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.