 i g$ u (rt % j& .E A? c 8 .- - 0 .‘ g.2 5 2 12 ?;j j.2.E g z E = ;iic- .P ‘= ‘5 E 2 La 82s z ‘E 2 Y; .- Kzn n = WV) 2 2, ‘e, CT 2gU”“r pg +‘tc, 5% g e w t- c ‘J MM2 .E .c .II d ‘C E 2 b 0 ::,g p. ML%k-c B LE $23: CZS3 i z c . m- %L WC s f: k c 5 . - ’ - : x3 i$E di 2 L G WE 0% = .s EM .0-t 4 PO L ig ;ii Z’E” g w &.gZGS eM 5 E M 5 ,Z .E 2 ‘C 6 r E .P OZ .- $e DE E .- E’ %a E .E .u 00 g gae t-,oM 0 ME.E EE 00 8 0 3-z 2s g:‘g EZL oE I! 230t ST cr$cz ca-Fj.2 j .y= $ ‘ZE,V i?no: 5-J =-, warn, 5 $fL= n g $2 ‘5 E b m.- WCS v1 I ‘; , 1 I I I c c . = CL -z .- .ZZ 2 : 5 ; r F ,o E : s 3 i gti .- ‘, s W-; rE 23 .E & s 2 7-g eg 5% 02 ti a ZE m 2 - .z -EU ZP v: z iT v T .ci 3 = .I .‘- .5 .Z .r: .= .Z .Z f E E E E L 5 .$ E 1: c 2 .P .s .s s 6 P 4 z “, 2 s 2 .Q 5 ; E s 0 2 E B s z 6 2 zcc 2 c z 2 2 3 2 E i 0 $ e 2 g ‘S 0 g ‘5 g ‘7 s ‘5 t 2 - 22 .- . L? Cr; -2 ..- gEc ;Ec gg !F gE OE as ss 000 cz s “02 WW$ 2 -E w scn: m WC2 .‘TI = MS 8=- L<G .p z &23 -3 -2 P -2 z % e -52 Q s = 2 = M zoo ‘; m .f 2 = F ($ ‘6 0 8 5 ‘5 3 ‘5 s= 82. bE. %E u ‘g 8,“. %E. X’Fijb h.iioB x.gQ’: .z = 0 X’6ijb .z e 0) .z t 0 h’Gb ‘3 L;: 1 ULC:a U3wC .z E 0 u w n .g 5 & i? B ‘5 % oE LO g;;;y 2 PI Em zge. zz s&E Ed 0 .a e: :z$ c L .- 52 m c-n s EX $2 c n 0.2 0 B.5 b m --EL .- i? = =- m< s%jZ m-cm f % s r,LU EZWA 0s f E: ESS 0 ‘E c” -0 ‘JofdZ z .o = 0 *- - 222-J l=zw zvt; naw .- 22 j z =a r 22 ‘3 mz;_l S.-o2 g W2$ UV 2 E.m .!ZO i- 02 i-OE 2 izz “is 6 5 .- +,:g2 E ;is c = &=,m g L.5 rl-Lf s: 8u-5 iEn -se e * 8 r4 2 g”; .E B “ii 5 m ‘1; n= E,o -v I I I i .I L L 1 3 , ,I I I I I I I I I I I , ; i ; i i I I 1 I I i I I i : i I I ‘2 i’ 0 EC gr 3 s $ u gE 1 c3 :a SC g .; & .- 2% cm iT I5 .Z E 0 z ii c i ii .= s s .= b - s t .- c. 4 g3 CE C c .c 8- o E Eg W&Z= QC3 8 5 WV 3 z-.-E: d - v,ugg .- z 0 au $ -a E 0,s .Zsf ou LmOoC fe,LdtU B % ‘c 2 6 ‘= f-8 OS. A’bB .z c 0 uwn ; .# : !9 m ! j : 5 t 2 N3 s Sk .E e Y)= t. E mpZ EOU -- is !P 1 c ; -2 :P f SE Iu” ; ?C i .e l * 0 2 .Y ; -E $4 i - BM 2.Z i; L : 1 0 l 0 .= SZ’ 22 ; I I I ; 1 ! I i I I I I I i 4 I i : i I I I a8 sp” cc g-J” e = c g E zu” SW a= ‘G; ‘i= a e 0’ 0 .z : a=n s a k f E -= %I ‘z .- r UT z 1 .z I+ .” .=: .Z .Z E E E 5 c .- e = .- 5 O* 4 2 yj c O& SE y 5 6s = 53 g -g 6s m 2 F% -.- = &U 2 r3u 3 jk "'5 E go E *czo,- -L 00 0 fj op-NS L 5 2.z” 5,” gZjE%cZ oco~~~go U.P nmatv E L 0 Ps .- - BY u .Y g 8 3” CT* 2 2M a .E z ‘i CO 0 .z ; BgC Bz ii .P 4 s Y ,s m E b c 2 is -ti M j .P U / 5-9 23 5% kce e .E 0- 0= c h Fiu” 4 q i q 4 I q ‘I / = 5 .s zz g .g 4 03 gp’=I .a 0 -; .r Egg 2 0* J.r i EEE >“??I E t .r 025 .- sg =0 cu 2 $0 tj iL.5 z. 4.c E - -. :+ 0 c S$ .g 2 2 1;;gr c ‘3 0 O&e- u a.- M-- .= 7, L ggEg z-00 0 e.l cur< 6 2% = -co g c Lq ‘; o= m s 2 2 3= u .- wmu’o -i-EIz 28 ;d bz CO 0 3 c= C gE as 2s Ib Ln CO 0 -“, s = oE xs ‘= .$ z $ c rnjj g m5 .g .P -g 2 2.2’ 4.5 ,c$; ‘5 E” p z .9 E.5 5 6 SLC gv.em~ 2 .f v MU LEG &Do M .- 8 an .- s .E = .z .- E ‘iz .s 5 .t .- 2 H =5 G CL-3 2 2 .g s h,c A 72 $4 5 ‘f 5? s ;; ;ti a.2 02 gs oo.Y F= .z xiz c .z ‘t . 2 ‘K > %c ai- .- c a ‘2 0% 0: -0 rn” car 2 5 2 6 2 i 2 5 ZO Sg 2% z:w iii? =g ZR 2% ,xE ,x+ ,xf ,xE is2 zr” ‘6 Y 2:“8 ‘G 2 08 28 l-3 f3 F 3 s& 2 v om 2s E ii .E d e a%.- is z E ~3s -0 zooc‘ M- 2 2 2 2% B !L.a, L 0.J m Lb-E L-c L-3-z 3 0 > .z 5 O.-a v, s :z z3 z s 2 2 M a.2 0 c v:$s ,‘- 0 m m-3 = = rnL-0 $ g 3g $ E, lu c.- a s rA x,cg 82 2 u.- visa .Zd c m ,g=- ea.5 gs 5; g MY b e-= m r.g o- 0 .E .sr: ir a* 3-J 3 ro.0 ca p. $5 SLrn B it ‘6 g .” V tip0 5%1j?g EG z= 0 c ABog- L L v muv w yj.E r_e= $!2.2 E F;-” .$%+ P L E- z24 b=$o& uugp 1 xz = Ku- g= i 5.zz3 C’Z BE .A mu m - 2 .;. 07 Em +v,sG ; g.s o E.E r .- - “;;E =aG -VY 2 g 2; .- .- 5JO’~I iij 5 f E V$ f ‘5 8 2 ,$ E 8 E .- 0 .- 5adO 4 ma 4-c M2E 50 .g .- r 0 2 5 VCM St; ME 0 0 c’- z ;: C”‘C-g 8 .p g.r s z 5m Lm= .o k.E v: by: LU .c g.r 5 Omo=rLO L.EV MO L.EZ &Q;DE f.EG ei 65”; E L.EV u E .E L = P -,, 6jt;V 003,u t’z.s .E = CO o E.E ztir> E 0 Uh Jz .- s .- ” CA z 0 E= f/l $0 -,au ,VV “0 is-;; b In=- p $2 G; fi!agz .- -z 3 3 C’E .gl ‘on E u: EE Zf =I-00 V)LV c to u =i - a8 =(A ZP 40 :o > ‘Z iS= t % .E ES P2, e= OW r= C= of EL B t .: -% ou .- f x g4 3 s GC .zi- *s .S c 8 F -E .- .- .= EC .= .Z E SC E E u 2 2z.z C SE E mg $ i g .s J 2 L 5 ii 0 2 if J I 2 ‘L 2 2 5 . %ijMZ o., 2 L.E < Bm kc! cL.fu M = c B AZ .Z 3 E gz v& B P u. -s 0 2 = 2 PM fM d YE L%= u ‘C m .E Lg 1-8 ut OS ‘I” .- 4 2 2 $ 0 .E J vu:3 P 2 if? vwc! - T z!E -= -0 OW i I r .= w z-.2 E-k 11 S- a .i s L-i e 0.. [ i or: i a.= p 2-g 4 s .5 .= f E .c k -X s w E C z L c: z” z.6 f E .E 0 2 fj snclo2z .o g.r 5 6 t-;eg t.fu MU z .E E m;j 2 ‘; v 0 ttg?E .c g..E bv; =a fC88 c.Eu aJo8 s 8 .- 04 ai c gE 08 s c -- 025 *- gF OS -fT” m-c . Em-) E n=x.= n m .z m -a 3 E g Mz kL =wo 3% t NJ L = = .E 2 $2p &:B s $ 75 c 2 5 c-0 g E g ‘3 EM% 8 .E b e-E 2 3 $5 B g-0 .- c s* $ .- figciJ E b .E gga as& P .c St.43 ‘a .9 V$ %E .- &i P 2 % vLc3 a 2-u 2 .Gj s m 22 8 D 0 ‘3 * ‘rY .!z L .E tat: =ff .f 02-o ;=dg u$o cnw E.? .r E:: 1 ai 0 VI n.0 :: p r C 2 .g 2 5 3 z ME .-o=*; c ‘C b= f.EZ 0 E 8 E .- .g 2 ti VVME 2 ” ,.E B ;ML= r.E< s 6 E 1; u .= s ZriMML 2 ” = A c ‘f b cc 8 r.EZ s Z22” .- ‘i 2 SO= 2 32 ;:a.& == 0 g- IF E 3 .s ,A e L ‘5 .- t 2 *- z = BtGEE C .=: 3 . z s w ‘5 $2 5 2 us iri 2 E E 3 i! “U Ii. ES 9 7 ,gB = c .c b E g.E (- 5% k g-gz v33 V 2 3 23 z c:t; 3 “3 .z $J o”MJ=- Ep$ g.5 “CmLsgp E ,~Mv,>~ 0 m “2 2 5 ov.zz i ca > 0” $2 ?jz E > Oz.% u 2 8 28 E$ :, g -2 C= E tE ag ii 2; = 4z ‘g .t i5’E z .- E 3d -20 2” E ‘Z 22 2 ‘5 “5; z= LZ CM VOO 'Z (c LO zs I 0 on Ma :O 315 :s er ig 2.v v- .E .S t z ia, e!= & LE 2 U a’: !g iij g.” U-J ” E ti ” c “.- “a”E: 2 mTiu--, n g ‘3 = “55LzE? =0ij .s Z” noom, S%U.EM = m “U rnESL-a~ E’Z” $- ‘z L n L-0 9 gJ”‘, x .f v) ‘; -0 $~$~~ $ixx “, L;I=~ c= 0 VI 5 $7 ‘C wcD%:s; ‘p s z 23 g,* z:r; .s sj owoD-=- - ‘S..c .u 2 .E Gqlf so E E t-gMM’Y 0 rn 0’; g 3 au.- i C¶ > 0 0 $, o--,'=. E > C2.E YE 8 >;8 32 ur g .s e f u 5E CO v) .v “0 Es - .- f-% 0 2 f -z -- E s-f cr’ 2w *.E ‘Z L ; e o* 0.z : egg dz CI Y % & .- .c z 2 ” 2 2 E z” E: 0 .4 E zti s ‘5 2 ” 0’ -n t E EE 5 .f OS P 8”k 5 .2 2 0 “VI 5 .= a E 4 u .z g.’ R” .-n m g Ms g MM.5 S-0 .E 0 - .f .5: LE 2 sg 2 ij = L 0 M’i ELgz .ESZ”, E:B E 8 B 2 % 2 x-0 ‘5 .a = ” xv ‘5 vD,c. .a h “s:“bZ uQ2. X=8” 0 ‘c “b’i cuwf; go”51” u .LOCL *CL v L n.E li : ; t 2 - ; _j i I I , ; I ! i i , , I : x ssjg .d L ,- “. f z.ps ‘ZOG= ,i=, E’S%.3 = OE V.C. c -0.3 w “Vtj & 2 E $ s 2 .- .‘, 2 $ggEE fl 5 C v .= Y E v t a e 3 z-2 r Z 5- B s, $ 0 4 2” = 3 8 M I;;$ = .r g i;j v: “8 r=;t Ee E3 - O& L CEO2 ng- zr -Den-¶9 ,O* a,” h: 0 .- Gy;;;=‘L =ti w 0 ¶.E 0 w p r t c E.2 E t- 8 c: cxu.., - i+ !cI t c : 2 ‘t :- c ;E !G ‘i; XY 5 gs.=: L 3 E - cmcE ” =.V) ” L C” 5.2 $22 E$ E s. E -h-o 0 00 m ‘Z ‘C d!lc% % 2 -e 2-p 8 c3c m.E . “i ME SCrC” IUWP V 3 I 1 4 1 ! b ! I 9 3 : i i : s /7+ - ; c i L ” v 2 .L .a E .a 5 E .Z E 5” r.2 =; e.n Ii =?j ¶G 8 2 .- SE .- ct ge .- 5s 08 SE 5z e: CG 8 8; m .= EG 5 E m .a c .- c E SE .v; ” 2 n .s b 2 n .g :: -2 2M vu + .E 2% -8 SG V L2 92 OM kc ta ‘2 k CM ‘E L urn LO 2% ti .%“ET Ed=” ¶ z-E = 3 as.5 gg$O ,LL* Z”o. o.E, : &v 53 - -.- Egg: 3mo I a8 Z& Tr CO 0 ‘f 5 zl oE a5 z 2 P 2 q p aI .- iz 2 f 2 .’ .a C b 2 ‘Z 22 8 i5+;c, Wr’Ebn CC-C” LOWC; ,. W % ” .= m z= E g8 CSE ,o .2 aw-cr O.K.5 0 EzE’= EE sa “cL~c”=~ 9 cg Ev -,.;zj”,r! Et% p! mmnr=k - oq 53 =‘;:a 8 Sft¶~EJ~~~ “EG” PC .- 3=ZiiStS r % :s 2 c ” .a ES t” E Eg g ‘Z .C- gE E CSQ W- 2 z q E 0 Y 5 :z I s z 5 b 2 Z “Z &a 2 ‘0’ 2 c z v) E 0” e .E g rA QL x2 :!L C ZO”. s,oer” 5 :B g ‘E -‘I E r&En k 2 tip ‘5 cn g w., “Z MB fb&E i 3E z Fg ;j 8% 2 c ‘G z 2 -= gB m v: A ‘5 z u z ‘zl mm vu M ts -is g6 # no* 83 2 rr.g z .E %bs SE 8s 6 E no E f? 2 .E 3 vu vi 3.: 3 E&.E 0 WK 2% “- ii.= EE.5 5s ex c .a m g -- “Ewe .;; &&;i:ry $&g$-gg .;+u”g B s Eggs: .- g 6-g ” gDs 2 gz In-2 z g” Y z -- 0 nam&=- =.g;;Zn =‘r E,xg g S~2C”C .E 8 9” “” m 0 “S.‘E ‘- 8 = ‘; 2 L ” f Em: z nirj.0 g g o- = = 0 8 0 g---g 6g.x EG j+j+L “.‘- g 2 L nwe z 28 ,c 5 2 2 $ g’E 8 Em -“a% ii .gz g.s o 8 E-gzz c “mb E .S”o~UvlC Z -=A p.22 k.%.E E w 8rA” ” 8 v 2 0 = E ‘3 5 j s g$zvi :;;s 8 yl L=x.= w E M.f 2,s a .r c .o 0 ‘; ” .= m O&“3Eo GJ=~“~” AZ ; 5 .Eh=co LEbKJ< :: E 8 a.2 =+ sg 5 2.3 y 2 ou E ‘3 .o m U+ =I s= 2 5.0 sj2fQddzi an5 u B” m 5 b.” 8 w.., - CJ cr.= m “z-o 2” E z- 5 2 J M.-z EEE2-J Lr: sg _ z.~5i,Fg~~ =‘$;$&g %gg .%a mo5 -EC_ cc no s’,o2w’r2:8 z2jgcz P^Z o E .d .- 2 cx 2 gr z Ts .E .E .a .Z .a .a z f f E E 2 3 5 E .P .- .s .s s ;; 9 z ‘*, ‘;, E E 2 E 2 2 Y E 2 . 2 i ,E m L s L 2 z ;’ c =E 00 I=..- 5 E i& g ‘z& 8 .- CG $ -g 0’ = iiE 4.j z :g g -g 86 c- co 08 0” C8 0 g .* RE z t .IL = 2 2 -0 SE M 8m 2% ‘5 V IL; fz FaM 2 B i 0 L 2 .E xv ‘5 0 3-j g”‘k -xp 2 & h-0 ‘5 c m 0 ‘3% .f ,: -6 = .- .e m ” IA e .; ii G n - y) cg ui 0% 8 wz MP. “T j MC w’;: = ME -: JZELJC” w=‘siln r ml 8” cuws gsEs& i-UP-222 frJj50” z s,- i .Z G E z< e tziz ” G ‘2 2 gjV= f xom Z&S ” ,. Fs Lm 00 0 E.24 > $2 s-l L-2 3 “X0 =n M 8 cx m .a CU m w= L.5 Ji=&tE Q 6: <c, z-l i- Lo m .z z h- . . .2 ” . . Em,-;; rs ‘0 E% 0 CaLac 855 i!” j b 0 7scm -- =:z F , - “f= ==f z iBE AZ =,o w g A$; 45 icrrJ2 +$A65 K B 0 B iFi* E& G= e. 0 0 ;’ q = P, k .E as k .P r; B .? 3 8 51% Y s E .- .Y 4 c g-j K &an ,0x E L 2% 0 P)z ELgz B % c 3p gf i3 D .- In-u 0 - z ~~; I I ? I d 7 I 1 1 7 2 I d = -ok = ‘-iY 0” a+ 334 aE 2.s 0 = m L “‘p UVOV1L tc-,ag U’Emkj* eg52: amhhao L, u=m #J a nab 3 2 a .E .E E - , " I 1 . i I .: I f ! C : . : . b , I ? - i i I 5 ;‘ 2 ; i 2 a I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 0 0 1 I ; ; ; i I 1 I I i I I i : i : : 4 - I i : : . ; : I :: 5 0 z x E 3 igo tY ,& P) 2 Z- Cm 2s 5 ‘S “0 r- ‘U 0 qE z $ $2 2 0 f 2 1; ;H x -; ‘- .Z E 2 = s P s .C 3 c , 3 .J E t .c s 2 z .Q i c 58 :a !a l c :O 3.;’ as a i .g nv z.s =. 4 82 58 ; p ‘a :S tit; a 2 :z $4 2 g2 .- QL1 .- 2-z ‘C L QO E 3 gs % 0o.g 3 CS-> ‘C a IxT;I 0 v10 34-g g= o‘i: aDo= x I c c .= imug.=3 p am a .E gjL; jg; 2.x J 4r 8M Q .E ii; L : 0 0; OS e-g t 2x SW p .9 ‘Z L 1 CO 0 .z rr-ea : dS ?iv; z. .z ,o & sw - .E SS L ‘3 0s ‘E re CO zg 5 ‘5 w- E ZE 08 ” .E E.2 . YE2 .4 $ g ” MO 5.r 0 O-Qt; -z Q OLSQ ‘C L Q c 04 I i ) : ; i 3 i ; i ; : i I I j I . 3 : j : : : I I ” .E .Z E c .s 4 P 9 8 c h L C f 2s lb 2x 0= q s n %E a8 ‘;; tx ,- .- ‘r;; a 2 ff 3 ‘5 .n aa s E 3 “I s JsE +‘E< 9 ,,ct=- 0 co $ 0t 2 Moxc -.E g gs ~“mr, L.5 nc’- 2 ,g D z .oo O 2 w- L 2°C gz--u E P P c .s z .s .z: z , : i I i > I i i I T3 5 ‘S g .%i= L-J 2 0’” i= L-0 Cm&J= v 2’ M p*ZLti OgVp3 g-,sz 2 c;Q n $E w= E m “N .c 0 oso’a L 3-c h5 -0mZ 0) 0 Q- s<es M sti m!z 8.3 L 0 2 .;-.g “E “‘-A;: x .-o w LP Gd==mCU- = tn “- $Ee 0 -SOT& c”ocL,~g~E~~~ ~1 E g D ‘5 m nM4..- .EEsw2!Yjz ~“~“00 s-o.=% $.g~v-v~ 0 ‘G, yz v)*= --z& iI m-‘G; m- g?Gc T-g 5 yz .- - m 0v.E m us m g9 k wq us< 2-t c 2 .f .I? ssti -0t-J~ 2;: 3 SC” 3 .s I EZ2 St% 1 2%: .. SW T-05 G S% ‘0 .f L .- h 0 5-V 0 ‘5 .E V)0m .r” E, U-L SW a .E 7) L a I o* 0 .z : a.g 0 2s 28 ‘t R1 SP :a 0 -2 f ‘c oE au” Pb i’ c g 4 .c - g% ‘;; 3 x IV .- *z 0 .r! 2 a *- f 3aa d 2M a .E -a L * g .s ‘r pgs 2z .E I s z E .- z M .- -2 E z z 5 5 .E .Z E t = .o 0% 0’ L u g ‘5 0: E 2 6.9 y-o- B .LIm&g.;i r<,; :; dza ;) m 04s 2 0s .- -LUG ~~~Z~ E .z - 3m S& Mz 2-G ‘5 3 .E c ” .E 4 .E b -WV 5.” c M- SC= 3 .P 0 - x = .- ” =“w”, x =s~.-r > ¶W zw,c.~cE”w SET cc c-v g+ -25 I) 0 f E & .g g.-E g 3.L rz t’?3 $, 34;g;;;ggi gg80+0,0 .‘WQ L-C &gx k;sa& +z+zgrz; IEI au-2 2s C E- % E zg lC= .% 0) s-0” l2 4 .OoZ” 9 ,x1 Eps=-“5 - L;ia3tjfl-2 < v EC m.2, O,GOB2 8” c1 Q.EY!I CJ 0 8-l x ya -,c= B ¶ L-8: 0 = w.- O.V~.fQ” i g =u maze AzQg)t a3 Q..fVV “4 b r&$1 2 g;=1.= ‘7 5s + 3 c 3 S.E”eg$ g&j 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. 5011 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNTNG COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN FROM RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY (RL), RESIDENTIAL LOW TO MEDIUM DENSITY (RLM), RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY (RM), ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (E) AND OPEN SPACE TO RESIDENTIAL LOW TO MEDIUM DENSITY (RLM), RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY (RM), RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY (RMH), PLANNED INDUSTRIAL (PI), COMMUNITY FACILITY (CF), ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (E) AND OPEN SPACE; AN AMENDMENT TO THE OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENT TO ADJUST THE BOUNDARIES OF OPEN SPACE SHOWN ON THE OFFICIAL OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION MAP; AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT TO REMOVE THE SECONDARY ARTERIAL DESIGNATION OF LA COSTA AVENUE EAST OF CAMINO DE LOS COCHES ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL, NORTH AND EAST OF LA COSTA AVENUE, AND STRADDLING PORTIONS OF RANCH0 SANTA FE ROAD IN THE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONES 10 AND 11. CASE NAME: VILLAGES OF LA COSTA CASE NO: CPA 98-O 1 WHEREAS, Morrow Development, “Developer,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Real Estate Collateral Management Company, “Owner,” described as See Exhibit “EIR-A”, as attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 5010, hereby incorporated by reference (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a General Plan Amendment as shown on Exhibit(s) “GPA - A” - “GPA -D” dated August 29, 2001, attached hereto and on file in the Carlsbad Planning Department VILLAGES OF LA COSTA - GPA 98-01 as provided in Government Code Section 65350 et. seq. and Section 21.52.160 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; 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, the Planning Commission did, on the 29th day of August 2001 and on the 5th day of September 2001, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; 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 General Plan Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows: 4 B) That the above recitations are true and correct. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of VILLAGES OF LA COSTA - GPA 98-01, as shown on Exhibits “GPA -A” - “GPA -D” based on the following findings and subject to the following condition: 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 August 29,200l including, but not limited to the following: 4 Land Use Element 9 ii) iii) iv) PC RESO NO. 5011 Objective B.2 - Create a visual form that is pleasing to the eye, rich in variety, reflecting environmental values. The proposed open space designations create large contiguous conservation areas that are visually pleasing and reflect the environmental value of the areas. Policy C.4 - Encourage clustering when it is compatible with adjacent development. The general plan amendment provides for the shift of dwelling units out of the conservation areas resylting in a clustering of development. Policy C.6 - Review the architecture of buildings to ensure the quality and integrity of design and enhancement of the character of each neighborhood. The proposed master plan contains development standards and architectural guidelines as well as a review process to ensure that the desired level of quality is attained. Policy C.8 - Provide for a sufficient diversity of land uses so that schools, parks and recreational areas, churches and neighborhood shopping centers are available in close proximity. The proposed land -2- /u 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 use designations and master plan provide for an elementary school site, a community park, and community facility uses. The project site is in close proximity to existing or planned commercial sites. v) Policy C.12 - Develop and retain open space in all categories of land use. The project includes open space for the preservation of natural resources and open space for outdoor recreation. W Circulation 0 Streets & Traffic Control Policy C.18 - Require new development to dedicate and improve all public rights-of-way for circulation facilities needed to serve development. Dedication and improvement of all circulation facilities needed for the project as well as citywide facilities identified on the circulation plan will be completed. The removal of the Secondary Arterial designation on a portion of La Costa Avenue is consistent with the project traffic volumes. 4 Housing 0 Policy 3.6a - A minimum of fifteen percent of all units approved for any master plan community shall be affordable to lower-income households. Two areas of the property are proposed to be designated RMH to accommodate affordable housing developments. d) Public Safety 0 Airport Hazards Policy C.3 - Review development proposals in the Airport Influence Area to ensure design features are incorporated to address aircraft crash and noise hazards. Land uses have been sited to be compatible with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Palomar Airport. 2. Proposed project consistency with applicable environmental goals of each of the eight general plan elements is contained on pages 4.1-19 through page 4.1-30 of the Final Program EIR and are incorporated herein by reference. 3. In order to adjust the boundaries of any open space shown on the “Official Open Space and Conservation Map” dated September 1994 the findings listed in implementing policy C.20 of the Open Space Planning and Protection Section of the General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element are required to be made. The three required findings and affirmative justification for each are as follows: 9 The proposed open space area is equal to or greater than the area depicted on the Official Open Space and Conservation Map. Proiect FindinP: The Official Open Space and Conservation Map defines approximately 170 acres of La Costa Greens and 242 acres of La Costa Ridge/Oaks as either “Existing/Approved Open Space,” “Constrained Open Space,” or both , for a total of 412 acres. The proposed project designates 246 acres of The Greens PC RESO NO. 5011 -3- /90 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 657.3 acres of The Ridge/Oaks as Open Space, including HCP Open Space and Non-HCP Open Space, for a total of 903.3 acres. Because the proposed open space areas are greater than the areas depicted on the City’s Official Open Space and Conservation Map, the proposed project is consistent with this Finding. ii) The proposed open space area is of environmental quality equal to or greater than that depicted on the Official Open Space and Conservation Map. Proiect Findinp: The proposed revision to the Official Open Space and Conservation Map would bring the City’s General Plan into conformance with the approved HCP/OMSP, as well as expand the open space designation to cover 903.3 acres of the site comprised of 834.9 acres of HCP Open Space and 68.4 acres of Non- HCP Open Space. As discussed in Section 4.4, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, of the Program EIR for the Villages of La Costa, there would be a net increase of Diegan coastal sage scrub (59.4 acres), southern maritime chaparral (12.9 acres), southern mixed chaparral (22.1 acres), grasslands (22.9 acres) and riparian habitats (14.4 acres) which would provide greater preserve value for the ability of the HCP to support several species. In addition, rare plants that would benefit from the preserve additions include the Palmer’s grappling-hook (45 plants), De1 Mar manzanita (2 plants), summer holly (2 plants), Englemann oak (1 plant), California adolphia (200 plants), and ashy spike-moss (unknown number of plants). The additions to the HCP also would benefit the coastal California gnatcatcher within both The Greens and The Ridge/Oaks by adding habitat adjacent to preserved coastal sage scrub areas and by providing a relatively large patch of coastal sage scrub adjacent to an existing utility easement on the southern half of The Greens. Several additional coastal sage scrub-dependent species (orange-throated whiptail, southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, etc.) on both project sites would benefit from additions to the preserve. In addition, foraging habitat for raptor species such as the northern harrier, white-tailed kite, Cooper’s hawk, burrowing owl, and golden eagle would be moderately increased within The Greens and The Ridge/Oaks. iii) The proposed adjustment to open space, as depicted on the Official Open Space and Conservation Map, is contiguous or within close proximity to open space as shown on the Official Open Space and Conservation Map. Proiect Finding: As discussed in Section 4.4, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, of the Villages of La Costa Program EIR, all habitat areas proposed to be added to the HCP preserve abut existing preserve areas identified in the HCP/OMSP. Some of the additional habitat areas are large and, therefore, contribute more habitat value. The habitat areas proposed to be removed from the previously designated 1995 HCP/OMSP are small and scattered patches on the periphery of the HCP/OMSP preserve. Most patches proposed for removal are less than one-acre in size. As demonstrated in Section 4.4 of the Program EIR, no significant adverse impacts to biological resources would occur. 4. Removal of the Secondary Arterial designation of La Costa Avenue, east of Camino de 10s Caches on the General Plan Circulation Map is appropriate. Based on projected traffic volumes the roadway is not needed to provide a connection to a PC RESO NO. 5011 -4- /g/ 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 roadway shown as Melrose Drive south of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road. Conceptual lotting plans for The Oaks indicate that a local street will be provided to make a more circuitous connection. This will aid in controlling vehicle speeds by reducing the width of the paved road surface. 5. As provided for in the General Plan, the proposed property acquisition for use as a park/recreational facility is consistent with the City’s Growth Management Plan in that it will ensure that necessary improvements are provided for in accordance with the performance standards of Growth Management. Conditions: 1. Approval of GPA 98-01 is granted subject to the approval of EIR 98-07, MP 149(Q), MP 98-01, LFMP 10 and LFMP 11(B). GPA 98-01 is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5010 for Program EIR 98-07. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of September 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Heineman, Nielsen, and Trigas NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 1 CARLSBdD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J.k!)LZ&LER Planning Director PC RESO NO. 5011 -5- EXHIBIT - “G PA-A” - 1 EXISTING THE GREENS VILLAGES OF LA COSTA GPA 98-01 j9-3 EXHIBIT - “GPA-A” - 2 -_I. r i T+-r-+- ,G--..- PI ‘is, I c c&_; B ; 1 <T. 2 : OS .;I J %I ! I #c ’ ” r ,.; i **p RMi,, /-’ / ) i c I 1 J h,f-J ‘1 i, bf/ @,;;5+ 7 ,Ld .i’ - I , OS 1, I /- os I L-5, :A -/--- OS d=- . . i (&pi!@ \ f .*’ ‘. \ < f’> I L’ > c-/--- L, i ” : t PROPOSED @ “Orm THE GREENS VILLAGES OF LA COSTA GPA 98-01 EXHIBIT - “CPA-B” - 1 EXISTING THE RIDGE VILLAGES OF LA COSTA GPA 98-01 EXHIBIT - “CPA-B” - 2 f / I’ 4’ L / -- I r--r 8 \ I / \ I yl- .A I’ i$ =\/ l N (I :: il PROPOSED THE RIDGE VILLAGES OF LA COSTA GPA 98-01 EXHIBIT - “CPA-C” - 1 \ \kP RLM EXISTING @ “Omm THE OAKS VILLAGES OF LA COSTA GPA 98-01 197 EXHIBIT - “CPA-C” - 2 PROPOSED @ “Omw THE OAKS VILLAGES OF LA COSTA GPA 98-01 EXHIBIT - “CPA - D” City of Carlsbad Circulation Element Circulation Element A/ Prime % SMeai&daty /\ / I’\ I’ I’ ~l,,,,z~” Collector 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 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. ~ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5012 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL, NORTH AND EAST OF LA COSTA AVENUE, AND STRADDLING PORTIONS OF RANCH0 SANTA FE ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONES 10 AND 11. CASE NAME: VILLAGES OF LA COSTA. CASE NO: MP 149(O) WHEREAS, Morrow Development, “Developer”, has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Real Estate Collateral Management Company, “Owner”, described as See Exhibit “EIR - A”, as attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 5010, hereby incorporated by reference (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Master Plan Amendment as shown on Exhibit “MP 149(Q)” dated August 29, 2001, attached hereto, VILLAGES OF LA COSTA - MP 149 (Q) as provided by MP 149 as amended and Chapter 2 1.38 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 29th day of August 2001 and on the 5th day of September 2001, 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 Master Plan Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of VILLAGES OF LA COSTA - MP 149 (Q) 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 August 29,200l. 2. That all necessary public facilities can be provided concurrent with need and adequate provisions have been provided to implement those portions of the Capital Improvement Program applicable to the subject property, in that the property will be subject to the requirements of the Local Facilities Management Plans for Zone 10 and 11. 3. That the residential and open space portions of the community. will constitute an environment of sustained desirability and stability, and that it will be in harmony with or provide compatible variety to the character of the surrounding area, and that the sites proposed for public facilities, such as schools, playgrounds and parks, are adequate to serve the anticipated population and appear acceptable to the public authorities having jurisdiction thereof, in that removal of the subject area from the La Costa Master Plan and adoption of the Villages of La Costa Master Plan for those areas will provide an up to date plan for the development of the area that is compatible with all adjacent land uses and is in conformance with the Habitat Conservation Plan approved in 1995 for the property. 4. The proposed amendment which removes the subject property from the La Costa Master Plan will create a positive impact by creating mechanisms to review future development in accordance with current policies and ordinances. 5. That appropriate measures are proposed to mitigate any adverse environmental impact as noted in the adopted Final Program Environmental Impact Report 98-07 for the project, as listed in the Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Conditions: 1. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Master Plan document(s) necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. 2. The approval of MP 149(Q) is granted subject to the approval of EIR 98-07, GPA 9% 01, MP 98-01, LFMP 10 and LFMP 11 (B). PC RESO NO. 5012 -2- 30’ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as “fees/exactions.” You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of September 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Heineman, Nielsen, and Trigas NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HtiZMItiER Planning Director PC RESO NO. 5012 220a 1 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 i PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5013 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,’ RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MASTER PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 2,390 DWELLING UNITS OF VARIOUS PRODUCT TYPES AND LOT SIZES, A BUSINESS PARK, COMMUNITY FACILITIES SITES, A COMMUNITY PARR SITE, AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE AND THE PRESERVATION OF OPEN SPACE FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL, NORTH AND EAST OF LA COSTA AVENUE, AND STRADDLING PORTIONS OF RANCH0 SANTA FE ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONES 10 AND 11. CASE NAME: VILLAGES OF LA COSTA CASE NO: MP 98-01 WHEREAS, Morrow Development, “Developer”, has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Real Estate Collateral Management 1 Company, “Owner”, described as See Exhibit “EIR - A”, as attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 5010, hereby incorporated by reference ~ (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Master Plan as shown on Exhibit “MP 98-01” dated December 2000, on file in the Carlsbad Planning Department VILLAGES OF LA COSTA - MP 98-01 as provided by Chapter 21.38 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 29th day of August 2001 and on the 5th day of September 2001, 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 Master Plan. 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: 4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct, B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of VILLAGES OF LA COSTA, MP - 98-01 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 August 29,200l and as included in the Planning Commission Resolution for General Plan Amendment 98-01 incorporated by reference herein. 2. That all necessary public facilities can be provided concurrent with need and adequate provisions have been provided to implement those portions of the Capital Improvement Program applicable to the subject property, in that the master plan contains required public facility improvements consistent with those contained in the Local Facilities Management Plans for Zones 10 and 11 which the project must implement in order to comply with city standards and ordinances including the Growth Management Plan. 3. That the residential and open space portions of the community will constitute an environment of sustained desirability and stability, and that it will be in harmony with or provide compatible variety to the character of the surrounding area, and that the sites proposed for public facilities, such as schools, playgrounds and parks, are adequate to serve the anticipated population and appear acceptable to the public authorities having jurisdiction thereof, in that the master plan includes a site for the future Alga Norte Community Park as well as a possible site for an elementary school. The final determination on the size of the elementary school site can be deferred by the school district up to the time residential development is proposed on the proposed site at which time the district will be notified of the proposal and be required to indicate whether they plan to acquire the site. All proposed development is compatible with existing land uses on the perimeter of the site as demonstrated in the staff report as well as the Land Use and Community Character section of Final Program EIR 9% 07. 4. That the proposed industrial uses will be appropriate in area, location, and overall design to the purpose intended, that the design and development are such as to create an environment of sustained desirability and stability, and that such development will meet performance standards established by Title 21, in that the master plan includes the requirements of the Planned Industrial Zone for the applicable Planning Area. 5. That in the case of institutional, recreational, and other similar nonresidential uses, such development will be proposed, and surrounding areas are protected from any adverse effects from such development, in that such uses are sited in locations where they are adjacent to existing or planned uses which are compatible and the master plan PC RESO NO. 5013 -2- ao4L 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6. 7. 8. includes development, design standards, and required permit processes to ensure that land use conflicts are not created. That the streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitable and adequate to carry the anticipated traffic thereon, in that the master plan includes various street improvements necessary for the development as well as portions of circulation element roadways identified in the General Plan. That the area surrounding the development is or can be planned and zoned in coordination and substantial compatibility with the development, in that proposed master plan perimeter land uses were determined based on achieving compatibility with surrounding existing development and zoning designations. That appropriate measures are proposed to mitigate any adverse environmental impact as noted in the adopted Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the project, in that the mitigation measures identified in Final Program EIR 98-07, the Candidate Findings of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will be implemented and a Statement Of Overriding Considerations is proposed for the significant impacts that will not be mitigated to below a level of significance. Conditions: 1. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Master Plan document(s), necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. 2. The approval of MP 98-01 is granted subject to the approval of EIR 98-07, GPA 98-01, MP 149(Q), LFMP 10 and LFMP 11 (B). 3. As a result of the City Council decision to acquire the entire 32.9 acres identified in the 1996 Parks Agreement the master plan shall be revised to delete Area 1.4 and expand Area 1.5 to include that area. All other master plan revisions necessary to be consistent with this action shall be made. The Area 1.4 designation shall be reserved for possible future use at such time as the Carlsbad Unified School District determines the exact boundaries for the school site. 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 PC RESO NO. 5013 -3- &x- 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 follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of September 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Heineman, Nielsen, and Trigas NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: * CARLSBdD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HtiZMItiER Planning Director PC RESO NO. 5013 -4- a06 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. 5014 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ZONE 10 ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 2,500 FEET SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT, EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL, NORTH OF ALGA ROAD, AND WEST OF UNICORNIO STREET. CASE NAME: VILLAGES OF LA COSTA CASE NO.: LFMP 10 WHEREAS, Morrow Development has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad which has been referred to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the City Council passed Resolution No. 8797 adopting the 1986 Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan establishing facility zones and performance standards for public facilities; and WHEREAS, the City Council passed Resolution No. 9808 requiring the processing of a Local Facilities Management Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 8110 and 9829 implementing Proposition E approved on November 4, 1986, by the citizens of Carlsbad; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 29th day of August 2001 and on the 5th day of September 2001, 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 Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 10. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) That the above recitations are true and correct. 307 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B) Findings: That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Local Facilities Management Plan - LFMP 10, on file in the Planning Department, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 10 is consistent with Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Growth Management), and with the Citywide Facilities and Improvement Plan, in that it contains all matters required by Section 21.90.110 including special conditions for wastewater treatment capacity, parks, drainage, circulation, schools, sewer and water. This ensures implementation of and consistency with the General Plan and protects the public health, safety and welfare by ensuring that public facilities and improvements will be installed to serve new development prior to or concurrently with need. Conditions: 1. Approval is granted for Local Facilities Management Plan - Zone 10 as contained in the Plan titled Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 10, dated June 2000, on file in the Planning Department, and incorporated herein by reference. 2. This approval is granted subject to the approval of EIR 98-07, GPA 98-01, MP 149 (Q), and MP 98-01. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad on the 5th day of September 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Heineman, Nielsen, and Trigas ABSENT: JEFFRE N. SEGALL, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J.k&LZMfLLER Planning Director PC RESO NO. 5014 -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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5015 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ZONE 11 TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE VILLAGES OF LA COSTA PROJECT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH AND EAST OF LA COSTA AVENUE, SOUTH OF ALGA ROAD, EAST OF EL FUERTE STREET, AND STRADDLING PORTIONS OF RANCH0 SANTA FE ROAD. CASE NAME: VILLAGES OF LA COSTA CASE NO.: LFMP 11 (B) WHEREAS, Morrow Development has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad which has been referred to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment for Zone 11 (dated June 2000, on file in the Planning Department) and incorporated by this reference (collectively referred to as the “Local Facilities Management Plan Amendments”), as provided in Section 21.90.125 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 29th day of August 2001 and on the 5th day of September 2001 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 Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 11. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: 4 That the above recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of an amendment for Local Facilities Management Plan - Zone 11, on file in the Planning Department, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: 4oq 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 Findings: 1. That the Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment for Zone 11 is consistent with Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Growth Management), and with the Citywide Facilities and Improvement Plan, in that it contains all matters required by Section 21.90.110 including special conditions for wastewater treatment capacity, parks, drainage, circulation, open space, schools, sewer, and water. This ensures implementation of and consistency with the General Plan and to protect the public health, safety and welfare by ensuring that public facilities and improvements will be installed to serve new development prior to or concurrently with need. Conditions: 1. Approval is granted for an amendment to Local Facilities Management Plan - Zone 11 as contained in the Plan titled Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 11, dated June 2000, on file in the Planning Department, and incorporated herein by reference. The amended Zone 11 Local Facilities Management Plan, dated June 2000 shall replace in its entirety, the Zone 11 LFMP (Amendment A) dated April 13,1992 . 2. This approval is granted subject to the approval of EIR 98-07, GPA 98-01, MP 149(Q), and MP 98-01. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad on the 5th day of September 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Heineman, Nielsen, and Trigas NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 9 CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HO&MILI%R Planning Director PC RESO NO. 5015 -2- &23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5016 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CARLSBAD TRACT NUMBER CT 99-03 TO SUBDIVIDE 660.7 ACRES INTO 49 LOTS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 2,500 FEET SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL, NORTH OF ALGA ROAD, AND WEST OF uN-IcoRNIo STREET IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 10. CASE NAME: VILLAGES OF LA COSTA - THE GREENS CASE NO.: CT 99-03 WHEREAS, Morrow Development, “Developer,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Real Estate Collateral Management Company, “Owner,” described as See Attachment “CT 99-03 - A”, attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Tentative Tract Map as shown on Exhibits “A” - “EEE “, WUUU”, and “YYYY” dated August 29,2001, on file in the Planning Department VILLAGES OF LA COSTA, THE GREENS - CT 99-03 as provided by Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 29th day of August 2001 and on the 5th day of September 2001 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 persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Tentative Tract Map. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: 4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of VILLAGES OF LA COSTA, THE GREENS - CT 99-03, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findinps: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. That the proposed map and the proposed design and improvement of the subdivision as conditioned, is consistent with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan, any applicable specific plans, Titles 20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and the State Subdivision Map Act, and will not cause serious public health problems, in that the lots being created satisfy all minimum requirements of Title 20 governing lot sizes and conliguration and have been designed to comply with all other applicable regulations including the Villages of La Costa Master Plan (MP 98-01). That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since surrounding properties are designated for a number of residential densities and non- residential land uses as listed in the staff report which are compatible with adjacent existing and planned development. An analysis of land use compatibility is also contained in the Final Program EIR That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the density proposed, in that the project site can accommodate the proposed residential development while complying with all development standards and public facilities requirements and is less than the number of units that are permitted by the existing plans and regulations applicable to the site. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements of record or easements established by court judgment, or acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, in that concurrent with recordation of the final map the developer will vacate and adjust any easements that conflict with proposed development. That the property is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act). That the design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, in that structures are oriented in various directions and adequate separations will be provided to allow for breezes to cool the areas and landscaping will be installed to provide shade and reduce the temperature of developed areas. That the Planning Commission has considered, in connection with the housing proposed by this subdivision, the housing needs of the region, and balanced those housing needs against the public service needs of the City and available fiscal and environmental resources. That the design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their PC RESO NO. 5016 -2- 044 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 habitat, in that the project will implement all required mitigation measures contained in the Final Program EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program that are applicable to The Greens. 9. That the discharge of waste from the subdivision will not result in violation of existing California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, in that the project has been designed in accordance with the Best Management practices for water quality protection in accordance with the City’s sewer and drainage standards and the project is conditioned to comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. 10. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan and The Villages of La Costa Master Plan based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated August 29,200l and as contained in the Planning Commission Resolution for GPA 98-01 which are incorporated herein by reference. 11. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 10 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 and San Marcos Unified School Districts 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 or be satisfied by the use of existing parkland credits in addition to the dedication of land for the future Alga Norte Park Site. 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. 12. The project has been conditioned to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to Chapter 2 1.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project. 13. This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 10. 14. That all necessary public facilities required by the Growth Management Ordinance will be constructed or are guaranteed to be constructed concurrently with the need for them created by this project and in compliance with adopted City standards, in that PC RESO NO. 5016 -3- 213 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 15. improvements necessary to maintain compliance with the growth management performance standards are contained in the Zone 10 Local Facilities Management Plan and the project will comply with the general and special conditions of the zone plan. 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 as the property is within the Noise Impact Notification Areas and no use shall be permitted inside the McClellan-Palomar Airport Flight Activity Zone which is designed or intended to educate, entertain, accommodate, serve, congregate and/or employ a total of 100 or more persons at one time. This occupancy limitation is to comply with the provisions of the CLUP and affects Neighborhood Areas 1.1 and 1.2 of La Costa Greens. The project is compatible with the projected noise levels of the CLUP; and, based on the noise/land use compatibility matrix of the CLUP, the proposed land use is compatible with the airport, in that no areas of the project site are within the 60 CNEL or greater noise contours for the airport. 16. That the project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual (Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 14.28.020 and Landscape Manual Section I B). 17. 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 the recordation of a final map or issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs 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 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 Master Tentative Tract Map (CT 99-03). 2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Master Tentative Tract Map documents, 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. 3. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance. PC RESO NO. 5016 -4- a/t’ 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. 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. 5. 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 Master Tentative Tract Map, (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. 6. The Developer shall submit to the Planning Director a reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar copy of the Master Tentative Map reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making body. 7. 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 for the permits being issued. 8. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required as part of the Zone 10 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits. 9. 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. Notes: A note to this effect shall be placed on the Final Map. 10. The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the Villages of La Costa Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 11. This approval is granted subject to the approval of EIR 98-07, GPA 98-01, MP 149(Q), MP 98-01, LFMP 10, HDP 99-01, SUP 01-04, and SUP 99-01 and is subject to all conditions contained in the Planning Commission Resolutions for those other approvals. 12. 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 the required 15 percent of the total dwelling units (including: Units to be PC RESO NO. 5016 -5- 2 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. constructed on Lot 15 of CT 99-03) 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 21.85 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 map. The recorded Affordable Housing Agreement shall be binding on all future owners and successors in interest. 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. 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. This approval shall be null and void if the project site subject to this approval is not annexed to City of Carlsbad CFD No. 1 within 60 days of the approval. The City shall not issue any grading, building, or other permit, until the annexation is completed. The City Manager is authorized to extend the 60 days, for a period deemed necessary, upon a showing of good cause. The Developer shall establish a homeowner’s association and corresponding covenants, conditions and restrictions. Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to final map approval. Prior to issuance of a building permit the Developer shall provide the Planning Department with a recorded copy of the official CURS that have been approved by the Department of Real Estate and the Planning Director. At a minimum, the CC&Rs shall contain the following provisions: A. General Enforcement bv the City. The City shall have the right, but not the obligation, to enforce those Protective Covenants set forth in this Declaration in favor of, or in which the City has an interest. B. Notice and Amendment. A copy of any proposed amendment shall be provided to the City in advance. If the proposed amendment affects the City, City shall have the right to disapprove. A copy of the final approved amendment shall be transmitted to City within 30 days for the official record. C. Failure of Association to Maintain Common Area Lots and Easements. In the event that the Association fails to maintain the “Common Area Lots and/or the Association’s Easements” as provided in Article , Section the City shall have the right, but not the duty, to perform the necessary maintenance. If the City elects to perform such maintenance, the City shall give PC RESO NO. 5016 -6- $16 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 written notice to the Association, with a copy thereof to the Owners in the Project, setting forth with particularity the maintenance which the City finds to be required and requesting the same be carried out by the Association within a period of thirty (30) days from the giving of such notice. In the event that the Association fails to carry out such maintenance of the Common Area Lots and/or Association’s Easements within the period specified by the City’s notice, the City shall be entitled to cause such work to be completed and shall be entitled to reimbursement with respect thereto from the Owners as provided herein. D. Snecial Assessments Levied bv the City. In the event the City has performed the necessary maintenance to either Common Area Lots and/or Association’s Easements, the City shall submit a written invoice to the Association for all costs incurred by the City to perform such maintenance of the Common Area Lots and or Association’s Easements. The City shall provide a copy of such invoice to each Owner in the Project, together with a statement that if the Association fails to pay such invoice in full within the time specified, the City will pursue collection against the Owners in the Project pursuant to the provisions of this Section. Said invoice shall be due and payable by the Association within twenty (20) days of receipt by the Association. If the Association shall fail to pay such invoice in full within the period specified, payment shall be deemed delinquent and shall be subject to a late charge in an amount equal to six percent (6%) of the amount of the invoice. Thereafter the City may pursue collection from the Association by means of any remedies available at law or in equity. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, in addition to all other rights and remedies available to the City, the City may levy a special assessment against the Owners of each Lot in the Project for an equal prorata share of the invoice, plus the late charge. Such special assessment shall constitute a charge on the land and shall be a continuing lien upon each Lot against which the special assessment is levied. Each Owner in the Project hereby vests the City with the right and power to levy such special assessment, to impose a lien upon their respective Lot and to bring all legal actions and/or to pursue lien foreclosure procedures against any Owner and his/her respective Lot for purposes of collecting such special assessment in accordance with the procedures set forth in Article of this Declaration. E. Landscane Maintenance Responsibilities. The HOAs and individual lot or unit owner landscape maintenance responsibilities shall be as set forth in the Villages of La Costa Master Plan or as approved by the Planning Director. 18. The Developer shall provide bus stops to service this development at locations and with reasonable facilities to the satisfaction of the Planning Director in consultation with the North County Transit District where such facilities are requested along the project’s street frontage. 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. 19. Prior to approval of the final map, 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. PC RESO NO. 5016 -7- a:! 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 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy #17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.030, and CFD #l special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 10, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such taxes/fees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxes/fees are not paid, this approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit or approval of the final map, 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(n) Master Tentative Map by Resolutions No. 5016 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. If satisfaction of the school facility requirement involves a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District or other financing mechanism which is inconsistent with City Council Policy No. 38, by allowing a pass-through of the taxes or fees to individual home buyers, then in addition to any other disclosure required by law or Council policy, the Developer shall disclose to future owners in the project, to the maximum extent possible, the existence of the tax or fee, and that the school district is the taxing agency responsible for the financing mechanism. The form of notice is subject to the approval of the Planning Director and shall at least include a handout and a sign inside the sales facility stating the fact of a potential pass-through of fees or taxes exists and where complete information regarding those fees or taxes can be obtained. The Developer shall display a current Zoning and Land Use Map, or an alternative, suitable to the Planning Director, in the sales office at all times. All sales maps that are distributed or made available to the public shall include but not be limited to trails, future and existing schools, parks and streets. The developer shall post a sign in the sales office in a prominent location that discloses which special districts and school district provide service to the project. Said sign shall remain posted until ALL of the units are sold. Concurrent with the recordation of the first final tract map or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first for Lots 1, 2 and 15, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that Lots 1,2 and 15 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 #1 on file in the Planning Department). Concurrent with the recordation of the first final tract map or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first Lots 1, 2 and 15, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating PC RESO NO. 5016 -8- a/S 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 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). 27. 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). Open Space and Trails 28. The Developer shall dedicate on the final map, an open space easement for those non- HCP portions of lots which are (in slopes, wetlands, coastal sage scrub or other constrained land plus all other lands set aside as part of the Citywide Open Space System) to prohibit any encroachment or development, including but not limited to fences, walls, decks, storage buildings, pools, spas, stairways and landscaping, as shown on Exhibit UAW _ “WV’, dated August 29,200l for The Greens. 29. Removal of native vegetation and development of Open Space Lot(s) 20 through 45, including but not limited to fences, walls, decks, storage buildings, pools, spas, stairways and landscaping, other than that approved as part of (the grading plan, improvement plans, biological revegetation program, landscape plan, etc.) as shown on Exhibit “A” - “W”, dated August 29, 2001 for The Greens, is specifically prohibited, except upon written order of the Carlsbad Fire Department for fire prevention purposes, or upon written approval of the Planning Director based upon a request from the Homeowners Association accompanied by a report from a qualified arboristbotanist indicating the need to remove specified trees and/or plants because of disease or impending danger to adjacent habitable dwelling units. For areas containing native vegetation the report required to accompany the request shall be prepared by a qualified biologist. 30. On the final map, the Developer shall provide an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City of Carlsbad for a trail easement for trail(s) shown on the master tentative map within Open Space Lot(s). If the City of Carlsbad accepts dedication of the trail easement, the trail shall be constructed as a public trail and will be the maintenance and liability responsibility of the City of Carlsbad. If the City of Carlsbad does not accept dedication of the trail easement, the trail shall still be constructed but it shall be constructed as a private trail and shall be the maintenance and liability responsibility of the Master Homeowners Association. 