HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-06-04; City Council; 16775; The Summit at CarlsbadCITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL
AB# 16,775
CITY MOR a DEPT. PLNM
THE SUMMIT AT CARLSBAD MTG.
DEPT. HD. TITLE:
6-4-02 ZC 00-111SDP 00-171HDP 00-13 CITY ATTY. 23
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the Council INTRODUCE Ordinance No. NS-629 , AMENDING the Zoning Map,
and ADOPT Resolution No. 2002-161 ADOPTING a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
APPROVING the Zone Change, Site Development Plan, and Hillside Development Permit.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On May 1,2002, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and recommended approval
with a 6-1 vote of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, Zone Change from R-1-10,000 (One Family Residential) Zone to RD-M (Residential
Density - Multiple) Zone to allow multiple family units and a Site Development Plan and Hillside
Development Permit to allow grading and construction of a 143 unit apartment project including 29
inclusionary housing units. The 20.65-acre site, located north of Marron Road between El Camino
Real and Avenida de Anita in Local Facilities Management Zone 2, is designated by the General
Plan for Residential Medium (RM) density allowing 75 units. The applicant is requesting approval of
a 91% density increase as an incentive to enable the reservation of 29 inclusionary housing units
that are affordable to families with incomes that are 60% of the area median income and in
exchange for the preservation of over half of the site as open space. 55% of the site is proposed as
a hardline conservation area as part of the City's draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP).
The Planning Commission recommended the addition of two conditions to the project to address
concerns that a density increase to add more units would exacerbate the traffic congestion at the
intersection of Marron Road and El Camino Real. The density increase to add 68 multi-family units
above the density allowed by the Growth Management growth control point and existing R-I zoning
would result in an additional 108 average daily trips (ADT). The proposed conditions prohibit the
issuance of a grading permit until commencement of construction of College Boulevard and Cannon
Road connection or November, 2002, whichever occurs first, and limit the number of units that can
One resident from the Tanglewood HOA spoke in opposition to the project due to concerns
receive occupancy prior to substantial completion of the College BoulevardlCannon Road roadway.
regarding additional traffic on Avenida de Anita at the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
Based on an environmental impact assessment conducted by staff, potentially significant impacts to
water quality, biological resources, noise, and paleontological resources were identified. Mitigation
measures have been imposed to reduce those impacts to below a level of significance. The
Planning Director issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration on February 28, 2002, and comments
were received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game.
Staff responded to those comments during the Planning Commission public hearing.
FISCAL IMPACT:
All public infrastructure required by this project would be funded by the developer.
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Ordinance No. MS-629
I
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 16,775
2. City Council Resolution No. 2002-161
3. Location Map
4. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5170, 5171, 5172, and 5173
5. Planning Commission Staff Reports dated April 3 and May 1,2002
6. Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes dated April 3 and May 1, 2002.
1
t
i
5
1(
11
1;
12
14
IS
It
15
la
19
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDINANCE NO. NS-629
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 21.05.030 OF
THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY AN AMENDMENT TO
THE ZONING MAP TO GRANT A ZONE CHANGE FROM R-l-
10,000 TO RD-M ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
NORTH OF MARRON ROAD BETWEEN EL CAMINO REAL
AND AVENIDA DE ANITA IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 2.
CASE NAME: THE SUMMIT AT CARLSBAD
CASE NO.: zc 00-1 1
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does ordain as follows:
SECTION I: That Section 21.050.30 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, being the
zoning map& amended as shown on the map marked Exhibit 'ZC 00-11" attached hereto and
made a part hereof.
SECTION II: That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission as
set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5171 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 newspaper of general circulation within fifteen days after its
adoption.
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City
Council held on the 4th day of JUNE , 2002, and thereafter
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
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 said City Council held on the
day of ,2002, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
Page 2 of 2 of Ordinance NO. NS-629 -2-
PROPERTY ZONE CHANGE zc: 00-1 I
draft final 0
HIGHWAY 78
Project Name: The Summit at Carlsbad I Related Case File No(s):
Legal Description(s): Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 4838, in SDP 00-171HDP 00-13
the City of Carlsbad. County of San Diego. State of
California, tiled in the office of the County Recorder of
San Diego County, June 18.1976 as filelpage no. 76-
190384 of official records.
That portion of Lot 3 of Section 32, Township 11 South,
Range 4 West, San Bernardino base and meridian,
according to official plat thereof being in the City of
Carlsbad. County of San Diego. State of California.