31. Prior to recordation of the final map or issuance of a grading permit the developer shall comply with the applicable provisions of the “1996 Parks Agreement” between the City of Carlsbad and Real Estate Collateral Management Company. 32. Prior to the initiation of grubbing or clearing the applicant shall install “silt” fencing at project boundaries where grubbing or clearing is to occur in order to minimize movement of rodents and snakes into the surrounding, existing neighborhoods. Applicant shall insure also that a biologist is on site during these activities to capture and remove snakes. Additionally, the applicant shall initiate grubbing or clearing from the perimeter of the site inward to the site when such activity will occur adjacent to existing homes. PC RESO NO. 5016 -9- =3/4 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 33. The Developer shall submit a street name list consistent with the City’s street name policy subject to the Planning Director’s approval prior to final map approval. Engineerinp Conditions: Note: 34. 35. 36. 37. Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following engineering conditions upon the approval of this proposed major subdivision must be met prior to approval of a final map. The tentative map shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date this tentative map approval becomes final. Prior to issuance of any building permit, Developer shall comply with the requirements of the City’s anti-graffiti program for wall treatments if and when such a program is formally established by the City. Developer shall provide to the City Engineer, an acceptable means, CC&Rs or/and other recorded document, for maintaining the private easements within the subdivision and all the private improvements: storm water quality treatment facilities, medians, landscaping, streets, sidewalks, street lights, and storm drain facilities located therein and to distribute the costs of such maintenance in an equitable manner among the owners of the properties within the subdivision. Multiple final maps are proposed in conjunction with the Phasing Plan as shown on sheets 21 & 22, subject to the following modifications: A. Subject to reimbursement, the developer/owner shall provide easements and/or right-of-way necessary to extend utilities, including but not limited to sewer. water and drainage to and from adjacent development in advance of proposed project development. The intent of this condition is to allow for orderly development of adjacent property in advance of project phasing. The developer may be reimbursed for expenses incurred as part of this condition. B. The Developer shall construct Alicante Road including but not limited to public utilities, storm drain and sewer improvements along the city park frontage prior to or concurrent with Phase 1 development. The developer/owner shall also extend public access and utility easements and right-of-way for the balance of Alicante Road to the northern project boundary to allow adjacent development to occur prior to Villages phased construction. C. The developer shall construct Poinsettia from El Camino Real to the existing terminus east of El Fuerte prior to or concurrent with Phase 1, subject to a reimbursement agreement or formation of an improvement district or City of Carlsbad sponsored improvement program. D. The developer shall construct improvements along El Camino Real and Alga Road in advance of proposed development as required by the City Engineer. A reimbursement agreement may be available for offsite improvements PC RBSO NO. 5016 -lO- 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 required to facilitate orderly development and to provide a continuous travel lane across undeveloped property. E. As provided for in City of Carlsbad Municipal Code (20.20.020) this condition may be modified upon each filing of a final map or phased final map. 38. 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. Prior to any construction activity a construction access and staging plan shall be approved by the construction inspector. The access and staging plan shall include but not be limited to: Access, parking, equipment delivery and storage, NPDES facilities, and dust control away from public streets and sensitive habitat. 39. The developer shall provide for sight distance corridors at all street intersections in accordance with Engineering Standards and shall record the following statement on the Final Map (and in the CC&R’s). “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 identitied as a sight distance corridor in accordance with City Standard Public Street-Design Criteria, Section 8.B.3. The underlying property owner shall maintain this condition.” Fees/Agreements 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. Prior to the issuance of any building permit within the boundary adjustment area, (Specifically lots: 8, 9, 10, 17,28,44 or 45), the Boundary Adjustment of the City of Carlsbad / Leucadia County Water District Sewer Service Areas shall be approved by LAFCO. Any payments or adjustment to future services shall be resolved as part of or prior to the LAFCO approval. The developer shall pay all current fees and deposits required. The developer shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, offrcers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void or null an approval of the City, the Planning Commission or City Engineer which has been brought against the City within the time period provided for by Section 66499.37 of the Subdivision Map Act. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for recordation, the City’s standard form Geologic Failure Hold Harmless Agreement. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for recordation the City’s standard form Drainage Hold Harmless Agreement regarding drainage across the adjacent property. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, Developer shall cause Owner to give written consent to the City Engineer to the annexation of the area PC RESO NO. 5016 -1 l- aw 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 shown within the boundaries of the subdivision into the existing City of Carlsbad Street Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1, on a form provided by the City Engineer. 46. Prior to recordation of the final map or issuance of any development permit, the developer/owner shall provide for sewer service in conformance with the City of Carlsbad Master Plan of Sewerage and LFMP for Zone 10. 47. The proposed median landscaping in Alicante Road shall be maintained by the Developer or Homeowners Association. Grading 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the tentative map, a grading permit for this project is required. (the developer must submit and receive approval for grading plans in accordance with city codes and standards prior to issuance of a building permit for the project.) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer proof that a Notice of Intent for the start of work has been submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board. This project requires off site grading. No grading for private improvements shall occur outside the limits of this approval unless Developer obtains, records and submits a recorded copy to the City Engineer a grading or slope easement or agreement from the owners of the affected properties. If Developer is unable to obtain the grading or slope easement, or agreement, no grading permit will be issued. In that case Developer must either apply for and obtain an amendment of this approval or modify the plans so grading will not occur outside the project and apply for and obtain a finding of substantial conformance from both the City Engineer and Planning Director, A mass grading plan is approved as part of this master tentative map. The rough- graded pads created by this project will require additional grading prior to construction of buildings and private improvements on the individual lots. A subsequent grading permit will be required for final development of lots. A construction revision to the rough grading plan will not be permitted to fulfil1 this requirement. The storm drain improvements, outlets, and NPDES or desiltation basins shown on the tentative map shall be constructed and maintained until accepted by the appropriate authority. Annual maintenance and reporting will be required and shall be the responsibility of the developer and property owners until relieved in writing by authority or public agency. Dedications/Improvements 53. Any land dedicated or offered for dedication to any entity shall reserve access and maintenance rights to operate and maintain basins, sewer, water, and drainage facilities within the proposed easements or open space. PC RESO NO. 5016 -12- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. Developer shall cause Owner to execute a covenant of easement for private drainage as shown on the tentative map. The obligation to execute and record the covenant of easement shall be shown and recording information called out on the final map. Developer shall cause Owner to make an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City and/or other appropriate entities for all public streets and other easements shown on the tentative map. The offer shall be made by a certificate on the final map and/or separate recorded document. All land so offered shall be offered free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost. Streets that already public are not required to be rededicated. This condition also applies to the phasing condition above. If easements are required out of phase with this project, they shall be irrevocably offered as identified herein. Additional drainage easements may be required. Developer shall dedicate and provide or install drainage structures, as may be required by the City Engineer, prior to or concurrent with any grading or building permit. Developer shall cause Owner to waive direct access rights on the final map for all lots abutting Alga Road, Alicante Road, Estrella De Mar, Dove Lane, El Camino Real, and Poinsettia Lane except openings as shown on the tentative map. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall underground all existing overhead utilities within the subdivision boundary. The major power transmission facilities (69 kV or above) are exempt from this condition. Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all public improvements shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In accordance with City Standards, the developer shall install, or agree to install and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, improvements shown on the tentative map, and the following improvements: A. El Camino Real shall be improved along the project frontage to complete half street (Prime Arterial) width of 63 feet. Offsite improvements to the north and south are required to provide a continuous travel lane configuration and safe transition. Modifications shall be made at the intersection of Poinsettia Lane and also at Camino Vida Roble to accommodate additional turn lanes. The Developer may request that a reimbursement agreement be established for offsite improvements of undeveloped property. If a reimbursement agreement is requested it shall be approved prior to commencement of construction. B. Poinsettia Lane shall be improved to full width Major Arterial standards (right-of-way width of 102 feet) from El Camino Real to the existing terminus east of El Fuerte. In addition, modifications shall be made at the intersection of El Camino Real and Poinsettia Lane and at Alicante Road to provide for additional left turn lanes. Modification to El Camino Real shall also include relocation of the traffic signal poles to the proper location if set by adjacent developers. Improvements to the El Camino Real/Poinsettia Lane intersection may include installation of a fully actuated, interconnected trafftc signal or modification and relocation of signal if installed by others. PC RESO NO. 5016 -13- xa33 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. D, E. Alicante Road shall be improved full width to collector standards (right-of- way of 60 feet) from Alga Road to the north boundary of Lot 4. Additional widening will be required for medians’ and at intersections to provide adequate turn lanes and transitions. Improvements to Alicante Road shall also include the 84” storm drain along the proposed park site. The Developer may request that a reimbursement agreement be established for storm drain improvements that serve other projects or upstream development. If a reimbursement agreement is requested it shall be approved prior to commencement of construction. Modification to the drainage channel along the south side of Poinsettia Lane is approved by a Special Use Permit. Specific outlet structures, slope protection, walls, guard rails, and flood control features will be required in final design. CLOMR and LOMR applications will be filed when design and construction phases are completed. Prior to the City of Carlsbad accepting work or improvements adjacent to this channel, the design and construction revisions to FEMA (administration) shall be approved in writing. All grading and pads developed adjacent to this channel reconstruction shall be certified as part of the pad or development as-built process. The public water system (reclaimed and potable) shall be constructed onsite to CMWD standards. Pressure Reducing Stations and associated appurtenances shall be provided concurrent with construction. Public storm drain system shall be constructed onsite to City of Carlsbad standards. F. G. H. I. J. PC RESO NO. 5016 Public sewer system shall be constructed onsite to City of Carlsbad standards. The developer shall work with the City and shall provide easements and sewer stub for the removal of the La Golindrina Sewer Lift Station. The channel redesign, storm drain improvements, earthen swales and desiltation basins shown on the tentative map shall be constructed and maintained until accepted by the appropriate authority. Annual maintenance and reporting may be required and shall be the responsibility of the developer and property owners until relieved in writing by authority or public agency. Provide for the construction and installation of a fully actuated trafftc signal at the intersection of Alga Road and Estrella De Mar. The Developer shall post a bond for the design and construction of the signal prior to approval of the first final map. The signal shall be installed if trafllc warrants are met and approved by the City Engineer. The bond shall remain in effect until 2010. The intent of this condition is to either close the median or provide a trafIlc signal at Estrella De Mar. If warrants are not met the bond will be released. -14- a& 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 list of the above improvements shall be placed on an additional map sheet on the final map per the provisions of Sections 66434.2 of the Subdivision Map Act. Improvements shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the secured improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement. 60. Developer shall have the entire drainage system designed, submitted to and approved by the City Engineer, to ensure that runoff resulting from lo-year frequency storms of 6 hours and 24 hours duration under developed conditions, are equal to or less than the runoff from a storm of the same frequency and duration under existing developed conditions. Both 6 hour and 24 hour storm durations shall be analyzed to determine the detention basin capacities necessary to accomplish the desired results. 61. Developer shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Developer shall prepare and submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and provide improvements constructed pursuant to 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 submitted to and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of the following: A. B. C. D. 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. 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. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements. SWPPP will include calculations of anticipated pollutant loading, and sizing of structural BMPs to comply with City of Carlsbad and Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements. 62. Developer shall incorporate into the grading / improvement plans the design for the project drainage outfall end treatments for any drainage outlets where a direct access road for maintenance purposes is not practical. 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, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. PC RESO NO. 5016 -15- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Final Map Notes 63. Note(s) to the following effect(s) shall be placed on the map as non-mapping data 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 underlying property owner shall maintain this condition. B. Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the appropriate agency determines that sewer and water facilities are available. C. Geotechnical Caution: 1. The owner of this property on behalf of itself and all of its successors in interest has agreed to hold harmless and indemnify the City of Carlsbad from any action that may arise through any geological failure, ground water seepage or land subsidence and subsequent damage that may occur on, or adjacent to, this subdivision due to its construction, operation or maintenance. D. Prior to the issuance of any building permit within a sewer service boundary adjustment area, (Specifically lots: 8, 9, 10, 17, 28, 44 or 45) the boundary adjustment of the City of Carlsbad/Leucadia County Water District sewer service areas shall be approved by LAFCO. Any payments or adjustment to future services shall be resolved as part of or prior to the LAFCO approval. As an alternate to adjusting District boundaries, service agreements may be executed. A note to this effect shall be placed on the final map as non- mapping data. E. Covenant of easement recording information. Standard Code Reminders: 64. The Developer shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of the final map as required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code unless determined to be satisfied through compliance with the provisions of the 1996 Parks Agreement. 65. 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. 66. Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance with the Villages of La Costa Master Plan and shall require review and approval of the Planning Director prior to installation of such signs. 67. The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. PC BESO NO. 5016 -16- .=% 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 68. Developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to prevent offsite siltation. Planning and erosion control shall be provided in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 69. Some improvements shown on the tentative map and/or required by these conditions are located offsite on property which neither the City nor the owner has sufficient title or interest to permit the improvements to be made without acquisition of title or interest. The Developer shall immediately initiate negotiations to acquire such property. The Developer shall use its best efforts to effectuate negotiated acquisition. If unsuccessful, Developer shall demonstrate to the City Engineer its best efforts, and comply with the requirements of the Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 20.16.095 to notify and enable the City to successfully acquire said property by condemnation. 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 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. 5016 -17- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of September 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Heineman, Nielsen, and Trigas NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: QQ CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: Planning Director PC RESO NO. 5016 -18- ’ EXHISIT - CT 99-03 - “A” LEGAL DJZSCRIFIION LA COSTA - NORTHWEST The Greens PARCEL 3 OF PARCEL hIAF’ NO. 1188, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORN% FILED Ih THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, DECEMBER 20. 1972 AS = NO. 340334 OF OFFICLAL RECORDS TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION DESCRIBED AS PARCEL ‘A” IN . DEED TO LA COSTA LAND COMPANY, FLED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY. SEPTEMBER 7, 1973 AS FILE NO. 73-245058 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS TOGETHER WlTH A PORTION OF PARCEL A OF PARCEL MAP NO. 13427, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COW OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, AUGUST 16.1984 AS FILE NO. 84-031333 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS TOGETHER WITH A PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH. RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MEIUDLAN. IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDJNG TO OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF. 87904.601 W:\clrcnu -w.vpd 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. 5017 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 2,500 FEET SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL, NORTH OF ALGA ROAD, AND WEST OF UNICORNIO STREET IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 10. CASE NAME: VILLAGES OF LA COSTA - THE GREENS CASE NO: HDP 99-01 WHEREAS, Morrow Development, “Developer,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Real Estate Collateral Management Company, “Owner,” described as See Attachment ‘WT 99-03 - A”, attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 5016, hereby incorporated by reference (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Hillside Development Permit as shown on Exhibit(s) “A” - “EEE “, “UUUU”, and ‘&YYYY” dated August 29,2001, on file in the Carlsbad Planning Department, VILLAGES OF LA COSTA - THE GREENS - HDP 99-01, as provided by Chapter 21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 29th day of August 2001 and on the 5th day of September 2001, consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Hillside Development Permit; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of VILLAGE OF LA COSTA - THE GREENS - HDP 99-01 based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings: 1. That hillside conditions have been properly identified on the constraints map which show existing and proposed conditions and slope percentages; 2. That undevelopable areas of the project, i.e. slopes over 40%, have been properly identified on the constraints map; 3. That the development proposal is consistent with the intent, purpose, and requirements of the Hillside Ordinance, Chapter 21.95, in that proposed grading has been designed to relate to the slope of the land, grading has been minimized to the extent possible while working with the other constraints to the project design, and contour grading of slopes which are highly visible from public locations is included. 4. That the proposed development or grading will not occur in the undevelopable portions of the site pursuant to provisions of Section 21.53.230 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, in that impacts to natural slopes with an inclination of greater than 40 percent either do not meet all of the criteria of Section 21.95.120(B) to require preservation or qualify for an exclusion pursuant to Section 21.95.130 in that they are impacts related to a Circulation Element Road. 5. That the project design substantially conforms to the intent of the concepts illustrated in the Hillside Development Guidelines Manual, in that all native, non-excluded slope areas are to remain preserved, contour grading will occur for areas visible from public locations, runoff control will be accomplished as required by the manual through the construction of onsite catchment basins, detention basins, and energy dissipators, and adequate landscaping will be installed to provide screening of graded slopes and to reduce potential erosion. Future homes will be setback from the tops of manufactured slopes. 6. That the project design and lot configuration minimizes disturbance of hillside lands, in that approximately 45.2 acres are comprised of natural slopes having gradients above 40 percent. Grading proposed on the master tentative map will encroach into 17.3 acres of natural slopes having gradients above 40 percent. Of these 17.3 acres, approximately 15.8 acres would be graded for proposed development and 1.5 acres would be graded to accommodate Circulation Element roads. The proposed grading of these areas is permitted as being grading associated with a Circulation Element Road that is a permitted Exclusion per Section 21.95.130 (A)(2) or areas that do not meet all four of the criteria of Section 21.95.120 (B). Many of the areas do not equal the 10,000 square foot minimum and the remainder are slopes that do not comprise a prominent land form feature. PC RESO NO. 5017 -2- c?3d 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. That the site has unusual geotechnical or soil conditions that necessitate corrective work that may require significant amounts of grading, in that several landslide features are located within the proposed project area. Surficial soils consisting of landslide debris, alluvium, fill, topsoils and slopewash will require removal and recompaction. That the site requires extensive grading to accommodate a circulation-element roadway, in that the extension of Poinsettia Lane and Alicante Road go through the project site. That the proposed modification will result in significantly more open space or undisturbed area than would a strict adherence to the requirements of the ordinance, in that requiring additional contour grading adjacent to open space areas will extend slope heights and impact the open space areas and existing vegetation. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan and The Villages of La Costa Master Plan based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated August 29,200l and as contained in the Planning Commission Resolution for GPA 98-01 which are incorporated herein by reference. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 10 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 and San Marcos Unified School Districts 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 or be satisfied by the use of existing parkland credits in addition to the dedication of land for the future Alga Norte Park Site. 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. The project has been conditioned to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to Chapter 2 1.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project. This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 10. PC RESO NO. 5017 -3- 234 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 14. 15. 16. That all necessary public facilities required by the Growth Management Ordinance will be constructed or are guaranteed to be constructed concurrently with the need for them created by this project and in compliance with adopted City standards, in that improvements necessary to maintain compliance with the growth management performance standards are contained in the Zone 10 Local Facilities Management Plan and the project will comply with the general and special conditions of the zone plan. That the project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual (Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 14.28.020 and Landscape Manual Section I B). 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 recordation of a final map or issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs 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 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 Hillside Development Permit (HDP 99-01). 2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Hillside Development Permit documents, 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. 3. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 4. 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. PC RESO NO. 5017 -4- 233 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 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 Hillside 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 Hillside Development Permit Exhibits reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making body. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures. which are required as part of the Zone 10 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits. This approval is granted subject to the approval of EIR 98-07, GPA 98-01, MP 149(Q), MP 98-01, LFMP 10, CT 99-03, SUP 01-04, and SUP 99-01 and is subject to all conditions contained in the Planning Commission Resolutions for those other approvals. This approval shall become null and void if a final map is not recorded for at least one phase of the project within 24 months from the date of project approval. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit or approval of the final map, 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(n) Hillside Development Permit by Resolution No. 5017 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. NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as “fees/exactions.” You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. PC RFSO NO. 5017 -5- 232’ 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 You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of September 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Heineman, Nielsen, and Trigas NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: MICHAEL J. H~ZMI&f!ER Planning Director PC RESO NO. 5017 -6- 2 3- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5020 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CARLSBAD TRACT NUMBER CT 99-04 TO SUBDIVIDE 1,200.2 ACRES INTO 248 LOTS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH AND EAST OF LA COSTA AVENUE, SOUTH OF ALGA ROAD, EAST OF EL FUERTE STREET AND STRADDLING PORTIONS OF RANCH0 SANTA FE ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 11. CASE NAME: VILLAGES OF LA COSTA - THE RIDGE & THE OAKS CASE NO.: CT 99-04 WHEREAS, Morrow Development, “Developer,” has tiled a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Real Estate Collateral Management Company, “Owner,” described as See Attachment “CT 99-04 - A”, attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Tentative Tract Map as shown on Exhibits “FFF” - “XXXX” dated August 29, 2001, on file in the Planning Department VILLAGES OF LA COSTA, THE RIDGE & THE OAKS - CT 99-04 as provided by Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 29th day of August 2001 and on the 5th day of September 2001 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 persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Tentative Tract Map. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: a36 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 B) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of VILLAGES OF LA COSTA, THE RIDGE & THE OARS - CT 99-04, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findinps: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. That the proposed map and the proposed design and improvement of the subdivision as conditioned, is consistent with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan, any applicable specific plans, Titles 20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and the State Subdivision Map Act, and will not cause serious public health problems, in that the lots being created satisfy all minimum requirements of Title 20 governing lot sixes and configuration and have been designed to comply with all other applicable regulations including the Villages of La Costa Master Plan (MP 98-01). That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since surrounding properties are designated for a number of residential densities and non- residential land uses as listed in the staff report which are compatible with adjacent existing and planned development. An analysis of land use compatibility is also contained in the Final Program EIR. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the density proposed, in that the project site can accommodate the proposed residential development while complying with all development standards and public facilities requirements and is less than the number of units that are permitted by the existing plans and regulations applicable to the site. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements of record or easements established by court judgment, or acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, in that concurrent with recordation of the final map the developer will vacate and adjust any easements that conflict with proposed development. That the property is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act). That the design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, in that structures are oriented in various directions and adequate separations will be provided to allow for breezes to cool the areas and landscaping will be installed to provide shade and reduce the temperature of developed areas. That the Planning Commission has considered, in connection with the housing proposed by this subdivision, the housing needs of the region, and balanced those housing needs against the public service needs of the City and available fiscal and environmental resources. PC ES0 NO. 5020 -2- d37 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 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. That the design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, in that the project will implement all required mitigation measures contained in the Final Program EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program that are applicable to The Greens. That the discharge of waste from the subdivision will not result in violation of existing California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, in that the project has been designed in accordance with the Best Management practices for water quality protection in accordance with the City’s sewer and drainage standards and the project is conditioned to comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan and The Villages of La Costa Master Plan based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated August 29,200l and as contained in the Planning Commission Resolution for GPA 98-01 which are incorporated herein by reference. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 11 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 Encinitas Unified, San Dieguito Unified and San Marcos Unified School Districts 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 or be satisfied by the use of existing parkland credits in addition to the dedication of land for the future Alga Norte Park Site. 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. The project has been conditioned to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project. This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 11. PC RESO NO. 5020 -3- 6338 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 14. 15. 16. That all necessary public facilities required by the Growth Management Ordinance will be constructed or are guaranteed to be constructed concurrently with the need for them created by this project and in compliance with adopted City standards, in that improvements necessary to maintain compliance with the growth management performance standards are contained in the Zone 11 Local Facilities Management Plan and the project will comply with the general and special conditions of the zone plan. That the project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual (Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 14.28.020 and Landscape Manual Section I B). 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 the recordation of a final map or issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs 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 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 Master Tentative Tract Map (CT 99-04). 2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Master Tentative Tract Map documents, 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. 3. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 4. 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. 5. 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 PC BESO NO. 5020 -4- &3a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 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 Master Tentative Tract Map, (b) City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non- discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and W 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 Master Tentative Map reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making body. 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 for the permits being issued. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required as part of the Zone 11 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits. 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. Notes: A note to this effect shall be placed on the Final Map. The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the Villages of La Costa Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. This approval is granted subject to the approval of EIR 98-07, GPA 98-01, MP 149(Q), MP 98-01, LFMP 11, PUD 01-08, HDP 99-02, and SUP 01-03 and is subject to all conditions contained in the Planning Commission Resolutions for those other approvals. 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 the required 15 percent of the total dwelling units (including: Units to be constructed on Lot 208 & 209 of CT 99-04) 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 21.85 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 map. The recorded Affordable Housing Agreement shall be binding on all future owners and successors in interest. 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 PC RESO NO. 5020 -5- &y&Y 1 2 3 4 5 6 .7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the Developer agree within an Affordable Housing Agreement to an alternate schedule for development. 14. 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 lower portion of the proposed slope (the western most slope of Lot 175 of CT 99-04) behind lots 21 through 24 and 26 through 33 of CT 85-5 (La Costa Knolls - Final Map 11575) shall be planted with trees and plants of a type and size to provide visual screening of the existing rear yards to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. The Developer shall 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. 15. 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. 16. The Developer shall establish a homeowner’s association and corresponding covenants, conditions and restrictions. Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to final map approval. Prior to issuance of a building permit the Developer shall provide the Planning Department with a recorded copy of the official CC&Rs that have been approved by the Department of Real Estate and the Planning Director. At a minimum, the CC&& shall contain the following provisions: A. General Enforcement bv the Citv. The City shall have the right, but not the obligation, to enforce those Protective Covenants set forth in this Declaration in favor of, or in which the City has an interest. B. Notice and Amendment. A copy of any proposed amendment shall be provided to the City in advance. If the proposed amendment affects the City, City shall have the right to disapprove. A copy of the final approved amendment shall be transmitted to City within 30 days for the official record. C. Failure of Association to Maintain Common Area Lots and Easements. In the event that the Association fails to maintain the “Common Area Lots and/or the Association’s Easements” as provided in Article , Section the City shall have the right, but not the duty, to perform the necessary maintenance. If the City elects to perform such maintenance, the City shall give written notice to the Association, with a copy thereof to the Owners in the Project, setting forth with particularity the maintenance which the City finds to be required and requesting the same be carried out by the Association within a period of thirty (30) days from the giving of such notice. In the event that the Association fails to carry out such maintenance of the Common Area Lots and/or Association’s Easements within the period specified by the City’s notice, the City shall be entitled to cause such work to be completed and shall be entitled to reimbursement with respect thereto from the Owners as provided herein. D. Special Assessments Levied by the City. In the event the City has performed the necessary maintenance to either Common Area Lots and/or Association’s PC RESO NO. 5020 -6- p7v 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. Easements, the City shall submit a written invoice to the Association for all costs incurred by the City to perform such maintenance of the Common Area Lots and or Association’s Easements. The City shall provide a copy of such invoice to each Owner in the Project, together with a statement that if the Association fails to pay such invoice in full within the time specified, the City will pursue collection against the Owners in the Project pursuant to the provisions of this Section. Said invoice shall be due and payable by the Association within twenty (20) days of receipt by the Association. If the Association shall fail to pay such invoice in full within the period specified, payment shall be deemed delinquent and shall be subject to a late charge in an amount equal to six percent (6%) of the amount of the invoice. Thereafter the City may pursue collection from the Association by means of any remedies available at law or in equity. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, in addition to all other rights and remedies available to the City, the City may levy a special assessment against the Owners of each Lot in the Project for an equal prorata share of the invoice, plus the late charge. Such special assessment shall constitute a charge on the land and shall be a continuing lien upon each Lot against which the special assessment is levied. Each Owner in the Project hereby vests the City with the right and power to levy such special assessment, to impose a lien upon their respective Lot and to bring all legal actions and/or to pursue lien foreclosure procedures against any Owner and his/her respective Lot for purposes of collecting such special assessment in accordance with the procedures set forth in Article of this Declaration. E. Landscape Maintenance Responsibilities. The HOAs and individual lot or unit owner landscape maintenance responsibilities shall be as set forth in the Villages of La Costa Master Plan or as approved by the Planning Director. The Developer shall provide bus stops to service this development at locations and with reasonable facilities to the satisfaction of the Planning Director in consultation with the North County Transit District where such facilities are requested along the project’s street frontage. Said facilities, if required, shall be free from advertising and shall include at a minimum 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 final map, 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. Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy #17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.030, and CFD #l special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 11, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such taxes/fees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxes/fees are not paid, this approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit or approval of the final map, 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 PC RESO NO. 5020 -7- dq’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 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a(n) Master Tentative Map by Resolutions No. 5020 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. If satisfaction of the school facility requirement involves a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District or other financing mechanism which is inconsistent with City Council Policy No. 38, by allowing a pass-through of the taxes or fees to individual home buyers, then in addition to any other disclosure required by law or Council policy, the Developer shall disclose to future owners in the project, to the maximum extent possible, the existence of the tax or fee, and that the school district is the taxing agency responsible for the financing mechanism. The form of notice is subject to the approval of the Planning Director and shall at least include a handout and a sign inside the sales facility stating the fact of a potential pass-through of fees or taxes exists and where complete information regarding those fees or taxes can be obtained. The Developer shall display a current Zoning and Land Use Map, or an alternative, suitable to the Planning Director, in the sales office at all times. All sales maps that are distributed or made available to the public shall include but not be limited to trails, future and existing schools, parks and streets. The developer shall post a sign in the sales office in a prominent location that discloses which special districts and school district provide service to the project. Said sign shall remain posted until ALL of the units are sold. Concurrent with the recordation of the first final tract map or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that Lots 208, 209 and 210 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 tile in the Planning Department). The Developer shall submit a street name list consistent with the City’s street name policy subject to the Planning Director’s approval prior to final map approval. Open SDace and Trails 26. 27. The Developer shall dedicate on the final map, an open space easement for those non- HCP portions of lots which are (in slopes, wetlands, coastal sage scrub or other constrained land plus all other lands set aside as part of the Citywide Open Space System) to prohibit any encroachment or development, including but not limited to fences, walls, decks, storage buildings, pools, spas, stairways and landscaping, as shown on Exhibit “FFF” - “TTTT”, dated August 29,200l for The Ridge & The Oaks. Removal of native vegetation and development of Open Space Lot(s), including but not limited to fences, walls, decks, storage buildings, pools, spas, stairways and landscaping, PC RESO NO. 5020 -8- c.263 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 28. 29. 30. 31. other than that approved as part of (the grading plan, improvement plans, biological revegetation program, landscape plan, etc.) as shown on Exhibit “FFF” - “TTTT”, dated August 29, 2001 for The Ridge & The Oaks, is specifically prohibited, except upon written order of the Carlsbad Fire Department for fire prevention purposes, or upon written approval of the Planning Director, based upon a request from the Homeowners Association accompanied by a report from a qualified arboristbotanist indicating the need to remove specified trees and/or plants because of disease or impending danger to adjacent habitable dwelling units. For areas containing native vegetation the report required to accompany the request shall be prepared by a qualified biologist. On the final map, the Developer shall provide an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City of Carlsbad for a trail easement for trail(s) shown on the master tentative map within Open Space Lot(s). If the City of Carlsbad accepts dedication of the trail easement, the trail shall be constructed as a public trail and will be the maintenance and liability responsibility of the City of Carlsbad. If the City of Carlsbad does not accept dedication of the trail easement, the trail shall still be constructed but it shall be constructed as a private trail and shall be the maintenance and liability responsibility of the Master Homeowners Association. Concurrent with the development of Neighborhoods 3.8 and 3.9 the developer shall install demountable ‘posts (bollards) along the portion of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road closed to vehicular travel where pavement will remain as approved by the City Engineer. Prior to recordation of the final map or issuance of a grading permit the developer shall comply with the applicable provisions of the “1996 Parks Agreement” between the City of Carlsbad and Real Estate Collateral Management Company. Prior to the initiation of grubbing or clearing the applicant shall install %ilt” fencing at project boundaries where grubbing or clearing is to occur in order to minimize movement of rodents and snakes into the surrounding, existing neighborhoods. Applicant shall insure also that a biologist is on site during these activities to capture and remove snakes. Additionally, the applicant shall initiate grubbing or clearing from the perimeter of the site inward to the site when such activity will occur adjacent to existing homes. Engineering Conditions: Note: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following engineering conditions upon the approval of this proposed major subdivision must be met prior to approval of a final map. General 32. Prior to issuance of any building permit, Developer shall comply with the requirements of the City’s anti-graffiti program for wall treatments if and when such a program is formally established by the City. PC PESO NO. 5020 -9- J+rf-+ 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 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. The tentative map shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date this tentative map approval becomes final. Developer shall provide to the City Engineer, an acceptable means, CC&Rs or/and other recorded document, for maintaining the private easements within the subdivision and all the private improvements: storm water quality treatment facilities, medians, landscaping, streets, sidewalks, street lights, and storm drain facilities located therein and to distribute the costs of such maintenance in an equitable manner among the owners of the properties within the subdivision. Multiple final maps are proposed as shown on the tentative map. The phasing plan as shown on sheet 1 is approved, subject to the following conditions: A. Developer shall provide adjacent utilities easements or right-of-way and access to extend access, sewer, water and drainage facilities in advance of neighborhood development. The intent of this condition is to not preclude, hold-up or delay adjacent development or utility services as a condition to phasing of this project. B. As provided for in The City of Carlsbad Municipal Code (20.20.020) this condition may be modified upon each filing of a final or phased final map. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site within this project, the developer shall submit to and receive approval from the City Engineer for the proposed haul route. The developer shall comply with all conditions and requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the hauling operation. Prior to any construction activity a construction access and staging plan shall be approved by the construction inspector. The access and staging plan shall include but not be limited to: Access, parking, equipment delivery and storage, NPDES facilities and dust control away from public streets and sensitive habitat. The developer shall provide for sight distance corridors at all street intersections in accordance with Engineering Standards and shall record the following statement on the Final Map (and in the CC&Rs). “NO structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object over 30 inches above the street level may be placed or permitted to encroach within the area identified as a sight distance corridor in accordance with City Standard Public Street-Design Criteria, Section 8.B.3. The underlying property owner shall maintain this condition.” Fees/Apreements 38. Prior to the issuance of any building permit within a sewer service boundary adjustment area, (Specifically lots: 201, 202, 206, 230, 231, 232), the boundary adjustment of the Vallecitos Water District / Leucadia County Water District sewer service areas shall be approved by LAFCO. Any payments or adjustment to future services shall be resolved as part of or prior to the LAFCO approval. As an alternate to adjusting District boundaries, service agreements may be executed. PC RESO NO. 5020 -lO- J+r 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 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. Prior to the issuance of any building permit within the water service boundary adjustment area, (Specifically lot 206), the boundary adjustment of the Vallecitos Water District / Olivenhain Municipal Water District water service areas shall be approved by LAFCO. Any payments or adjustment to future services shall be resolved as part of or prior to the LAFCO approval. As an alternate to adjusting District boundaries, service agreements may be executed. The developer shall pay all current fees and deposits as required. The developer shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void or null an approval of the City, the Planning Commission or City Engineer which has been brought against the City within the time period provided for by Section 66499.37 of the Subdivision Map Act. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for recordation, the City’s standard form Geologic Failure Hold Harmless Agreement. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for recordation the City’s standard form Drainage Hold Harmless Agreement regarding drainage across the adjacent property. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, Developer shall cause Owner to give written consent to the City Engineer to the annexation of the area shown within the boundaries of the subdivision into the existing City of Carlsbad Street Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1, on a form provided by the City Engineer. The Proposed median landscaping in Ranch0 Santa Fe Road fronting the project shall be maintained by the Developer or Homeowners Association. Grading 46. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the tentative map, a grading permit for this project is required. (The developer must submit and receive approval for grading plans in accordance with city codes and standards prior to issuance of a building permit for the project.) 47. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer proof that a Notice of Intent for the start of work has been submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board. 48. This project requires off site grading. No grading for private improvements shall occur outside the limits of this approval unless Developer obtains, records and submits a recorded copy to the City Engineer a grading or slope easement or agreement from the owners of the affected properties. If Developer is unable to obtain the grading or slope easement, or agreement, no grading permit will be issued. In that case Developer must either apply for and obtain an amendment of this approval or modify the plans so grading will not occur outside the project and apply for and obtain a finding of substantial PC RESO NO. 5020 -ll- JL/k 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 conformance from both the City Engineer and Planning Director. 49. The mass grading concept is approved as part of this master tentative map. The rough-graded pads created by the mass grading plan for this project will require additional grading prior to construction of buildings and private improvements on the individual lots: A subsequent grading permit will be required for final development of lots. A construction revision to the rough grading plan will not be permitted to fulfil1 this requirement. This condition does not apply to lots 1 - 161. 50. The open channels, storm drain improvements, earthen swales, NPDES water quality and desiltation basins shown on the tentative map shall be constructed, and maintained by the developer, property owner or owner’s association until specifically relieved in writing by the City of Carlsbad. Periodic testing and reporting will be required. Dedications/Improvements 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. Any land dedicated or offered for dedication to any entity shall reserve access and maintenance rights to operate and maintain basins, sewer, water, and drainage facilities within the proposed easements or open space. Concurrent with the Final Map approval the developer shall irrevocably offer the City, the existing basin in San Marcos Creek near the end of Gibraltar Street. This basin may be restored as part of a citywide NPDES Water quality control system or as part of the project SWPPP. Periodic testing and reporting may occur. Developer to apply for street vacations of existing right-of-way (Corintia Street, Ranch0 Santa Fe Road) as shown on the tentative map. Developer shall cause Owner to execute a covenant of easement for private drainage as shown on the tentative map. The obligation to execute and record the covenant of easement shall be shown and recording information called out on the final map. Developer shall cause Owner to make an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City and/or other appropriate entities for all public streets and other easements shown on the tentative map. The offer shall be made by a certificate on the final map and/or separate recorded document. All land so offered shall be offered free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost. Streets that are already public are not required to be rededicated. This condition also applies to the phasing condition. If easements are required out of phase with this project, they shall be irrevocably offered as identified herein. Additional drainage easements may be required. Developer shall dedicate and provide or install drainage structures, as may be required by the City Engineer, prior to or concurrent with any grading or building permit. Developer shall cause Owner to waive direct access rights on the final map for all lots abutting El Fuerte Street, Alga Road, Corintia Street (public portion), Ranch0 Santa Fe Road, Questhaven Road (San Elijo Ranch Road), Street “C”, La Costa Avenue, Cadencia Street, Street “D”, Street “G”, and old Ranch0 Santa Fe Road except PC RESO NO. 5020 -12- 6g +: 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 openings as shown on the tentative map. All lots with frontage on multiple streets shall waive access as required to limit access to one street only. 58. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall underground all existing overhead utilities within the subdivision boundary. The major power transmission facilities (69kV or above) are exempt from this condition. 59. Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all public improvements shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In accordance with City Standards, the developer shall install, or agree to install and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, improvements shown on the tentative map, and the following improvements: A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. Ranch0 Santa Fe Road shall be improved along the project frontage to full width Prime Arterial standards (right-of-way width of 126 feet). Traffic signal interconnect shall be provided along Ranch0 Santa Fe Road between La Costa Avenue and Melrose Drive, concurrent with frontage improvements. Developer may apply for reimbursement of traffic signal interconnect costs from the City of Carlsbad. Video detection shall be provided at the fourth leg of the La Costa Avenue/ Ranch0 Santa Fe Road intersection. Street “C” shall be graded to full width Major Arterial standards (right-of- way width of 102 feet). Street “C” shall be improved to full width Secondary Arterial standards (offset). The public water system shall be constructed onsite to Olivenhain Municipal Water District / Vallecitos Water District standards. Recycled water mains shall be constructed in Street “C”, Ranch0 Santa Fe Road, and Cadencia Street as required to serve project common areas. Pumps and associated appurtenances shall be provided concurrent with construction. Public storm drain system shall be constructed onsite to City of Carlsbad standards. Public sewer system shall be constructed onsite to Leucadia County Water District / Vallecitos Water District standards. A list of the above improvements shall be placed on an additional map sheet on the final map per the provisions of Sections 66434.2 of the Subdivision Map Act. Improvements shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the secured improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement. 60. Developer shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Developer shall prepare and submit a Storm PC RESO NO. 5020 -13- &h? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and provide improvements constructed pursuant to 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 submitted to and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of the following: A. B. C. D. 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. 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, f%ngicides, herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed ‘in their respective containers. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements. SWPPP will include calculations of anticipated pollutant loading, and sizing of structural BMPs to comply with City of Carlsbad and Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements. 61. Developer shall incorporate into the grading / improvement plans the design for the project drainage outfall end treatments for any drainage outlets where a direct access road for maintenance purposes is not practical. 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, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 62. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for lot 223, Developer shall obtain approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revisions (CLOMR) from FEMA for any grading within the regulatory floodplain. Prior to occupancy of any units on lot 223, Developer shall obtain approval of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from FEMA. Final Map Notes 63. Note(s) to the following effect(s) shall be placed on the map as non-mapping data: 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 underlying property owner shall maintain this condition. PC RESO NO. 5020 -14- as’9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B. C. 1 D. Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the appropriate agency determines that sewer and water facilities are available. Geotechnical Caution: . The owner of this property on behalf of itself and all of its successors in interest has agreed to hold harmless and indemnify the City of Carlsbad from any action that may arise through any geological failure, ground water seepage or land subsidence and subsequent damage that may occur on, or adjacent to, this subdivision due to its construction, operation or maintenance. Prior to the issuance of any building permit within a sewer service boundary adjustment area, (Specifically lots: 201, 202, 206, 230, 231, 232), the boundary adjustment of the Vallecitos Water District / Leucadia County Water District sewer service areas shall be approved by LAFCO. Any payments or adjustment to future services shall be resolved as part of or prior to the LAFCO approval. As an alternate to adjusting District boundaries, service agreements may be executed. A note to this affect shall be placed on the final map as non-mapping data. E. F. Prior to the issuance of any building permit within the water service boundary adjustment area, (Specifically lot 206), the boundary adjustment of the Vallecitos Water District / Olivenhain Municipal Water District water service areas shall be approved by LAFCO. Any payments or adjustment to future services shall be resolved as part of or prior to the LAFCO approval. As an alternate to adjusting District boundaries, service agreements may be executed. A note to this affect shall be placed on the final map as non-mapping data. Covenant of easement recording information where applicable. Standard Code Reminders: The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to the following: 64. The Developer shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of the final map as required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code unless determined to be satisfied through compliance with the provisions of the 1996 Parks agreement. 65. 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. 66. Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance with the Villages of La Costa Master Plan and shall require review and approval of the Planning Director prior to installation of such signs. 67. The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. PC RESO NO. 5020 -15- 3 s-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 68. 68. 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 Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Some improvements shown on the tentative map and/or required by these conditions are located offsite on property which neither the City nor the owner has sufficient title or interest to permit the improvements to be made without acquisition of title or interest. The Developer shall immediately initiate negotiations to acquire such property. The Developer shall use its best efforts to effectuate negotiated acquisition. If unsuccessful, Developer shall demonstrate to the City Engineer its best efforts, and comply with the requirements of the Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 20.16.095 to notify and enable the City to successfully acquire said property by condemnation. 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 approval to protest imposition of these fees/exacti.ons. 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. 5020 -16- cz2 s-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 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of September 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Heineman, Nielsen, and Trigas JEFFM SEGALI.&hairperson CARLSBA PLANl’kNG COMMISSION ATTEST: Planning Director PC RESO NO. 5020 -17- EXHIBIT - “CT99-04 - “A” * LEGAL DESCRIPIlON LA COSTA - RANCHEROS The Ridge -r-HE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN IS SITUATED IN THE RAE OF CALIFORNIA COuhn OF SAN DIEGO. AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THOSE PARCEIS OF LAND SHOWN AND DELINEATED ON THE C0UNl-Y OF SAN DIEGO ASSE.SSOR’S MAPS BEING 223450-43, 22345@49 AND “71-010-31 AND LYING WITHIN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: PARCEL BB: THAT PORTION OF THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 32; AND THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 31; AND THE SOUl-HWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 30. ALL BEING IX TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH. RANGE 3 WEST; TOGETHER WTTH THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36. IN TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH R4NGE 4 =. IN THE COUMY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ACCORDING TO THE OFRw PLAT THEREOF DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAJD WEST HALF; THENCE SOUTH 89’53’42” EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID WEST HALF. 2689.53 FEET TO THE NORI-HbCT CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUIH oo”36’38” WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SATD WE!tJ. HALF, 3120.35 FEEI- TO A POINT ON THE SOUIHWESIERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF A 200.00 FOOT SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC &isEhmd~, RECORDED APRIL 19. 199 IN BOOK 5208. PAGE 399 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID SAN DlEGO COUNTY; THENCE LUVING SAID EAST LINE AND ALONG SAID EASEMEhT LINE NORTH 64”13’23” WEST, 2226.43 FEET; THENCE S0Ui-H 72°08'OO" WEST, 65.20 FEET TO A POINT ON A LINE. SAID LINE BEING 45.00 EEl- ScYJlHWESTERLY MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGIES AND PAIVJJEL WITH SAID SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF A 200.00 FOOT SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY EASEMEI\TT; THENCE NORTH 64’13’23” WEST ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE.1583.36 FEEI- TO A POINT ON THE SOuI?IEASlERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF LA COSTA VALE UHl-I- NO. 3. IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 7950. FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE Cow RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, JUNE 3. 1974; THENCE NORTH 31”OO’OO” EAST’ ALONG SAID BOUNDARY LINE 45.19 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID MAI’ NO. 7950; THENCE NORTH 64”13”Z WEST’ ALONG THE NOR- Y BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID MAP NO. 7950. A DISTANCE OF 1326.91 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 43”30’00” WEST 47759 FEEI- TO THE BEGINNTNG OF A NON- TANGENT 1720.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 43°30’oO” WEST; THENCE NORTHWESTE RLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGE OF 02°50’OO” A DISTANCE OF 85.06 FEEI-; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID CURVE NORTH 43”4CJ’ WEST 445.15 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 455.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE SO UI-HERLY; THENCE NOR- Y. WESTERLY AND SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CEMRAL ,QlGIJZ OF %“50’00” A DISTANCE OF 768.98 m; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID CURVE SOUTH 39”30’00” wE?r 15351 FEFT TO THE BEGINNTNG OF A TANGENT 780.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE SO-Y; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 08”59’38” A DISTANCE OF 122.44 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF CARLSBAD TRACT NO. 72-20, UNIT NO. 2 IN THE CITY. OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO. STATE OF CALLFORNL4 ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 7779. FLLED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNIY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, OCTOBER 26, 1973; THENCE LEAVING SAID MAP NO.7950 AND ALONGTHE BOUNDARY OF SAID MAPN0.7779, NON- TANGENT TO SAID CURVE NORTH 71°00’OO” WEST 269.16 FEET; THENCE NORTH ~oo(roO” m 965.00 m; TflENcz NORTH 71’13’23” WEST 276.62 m; THENCE SOUTH 77’46’50 VET 29025 m; THENCE NORTH 59W’oo” WEST 12133 FEET: THENCE SOUTH 83°40WI WEST 114.59 FES; THENCE SOLI 14°40’oO” WESI- 230.00 FEET; ‘THENCE SOLilTi 284,030 WEX43600m;THENCE SOLTH18”2730” EAST218.11 FEETT;THENCE SOL?H3"0328" WEST 165.00 lS3: THENCE NORTH 64%'32" WEST 300.00 FEET; THENCE S0lXI-l 0024'13" WE5T 110.03 FEETTOTHE IN~RSE~ON'HTI-HTHE SOVIHWESIERLY LINE OFTHAT CERTAIN 100.00 FOOT EASEMENT TO SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECl-RIC COMPANY. FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, APRIL 19.1954 IN BOOK 5208. PAGE 403 OF OFFlCL4L RECORDS; THENCE LEAVING SPJD BOUNDARY OF SAID MAP NO. 7779 AND ALONG THE SO BY BOUNDARY OF SAID EASEMENT NORTH 64”5632” WEST TO THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF CARLSBAD TRACT NO. 75-4 (LA COSTA ESTATES NORTH), IN THE Cl-lY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO STATE OF CALIFORNIA ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 8302 FiIED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNIY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNlY, MAY 5. 1976; THENCE LEAVING SAID EbQMENT ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY THEREOF NORTH 25”03’28” EAST 100.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 03”02’10” WElTI’ 495.00 FEFf; THENCE NORTH 20”25’10” EAST 280.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH OY’30’00” WEST 130.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 36”55’70” EAST 345.00 FEFT; THENCE NORTH 52”15’00” EAST 160 00 FEET TO A POINT IN T!B3 BOUNDARY OF PAR- MAP NO. 10179, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBiD. COUNTY OF SAN DJEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA FILED LN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNIY. JUNE 27.1980 AS RLE. NO. 8@204502 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE LEAVKNG SAID BOUNDARY OF MAP NO. 8302 AND ALONG THE SOUI-HERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 10179, SOUTH 26”58’00” EAST 346.13 FEET; -I-HENCE NORTH 89”43’11” EAST 880.46 FEET; THENCE SOW-H 42”13’10” EAST 281.25 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 49”46’54” EAST 170.00 FEET; THENCE S0Ul-H 42”42’30” E.4sT 530.00 FEFf; THENCE NORTH 66”24’35” EAST 174.50 m; THENCE NORTH 89”5820” EAST 145.00 m; THENCE NORTH 34=29’10” EAST 30950 l%ET; THENCE SOUI-H 74W21” EAST 14550 FEET; THENCE NORTH 414,700” EAST 113.50 FEET. THENCE SOW-H 85‘WW EAST 271.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 31°57’15” EAST 330.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 47”25’05” EXX 129.10 FEET TO THE INIERSEmON WI-l-H THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 31; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY THEREOF NORTH 89”43’11” EAST 2607.74 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER WIlH THAT PORTION OF SECT-ION 25 TOWNSHIP 12 S0UIT-L RANGE 4 -. SAN BERNARDINO MERIDLAN. IN THE COUN’IY OF SAN DIEGO. STATE OF CALIFORN’h ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF LYING SOlJ-HEmRLY OF THE SOUI-HEASIERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID MAP NO. 8302. EXCEPTING THEFEFROM THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 32 TOWNSHlP 12 SOUfH, RANGE 3 WEST. SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN. IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ACCORDING TO OFFICIAL PUT THEREOF, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAlD NOR- QUARTER OF SECTION 3% THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUAKIER SOlXH oD36’31” W=“f, 950.65 FEET’; THENCE SOW 31?8’50” WEST, 341.61 FEFT; THENCE SOUTH 58’42’49” WEST. 456.37 FEET; THENCE NORTH 76”12?7” WEST 230.37 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH O”36’31” EAST. 77.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89”329” WEST, 350.00 F=l-i THENCE SOUIH o”36’31” WEST. 265.00 FEE; THENCE SOUTH W’28’07” EAST. 6828 FEl3-i THENCE SOLTH 55”28’26” EAST 34.95 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 67”lOW EAST. 76.69 FEFT; THENCE SOUTH 89%29” EAST. 110.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 78W47” EAST. 92.20 FEl?r TO A LINE WHICH BEARS SOUTH o”36’31” WEST FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE NORTH 0”363 1” EAST, 263.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALSO EXCEFITNG THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHERLY HALF OF SECTION 32 TOWNSHll’ 12 S0Ul-H RANGE 3 WEST. SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND htER.IDLAN. DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEE CORNER OF SAID SECTION 32: THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE THEREOF SOUTH 89”53’42” EAST 496.36 FEEr; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE SOUIH 0%‘18” WEST. 210.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 89”53’42” EAST, 237.57 FEET TO THE BEGIN?+JING OF A 470 FO0T RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 36”03’42”. A DISTANCE OF 295.82 FEFT; THENCE TANGEKT To SAID CURM: S0Ul-H 53”50’00” EAST. 386.84 FEEI-; THENCE SOUIH 35°24’oO” WET, 30.75 FE=; THENCE s0ul-H 63”42’00” EAST, 424.18 m; THENCE SOUIH 76”40’00” EAST, 288.30 FEl?r; -I-I-EN= s0UI-H OO”oo’OO” WEST, 81.00 FEEr; THENCE S0lX-H 72°49’OO” WEST, 288.60 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89”32’30” WEST, 628.00 m. THENCE SOUTH 87”08’00” WEX. 618.80 FEFI-; THENCE NORTH 47°36’OV’ WEST, 187.00 FEFT: THENCE NOR7-H 2”56’00” EAST, 16620 FEET; THENCE NORTH 20”05’30” LAST, 530.37 FEEI- TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALSO EXCElTING THE-OM THAT PORTION OF SECl-lON 31. TOWNSHIP 12 SOUIH. RANGE 3 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE-AND MERIDIAN. IN THE CI-IY OF CARLSBAD, COUNT OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNL% DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUIHEASI- CORNXR OF PARCEL 3 OF PARCEL MAF’ NO. 10179 ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNLA BEING THE SO- CORNER OF SECI-ION 30 AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAI? THENCE SOW-H 89”43’11” WEST ALONG THE SOUTHERLY JJNE OF SAID PARCEL 3. A DISTANCE OF 48.19 FEEI- TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF ROAD SURVEY NO. 454. ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER OF SAID SAN DIEGO COUNTY; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUI-HERLY LINE AND ALONG SAID FUGHT OF WAY LINE S0lXl-l 31”32’16” WEST 247.14 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT’ OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 89”43’11” EAST, 145.34 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF PROPOSED FQiNCHO SANTA FE DRIVE; THENCE ALONG SAID NOR TH’XSTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE S0UrI-I 12?!2’42” WEST. 22.51 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 1137 FOOT RADIUS CURVE. CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY; THENCE SO LTHWESERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 7’17’27” A DISTANCE OF 144.68 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 69°00’oO” WEST. 172.47 FEEI- TO A pOBfT’ ON SAID SOUlHWESTERLY RIGKT OF WAY LINE; THENCE NORTH 31”32’16” EAST, 115.50 FEiX TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. AFFECTS PARCEL NOS. 223-05043.223-050-49.223-010-31. NOTE: THIS PARCEL IS DESCRIBED IN A MANNER NOT NORMALLY USED BY TKfE msu-RE=. AS A CO NVENENCE TO OUR CUSTOMERS. THEREFORE IT IS Ih$PORTANTTHAT THIS DESCRIVllON NOT BE INCLUDED IN ANY CONVEYANCES, AS IT IS NOT INSURABLE. PARCEL DD: THOSE PARCELS OF LANI SHOWN AND DELINEATED ON THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ASSESOR’S MAPS BEING 223-010-Z 223-010-18, 223-01@19. 223~10-27, 223-010-28. 223-010-29. 223-010-32 223-01@33.223-010-34.223-010-35.223-010-37,~-021-9, 223-021-10.223-021-12 223-021- 15, 223-021-16. 222470-23 AND 222470-25 AND LYING WlTH THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: PARCELS 3 AND 4 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 10179. IN THE CI-IY OF CAIUSBAD. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO. STATE OF CALIFORNIA FEZED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNIY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, JUNE 17.1980 AS FILE NO. 80204502 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. TOGEXHER WlTH THAT PORTION DELINEATED AND DESIGNATED “NOT A PART” ON SAID PARCEL Mp9. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING WllHlN CARLSBAD TFdfl NO. 79-25(B) UN! NO. 1, IN THE ClTY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DKEGO. sT.4TE OF CALIFORNIA ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 10243. FIIXD IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, OCTOBER 20.1981. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THOSE PORTIONS LYING WITHfN CARLSBAD TRACX NO. 79- 25(B) PHASE VI, IN THE CRY OF CARLSBAD. COUNIY OF SAN DIEGO. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 10820, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY..JANUARY 13.1984. AND CARLSBAD TRACT NO. 84-Z. IN THE CIlY OF CARLSBAD, COUNlY OF SAN DIEGO. STATE OF CALIFORNlA ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 11241. FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY. MAY 22,1985. EXCEFITNG THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING W~THLN RECORD OF SURVEY NO. 9182 IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNlY. OCTOBER 28.1982 AS FILE NO. 82-332144 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEFTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 10179 LYING NORTHEA.SlERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF THAT CERTAIN RIGHT OF WAY AS DESCRIBED IN DEED TO THE COUNTY, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY. APRIL 7,1966 AS FILE NO. 58549 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEFTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LA COSTA MEADOWS, UNIT NO. 2 ACCORDING TO MAP NO. 6095 ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. SAID SOUI-HEksT CORNER BEING A POINT ON THE SO- RLY RIGHT-OF- WAY OF EL FUERTE SlREET As SHOWN ON SAID MAP NO. 6905; THENCE NORTH 68’13’07” EAST 1536.70 FEEI- TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUI-H 68”01’10” EAST 99.51 FEFT; THENCE SOUTH 51”,54’40” EAST 141.03 FEl3; THENCE SOUTH P52’25” WEST 191.85 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 57”13’00” WEST 73.07 FEFT; THENCE NORTH 83”46’00” WEST 185.97 FEFT; THENCE NORTH 34%‘48” WESI- 144.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 55”34’12” EAST 100.00 FEEI’ TO THE BEGJNNING OF A TANGENT 322-FOOT RPSIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESl’ERLY: THENCE NORTHEAmY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTR4L ANGLE OF 33”35’22” A DISTANCE OF 188.77 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. MFEffS PARCEL NOS. 223-010-12.223-010-18.223-010-19.223-010-27. 223-010-28, 22301029, 223- 01032 223-010-33. 223-010-34.223-010-35.223-01037; 223-02lm.223-021-10. 223-021-12 223-021-15 AND 223-021-16; 222470-25 AND 22247023. NOTE: THIS PARCEL IS DESCRIBED IN A MANNER NOT NORMALLY USED BY TIu D’WJRERS. AS A CONVENTEN CE TO OUR CUSTOMERS. THEREFORE IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THIS DESCRIPnON NOT BE INCLUDED IN ANY CONVEYANCES. AS l-T IS NOT INSURABLE PARCEL E!? PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 13900. IN THE CITY OF CmBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO. STATE OF CALIFORNLA FIZlED IN THE: OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUN-IY. AUGUST 6.1985 AS FILE NO. 85281626 OF OFFICL4L RECORDS. AFFECZ PARCEL NO. 222-151-80. LEGAL DESCRIFITON I-4 COSTA - SOUTHEA.?J- Ii The Oaks THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN IS SITUATED IN THE STATE OF CALLFORNL4 C0Uh-l-Y OF SAN DKQ AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL x: LOT 5 AND THE WEST HALF OF LOT 6 AND LOT 8 OF RANCH0 LAS ENCINITAS. IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. C0UNTl-Y OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CAUFORNiA ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 848, FILED w THE OFFICE OFTHE COlJNIY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGG COUNR’, JUNE 27.1898. EXCEFI-ING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING WITHIN CARLSBAD -lRACr’ NO. 75-9(B) UNIT NO. 2 IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, SI-ATE OF CALIFORNIA ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 9959. FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY. DECEMBER 31.1980 AND THAT PORTION LYING SOUTHERLY AND SOL.. Y OF THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY THEREOF. ALSO EXcEfTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING WITHIN PARCEL MAP NO. 13524. IN THE CITY OF CARISBAD. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO. STATE OF CALlfORNlA FBJZD IN THE OFFICE OF THE COW ~‘XNZDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, OCTOBER 25.1984 AS FILE NO. MO3293 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AND THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY THEREOF. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING NOR- FLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING AT THE MOST EASTERLY TERMINUS OF THE CENTERLINE OF LA COSTA AVENUE AS SHOWN ON HEREINBEFORE MENTIONED PARCEL MAP NO. 13524; THENCE NORTH 55”OO’OO” EAST 200.89 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A lC00.00 FOOT fLsDIUS CURVE NORTHWE~RLY; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF HEmEFORE MENTIONED LOT 5 OF RANCH0 LAS ENCINITAS. AFFECl-S PARCEL NOS. 223~060-15.223-06039 AND 261222-03 PARCEL A.4: THE WEST HALF OF SECI-ION 32 AND THE EAST HALF OF SEmON 31, ALL BEING IN TOWNSHIP 12 Soul-H, RkNGE 3 WEST. SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO OFi=iCIAL PLAT THEREOF. ALL BEING IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DiEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNLA. EXCEF’TING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF SAID SECTION 31. ALL THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING NORTHWESTERLY OF THE SO- I&Y B~IJNDARY OF CARLSBAD TRACT NO. 73-20 (LA COSTA VALE) UNIT NO. 3. IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. COrrNn OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 7950. FILED IN THE OFrlCE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, JUNE 3.1974. PAGE 1 ORDER NO. 112633-11 ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING NOR THEASEERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID WEST ONE HALF OF SAID SEmON 32 THENCE SOUTH 89”53’42” EAST ALONG THE NORTH LLNE OF SAID WEST ONE HALF. 268953 FEET TO THE NORTHE4ST CORNER THEREOF: THENCE SOUTH OO”36’38” WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID WEST ONE HALF. 3120.35 m TO A POINT ON THE SOUlHWESlERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF A 200.00 FOOT SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECl-RlC COMPANY EASEMENT IN BOOK 5208. PAGE 399 OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID SAN DIEGO COUNTY AND BEING THE TRUE KXNT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID EAST LINE AND ALONG SAID EASEMENT LINE NORTH 64”13’23” WE=, - “‘6.43 F: THENCE S0Vl-H 72”oS’OO” WEST. 65.20 FEZ TO A POINT ON A LINE SAID LINE BEING 45.00 FEET SO IJMWESERLY. MEASURED AT RIGHI- ANGLES AND PARALLEL WlTH SAID SOUHWE5TI’ERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF 200.00 FOOT SAN DIEGG GAS Am ELECI-RIC COMPANY EASEMENT; THENCE NORTH 64”13’23” WEST ALONG SAID PAR4LLEL LINE 1583.36 m TO A POINT ON THE SOUIHEASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID MAP NO. 7950; THENCE COKI-INUING ALONG SAID PAR4LLEL LINE NORTH 64”13’23” WEST TO THE INTERSECI-ION WITH THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID SECl-ION 3 1. SAID lNl-ERSECnON BEING THE POINT OF TERMINUS. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING SOUlHWEXE RLY OF THE FOLLOWING LINE: BEGINNING AT THE MOST SOLX’HERLY CORNER OF SAID CARLSBAD TRACT NO. 72-20 AS SHOWN ON MAP NO. 7950, SAID CORNER BEING A POINT ON THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT 1230.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASIERLY, A RADIAL TO SAID POINT- BEARS NORTH 51”54’08” WEST; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE SOL THEASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF CARLSBAD TRACT NO. 72-20. THE FOLLOWING COURSES: NORTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENIRAL ANGLE OF 14’34’46” A DISTANCE OF 313’9 FEEI’. NORTH 38”50’03” EAST. 31.80 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 1480.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE. CONCAVE SO IIIHISSIERLY; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 7”19’57” A DISTANCE OF 189.40 FEET; THENCE NORTH 46”10’00” EAST, 1057.78 FEFT TO THE TRUE POIh? OF BEGINNING: TXENCE rF4VlNG SAID SOlJ-HEASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE SOm 43”50’00” EAST, 1685.42 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 53”39’32” E,tST, 42.00 FEEr TO A POINT ON THE ARC OF A NON-TANGEM- CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS S0UI-H 53”39’32” EAST: THEKE SOUIHWESi-ERLY ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID SECl-ION 31, SAID INTERSECllON BEING THE POINT OF TERMINUS. ALSO EX(ZEITlNG THE INTEREST CONVEYED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO BY DEED RECORDED FEBRUARY 16. 1967 AS FILE NO. 21426 OF OFFlCL4L RECORDS, LYING WITHIN THOSE PORTIONS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL 66398-A: THAT PORTION OF SKI-ION 31. TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH. RkNGE 3 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE .iND MERIDIAN. LYING WITHIN A STRIP OF LAND 60 FEET WIDE, 30 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CEN-IER LINE: COMMENCING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE CENTER LINE OF ROAD SURVEY NO. 454. A PLAT OF WHlCH IS ON RLE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER WiTH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER BEING DISTANT ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 721.98 FEET FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SOUIHEAST QUARTER SAID POINT BEING ENGINEERS STATION 194 PLUS 74.85. POINT PAGE 2 ORDER NO. 1l2633I-11 ON A 1000 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY ON SAID CEN-IER LINE: THENCE ALONG SAID CEKER LINE AS FOLLOWS: SOUI-HERLY ALONG SAID 1000 FOOT RADIUS CURVE 36.54 FEEI- AND TANGENT TO SAID CURVE S0Vl-H 7-22’ EAST. 12.41 FEEi- TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING AND THE BEGLNNING OF A 1200 FOOT RADIUS CURVE THE CEMER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 82”38’ WEST FROM SAID POIh?: THENCE LEAVING SAID CEFlER LINE SOUIHWE!YER.LY ALONG SAID CTJRVE THROUGH A m ANGLE OF 71”50’. A DISTANCE OF 1504.47 FEET TO ENGINEERS nATION 210 PLUS 87.12 POINT OF TERMINATION ON THE CIXER LINE OF SAID ROAD SURVEY NO. 454. PARCEL 66398-B: ‘THAT PORTION OF SAID SOUTHEKZ’ QUARTER LYtNG SOVIHERL y OF PARCEL 46398-A HEREINABOM. DESCRIBED, AND NORTHERLY OF SAID ROAD SURVEY NO. 454. ALSO EXCEFITNG THEREFROM THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO MAG PROPERTIES. A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP. BY DEED RECORDED FEBRUARY 1, 1990 AS FILE NO. 90-057460 OF OFFI’XAL RECORDS. MORE PARTICULARLY DSCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PAGE 3 ORDER NO. llXX4-11 THAT PORTION OF SECTnON 31. TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 3 WEST. SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN. IN THE CI-IY OF CARLSBAD, COW OF SAIU DIEGO. STATE OF CALIFCXU’JLA DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS COMMENCING AT THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF LOT 494 OF MAP NO. 7950. ON FILE IN IHE OmCE OF THE COUNn RECORDER OF SAID SAN DIEGO COUNX SAID POINT BEING ON THE WE.XERLY RIGKT.OF WAY LINE OF RANCH0 S/NT.4 FE ROAD AS SHOWN ON SD MAP NO. 7950; THENCE SOUTH 31”00’00” WEST, 46.04 m; THENCE SOUTH 59“00’00” EKX, 71.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY LLNE OF SALD MAP SAID POINT BEING ON A NON-TANGENT 1520.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLYi THENCE SOUI-HWESIERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE AND SAID BOUNDARY LINE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 9”19’02”, A DISTANCE OF 247.18 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, SAID POINT BEING ON A NON-TANGENT 700.00 FOOT RADIUS REVERSING CURVE. CONCAVE EkS-IERLY; A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 73”26’32” WEST; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID 700.00 FOOT RADIUS CURV!Z THROUGH A CENTWL ANGLE OF 26”43’55”. A DISTANCE OF 326.59 FEET; THENCE SOUTH lo”1027” EAST. 474.67 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT 2400.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONcA= NOR?TIWESIERLY; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 15’24’49”. A DIsT.9NCE OF 645.64 FEEI- TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT 1170.00 FOOT R4DIUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHWESlERLY. A I&DIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 31”17’17” EAST; THENCE SOCV Y -NG THE ARC OF SAID 1170.00 CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 6’14’41”. A DISTANCE OF 12752 =; THENCE SOU-I-H 25V2’36” E4ST, 60.00 FEET’ TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT 1230.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH w0236” E4ST; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 22’45’14”. A DISTANCE OF 488.47 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGEm 2400.00 RADIUS CUWE. CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY. A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS SOm 33”56’33” EA!X; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG T-HE ARC OF SAID 2400.00 FOOT m1US ‘3JRVE THROUGH A CENiX4L ANGLE OF 7°35’06”, A DISTANCE OF 317.72 FEFT; THENCE KKJTH 41”31’39” EAST, 63.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 64”5025” EAST. 265.09 FEET; THENCE SOUM 28”2127” WEST, 501.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 31”16’32” EAST 62.63 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT 700.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASrERLY; THENCE SOUI-HQ’ESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 30”22’01”. A DISTANCE OF 371.00 FEFT; THENCE S0IJI-H 28”21’27” WEST, 470.00 FEi?T TO THE BEGINNING OF A 1000.00 FOOT I&DIUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTR‘U ANGLE OF 7”59’01”, A DISTANCE OF 139.34 FEFf; THENCE NORTH 53”39’32” WEST. 42.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 43”5000” WEST, 1685.42 FE?3; THENCE NORTH 46”lo’OO” EAST. 465.58 FE!3 TO -l-HE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 1520.00 FOOT l%DIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY; THENCE NORTHEASlERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 5O50’58”. A DISTANCE OF 155.18 FEET, TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. AFFECTS PARCEL NOS. “3-050-67 AND 223-050-69; 223-071-05 AND 223-071-07. PARCEL BB: THOSE PARCEIS OF LAND SHOWN AND DELINEATED ON THE SAN DIEGO C0LJNI.Y ASSESSOR’S MAPS BEING PARCELS 223-05051.223-050-52 223X150-53.223-05054.22305059,223- 050-65 AND 223-071-09 LYING WlTHtN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: THAT PORTION OF THE WEYr HALF OF SECTION 32; AND TI$E NORTH HALF OF SECTION 31: AND THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECI-ION 30. ALL BEING PAGE 4 x7, ORDER NO. llX3’&11 IN TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH. RANGE 3 WEST; TOGETHER WITH THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST’ QUARTER OF SECTION 36. IN TOWNSHIP 12 S0IX-H. RANGE 4 WEST. IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. ACCORDING TO THE OFFiClAL PUT THEREOF DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: . BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID WEST HALF; THENCE SOUTH 89’53’42” EAST ALONG THE NORTH LJNE OF SAID WEST HALF, 268953 FEET TO THE NOR- CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH OO”36’38” WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID WEST HALF. 3120.35 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SO- y RIGHI- OF WAY LINE OF A 200.00 FOOT SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELEclRJC EASEMENT. RECORDED APRIL 19. 1954 IN BOOK 5XN. PAGE 399 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID SAN DIEGO COLINi; THENCE LEAVING SAID EAST LINE AND ALONG SAID EASEMENT LINE NORTH 64”1323” WEST, 2226.43 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 72”08’00” WEST, 6520 El3 TO A POINT ON A IJNE, SAID LINE BEING 45.00 EEEr SOUTHWESIERLY MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGIXS AND PARALLEL WrlH SAID SOUI-HWE~RLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF A 200.00 FOOT SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELE(XRlC COMPANY EASEMENT; THENCE NORTH 64’1323” WEST ALONG SAID P- LINE 1583.36 FEEI’ TO A POINT ON THE SOL?HEASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF LA COSTA VALE UNl-I- NO. 3. IN THE Cl-l-Y OF CARLSBAD. COUNT OF SAN DIEGO. STATE; OF CALIFORNIA ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 7950, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGo COUNIY, JUNE 3.1974; THENCE NORTH 31”OO’OO” EAST ALONG SAiD BOUNDARY LME. 45.19 FEET.TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID MAP NO. 7950; THENCE NORTH 64”13’23” WEsT ALONG THE NORTH!ZASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID MAF’ NO. 7950. A DISTANCE OF 1326.91 EEET; THENCE SOUTH 43”30’00” WEST 47759 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON- TANGENT 1720.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NOR- Y,ARADLALLIMTO SAID POINT BEARS SOL.. 43”30’00” WEST; THENCE NOR- Y ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02”50’00” A DISTANCE OF 85.06 FElZl-; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID CURVE NORTH 43”40’ WEST 445.15 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 455.00 FOOT R4DIUS CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY; THENCE NOR- RLY. wErERLY AND SOL?HwESl-ERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF %‘=50’00”~ A DISTANCE OF 768.98 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID CURVE SOUIH 39”30’00” WEST 15351 FEEI- TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 780.00 FOQT RADNS CURVE CONCAVE Sob-AmY; THENCE SOUI-HWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF OS”59’38” A DISTANCE OF 122.44 FEEI- TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF CARLSBAD TR4C-T NO. 72-20, UNIT NO. 3, IN THE Cl-l-f OF CARLSBAD. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO. STATE OF CALIFORNIA. ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 7779, FILED IN THE OmCE OF THE COUNl?’ RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO C0lJNI-f. OCl-OBER 26, 1973; THENCE LEAVING SAID MAP NO. 7950 AND ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF SAID MAF NO. 7779. NON- TANGENT TO SAID CURVE NORTH 71”OO’oo” m 269.16 FElZ; THENCE NORTH 4@00’00” %‘EsT 965.00 m; THENCE NORTH 71”13’23” WEST 276.62 m; THENCE SOUTH 77’4650 WEST 290.25 FEEl-; THENCE NORTH 59°50’OO” WEST 121.23 FEEI-; THENCE SOUTH 83”40’00” WEST 114.59 FEET: THENCE SOL?H 14°40’OO” WEST 2moo m; THENCE SOUTH 28”20’30 WEST 436.00 FEEI-: THENCE SOUTH lS”27’30” EAST 218.11 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 25”03’28” WEST 165.00 m; THENCE NORTH 64O5632” WEST 300.00 FEEEF; THENCE SOUr’H 0@‘24’13” WEST 110.03 ?XET TO THE INTERSECT-ION WITH TRE SOLTHWKIERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN 100.00 FOOT EASEMENT TO SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECl’RIC COMPANY, FIIXD IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, APRIL lg.1954 IN BOOK 5208. PAGE 403 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE LEAVING SAID BOUNDARY OF SAID MAP NO. 7779 AND ALONC THE SO IJTHWEERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID EASEMENT NORTH 64”56’32” WEST TO THE MOST SOUIHERL Y CORNER OF CARLSBAD -lR4CT NO. 75-4 &A COSTA ESTA’IES NORTH), IN THE CITY OF CAFKSBAD. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, flATE OF CAJJFCRMA ACCORDLNG TO MAP THEREOF NO. 8302. FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COU-NIY, MAY 5, 1976; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASEMENT ALONG THE E‘SERLY BOUNDARY THEREOF NORTH Z’O328” EAST ‘100.00 FEFT; THENCE NORTH 03”02’10” WEST 495.00 lX!Z; THENCE NORTH 20”25’10” w 280.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH PAGE 5 aLa ORDER NO. 112632A-1 I 05°30’00” WES’ 130.00 FEFT; THENCE NORTH 36”55’10” m 345.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 52’15’00” EAST 160.00 FEET TO A POINT IN THE BOUNDARY OF PARCEL MAP NO. 10179. IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY. JUNE 27.1980 AS FIf,E NO. 80204502 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THEICE rF4VING SAID BOUNDARY OF MAP NO. 8302 AND ALONG THE SOUIHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 10179. SOUTH 26”58’00” EAST 346.13 FEET: THENCE NORTH 89’43’11” EAST 880.46 m; THENCE SOUTH 42”13’10” EAST 281-Z =; THENCE SOUI-H 49”46’54” EAST 170.00 m; THENCE SOUIH 42”42’30” EAST’ 530.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 66”24’35” ?&!X- 174.50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89”5820” EA.SI- 145.00 =; THENCE NORTH 34”29’10” EAST 30950 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 74”0021” EAST 14550 FEETi ?HENG NORTH 41”27’00” EAST 11350 ~, ~a SOuI?I 85”44’40” ~ 271.00 ~; THENCE NORTH 31”57’15” IXjl- 330.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 47-25’05” EAST 129.10 FEEI- TO THE LN-EICEmON WITH THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID SE(XlON 31; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY THEREOF NORTH 89”43’11” EAST 2607.74 FEEI- TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER WI-I-H THAT PORTION OF SECTION 25 TOWNSHIP 12 SOUlX RANGE 4 WEST. SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIA!!, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ACCORDING TO l-HE OFFICLAL PLAT THEREOF LYING S0UlHEASTERi.Y OF THE SO-Y BOUNDARY OF SAID MAP NO. 8302. EXCEII THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWESI- QUARTER OF SECI-ION 32 TOWNSHIP 12 SOUIH RANGE 3 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, DESCRIBED As FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECITON 32; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER SOUTH o”36’31” WEST. 950.65 FEf3; THENCE SOWH 31”28’50” WE=. 341.61 FEFT; THENCE SOUTH 58”42’49” WEST. 456.37 FEFT; THENCE NORTH 76”12’27” WEST 230.37 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH O”36’31” EAST. 77.00 FEFT; THENCE NORTH 89-23’29” WEST. 350.00 FEIX; THENCE SOL7l-H O”3631” WEST. 265.00 FEET: THENCE SOUI-H 46’=28’07” EAST, 6828 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 55”28’26” EAST 34.95 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 67”10’26” EAST. 76.69 FEEl-; THENCE SOVIH 892’29” EAST. 110.00 FEFT; THENCE NORTH 78”04’47” EAST. 92.20 FEET TO A LINE WHICH BEARS SOUI-H O”36’31” WEST FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE, NORTH O”36’31” EAST. 263.00 kl= TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALSO EXCEFITNG THEREFROM THAT FOR-I-ION OF THE NORTHERLY HALF OF SECTION 32. TOWNSHIP 12 S0Ul-H. RANGE 3 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERUX4N. DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 32.; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE THEREOF SOUI-H 89”53’42” EAST 496.36 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE SOWI4 o”06’18” WEST. 210.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 89”53’42” EAST. 23757 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A 470 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE SOvrHEIuY; THENCE EASTERLYALONGTHEARCOFSAIDCURVE THROUGHA- ANGE OF 36’03’42”. A DISTANCE OF 295.82 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO SAIDCURVE SOW 53”50’00” EAST, 386.84 FEET; THENCE SOUFH 35’24’00” WEST. 30.75 FEET’; THENCE SOUTH 63”42’00” EMT. 424.18 FEFT; THENCE SOUTH 76”40’00” EALT. 28830 FEET; THENCE SOUIH 0090’00” WEST, 81.00 FE!Z; THENCE SOUTH 72”49’00” WEST, 288.60 FEl3; THENCE NORTH 89”32’30” WEST, 628.00 FEI3; THENCE SOUlH 87°08’00” WEST’. 618.80 FEET; THENCE NORTH 47°36’00” WEST, 187.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 2O56’00” EAX. 16620 FEET; THENCE NORTH 20”05’30” EAST. 530.37 FEEI- TO -I-HE l-RUE POINT OF BEGINNING. PAGE 6 463 ORDER NO. 112632bl I ALSOEXCEFTlNG THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF SECTION 31. TOWNSHIP 12 SOL.. RANGE 3 WES-. SAN BERNARDJNO BASE AND MERIDIAN. DESCRIBED A.5 FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUiHEASl- CORNER OF PARCEL 3 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 10179 ON FlLE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNlY RECORDER OF SAN DtEGO C0UKI-t SATE OF CALIFORNIA. BEING THE SOVl-HEA.SI- CORNER OF SECl-ION 30 AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP. THENCE SOUAH 89”43’11” WEST ALONG THE SOUI-HERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 3, A DISTANCE OF 48.19 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINJZ OF ROAD SUR=Y NO. 454, ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNT ENGINEER OF SAID SAN DIEGO C0U’N-l-Y: THENCE LEAVING SAID SOLTHERLY LINE AND ALONG $AID RIGHT OF WAY LINE SOUTH 31”32’16” WEST 247.14 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 89”43’11” Em, 145.34 FEZ TO A POINT ON -I% NOR-Y RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF PROPOSED RANCH0 SANTA FE DRIVE; THENCE ALONG SAD NOR- Y RIGKf OF WAY LINE S0Ul-H l2”97’42” WEST, 2251 = T() THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 1137 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWBSIERLY; THENCE SOLKHWEFIERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTR4L ANGLE OF 7”17’27” A DISTANCE OF 144.68 FEFT; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHWESIERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 69”oo’oO” WEsf. 172.47 l?ZT TO A PORTI’ ON SAID SO-WY RIGHi- OF WAY LIW; THENCE NORTH 31”32’16” EAST, 11550 I=EEf TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. AFFECl-S PARCEL NOS. 223-071-09, 223-05@51, - ‘73-050-52 777-050-53. 223a5@54.22345@59. 23 05065. NOTE: THIS PARCEL IS DESCRIBED IN A MANNER NOT NORMALLY USED BY TITLE INSUR.E~. AS A CO- CE TO OUR CUSTOMERS. THEREFORE IT IS IMPORTANI’ THAT THlS DESCRIF’TION NOT BE INCLUDED IN ANY CONVEYANCES, As IT IS NOT INSURABLE. PARCEL cc: THEWESTHALFOFTHESOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECI-ION 29. TOWNSHIP 12 SOm FbiNGE 3 WEST, SAN BBRNARDWO Mi3UDIAN. IN THE ClTY OF CARLSBAD. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO. STATE OF CALIFORNLA ACCORDING TO OFFlCL4.L FLAT THEREOF. AFFE’TE PARCEL NOS. 223-01 l-02.223-01 l-03,223-032-01 AND 223-032-02. PARCEL DD: -Il-bsE. PARCELS OF LAND SHOWN AND DELINEATED ON THE SAN DIEGO COW ASSESSORS MAPS BEING PARCELS 223-011-4. 223411-5, 223-011-6. 223-021-s AND 223-011-11 LYING WITHIN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: PARCELS 3 AND 4 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 10179. IN THE CITY OF C-BAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY. JUNE 17.1980 AS FILE NO. go-204502 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. TOGEI-HER WlTH THAT PORTION DELINEATED AND DESIGNATED “NOT A PART” ON SAID PARCELMAP. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING WITHIN CARLSBAD TRACT NO. 79-25(B) UNIT NO. 1, IN THE CITY OF CARISBAD. COUNIY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF cXUFORNIA PAGE 7 ORDER NO. 11263ZklI ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 10243, FKLED LN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY. OCTOBER 20.1981. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THOSE PORTIONS LYING ‘Hm CARLSBAD TRACT NO. 79- 255(B) PHASE VI. IN THE Cl-I-Y OF CARJSBAD, COUMY OF SAN DIEGO. STATE OF CAL.lFCXNL4 ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 10820, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY. JANUARY 13.1984, AND CARLSBAD TRACT NO. 84-23. IN THE CITY OF CARIJBAD. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CASJFORNIA ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 11241, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNV RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MAY 22.1985. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING WFFHXN RECORD OF SURVEY NO. 9187, IN THE Cl-I-Y OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STAZ OF CALB=ORN& FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, OCJTOBER 28.1982 AS FILE NO. 82-332144 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM l-HAT PORTION OF SAID PARCEL MAF’ NO. 10179 LYING NORTHEAS-IERLY OF THE CEN- OF THAT CERTAIN RIGhT OF WAY AS DESCRIBED IN DEED TO THE COUNTY. FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNlY RECORDER OF SAN DBXO COUNTY. APRIL 7.1966 AS FILE NO. 58549 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEFI-ING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOLXHEAST CORNER OF LA COSTA MEADOWS. IJNIT NO. 2 ACCORDING TO MAF’ NO. 6095 ON FIIJZ IN THE OFFICE OF THE COW RECORDER OF SAID C0UiW-Y. SAID SOIJIXEAST CORNER BEING A POINT ON THE SOmY RIGKT-OF- WAY OF EL FUERTE STREET AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP NO. 6905; THENCE NORTH 68’13’07” EAST 1536.70 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 68‘01’10” w 9951 F32T; THENCE S0Ui-H 51”34’40” EAST 141.03 FEET; THENCE somH 22”52’25” WEST 191.85 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 57”13’00” WEST 73.07 FEET; -I-HENCE NOR-l-f-I 83”46’00” WEST 185.97 =; THENCE NORTH 34”25’48” WEST 144.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 55?4’12” EAST 100.00 FEFT TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 322FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTR4L ANGLE OF 33”35’22” A DISTANCE OF 188.77 FEZ TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. AFFECTS PARCEL NOS. 223-011-04.223-011-05.223-011-06; 223-021-08.223-021-11. NOTE: THIS PARCEL IS DESCRIBED IN A MANNER NOT NORMALLY USED BY TITLE ~SUR.ERS, AS A CO NVENKENCE TO OUR CUSTOMERS. THEREFORE, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THJS DESCRIPTION NOT BE INCLUDED IN ANY CONVEYANCES, AS IT IS NOT INSURABLE. PAGE 8 $ b5 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. 5021 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CAIUSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PLAN-NED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PUD 01-08 ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED IN NEIGHBORHOOD 3.9 OF THE VILLAGES OF LA COSTA MASTER PLAN ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE FUTURE ALIGNMENT OF RANCH0 SANTA FE ROAD NORTH OF LA COSTA AVENUE AND SOUTH OF CADENCIA STREET IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 11. CASE NAME: VILLAGES OF LA COSTA - THE OAKS NEIGHBORHOOD 3.9 CASE NO.: PUD 01-08 I WHEREAS, Morrow Development, “Developer,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Real Estate Collateral Management, “Owner,” described as See Attachment “CT 99-04 - A”, attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 5020, hereby incorporated by reference (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Planned Unit Development Permit as shown on Exhibit(s) “FFF” - “XxXx” dated August 29,2001, on file in the Planning Department, VILLAGES OF LA COSTA - THE OAKS NEIGHBORHOOD 3.9 - PUD 01-08, as provided by Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 29th day of August, 2001 and on the 5th day of September 2001 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 persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Planned Unit Development Permit 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of VILLAGES OF LA COSTA - THE OARS NEIGHBORHOOD 3.9 - PUD 01-08, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: FindinPs: 1. That the granting of this permit will not adversely affect and will be consistent with the Municipal Code, the General Plan, applicable specific plans, master plans, and all adopted plans of the City and other governmental agencies, in that the project is consistent with the Residential Low-Medium (RLM) General Plan Land Use Designation as it is at a density of 2.8 dwelling units to the acre, the R-l zoning and is in compliance with all standards including the requirements of the Villages of La Costa Master Plan. 2. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary and desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the long-term general well-being of the neighborhood and the community, in that the development of single-family homes on minimum 6,000 square foot lots and associated recreation facilities is consistent with the Villages of La Costa Master Plan and is compatible with adjacent existing and planned land uses. 3. That such use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, in that the project design conforms to all design and development standards applicable to the property. Public improvements will be provided concurrent with development of the project to meet all city standards. All manufactured slopes will be landscaped to prevent erosion and visually screen the slopes. 4. That the proposed Planned Development meets all of the minimum development standards set forth in Chapter 21.45.090, the design criteria set forth in Section 2 1.45.080, and has been designed in accordance with the concepts contained in the Design Guidelines Manual, in that except for those standards modified by the Villages of La Costa Master Plan the project complies with all required development standards including minimum lot size, RV storage, and recreation space area requirements. 5. That the proposed project is designed to be sensitive to and blend in with the natural topography of the site, and maintains and enhances significant natural resources on the site, in that a Hillside Development Permit has been issued for the proposed grading and the project will implement the applicable mitigation measures of Final Program EIR 98-07 and the associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 6. That the proposed project’s design and density of the developed portion of the site is compatible with surrounding development and does not create a disharmonious or PC RESO NO. 5021 -2- 467 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 disruptive element to the neighborhood, in that the project is consistent with the only adjacent development which is located to the west and is designated Low-Medium Density Residential (RLM) like the project site or Medium-High Density Residential (RMH) and the project is proposed at a density of 2.8 dwelling units per acre which is below the RLM growth management control point of 3.2 dwelling units per acre or exceed the maximum of 88 units permitted by the Villages of La Costa Master Plan for Neighborhood 3.9. 7. That the project’s circulation system is designed to be efficient and well integrated with the project and does not dominate the project, in that the project is accessed from three points with the access points into Neighborhood 3.9 being coordinated with planned development off-site. The project also includes internal sidewalks with parkways along the street that lead to the adjoining neighborhoods as well as trails identified in the Villages of La Costa Master Plan. Conditions: Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to recordation of a final map or issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs 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 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 Planned Development Permit. 2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Planned Development Permit documents, 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. 3. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 4. 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. 5. 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 PC RESO NO. 5021 -3- &8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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 Planned 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. 6. The Developer shall submit to the Planning Director a reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar copy of the Tentative Map reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making body. 7. 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. 8. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required as part of the Zone 11 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits. 9. 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. 10. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit or approval of the final map, 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(n) Planned Unit Development Permit by Resolution No. 5021 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. 11. This approval is granted subject to the approval of EIR 98-07, GPA 98-01, MP 149(Q), MP 98-01, LFMP 11(B), CT 99-04, HDP 99-02, and SUP 01-03 and is subject to all conditions contained in the Planning Commission Resolutions for those other approvals. 12. This approval shall become null and void if a final map is not recorded for at least one phase of the project within 24 months from the date of project approval. 13. Prior to the issuance of building permits a Major Planned Unit Development Permit Amendment shall be approved for the architecture and plotting of units in addition to the common recreation area improvements. Approvals are also required for the RV storage area to meet the requirements of the Villages of La Costa Master Plan. PC RFSO NO. 5021 -4- r=(b9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as “fees/exactions.” You have 90 days I?om date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of September 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Heineman, Nielsen, and Trigas NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JEFW SEGA&Chairperson C&BAD PLANNING GOMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HaZMI&ER Planning Director PC RESO NO. 5021 -5- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5022 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH AND EAST OF LA COSTA AVENUE, SOUTH OF ALGA ROAD, EAST OF EL FUERTE STREET AND STRADDLING PORTIONS OF RANCH0 SANTA FE ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 11. CASE NAME: VILLAGES OF LA COSTA - THE RIDGE & THE OAKS CASE NO: HDP 99-02 WHEREAS, Morrow Development, “Developer,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Real Estate Collateral Management Company, “Owner,” described as See Attachment “CT 99-04 - A”, attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 5020, hereby incorporated by reference (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Hillside Development Permit as shown on Exhibit(s) “FFF” - ‘%X.xX” dated August 29, 2001, on file in the Carlsbad Planning Department, VILLAGES OF LA COSTA - THE GREENS - HDP 99-02, as provided by Chapter 21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 29th day of August 2001 and on the 5th day of September 2001 consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Hillside Development Permit; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: 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) W That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of VILLAGE OF LA COSTA - THE RIDGE & THE OAKS - HDP 99-02 based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. That hillside conditions have been properly identified on the constraints map which show existing and proposed conditions and slope percentages; That undevelopable areas of the project, i.e. slopes over 40%, have been properly identified on the constraints map; That the development proposal is consistent with the intent, purpose, and requirements of the Hillside Ordinance, Chapter 21.95, in that proposed grading has been designed to relate to the slope of the land, grading has been minimized to the extent possible while working with the other constraints to the project design, and contour grading of slopes which are highly visible from public locations is included. That the proposed development or grading will not occur in the undevelopable portions of the site pursuant to provisions of Section 21.53.230 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, in that impacts to natural slopes with an inclination of greater than 40 percent either do not meet all of the criteria of Section 21.95.120(B) to require preservation or qualify for an exclusion pursuant to Section 21.95.130 in that they are impacts related to a Circulation Element Road. That the project design substantially conforms to the intent of the concepts illustrated in the Hillside Development Guidelines Manual, in that all native, non-excluded slope areas are to remain preserved, contour grading will occur for areas visible from public locatibns, runoff control will be accomplished as required by the manual through the construction of onsite catchment basins, detention basins, and energy dissipators, and adequate landscaping will be installed to provide screening of graded slopes and to reduce potential erosion. Future homes will be set back from the top of manufactured slopes. That the project design and lot configuration minimizes disturbance of hillside lands, in that approximately 187.4 acres of The Ridge and The Oaks are comprised of natural slopes having gradients above 40 percent. Grading proposed on the master tentative map will encroach into 10.1 acres of natural slopes having gradients above 40 percent. Of these 10.1 acres, 8.6 acres would be impacted by development and 1.5 acres would be impacted by Circulation Element roads. The proposed grading of these areas is permitted as being grading associated with a Circulation Element road that is a permitted Exclusion per section 21.95.130 (A)(2) or areas that do not meet all four of the criteria of Section 21.95.120(B) particularly that they do not comprise a prominent landform feature. PC RESO NO. 5022 -2- 471 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7. 8. 12. 13. That the site has unusual geotechnical or soil conditions that necessitate corrective work that may require significant amounts of grading, in that several landslide features are located within the proposed project area. Surficial soils consisting of landslide debris, alluvium, fill, topsoils and slopewash will require removal and recompaction. That the site requires extensive grading to accommodate a circulation-element roadway, in that Ranch0 Santa Fe Road, a prime arterial roadway, crosses through the project site. That the proposed modification will result in significantly more open space or undisturbed area than would a strict adherence to the requirements of the ordinance, in that requiring additional contour grading adjacent to open space areas will extend slope heights and impact the open space areas and existing vegetation. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan and The Villages of La Costa Master Plan based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated August 29,200l and as contained in the Planning Commission Resolution for GPA 98-01 which are incorporated herein by reference. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 11 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, The project has been conditioned to provide proof from the Encinitas Union, San Dieguito Union High School and San Marcos Unified School Districts that the project has satisfied its obligation for school facilities. Park-in-lieu fees are required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 20.44, and will be collected prior to issuance of building permit or be satisfied by the use of existing parkland credits in addition to the dedication of land for the future Alga Norte Park Site. 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. The project has been conditioned to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project. This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 11. PC RESO NO. 5022 -3- a73 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 14. 15. 16. That all necessary public facilities required by the Growth Management Ordinance will be constructed or are guaranteed to be constructed concurrently with the need for them created by this project and in compliance with adopted City standards, in that improvements necessary to maintain compliance with the growth management performance standards are contained in the Zone 11 Local Facilities Management Plan and the project will comply with the general and special conditions of the zone plan. That the project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual (Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 14.28.020 and Landscape Manual Section I B). 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 recordation of a final map or issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs 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 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 Hillside Development Permit (HDP 99-02). 2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Hillside Development Permit documents, 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. 3. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 4. 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. 5. 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, PC RESO NO. 5022 -4- a74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 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 Hillside 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 Hillside Development Permit Exhibits reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making body. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required as part of the Zone 11 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits. This approval is granted subject to the approval of EIR 98-07, GPA 98-01, MP 149(Q), MP 98-01, LFMP 11, PUD 01-09, CT 99-04 and SUP 01-03 and is subject to all conditions contained in the Planning Commission Resolutions for those other approvals. This approval shall become null and void if a final map is not recorded for at least one phase of the project within 24 months from the date of project approval. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit or approval of the final map, 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(n) Hillside Development Permit by Resolution No. 5022 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. NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as “fees/exactions.” You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. PC RESO NO. 5022 -5- afv- 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 You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of September 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Heineman, Nielsen, and Trigas NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: QQ CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: Planning Director PC RESO NO. 5022 -6- Carlsbad Planning Department EXHWT 6 A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item No. 1 0 Application submittal date: February 13, 1998 P.C. AGENDA OF: September 5,200l Project Planner: Don Neu Project Engineer: Clyde Wickham Glen Van Peski SUBJECT: EIR 98-07/GPA 98-Ol/MP 149IQYMP 98-Ol/LFMP lO/LFMP 11(B)/CT 99- 03/HDP 99-Ol/SUP Ol-OWSUP 99-Ol/CT 99-04/PUD 01-08/HDP 99-02/SUP Ol- 03 - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA - Request for a recommendation of approval for the certification of a Program Environmental Impact Report, and approval of Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; General Plan Amendment; La Costa Master Plan Amendment; Villages of La Costa Master Plan; Zone 10 Local Facilities Management Plan; Zone 11 Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment; Master Tentative Map, Hillside Development Permit, El Camino Real Scenic Corridor Special Use Permit, and a Floodplain Special Use Permit for The Greens Village; Master Tentative Map, Planned Unit Development Permit, Hillside Development Permit, and Floodplain Special Use Permit for The Ridge and Oaks Villages; and Street Right-of-way Vacations. Proposed land uses include 2,390 dwelling units of various product types and lot sizes, a 7.9 acre business park, two community facilities sites, a community park site, an elementary school site and the preservation of 834.9 acres (45%) of the 1,866.4 acre project site as HCP open space, and an additional 68.4 acres as non-HCP open space. The project is located in the southeastern quadrant of the City of Carlsbad, within Local Facilities Management Zones 10 and 11. The Greens (Zone 10) portion of the project site is generally located approximately 2,500 feet south of Palomar Airport Road, east of El Camino Real, north of Alga Road, and west of Unicornio Street. The Ridge and Oaks (Zone 11) portion of the project site is located north and east of La Costa Avenue, south of Alga Road, east of El Fuerte Street, and straddles portions of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5010 RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION of EIR 98-07 and RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5011, 5012, 5013, 5014, 5015, 5016,5017,5018,5019, and 5020, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of GPA 98-01, MP 149(Q), MP 98-01, LFMP 10, LFMP 1 l(B), CT 99-03, HDP 99-01, CT 99-04, PUD 01-08, and HDP 99-02, ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5021, 5022, and 5023, APPROVING SUP 01-04, SUP 99-01, and SUP 01-03, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. BACKGROUND The materials for this item were distributed with the packet for the August 29, 2001 meeting. ‘the City of Carlsbad Planning Department A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item No. 0 1 Application submittal date: February 13, 1998 P.C. AGENDA OF: August 29,200l SUBJECT: EIR 9%071GPA 98-Ol/MP 149tWMP 98-Ol/LFMP lO/LFMP ll(B)/CT 99- 03/HDP 99-Ol/SUP Ol-04/SUP 99-Ol/CT 99-04/PUD Ol-08/HDP 99-02/SUP 01-03 - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA - Request for a recommendation of approval for the certification of a Program Environmental Impact Report, and approval of Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; General Plan Amendment; La Costa Master Plan Amendment; Villages of La Costa Master Plan; Zone 10 Local Facilities Management Plan; Zone 11 Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment; Master Tentative Map, Hillside Development Permit, El Camino Real Scenic Corridor Special Use Permit, and a Floodplain Special Use Permit for The Greens Village; Master Tentative Map, Planned Unit Development Permit, Hillside Development Permit, and Floodplain Special Use Permit for The Ridge and Oaks Villages; and Street Right-of-way Vacations. Proposed land uses include 2,390 dwelling units of various product types and lot sizes, a 7.9 acre business park, two community facilities sites, a community park site, an elementary school site and the preservation of 834.9 acres (45%) of the 1,866.4 acre project site as HCP open space, and an additional 68.4 acres as non-HCP open space. The project is located in the southeastern quadrant of the City of Carlsbad, within Local Facilities Management Zones 10 and 11. The Greens (Zone 10) portion of the project site is generally located approximately 2,500 feet south of Palomar Airport Road, east of El Camino Real, north of Alga Road, and west of Unicomio Street. The Ridge and Oaks (Zone 11) portion of the project site is located north and east of La Costa Avenue, south of Alga Road, east of El Fuerte Street, and straddles portions of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5010 RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION of EIR 98-07 and RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5011, 5012, 5013, 5014, 5015, 5016, 5017, 5018, 5019, and 5020, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of GPA 98-01, MP 149(Q), MP 98-01, LFMP 10, LFMP 11(B), CT 99-03, HDP 99-01, CT 99-04, PUD 01-08, and HDP 99-02, ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5021, 5022, and 5023, APPROVING SUP 01-04, SUP 99-01, and SUP 01-03, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. EIR 98-07/GPA 98-OlA4P 149(Q)/MP 98-Ol/LFMP lO/LFMP 1 l(B)/CT 99-03/HDP 99-Ol/SUP Ol-04/SUP 99-Ol/CT 99-04/PUD Ol-08HDP 99-02/SUP 01-03 - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA August 29,200l Page 2 II. INTRODUCTION The project area consists of 1,866.4 acres located within the southeast quadrant of the city within Local Facilities Management Zones 10 and 11. On June 7, 1995 the Section 10(a) Implementation Agreement and Habitat Conservation Plan/Ongoing Multi-Species Plan (HCP/OMSP) among the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the City of Carlsbad, the California Department of Fish and Game, the Villages of La Costa prior land owner, and other conservation groups became effective. The HCP/OMSP covers the entire Villages of La Costa Master Plan area and established areas of the property to remain as conserved habitat and areas that could be developed. The goal of the HCP/OMSP is to preserve habitats within the City in a mix and configuration that will ensure the persistence, diversity, and species richness of natural communities within the city and region over time. It is within this context that the proposed Villages of La Costa Master Plan and other related development applications were designed. Proposed land uses include 2,390 dwelling units of various product types and lot sizes, a 7.9 acre business park, two community facilities sites, a community park site, an elementary school site and the preservation of 834.9 acres (45%) of the 1,866.4 acre project site as HCP open space, and an additional 68.4 acres as non-HCP open space. The Proposed Project includes the following discretionary actions: 1) a General Plan Amendment; 2) an amendment to the existing La Costa Master Plan (MP 149 (0)) to remove the project area; 3) the adoption of a new master plan for the property entitled the Villages of La Costa Master Plan (2000) that creates three Villages named The Greens, The Ridge and The Oaks; 4) a Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 10; 5) a Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment for Zone 11; 6) two Master Tentative Maps; 7) Hillside Development Permits; 8) Special Use Permits; 9) a Planned Unit Development Permit; 10) Street Right-of-Way Vacations; and 10) Certification of a Program Environmental Impact Report prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and approval of Candidate Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. A detailed description of the discretionary actions is included in the PROJECT DESCRIPTION section of this report. The proposed project actions are in compliance with all applicable plans, ordinances, standards and policies. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The Villages of La Costa Master Plan provides for a variety of land uses. A maximum of 1,796 single-family dwelling units are planned for within 27 single-family home neighborhoods. Minimum lot sizes within these Neighborhoods range from 4,500 square feet to 11,000 square feet. Lot sizes have been selected for compatibility with existing single-family neighborhoods located adjacent to the Master Plan area as well as to provide a range of housing opportunities. Six multiple family housing neighborhoods are provided by the master plan and will allow for a maximum of 594 dwelling units. Four of these six neighborhoods provide for townhomes or single-family detached units on lots with a minimum area of 3,500 square feet. The other two multiple family housing neighborhoods provide for a total of 351 apartments. A total of 2,390 dwelling units are proposed for the project. 279 EIR 98-07/GPA 98-Ol/MP 149(Q)/MP 98-Ol/LFMP lO/LFMP 1 l(B)/CT 99-03/HDP 99-Ol/SUP Ol-04/SUP 99-Ol/CT 99-04/pUD Ol-08HDP 99-02/SUP 01-03 - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA August 29,200l Preservation and enhancement of Qpen Space is an important aspect of this Master Plan. Areas proposed to be designated Open Space by the General Plan constitute approximately 892 acres or 48% of the Master Plan area. The Master Plan includes open space for the preservation of natural resources (HCP/OMSP) and open space for outdoor recreation. The proposed Alga Norte Community Park site is located within the northwest area of the Master Plan. Related to the provision of outdoor open space and recreation areas is the pedestrian system of the master plan. Included within the master plan is a pedestrian circulation network that incorporates sidewalks, local trails, and city-wide trails within each of the villages. A single Planned Industrial site is provided in the extreme northwest comer of The Greens Village adjacent to El Camino Real. The Planned Industrial site is approximately 7.9 gross acres in area and will allow for research and development, light manufacturing, warehousing, storage, business and professional offices, and utility uses. This proposed use is compatible with the Planned Industrial uses existing adjacent to the west in addition to those being planned to the north. Two Community Facilities areas are designated in the master plan. The first is a 7.9 gross acre area planned for La Costa Greens adjacent to the east side of El Camino Real in the area of the Camino Vida Roble intersection. The second community facilities area is 6.6 gross acres in the area planned for La Costa Oaks adjacent to the east side of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road north of the future Questhaven Road (San Elijo Hills Road) intersection. The community facilities sites are intended to meet some social/human service needs and could include uses such as day care, worship, youth and senior citizen activities. The Master Plan identities one elementary school site and one alternative elementary school site within La Costa Greens and the Carlsbad Unified School District. The primary school site is located immediately north of the Community Park on the west side of future Alicante Road. An alternative school site is located to the east of Alicante Road and north of Poinsettia Lane. The alternative site is provided in the event the City determines that the entire Alga Norte Site Irrevocable Offer of Dedication is needed for park purposes. On August 7, 2001 the City Council directed staff to initiate actions to acquire 32.9 acres of park land via an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication established by the 1996 Parks Agreement. Two additional possible permanent sites for Fire Station 6 are provided for in the master plan. Both sites in addition to the City owned site are also evaluated in the Program EIR. At this time the City has not committed to acquiring either of the sites for the permanent location of Fire Station 6. The temporary Fire Station 6 is located at 3131 Levante Street southwest of the intersection of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road and La Costa Avenue. Construction of or improvements to several General Plan Circulation Element Roadways are included as part of the overall development. As part of the project Poinsettia Lane east of El Camino Real will be built. The outside lanes, median improvements, curb, gutter and sidewalks along Ranch0 Santa Fe will also be constructed. Melrose Drive south of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road is also a General Plan Circulation Element Road to be constructed as a part of the Villages of La Costa project. Improvements to Alga Road and El Camino Real along the project’s frontage are also planned. EIR 98-07/GPA 98-Ol/MP 149(Q)/MP 98-Ol/LFMP lO/LFMP 1 l(B)/CT 99-03/HDP 99-Ol/SUP Ol-04/SUP 99-Ol/CT 99-04/PUD Ol-08HDP 99-02/SUP 01-03 -VILLAGES OF LA COSTA August 29,200l Morrow Development is requesting approval of a number of discretionary actions to permit the development of the proposed Villages of La Costa Project. The following is a list of the approvals requested: 1) General Plan Amendment. The proposed General Plan Amendment is to designate the conservation areas established by the HCP/OMSP as open space and to move the allowable residential dwelling units designated for the HCP/OMSP’s “Conserved Habitat Area” into other areas designated as the “Impact Areas”. The exhibit attached to the Planning Commission Resolution for the General Plan Amendment shows the proposed changes graphically. A graphic showing the existing and proposed General Plan Land Use Designations is also provided on page 3-3 of the Program EIR. The General Plan Amendment would also change the open space boundary on the General Plan’s Open Space and Conservation Map to conform to the adopted HCP/OMSP, and would remove the Secondary Arterial designation of La Costa Avenue, east of Camino de 10s Caches on the General Plan’s Circulation Map. The amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map is as follows: Existing General Plan Land Use Designations: Residential Low Density (RL) - Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM) Residential Medium Density (RM) Elementary School (E) Open Space (OS) Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations: Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM) Residential Medium Density (RM) Residential Medium-High Density (RMH) Planned Industrial (PI) Community Facility (CF) Elementary School (E) Open Space (OS) 2) La Costa Master Plan Amendment. An amendment to the existing La Costa Master Plan is proposed to remove the Northwest Area and the Southeast Area (including the Rancheros) from the plan. The original plan was adopted by the City in 1972 and has undergone several amendments (“A” through “0”) since that time. In 1990 Amendment (0) to Master Plan 149 was prepared and adopted for the Southwest Area, Arroyo La Costa, and subsequently developed as “La Costa Valley”. At the time of approval of the most recent amendment, the City directed that a revised master plan also be prepared for the remaining two future development areas. 3) Villages of La Costa Master Plan. The Villages of La Costa Master Plan will apply to the two future development areas of Master Plan 149(O). These two remaining areas are proposed to be removed from existing Master Plan 149 and be renamed and configured for development into three distinct planning villages with modified land use designations. 481 EIR 98-07/GPA 98-Ol/MP 149(Q)/Mp 98-Ol/LFMP lO/LFMP 1 l(B)/CT 99-03/HDP 99-Ol/SUP Ol-04/SUP 99-Ol/CT 99-04/PUD Ol-08/HDP 99-02/SUP 01-03 - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA August 29,200l Page 5 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) (A.) The Northwest Area has been renamed La Costa Greens and consists of 660.7 gross acres and a maximum of 1,038 dwelling units. Also included in La Costa Greens are an elementary school site, public park site, community facilities site, and a 7.9-acre business park. (B.) The northern portion of The Southeast Area, formerly known as The Rancheros has been renamed La Costa Ridge and consists of 493.1 acres with a maximum of 320 dwelling units. (C.) The southern portion of The Southeast Area has been renamed La Costa Oaks and consists of 712.6 acres with a maximum of 1,032 dwelling units. A community facilities site will also be located in The Oaks. The total number of dwelling units for the three villages is a maximum of 2,390 units on 1,866.4 acres. Approval of the Master Plan will establish the character and intensity of land use and development standards for the proposed project. The project area is presently zoned Planned Community and Chapter 21.38 requires the adoption of a master plan to guide future development. Zone 10 Local Facilities Management Plan. The Growth Management Program, Title 21, Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code requires that each facilities zone have an adopted zone plan. The new Zone 10 Plan describes all public facilities requirements and sets forth the timing of installation and financing for all public facilities within La Costa Greens. Zone 11 Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment. The proposed amendment to the existing plan is necessary to address the revised land use designations. The Local Facilities Management Plan has been updated to be consistent with the Land Uses proposed in the La Costa Ridge and La Costa Oaks as well as to update the plan to reflect development that has occurred within the zone. The amended Zone 11 Plan describes all public facilities requirements and sets forth the timing of installation and financing for all public facilities. Master Tentative Tract Man for the Greens. A Master Tentative Tract Map is proposed for The Greens Village. The map proposes subdividing the area into separate lots to create the open space areas and neighborhood development area boundaries. Also included is mass grading of the development areas in addition to major infrastructure improvements such as circulation element roads, utilities and drainage improvements. Recordation of the map and construction of improvements are planned to be completed in phases identified on the map. Development of neighborhoods where individual units would be sold will require further subdivision. Hillside Development Permit for La Costa Greens. Proposed grading of The Greens must be in conformance with the Hillside Development Regulations. The purpose of this permit is to review the proposed grading for conformance with the regulations. El Camino Real Scenic Corridor Special Use Permit for La Costa Greens. El Camino Real has been designated as a scenic corridor and has an adopted set of standards that applies to property within certain distances of this roadway. The Special Use Permit is necessary to determine if the proposal is in conformance with the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards. Floodplain Special Use Permit for La Costa Greens. A Floodplain Special Use Permit is required before construction or development begins within any area of special flood hazards, flood-related erosion hazards or mudslide areas, as established in Section 21 .110.070 of the Municipal Code. The permit is required as grading is proposed within the loo-year floodplain as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). EIR 98-07/GPA 98-Ol/MP 149(Q)/Mp 98-Ol/LFMP lO/LFMP ll(B)/CT 99-03HDP 99-Ol/SUP Ol-04/SUP 99-Ol/CT 99-04/PUD Ol-08/HDP 99-02/SUP 01-03 - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA August 29,200l 10) Master Tentative Map for The Ridge & The Oaks. A single Master Tentative Tract Map is proposed for The Ridge and Oaks Villages. The map proposes subdividing the area into separate lots to create the open space areas and neighborhood development area boundaries. In addition, the map includes subdividing into residential lots Neighbor- hoods 3.8 and 3.9 of The Oaks. Also included is mass grading of the development areas and finish grading of the Neighborhood 3.8 and 3.9 lots in addition to major infrastructure improvements such as circulation element roads, utilities and drainage improvements. Recordation of the map and construction of improvements are planned to be completed in phases identified on the map. Development of the remaining neighborhoods where individual units would be sold will require further subdivision. 1 l)Hillside Development Permit for The Ridge & The Oaks. Proposed grading of The Ridge and The Oaks must be in conformance with the Hillside Development Regulations. The purpose of this permit is to review the proposed grading for conformance with the regulations. Because both villages are included on a single master tentative map that includes the proposed grading a single Hillside Development Permit is used to analyze the proposed grading. 12)Floodplain Special Use Permit for The Ridge & The Oaks. A Floodplain Special Use Permit is required before construction or development begins within any area of special flood hazards, flood-related erosion hazards or mudslide areas, as established in Section 21 .110.070 of the Municipal Code. The permit is required as grading is proposed within the loo-year floodplain as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 13) Street Right-of-Way Vacations. Several existing street right-of-way reservations within the project area would be vacated and relocated. 14) Certification of the Environmental Impact Report. A Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the project. The Program EIR includes an analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the following issue areas: - Land Use & Community Character - Noise - Landform Alteration - Air Quality - Visual Quality & Aesthetics - Geology/Soils - Biological Resources - Hydrology, Water Quality & Drainage - Archaeological Resources - Public Facilities & Services - Paleontological Resources - Human Health and Safety Hazards - Transportation - Population and Housing Additional sections required by CEQA are also included in the Program EIR. General Plan, Zoning & Existing Land Use for Adiacent Properties The following tables provide the General Plan Land Use Designation, Zoning designation, and existing land use for property adjacent to each of the three villages. EIR 9%07/GPA 98-Ol/Mp 149(Q)/MP 98-Ol/LFMP lO/LFMP 1 l(B)/CT 99-03/HDP 99-Ol/SUP Ol-04/SUP 99-Ol/CT 99-04/PUD Ol-08/HDP 99-02/SUP 01-03 - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA August 29,200l Table 1 - La Costa Greens Adjacent Land Uses and Applicable Designations General Plan Zoning Existing Land Use North OS, RLM, RL L-C Agriculture & Open &ace South 1 RMH, RM, RLM, OS 1 RD-M, R-l, R-l- 1 Condominums, Single East RM, RLM, OS 10000, RD-M-5000 Family - Detached L-C, P-C, OS, R-l Agriculture, Open Space, Single Family- West Detached PI, RM, RMH, RLM, P-M, RD-M, L-C, E- Business Park, Multi- C A, RD-M-Q, C-l-Q Family Residential, Condominums, Office-Retail Table 2- La North South East West RD-M-Q, P-U, P-C RMH, RM, E, RLM, RD-M, R-2, OS, R-l, OS, RL R-1-15000 esignations Existing Land Use Condominums, Single Family-Detached Condominiums, Single Family- Detached Single Family - Detached, Meadowlark Wastewater Treatment Facility Condominums, Duplexes, Elementary School, Open Space, Single Family- Detached Table 3 - La Costa Oaks Adjacent Land Uses and Applicable Designations General Plan Zoning Existing Land Use North OS, u OS, P-U Open Space, Meadowlark I Wastewater ’ South Treatment Facility RLM, RL P-C, R-l-40000 Single Family- EIR 98-07/GPA 98-Ol/MP 149(Q)/MP 98-Ol/LFMP lO/LFMP 1 l(B)/CT 99-03/HDP 99-Ol/SUP Ol -04/SUP 99-Ol/CT 99-04/PUD Ol -08/HDP 99-02/SUP 01-03 - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA August 29,200l Page 8 Site Description The existing physical characteristics of each of the three villages will be described separately. The project site is primarily undeveloped and unimproved with the exception of several water tanks, access roads and paths, a ranch house and various public utilities. The Greens surrounds a portion of the La Costa Resort and Golf Course, but the golf course is not a part of the project site. The Greens encompasses approximately 660.7 acres located generally northeast of the intersection of Alga Road and El Camino Real. Topgraphically, The Greens is dominated by a north-south draining valley. The majority of The Greens is characterized by moderately sloping hillside terrain. Elevations range from 80 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) at the golf course boundary to 400 feet AMSL at one point along the eastern border. Thirteen habitat types occur on this area of the property with no one type covering more than 38 percent of the area. The most prominent vegetative communities within The Greens includes Diegan coastal sage scrub, southern maritime chaparral and non-native grasslands. A ranch house and several out-buildings are located east of the offsite golf course and a number of dirt roads cross the site. Numerous public utilities, a sewer pump station and SDG&E transmission lines are located on the property. The Ridge includes approximately 493.1 acres generally located southeast of El Fuerte Street and Alga Road and northwest of San Marcos Creek. The northern portion of the site is dominated by a single, roughly dome-shaped hill. South of this landform, the terrain consists of northeast- southwest trending ridgelines separated by southward draining canyons. Elevations within The Ridge range from 80 feet AMSL in the bed of San Marcos Creek to about 725 feet AMSL near an existing water reservoir in the north-central portion of the village. San Marcos Creek flows along the southerly boundary of The Ridge and contains a waterfall feature, commonly referred to as Box Canyon. Existing vegetation within the village consists primarily of coastal sage scrub, with the remainder consisting of southern mixed chaparral and disturbed habitat. Existing improvements within The Ridge include the Meadowlark Wastewater Treatment Plant within the eastern portion in addition to a public water tank located near the northern area. A dirt access road from Alga Road extends south to the water tank. A buried water line extends westward from the tank to El Fuerte Street. An SDG&E transmission line within a 200- foot easement crosses the southern part of the site. Several other dirt roads and old fence lines are present on The Ridge. The Oaks encompasses approximately 712.6 acres of largely undeveloped land located on both sides of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road. Topographically, the area is characterized by irregular ridge- and-canyon terrain. A tributary to Encinitas Creek is located along the southern boundary. EIR 98-07/GPA 98-01&U’ 149(Q)/MP 98-Ol/LFMP lO/LFMP ll(B)/CT 99-03/HDP 99-Ol/SUP Ol-04NJP 99-Ol/CT 99-04/PUD Ol-08/HDP 99-02NJP 01-03 - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA August 29,200l Page 9 Elevations range from a high of approximately 990 AMSL along the east-central property boundary to a low of approximately 285 AMSL along San Marcos Creek at the northwest boundary with The Ridge. Existing vegetation is similar to The Ridge and primarily consists of coastal sage scrub, southern mixed chaparral and disturbed habitat. The Stanley Mahr Reservoir (La Costa Dam), and the Denk Reservoir (steel water tank) are located on parcels that are not part of the project. Buried water lines, SDG&E transmission towers, access roadsand remnants of at least two generations of mining activity with associated excavations and waste-fill are present on-site. Prior Actions on the Site The project site is currently subject to the requirements of the La Costa Master Plan (MP 149(O)). Master Plan 149 was adopted by the City in 1972 and has been amended several times since its initial adoption with the most recent amendment occurring in 1990. At the time Amendment “0” was approved, the City directed that a revised master plan be prepared for the remaining two future development areas. Amendment “P” was submitted for the La Costa Town Center project on August 3 1, 1993 but was withdrawn on January 12, 1996. The amendment was related to a proposal to change a portion of the site referred to as M.A.G. Properties from residential and open space to commercial and office. More detail regarding the La Costa Master Plan is provided in the section of this report where amendment 149(Q) is analyzed. Applicable Regulations The proposed project is subject to the following plans, ordinances, standards and policies: l :* Environmental Protection Procedures (Title 19) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) +:* General Plan l :+ Habitat Conservation Plan/Ongoing Multi-Species Plan dated June 1995 +:* La Costa Master Plan (MP 149(Q)) l :* Planned Community (P-C) Zone, Chapter 21.38 of the Municipal Code +:* Growth Management, Chapter 21.90 of the Municipal Code l :* Subdivision Ordinance, Title 20 of the Municipal Code l :+ Planned Development Ordinance, Chapter 21.45 of the Municipal Code l :* Hillside Development Regulations, Chapter 2 1.95 of the Municipal Code l :+ El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards +:* Floodplain Management Regulations, Chapter 2 1.110 of the Municipal Code. l :* Streets and Highways Code Section 2381, 8300 - 8363 and Government Code Section 65402 (a) IV. ANALYsIs The recommendation of approval for this project was developed by analyzing the project’s consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. The following analysis section discusses compliance with each of these applicable regulations/policies utilizing both text and tables. The format follows the discretionary actions being requested to permit the development of the Villages of La Costa Project. EIR 98-07/GPA 98-01/I&P 149(Q)/MP 98-Ol/LFMP lO/LFMP 1 I(B)/CT 99-03/HDP 99-Ol/SUP Ol-04NJP 99-Ol/CT 99-04/PUD Ol-OS/HDP 99-02/SUP 01-03 - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA August 29,200l A. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT - GPA 98-01 The existing General Plan (September 6, 1994) is not consistent with the approved HCPIOMSP (June 7, 1995), because the General Plan allocates development to areas subsequently designated as Conserved Habitat Areas by the HCP/OMSP. The Implementation Agreement for the HCP describes the need to finalize the HCP/OMSP boundaries as part of the required General Plan Amendment and the proposed project. The proposal establishes permanent boundaries for preservation of Conserved Habitat Areas and the associated boundaries for the Impact Areas (developable areas) within each of the three villages. Therefore, an amendment to the General Plan is proposed to accomplish the following: 1) to revise open space and areas designated for development on the Land Use Map of the General Plan to be consistent with the Conserved Habitat and Impact Areas provided by the HCP/OMSP; and, 2) to shift allowable dwelling units and other development out of the Conserved Habitat Areas and into the Impact Areas designated within the HCP/OMSP. A comparison between the existing General Plan land uses and those proposed as part of the amendment are depicted on page 3-3 of the Program EIR in addition to the exhibit attached to the Planning Commission General Plan resolution. To maintain consistency the Official Open Space and Conservation Plan is also being amended. The final part of the General Plan Amendment is to remove the Secondary Arterial designation of La Costa Avenue, east of Camino de 10s Caches, as shown on the General Plan’s Circulation Plan. La Costa Avenue is shown as a Secondary Arterial by the General Plan, entering The Oaks at its southwest comer and connecting to Ranch0 Santa Fe Road. The proposed General Plan Amendment would terminate La Costa Avenue’s designation as a Secondary Arterial at Camino de 10s Caches. Open Space Boundarv Adiustment One of the fundamental issues with the proposed General Plan Amendment is the preservation of open space and the adjustment of the open space boundaries. As previously mentioned the approved HCP/OMSP established the areas for preservation on the entire project area. These areas were established based on biological information independent of any project proposal. The amendment will designate the preservation areas as open space on the General Plan Land Use Map. Associated with this amendment is the shifting of allowable density from the areas to be designated as open space to areas where development can occur. In order to adjust the boundaries of any open space shown on the “Official Open Space and Conservation Map” dated September 1994 the findings listed in implementing policy C.20 of the Open Space Planning and Protection Section of the General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element are required to be made. The three required findings and affirmative justification for each are listed on pages 4.1- 15 through 4.1-18 of the Villages of La Costa Program EIR, in the Planning Commission Resolution for the General Plan Amendment and follow here. (1) The proposed open space area is equal to or greater than the area depicted on the Official Open Space and Conservation Map. Proi ect Finding: The Official Open Space and Conservation Map defines approximately 170 acres of La Costa Greens and 242 acres of La Costa Ridge/Oaks as either “Existing/Approved Open Space, ” “Constrained Open Space,” or both , for a a87 EIR 98-07/GPA 98-Ol/MP 149(Q)/MP 98-Ol/LFMP lO/LFMP 1 l(B)/CT 99-03HDP 99-Ol/SUP Ol-04/SUE’ 99-Ol/CT 99-04/PUD Ol-08/HDP 99-02/SUP 01-03 - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA August 29,200l Page 11 total of 412 acres. The proposed project designates 246 acres of The Greens and 657.3 acres of The Ridge/Oaks as Open Space, including HCP Open Space and Non- HCP Open Space, for a total of 903.3 acres. Because the proposed open space areas are greater than the areas depicted on the City’s Official Open Space and Conservation Map, the proposed project is consistent with this Finding. (2) The proposed open space area is of environmental quality equal to or greater than that depicted on the Official Open Space and Conservation Map. Project Finding: The proposed revision to the Official Open Space and Conservation Map would bring the City’s General Plan into conformance with the approved HCP/OMSP, as well as expand the open space designation to cover 903.3 acres of the site comprised of 834.9 acres of HCP Open Space and 68.4 acres of Non-HCP Open Space. As discussed in Section 4.4, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, of the Program EIR for the Villages of La Costa, there would be a net increase of Diegan coastal sage scrub (59.4 acres), southern maritime chaparral (12.9 acres), southern mixed chaparral (22.1 acres), grasslands (22.9 acres) and riparian habitats (14.4 acres) which would provide greater preserve value for the ability of the HCP to support several species. In addition, rare plants that would benefit from the preserve additions include the Palmer’s grappling-hook (45 plants), De1 Mar manzanita (2 plants), summer holly (2 plants), Englemann oak (lplant), California adolphia (200 plants), and ashy spike-moss (unknown number of plants). The additions to the HCP also would benefit the coastal California gnatcatcher within both The Greens and The Ridge/Oaks by adding habitat adjacent to preserved coastal sage scrub areas and by providing a relatively large patch of coastal sage scrub adjacent to an existing utility easement on the southern half of The Greens. Several additional coastal sage scrub- dependent species (orange-throated whiptail, southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, etc.) on both project sites would benefit from additions to the preserve. In addition, foraging habitat for raptor species such as the northern harrier, white-tailed kite, Cooper’s hawk, burrowing owl, and golden eagle would be moderately increased within The Greens and The Ridge/Oaks. (3) The proposed adjustment to open space, as depicted on the Official Open Space and Conservation Map, is contiguous or within close proximity to open space as shown on the Official Open Space and Conservation Map. Proiect Finding: As discussed in Section 4.4, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, of the Villages of La Costa Program EIR, all habitat areas proposed to be added to the HCP preserve abut existing preserve areas identified in the HCP/OMSP. Some of the additional habitat areas are large and, therefore, contribute more habitat value. The habitat areas proposed to be removed from the previously designated 1995 HCP/OMSP are small and scattered patches on the periphery of the HCP/OMSP preserve. Most patches proposed for removal are less than one-acre in size. As demonstrated in Section 4.4 of the Program EIR, no significant adverse impacts to the HCP/OMSP would occur. EIR 98-07/GPA 98-Ol/MP 149(Q)/MP 98-Ol/LFMP lO/LFMP 1 l(B)/CT 99-03/HDP 99-Ol/SUP 0 l -04/SUP 99-O l/CT 99-04/PUD 0 l -08kIDP 99-02/SUP 01-03 - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA August 29,200l Pane 12 General Plan Developable Land Use Designations and the Shift of Allowable Density The project includes the shift of allowable dwelling units and other development out of the Conserved Habitat Areas and into the Impact Areas designated within the HCP/OMSP. The major issues with this relocation of development were compatibility with existing and planned adjacent land uses, not exceeding the existing planned development potential for the properties, and compliance with the public facilities requirements and performance standards of the Growth Management Program. Under the current General Plan Land Use designations including the Growth Management control points and the Constrained Lands Ordinance, Section 21.53.230 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, the maximum number of dwelling units allowed within the project area would be 3,070 dwelling units. The proposed project would allow for the development of a maximum of 2,390 dwelling units, or 680 fewer units. The maximum number of units is established by the Villages of La Costa Master Plan. To establish the appropriate General Plan Land Use Designation the existing land use and lot size of adjacent properties was determined. The project places similar land uses and lot sizes along the perimeter of the project. Transitions to other lot sizes are accomplished internal to the master plan. No land use incompatibility impacts would be created by the proposed general plan land use designations of property. Compliance with Applicable General Plan Goals The General Plan is divided into eight elements. Proposed project consistency with applicable environmental goals of each of the eight elements is contained on pages 4.1- 19 through page 4.1- 30 of the Villages of La Costa Program EIR. The proposed amendment is also in compliance with the additional General Plan Goals, Objectives or Policies depicted in the following table: Table 4 - General Plan Compliance Element Goal, Objective or Policy Project Consistency Land Use Objective B.2 - Create a Proposed Open Space visual form that is pleasing to designations create large the eye, rich in variety, contiguous conservation areas reflecting environmental that are visually pleasing and values reflect the environmental value of the areas Land Use Policy C.4 - Encourage The general plan amendment clustering when it is provides for the shift of compatible with adjacent dwelling units out of the development. conservation areas resulting in a clustering of development. EIR 98-07/GPA 98-Ol/MP 149(Q)/MP 98-Ol/LFMP lO/LFMP 1 l(B)/CT 99-03/HDP 99-Ol/SUP 0 l -04/SUP 99-01 /CT 99-04/PUD 0 1-08/HDP 99-02/SUP 0 l-03 - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA August 29,200l Page 13 Element Land Use LandUse Land Use Circulation Housing Public Safety Table 4 - General Plan Compliance Goal, Objective or Policy Project Consistency Policy C.6 - Review the The proposed master plan architecture of buildings to contains development ensure the quality and standards and architectural integrity of design and guidelines as well as a review enhancement of the character process to ensure that the of each neighborhood. desired level of quality is attained. Policy C.8 - Provide for a The proposed land use sufficient diversity of land designations and master plan uses so that schools, parks and provide for an elementary recreational areas, churches school site, a community park, and neighborhood shopping and community facility uses. centers are available in close The project site is in close proximity. proximity to existing or planned commercial sites. Policy C. 12 - Develop and The project includes open retain open space in all space for the preservation of categories of land use. natural resources and open space for outdoor recreation. Streets & Traffic Control Dedication and improvement Policy C. 18 - Require new of all circulation facilities development to dedicate and needed for the project as well improve all public rights-of- as citywide facilities identified way for circulation facilities on the circulation plan will be needed to serve development. completed. The removal of the Secondary Arterial designation on a portion of La Costa Avenue is consistent with the project traffic volumes. Policy 3.6.a - A minimum of Two areas of the property are fifteen percent of all units proposed to be designated approved for any master plan RMH to accommodate community shall be affordable affordable housing to lower income-households. developments. Airport Hazards Policy C.3 - Land uses have been sited to Review development be compatible with the proposals in the Airport Comprehensive Land Use Influence Area to ensure Plan for Palomar Airport. design features are incorporated to address aircraft crash and noise hazards. EIR 98-07/GPA 98-OlMP 149(Q)/MP 98-Ol/LFMP lO/LFMP 1 l(B)/CT 99-03/HDP 99-Ol/SUP Ol-04/SUP 99-Ol/CT 99-04@UD Ol-08/HDP 99-02/SUP 01-03 -VILLAGES OF LA COSTA August 29,200l Circulation Element Amendment Removal of the Secondary Arterial designation of La Costa Avenue, east of Camino de 10s Caches on the General Plan Circulation Map is proposed. Based on projected traffic volumes the roadway is not needed to provide a connection to a roadway shown as Melrose Drive south of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road. Conceptual lotting plans for The Oaks indicate that a local street will be provided to make a more circuitous connection. This will aid in controlling vehicle speeds by reducing the width of the paved road surface. Approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment including the revision to the Official Open Space and Conservation Map, and the Circulation Plan will create consistency between the General Plan, the HCP/OMSP, and the Villages of La Costa Master Plan. B. LA COSTA MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT - MP 149(Q) An amendment to the existing La Costa Master Plan is proposed to remove the Northwest Area and the Southeast Area (including the Rancheros) from the plan. The original plan was adopted by the City in 1972 and has undergone several amendments (“A” through “0”) since that time. Amendment “P” was submitted and withdrawn. In 1990 Amendment (0) to Master Plan 149 was prepared and adopted for the Southwest Area, Arroyo La Costa, and subsequently developed as “La Costa Valley.” At the time of approval of the most recent amendment, the City directed that a revised master plan also be prepared for the remaining two future development areas. This requirement was imposed as the existing plan is not up to date with current regulations and policies. The revised master plan is The Villages of La Costa Master Plan (MP 98-01). The proposed amendment to the La Costa Master Plan will delete the Northwest Area and the SoutheastRancheros Area from the plan and have those areas included in the proposed project. The Villages of La Costa Master Plan complies with the requirements of the Planned Community Zone and properly implements the applicable General Plan provisions for the site. C. VILLAGES OF LA COSTA MASTER PLAN - MP 98-01 The project proposes renaming and reconfiguring the former Northwest and Southeast/Rancheros areas as well as modifying the land uses designated within them as part of the Villages of La Costa Master Plan. The Northwest Area would be renamed La Costa Greens, consisting of 660.7 gross acres and providing for a maximum of 1,038 residential dwelling units. The Rancheros portion of the Southeast Area would be renamed La Costa Ridge and would consist of 493.1 acres and a maximum of 320 residential dwelling units. The remaining portion of the Southeast Area would be renamed La Costa Oaks and would consist of 712.6 acres and a maximum of 1,032 residential dwelling units. In total, the maximum number of dwelling units planned for the three villages would be 2,390 units on 1,866.4 gross acres. Additional uses include a business park, elementary school site, public park, community facilities, and roadways, as well as open space and habitat preservation. Included as attachments to this report are copies of the village development plan and village development plan table for all three villages. Pursuant to Chapter 21.3 8 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Planned Community Zone), adoption of the master plan will establish the type and intensity of land use and the zoning and EIR 98-07/GPA 98-Ol/MP 149(Q)/MP 98-Ol/LFMP lO/LFMP 1 l(B)/CT 99-03HDP 99-Ol/SUP Ol-04/SUP 99-Ol/CT 99-04/PUD Ol-08/HDP 99-02/SUP 01-03 - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA August 29,200l Page 15 development standards for the property. Table 5, Villages of La Costa Master Plan Land Use Summary, provides an acreage and land use tabulation for the master plan. Table 5 - Villages of La Costa Master Plan Land Use Summary Land Use Gross Acreage Total Gross Acreage Residential The Greens The Ridge The Oaks Development Low Medium 311.9 146.4 327.7 786.0 Density (O-4 du/ac) Medium Density 8.6 0.0 13.8 22.4 (4-8 du/ac) Medium High 30.3 11.5 16.0 57.8 Density (8- 15 duf ac) Residential 350.8 157.9 357.5 866.2 Subtotal Non-Residential Business Park Elementary 7.9 0.0 0.0 7.9 7.2 0.0 0.0 7.2 School Public 27.2 0.0 0.0 27.2 Community Park Community Facilities HCP Open Space 1 7.9 0.0 6.6 14.5 212.6 324.3 298.0 834.9 Non-HCP Qpen Space 2 Major Roads 3 Non-Residential Subtotal PROJECT TOTAL 33.4 10.9 24.1 68.4 13.7 0.0 26.4 40.1 309.9 335.2 355.1 1000.2 660.7 493.1 712.6 1866.4 Chapter 21.38, Planned Community Zone, of the municipal code contains the requirements for the content of a Master Plan. The Villages of La Costa Master Plan contains all information required by the municipal code. The plan consists of seven chapters and appendices. The following is a general listing of the content of each chapter and the appendices: ’ Includes open space which is proposed as part of the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). * Includes utility corridors and manufactured sIopes proposed in open space planning areas. 3 Includes Poinsettia Lane in La Costa Greens and Ranch0 Santa Fe Road in La Costa Oaks. EIR 98-07/GPA 98-Ol/MP 149(Q)/MP 98-Ol/LFMP lO/LFMP 1 l(B)/CT 99-03HDP 99-Ol/SUP 01-04/SUP 99-Ol/CT 99-04/pUD 01-08IHDP 99-02/SUP 01-03 - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA August 29,200l Chapter 1.0 - Introduction - The introduction includes information such as the organization and scope of the plan, a project description, master applications, master plan goals, and relationship to the La Costa Master Plan as well as the HCP/OMSP. Chapter 2.0 - General Plan and Land Use Provisions - This chapter covers the proposed General Plan Land Use Designations, Zoning Description, legal description for the area subject to the plan, a land use summary, general provisions, and a summary of the Growth Management performance standards as they apply to the project. Chapter 3.0 - Development Review Process - Within Chapter Three the development review process is set forth. It establishes the permits required for the various uses contemplated for the neighborhoods within the Villages of La Costa. Chapter 4.0 - Master Plan Development Standards and Guidelines - Chapter 4 contains a set of standards and guidelines that apply to all three of the villages. The chapter includes requirements for grading, hillside and hilltop development, circulation standards, architecture/site planning standards, the master plan landscape concept, wall and fencing standards, signage, lighting, and screening and edge treatments. Chanter 5.0. 