Those portions of Lots 3 and 4 in Section 32, Township 11 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino meridian , in
the City of Carlsbd, County of San Diego. State of
California.
5
Property: I From: To:
A. 167-030-71 P-1-10000 RD-M
8. 167-030-55 p-1-10000 RD-M
C. 167-030-51 p-1-10000 RD-M Signature:
Council Approval Date:
Ordinance No:
Effective Date: ,. I Y. I I
Attach additional pages if necesbary I I
1 - 1
-
4
c -
6 - I
E
S
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO.' 2002-161
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND APPROVING A ZONE
CHANGE, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND HILLSIDE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO REZONE,. GRADE AND
CONSTRUCT A 143 UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT ON
PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF MARRON ROAD BETWEEN '
EL CAMINO REAL AND AVENIDA DE ANITA IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 2.
CASE NAME: THE SUMMIT AT CARLSBAD
CASE.NO.: ZC 00-1 I/SDP 00-17/HDP 00-13
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as
follows:
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on May 1, 2002, hold a duly noticed
public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Zone Change 00-1 1, Site Development Plan 00-
17, and Hillside Development Permit 00-13 to rezone 20.65-acres of land from Residential One-
Family, 10,000 square foot minimum lot size, to Residential Density Multiple (RD-M), and
adopted Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5170, 5171, 5172, and 5173 recommending the
City Council that they be approved; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did on the 4th day of JUNE
2002 duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Zone Change, Site Development
Plan, and Hillside Development Permit; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
' and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the City Council considered all factors
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,
Zone Change, Site Development Plan, and Hillside Development Permit.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE as follows:
I. That the above recitations are true and correct. 7
1
'
t
6
s
1c
11
12
13
.14
It
1t
1;
1f
15
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5171, 5172 and 5173 constitute the finding of the City Council in this matter.
2. That the findings of the Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5170
Reporting Program is adopted, and ZC 00-11, SDP 00-17, and HDP 00-13 respectively, arc
3. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring anc
approved as shown in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5170,5171,5172 and 5173 on file
with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City oi
Carlsbad on the 4th day of JUNE , 2002, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Kulchin. Finnila, Nygaard, Hall
NOES: Council Member Lewis
ATEST:
L~!#hlbfE M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
ge 2 of 2 of Resolution No. 2002-161 -2- 8
EXHIBIT 3
HIGHWAY 78
SUMMIT AT CARLSBAD
ZC 00-1 I/SDP 00-1 7/HDP 00-1 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. 5170
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO
ALLOW AN APARTMENT PROJECT ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF MARRON ROAD
BETWEEN EL CAMINO REAL AND AVENIDA DE ANITA IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 2.
CASE NAME: THE SUMMIT AT CARLSBAD
CASE NO: ZC 00-1 1/SDP 00-1 1MDP 00-13
WHEREAS, Marron Road Ventures, LLC, “Developer,” and has filed a
verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Robert Patrick
Kelly, Richard Carroll Kelly, and Azalea Partnership, “Owner” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 4838, 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 18, 1976 as
file/page no. 76-190384 of official records.
That portion of Lot 3 of Section 32, Township 11 South, Range
4 West, San Bernardino base and meridian, according to
oficial plat thereof being in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California.
Those portions of Lots 3 and 4 in Section 32, Township 11
South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino meridian, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California.
~
(‘the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with
said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of April 2002 and on
the 1st day of May 2002 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said
request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
J6
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
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program according to
Exhibit “ND“ dated February 28, 2002, and “PII” dated January 29, 2002,
attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A. It has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
B. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines
and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carisbad; and
C. It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad and
D. Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Conditions:
1. Developer shall implement or cause the implementation of The Summit at Carlsbad
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
...
..
...
...
PC RES0 NO. 5 170 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
E
s
1c
11
1;
1:
1r
I!
1t
1:
1I
l!
21
2
2:
2:
23
2,
21
2.
2t
i
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Plannins i
1 i
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of hlay. 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES : Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Heineman, Segall.
White, and Whitton
NOES: Commissioner Dominguez
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
S& YE&
SEENA TRIGAS, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5 170 -3- ta
- Citv of Carlsbad
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Addresskocation: North of Marron Road between El Camino Real and Avenida de
Anita in the northeast quadrant.