6.0 and 7.0 - La Costa Greens, Ridge & Oaks Village Development Plan - The three villages are each covered in a separate chapter. Chapter 5 provides the village land use plan, public facilities, a phasing plan, landscape concept plan, architectural concept and development standards for the The Greens Village. Chapter 6 covers the same topics for The Ridge and Chapter 7 covers The Oaks. Chapter 8.0 - Appendices - The appendices include the following information: Appendix A - Legal Descriptions Appendix B - Conceptual Grading Plans Appendix C - Conceptual Lotting Plans Appendix D - Encumbrance Exhibits Appendix E - Neighborhood Density Calculations The standards and design guidelines provided in the master plan are adequate to properly develop the project site. The standards and design guidelines will be implemented when the required development permits are submitted for each neighborhood (planning area). Master Plan Issues A number of issues were identified during the creation of the master plan. These issues and how the master plan is structured to respond to each is described in this section. Land Use Compatibility - A great deal of the project site perimeter contains existing development. In order to ensure that no compatibility problems were created in these areas, the product type and lot size minimum proposed has been selected to be close to what exists offsite adjacent to the proposed project. Transitions to other product types or lot sizes occur within the master plan development. Proposed non-residential development was selected to be compatible EIR 98-07/GPA 98-Ol/MP 149(Q)&@ 98-Ol/LFMP lO/LFMP 1 l(B)/CT 99-03HDP 99-Ol/SUP 0 l -04/SUP 99-O l/CT 99-04/PUD 0 l -08/I-IDP 99-02/SUP 01-03 - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA August 29,200l Pane 17 with adjacent non-residential development. Section 4.1 of the Villages of La Costa Program EIR covers in greater detail the issue of land use compatibility at the project boundaries beginning on page 4.1-37. Circulation - The project will be constructing or making improvements to several circulation element roads as described previously in this report. For that portion of Melrose Drive (Street “C”) shown south of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road on the General Plan Circulation Plan the right-of- way will be dedicated for a major arterial, but the improvements will be made to secondary arterial standards. This is being done, as it does not appear that the City of Encinitas will extend this roadway into the Olivenhain area. By obtaining the right-of-way for a major arterial should the City of Encinitas desire to extend the roadway in the future, and the traffic volumes warrant major arterial improvements, the necessary right-of-way will be available. Comparison of the Maximum Number of Dwelling Units Proposed to the La Costa Master Plan & Growth Management - The existing La Costa Master Plan provides for a maximum of 7,053 dwelling units. Subsequent to the adoption of the existing Master Plan, the City amended the General Plan and adopted the Growth Management Plan as a component of the General Plan. The Growth Management Plan establishes density control points for each residential General Plan land use designation. The City also adopted Municipal Code Section 21.53.230, the “Constrained Lands Ordinance,” which sets criteria for the restriction of development on open space and environmentally sensitive lands. With implementation of the current General Plan, consideration of the Growth Management control points and implementation of the Constrained Lands Ordinance, the maximum number of dwelling units allowed within the project area would be 3,070. The proposed Villages of La Costa Master Plan allows for a maximum of 2,390 dwelling units, or 680 fewer units. Affordable Housing - The project is required to comply with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, Chapter 21.85 of the Municipal Code. The ordinance requires that 15 percent of the total units be affordable. The project requirement is a total of 359 affordable units based on the maximum number of units allowed by the master plan. Should fewer units be approved this requirement will be less. Fewer affordable units may also be required at the discretion of the City Council for providing units with 3 or 4 bedrooms if this is desirable in satisfying the city’s state-mandated affordable housing requirement as well as provisions of the Housing Element. The master plan includes two affordable housing sites both of which are planned to be developed with multi-family apartments. The first site is Neighborhood 1.15 in The Greens that will have a maximum of 180 units. The second site is Neighborhood 3.6 of The Oaks that will have 171 units. The remaining 8 units will be provided as rent restricted second dwelling units. The required Site Development Plan for the affordable units has been delayed until prior to the first final map for any individual neighborhood subdivision except Neighborhoods 3.8 and 3.9, or the first development permit for any neighborhood which does not require a final map. This is proposed because of the substantial benefit derived to the City and the region through the timely grading and ultimate completion of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road and Poinsettia Lane. These improvements are included on the master tentative maps which will need to be finaled to provide for the road construction. Neighborhoods 3.8 and 3.9 are included on the master tentative map for The Oaks to eliminate the need to move dirt across Ranch0 Santa Fe Road after it is completed as well as to minimize impacts to adjacent residential neighborhoods. EIR 98-07/GPA 98-Ol/MP 149(Q)/MP 98-Ol/LFMP lO/LFMP ll(B)/CT 99-03HDP 99-Ol/SIJP Ol-04/SUP 99-Ol/CT 99-04/PUD Ol-08HDP 99-02/SUP 01-03 - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA August 29,200l Community Facilites, Daycare and RV. Storage - The master plan provides areas for community facilities and daycare uses as required by the Community Facilities Zone, Chapter 21.25 of the Municipal Code. The total required community facilities acreage is 10.08 acres. The master plan is providing 13.25 net acres and 14.5 gross acres. The daycare site is located within Area 1.2 of The Greens. Two recreational vehicle storage sites are proposed. One site is located within The Greens and the second is within The Oaks. Landscaped Parkways - The master plan proposes landscape parkways adjacent to the curb. The minimum width for the parkway is 4 % feet. Maintenance of the parkways will be the responsibility of the Homeowner Associations. Fire Protection Zones - One of the issues associated with the extensive amount of habitat preservation included with the project is the placement of the fire protections zones as well as the implementation of other measures to reduce the risk of wildland fire hazards. Fire Department staff have reviewed the master plan and required additional standards to address this issue. They include clarifying that in the 20 feet closest to the structure in the 60 foot fire protection zone no structures are allowed including patio trellises, arbors, fire pits, gazebos, enclosed porches and balconies. This requirement is also to be written as a separate disclosure to buyers. In addition, all fencing within the fire protection zones is to be non-combustible, specifically no wood fencing. Alga Norte Park Site/ School Site - Provision of a site for the future Alga Norte Park is subject to the requirements of the 1996 Parks Agreement between the City of Carlsbad and Real Estate Collateral Management Company (RECM). The agreement chronicles the park requirements from the various areas developed by the applicant’s predecessors in title and lists the existing park credits. The Parks Agreement required the reservation of up to 32.9 acres within the Northwest portion of the Villages of La Costa as a potential future site for Alga Norte Park. Section 4.8 of the agreement requires the project applicant to include the location for the park reservation in its future planning as well as to provide for alternative development should the City determine to satisfy all or a portion of the Southeast Quadrant requirement from other property or in another manner. Pursuant to the 1996 Parks Agreement RECM has excess parkland dedication credits in the amount of 6.381 acres. The project has a requirement for 16.62 acres of parkland. When the existing credit is subtracted from the project requirement a total of 10.239 acres are required for the project. The City has the ability to purchase the park site acreage in excess of the amount required for the project at a cost of $175,000 per acre. Section 4.3 1 requires the City to make its determination of the final configuration of the desired site for Alga Norte Park on or before the date of approval of the first master tentative map within Local Facilities Management Zone 10. The first master tentative map for LFMP Zone 10 is proposed concurrently with the master plan. As permitted by the parks agreement the project applicant is providing for an alternative land use on part of the area that is in excess of what is required for the project. The alternative use proposed is a site for an elementary school for the Carlsbad Unified School District. This alternative would include shared parking facilities for the uses and could also include sharing of play fields. An alternative school site is proposed in Neighborhood 1.7 of The Greens. On August 7,200l the City Council considered a recommendation from the Recreation Department 3 9s- EIR 98-07/GPA 98-Ol/MP 149(Q)/MP 98-Ol/LFMP lO/LFMP 1 l(B)/CT 99-03/HDP 99-Ol/SUP 01-04/SUP 99-Ol/CT 99-04/PUD 01-08/HDP 99-02/SUP 01-03 - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA August 29,200l to acquire the entire 32.9 acres of park land via an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication established by the 1996 Parks Agreement. The City Council directed the Recreation Department to acquire the entire 32.9 acres for park use. Prior to the City Council’s action a letter was submitted by the school district commenting on both sides. Pursuant to the provisions on pages 19 and 21 of the General Plan Land Use Element the school district will be notified when a development application has been filed at which time the district will need to notify the City whether or not it wants to initiate action to proceed with acquisition of a school site in the proposed subdivision. The master plan has been conditioned to delete Area 1.4 and expand Area 1.5 to incorporate that area. The Area 1.4 designation will be left for possible use on the alternative site shown in Neighborhood -1.7. A floating school site is proposed on the General Plan for Neighborhood 1.7. Fire Station 6 Site - Two additional possible alternative sites are provided for in Neighborhood 3.6 of the master plan for Fire Station 6. A temporary station is currently located at 3131 Levante Street. The master plan provides for the development of either site through the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Fiscal Impact Analysis - A fiscal impact study titled Fiscal Impact Analysis of Master Plan Amendment 149(Q) and Related Documents by Onaka Planning & Economics was prepared in conjunction with the Villages of La Costa Master Plan as required by the Planned Community Zone. The fiscal impact analysis is on file with the Planning Department. Copies have been provided to the Planning Commission. Development Standards and Guidelines - The project application was submitted on February 13, 1998. During the preparation of the standards and guidelines for the master plan city staff and the project applicant have worked to develop controls to ensure that the master plan achieves a high level of quality in the built environment, as well as a character unique in some respects to the project. The development standards and guidelines were prepared based on existing ordinances, policies and good planning principles. Attached to this report is a series of tables comparing the proposed standards and guidelines of the master plan to existing city standards. Over the past two years, Planning Department staff has been engaged in an effort resulting in a proposed amendment to the Planned Development Ordinance and City Council Policy 44 (Small Lot Architectural Guidelines). A number of the proposed standards for the ordinance and policy originated in some form with the Villages of La Costa Master Plan. A table making a comparison to the proposed amended ordinance and policy has not been included. At the time of the preparation of this report the new proposals had not been approved by the City Council. In addition, because of the extensive amount of effort and considerable time involved in the preparation of the project plans and documents it is not appropriate to expect that the Villages of La Costa would be in conformance with an ordinance and policy that was not in place during the processing of the project. D. ZONE 10 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN - LFMP 10 A Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) has been prepared for Zone 10 pursuant to the requirements of the Growth Management Ordinance, Chapter 21.90 of the Municipal Code. No LFMP has ever been previously adopted for Zone 10. Zone 10 comprises 756.6 acres. There are six property owners within the zone. The project applicant controls 660.7 acres or just over 87 EIR 98-07/GPA 98-Ol/MP 149(Q)/MP 98-Ol/LFMP lO/LFMP 1 l(B)/CT 99-03/HDP 99-Ol/SUP 01-04/SUP 99-Ol/CT 99-04/PUD 01-08/HDP 99-02/SUP 01-03 - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA August 29,200l percent of the land area of Zone 10. The City Council authorized Morrow Development to prepare the Zone 10 LFMP. The proposed zone plan covers the entire zone and analyzes the requirements for the eleven public facilities included within the growth management program. For each of the eleven public facilities the plan lists the required performance standard, provides a facility planning and adequacy analysis, required mitigation, and financing sources for any required mitigation. The zone will be in compliance with the required performance standards by satisfying the general and special conditions listed in the zone plan. The impacts of the build out of The Greens Village in Local Facilities Management Zone 10 are summarized below: Table 6 - The Greens LFMP Zone 10 Summarv STANDAliD IMPACTS COMPLIANCE W/STANDARDS City Administration Library 3,609 sq. ft. 1,925 sq. ft. Yes Yes Waste Water Treatment Parks Drainage Circulation Fire Open Space 1,108 EDU 7.218 Acres Basin D 21,160 ADT Station #2 & #5 N/A per Citywide Plan Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Schools CUSD Students - K-5: 153.1; Yes 6-8: 73.1; 9-12: 97 SMUSD Students - K-5: 119; 6-8: 45; 9-12: 54 Sewer Collection System Water 1,108 EDU 243,760 GPD Yes Yes E. ZONE 11 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN - LFMP 11 (B) An amendment is proposed to the Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) for Zone 11 to reflect the proposed changes in land use. The plan has been prepared in accordance with Chapter 2 1.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The proposed document is the second amendment to the Zone 11 LFMP. Amendment number 1 dated December 14, 1993 was the approval of a financing plan for Zone 11 and 12. Zone 11 includes approximately 2,252.8 gross acres. The project applicant controls approximately 1,234.4 gross acres or almost 55 percent of the land area of Zone 11. The total number of dwelling units projected for build out of the zone is 3,694. A total of 1,885 dwelling units are existing in the zone, another 3 19 are approved, and 1,490 future units remain to be approved and constructed. The combined total of The Ridge and The Oaks accounts for 1,352 of the remaining future units. The City Council authorized Morrow Development to prepare the Zone 11 LFMP. The proposed zone plan covers the entire zone and analyzes the requirements for the eleven public facilities included within the growth management program. For each of the eleven public facilities the plan lists the required performance standard, provides a facility planning and adequacy analysis, required mitigation, and financing EIR 9%07/GPA 9%Ol/MP 149(Q)/MP 98-Ol/LFMP lO/LFMP 1 l(B)/CT 99-03/HDP 99-Ol/SUP Ol-04/SUP 99-Ol/CT 99-04/pUD Ol-08/HDP 99-02/SUP 01-03 - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA August 29,200l Page 21 sources for any required mitigation. The zone will be in compliance with the required performance standards by satisfying the general and special conditions listed in the zone plan. The impacts of the build out of The Ridge and The Oaks Villages in Local Facilities Management Zone 11 are summarized below: Table 7 - The Oaks and The Ridge LFMP Zone 11 Summary STANDARD IMPACTS COMPLIANCE W/STANDARDS City Administration 4,701 sq. ft. Yes Library 2,507 sq. ft. Yes Waste Water Treatment 1,352 EDU Yes Parks 9.402 Acres Yes Drainage Basin D Yes Circulation 15,460 ADT Yes Fire Station #6 & #2 Yes Open Space N/A per Citywide Plan Yes Schools EUSD Students - Elem.: Yes 324.6; SDUHSD - Mid.: 291.3; High: 291.3 SMUSD Students - K-5: 105.2: 39.8-12: 48.4 Sewer Collection System 1,352 EDU Yes Water 608,5 10 GPD Yes F. MASTER TENTATIVE MAP FOR THE GREENS - CT 99-03 The Subdivision Ordinance, Title 20 of the Municipal Code requires that a tentative tract map be filed for the division of property into five or more lots. The applicant has filed two master tentative tract maps. One map is for The Greens Village. The second covers both The Ridge and The Oaks. Between both master tentative maps the entire area of the master plan will be subdivided. The master tentative map for The Greens would create 49 lots on 660.7 acres. Most of the lots being created correspond with the Neighborhood boundaries established in the master plan. A number of the Neighborhood Planning Areas and the Open Space Areas depicted in the master plan are comprised of multiple lots. The lots range in size from 0.4 acres to 115.9 acres in area. Also included are four lots for active recreation areas. These recreation area lots will be shared by several of the future residential neighborhoods that will be developed pursuant to Planned Development Permits. The lots are being created on the master tentative map so that the master developer can retain ownership of the recreation areas to facilitate development of the areas without relying upon the guest builder to complete them. Many of the recreation lots will be used to satisfy the active recreation area requirement of more than a single master plan neighborhood. Creating the lots with the first final map also provides more expedient delivery of the recreation facilities. Most of the developable lots will require the approval of separate tentative maps to create the residential lots within the neighborhoods. EIR 9%07/GPA 98-Ol/MP 149(Q)/MP 9%Ol/LFMP lO/LFMP 1 l(B)/CT 99-03/HDP 99-Ol/SUP Ol-04/SUP 99-Ol/CT 99-04/PUD Ol-OUI-IDP 99-02/SUP 01-03 - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA August 29,200l Parre 22 Included on the master tentative map are major infrastructure improvements and grading. The infrastructure improvements include roads such as Poinsettia Lane, Alicante Road, an extension of Estrella De Mar north of Alga Road and a westward extension of Dove Lane. Water, sewer, reclaimed water, storm drains, street lights and other utilities will also be included in the major roadways shown on the master tentative map. Many of the trails included in the master plan will also be constructed as part of this map. The master tentative map shows the final map, grading, and improvements occurring in up to four phases consistent with the phasing identified in the master plan. Proposed grading is evaluated in the following section of this report covering the Hillside Development Permit (HDP 99-01) for The Greens. As designed and conditioned the master tentative tract map complies with all city requirements, including the Subdivision Ordinance, and the State Subdivision Map Act. The project as conditioned would provide all necessary improvements and all findings required by Title 20 can be made and are contained in the Planning Commission Resolution for CT 99-03. The project is therefore consistent with Title 20, the Subdivision Ordinance. G. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE GREENS - HDP 99-01 A Hillside Development Permit is required for The Greens as the property contains slopes of 15 percent or greater and has an elevation differential greater than 15 feet. The purpose of this permit is to review the proposed development of The Greens for conformance with the Hillside Development Regulations, Chapter 21.95 of the Municipal Code. The development proposal is in conformance with the purpose and intent in addition to the other provisions of the regulations. A one sheet exhibit titled, “Hillside Development Ordinance Exhibit for La Costa Greens” has been provided to graphically depict the location and size of slopes and grades related to the Hillside Development and Design Standards listed in Section 21.95.120 of the regulations. The exhibit should be referred to when reviewing this section of the report, Develonment of Natural Slopes of Over Forty Percent Gradient The project’s hillside slope conditions and undevelopable areas have been identified on the constraints map. Approximately 45.2 acres are comprised of natural slopes having gradients above 40 percent. Grading proposed on the master tentative map will encroach into 17.3 acres of natural slopes having gradients above 40 percent. Of these 17.3 acres, approximately 15.8 acres would be graded for proposed development and 1.5 acres would be graded to accommodate Circulation Element roads. The proposed grading of these areas is permitted as being grading associated with a Circulation Element Road that is a permitted Exclusion per Section 21.95.130 (A)(2) or areas that do not meet all four of the criteria of Section 21.95.120 (B). Many of the areas do not equal the 10,000 square foot minimum and the remainder are slopes that do not comprise a prominent land form feature. Volume of Grading The standards require that the volume of grading be minimized. The relative acceptability of hillside grading volume is determined as 0 - 7,999 cubic yards per graded acre (cy/ac) is acceptable, 8,000 - 10,000 cy/ac is potentially acceptable, and greater than 10,000 cy/ac is unacceptable. In The Greens the grading volume is 9,960 cy/ac after adjustments are made to a99 EIR 9807/GPA 98-Ol/MP 149(Q)/MP 98-Ol/LFMP lO/LFMP 1 l(B)/CT 99-03/HDP 99-Ol/SUP Ol-04/SUP 99-Ol/CT 99-04/PUD Ol-08/HDP 99-02/SUP 01-03 - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA August 29,200l Page 23 exclude grading associated with circulation element roads and collector streets pursuant to Section 21.95.130 (A)(2). Grading volumes in the “potentially acceptable” category require justification. The development areas are constrained by the preservation of HCP area, which comprises relatively flat portions of the site. Therefore, development is limited to areas containing topography that must be graded to create flat and gently sloping development pads. In addition, the alignments of Poinsettia Lane and Alicante Road are established by the City’s General Plan, further constraining development and shaping its placement. In addition to these constraints, The Greens will provide a public park and school site, which require large, flat development pads that require substantial grading. Slope Height Manufactured slopes shall not be greater than 40 feet in height unless an exclusion is provided pursuant to Municipal Code Section 21.95.130 or a modification is granted pursuant to Section 21.95140. Thirteen permanent manufactured slopes would exceed a height of 40 feet. Exclusions are permitted for the majority of these slopes because they meet one or more of the following: 1) Hillside areas where a circulation element roadway or a collector street must be located provided that the proposed alignment(s) are environmentally preferred and comply with all other city standards; 2) Grading volumes, slope heights and graded areas which are directly associated with circulation element roadways or collector streets, provided that the proposed alignment(s) are environmentally preferred and comply with all other City standards; or 3) Hillside areas that have unusual geotechnical or soil conditions that necessitate corrective work that may require significant amounts of grading. The remainder of the slopes qualify for a modification pursuant to Section 21.95.140 (A) as the modification will result in more open space or undisturbed area than would a strict adherence to the regulation. Contour Grading The Hillside Development Regulations require that all manufactured slopes which are greater than twenty feet in height and two hundred feet in length and which are located adjacent to or substantially visible from a circulation element road, collector street or useable public open space area shall be contour graded. The project complies with this standard with the exception of some areas along Alicante Road and Poinsettia Lane. These proposed slopes are curve-linear and contour graded where possible. The remaining slopes in these areas meet the criteria for the granting of a modification pursuant to Section 21.95.140 (A) as the proposed modification will result in significantly more open space or undisturbed area or be more aesthetically pleasing and natural appearing. Additional contouring would decrease the proposed addition of HCP open space or extend slope heights. The project also complies with or requires the neighborhood development plans to meet the remaining development standards of the Hillside Development Regulations including landscaping, hillside and hilltop architecture, slope edge building setbacks, and drainage. 300 EIR 98-07/GPA 98-Ol/MP 149(Q)/MP 98-Ol/LFMP lO/LFMP 1 l(B)/CT 99-03/HDP 99-Ol/SUP Ol-04/SUP 99-Ol/CT 99-04/PUD Ol-08/HDP 99-02/SUP 01-03 -VILLAGES OF LA COSTA August 29,200l H. EL CAMINO REAL SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE GREENS - SUP 01-04 El Camino Real is subject to a set of scenic corridor guidelines. Three neighborhoods or planning areas within the northwestern portion of The Greens are subject to the El Camino Real Scenic Corridor Guidelines. Those guidelines require the review and approval of a Special Use Permit to assure compliance with the guidelines. Future development of these areas will require approval of a Special Use Permit as buildings will be proposed at that time. Neighborhoods 1.1 through 1.3 of The Greens are subject to the development standards of Area 4 of the guidelines. The primary standard applicable to the project at the master tentative map stage is the grading limitation. The standard limits cut or fill to within 15 feet of original grade in the area applicable to the standard. The proposed grading is in conformance with this standard. I. FLOODPLAIN SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE GREENS - SUP 99-01 The Floodplain Management Regulations are included in Chapter 21 .l 10 of the Municipal Code. The purpose of the chapter is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare, and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas. Areas of the project site and the existing golf course are located within an area designated as a special flood hazard area inundated by a loo-year flood. A loo-year flood is defined as a flood which has a one percent annual probability of being equaled or exceeded. A Special Use Permit is required to be obtained in addition to any other required permits or entitlements before construction or development begins within any area of special flood hazard. Hydrology studies have been prepared for the project and reviewed by staff of the Engineering Department. The proposed grading and drainage improvements will modify the location of the loo-year flood. The after project improvements lOO- year flood area will not be located within areas where structures are proposed. The necessary findings to approve the Floodplain Special Use Permit for The Greens can be made. J. MASTER TENTATIVE MAP FOR THE RIDGE & THE OAKS - CT 99-04 A single master tentative map is proposed to include The Ridge and The Oaks. The map would create 248 lots on 1,200.2 acres. Like the master tentative map for The Greens most of the lots being created correspond with the Neighborhood boundaries established in the master plan. A number of recreation area lots are also being created on this map. Neighborhoods 3.8 and 3.9 of The Oaks Villages will be completely subdivided as described in the master plan section of this report. A total of 161 residential lots are created between both neighborhoods. The proposed lots comply with the requirements of the master plan for lot area and minimum width in addition to the design standards of Title 20, Subdivisions, of the Municipal Code. A Planned Unit Development Permit is being processed concurrently with the map as one is required by the master plan because of the 6,000 square foot minimum lot size for Neighborhood 3.9. The majority of the remaining residential neighborhoods will require the approval of separate tentative maps. Mass grading and major infrastructure improvements are included on the master tentative map. The infrastructure improvements include roads such as Melrose Drive south of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road, partial improvements to Ranch0 Santa Fe Road, a part of La Costa Avenue and others. Much of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road will be constructed as a city capital project. Water, sewer, EIR 98-07/GPA 98-Ol/MP 149(Q)/MP 98-Ol/LFMP lO/LFMP 1 l(B)/CT 99-03/HDP 99-Ol/SUP Ol-04/SUP 99-Ol/CT 99-04/PUD Ol-08/HDP 99-02/SUP 01-03 - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA August 29,200l Pane 25 reclaimed water, storm drains, street lights and other utilities will be included in the roadways shown on the master tentative map. A number of the trails included in the master plan will also be constructed as part of this map and are shown on the plan. As depicted on the master tentative map the final map, grading, and improvements may occur in up to five phases. Grading proposed on the master tentative map is evaluated in the section of this report for the Hillside Development Permit (HDP 99-02) for The Ridge and The Oaks. The master tentative map as designed and conditioned complies with all city requirements, including the Subdivision Ordinance, and the State Subdivision Map Act. The project as conditioned would provide. all necessary improvements and all findings required by Title 20 can be made. The required findings are contained in the Planning Commission Resolution for CT 99-04. The project is therefore consistent with Title 20, the Subdivision Ordinance. K. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE OAKS - PUD 01-08 A Planned Unit Development Permit is required for Neighborhood 3.9 of The Oaks Village as the minimum lot size for this area pursuant to the Villages of La Costa Master Plan is 6,000 square feet. The master plan provided for Planned Unit Development Permits to be processed to create lots less than 7,500 square feet in area without including proposed floor plans, building elevations, and plotting of units. An amendment to the Planned Development Permit will be required to approve architecture and plotting for the units as well as the common recreation area improvements. Compliance with architecture and site planning as well as neighborhood special development standards of the Villages of La Costa Master Plan will be reviewed as part of the amendment. A common active recreation area lot is proposed in Neighborhood 3.9 that is greater in size than the applicable requirement. All lots have a minimum lot width of 50 feet with most being much greater than the minimum width. A common HOA lot is proposed between the residential lot lines located at the top of slope and the right-of-way of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road. The width of this lot is 50 feet and greater with the exception of where deceleration lanes are provided into the neighborhood on southbound Ranch0 Santa Fe Road. In those areas the HOA lot narrows to a minimum width of 40 feet. Portions of the existing Ranch0 Santa Fe Road (old alignment) adjacent to the neighborhood will be removed leaving a lo- foot wide section to be used as a trail. The remaining right-of -way width will be landscaped. L. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE RIDGE & THE OAKS - HDP 99- 02 A Hillside Development Permit is required for The Ridge & The Oaks as the property also contains slopes of 15 percent and greater and has an elevation differential greater than 15 feet. The Hillside Development Permit is needed to review the proposed development shown on the master tentative map for The Ridge and The Oaks for conformance with the Hillside Development Regulations, Chapter 21.95 of the Municipal Code. The proposed development is in conformance with the purpose and intent in addition to the regulations contained within the Municipal Code. A single sheet exhibit titled “Hillside Development Ordinance Exhibit Villages of La Costa” prepared by Hunsaker & Associates has been provided to graphically depict the items related to compliance with the Hillside Development and Design Standards listed in Section 21.95.120 of the Municipal Code. The exhibit should be referred to for assistance when reviewing this section of the report. _ 32 EIR 98-07/GPA 98-Ol/MP 149(Q)/MP 98-OULFMP lO/LFMP 1 l(B)/CT 99-03HDP 99-Ol/SUP Ol-04/SUP 99-Ol/CT 99-04/PUD Ol-OEI/HDP 99-02/SUP 01-03 - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA August 29,200l Development of Natural Slopes Over Forty Percent Gradient Depicted on the constraints map for The Ridge and The Oaks are the hillside slope conditions and undevelopable areas. Approximately 187.4 acres of The Ridge and The Oaks are comprised of natural slopes having gradients above 40 percent. Grading proposed on the master tentative map will encroach into IO. 1 acres of natural slopes having gradients above 40 percent. Of these 10.1 acres, 8.6 acres would be impacted by development and 1.5 acres would be impacted by Circulation Element roads. The proposed grading of these areas is permitted as being grading associated with a circulation element road that is a permitted Exclusion per section 21.95.130 (A)(2) or areas that do not meet all four of the criteria of Section 21.95.120(B) particularly that they do not comprise a prominent landform feature. Volume of Grading One of the standards of the Hillside Development Regulations is directed at minimizing the volume of grading proposed. The relative acceptability of hillside grading volume is determined as 0 - 7,999 cubic yards per graded acre (cy/ac) is acceptable, 8,000 - 10,000 cy/ac is potentially acceptable and greater than 10,000 cy/ac is unacceptable. In The Ridge and The Oaks the grading volume is 8,950 cy/ac after adjustments are made to exclude grading associated with circulation element roads and collector streets pursuant to Section 21.95.130 (A)(2). Grading volumes in the “potentially acceptable” category require justification. Several factors make these volumes acceptable under the circumstances. First, the large total acreage of biologically significant located natural open space for large preserve areas and corridor linkages occupied some of the flatter terrain and forced development into steeper areas resulting in more grading. * Second, alignments and grades for major circulation element roads such as Ranch0 Santa Fe Road are generally fixed, thus constraining available development areas, dictating internal street elevations and alignments and thereby constraining developable areas. Slope Height Manufactured slopes shall not be greater than 40 feet in height unless an exclusion is provided pursuant to Municipal Code Section 21.95.130 or a modification is granted pursuant to Section 21.95140. Eleven permanent manufactured slopes in The Ridge and The Oaks would exceed a height of 40 feet. Exclusions are permitted for the majority of these slopes because they meet one or more of the following: 1) Hillside areas where a circulation element roadway or a collector street must be located provided that the proposed alignment(s) are environmentally preferred and comply with all other city standards; 2) Grading volumes, slope heights and graded areas which are directly associated with circulation element roadways or collector streets, provided that the proposed alignment(s) are environmentally preferred and comply with all other City standards; or 3) Hillside areas that have unusual geotechnical or soil conditions that necessitate corrective work that may require significant amounts of grading. The remainder of the slopes qualify for a modification pursuant to Section 2 1.95.140 (A) as the modification will result in more open space or undisturbed area than would a strict adherence to the regulation. This is particularly applicable for the slopes adjacent to proposed open space. 303 EIR 98-07/GPA 98-Ol/MP 149(Q)/MP 98-Ol/LFMP 1 O/LFMP 11 (B)/CT 99-03/HDP 99-Ol/SUP Ol-04/SUP 99-Ol/CT 99-04/pUD Ol-08/HDP 99-02/SUP 01-03 -VILLAGES OF LA COSTA August 29,200l Page 27 Contour Grading The Hillside Development Regulations require that all manufactured slopes which are greater than twenty feet in height and two hundred feet in length and which are located adjacent to or substantially visible from a circulation element road, collector street or useable public open space area shall be contour graded. The project complies with this standard with the exception of areas adjacent to Ranch0 Santa Fe Road where the roadway goes through the HCP preserve area. The remaining areas are curve-linear and contour graded. The Ranch0 Santa Fe Road slopes adjacent to the HCP Preserve Areas meet the criteria for the granting of a modification pursuant to Section 21.95.140 (A) as the proposed modification will result in significantly more open space or undisturbed area or be more aesthetically pleasing and natural appearing. Additional contouring would extend into HCP open space and extend slope heights. The project also complies with or requires the neighborhood development plans to meet the remaining development standards of the Hillside Development Regulations including landscaping, hillside and hilltop architecture, slope edge building setbacks, and drainage. M. FLOODPLAIN SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE RIDGE & THE OAKS - SUP Ol- 03 The Floodplain Management Regulations are included in Chapter 21.110 of the Municipal Code. The purpose of the chapter is to promote the public health, safety’and general welfare, and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas. Areas of the project site adjacent to San Marcos Creek are located within an area designated as a special flood hazard area inundated by a loo-year flood. A loo-year flood is defined as a flood which has a one percent annual probability of being equaled or exceeded. A Special Use Permit is required to be obtained in addition to any other required permits or entitlements before construction or development begins within any area of special flood hazard. The only development area partially within the limits of the loo-year flood is the southeast comer of Neighborhood 2.6 of The Ridge. Hydrology studies have been prepared for the project and reviewed by staff of the Engineering Department. The proposed grading and drainage improvements will modify the location of the loo-year flood. The after project improvements lOO- year flood area will not be located within areas where structures are proposed. The necessary findings to approve the Floodplain Special Use Permit for The Ridge and The Oaks can be made. N. STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATIONS There are several existing street right-of-way reservations located within the project that would be vacated and relocated. In The Greens, the existing Poinsettia Lane right-of-way would be vacated and relocated approximately 100 feet north of its existing planned alignment. Street vacations are also required for the Ranch0 Santa Fe Road/Melrose Avenue intersection and the Ranch0 Santa Fe/Questhaven intersection realignment with The Ridge and The Oaks. A small portion of Corintia Street west of Xana Way will be vacated as a result of the proposed gated private streets for Neighborhoods 2.1 through 2.5 of The Ridge. Lastly, as part of the proposed project or the City Ranch0 Santa Fe Road project, the existing Ranch0 Santa Fe Road truck by- pass street right-of-way would be vacated. Construction of the new Ranch0 Santa Fe Road alignment is being undertaken as a separate project by the City and was previously evaluated in 304 EIR 98-07/GPA 98-OlMP 149(Q)/MP 98-Ol/LFMP lO/‘LFMP 1 l(B)/CT 99-03HDP 99-Ol/SUP Ol-04/SUP 99-Ol/CT 99-04/PUD Ol-08HDP 99-02/SUP 01-03 - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA August 29,200l the Ranch0 Santa Fe Road EIR (SCH No. 90010850). This separate project was approved by the City on June 2,1992. V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - EIR 98-07 A Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures (Title 19) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The EIR addresses the environmental impacts associated with all discretionary applications for the proposed project including ultimate buildout of the entire project. To determine the areas of potential impact city staff prepared an initial study and issued a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) on December 23, 1998, distributing it to all Responsible and Trustee Agencies, as well as other agencies and members of the public. A number of written responses were received and city staff scheduled two separate public scoping meeting sessions in order to increase opportunities for public input. Notices of the scoping meeting were sent to all property owners within a 600- foot radius of the project boundaries as well as being published in the newspaper. The two public scoping sessions took place June 30, 1999 and July 14, 1999 at the Public Safety Center. At the scoping sessions, the public was invited to comment on the scope and content of the EIR. Approximately 155 people signed in at the scoping sessions and comments were received and considered in both verbal and written form. After consideration of all of the foregoing city staff developed a detailed scope of work for the EIR. The EIR analyzed the following areas of potential environmental impact: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) Land Use and Community Character Landform Alteration Visual Quality Biological Resources Archaeological Resources Paleontological Resources Transportation Noise Air Quality Geology/Soils Hydrology, Water Quality and Drainage Public Facilities and Services Human Health and Safety Hazards Population and Housing Additionally, the Draft EIR includes other sections required by CEQA such as an Executive Summary, Project Description, Cumulative Effects, Effects Found Not to Be Significant, Growth Inducing Effects and Alternatives. On January 25, 2001, the Draft Program EIR was published and the City notified interested Responsible and Trustee Agencies, as well as other interested agencies. Approximately 2,985 “Notice(s) of Completion of a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the Villages of 3or EIR 98-07/GPA 98-Ol/MP r49(Q)/MP 98-Ol/LFMP lO/LFMP 1 l(B)/CT 99-03/HDP 99-Ol/SUP 01-04/SUP 99-Ol/CT 99-04/PUD 01 -OS/HDP 99-02/SUP 01-03 - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA August 29,200l Page 29 La Costa Project” were sent to all members of the public who had signed the interested party list at the scoping sessions or otherwise requested notification, as well as to all property owners within 600 feet of the proposed project based on the most recent tax assessor’s rolls. The “Notice of Completion” commenced an initial 45 day public review and comment period initially expiring March 12, 2001. On February 8, 2001, at the request of a member of the public, the City extended the public review and comment period to a total of 60 days, expiring March 26, 2001 in order to give the public additional opportunity to review and comment in writing. The “Notice of Completion” advised that the Draft Program EIR was available for review at four locations: the City of Carlsbad Planning Department; the City Clerk’s Office; the Carlsbad Main Public Library and the Georgina Cole Public Library. Complete copies were also available for purchase, with or without the Appendices, through the Planning Department. The City established the cost of purchased copies at less than the actual reproduction cost. The analysis contained in the EIR concluded that all significant impacts would be mitigated to below a level of significance with the exception of landform alteration (direct), visual quality/aesthetics (cumulative), transportation (cumulative), noise (cumulative), air quality (cumulative) and hydrology/water quality/drainage (cumulative), which would be considered cumulatively significant and unmitigatible. Direct impacts, also referred to as primary effects, are those caused by the project and that occur at the same time and place. In contrast cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual impacts that, when considered together, are considerable or that compound or increase other environmental impacts. The cumulative impact of several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other, closely related past, present, or reasonably foreseeable, probable future projects. The cumulative impacts all arise from the marginal contribution the proposed project will make, when combined with the impacts from existing and other future projects, to pre- existing conditions that fail to meet applicable standards currently. A total of 50 comment letters were submitted prior to the close of the review period. Responses were prepared for each of the 50 letters and mailed to the commentor on July 16, 2001. The response transmittal letter also provided notice of the availability of the Final Program EIR. Included as a part of the Final Program EIR is a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The MMRP is also attached to the Planning Commission Resolution for the EIR. Under CEQA, before a project which is determined to have significant, unmitigated environmental effects can be approved, the public agency must consider and adopt a “statement of overriding considerations” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15043 and 15093. As the primary purpose of CEQA is to fully inform the decision makers and the public as to the environmental effects of a proposed project and to include feasible mitigation measures and alternatives to reduce any such adverse effects below a level of significance, CEQA nonetheless recognizes and authorizes the approval of projects where not all adverse impacts can be fully lessened or avoided. However, the agency must explain and justify its conclusion to approve such a project through the statement of overriding considerations setting forth the Proposed Project’s general social, economic, policy or other public benefits which support the agency’s informed conclusion to approve the project. The CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations are attached to the Planning Commission Resolution for the EIR. EIR 98-07/GPA 98-Ol/MP 149(Q)/MP 98-Ol/LFMP lO/LFMP 1 l(B)/CT 99-03kIDP 99-Ol/SUP Ol-04/SUP 99-Ol/CT 99-04/PUD Ol-OSHDP 99-02/SUP 01-03 - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA August 29,200l ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5010 (EIR 98-07) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5011 (GPA 98-01) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5012 (MP 149(Q)) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5013 (MP 98-01) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5014 (LFMP 10) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5015 (LFMP 11 (B) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5016 (CT 99-03) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5017 (HDP 99-01) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5018 (SUP 01-04) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5019 (SUP 99-01) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5020 (CT 99-04) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5021 (PUD 01-08) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5022 (HDP 99-02) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5023 (SUP 01-03) Location Map Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form Disclosure Statement Village Development Plans & Tables 8 1/2)’ x 11” Tentative Map Exhibits Development Standards Comparison Tables Final Program EIR for the Villages of La Costa, dated July 16, 2001 (previously distributed; copy on file in the Planning Department) La Costa Master Plan Amendment MP 149(Q) (p reviously distributed; copy on file in the Planning Department Villages of La Costa Master Plan, dated December 2000 (previously distributed; copy on file in the Planning Department) Zone 10 Local Facilities Management Plan, dated June 2000 (previously distributed; copy on file in the Planning Department) Zone 11 Local Facilities Management Plan, dated June 2000 (previously distributed; copy on file in the Planning Department) Fiscal Impact Analysis of Master Plan Amendment 149(Q) and Related Documents, dated December 19, 2000 (previously distributed; copy on file in the Planning Department) Master Tentative Map for The Greens - Full Size Exhibits “A” - “DDD”, dated August 29,200l (previously distributed; copy on file in the Planning Department) Hillside Development Ordinance Exhibit for La Costa Greens - Full Size Exhibit “EEE”, dated August 29, 2001 (previously distributed; copy on file in the Planning Department) Master Tentative Map for The Ridge & The Oaks - Full Size Exhibits “FFF” - “SSSS”, dated August 29, 2001 (previously distributed; copy on file in the Planning Department) Hillside Development Ordinance Exhibit for The Ridge & The Oaks - Full Size Exhibit “TTTT”, dated August 29, 2001 (previously distributed; copy on file in the Planning Department) EIR 98-07/GPA 98-Ol/MP 149(Q)/MP 98-Ol/LFMP lO/LFMP 1 l(B)/CT 99-03/HDP 99-Ol/SUP Ol-04/SUP 99-Ol/CT 99-04/PUD Ol-08/HDP 99-02/SUP 01-03 - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA August 29,200l Page 3 1 31. Landscape Concept Plan for The Villages of La Costa 7 Full Size Exhibits “UUUU” - “YYYY”, dated August 29, 2001 (previously distributed; copy on file in the Planning Department) DN:cs CITY OF CARLSBAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM (To be Submitted with Development Application) PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT: FILE NAME AND NO: The Villages of La Costa - EIR 98-07/GPA 98-OliMP 149(Q)/MP 98- Ol/LFMPlO/LFMP llTS)/CT 99-03/HDP 99-Ol/SUP Ol-04/SUP 99-Ol/CT 99-04/PUD Ol- 08/HDP 99-02/sUP 01-03 LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 10 & 11 GENERAL PLAN: RLM, RM. RMH, PI, CF, E and OS ZONING: Planned Communitv (P-C) & Special Flood Hazard Area DEVELOPERTS NAME: Morrow Development ADDRESS: 1903 Wright Place, Suite 180, Carlsbad, CA 92008 PHONE NO.: (760) 9292701 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 213-030-11, 215-021-07, 215-030-06, 215-030-14. 215-031-08. 215-052-15, 215-061-01. 215-061-09. 215-480-02. 222-151-80. 222-470-23 & 25. 223- 010-12, 18, 19. 27. 28. 29, 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 37. 223-011-02, 03. 04. 05, 06. 223-021-08. 09, 10. 11. 12. 15, 16, 223-050-49.51.52.53. 54. 59, 65.67.69 QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 1.866.4 AC., 2,390 DU, 137,670 SO. FT. of Planned Industrial, Communitv Facilities, Community Park & Elementary School ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 8.3 10 Library: Demand in Square Footage = 4,432 Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) 2,460 Park: Demand in Acreage = 16.62 Drainage: Demand in CFS = N/A Identify Drainage Basin = D (Identify master plan facilities on site plan) Circulation: Demand in ADT = 36.620 (Identify Trip Distribution on site plan) Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 2, 5 & 6 Open Space: Acreage Provided = N/A Schools: 1.64 1.8 students (Demands to be determined by staff) Sewer: Demands in EDU 2,460 Identify Sub Basin = N/A (Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan) Water: Demand in GPD = 852,270 The project is 680 units below the existing Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance. 3 JO9 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant’s statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee. The following information must be disclosed: 1. APPLICANT List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application. Morrow Development, Inc. PO Box 9000-685 Carlsbad, CA 92018-9000 2. OWNER List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Real Estate Collateral Management, Inc. 450 B.-Street, Suite 620 San Diego, CA 92101 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names and addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. Frederick M. Arbuckle, Jr. Morrow Development, Inc. P.O. Box 9000-685 f’arl chd rn 93ni R-onnn 4. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names and addresses of any person serving as officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the trust. N/A 2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad. CA 92009-1576’0 (619) 438-11610 FAX (619) 438-0894 3,o @ 5. Have you had m than $250 worth of business trar, zted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months? q Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s): Person is defined as ‘Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city municipality, district or other combination acting as a unit.” NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. Real Estate Collateral Management Morrow Development, Inc. Print or type name of owner mpdzTy Print or type name of applicant political subdivision or any other group or :r , ,..... ’ - Disclosure Statement 1 O/96 ATT. HMENT 18 * Alternative School Location. See fig. S-la c \ + NOTE: THE AVERAGE LOT SIZE IS LARGER IN EACH NEIGHBORHOOO THAN THE MINIMUM LOT SIZES SHOWN ABOVE. VILLAGES OF LA COSTA \ wEiim4 THE GREENS DEVELOPMENT PLAN Page 5-3 f e m C 2 ri ” ‘A v: > E 2 : 3 .: - . . &a z L jr, .= = z 5 c % k L : : c 3 e 5 ci P a . i 7 rt 4 w f! u 1 E i p I .v : e . E . : P .Y P : G ; C c r 4 ; ?I 9 - T C CL - : ; ‘I ;=: T c: - . P m 313 , ; i I : I ; ! 1 . e : cc i c -2 2 t .c v z = 2 I w- i CL d v: C c s ? 6 = v c z i 8. i n d 5 I , I I I I I I I I I I I - z w g E 3 w 6 2 T h p! w i v. -z E - 2 c a c g= =a < aI E == E k ‘;* (L- E - $ .B v: B ,: g z .E .f E ,: ” e VT E G I h z cc - 2 - % s - ii - E r: - Fi - - c b = .B cc 4 E 2 .E .f E L’ :: 8 v, G d L WI - 2 - % !G - 2 - E 2 - c‘! hl - a s 7 x - E 2 - ? N - # .- v: E ,: E z .f .f E + e (/: Q d I h c CA z - ): z - 2 - 2 2 s t-4 - c 2 .E CL r 2 f E ‘E f z d- (/: g d I c h - z - 3 $ - 2 - zz 2 - u-2 & - aJ .N WI 5 A E E .- .E E G d v: E d A s - s .- m B 2 E a E .- z h 5: 8 9 m & cn - a : 7: 1 : C i c I 2 I ? 0 s n 3 bP , I , I I, , / I ? c h’ u K - # w .- .- CnrA EE a4 5 E E z .- .- .f .E EE . . :iT . . T-5?” 28 -IO : \d id k% w .- m E S C .S .5 E -: .d d v: : : ? T ; : i c - . : i .- m E .- .E 2 G 8 .9 w d 0 % .N .- cnvl ;jz 22 2 E E E .- .- .f .f EE . . cc . . z-:5: 38 ? ? cl- I if ncn . I ‘j ‘” < \ 1 i’ q; $b I k 5 3 2 El QI! E 01 z g ‘5 m a E .C u - C v . ; e I . : : ; ? . c a: s - c2 - E d - - ‘“. 2 k - z 2 - D 1 0 P SCALE: NONE lx cmmsm m LA COSIR GREiiiS / ‘ACHMENT 19 PREPARED By: I CONSULTMNTS woopatucoult suita loo ~;J;e-Q - x?ek-.96oxRo c:\JOeS\961002\9~2~\96022Oa.owC 7-16-01 5:37:t6 pm Villages of La Costa I , Oaks and Ridge OSLOT OSLOT234 RESIDENTIAL c l-161 : I ‘.\ JJ HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES OS LOT177 PL*NN,p& ,pno LA-&-^. I.-. ENGlNERlNC 5; SURMYINC F. ,1,1 ,.ll.-nI, ..,.w, m rwgo, cd 92121 H@58m-4500. rxms)5ss-wlr R:\0071\&Pln\0071x135 8.5 x 11 Lot Exhibit-for City.dwgC 08121Jul-18-2OObO9:3? 2ao S*N DlF‘O. IN‘ 4TTACHMENT 20 COMPARISOS OF R-l ORDIS.~L, ~~.VILLAGE~~F LA COST.4 MATTER PLAY Standard I Existing Ordinance \ZC Master Plan Justification Front Yard : Setback Setback rear yard Side Yards . 20’ minimum . To any part of structure n Calculate to nearest point Twice side yard m 10% width each side . Max 10’ minimum 5’ each side . Limited flexibility in modifying side yard sizes subject to special circumstances and Planning Director Approval . Comer street side - Minimum 10 feet . 15’ mmimum average 30’ The reducrlon 111 srtkk trlrn; by neighborhood to 30’ mm. ro 12‘ mlr.. lj 3 20 habitable area n Calculate first by lot then by average of neighborhood al’erage. recogrnzes rhr need to provide vanen’ to the streetscape. This standard M-ill eliminate the ‘\vallmg’ effect . Lot: average by building planes (having a minimum of 100 SF) to property line o if setback is 15’ for more then 33% of frontage then whole lot is deemed at 15’ setback o if setback is 15’ for less than 33% frontage than average of all planes used. Calculate neighborhood Varies by neighborhood 20% lot width of the minimum neighborhood lot size for lots over 60’ wide Max 20’ minimum 5’ each side Flexibility to distribute setback between both side yards while preserving minimum of 5 ft. 5’ each side yard end of cul-de-sac. A round or octagonal lvhere eve”’ unit IS set at the mimmum front yard setback. The reduction m setback also promotes the use of alrematlvc design layouts for garages without impacting rear yard areas. The Master Plan defines the minimum dimension for rear yards within the individual neighborhood sections. This approach takes into account varying unit types and neighborhood characteristics. The minimum requirements set forth in each neighborhood section are consistent with the existing ordinance. The proposed requirement provides for flexibility to distribute the required setback for site planning consistent with the standards and guidelines Established in the Master Plan. I’he revised setback requirement will provide a non-uniform separation between units thereby :reating interest and variation in the streetscape. It allows distribution of the yard requirement in excess of 5’ from one side to the other in order to maximize separation. The Page 1 of 8 COMPARISON OF R-l ORDINATE., vs. \7~~~~~~~~ OF LA COSTA MASTER PLAX Standard i Existing Ordinance \ZC Master Plan Justification enm tower ma)’ encroach aggregare side ~x-ri rqu1rcnlc:l: Placement of Buildings Second Dwelling Units Minimum Lot area Lot Width Resident Parking Street Width, Parkways, Trees Addresses accessory structures n Admin permit Per 21.10.015 . 7500 square feet 9 7,500 SF up to 10,000 SF: 60’ l 10,000 SF to 201000 SF: 75’ * 20,000 SF & more 80' . 2 car garage with 20’by 20’ interior measurement . No requirement 2’ into setback for max. 8’. roof eaves may add 1. to the encroachment and shall be located within the larger side yard m Comer sneet side setback - 10 feet min. Per Rl code Per 2 1.10.0 15 and shall also comply with 2 1.85 if units are provided as inclusionary housing 7500 square feet Lot widths varies from 60’ to 70' . 7,500 SF: 60’ ’ 9,000 SF: 70’ ’ 10,000 SF: 70’ ’ 11,000 SF: 70’ . 2-car garage with 20 ft by 20 ft interior measurement. n Alternative: two 12 ft. x 20 ft. one car garages; other 3 car options as outlined n 40 ft; 2 lanes of parking n 5 ft non-contiguous sidewalk on both sides. . Landscaped Parkway has nor changed ti-om the eslsrlng ordmancr. t 1 T I Consistent \vrth esrstmg ordinance Consistent \\pith eslstmg ordinance Consrstent with exrstmg ordinance The reduction in lot widths for those lots in excess of 10,000 sf ft is due to the topography of the project area and the implementation of the HCP/OMSP to preserve sensitive habitats. Consistent with existing ordinance The proposed street width is consistent with current engineering standards. The proposed improvements include a 5’ non-contiguous sidewalk with a curb adjacent 4%’ landscape parkway. The effect of this proposal is that land currently appearing as a front yard setback area is relocated as a landscaped parkway to separate the vehicular and pedestrian traffic while maintaining the same distance from the unit to curb. Page 2 of 8 Height COMPARISON OF R-l ORDINA>,L VS. VILLAGES OF LA COSTA MASTER PLAS Standard I Existing Ordinance \ZC Master Plan Justification Building 30 ft. \vith roof pitch 30 feet with roof pitch greater Conslstent v+xh eslsrmg Building coverage Garage setbacks Deater than 3: 12, or 24 ft with roof pitch less than 3: 12 for lots under 20,000 SF 35 ft. or three stories on lots greater than 20.000 SF with min 3: 12 roof pitch 40% of FOSS lot area. Coverage includes exterior stairways, arcades, bridges permanent structural elements ie balconies, oriel windows, garages, covered carports. 20 ft 2 car with minimum dimension of 20X20 No restriction on number of three car garages fronting the street. than 3:13 . 2 story 40% net pad area n 1 story 50% net pad area . Coverage excludes covered porches; overhanging balconies less than 8’; and Porte cocheres 20 ft where garage faces street 15 ft side-loaded garage Requires a mix of 2,3 and 2-door garages, offset. 3-car garages fronting the street are permitted on 25% of the lots An additional 25% of the units may have 3-car garages fronting the street provided that the garages do not exceed 50% of the units’ frontage Three car garage shall have a plane change of min. 18” Garage setback is from face of door to R.O.W. or sidewalk and excludes projections Vary types of garage layouts that may include: side loaded; split with one portion side loaded; split WI house between; ordinance The increased lot coverage for single-stop units provides the flexibility necessary to implement the standards and guidelines in the Master Plan for alternative garage designs and faqade articulation. Proposed lot coverage is based on the net pad area. The Master Plan is proposing additional provisions for garage designs to encourage the living area of the dwelling unit rather than the garage to be the prominent feature to the street. The revised standard is also proposed to discourage front building facades with 3 car garages in a row facing the street. Page 3 of 8 32 3 CO~~PARISOS OF R-l ORDIs.~~ L i ~.VILLAGES OF LA COSTAMASTER PL.~s Standard Existing Ordinance \ZC 3Iaster Plan Justification Allowable encroach- ments Front Porches, Open Court- yards, Balconies Single-story Units Design restrictions I 1 Encroachments permitted pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 2 1.46.120: 2 ft. encroachment allows for listed items None None 2 car garage with 2O’x20’ minimum dimension architecturally integrated with the dwelling unit exterior Dwelling units shall have permanent foundation Exterior siding materials shall be stucco, masonry, wood or brick I tandem: recessed 6’ behind house faqade: and / 1 deeply recessed on back half of lot. n Non-habitable porches up to 5’ wide with 10’ minimum setback. n Non-habitable balconies up to 6’ wide with 10’ minimum setback. . 25% of homes must have porch 5 ft. deep across 33% of front of home or a balcony or a courtyard, whichever is consistent with the architectural style. l Minimum setback 10 ft. n Incorporate a variety of railings/ low walls . Vary roof element over porch . For neighborhoods on ridgelines/‘hillsides, as identified in the Master Plan, which are visible from a circulation element roadway, at least 20% of the units shall be single-story. See Following Table Requirements apply to lots 7,500 SF and greater in - addition to small lots These iearures provide additional buildlnf artlculanon. create a stronger relatlonshlp with the street and are consistent with the pedestnan onented goals of the Master Plan. See comment above. This standard is proposed to reduce the overall building mass visible on ridgelines and hilltops from circulation element roadways and lessen the visual impact of residential development along these areas. See the attached table for additional design requirements for units developed on lots greater than 7,500 SF. Page 4 of 8 Standard COhIPAFUSON OF R-l ORDINAS~L. vs. VIu.4GEs OF LA COST-4 MASTER PL.4s Existing Ordinance ’ VLC Master Plan Justification unless alternative material approved by the land use planning manager All roofs shall have a pitch of at least 3 inches in 20 inches unless approved by land use planning manager. No roof shall be made of corrugated, extruded or stamped metal. All dwelling units shall have a minimum width of twenty feet. Page 5 of 8 325 coMP.iuusOrU OF R-l 0Rms.45 < L VS. VILLAGES OF LA COST.4 MASTER PLAN ADDITIONAL CRITERIA VLC MP 7500 sq. ft. & Greater lots Tvue and number of Units 3 - two story units m a row with less than 15’ between homes 3 - two story units in a row with 15 to 20’ between homes Neighborhood Requirement Neighborhood Requirement Neighborhood Requirement - Two Story Homes Neighborhood Requirement - Floor Plan Neighborhood Requirement - Front Building Planes Neighborhood Requirement - Rear Building Planes Neighborhood Requirement - Sideyard Setback Roofs Roofs Roofs Neighborhood Requirement - Porches i f ? Restriction One home of 3 must have smgle srory edge min. 10’ deep on one side max. platelme 15’ Same as above except mm 5’ deep 33% homes must have min. 3’ deep single story element on front (40% width). Porches, balconies. Porte cochere count. Combination of 1 &I 2 story on lots over 5.000 SF Must include some single story features Min. 3 Floor Plans per Neighborhood 9 50% homes must have 18” offset planes with min. 10’ between front and rear planes. . Each plane is 30 SF minimum. l 3 planes for lots under 45 ’ wide l 4 planes for lots over 45’ wide = Number of planes maybe reduced to 2 planes if a landscaped courtyard is included. . 50% homes must have 18” offset planes with min. 3’ between front and rear planes. n Each plane is 30 SF minimum. . 3 planes for lots under 45’ . 4 planes for lots over 45’ 50% homes shall have offsets so that one side has 7’ average setback Requires Directional Variety At top of tall slopes, parallel to the slope. . Vary heights and massing by neighborhoods n Vary direction . Vary color within Neighborhood . 25% of homes must have porch min. 5’ deep across 33% front of home or a balcony or a courtyard Page 6 of 8 326 Com’.;uusOs OF R-l ORI.xs~l\,r: VS. VILLAGES OF LA COSTA MASTER PLAS Type and number of Units : Restriction m Min. setback 10’ Elevations Neighborhood Requirement - Elevations . Incorporate a variety of railings 10~~ ~11s l Vary roof element o\‘er porch 5090 of openings on fionr elevation shall be recessed or projected a mm. 2”. . Min. 3 Elevations per Floor Plan Neighborhood Requirement - Front Elevations Neighborhood Requirement - Front Elevations Neighborhood Requirement - Side and Rear Elevations, facing public or private streets Neighborhood Requirement - Colors Neighborhood Requirement - Homes Adjacent/Across Street Neighborhood Requirement - Streetscape ’ Incorporate “Handcrafted Detailing” . Incorporate a variety of accent features Windows shall mcorporate min. one of the following: deep recessed windows; paned windows; decorative window ledges; window lintels: accentivaried shapes: window boxes: wood trim surrounds; accent colors; arched elements; shutters; or, raised stucco trim Incorporate a min. of 4 of the following: a variety of roof planes; deeply recessed windows and doors; paned windows and doors; exposed roof beams or rafter tails: decorative window ledges; accent materials such as stucco, wood siding and stone; window and door lintels; dormers; accent and varied shape windows; window boxes and planters with architecturally evident supports; exterior wood elements; variations in colors of stucco and other elements; accent colors on doors, shutters or other elements; stucco wainscoting; covered balconies; arched elements; shutters; or, raised stucco trim around windows and doors. Incorporate a min. of 2 from above. . Consistent with architectural style . Warm, earth tones preferred . Earth tone required for L.C. Ridge . &lin 3 color schemes per floor plan 9 Prohibit same color on same architectural style when adjacent or across street l Different color 9 Different elevation . Vary lot sizes within a neighborhood if possible = Vary floor plan types to include courtyard Page 7 of 8 COMPARISON OF R-l ORDI>.~\,L vs. VILLAGES OF L-4 Con.4 MATTER PLAS Type and number of Units Garages / Restriction I plans and various garages locartons , Requires a mls of 2. 3 and Z-door garages. / offser Neighborhood Requirement - Garages . Max. 5070 of homes may have 3 car garages fronting street Three car garage shall not exceed 50% of frontage Three car garage shall have a plane change of min. 18” Garage setback is from face of door to R.O.W. or sidewalk and excludes projections Vary types of garage layouts to include: side loaded; split with one portion side loaded; split WI house between; tandem; recessed 6’ behind house fagade; and deeply recessed on back half of lot. Page 8 of 8 Standard Arterial Setbacks Front Yard Setback - COMP.LL..AOS OF PLXY?;ED DEVELOPMES, &DIY-VAX-E vs. VILLAGES OF L-4 Con.4 MASTER PL.43 m Seconda? - 3Ofi. . Major - 40 17 m Prime - 50 ft. Existing Ordinance ~ \ZC Master Plan Justification j . Secondary - 30 ft. The proposed mcrease In srtbxi, for mr?,or r0achvq.s crexe?; 3 ! m Major - 50 ft. conslstenr appearance rhroughout m 20’; however, setbacks may be varied to a 15 foot average with a 10’ minimum. n 5 ’ from a private driveway n 20’ for garages that face public/private street n Calculate to nearest point No Neighborhood average . Prime - 50 ft. For lots less than 7.500 SF but greater than 5.000 SF: 15 ’ minimum average 20’ by neighborhood to habitable area 20’ for garages that face public/private street 15’ for side-loaded garages Calculate first by lot then by average of neighborhood Lot: average by building planes (having over 100 SF) to property line o if setback is 15’ for more then 33% of frontage then whole lot is deemed at 15 ’ setback o if setback is 15’ for less than 33% frontage than average of all planes used. For lots less than 5,000 SF (detached single-family units): . 15 ’ minimum from public or private streets . 10’ minimum for side- loaded garages . 5’ minimum from motor courts or driveways the Master Pian area providmg a visual as well as spanal buffer betq,een road\vays and restdenrial uses. The setbacks are consistent \vlth the existing ordmance and in some instances more resmcave recognizing the need to provide variety to the streetscape. This standard will eliminate the ‘walling’ effect where every unit is set at the minimum front yard setback. The setbacks also promote the use of alternative design layouts for garages without impacting rear yard areas. The standards promote a variety of setbacks, building articulation and encourages the use of porches in the front of the unit. Page 1 of 8 329 COMPLSON OF PL.UVZD DEVELOPME> 1 &DISASCE VS. \‘ILL.4GES OF L-4 COSTA MASTER PLO Standard j Existing Ordinance / \ZC Master Plan ’ Justification I Unenclosed porches ma!’ extend up to 5 feet unto the required setbacks. but no closer than 10 feet from the front property line Garages shall be setback a minimum of 5 ’ from motor courts, driveways, or if located at the rear of a lot, from private streets. o If any habitable space is located above the garage, the livable portion must maintain a minimum 10’ setback from the front or rear property lines Single-family cluster homes: Units shall maintain a minimum 10’ habitable area setback from public or private streets Minimum 20’ setback required for garages fronting on public or private streets Garages shall be setback a minimum of 5’ from motor courts and driveways o If any habitable space is located above the garage, the livable portion must maintain a minimum 10’ setback from the front or rear property lines Page 2 of 8 330 Standard Street Side Setback (Corner Lots) Distance Between Single-story and Two- story Residential Structures i COMPAAON OF PLAXNZD DEWLOP~IEX , ~RDISAS’CE vs. VILLAGES OF LA COSTA MASTER PLAS Existing Ordinance i 10 foot minimum Distance between single-story residential structures: Not less than 10 ft; When more than 10 residential structures in a row, the distance between two and three story residential structures shall not be less than 20 fi and the distance between two- story and one story shall not be less than 15 feet Architectural features may project two feet into the required distance between buildings + \ZC Rlaster Plan Attached units on common i lots: 1 Justification All structures shall maintain an average setback of 15’ from private streets, excluding porches and typical architectural feature projections Porches and side-loaded garages may intrude into the required setback but shall maintain a min. setback of 11’ for porches and 10’ for side- loaded garages. Setbacks off of a motor court or driveway shall be 5 ’ for garages and 8’ for habitable spaces 10 foot minimum For lots less than 7,500 SF but greater than 5,000 SF: 25% lot width of the minimum neighborhood lot size for lots under 60’ wide. Max 20’ minimum 5 ’ each side Flexibility to distribute setback between both side yards while preserving minimums. 5’ each side yard end of cul-de-sac. A round or octagonal entry tower may encroach 2’ into setback for max. 8’, roof eaves may add 1’ to the encroachment and shall Consistent with existing ordinance The proposed requirement provides for flexibility to distribute the required setback for site planning consistent with the standards and guidelines established in the Master Plan. The revised setback requirement in conjunction with the requirements for building mass and faqade articulation will provide a non-uniform separation between units thereby creating interest and variation in the streetscape. Page 3 of 8 331 Standard Resident Parking Visitor Parking COMPAAOS OF PLAVVED DEVELOPMES. ~RDISAS‘CE F-S. VILLAGES OF LA COST.4 MASTER PLAS Existing Ordinance VLC Master Plan Justification I be located wirhm the larger side yard 2 full size covered spaces, except for studio units which shall be provided with a ratio of 1.5 spaces per unit, one of which shall be covered . 10 dwelling units or less: 1 space/ 2 DUs l Greater than 10 DUs: For lots less than 5,000 SF: = All habitable portions of structures shall maintain a minimum internal side yard setback of 5’ l Minimum distance between living units shall be IO’, excluding architectural feature projections and wrap- around porch encroachments Single-family cluster homes: . Minimum distance between homes on common lots shall be 10’ excluding architectural feature projections and wrap-around porch encroachments Attached units on common lots: . Buildings internal to the development shall maintain a 10’ building separation . 2-car garage with 20 ft by 20 ft interior measurement. n Alternative: two 12 ft. x 20 ft. one car garages; 3 car options as outlined . Studio units shall be provided 1.5 spaces per unit. One space shall be covered Same as current Planned Development Ordinance standards Consistent with existing ordinance Consistent with existing ordinance Page 4 of 8 332 Standard Building Setbacks from Open Parking Recreational Space Open/ Recreational Space Dimensions Private Yard Dimensions Private Streets COMPL~SON OF PLAXWD DEVELOPMES,, ~RDISASCE ~.VILLAGES OF LACOSTAMASTERPLAS Existing Ordinance VLC Master Plan Justification 5 spaces for the 10 units, plus 1 space: 4 DUs . 45% may be compact spaces . Credit for on-street parking for single- family or duplex units Not less than 5 feet 5 ft minimum Conslsrent lvith esrsung ordinance 200 SF total per unit for lots under 7,500 SF Private and common facilities must be provided 50% Common/SO% Private No parking requirements Minimum of 10 ft. 15ft.xl5ft. . 30 ft; 2 lanes, no parking, 12 units n Minimum 15’ x 15’ area . 100 SF per unit common area Recreational Space Parking: Common recreation areas under 8,000 SF: none required. Common recreation areas over 8,000 SF: o 1 stall per 20 homes within ‘A mile radius; o 1 stall per 15 homes outside ‘A mile radius 0 On-street parking along the frontage of the ret area may satisfy this requirement as long as the spaces are not required to meet the residential, visitor parking requirement. Minimum of 10 ft 15’ x 15’ B 40 fi; 2 lanes of parking for public Consistent with exrsting ordinance. The Master Plan contains additional parking requirements for recreational areas not found in the current ordinance to encourage use by residents. Consistent with existing ordinance Consistent with existing ordinance The proposed street width is consistent with current Page 5 of 8 $33 Co>fp-dsoy OF PLAWED DEVELOPME> . ORDISASCE vs. VILLAGES 0~ LA COSTA MASTER PLAS Standard ’ Existing Ordinance j \ZC Master Plan Justification Driveways RV Storage PUD Lot - or less streets engmeermg srandmh. Tnc m 32 ft: 2 lanes 1 n 5 ft non-contrguous ’ proposed rmprovrmcnrs rncludc ;! parking on one side . 36 I?; 2 lanes parking on both sides n No parkways 30 ft. For all projects with 10 or more units: . 20 sq. ft. for each home. . Not less than 200 SF shall be provided Minimum lot size for single-family homes: 3,500 SF Minimum street frontage for linear or semi-linear streets: 40 ft. Minimum street frontage on sharply curved streets or cul- de-sacs: 35 ft., 40 ft. average Frontage on cul-de- sac bulbs: 25 ft. if guest parking is provided near the end sidewalk on both sides . Landscaped parkways n The width of private streets will be established at the tentative map stage. For single-family cluster homes: . Driveways serving four or less single-family clustered units may be reduced to 24 ft. in width For attached units: . Driveways serving 10 or less units may be reduced to 24 ft. in width For lots less than 7500 sq ft n 20 SF of RV parking per unit . Not less than 200 SF shall be provided Lot widths varies from 40’ to 50’ for lots under 7,500 SF: . 3,500 SF: 40’ . 4,500 SF: 45’ . 5,000 SF: 50’ l 6,000 SF: 50’ 10’ parklvay that provides I‘or 5 of sidelvalk and a landscape park\vay, adjacent to the curb. The effect of this proposal IS that land currently appeanng as a front yard setback area is relocated as a landscaped parkway to separate the vehicular and pedesman traffic while maintaining the same distance from the unit to curb. The reductron m width for loi\ intensity use drivekvays is to increase pedestrian safety and to create a more visually-pleasing environment for residents. Consistent with existing ordinance Consistent with existing ordinance Page 6 of 8 334 COMPAAOY OF PLAYXED DEVELOPME~ 1 ~RDISASCE 15. VILLAGES 0~ LA COSTA MASTER PLA.U Standard Building Height Second Dwelling Units Building coverage Front Porches, Open Court- yards, Balconies Single-story Units - Existing Ordinance \ZC 3Iaster Plan Justification of the cul-de-sac I Single family and duplex: . 30 ft. with roof pitch greater than 3 : 12 . 24 ft with roof pitch less than 3: 12 Second dwelling units may be permitted on lots which are developed with detached single-family residences according to the provisions of Section 21.10.015 (c), and subject to additional requirements (2 1.45.090 (p)) No maximum coverage . None 8 None All units except attached ! Conslstenr mxth esmns units: 1 ordmance 9 30 feet with roof pitch pester than 3: 12 i I I Anached units: m 35 feet with roof pitch geater than 3 : 12 n Conforms to existing PD Ordinance Section 2 1.45.090 (p), et. seq. . Shall also comply with 2 1.85 if units are provided as inclusionary housing l 2 story 40% net pad area . 1 story 50% net pad area . Coverage excludes covered porches, overhanging balconies less than 8’ and Porte cocheres m 25% of homes must have porch 5 ft. deep across 33% of front of home or a balcony or courtyard whichever is consistent with the architectural style m Minimum setback 10 ft. m Incorporate a variety of railings/ low walls m Vary roof element over porch m For neighborhoods on ridgelines/hilltops which are visible from a circulation element roadway, at least 20% of the units shall be single- Consistent with exlstmg ordinance The increased lot coverage for single-story units is provided to implement the standards and guidelines in the Master Plan for alternative garage designs and facade articulation. These features provide additional building articulation, create a stronger relationship with the street and are consistent with the pedestrian oriented goals of the Master Plan. This standard is proposed to reduce the overall building mass visible on ridgelines and hilltops tiom circulation element roadways and lessen the visual impact of residential development along these areas. Page 7 of 8 3357 COMP-.BON OF PLAXXED DEVELOPME\ A ORDISAX-E VS. \‘ILLAGES OF LA COSTA hIASTER PLAN Standard 1 Existing Ordinance ’ \ZC Master Plan I I stoq. Design Small Lot Guidelines 1 See Council Pohcy 44 restrictions (Council Policy 44) j analysis table Justification along these areas. I Page 8 of 8 336 DESIGN GUIDELINES E\‘ALC.ATIOA i CURRENT POLICY ITo. 44 AND VLC MASTER PLAN Guidelines in Current i Villages of La Costa Master Difference Policy No. 44 I Plan Where (3) Wo-stoc units occur in a row and they are situated less than 15’ apart, at least (1) unit must have a single story building edge not less than 10 feet in depth. The roof covering the single story element shall be substantially lower than the roof for the 2-story element to the unit (this is not intended to preclude long shed-type roofs falling to a single-story element). (Guideline #l) Where (3) two-story units occur in a row and they are situated 15 to 20 feet apart, at least (1) unit must have a single story building edge not less than 5 feet in depth. The roof covering the single story element shall be substantially lower than the roof for the 2-story element to the unit (this is not intended to preclude long shed-type roofs falling to a single-story element). (Guideline #2) Per project, 33% of all units shall have a single story edge a minimum of 40% of the total perimeter. For the purpose of this guideline the single-story edge shall be a minimum depth of 3 ‘. (Guideline #3) Per project, 50% of the units in a project, there shall be at least 3 separate building planes on street side (front) elevations of lots with 45’ of frontage or less, and 4 separate building planes on street side (front) elevations of lots with a In neighborhoods where there are three two-story units in a ro\\ situated less than 15 feet apart. at least one of the three units shall have a single-stop building edge. The depth of the single-story edge shall be no less than 10 feet and shall run the length of the building. The roof covering the single-story element shall be substantially lower than the roof for the two-story element to the unit (this is not intended to preclude long shed-type roofs falling to a single-story element). Single story shall be defmed as a plateline maximum of 15 feet. In neighborhoods where there are three two-story units in a row situated between 15 and 20 feet apart, at least one of the three units shall have a single story building edge with a depth of not less than 5 feet running the length of the building. The roof of the single story element shall be substantially lower than the roof for the two-story element of the building (this is not intended to preclude long shed-type roofs falling to a single-story element). Single story shall be defined as a plateline maximum of 15 feet. On a neighborhood basis, thirty- three percent (33%) of the units shall have a single-story element that is forty percent (40%) of the front elevation width. The minimum depth of this element shall be 3’-0”. Porches and Porte cochere elements shall qualify as a single-story element. For at least 50% of the units in the neighborhood, there shall be at least three separate building planes on street side elevations (front elevations) of lots with 45 feet of frontage or less, and four separate building planes on street side Consistent aith eslsrmc pol~:~ Consistent with existing policy The Master Plan states that the single-story element be applied to 40% of the front elevation while the current guidelines apply to the total perimeter of the building. The Master Plan is focusing the single story element on the front elevation side in order to create a pedestrian scaled streetscape. Consistent with existing policy Page 1 337 DESIGN GUIDELINES E\.AL~ATIOX . CURRENT POLICY No. 44 AND VLC ROASTER PLAS Guidelines in Current Policy No. 44 frontage greater than 45‘. The minimum offset in planes shall be 18” and shall include but not be limited to building walls, windows and roofs. The minirnum depth between the faces of the forward-most plane and the rear plane on the front elevation shall be 10’ and a plane must be a minimum of 30 SF to receive credit under this section. (Guideline #4) Per project, 50% of the units in a project, there shall be at least 3 separate building planes on rear elevations of lots with 45’ of frontage or less, and 4 separate building planes on rear elevations of lots with a frontage greater than 45'. The minimum offset in planes shall be 18” and shall include but not be limited to building walls, windows and roofs. The minimum depth between the faces of the forward-most plane and the rear plane on the front elevation shall be 3’ and a plane must be a minimum of 30 SF to receive credit under this section. (Guideline #5) Per project, 50% of all units shall have one side elevation with a 7’ average sideyard setback. (Guideline #6) Three-car garages limited to 75% of the total units where average lot size is 5,000 SF or less. Three-car garages shall incorporate a mixture of 2-door, 3-door and offset (2 planes mm. 12”) 2-door designs. I Villages of La Costa hlaster Plan Difference elevations (front elevations) of lots with a frontage greater than 45 feet. The minimum offset in planes shall be 18 inches and shall include but not be limited to building walls, windows and roofs. For at least 50% of the units in a neighborhood, there shall be at least three separate building planes on The minimum depth between the faces of the forward-most plane and rear elevations of lots with 45 feet the rear plane on the front elevation shall be 10 feet. A plane must be a of frontage or less, and four minimum of 30 sq. ft. to receive credit under this section. The outside edge of porches and separate building planes on rear balconies meet this criteria. elevations of lots with a frontage greater than 45 feet. The minimum offset in planes shall be 18 inches and shall include, but not be limited to, building walls, windows, and roofs. The minimum depth between the faces of the forward-most plane, and the rear plane on the rear elevation shall be 3 feet. A plane must be a minimum of 30 square feet to receive credit under this section. At least 50% of the units in each neighborhood shall have one side elevation where there are sufficient offsets or cutouts so that the side yard setback averages a minimum of 7 feet. Neighborhoods with a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet or greater shall limit the number of units with three-car garages in a row facing the street to 25% of the units in the neighborhood. An additional 25% of the units within the same neighborhood may have 3-car garages if the combined garage area Consistent with existing policy Consistent with existing policy The Master Plan limits the number of three-car garages to 50% versus 75% allowed in current ordinance. Current ordinance is for lots smaller than 5,000 SF while the Master Plan provisions apply to all lot sizes. Page 2 338 DESIGN GUIDELINES EVALUATION ,. , CURRENT POLICY No. 44 AND VLC MASTER PLAN Guidelines in Current / Villages of La Costa Master / Difference Policy No. 44 Plan I (Guideline #7) 50% of exterior door and window openings shall be projected or recessed a minimum of 2 inches and shall be with wood or colored alurninum window frames. (Guideline #8) The predominant roof framing for each floor plan in a project shall exhibit directional variety to the other floor plans and to the street. (Guideline #9) does not exceed more than 50 percent of the home’s frontage. Three car garages are not considered “in-a-row” or “side-by- side” if split by living space or an open area 10 feet wide or more across. Fifty-percent (50%) of exterior openings (doorsi windows) in the front of each unit shall be recessed or projected a minimum of 2 inches or shall be trimmed with wood or raised stucco. Colored ahtminum window frames shall be used (no mill finishes). The predominant roof framing for each floor plan in a neighborhood shall exhibit directional variety to the other floor plans of the same neighborhood. i Consistent with existing poliq Consistent with existing policy Page 3 339 Planning Commission Minutes August 29,200l DRAFT -17 PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairperson Segall asked Mr. Wayne to introduce the item. 1. EIR 98.071GPA 98-011MP 149IQllMP 98.011LFMP IOILFMP llfB)/CT 99.031HDP 99.Ol/SUP Ol-OUSUP 99.011CT 99.041PUD 0%OIMDP 99.021SUP 01-03 - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA - Request for a recommendation of approval for the certification of a Program Environmental Impact Report, and approval of Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; General Plan Amendment; La Costa Master Plan Amendment; Villages of La Costa Master Plan; Zone 10 Local Facilities Management Plan; Zone 11 Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment; Master Tentative Map, Hillside Development Permit, El Camino Real Scenic Corridor Special Use Permit, and a Floodplain Special Use Permit for The Greens Village; Master Tentative Map, Planned Unit Development Permit, Hillside Development Permit, and Floodplain Special Use Permit for The Ridge and Oaks Villages; and Street Right-of-way Vacations. Proposed land uses include 2,390 dwelling units of various product types and lot sizes, a 7.9 acre business park, two community facilities sites, a community park site, an elementary school site and the preservation of 834.9 acres (45%) of the 1,866.4 acre project site as HCP open space, and an additional 68.4 acres as non-HCP open space. The project is located in the southeastern quadrant of the City of Carlsbad, within Local Facilities Management Zones 10 and 11. The Greens (Zone 10) portion of the project site is generally located approximately 2,500 feet south of Palomar Airport Road, east of El Camino Real, north of Alga Road, and west of Unicornio Street. The Ridge and Oaks (Zone 11) portion of the project site is located north and east of La Costa Avenue, south of Alga Road, east of El Fuerte Street, and straddles portions of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road. Mr. Wayne explained that there were a number of matters associated with the Villages of La Costa project, including legislative actions as well as quasi-judicial actions. He stated that the Commission’s actions would be advisory to the City Council. He added that Don Neu, Principal Planner, Clyde Wickham, Associate Engineer, and Dawn Wilson, Traffic Consultant would be making the staff presentation. Chairperson Segall opened the public hearing. Mr. Neu located the project on a map. He explained that the Villages of La Costa was incorporating 1,866 acres in the southeast quadrant in Facility Zones 10 and il. He pointed out La Costa Greens in Zone 10, and La Costa Ridge and La Costa Oaks in Zone 11. He mentioned that there were a number of factors which influenced how the plan was created and with the approach that was taken, including compliance with the Habitat Conservation Plan (“HCP”), compatibility with adjacent land uses, and compliance with the City’s Growth Management Plan performance standards. Mr. Neu also referred to the HCP and stated that the project was consistent with the area that is to be conserved and not developed and was based on biological information with no project. He pointed out where the slide showed approved conservation areas and the additional areas to be added, and also referred to slides displaying the location of La Costa Greens and La Costa Oaks. Mr. Neu further explained that 45% of the project consisted of open space. He said there was an additional 68.4 acres of non-HCP land which resulted in 48% of open space. He clarified that open space included the Alga North Community Park site and the trail system. Regarding residential dwellings, he indicated that there were 2.9 du/net acres, and then described the multi-family units that would be part of the project. Mr. Neu stated that 2,390 dwellings of various project types were included in the project and talked about lot sizes. He added that the projects non-residential component is 7.9 acres of planned industrial and included two community facilities sites, a possible elementary school, and two potential sites for Fire Station 6. He emphasized that the project also included a number of road improvements such as El Camino Real, Poinsettia Lane, Alga Road, Ranch0 Santa Fe Road*, and Melrose Drive South (Street C). He reviewed the approvals that were required for the project which included the following: A General Plan Amendment; an amendment to the existing La Costa Master Plan; the adoption of a proposed Villages of La Costa Master Plan; a Local Facilities Management Plan for Facility Zone 10; an amendment to the Facilities Management Plan for Zone 11; two Master Tentative Tract maps; two Hillside Development permits; three Special Use Permits, two relating to floodplain and one to the El Camino Real scenic Planning Commission Minutes August 29,200l Page 3 corridor; a Planned Unit Development permit; some Street Right-of-way Vacations; Certification of the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) and approval of the Candidate Findings of Fact, and recommendation of approval of the Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Mr. Neu indicated that La Costa Greens was primarily undeveloped, containing only the ranch house, out- buildings and various public utilities on the property. He stated that the adjacent land uses north of the Greens were primarily vacant and were made up of agricultural lands which were part of the Bressi property lands. He added that condominiums and single family detached homes were to the south; ranch, agricultural land, open space and single family detached homes were to the east, and the business park, multi-family residential condominiums and a retail/office center were to the west. Regarding La Costa Ridge, Mr. Neu explained that it encompassed 493 acres with elevations ranging from 80’ to 725’. He stated that those numbers included San Marcos Creek and Box Canyon. He pointed out that the Ridge contained a number of habitat types and included various public utilities. Mr. Neu described La Costa Oaks and pointed out that it was south of San Marcos Creek, with elevations of 285-990’ along the central border on the east. He added that the area contained basically the same habitat types as the other two areas and that there were also various public utilities. He mentioned that the adjacent land uses to the north of the Ridge were single family detached units, townhouses and condominiums, and that the area south of the Oaks contained vacant rural residences, single family detached units, and condominiums. Mr. Neu explained that the area to the east contained single family units, an industrial park, and vacant land, and that the area to the west contained condominiums, a duplex development, La Costa Meadows elementary school, and single family dwellings. Mr. Neu described prior actions that were taken and showed the boundaries of the original La Costa Master Plan. He described what was involved for the General Plan Amendment and described the proposed land uses in detail which included community facility zones and a small planned industrial area. He addressed the issue of circulation and explained that there was a request to remove La Costa Avenue from a secondary arterial designation to a collector street. Mr. Neu indicated that the primary action for the La Costa Master Plan amendment was to remove the project areas from the plan since the La Costa Master Plan was outdated, particularly due to environmental issues, and to replace it with the Villages of La Costa Master Plan. He displayed the La Costa Master Plan amendment on the screen and located the three villages encompassing the Villages of La Costa Master Plan, including the streets and boundaries. He pointed out that the Villages of La Costa Master Plan included Alga Norte Park and added that the original plans for an elementary school on the site was changed by City Council’s request so that the entire area be designated as park area. Mr. Neu also described non-single family uses as well. He showed an exhibit detailing major circulation roads as well as trails and recreation areas planned. Regarding La Costa Ridge, Mr. Neu explained it was made up of six neighborhoods and described them in detail. He pointed out the location of Box Canyon, and displayed an exhibit which outlined the proposed road system. He mentioned that there were a few private streets that would be gated and located them on the exhibit. He described the trail system, particularly the one on the north side of Box Canyon. Mr. Neu clarified that this project was composed primarily of single family detached homes and pointed out other uses on the property. He discussed circulation and mentioned that Ranch0 Santa Fe Road was going to be relocated, and also addressed trails and recreation areas. Mr. Neu summarized by stating that the Villages of La Costa Master Plan complied with the requirements of the Planned Community Zone. He added that the Master Plan would establish standards and guidelines, and explained what that included. Mr. Neu talked about issues such as land use compatibility, the circulation system, allowable dwelling units, affordable housing issues, and explained what they were. He added that there were other Master Plan issues such as the location of community facilities, day care and storage, landscaped parkways, fire protection zones, and the Fire Station No. 6 site. Planning Commission Minutes August 29,200l Page 4 Mr. Neu discussed the Local Facilities Management Plan. He explained that the project included Facilities in Zones 10 and 11 and he described Zone 10 in detail. He indicated that the total zone area was 756.6 acres, there were six property owners, the project applicant controlled 87% of the zone, and clarified what was included. Mr. Neu stated that Zone 11 was much larger than Zone 10 and that the project was only 55% of the zone. He referred to the Master Tentative Map for the Greens and mentioned that it was composed of 49 lots on 660.7 acres, corresponded with the neighborhood boundaries, proposed lots ranged from .4 to 115.9 acres, and included four lots for active recreation areas. He added that it included grading and major infrastructure improvements, master plan trails, and indicated it would be completed in four phases. Mr. Neu displayed a slide showing the configuration and lot numbers. Mr. Neu described the La Costa Greens Hillside Development Permit. He stated that the slopes were 40% gradient. He referred to the Special Use Permit for El Camino Real’s scenic corridor and explained which areas were being referenced in the permit. He also described what was involved with the Floodplain Special Use Permit for La Costa Green, and showed a slide depicting the existing FEMA floodplain boundary. Mr. Neu added that a master-tentative map was also proposed for La Costa Ridge and Oaks. He stated that it created 248 lots on 1,200.2 acres and that most of the lots corresponded with neighborhood boundaries. He added that it contained 161 residential lots, and also included some active recreational areas, similar to the Greens, as well as major infrastructure and master plan trails. Mr. Neu displayed an exhibit which detailed the lot boundaries of the Ridge and the Oaks and said that a Planned Development Permit was required for neighborhood 3.9 and explained why. He added that it also included a homeowners association landscape area between Ranch0 Santa Fe Road and the lots. He mentioned that there was also a Ridge and Oaks Hillside Development Permit, as with La Costa Greens, and said that staff could recommend approval of the Hillside Development Permit. He also described what was included in the floodplain for the Ridge and Oaks, and showed an exhibit. He then talked about the street and right-of-way vacations. Mr. Neu clarified that the Program EIR was an information document and described what was included in it. He explained how the scope of work for the EIR was determined, notice of preparation for the EIR, and the 14 issues that were analyzed. He included other required EIR sections and listed them on a slide. He then turned the presentation over to Dawn Wilson, Traffic Consultant for the City, working with RBF Consulting, for a detailed explanation of transportation for the project. Ms. Wilson described in detail the model that was used and stated that the project was analyzed in three phases with project buildout scheduled for the year 2020. She displayed the existing network conditions, future roadways projected for 2005, future roadways projected for 2010, and the roadway network proposed for buildout. Ms. Wilson described the analysis methodology and what it was based upon. She added that the study was based on trips generated for each of the land uses in zone and length. She indicated that 127 roadway segments and 50 key intersections were analyzed in the report. Ms. Wilson then described the intersections significantly impacted in the report in the years 2005, 2010, and 2020. She showed a list of roadway improvements in the project as well as four areas off-site and added that alignment of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road would begin this year. She added that the second stage would be coordinated with the City of San Marcos, and mentioned that some planned improvements included Melrose Drive at Ranch0 Santa Fe Road, La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real, and Alga Road at El Camino Real. Ms. Wilson concluded the presentation by stating that the report calculated that the project would comply with acceptable growth management standards. Ms. Wilson turned the presentation back to Mr. Neu. Mr. Neu said that there was a 60-day public review and comment period for the EIR and described how this was accomplished. He stated that all could be mitigated below a level of significance except for Planning Commission Minutes August 29,200l Page 5 landform alteration, visual quality/aesthetics, transportation, noise, air quality, and hydrology/water quality/drainage. He added that a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be necessary and would require a finding that there were social, economic and other public benefits. He emphasized that staff tried to be very diligent in noticing the project and outlined how this was accomplished. He also mentioned that staff received 50 comment letters on the Draft Program EIR and responded to each of them. He summarized by stating that all the impacts could be mitigated below a level of significance except for those listed on the slide and described them in detail. Mr. Neu concluded by requesting that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the following: Certification of the EIR, the Candidate Findings of Facts, the Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the General Plan Amendment, Master Plan Amendment, the Villages of La Costa Master Plan, the Zone 10 Local Facilities Management Plan, the Zone 1 I Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment, the two Master Tentative Maps, the Hillside Permits and the PUD, and that the Planning Commission approve the three Special Use Permits as provided for in the Municipal Code. Chairperson Segall pointed out to Mr. Arbuckle, the applicant, that a full Commission was not in attendance and asked if Mr. Arbuckle still wanted the item heard that evening. He replied that he did. Commissioner Compas asked about the correspondence received that evening and requested that Mr. Neu address each of the letters. Mr. Neu addressed the letter from Judy Pacheco which was received that day. He mentioned that the comment addressed the noise impact for properties on the south side of Alga Road and the closing of the median at Estrella de Mar. He stated that they did recognize there was an existing significant noise impact, that currently the noise was above the existing standard and there would be an incremental increase in traffic noise. He added that it would not require mitigation. He said that closing of the intersection was necessary in order to meet City standards. Mr. Neu also referred to a fax from John T. Marin regarding the extension in La Costa Oaks of Avenida Diestro. Mr. Neu stated that the letter indicated that a group of residents expressed concern about safety issues in opening Avenida Diestro as an access road to La Costa Oaks. He added that staff did consider the comments regarding neighborhood circulation and safety and that the road should be connected. He mentioned that Mr. Wickham could describe what was planned. Chairperson Segall asked that the area be pointed out on the map. Mr. Neu showed the exhibit and stated that the street was not the projects primary point of access. He explained that other streets provided access. Commissioner Compas asked if staff was going to watch the extension closely. Mr. Wickham responded that staff would watch the street and explained there was a neighborhood traffic-calming program in place. He mentioned that this street could be a candidate for that program. He added that the street did serve as a secondary access to the high school and that it would be better to have a network of streets sharing that access. He clarified that staff agreed and supported the design for a connection. Mr. Neu stated that one other piece of correspondence, from Mr. Everett DeLano concerned Melrose Drive, south of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road and that he felt the EIR was not being properly addressed. Mr. Neu responded that the plans are consistent with the traffic study exhibits. Mr. DeLano also questioned Fire Department standards for fire protection impacts upon biological resources. Mr. Neu replied that the fire suppression zones required by the City would not be in the Habitat Conservation Plan preservation areas. They will be located outside those areas. No additional biological impacts were identified for that. Mr. Neu also addressed Mr. DeLano’s concerns about slopes, water facilities on the ridge being necessary, and the ownership disclosure. He pointed to an exhibit and stated that they found out that water would flow to Ranch0 Santa Fe Road with a potential for property damage. He added that mitigation would include disclosures to units sold. Mr. Neu concluded by referring to Mr. DeLano’s mention of a lawsuit by Canyon’s Network, the Sierra Club, and the Center for Biological Diversity. Chairperson Segall referenced two additional letters, from Freida Ramsay and Rosemary Stafford. 343 Planning Commission Minutes August 29,200l Page 6 Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, distributed a letter from the La Costa Knoll Homeowner’s group, that was also submitted as part of the EIR, and pointed out that the response in the EIR stood and that it was already part of the record. Mr. Neu referred to letters from Rosemary Stafford traffic impacts which have already been addressed. Regarding the City park system and more natural open space areas. With almost 50% of the project left in open space, that has been addressed. The letter from Freda Ramey appears to be in support of the project and the sensitivity to open space. Commissioner Compas asked about the lawsuit that Mr. DeLano referred to in his letter. Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney, responded that the City intended to intervene and that there was no decision on the lawsuit at this time. Commissioner Compas asked for clarification on who approved the EIR. Mr. Neu replied that the approval involved wildlife agencies but at this point they had not submitted any comments on the EIR, probably because it followed the HCP that they previously approved. Commissioner Compass asked for clarification if the overriding statement took care of unmitigatable items in the EIR and what approvals needed to be made by the Planning Commission and City Council for it to go into effect. He also asked for clarification on the impact program regarding who did the monitoring, who paid for it, and what it cost. Mr. Neu explained what was done and stated that in some cases consultant activity may be required. Commissioner Compas mentioned that he would like to ask more questions later. He asked Mr. Neu to compare the project to other major projects with regard to open space. Mr. Neu replied that Carrillo Ranch had 250 acres of open space, which was 37% of the land area compared with upper 40% in the Villages of La Costa. He added that La Costa Valley had 135 acres of open space, which was 26% of that master plan area. Commissioner Compas requested a comparison of the project open space and density with the others. Mr. Neu responded that Carrillo Ranch included a little over 250 acres of open space (approximately 37% of the land area of Carrillo Ranch) compared with the upper 40’s for the Villages of La Costa. La Costa Valley had 26% open space. Villages will be under 3 units per net acre, Carrillo Ranch was about 4.75 dwelling units/acre whereas La Costa Valley was just under three units per acre. He added that the Poinsettia Properties project near the Coaster Station was just under nine units per acre. Commissioner Nielsen wanted to know if the Coastal Commission had any say. Mr. Neu responded that the project was outside its jurisdiction. Commissioner Neilsen asked if the density included the bonus transferred from open space, and Mr. Neu responded that it stood alone for the net acreage. Commissioner Nielsen asked how close and how far the project would be from Box Canyon. Mr. Neu said it was about 2000 feet, which was approximately one-half mile. Commissioner Nielsen wanted to know about the park site and why City Council requested full acreage for a park. Mr. Neu explained it was due to the possible location of a swimming pool and also due to the purchase price previously established for the land. Commissioner Trigas asked about the noise factor on Alga and El Camino Real. She specifically wanted to know if the City considered rubberized streets for safety. Mr. Wickham responded that the rubberized street was a relatively new breakthrough and that it quieted the road. He added that there was a rubberized street at El Camino by Chestnut. Commissioner Trigas asked for a comparison of density based on 680 units below the possible number that could be developed. She wanted know the density the 680 units represented based upon the number that would have been allowed. 344 Planning Commission Minutes August 29,200l Page 7 Mr. Neu stated he would check that information and respond later in the meeting. Commissioner Heineman had a question pertaining to the streets. He asked whether the width of the streets had been determined for the project. Mr. Neu replied that the project areas were laid out based upon current standards and explained what they were. He added that new standards that the City Council was considering were a 34’ curb-to-curb width for local streets. He pointed out that with several exceptions, the other areas would have to come back for mapping and street design and could incorporate the new width at that time. He explained how the narrower streets would affect the project. Commissioner Compas asked how coastal sage, maritime chaparral, mixed chaparral, and riparian habitat were increased by the project. Mr. Neu explained that the increase was based on a comparison of the various habitat types currently designated open space compared to these proposed to be destroyed open space. Commissioner Compas inquired about the traffic studies and how accurate staff felt they were. Ms. Wilson responded that she was confident that accuracy was high based upon the modeling procedure used. In response to Commissioner Compas’ question about what she was least confident about, Ms. Wilson indicated that she was least confident about the 2020 buildout of the model because shorter times were easier to predict than longer terms. She added that this was the reason the traffic study was updated periodically. Chairperson Segall mentioned that the traffic study had proposed destinations and modeling that came to those destinations. He asked for an elaboration on how accurate this report was. Ms. Wilson stated that with the use of distribution of traffic trips, they were able to identify where the land uses were going to go. She added that a lot of time was spent gathering data from adjacent cities and available records. The report took almost two years to prepare. Chairperson Segall wanted to know if they used current and proposed known projects when looking out into the future, such as proposed shopping centers. Ms. Wilson explained that each of the zones in the traffic model was updated to include all information on projects in the coming years, and existing land use. She added that two years were spent gathering data for the traffic report. Commissioner Trigas asked if the whole regional traffic situation was considered. She wanted to know how the roads that were not adjacent nor near the project had an ultimate impact on traffic. Ms. Wilson responded that all the potential roadway improvements that were scheduled to come on line were included in the study. Commissioner Trigas asked if they were also receiving comments from other cities as to the proposed plans. Ms. Wilson responded they were. Commissioner Compas asked for an estimate of timing and completion of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road through Carlsbad and San Marcos. Mr. Wickham said that it was anticipated that the road construction would begin this winter. He described Phase 1 and mentioned that San Marcos was also going to begin their Phase 1 in the middle of next year. He described what San Marcos was going to do. He added that once Phase 1 was completed, then Phase 2 would begin and clarified which roads would be kept open during each phase. Commissioner Compas questioned when it would be completed, and Mr. Wickham answered that it should take three years with 18 months for each phase. He added that the City was trying to overlap the phases. Commissioner Compas asked when the San Elijo Road connection to Ranch0 Santa Fe would occur. Mr. Wickham responded that the City of Carlsbad and San Marcos intended to put it in correctly the first time and move it to the west. He added that San Elijo had a time limit to complete the road. Commissioner Compas asked for a guesstimate as to when Ranch0 Santa Fe Road would be widened. Mr. Wickham replied the plans were for Phase 2, which meant the old road would be used for 18 months. Planning Commission Minutes August 29,200l Page 8 Commissioner Compas queried about gated communities. Mr. Wickham responded that a few of the communities would be gated. He stated that the developer proposed two gated communities near the golf course and one above Xana Way where there was an exclusive community. Commissioner Compas wanted to know about potable water and whether it would be a problem. Mr. Wickham confirmed that this project would not have a problem with water and explained why. Commissioner Nielsen asked about traffic and when the 2,390 units were proposed to be built. He also asked how many would be built in 2005 and 2010. Ms. Wilson indicated that she was checking on the information. Commissioner Nielsen questioned how affordable housing would be spread. Mr. Neu explained that two affordable housing sites were planned and described where they would be located. Mr. Neu responded to Commissioner Trigas’ question about effective density on the property if the additional 680 units were allowed and stated that there were 3.8 units to the acre. Chairperson Segall requested clarification on the school site as to the location and whether or not the Carlsbad Unified School District had commented on the new potential site. Mr. Neu replied that the School District indicated the size requirements for both sites but did not actively take steps to acquire the property at this time. Chairperson Segall commented that in reading the development standards, he was amazed at how comprehensive they were. Mr. Neu clarified that the development standards included items such as house size vs. lot size, exterior materials, architectural styles, garage orientation and building setbacks. He added that a lot of time was spent on development standards due to community concerns. In response to an earlier question, Ms. Wilson informed the commission that the total ADT was 15,970 in 2005 and 27,580 in 2010. Commissioner Nielsen then asked what percentage of houses was to be phased in during 2005 and 2010. Ms. Wilson committed to finding out the answer to his question. Commissioner Heineman said that earlier it was mentioned they placed new neighborhoods next to existing ones of the same lot size. He asked if there was any area where this was not the case. Mr. Neu indicated that in all instances it was very close to the size, although it may not be identical. RECESS Chairperson Segall called a recess at 750 p.m. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Chairperson Segall called the meeting back to order at 8:00 p.m. with five commissioners present, Commissioner Baker absent. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Segall invited the applicant, Fred Arbuckle, President, Morrow Development, Inc., to speak to the Commission. Ms. Mobaldi informed the applicant that because the Commission was considering a General Plan Amendment, it would require four affirmative votes for approval. The applicant indicated that he was aware of that fact. Mr. Arbuckle described the comprehensive planning process that his company had undertaken for the last 12 years. He explained that the project was well thought out and planned, and that there was a dire need for housing in North County. He added that they were building homes for local residents. Mr. Arbuckle stated that the project was going to include over 350 affordable homes; he clarified that the reasons for building 2,390 homes was to enable his company to provide a beneficial infrastructure that 346 Planning Commission Minutes August 29,200l Page 9 could not be included with small projects. He explained the goal was to create a plan superior to other communities in Carlsbad and San Diego and to provide significant public amenities. Mr. Arbuckle showed the Master Plan area maps and emphasized that the project would have thousands of homes less than originally predicted. He displayed the existing Master Plan vs. the Villages of La Costa Master Plan proposal and said that the goal was not to increase the number of houses over that allowed under growth management, thereby resulting in 700 homes below the amount allowed. He showed a chart of the density comparison between the City Growth Management Plan vs. the proposed Villages of La Costa Master Plan and indicated that there would be 60% of average density. Mr. Arbuckle pointed out the HCP was used to determine the best matrix of habitat to provide protection for over 60 species of concern. He clarified that his company hired scientists and not developers to determine the best key stands of habitat and mentioned that some of the easiest sites to develop were sites with the best views but were not developed but preserves as habitat. He said they considered edge effects in the HCP and felt that an additional 130 acres act as additional buffer to the originally designated core areas. Mr. Arbuckle indicated that they purchased 200 acres off site due to the requirement to link areas so the animals could move back and forth. Mr. Arbuckle emphasized that Box Canyon was at the heart of the preserve and the diving pool would be 1,800 feet from the nearest new home. He said that they were not planning to fill in Box Canyon but planned to preserve it. He announced that a third party was hired to manage the habitat. The Center for Natural Lands Management and Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation will own and manage the property in perpetuity. He reviewed the Habitat Conservation Feature comparison that was required in the current plan vs. the Villages of La Costa plan. They will provide a $1.4M endowment for management. He added that 54% of the property owned would not be developed and that the project would nearly double Citywide trails. Mr. Arbuckle addressed the concern of sedimentation and grading by the lagoon. He added that they would provide 86 different basins, and maintain them, during construction and provide a silt fence. He mentioned that they needed to meet the water quality requirements and explained what would be done to treat the water. He added that there was a requirement to monitor facilities and that they planned to do it. Mr. Arbuckle talked about the traffic concern and stated that they spent over $400,000 on traffic studies. He indicated that neighboring cities were considered as well and that there was concern about traffic generation as well as traffic solutions. He added that they would provide solutions to traffic problems. In discussing the project, Mr. Arbuckle explained that there would be a diversity of styles with a mixture of architecture. He compared it to Old Carlsbad and added that the architect looked at English, French, Spanish, and Tuscan architecture and combined the styles when designing the communities. He mentioned that some of the garages would be moved to the back and would include single story elements. Mr. Arbuckle reviewed a set of architectural guidelines which included smaller homes on lots, more space between homes, varied streetscapes, more human scale, attractive large homes, and fewer big boxes. He emphasized that the guidelines would be applied to all the homes. He added that there would be a distinction among the Villages through architecture in common areas and landscaping. Mr. Arbuckle explained that there were three villages: La Costa Greens, La Costa Ridge, and La Costa Oaks. He stated that they went into the field and looked at adjacent properties and made sure that the land use was compatible to the lot sizes of the adjacent areas. He described the Village of La Costa Greens and pointed out the location on a map. He mentioned this village would be predominately single-family homes with some multi-family homes. He said that there would be a new swim complex and sports fields and that the school site would be moved to another property. Mr. Arbuckle reviewed some of the issues, which included noise at Alga Road and El Camino Real, and the compatibility of the size of the lots adjacent to existing homes. He mentioned that roads would be improved such as El Camino Real, Poinsettia Lane, and Alga Road, and that public amenities which included a community park, swimming pool, widening of Poinsettia Lane would cost $40,000,000. Planning Commission Minutes August 29,200l Page 10 Mr. Arbuckle indicated that there would be cluster housing west of golf course with a Mediterranean look similar to Santa Barbara. He added there would be tennis courts, a community flower garden, a children’s tot lot area, a small lake where children could play with model boats during the day and where wildlife could come out at night. He stated there would also be a competition size swimming pool, restroom and gathering spot for the community. Mr. Arbuckle pointed out that La Costa Oaks and Ridge would have the same provisions as the other communities. He displayed the area on a map and mentioned there would be single family development, affordable housing, some smaller lots, and single family attached homes. He mentioned that the citizens along Cadencia were concerned about the street going straight through to Ranch0 Santa Fe Road and explained that there would be two turns in the road to discourage cut-through traffic. He indicated that the average lot size would be 75’ in width which was larger than the adjacent community and that the homes in this project would be a minimum of 150’ away from the adjacent community. Mr. Arbuckle pointed out that residents on Xana Way were also concerned about traffic through the community. He explained that they would add an existing exit from the site to Alga Road and explained why. He added that they already moved the gate to the east so that people did not go through Xana Way. He mentioned there was also concern about water seeping into back yards and described how they would dig out some of the canyons, provide sub drains, and put in drains at the end of the slope to drain the water. Mr. Arbuckle also explained that they would be paying $30,000,000 to improve public amenities such as widening El Fuerte, widening Ranch0 Santa Fe Road, building Oaks Road to the south, providing seven miles of Citywide trails, and building 170+ affordable housing units. He then went on to describe La Costa Oaks and stated that it was designed as a craftsman style architecture with porches and old river rock type walls. He added there would be a lot of walking in this development and that it would be less formal. He described Oaks North and Oaks South. Mr. Arbuckle described La Costa Ridge. He mentioned that it would have a Tuscan estate character and showed sketches of the development. He added that public amenities would total $74.75 million and that the average cost of improvement per household was $31,276. He said that the key features was that it would provide over 1,100 acres of open space, over seven miles would be added to the Citywide trails, and regional roads would be widened. Commissioner Compas commented that the entire project was very impressive and asked Mr. Arbuckle to clarify the sequence. Mr. Arbuckle responded that they would continue to process the plan and hoped to begin building late this year or the first quarter of next year. He mentioned that it would take 2-2 % years to the first occupancy and that if the public infrastructure were in place, it would take 7-15 years to build, depending on the economy. In response to Commissioner Compas’ query about which part would be first, Mr. Arbuckle explained that the first phase would be along Ranch0 Santa Fe Road (for the Oaks), in the southeast corner and the affordable housing site (for the Greens). Commissioner Compas asked what would it do to the cost of housing. Mr. Arbuckle replied that they were trying to have a full range of housing prices to meet different segments of the market. He added that they did not have any prices for the houses at this time. Commissioner Heineman asked if there were any locations which would not achieve compatible lot size. Mr. Arbuckle responded that there were not. Commissioner Heineman asked about the width of the streets. He stated that 34’ streets on 60’ rights-of- way provided a lot of amenities, including traffic calming without any special construction. He wanted to know if it would be possible if the City required 34’ streets in that project. Mr. Arbuckle pointed out that there were some streets that were 36’ wide. He confirmed the parkway was adjacent to the street and that the sidewalk was separate from it. He added that the use of the right-of-way was compatible and in the plans. Planning Commission Minutes August 29,200l Page 11 Commissioner Compass questioned that if the applicant received approval, what two or three concerns did he have about completing the project. Mr. Arbuckle replied that the huge road expenses and affordable housing requirements regardless of economic conditions were concerns. Commissioner Compas then asked if they had the financial backing to complete the project. Mr. Arbuckle responded that they did. Commissioner Nielsen asked for clarification of what portion of Box Canyon was being turned over to a third party. Mr. Arbuckle responded that all the property including the off site area (I, 100 acres) was being turned over to the group. Commissioner Trigas requested clarification of the responsibilities of the third party. Mr. Arbuckle indicated that the group had to be approved by California Fish and Game and that the organization had to have a track record and experience. He emphasized that the Center for Natural Lands Management, the third party hired, had the track record and explained how the endowment was determined. He added that once it was set up, his company would turn over the money to the group and back away. Commissioner Trigas asked about the impact on Alga Road after Poinsettia was put into place. Mr. Arbuckle responded that traffic from the project would use both streets and that he did not know the exact number of trips. He added that he was told they could commit to mitigation and that once Poinsettia and Alicante were open, it would be easier to go up Alicante. He added that when the Bressi development was built, people would be able to walk or bike in the area. Commissioner Trigas asked about improvements on Alga Road. Mr. Arbuckle pointed out that the improvements made before were not the same kind of improvements they were making now. He stated that they would plant trees. He added that along all of the frontage they were concerned about landscaping and explained what they would do. He stated that the homeowners associations would maintain the expanded landscape areas in the median. Commissioner Trigas queried about the sidewalk. Mr. Arbuckle explained they existed on the south and they would add one on the other side. Chairperson Segall referred to the EIR and stated that Mr. Neu indicated most impacts were cumulative except for landform alterations. He asked why those could not be mitigated. Mr. Arbuckle answered that he was not an expert on the EIR but that they would modify 900 acres and grade it. Chairperson Segall asked for clarification on contouring. Mr. Arbuckle explained that when the grades had long slopes, they would move it back and forth and sometimes rolled it. He added that from a visual standpoint, a person would see a lot of movement. He mentioned that if they needed to modify the slope, they would. Seth Schulberg, President, Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation, explained that the Foundation was established in 1982. He indicated that the Foundation supported the large development. He emphasized the importance of a regional approach to preservation. He described the shift in focus of the Foundation from saving the lagoon to expanding the scope to include the watershed. Mr. Schulberg mentioned that this project would not have a significant impact on the Batiquitos Lagoon. Commissioner Compas asked if he was confident that the amount of endowment was enough to cover the area in perpetuity. Mr. Schulberg described his past experience with the Foundation. He indicated that the Center for Natural Lands Management prepared the budget and that they were the local experts. He added that he was confident that there was enough endowment money to cover the costs in perpetuity. Mr. Schulberg added that the problem with managing those types of preserves was that no one wanted to give a lot of money to manage the preserve. He stated that the Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation could provide volunteers to help out. Commissioner Trigas asked who determined the amount of money required to maintain the area. Mr. Schulberg responded that the Center for Natural Lands prepared the initial recommendations and the Foundation and other agencies reviewed them. Planning Commission Minutes August 29,200l Page 12 Commissioner Trigas and Chairperson Segall asked about involvement with Box Canyon. Mr. Schulberg explained that Box Canyon was part of the Villages of La Costa Nature Preserve. He stated that the Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation did not agree with the original idea to dynamite it. He mentioned that Mr. Arbuckle asked how to make it safe. Mr. Schulberg clarified that they could not dynamite Box Canyon and they could not improve it resulting in having to secure it by providing a security guard. He added that Box Canyon would be off limits to the public but it would be kept available for wildlife. He also mentioned his concern about the safety of emergency responders. Chairperson Segall asked if there were enough buffers to preserve the integrity of that area. Mr. Schulberg said that he did not see an encroachment issue around Box Canyon. He mentioned that the buffer was 75’ in some places and that the ecology of Box Canyon had improved. He emphasized that he thought the project was a well-designed development and had a well-designed buffer system which would allow nature to exist. Chairperson Segall asked if any of the Commissioners wanted to hear from a representative of the Center for Natural Lands Management, and they all responded that they did not think it was necessary. Chairperson Segall opened the public testimony at 8:55 p.m. He explained the guidelines since there were approximately 50 people who wanted to speak. He asked that everyone commit to a time limit of three minutes, that they not be redundant, and that the Commission would like to complete hearing public testimony that evening. He added that he would call the names of five people at a time, and reminded the public that they would be making comments to the Commissioners. He pointed out that those comments would be documented and the likelihood was that the Commission would not be responding to comments that evening. Irene McMillan, 7015 Estrella de Mar Road, Carlsbad, stated that she lived on Estrella de Mar Road at Alga and that she was concerned about the noise level on Alga. She said that she had not heard of a realistic mitigation for the noise levels and that she could not conduct a conversation, sleep at night, or talk on the phone. She asked if studies had been conducted about the noise level on Alga. She also mentioned there was an issue of compatibility. Ms. McMillan said that there were 32 units on five acres in her community and that she was extremely concerned as to whether the neighborhoods were compatible. She added that a previous question asked by Commissioner Heineman and answered by staff did not indicate compatibility. Everett DeLano, 197 Woodland Parkway, San Marcos, represented Canyons Network, Sierra Club, and the Center for Biological Diversity. He explained that he had a letter that was distributed to the Commission, and would not repeat comments made, including reports made by actual biologists who were very critical of the plan. He stated that Carlsbad had numerous negative impacts and that it was difficult to say that the project would not have negative impacts. He asked about the EIR and stated that it was full of half-truths. Mr. DeLano indicated that he did not think massive traffic impacts were identified and added that numerous agencies complained about the project. He indicated that he felt the HCP was legally suspect and that three organizations have filed a lawsuit. He expressed surprise that the developer sued one of his clients for trespassing when people hike in the area all the time. He also mentioned that he was concerned about the character of the people building the development and questioned whether the development was good for Carlsbad. He added that two alternative developments were listed but were not adequately analyzed in the EIR, and he believed that those two were two very good alternatives. Patricia Bleha, 3209 Fosca Street, Carlsbad, stated that she was a 25-year resident, taxpayer and property owner in the area. She said that she was very much against the Villages of La Costa and felt that it did not fully address the citizens’ concern about the quality of life and aesthetics. She added that she jogged around the area and had yet to see any track area that looked good. She mentioned that La Costa Valley leveled the hills and described the image that she had of the project which included chopped off hills and flat lands. Ms. Bleha questioned whether they were adequately protecting the animals that lived there, such as deer and bobcats, especially when Ranch0 Santa Fe would be widened. She pointed out that two surveys in 3 5-O Planning Commission Minutes August 29,200l Page 13 1999 and 2000 asked for public input from the citizens and the results showed that Carlsbad citizens felt preserved open space and nature trails were very important. She said that most trails were not very nice and that they needed continuous open space. Niel Nathason, 6547 Corintia Street, Carlsbad, spoke up against the traffic. He suggested that they should have had the meeting at the library because people could not hear outside. He added that he used to go to the area with his children, and that it had become another Orange County. He referred to a problem he had in getting approval to move a small hillside. Mr. Nathason reminded the Commission that they did not have to approve the project simply because it was presented to them. He questioned the EIR and pointed out that he heard an announcement on public radio that day that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife agency could not respond adequately to issues until they were sued. Mr. David Ricker, 4009 Canario, Carlsbad, explained that he was project manager for Community Housing of North County. He said that he was a resident of Carlsbad and was concerned about transportation uses. He mentioned that linkage was needed. He added that affordable housing was also needed and that this was a part of the project. Clayton Johnson, 2418 Unicornio Street, Carlsbad, wanted to know about the allowance of 10% transfer between neighborhoods of units and asked for information about criteria for considering a proposed transfer. David Kleinman, 7019 Alicante Road, Carlsbad, mentioned the EIR. He referred to Alicante Road and stated that different maps showed different plans for the road. He wanted to know how they could be sure it would go through and mitigate traffic problems caused by the development. He referred to the Harmony Grove fire and pointed out that the roads were still poor but there would be more homes. He added that there was a lot of traffic trying to get out of the area during the fire and that he did not want to see that happen again. Sue Reynolds, 1820 S. Escondido Boulevard, Escondido, represented the Community Housing of North County. She emphasized that the need in the community for housing was not a new issue and that the housing crisis was a reality. She added that was one of the issues that the project addressed was that it provided housing with a range of housing prices. Ms. Reynolds explained the project would allow residents to live closer to their work, keep them off highways, and spend more time at home. She concluded by saying that the project tried to balance the short term human needs. Eric Carstensen, 2564 Navarra Drive #&!12, Carlsbad, stated that the amount of green space that was being included in the project was not enough. He read a passage written by Katherine Moore which described memories. He expressed concern about environmental destruction and explained that five years ago he and his wife hiked in the woods. Mr. Carstensen said that now people could not go to Box Canyon nor the hills and he thought that was terrible. He added that he has been a taxpayer for 14 years and that not being able to go to these places was affecting people’s souls. Gary Hill, 3289 Donna Drive, Carlsbad, spoke on his passion for the trails. He asked that they learn a lesson from the Calavera Preserve, and pointed out that the trails looked good on paper but were not walkable for people due to the trails being too steep, not being maintained, and continuing to erode. He stated that he arranged to meet with the representatives of Morrow Development and the Center for Natural Lands Management and walked on those trails to see if they are walkable and maintainable. He said that most of the trails were on existing roads which would probably need little maintenance, but they were maintainable and walkable for most of the citizens of Carlsbad. Mr. Hill indicated that he was comfortable that the trails as they were on the plans were workable. In response to a query by Chairperson Segall, Mr. Hill replied that he worked on the trails in Hosp Grove for a number of years and described his qualifications. Thomas Lyon, 3174 Camino Arroyo, Carlsbad, said that he read the EIR and stated that every modification to the Master Plan was okayed in the EIR such as long street walls, fences without visual relief, planning to contain fugitive dust impacts and vehicular noise, etc. He expressed concern that Planning Commission Minutes August 29,200l Page 14 planning stopped at Carlsbad’s borders and that no mention was made of what loss of open space did to people’s lives. Neal Meyers, 3539 Calle Gavanzo, Carlsbad, stated he lived at La Costa Knolls and was impacted directly by the project. He pointed out the area on a map and clarified that everything behind the development where he lived was La Costa Oaks. He talked about what would be behind his home, including the clustering of density behind it. He expressed concern that the upper elevation would look down at the homes and that the open space designated around his development was deleted. Mr. Meyers added that the homes in his development would be 50’ - 80’ from his back fence whereas last week he was told it would be 150’. He asked for clarification that the 150’ was the correct number. He requested that the developer enhance the landscaping in that area and explained why. Mark Mojado, P.O. Box I, Pala, represented the San Luis Ray Band Mission Indians. He stated that he did not care if the project went through or not but he was concerned about cultural resources of native sites in this area. He added that he would like the developer to consult with native American groups, particularly because those sites were ancestral places and were sacred to them. He mentioned that mitigation destroyed sites. Alan Recce, 7442 Trigo Lane, Carlsbad, represented the Ranch0 Santa Fe Realignment Committee composed of approximately lOO+ Carlsbad residents. He mentioned that he worked closely with various people to make sure that the property adjacent to homes and the realignment of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road was engineered and constructed to benefit the existing homeowners. He added that all recommendations from his group were included in the project and described what was done. Mr. Recce pointed out that the group’s only concern was in connection with the proposed local trail system between the existing homes and La Costa Oaks, and explained why. He added that his group preferred to have the open space in the natural state similar to the SDG&E easement and were working with the developer and City staff on some options. He requested that approval for La Costa Oaks should not include the local trail system until a solution was reached. Bruce Wilson, 1130 Niki, Carlsbad, expressed concern about traffic on l-5 and stated that this project would have a major impact on the freeway. He added that the only way to mitigate the traffic was to deny the project. He pointed out that traffic has gotten worse and that the Commission could not keep pretending that all the growth was good for the community. Dana Stewart, 7007 San Bartolo, Carlsbad, said that she was a resident of the 92009 zip code for 25+ years and owned two residences in the area. She mentioned that she represented 400 residences in the area and applauded conservation. She indicated that urban blight, traffic and density were pushed to the maximum and that open space was at stake. She added that there were many studies that showed adverse effects of development and that mitigation would not be needed if there were no problems with water and silt going into the area. Ms. Stewart indicated that she felt priorities were reversed and that the project was missing the focus on infrastructure. She recommended a building moratorium until the infrastructure was in place. Liz Kruidenier, 3005 Cadencia, stated that the Commission had a choice to say yes to another manmade project or to say yes to a preserve. She added that the preserve was an area that existed for all time and that many animals and plants would be destroyed, particularly when the dirt was moved. She further added that sight lines would be altered, slopes would not be like nature gave us, it would substantially change the existing environment, and would substantially impact open space. She pointed out that there would be 36,000 more car trips on top of San Elijo Hills, Carrillo Ranch, and other projects in the area. She was concerned that wild plants or animals could not live there. She read a letter to the editor in the L.A. Times which indicated the only places for people to walk in Carlsbad that was not concrete were the beaches and the parks. Bradford Roth, 1507 Rubenstein Avenue, Cardiff, explained that he was speaking as a result of a time donation from Annabel Jensen. Chairperson Segall pointed out that he would still be limited to three minutes. Mr. Roth said that he did not know the details of the EIR. He mentioned that the developers had a tendency to name things after they were eradicating such as ridge, greens, etc. He said that there should be a law against developers destroying ridge lines of hills because it changes the psyche. He 3 s--z4 Planning Commission Minutes August 29,200l Page 15 added that the project did not make him think of villages. Mr. Roth explained that he disagreed with the environmental attitude of the developer on the diving pool of Box Canyon where the initial plans were to dynamite Box Canyon. He said that there should have been more recreational open space at Aviara and that this project could make up for it. He also expressed concern about the threat to endangered animals. Andrew Chapman, 2360 Hosp Way, Carlsbad, explained that he was upset that the public did not get to speak until 9:00 after three hours were allowed for the applicant and representative from the Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation. He said that the project would destroy the quality of life of the people of Carlsbad. He emphasized that he did not want this project, particularly because the traffic situation was out of hand and asked the Commissioners to think of the future. Mr. Chapman stated that the issue was one of trust and explained that he was unhappy because the applicant hired a spy to attend a recent Canyons Network meeting. He wanted to know who would find the affordable housing “affordable” and ended by saying that the landowner was not a local developer but was part of an international Chicago organization. David Poole, 12865 Pointe Del Mar, Del Mar, explained that he represented Brookfield Homes which owned the University Commons project in San Marcos, located immediately adjacent to the project. He clarified that coordination meetings were held and described what would be done with San Elijo Road and Ranch0 Santa Fe Road from Melrose in the first quarter of next year. He explained that there was one area which would be completed 6-8 months after the other roads were completed. He added that they made sure that all the land uses were compatible and that the same grade was used for both projects. Chairperson Segall read the comments of Carrie Barton, 756 Val Sereno, Encinitas, who was unable to stay but wanted her opposition recorded. She indicated she was 5th generation to this area, descendant of the Kelly family, and found it depressing that the land could not be held forever. He said that she expressed concern that the area was becoming a Los Angeles look-alike and feel-alike annex. David Schiel, 1937A Alga Road, Carlsbad, represented the Casitas de La Costa Homeowners Association. He stated there were 96 homeowners and that some years ago, the buffer to Alga was removed, thereby increasing noise levels above acceptable noise levels. He added that now the developer would be allowed to improve the road, and added that there was at least one accident a week at El Camino Real and Alga Road. He mentioned that he did not see what the developer was doing to improve safety, did not know what improvements would be made, and that a year ago he asked for a sound wall and traffic light at Estrella de Mar because it was hard to turn left to Alga Road. Mr. Schiel stated that the safety issue had not been addressed. He pointed out that many of the residents were elderly and needed to cross the road. He mentioned that the developer said there were sidewalks on the south side of the road but said that was not the case. He added that people would be making u-turns which would increase traffic going down Alga Road. Mr. Schiel requested sound walls be built and said there was no protection from the southeast corner of El Camino Real and Alga Road. Diane Nygaard, 5020 Nighthawk Way, Oceanside, represented the Sierra Club-MHCP. She clarified that the HCP was not the same as the MHCP, a IO-year regional effort for planning seven areas. She emphasized that the La Costa area was very important to the overall regional plan in that it was the second largest continuous habitat in North County. She added that it was a major critical linkage area and that the regional plan and Carlsbad element had not yet been approved by wildlife agencies. She urged the Commission to wait until public comments were in before making a decision on the project. Helen Bourne, 2417 Manchester Avenue, Cardiff pointed out that she was an ex-Carlsbad resident who moved to Cardiff because of the development and quality of life. She explained that the project did not adequately address the danger to wildlife and air quality. She mentioned that she felt the land should be left undeveloped and preserved and pointed out that once the bulldozing started moving the dirt, the area would never be the same. She asked the Commission to reconsider the project and stated there was a need for a lot more open space than the project allowed. ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Trigas and duly seconded, to take public testimony until II:00 p.m. at which time the meeting would stop. VOTE: AYES: 5-o-o Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Compas, Heineman, Nielsen, and Trigas 35-3 Planning Commission Minutes August 29,200l Page 16 NOES: ABSTAIN: None None Anabel Janssen, 1351 Burgundy Road, Leucadia, stated that she was against the development. She pointed out that it was extremely important for the Commission to listen to the people. She indicated that the quality of life and the preservation of open space was very important, and expressed concern about traffic. She added that she resented the Commission giving a lot of time to the developer and the Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation speaker and then cutting the public off at II:00 p.m. She also mentioned that a petition was signed and given to the Commission. Chairperson Segall introduced the seven page petition as part of the record. Rachelle Collier, 287 Hillcrest Drive, Leucadia, indicated that she attended the meeting because of Box Canyon. She added that she was also concerned about traffic and explained that although she lived on Hillcrest in Leucadia, she could not get on to l-5 at Leucadia due to traffic and had to drive to Via de la Valle to enter the freeway. Ms. Collier blamed this on the developments in Carlsbad and Leucadia and emphasized the importance of putting infrastructure in place. She explained that she fought a development in Leucadia and that it was time for the Commission to listen to the people. Ms. Collier reminded the Commission that there were already problems with electricity and natural gas, and pointed out that the area was a desert with no water. She said that traffic was the biggest concern. Doug Char-tier, 2697 Wilson Street, Carlsbad, stated that it was time to rethink the Growth Management Plan and thought the project was a bad idea. He recommended that the City should buy all of Box Canyon and the lands around it. He pointed out that people owned Hosp Groves, parks, beaches, and the golf course and indicated that Box Canyon was like those parcels. He added that Box Canyon was irreplaceable and that wetlands, streams, etc. were all in danger. Errol Inan, 1403 Walnut Creek Drive, Encinitas, stated that he respected the authority of the Commission, who they were, and what they could do. He added that he felt that they could control and define what would happen for the future generations and thought that Box Canyon should be an open space preserve for those generations. He described important things to him such as land, family and money and said that it should be in that order. He added that he also respected developers and that there were other ways to make money but no way to make more land. Chairperson Segall mentioned that Mr. and Mrs. St. Austin did not wish to speak but wanted to go on record as protestors. William Ryan, 3005 La Costa Avenue, Carlsbad, explained that he wanted to speak about Box Canyon, particularly since he had been going there for 40 years and would like to see it saved. He wanted to know how much would be saved on both sides of the Canyon and requested that there be enough of a setback. Bob Simek, 3555 Sitio Baya, Carlsbad, explained that he resided at La Costa Knolls, which was the development that Neal Meyers spoke about. He mentioned that he had similar issues related to the zoning map on the wall and open space around the La Costa Knoll area. He pointed out that there was originally 150’-200’ of open space separating the La Costa Knolls development from the proposed development and wanted to know what changed to bring it down to 10’ in some areas where there was a buffer. He asked if something could be done to bring the fence back and emphasized that he was not against the development. Mr. Simek also mentioned that after the Harmony Grove fire in 1996, his development was inundated with rats and rattlesnakes and wanted to know what the developer was planning to do to prevent the rats and rattlesnakes from coming back. He queried what would be done to control noise after the expansion of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road and how the noise problems for existing homes would be mitigated. Twila Ginn, 3541 Calle Gavanzo, Carlsbad, wanted to know if the Carlsbad School District had conversations with the Encinitas and San Dieguito School Districts since many of the children from La Costa Oaks would be going to those schools. She expressed concern about the traffic pattern and pointed 3 5-q Planning Commission Minutes August 29,200l Page 17 out that Camino de 10s Caches was a narrow street with cars parked on both sides. She referred to the seven miles of trails and wanted to know if there were going to be horse trails. She also wanted to know if people on the trails would be looking at houses or wildflowers. Cathy Scholl, 2716 Soccorro Lane, Carlsbad, mentioned that residents in Carlsbad were not looking for new neighbors. She added that they were looking for open space and less development. She wanted to know if the Planning Commission and City Council would consider an action to acquire the property or consider alternatives to development. She read an article that appeared in the Union-Tribune that day about a group in Ranch0 Santa Fe who purchased 68 acres and one mile of San Dieguito River corridor to prevent the area from being developed. Ms. Scholl also stated that she heard that continuous open space was not large enough. John Marin, 3483 Sitio Borde, Carlsbad, explained that he also lived at La Costa Knolls and was concerned about safety. He expressed concern about access to the project, particularly on Avenida Diestro, and explained that the street was very steep and curved, and was a safety problem. He said that there were many traffic accidents along that street. He added that he did not think that the traffic study considered people coming from Olivenhain. Commissioner Compas pointed out that some of the Commissioners had been on the street and asked for a report on traffic accidents for the next meeting. Natasha Jacobsen, 1507 Traske Road, Encinitas, mentioned that Box Canyon was worth preserving and that she had been going there for 10 years until it was closed off. She pointed out that it had been trashed since it was closed off. She clarified that it was the only waterfalls in North County and that the Commissioners should support education. She added that people should be educated on conservation. Ms. Jacobson indicated that the largest part was supposed to have a six lane road going through it. Frances Ryglewicz, 7700 Corte Promenade, Carlsbad explained that she obtained a copy of the documents from the Planning Commission which included the EIR and planning submittal. She added that her comments were on the second document, the last clause in the last section of the document which identified that the City of Carlsbad was willing to provide power of condemnation to the developer for any situations where the developer was required to meet planning requirements that were not yet identified in the planning document. She asked that the Planning Commission remove the boilerplate standardized language from the document and explained what happened to her a year ago with a project where the residents were given some mitigation for walls. She expressed concern that based upon what she heard that evening, some items were not refined enough, including traffic patterning, the widening of the road, traffic, lots, easements and 10% movement from one residential area to another. Ms. Ryglewicz pointed out that if the project was approved, there would be no way for residents of Carlsbad to deal with large developers in an equitable and powerful fashion. She concluded by urging the Commission to consider removing that language from the planning document so that all changes could come back to the Commission to equitably resolve issues. Chairperson Segall closed the public testimony at IO:40 p.m. Chairperson Segall thanked everyone for coming and stated the Commission would re-convene on September 5, 2001, at which time staff would have answers to the questions that had been raised during the testimony. Mr. Wayne advised the Commission that two additional letters were received from Kim Hunter and lnez Yoder, and that Mr. Neu would respond to them at the next meeting. Planning Commission Minutes August 29,200l Page 18 CITY AlTORNEY COMMENTS Ms. Mobaldi pointed out that the Citizen Committee that was reviewing the sign ordinance finished their report and would be making recommendations soon. ADJOURNMENT ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Trigas and duly seconded, to continue the meeting to September 5, 2001, at 6:00 p.m. at City Council Chambers, for the purpose of continuing Item #I. VOTE: AYES: 5-o-o Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Compas, Heineman, Nielsen, and Trigas NOES: ABSTAIN: None None GARY WAYNE Assistant Planning Director Ruth Stark Minutes Clerk MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRITTEN MINUTES ARE APPROVED. 35-c: PLANNING COMMISSION September 5,200l Page 2 and routine in nature, with no outstanding issues, and staff is recommending approval. Staff is further recommending that the public hearing on this item be opened and closed, and voted upon. If any member of the public or any Commissioner desires to discuss the project, the item will be pulled and Staff will respond to questions. Mr. Wayne advised the Commission that action on these agenda items will be final unless they are appealed to the City Council. Chairperson Segall asked the Commissioners and the pubic if anyone wished to pull any item. Seeing no one wishing to have the item heard, Chairperson Segall called for a motion. MOTION: ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Trigas, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5045 and 5046, approving CUP 01-l 1 and SUP 01-05, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, as recommended by Staff. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: 6-O-O Segall, Trigas, Nielsen, Heineman, Baker and Compas None None CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 1. EIR 98-07/GPA 98-011MP 149(QI/MP 98-011LFMP IOlLFMP ll(B)/CT 99-03/HDP 99- OIlSUP Ol-O4/SUP 99-011CT 99-04/PUD OI-OSIHDP 99-021SUP 01-03 +VlLLAGES OF LA COSTA + Request for a recommendation of approval for the certification of a Program Environmental Impact Report, and approval of Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; General Plan Amendment; La Costa Master Plan Amendment, Villages of La Costa Master Plan; Zone 10 Local Facilities Management Plan; Zone 11 Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment; Master Tentative Map, Hillside Development Permit, El Camino Real Scenic Corridor Special Use Permit, and a Flood plain Special Use Permit for The Greens Village; Master Tentative Map, Planned Unit Development Permit, Hillside Development Permit, and Flood plain Special Use Permit of the Ridge and Oaks Villages; and Street Right-of-way Vacations. Proposed land uses include 2,390 dwelling units, of various product types and lot sizes, a 7.9 acre business park, two community facilities sites, a community park site, an elementary school site, the preservation of 834.9 (45%) of the 1,866.4 acre project site, as HCP open space and an additional 68.4 acres as non-HCP open space. The project is located in the southeastern quadrant of the City of Carlsbad, within Local Facilities Management Zones 10 and 11. The Greens (Zone 10) portion of the project site is generally located approximately 2,500 feet south of Palomar Airport Road, east of El Camino Real, north of Alga Road, and west of Unicornio Street. The Ridge and Oaks (Zone 11) portion of the project site is located north and east of La Costa Avenue, south of Alga Road, east of El Fuerte Street, and straddles portions of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road. Assistant Planning Director, Gary Wayne, introduced this item as follows: This item was continued from the Planning Commission Meeting of August 29,2001, to allow Staff and the Applicant the opportunity to respond to the comments and questions brought forward during that meeting’s public testimony. In addition, during the time period since that meeting, Staff has received several items of correspondence, which have been made a part of the record and copies of which are on file in the office of the Planning Director. Also, copies of the subject correspondence will be forwarded to the City Council. Chairperson Segall asked if there were any questions raised, in the correspondence, that were not raised in the Public Testimony of August 29,200l. 35-7 PLANNING COMMISSION September 5,200l Page 3 Mr. Wayne deferred the question to the Project Planner, Don Neu. Mr. Neu’s replied that he isn’t sure if there were any new comments but the comments do supplement things that were discussed at the 8-29-01 meeting. One example is the letters received from the legal firm representing the Native Americans that spoke at the last meeting, in which there appears to be more details provided, but they refer to some of the basic issues that have been discussed. There were several e-mails as well as written correspondence, expressing opinions and desires regarding the actions of the Commission at this meeting. Chairperson Segall stated that he wanted to make sure that the Commission does not overlook any of the comments, even though the period for public testimony has expired. Chairperson Segall pointed out that the applicant should have the opportunity to also respond to some of the statements and questions from the last meeting. Fred Arbuckle, President of Morrow Development, Inc., the applicant, briefly spoke of the notion that “this is a ‘developer’s’ plan,” as follows: The plan that was initially designed is not the plan that was presented at the last meeting or will be discussed at this meeting. The initial design has been redesigned, over a period of six years. During that time they have worked with the community and Staff to change the plan to address the concerns of both the City and the communities that will be affected. The process took much longer than they wanted or had ever imagined. Land uses have been moved, roads have been added, and new and superior architectural guidelines have been developed which took the better part of two years to achieve. The traffic studies have been tested and re-tested, resulting in their agreement to front-load the improvements of major roads. This is truly not the plan that it was in the beginning. This is not a “developer’s” plan and definitely not in the developer’s time frame. The project will set aside over 1,100 acres of open space + more land than exists in Golden Gate Park in San Francisco. They will add over seven miles of citywide trails, widen and add critical regional roadways that are going to accommodate Vista and San Marcos, and other regional traffic trips. They will only be using 16% of the capacity of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road and Poinsettia Lane. They will provide subsidized land for Alga Norte Park and the swim center as well as the roads to that park with the first phase of the project. They will provide for a new school site for the Carlsbad School District along with 350 affordable homes; affordable to people who only make 70% of the median income in San Diego County. They believe this is a plan that meets or exceeds the Growth Management standards and one that will become an asset to the City of Carlsbad. Mr. Arbuckle concluded by asking that the Commission approve the current, proposed plan at this meeting and that he would be available to answer any questions. Commissioner Compas asked Mr. Arbuckle if he had had a chance to look at the new questions and if he had any comments. Mr. Arbuckle stated that he had looked at them, briefly, and that he has no comments at this time and that a great many of the questions, if not all, will be answered by Staff and the consultants during the course of this meeting. Commissioner Nielsen asked Mr. Arbuckle to clarify the numbers of open space acres, as have been stated in the Staff Report. Mr. Arbuckle stated that there are 903.4 acres plus 200.0 acres of additional habitat that has been purchased and will be set aside as part of the HMP and HCP. Chairperson Segall asked Commissioner Baker if, following her absence from the meeting of August 29, 2001, she feels comfortable with the information she has received and is ready to participate in this hearing. Commissioner Baker replied that she has read the Staff Report and all the documents pertaining to last week’s meeting as well as those that have provided during the past month. She also stated that she had met PLANNING COMMISSION September 52001 Page 4 with Project Planner, Don Neu, taken a complete tour of the site, met with the Traffic Engineer, Elizabeth Cobb, met with the applicant, and read the letters mentioned earlier in this meeting and feels quite confident with her knowledge of the issues. Chairperson Segall stated that he, along with Commissioners Trigas, Compas and Heineman, have all toured the site and have met with Staff and the applicant and are well versed in the issues of this project. Mr. Wayne introduced Principal Planner, Don Neu and Project Engineer, Clyde Wickham who, along with several expert consultants, presented the following responses: LAND USE COMPATIBILITY: One of the comments raised at the last meeting had to do with the compatibility between Neighborhood 1 .I5 (south westernmost corner of the Greens) and the neighborhood of Casitas de la Costa. The General Plan designations indicate that the Casitas de la Costa project is designated as Residential Medium High Density and is zoned RDM (Residential Density Multiple Zone). The General Plan Designation for the proposed Neighborhood 1 .I 5 is also RMH with the identical zoning of RDM. The existing density of the Casitas project was also looked at and was found to be 15.5 units to the acre while the density proposed in Neighborhood 1.15 is slightly over 12.5 units to the acre. The density is a little less but is within a range that appears to be very compatible. Another issue was raised regarding the area behind the La Costa Knolls development and the change in the width of the buffer. (Referring to an overhead exhibit, Mr. Neu pointed out the changes and their effect on the existing neighborhood). The cross-hatched area has been slightly reduced in width and the balance of the buffer has been significantly lengthened. The buffer area now ranges from about 35 feet at the north end to approximately 110 feet at the southern end. This area will be landscaped and the elevation differences will range from about 26 feet and the north end to about 40 feet going toward the south. The density of the La Costa Knolls neighborhood was found to be a little over 3.3 units per city acre with Neighborhood 3.15 of the adjacent “Oaks” having a density of just over 2.3 units per acre. The current homeowners have suggested an increase in the size of the landscape materials in that area, particularly at the lower end, to provide screening for the rear yards of the existing housing. This is not presently in the conditions of this project and would be an item for the Commission to consider. Another issue regarding setbacks in The Oaks has been raised and it has been suggested that the setbacks in the rear yards be increased thereby pulling the units away from “top of slope.” That would require an amendment to the setback standards for at least this part of the master planned neighborhood. If the rear yard setback is increased then the issue of decreasing the front yard setback may have to be addressed. One of the questions from the last meeting was, “what has changed to reduce that width of open space at the north end of the buffer?” Answer: Essentially, it is the Habitat Conservation Plan and the idea of designating open space of biological importance. Where open space is to be placed was discussed at the last meeting. Also, a speaker questioned the compliance with the Hillside Ordinance with regard to the proposed grading. His concern seemed to be that he envisioned hills being chopped off and valleys being filled. He asked how this could be consistent with the ordinance. Answer: There is a rather lengthy analysis, both in the EIR and the Staff Report. It was pointed out (at the last meeting) that the ordinance provides for certain modifications to standards and that certain things are excluded that relate to (example) Circulation Element roads. There are some isolated areas in the project where one of the modifications is being proposed. It is not a wholesale ignoring of the standards and with the proposed findings, Staff believes the project is in compliance with the ordinance. It was also suggested that a moratorium on development should be imposed until needed infrastructure is in place. The proposed facilities plans for Zones 10 and 11 has been included as part of the project actions. These plans contain a number of special conditions for each of the zones, as well as general PLANNING COMMISSION September 52001 Page 5 conditions. With the implementation of those conditions all eleven growth management performance standards will be complied with. Commissioner Baker asked Mr. Neu what the effect on the streetscape would be if the rear yard setbacks are increased and the front yard setbacks decreased. Also, would all of the units be subject to the new setbacks or just those that presented a problem? Mr. Neu referred to the overhead exhibit and replied that the request was not for all the units. He pointed out that the proposed lots for Neighborhood 3.15 are not being approved at this time. However, it is the potential layout that the master plan contemplates. If this were to be the final layout, one side of the street would not contain residential lots and the street would be referred to as a “single-loaded street.” Through the Master Plan, the setbacks could be changed to place the units closer to the street. Commissioner Baker asked what the current requirement is for the setbacks. Mr. Neu replied that it is approximately 15’ to 20’ in the front with variations as low a 10’. However, garages may be no closer than 20’. The rear setback is a minimum of 20’from the rear property line. Depending on the product layout it could be greater but would certainly be no less than 20 feet. If the new homes have a 30’ setback, Commissioner Baker asked how close the homes to the rear would be. Mr. Neu replied that the green area on the exhibits from 35’ to 110’ and is a slope condition. He also pointed out that it is an area that would be maintained by the homeowner’s association. As for the distance between houses, that would depend upon what the rear yard setback for the existing housing is, added to the buffer zone and the proposed rear yard setback in Neighborhood 3.15. Commissioner Compas asked if the proposed landscape and setback changes have been discussed with the developer. Mr. Neu replied that it had been discussed and that the developer seemed supportive of both proposals. However, he pointed out, Staff is supportive of the landscape proposal but not necessarily of the setback proposal. Chairperson Segall asked if there will be sidewalks and parkways on both sides of the single-loaded street. Mr. Neu replied that the master plan requires sidewalks on both sides of the street and only the Planning Commission or the City Council has the authority to waive that requirement. Commissioner Nielsen asked if Staff would amplify the issue of the exception(s) to the Slope Ordinance. Mr. Neu stated that the ordinance includes a number of standards. Some are: not developing 40% slopes; proposed grading volumes; slope height and contouring along circulation element roads or areas visible from a public viewpoint. As far as slope height, there are a couple of areas that primarily occurred in areas that go through the Habitat Conservation Zone. The dilemma is that if the slope height is lowered to comply with the maximum forty feet, the grading is actually pushed further into the open space resulting in a greater habitat impact. The ordinance provided for a slope to go above 40 feet in height because there is additional open space gained by not pushing that slope further back. That happened in a habitat preserve area along Ranch0 Santa Fe Road and parts of Alicante Rd. The ordinance sets up three ranges of grading volumes; a volume per acre that is in the acceptable range; potentially acceptable; and finally, a category that is so high that it is considered unacceptable. This project ended up with grading volumes in the “potentially acceptable” range so the ordinance required justification for why the volumes are so high. The implication is that if the volumes are reaching a higher level, then the developer is not working with the land forms as much as possible. There are some legitimate reasons for the proposed volumes, some of which had to do with circulation element roads, such as Poinsettia Lane, Alga Road, Ranch0 Santa Fe Road, and others. Another reason was the need to create a large flat area for the playing fields and facilities in the parksite. PLANNING COMMISSION September 5,200l Page 6 Commissioner Heineman asked what the width of the single-loaded street is. Mr. Neu replied that as a local street, the engineering standard would be a total of forty feet between curbs. Also, the Master Plan provides that if the City Council adopts new street widths, the new neighborhood can be designed to a lesser street width that is presently proposed at thirty-four feet. Commissioner Heineman asked if there is, in fact, a sixty foot right-of-way along that street and Mr. Neu responded affirmatively. CITY PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY - OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS: The public opinion survey results found that the number one concern is the amount of preserved open space and the second most important concern is the provision of trails and pathways. 1. Open Space: This particular project provides, at least within the City, approximately 903 acres (48%) of the total land holding as open space and will be designated as General Plan Open Space. The Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan, approved in 1992, contemplates that at final build out, 40% of the City’s land area (over 7,300 acres) is open space. That plan was completed prior to the current Habitat Management Plan. Realistically, the total amount of open space could be considerably higher than projected in 1992. 2. Trails: The Citywide Trails Plan is required to be incorporated within each new project and at build out the trails will total approximately forty-eight miles in length. The Villages of La Costa project, itself, will add 7.5 miles of citywide trails plus some local trails. It is Staffs opinion that this project is doing significantly more than its share with regard to open space and trails. The Growth Management standard for open space is 15% of the project area and this project provides 48%. Chairperson Segall asked if this is the only open space area in Carlsbad that will have active management. Mr. Wayne stated that a condition requiring active management has been added for all areas that must be consistent with the Habitat Management Plan. As a result, the City requires the developer (or the successor in interest) to maintain and manage the area and also pay for it. At such time that the City would take it over and give it to a third party to manage, the Homeowners Association would still be responsible for the long term management and maintenance by means of an annual fee. As an example, all the projects in Zone 20 have been conditioned as previously stated. Commissioner Trigas asked for an explanation of the additional 200 acres purchased off site. Mr. Neu replied that provision of off site habitat is a requirement for the Habitat Conservation Plan. In this case, however, it did not require the entire 200 acres. The 200 acres came about because the developer was able to acquire that acreage, located in the San Dieguito River Valley. Commissioner Trigas asked if this sort of thing will be included in future projects. Mr. Neu replied that this is ‘part of the regional planning of the habitat program. The City’s Habitat Management Plan has other provisions to try to acquire areas within the City and, if necessary, go outside the City. OPEN SPACE/PARKS: Staffs guiding document is the City’s Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan. Within the project, the only property designated for a community park site is the Alga Norte site. It is proposed as a separate lot and the applicant will be required to dedicate portions of it to fulfil1 their park demand and the City has an PLANNING COMMISSION September 5,200l Page 7 agreement (in place) to acquire the balance of that site. Referring to a graphic exhibit, Mr. Neu indicated the proposed public areas and stated that it should be relatively visible from several vantage points. The issue of Box Canyon was raised, repeatedly, regarding its preservation. Box Canyon is within the open space area and is an area that will be 407+ acres of contiguous open space and will be preserved. TRAILS: 1. Equestrian Trails: The only equestrian trail ever contemplated is in the southeastern corner of the City and is a potential link between the County and possibly the Olivenhain area. The rest of the trails system is intended to be a pedestrian and/or bicycle trail system. 2. Area around Ranch0 Santa Fe Road: After Ranch0 Santa Fe Road is realigned, the old road- bed will be removed with the exception of a ten to twelve foot section on the western half. That is proposed as a local trail and is not a part of the citywide plan. It is intended to have double usage by having it continue to be an access point for the utilities companies. Some concerns regarding that short strip of pavement were skateboarding, motorcycles, etc. One possibility is locked or removable bollards, some type of fence system, or something else that would be appropriate to the area. In order to not disrupt the entire drainage system, it has been determined that the short strip of pavement is best left where it is. Regarding maintenance of the area around the closed roadway, the proposed project will landscape the area east of the trail and incorporate it into their maintenance program. The City will maintain the remaining area of the right-of-way. Any privately owned property outside the right-of-way is the maintenance responsibility of the property owner. MASTER PLAN PROVISIONS FOR THE TRANSFER OF DWELLING UNITS: Chapter II of the Master Plan makes provisions for the transfer of approximately 10% of the dwelling units from one neighborhood to another. This is subject to a Master Plan Amendment. There are several criteria for evaluating a proposed transfer; facilities, development standards, etc. These transfers cannot be made without publicly noticed hearings and the approval of the City Council. Commissioner Trigas asked if a developer could transfer 10% from several neighborhoods to only one neighborhood, or must they be spread out over several neighborhoods. Mr. Neu replied that the transfers must be made within the same village. EMERGENCY EVACUATION: One of the mitigating factors is the addition of the proposed road improvements. Mr. Neu introduced Project Engineer, Clyde Wickham, to discuss wastewater treatment and condemnation. WASTEWATER TREATMENT: A portion of this project will drain into the Vallecitos Sewer District where the water is now (and will continue into the future) treated, reclaimed and then sold back for landscape irrigation purposes. The remainder of the project will drain through the Carlsbad and Leucadia Sewer Districts, respectively, to the Encina Sewer Treatment Plant. With the recently approved expansion of the Encina Water Recycling Plant, the overall water savings is expected to be greater than 20% CONDEMNATION: A recent comment was to remove the condition of providing the City’s condemnation power to this project. That is a code reminder, not a true condition. That code reminder exists as part of the Municipal Code, the Government Code, the Subdivision Map Act and if the City requires this project to build a public road that they cannot get the right-of-way for, then the City uses their power of eminent domain. With orwithout the project, the City uses that procedure. The developer is notified that if the condemnation procedure is required, the PLANNING COMMISSION September 5, 2001 Page 8 developer is financially responsible for it. Consequently, the City would not feel comfortable in removing the condition. Commissioner Nielsen stated that it needs to be made clear that the developer does not have the power of condemnation; only the City has that power. CIRCULATION: Mr. Wickham stated that Staff is working very closely with the other agencies, Encinitas, Vista, San Marcos, and occasionally Oceanside, with regard to proposed traffic circulation plans. With the overall circulation network in mind, it is extremely important that Carlsbad’s roads go somewhere and operate after they are built. In some cases Carlsbad times it’s improvements with those of adjacent cities, to make sure they work. In response to a comment regarding the lack of sidewalks on the south side of Alga Road and a safe pedestrian crossing, this comment is correct. There are very few areas, on the south side of Alga Road, that have sidewalks. The City is trying to put sidewalks in and the first project is from east of the water tank up to Cazadero, with construction beginning sometime in the winter of 2001. Note: This project is only responsible for the sidewalk improvements in the immediate areas of their development. Pedestrian crossing mid-block at Alga Road is a safety issue and currently should not be used. Pedestrians should use the signalized intersections. It has been stated that there is one accident, per week, at the intersection of El Camino Real and Alga Road. The Traffic Operations Division reviews every intersection, every month. Accidents need to be placed in the proper context. The question is how many thousands of cars pass through any given intersection without mishap? The numbers show a far lower percentage of accidents than the actual number of accidents. For example: El Camino Real and Alga Road has had three accidents reported in the past three years. That is a very low number, both by percentage and actual numbers. Many factors, too numerous to list, are involved when assessing an accident. Most are caused by driver error and/or by conditions far beyond the realm of engineering. Commissioner Compas asked if a traffic signal could be installed at the intersection of Alga Road and Estrella de Mar. Mr. Wickham replied that it is being considered. Continuing his presentation, Mr. Wickham stated that when an accident rate climbs above 2.2%, it is alarming. Carlsbad’s accident rate on El Camino Real, Alga Road, etc., is 0.13,0.12,0.128.0.13,0.12, and so on. Although not perfect, the accident rate is very good and the City is comfortable with it even though there is always room for improvement. A traffic study, at Estrella de Mar, showed only 15 vehicles in the AM/PM peak, trying to turn left across Alga Road, and 5 vehicles in the PM peak. It is assumed that the reason for the low volume is that there is another outlet at Arenal Road. Commissioner Trigas pointed out that the subject intersection is on a down slope and suggested that a signal there might be more dangerous than leaving it without a signal. Mr. Wickham replied that a traffic signal on a down slope is not an ideal design. Taking into consideration the fact that the City Council just raised the speed limit to 50 mph on that road, Commissioner Trigas stated that a signal would aggravate and/or create a more hazardous condition than already exists. Mr. Wickham agreed that there would be congestion and it possibly would not work to have a signal at that intersection. Commissioner Baker asked if it is possible to have a “right turn only” at Estrella de Mar. 3b3 PLANNING COMMISSION September 5,200l Page 9 Mr. Wickham stated that the original proposal was for a “right in, right out”, and a closed median. Commissioner Baker asked how far one would have to go after making the “right out” until they could make a u-turn to go back. Mr. Wickham stated that it would be approximately 1,500 feet to the east to make the u-turn at Alicante, or they could continue out to Arenal Road and El Camino Real which is about the same distance. Commissioner Baker asked for Mr. Wickham’s professional opinion regarding the wisdom of installing a “right turn only” instead of another traffic signal. Mr. Wickham replied that in his professional opinion, he does not feel that a traffic signal is warranted for all of the issues. However, a pedestrian crossing is the real issue. As it stands now, a pedestrian has to walk from 1,000 to 1,500 feet to safely cross Alga Road. Commissioner Baker asked if a pedestrian activated flashing light at a crossing is feasible. Mr. Wickham replied that a pedestrian activated flashing beacon is definitely something that could be considered. Chairperson Segall asked if there is going to be a significant increase in pedestrian traffic generated by this project. Mr. Wickham replied that there will probably not be a large pedestrian traffic increase into Estrella de Mar. Chairperson Segall asked if the building of a traffic signal would result in an increase of noise in the area. Mr. Wickham replied that it would increase the noise by way of noises generated by an increase in congestion. Commissioner Trigas asked Mr. Wickham to respond to some concerns regarding this project and the increase of traffic on Interstate 5 that it would generate. Mr. Wickham replied that Consultant, John Keeting will be addressing this issue later in this presentation. Regarding the perceived impacts of Olivenhain residents using Street C, going through La Costa Oaks to Avenida Diestro to get to La Costa Canyon High School, Mr. Wickham referred to the overhead exhibit to point out that it is unrealistic to say that people would use that route when there are more direct and easier routes to the high school. However, Street C will give the existing neighborhood an additional outlet which it badly needs. He traced the route of the street to the “point of access” at the City boundary where it will end until it is extended across County land to Ranch0 Santa Fe. He further stated that the City of Encinitas does not want the street (Melrose) to come into their city and have deleted it from their circulation element. The County area previously mentioned, is very rural and if anyone connects to the “point of access”, it will be at a level of very low density. Chairperson Segall asked if he is correct in his understanding that the current residents around Avenida Diestro simply do not want the road put through. Mr. Wickham replied that he is correct. Chairperson Segall also asked if his understanding is correct in that the road does open up circulation to go in the opposite direction if people need to, which effectively eliminates the “one way in and one way out.” Mr. Wickham replied affirmatively. PLANNING COMMISSION September 5,200l Page 10 Chairperson Segall stated that there are people on Avenida Diestro who want to move the punch-out from the neighborhood, down several blocks to another part of the neighborhood, and cut through at that point. Mr. Wickham responded by pointing out that the area where those residents want the punch-out is a little steeper, a little more difficult to negotiate, and two points additional points of connections in the existing neighborhood are not necessary. Chairperson Segall asked if installing stop signs, in place of yield signs, would effectively slow people down and stop people from running the yield sign. Mr. Wickham stated that once the volume begins to increase, yield signs don’t work anymore and stop signs or signals are installed. Also, the City has a Traffic Calming Program and Staff would recommend that any citizen who wishes to address traffic problems, start by taking a petition throughout the community, and approach the City for traffic calming devices. Elizabeth Cobb, RBF Consulting stated that in response to a question regarding Alicante Road and the perception that it was not addressed in the traffic analysis, Alicante Road will not be extended to Palomar Airport Road unless Bressi Ranch is developed. The baseline assumption of the traffic analysis for 2005 assumptions, is to have Alicante Road extended to Palomar Airport Road which is the same assumptions that will be made for Bressi Ranch and project adjacent to it. The City does do an annual survey of the roadways and intersections, as part of their Growth Monitoring Report, which identifies either deficiencies or areas of concern. Should Alicante Road be evaluated, in the future, the development will be evaluated accordingly. The Level of Service-C (LOS-C), at the intersections of Alga Road and Alicante Road, appears to remain the same, with or without the project. This project is affecting the intersection by 1.3 (volume counter) but is not affecting the grade of the roadway and therefore is retaining a level of service ““C for 2020 a.m. conditions.” In response to a letter from Ms. Kim Hunter, regarding several issues, Ms. Cobb stated that she and Staff have developed a response (a letter), copies of which have been given to the Commission members and a copy of which is on file in the office of the Planning Director. This letter confirms that the model assumptions are consistent with regional model assumptions and furthermore, the projects contribution is minimal (less than 50 peak hour trips) east of Questhaven Road and the Elfin Forest intersection. Emergency access was also addressed in the response. Commissioner Nielsen asked if Ms. Cobb is inferring that if the Bressi Ranch is not developed by 2005, the City will put Alicante Road through. Ms. Cobb replied that if Alicante Road is not built by 2005, and there is some demonstration that this project will affect the roadway system without its construction, then it would have to be identified as an improvement responsibility of the project. Commissioner Nielsen asked if this project (Villages of La Costa) will be required to develop Alicante Road. Ms. Cobb replied that the ADT contribution to this roadway is less than 3000 and relatively significant. However, in response to another question from Commissioner Nielsen, this project is not impacting Alicante Road, based on the current report and analysis. Commissioner Trigas asked how far the LOS is to becoming a level lower than a “C”. Ms. Cobb replied that she would have to research those figures but did say that a roadway or intersection, at a level “D” is acceptable. However, when it gets to a “E” level, it requires action to keep it from going to a level “F” which is absolute failure. Mr. Wickham interjected that the LFMP does have a safety net. Should a failure occur, with or without this project, and if they are pulling building permits, the project will be shut down until the necessary PLANNING COMMISSION September 5,200l Page 11 improvements have been built. This is whether or not they are the cause of the failure. He added that if Bressi Ranch doesn’t develop, obviously there will not be the growth that would come with development. Chairperson Segall pointed out that, some years ago, the intersection at Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real failed, resulting in the leveling of mitigation fees for that intersection as new projects came on line. Ms. Cobb, in response to Commissioner Trigas’ previous question, stated that the LOS is at a solid “C” level to the year 2020, with this current project. Commissioner Baker asked Mr. Wickham to repeat the “safety net” of the LFMP. Mr. Wickham replied as follows: If any intersection, within the City of Carlsbad, falls below a LOS “E”, during the AM or PM peak, development shall stop until such time as improvements are developed and a guarantee or a reasonable feasible improvement to alleviate that failure is created. Commissioner Nielsen asked if Interstate 5 is included. Mr. Wickham replied that it is not. There are regional facilities that are not included, including freeway interchanges. Commissioner Nielsen asked if there any other exceptions to the City’s local plan, other than Interstate 5 or Highway 78 and if Cal Trans has control of the signals at intersections that cause a back-up to getting on to Interstate 5. Mr. Wickham replied that the on-ramp back-ups are caused by freeway failure and not city roadway failure and that Cal Trans does control the signals at the subject intersections and the metered traffic on the on-ramps. Mr. Wickham then stated that John Keeting would be speaking about this subject in his presentation. John Keeting, with the Traffic Consulting Firm of Linscott, Law and Greenspan, San Diego, began with his response to the question; is the project proposing any mitigation for the impacts on Interstate 5? The short answer is no, because the project does not have any significant impacts to l-5. The study area was quite large and it showed that there were not enough trips from the project area to meet the threshold for being analyzed, let alone have any potentially significant impacts. After Cal Trans reviewed the EIR for this project, they submitted 1.5 pages of comments but none of the comments dealt with the mainline freeway impacts. Commissioner Heineman stated that he finds it difficult to believe that 2,390 new homes will have no impact on l-5. Mr. Keeting replied that he did not say “no impact” and that what he did say was “no significant impact”, meaning that no mitigation measures are required. It seems that it counters what we would expect today, but the model looks at trips from residential projects and matches them with trips from shopping centers, schools, businesses, and other types of land uses. Most of the trips are contained within the City of Carlsbad. The final assessment was that about 120 trips, in the peak hour, actually made it to the freeway and that was spread over five interchanges on l-5 and three on Highway 78. Chairperson Segall indicated that the report that was included in the last meeting, does not show College Boulevard and Cannon Road intersecting in the year 2020. Yet in 2010 it shows that intersection and asked why there is a discrepancy. He added that a new high school is scheduled to be added at the intersection of College and Cannon, in 2005, and this study shows it to be somewhere between 2005 and 2010. Chairperson Segall stated that he wants to make sure that the study is accurate. He alluded to the fact that it is possible that some facts may have changed that he is not aware of. Mr. Wickham responded by stating that when they ran the model, they took the best guess of land uses and projects coming on-line. This was started almost two years ago, before College was very far along. It has now accelerated and the connection of College is going to help by adding one more network in the system. The sooner College Boulevard comes on-line, the better. The student generation rate was studied and it was determined that, at build out, the project would generate 97 students. PLANNING COMMISSION September 5,200l Page 12 Chairperson Segall asked what mitigation this project has done with respect to the two failed intersections in San Marcos. Mr. Wickham replied that those are the only two intersections that are not mitigated by this project. They are outside Carlsbad’s city boundary and the sphere of influence of the project, in general. Mr. Wickham stated that there were overriding considerations made on the out-of-city improvements for San Elijo Hills and for University Commons and that Carlsbad is proposing the same overriding considerations. Mr. Wickham also stated that Staff would like to place a condition on this project, that the applicant post a bond for a fully actuated traffic signal at the intersection of Estrella de Mar and Alga Road, for a period of five years after the first phase development, if a traffic signal is warranted. If not, the City will look at other mitigation. RECESS: Chairperson Segall called a recess at 7:38 p.m. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER: Chairperson Segall called the meeting back to order at 7:50 p.m., with six Commissioners present. Mr. Wickham asked to clarify a point regarding the LOS ratings. He stated that Level D is the limit of acceptability, not level E. Commissioner Baker asked Mr. Wickham to explain what a LOS failure is. Mr. Wickham explained that a level of service failure is the amount of time spent waiting for a signal and a volume to capacity ratio. Commissioner Baker asked how the ordinary person would know what an LOS failure is. Mr. Wickham deferred this discussion to Mr. Keeting. Mr. Keeting stated that the level of service F is determined when the overall average delay, for every car going through an intersection, is 60 seconds. Commissioner Compas asked if Staff has discussed the posting of a bond for a signal at Alga Road and Estrella del Mar with the developer. Tracy Zinn of T & B Planning Consultants stated that the EIR does include a mitigation measure for the year 2010 that requires monitoring at that intersection and when warranted, the median break will be closed. The current mitigation measure, in the EIR, is a right turn in and a right turn out. In recommending certification of the EIR to the City Council, that mitigation measure would be included in the Commission’s recommendation unless the Commission modifies the mitigation measure by stating that it be replaced by a more appropriate mitigation measure. Commissioner Compas asked if the applicant has agreed to that. Mr. Arbuckle responded by stating that he has not agreed to it, but, based upon the discussion that day, instead of closing the median, it would be acceptable to him to provide a light or to provide some bonding for that light. Commissioner Trigas asked if the bond could be used for either the light or for the closing of the median. PLANNING COMMISSION September 5,200l Page 13 Mr. Wickham replied that the bond would only be for the light considering that without the light, the closing of the median is inevitable. Commissioner Trigas asked if the developer would pay for the closing. Mr. Wickham replied affirmatively. Chairperson Segall asked what the residents of that community favor, a signal or a right-in/right-out. Mr. Wickham replied that, to the best of his knowledge, the people would prefer a signal. NOISE: Tracy Zinn, in response to several questions stated the following: Has an acoustical study been conducted for this project? Yes it has. There is a section in the EIR that discusses noise impacts of the project. What are the noise levels on the south side of Alga Road? There is no noise wall, in that location, and those residents are experiencing vehicular noise levels that do exceed City standards. By the year 2020, the Villages of La Costa will contribute approximately 3% of the traffic to Alga Road. That increase in traffic will increase the CNEL level by 0.5. In the year 2020, the CNEL in that area is expected to increase to just under 72 CNEL (without this project) and to 72.4 with this project. The noise level, generally perceptible by the human ear is 3.0, so an increase of 0.5 is not a perceptible increase. However, because the project is contributing to already and future existing noise level that is above City standards, the noise is considered cumulative and unmitigable to the project. With regard to a noise wall, the level of mitigation has to be proportional to the level of impact, so, to require the applicant to construct a noise wall (for only a 3% contribution to the noise level) does not provide the necessary portionality. The possibility of installing rubberized asphalt (for an average reduction of 3 to 5 decibels) in that location has been discussed and the City has agreed to consider that alternative. Note: Even with rubberized asphalt, the noise level will continue to be above City standards. Commissioner Compas asked what the City’s obligation is in this regard. Ms. Zinn replied that the General Plan states that the City would not undertake action on it’s own accord to mitigate existing deficient levels. However, if the residents were to agree to pay for a wall, they could approach the City with such a proposal. Mr. Neu pointed out that the General Plan does contain some policies in regard to mitigating noise from circulation roads, etc., and is very clear in the fact that the City will not participate in funding those improvements but would assist with various permits, the processing of variances, etc. Another thing to consider is how high a wall would have to be to provide the necessary mitigation. The general consensus is that it would be more effective to add insulation and/or dual pane windows to the existing homes. Commissioner Compas asked how much difference the dual pane windows would make, in terms of noise. Mr. Neu replied that he does not have that information. Rick Tavarres, Investigative Science and Engineering, San Diego, stated that the installation of dual pane windows could result in an average of 24 to 30 decibels of interior noise reduction. Regarding the rubberized roads, Commissioner Trigas stated that in some cases this type of surface is not considered safe. She asked if something has changed that would make the City consider that such a surface is completely safe. Mr. Neu replied that the subject has not been thoroughly discussed but that road gradients would definitely have to be taken into consideration. The result will be that rubberized asphalt can be used where it is PLANNING COMMISSION September 5,200l Page 14 deemed to be safe and another surface type would be used where rubberized asphalt might be considered dangerous. Regarding the realignment of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road and the accompanying noise impacts, Ms. Zinn (referring to an overhead exhibit) pointed out that Ranch0 Santa Fe Road is a separate project and its realignment will occur with or without this proposed project. Noise impacts were evaluated in the Ranch0 Santa Fe Road EIR that was certified by the City in 1992. The road will be moved, approximately 1,000 feet and current residents (now abutting the road) will experience a considerable reduction in noise. La Costa Knolls, on the other hand, will experience an increase of 2 to 3 decibels, until the intervening development is completed. AIR QUALITY: EIR, Section 4.9, does address impacts to air quality. The analysis was conducted appropriately and mitigation is included in the Air Quality section that reduces all air quality impacts to below a level of significance, with the exception of cumulative mobile source emissions which is unmitigable at the project level, with this or any other project. LIGHTING: Light impacts were analyzed both in the visual and aesthetic quality sections of the EIR, as well as in the biological resources section and three mitigation measure were presented that would reduce lighting impacts to below a level of significance. Chairperson Segall asked where the lighting concerns were raised. Ms. Zinn replied that it was a general statement that “lighting issues have not been taken into consideration.” BIOLOGY: There were 8 main points raised by the public and they are discussed as follows: 1. The project’s HCP, and that it is legally suspect - The HCP and MSCP were approved, prepared and signed both by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game, the City of Carlsbad and the applicant. It was sent out for public review through both the CEQA and the NEPA processes and received all the necessary state and federal permits. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that the HCP was adequate. The HCP is an officially sanctioned habitat conservation program under the Federal Endangered Species Act and a certified and NCCP, under California state law. 2. The project should be put on hold until the City’s overall HMP is approved -The HCP approved for the project is already a completed component of the City’s overall HMP. The open space planning, conducted under the HCP, is based on the same biological preserve guidelines that are being used in the City’s HMP. Chairperson Segall asked if this HCP would stand on it’s own, should the City’s overall HMP not ever be approved and Ms. Zinn replied affirmatively, pointing out that is has stood on its own since 1995. Commissioner Baker asked if the additional acreage, purchased by the applicant, was required in the EIR mitigation. Ms. Zinn replied that the HCP required the applicant to contribute $1,000,000 toward off-site habitat acquisition. The applicant then purchased two off-site parcels, in the core habitat area, above and beyond the $1 ,OOO,OOO that was required. PLANNING COMMISSION September 5,200l Page 15 The majority of the projects direct impacts are being mitigated for, on-site. Instead of the original 702 acres, required under the 1995 plan, there are now 834 acres. 3. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service cannot adequately comment and respond on EIRs - The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has spent thousands of man hours working on the HCP for this project. Although they did not comment on the EIR, they have had extensive input into the open space design on the project. 4. The EIR does not adequately address the impacts to wildlife; how will the wildlife be protected on this project? - The impacts were thoroughly examined in the EIR, the accompanying biological/technical reports, and all the biological work that was conducted for the HCP itself. Open space management was discussed extensively, and management groups are in place. 5. Wildlife connection and the contiguous open space on the site; are the contiguous spaces wide enough to support wildlife movement? - The open space configuration on the La Costa Ridge and La Costa Oaks sites provides for a minimum corridor of approximately 1,000 feet (the minimum only occurs in one location). In most cases, the width is 2,000 feet or more. 6. Ranch0 Santa Fe Road runs through the open space - Yes it does, in the La Costa Ridge and La Costa Oaks projects. Ranch0 Santa Fe Road is a separate City project and will be realigned with or without this proposed project and it exists there today. The realignment includes the construction of a bridge, over San Marcos Creek, that will be higher than currently exists and will provide better habitat linkage in that area. 7. Concern regarding rats and snakes being forced into surrounding neighborhoods during the grading portion of the project - Since last week Staff has conferred with the applicant and he has agreed to construct silt fences, around the construction areas, to deter infestation into existing areas. In addition, biological monitors are required to be on the site during grading and they will be instructed to capture snakes and move them to the interior of the project. Grading will occur from the outside perimeters to the center of each project area. 8. San Diego Ambrosia - Biologists on this project have confirmed that the San Diego Ambrosia, as well as twenty-seven other plant species, do not occur on this site. CULTURAL RESOURCES/ARCHEOLOGY: One of the local Native American Tribes has requested that Native American monitoring consultation occur during grading and grubbing; there have been extensive cultural resources studies conducted on this property and, based on those studies, the cultural resource specialists state that there have been no recovered artifacts of any sacred value and there is no likelihood of any potential human burial sites on the property. Chairperson Segall asked how the accidental recovery of burial remains would be handled. Ms. Zinn replied that there are several state and federal laws in place, regarding accidental discovery of human remains, which requires the grading/excavation, etc., to stop. The coroner is notified and that office determines whether or not the remains are that of Native American origin. If so, consultation with the tribes is required. This applicant does need to go through the Army Corps 404 Permit process subsequent to City consideration of the project. It is a federal action and it will be up to those federal agencies involved as to whether or not they will require the applicant to conduct Native American monitoring. Commissioner Baker asked if there will be an archeologist required to be on-site during the grading. Ms. Zinn replied that there is archeological monitoring required for four sites in the project that are identified as potentially significant. PLANNING COMMISSION September 5,200l Page 16 SCHOOLS: The payment of school fees, as required under Senate Bill 50, constitutes full and complete mitigation for school impacts. The California Government Code does prohibit public agencies from using CEQA to deny a project solely on the basis of overcrowding issues or school impacts. The two districts mentioned, last week, are Encinitas Unified and San Dieguito Unified. The applicant has entered into a mitigation agreement with Encinitas Unified. San Dieguito Unified has a CFD established which the applicant would be required to participate in. Commissioner Trigas asked if the new home buyers will be notified that there are no guarantees as to which schools their children will attend, considering the overcrowding that may occur. Ms. Zinn deferred that question to the applicant. Mr. Neu interjected and stated that proposed Condition #24 addresses the posting of general information regarding the schools in the sales offices. From that point, parents will be expected to contact their respective districts for further information. Commissioner Baker stated that San Dieguito and Encinitas Unifieds have been mentioned and asked if the previous statement also applies to Carlsbad Unified and San Marcos Unified. Ms. Zinn replied that the same mitigation would apply. Commissioner Baker asked if there will be any Mello Roos fees in any of these projects. Mr. Neu replied that there could be if the district chooses to require that or form the district. GENERAL EIR COMMENTS: 1. Assertion: The EIR is not adequate - The EIR does meet all the basic purposes of CEQA and informs the government decision makers and the public about the potential environmental impacts of the projects. It identifies ways to mitigate the significant effects and evaluate the arrangement of alternatives. The EIR, together with the technical appendices, does adequately evaluate the projects potential environmental impacts on the environment. 2. A. B. Wetlands-avoidance alternative; Superior to the proposed project - Superior was not defined by the speaker. However, these alternatives would provide for more open space and less development. From a biological perspective, this project is fully mitigating all of the significant biological impacts below a level of significance, through thirty-one identified mitigation measures with the addition of the offsite habitat acquisition. Also from a biological perspective, the alternative mentioned by the speaker may not be preferable. Canyons-network alternative; Superior to the proposed project - The information for that alternative was gained from the two scoping meetings that were conducted for this project in 1999, as well as the information provided on the Canyon’s Network website. Staff determined that the alternative produced an adequate reduced development and, generally, reflects the desires of that group. 3. Quality of life concerns not addressed in the EIR - CEQA specifically states that ElRs should focus on the physical changes in the environment and specifically states that social changes, quality of life included, not be addressed in the document. The loss of open space is discussed under the biological section of the EIR and visual quality section. The loss of open space as a “quality of life” concern is not addressed in the EIR for those reasons. PLANNING COMMISSION September 5,200l Page 17 4. The response to comments on the EIR - All of the written comments received on the EIR, during the public review period, are reprinted in the front of the final EIR and all of the comments are numbered. Comments that do not address a physical change in the environment, express the opinion of the reviewer outside the scope of the proposed project. Those comments, however, are duly noted and read but do not appear in the final EIR. 5. The problem with Carlsbad is that Planning stops at Carlsbad’s borders and that regional criteria needs to be applied throughout the evaluation process -The EIR does evaluate cumulative effects which looks far beyond Carlsbad’s borders. The cumulative effects analysis considered projects in Oceanside, San Marcos, Vista, Encinitas, and unincorporated areas of San Diego County in proximity to the project sites. Regional issues were addressed such as: HMP and regional habitat planning, regional traffic patterns and volumes, air quality in the entire San Diego Air Quality Basin, and water quality within the projects watershed. 6. Executive Summary, Page 18, regarding the no development alternative; cumulative impacts from doing nothing are still significant-The context of that statement in the EIR is, “with or without the proposed project, considering other development projects in the area, there will be cumulative impacts.” Under the “no development alternative”, as the term implies, no development would occur on this site. The project would not contribute to the cumulative impacts but because of other development occurring in the region, they would still be there Commissioner Compas asked Mr. Neu to explain why the City doesn’t simply buy the Oaks and Ridge projects land and keep it as open space. Mr. Neu replied that those areas are not identified, in the City’s General Plan, for acquisition. It is identified as areas of development. The City could purchase that land, if it so chooses, although it is not provided for in the General Plan. In addition, the owner/developer has certain legal rights that come with the property and cannot be forced to sell or give the property to the City. Commissioner Compas asked if he is correct in his assessment of all the testimony, both from the public and staff, that the only other two things that will be done (other than what has been presented) is to heavily landscape the slope east of the La Costa Knolls and the posting of the bond for the traffic light at Estrella de Mar. Mr. Neu replied that there are two others; one dealing with the paved section of trail right-of-way on Ranch0 Santa Fe and the silt fencing and the way the grading is to be done from the perimeter to the center of the project. Chairperson Segall, referring to comments regarding the excessive cost of the EIR to the public, and asked Mr. Neu to comment on what is appropriate. Mr. Neu replied that the normal procedure, as provided for in CEQA, is the City can only charge for the reproduction costs and cannot charge fees for the preparation, technical studies, etc. This EIR has the primary volume, a number of technical appendices, appendices to the traffic report, all of which is quite substantial. This is probably one of the most expensive ElRs ever produced within the City of Carlsbad. In addition, it is not something that is typically provided at no charge to the public. The computer staff at the City felt it would be much too large a document for a home computer to download and consequently elected not to put it on the web site. The suggestion to produce a CD and sell the CD to the public appears to be a very good suggestion and it will be considered for future projects. A large number of copies of the document were placed in libraries, City Hall, and other points throughout the City. Chairperson Segall asked how the ElRs are generated; who hires the companies to do it; who pays for it; what assurance is there regarding the integrity of the process, etc. 372 PLANNING COMMISSION September 5,200l Page 18 Mr. Neu replied that CEQA provides for a number of ways for the EIR to be prepared; the City can prepare it, the hiring of an outside party to prepare it, or the developer can actually prepare it with the City having final say over the content of the document. In this case, the applicant was allowed to select the primary consultant while the City hired a third party environmental consultant and the applicant had to pay the fees for the third party review. The applicant did not influence the peer review consultant. The City is responsible for the objectivity of the EIR. Chairperson Segall asked Mr. Neu to comment on the efforts put forth on this project, during the last four to six years. Mr. Neu stated that a great deal of effort has been made, both on the part of the developer and Staff, and every effort has been made to see that this project is as compatible as possible with all of the existing neighborhoods in the area. Commissioner Baker asked to have the meeting procedures repeated, in response to several letters inferring that the public was not given as much time to speak as the developers. Mr. Wayne and Chairperson Segall, respectively, explained the established meeting procedures and the fact that those procedures have been in place for a very long time. It was also pointed out that at the four hour and forty minute meeting, there were two hours of public comment, at the last meeting, while the staff presentation, the applicant’s presentation, the questions from the Commission and the answers from Staff, made up 2 hours and 40 minutes. Mr. Neu stated that in response to a letter from lnez Yoder, Staff has submitted a written response to the Commission and will mail a copy to Ms. Yoder. RECESS: Chairperson Segall called a recess at 8:50 p.m. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER: Chairperson Segall called the meeting back to order at 9:00 p.m., with six Commissioners present. MAIN MOTION: ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Trigas, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 5010, recommending certification of EIR 98-07 and recommending approval of the Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5011,5012,5013,5014,5015,5016,5017,5018,5019, and 5020, recommending approval of GPA 98-01, MP 149(Q), MP 98-01, LFMP 10, LFMP 11 (B), CT 99-03, HDP 99-01, CT 99-04, PUD 01-08, and HDP 99-02, adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5021, 5022, and 5023, approving SUP Ol- 04, SUP 99-01, and SUP 01-03, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, including the errata sheet for Alga Norte Park finding as submitted by staff. AMENDMENT NO. 1: ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Trigas, and duly seconded, to add the following to Resolution No. 5020, Condition No. 14 of the Tentative Map Resolution for the Ridge, CT 99-04 as follows: The lower portion of the proposed westernmost slope of Lot 175, of CT 99-04, between Lots 21 through 24, and 26 through 33, CT 85-05, La Costa 373 PLANNING COMMISSION September 5,200l Page 19 Knolls Final Map 11575, shall be planted with trees and plants of a type and size to provide visual screening of the existing rear yards to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: 6-O-O Segall, Trigas, Nielsen, Baker, Heineman and Compas None None AMENDMENT NO. 2: ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Trigas, and duly seconded, to add to Planning Commission Resolution 5020 the new Condition No. 28 as follows: Concurrent with the development of neighborhoods 3.8 and 3.9, the developer shall install demountable posts (bollards) along the portion of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road closed to vehicular travel where pavement will remain, as approved by the City Engineer. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: 6-O-O Segall, Trigas, Nielsen, Baker, Heineman and Compas None None Mr. Wickham introduced an amendment addressing the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Alga Road and Estrella de Mar. (The final text of which is in Amendment 3, below) Chairperson Segall requested Mr. Arbuckle’s comments regarding this amendment. Mr. Arbuckle stated that he would suggest that the time to place the bond would be when they final the last map of the last phase of the Greens. At that time we should post the five year bond. Mr. Wickham stated that if that phase exceeded the year 2010, there would be a problem. There is a time delay. By the year 2010, something will have to be done with that intersection. It will have to be signalized or close the median. He suggested that he add: post the bond prior to the last unit or by the year 2010, whichever occurs first. Mr. Arbuckle agreed with the new wording. Mr. Wickham stated he would be more comfortable with the bond posted at the time of the occupancy of the first phase that would run for five years from the first phase, since that would be the time of greatest impact. RECESS: Chairperson Segall called a brief recess at 9:20 p.m. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER: Chairperson Segall called the meeting back to order at 9:32 p.m., with all Commissioners present. PLANNING COMMISSION September 5,200l Page 20 AMENDMENT NO. 3: ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Trigas, and duly seconded, to add to Planning Commission Resolution 5016 to add to Condition No. 58, Item J as follows: Provide for the construction and installation of a fully actuated traffic signal at the intersection of Alga Road and Estrella de Mar. The developer shall post a bond for the design and construction of this signal, with the first final map to be installed when traffic warrants are met and approved by the City Engineer. The bond shall remain in effect to the year 2010. If warrants do not occur, the bond will be released. The intent of this condition is to either put the signal in or close the median by the year 2010. Mr. Arbuckle, once again, agreed with the text of the new condition. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: 6-O-O Segall, Trigas, Nielsen, Baker, Heineman and Compas None None AMENDMENT NO. 4: ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Trigas, and duly seconded, to add as a new condition to Resolution 5016, following Condition No. 31 and add to Resolution 5020 following Condition No. 29 as follows: Prior to the initiation of grubbing or clearing, the applicant shall install “silt” fencing at project boundaries where grubbing or clearing is to occur in order to minimize movement of rodents and snakes into the surrounding, existing neighborhoods. Applicant shall also insure that a biologist is on-site during these activities, to capture and remove snakes. Additionally, the applicant shall initiate grubbing or clearing from the perimeter of the site inward to the site where such activity will occur adjacent to existing homes. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN : 6-O-O Segall, Trigas, Nielsen, Baker, Heineman and Compas None None DISCUSSION: Commissioner Compas stated that he appreciates the environmental concerns of those opposed to this project. He also stated that he is impressed at the strong outpouring of environmental opposition and feels that people SHOULD become more and more environmentally aware. Also impressive is the hard work that the City planners and the developer have produced in order to reach agreement on the size and scope of this project. In his opinion, he continued, Carlsbad is the jewel of San Diego County and is what it is largely because of its Growth Management Plan which was approved by the voters of Carlsbad in 1986. It identifies all needed infrastructure, at build out, and requires new development to pay for the needed streets, parks, and other facilities. Commissioner Compas further stated that he believes this Growth Management Plan is unique among cities and has served Carlsbad exceedingly well. The GMP also calls for a total of 40% of the city to be open space. When the Habitat Management Plan is approved, the total open space will increase to approximately 45% which appears to be an environmentally good percentage. Commissioner Compas stated that the project, as presented, is a reasonable fit regarding the Growth Management Plan, the Habitat Conservation Plan, and the Habitat Management Plan. He further stated his satisfaction that this project will benefit Carlsbad and that he will vote in favor of the project. Commissioner Heineman stated that he is not surprised at the controversy surrounding this project as most in fill projects tend to excite a great many people. He commented that he feels that the developer has done a 37 3- PLANNING COMMISSION September 5,200l Page 21 remarkable job of fitting old neighborhoods against new neighborhoods and preserving contiguous open space for habitat reasons. The alternatives (open space or a park) proposed by those in opposition simply do not face up to the realities of economic problems that we would face in order to do something else with this land. It has been slated for development, for several years, and this particular development has been well conceived and is worthy of the Commission’s approval. Commissioner Heineman stated his intention to vote, affirmatively, for the project as it has been presented. Commissioner Baker thanked the citizens of the community that have taken the time and trouble to be involved in this project. Although many would think that to have no more development would be a good thing, that is not the reality. Commissioner Baker stated that she believes the developer and the City has done the best they can to meld both the desires for open space and desires to build houses. Commissioner Baker further stated that she can comfortably and confidently support this project. Commissioner Nielsen stated his support for the project as presented and thanked Staff and the developer. Commissioner Trigas stated her appreciation for the comments from the citizens and especially for the hard work by Staff, the developer, the consultants, and all those involved in the planning and design of this project. She pointed out that the citizenry has influenced the developer to come up with a much better project than originally designed. Commissioner Trigas also acknowledged the superior efforts to preserve as much open space as possible and that one of the results is that others will use this project as an example and strive to accomplish the same results. Commissioner Trigas stated she would vote affirmatively for the project. Chairperson Segall reiterated many of the comments made by the other Commissioners. He stated that, although it would be nice, development cannot and should not be stopped, as long as development is planned properly with the needs of the community uppermost in the minds of the planners. Chairperson Segall thanked Staff for the many years of hard work they’ve contributed, the applicant/developer for his outstanding efforts in the design of this project, and concluded by stating that he is very much in favor of this project. VOTE ON MAIN MOTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: 6-O-O Segall, Trigas, Nielsen, Baker, Heineman and Compas None None PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Chairperson Segall announced that, on Wednesday, September 12, 2001, from 530 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce will be launching the Chamber University. Major General Charles Bolden, a four time space shuttle astronaut and commander of a Marine Division, will be speaking on the subject of Leadership. This event is free to the community and will be held at LEGOLAND. Reservations are necessary. PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMENTS: Mr. Wayne announced that the California Coastal Commission appeal on the Kelly Ranch Coastal Permit, issued by the City, is going to be heard on Tuesday, September 11, 2001, in Eureka. The Staff report is recommending, “No substantial issue”, effectively recommending the ending of the appeal on the Coastal Permit. Mr. Wayne also announced that on Tuesday, September 11,2001, the Sign Committee’s recommendations will be heard by the City Council and their recommendations and directions to Staff will be put in a report and distributed to the Planning Commission as quickly as possible.