Project Description: A zone change from the One Family Residential , R-1-10000, zone to
the Residential Density Multiple, RD-M, zone to allow multiple
family units, and a site development plan and hillside development
permit to allow grading and the construction of a 143 unit apartment
project that includes 29 units affordable to low income families with
60% AMI on a 20.65 acre parcel located north of Marron Road
between El Camino Real and Avenida de Anita in the northeast
quadrant. The City’s Draft Habitat Management Plan identifies the
site as a standards area; therefore the project includes an open space
wildlife comdor to be preserved along the eastern boundary and
within the northern portion of the property. The apartment project is
clustered within the southwestern 8.61 acres of the site and the
remainder of the property will be dedicated to the City as HMP open
space.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the
Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial
study (EL4 Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in
the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative
declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the
effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there
is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project “as revised”
may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is
hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning
Department.
A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date of
issuance. If you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at (760)
602-4622.
DATED: FEBRUARY 28,2002
CASE NO: ZC 00-1 IlSDP 00-17/HDP 00-13
CASE NAME: THE SUMMIT OF CARLSBAD
PUBLISH DATE: FEBRUARY 28,2002
MICHAEL J. HO%MIL%R
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us @ 13
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 11
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: ZC 00-1 l/SDP 00-17MDP 00-13
DATE: Januarv 29.2002
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: The Summit at Carlsbad
2. APPLICANT: All Phase Develoument. Inc.
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 6060 Sunrise Vista Drive, Suite 2200,
Citrus Heights. CA 95610 PH: (9161 727-0779
4. DATE EL4 FORM PART I SUBM’ITED: 12-2 1-00
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A zone change fiom the One Family Residential, R-1-10000,
zone to the Residential Densitv Multiple. RD-M. zone to allow multiple family units. and
a site development plan and hillside development permit to allow mading and the
construction of a 143 unit apartment proiect that includes 29 units affordable to low
income families with 60% AMI on a 20.65 acre parcel located north of Marron Road
between El Camino Real and Avenida de Anita in the northeast quadrant. The Citv’s
Draft Habitat Management Plan identifies the site as a standards area; therefore the
proiect includes an open space wildlife corridor to be preserved alone the eastern
boundan, and within the northern portion of the uroperty. The apartment proiect is
clustered within the southwestern 8.61 acres of the site and the remainder of the property
will be dedicated to the Citv as HMP open space.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTL4LLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning [XI TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
UPopulation and Housing [XI Biological Resources Uutilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Water 0 Hazards Cultural Resources
Air Quality Noise 0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96 l4
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Mitigated
Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be
addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in ths case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier pursuant to applicable
standards and @) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore,
a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
4-a- 6 +
Planner Signature U U Date
4-4/- G +
Date
Z/t%Z-
Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96 /5-
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the follo~ving
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect kom “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant,
Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but &I potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ER or
Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a
supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required
by the prior environyental document have been incorporated into this project, then no
additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Ovemding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence
that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96 /6
0 If there are one or more potentially sipficant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant. and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated”
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
e An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not
reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect. or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96 17
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
b) 'Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
landuses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
Significant
Less Than
Impact
0
0
0
0
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
populationprojections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#I:Pgs 5.5-1 - indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
5.5-6)
0 0 (7
0 0 0
0 0 0 housing? (#l:PgS 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Faultrupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1.15)
5.1-15)
g) Subsidence ofthe land?(#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15)
€3
[XI
[XI
Ix)
ISI
IXI
[XI
IXI
IXI [XI [XI
IXI
IXI [XI IXI
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface moff! (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of 0
0 [XI0
11)
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 52-11) OB
Ix1 on
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1)
surface water quality (e.g. temperatme, dissolved
5 Rev. 03/28/96 18
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body?(#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11)
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
capability? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 I)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-
(#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
11)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
1 ~ 5.3-12)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
VI. TRANSPORTATIONlCIRCULATION. Would the
a) Increased vehicle hips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
proposal result in:
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(e.g. farm equipment)?(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 ~ 5.7.22)
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pes 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
Potentially
Slgnificant Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
El
0
0
0
El
CI
0
0 ,- e) Hazards or barriers for pedestnans or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e& bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -
5.7.22) 0
o
0
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 ~ 5.4-24; #2)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
0
0
Slgnificant Slgnificanr lmpacr
Potentially Less Than KO
Incorporated Mitlgatlon
Unless Impact
OB
0 UIXI
0 OB
0 0151
0 om
0 0151
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
El
151
[XI
0 0
0 nIXI
0 OIXI
6 Rev. 03/28/96 17
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vemal pool)?
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24;#2)
~ 5.4-24;#2)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
1 - 5.13-9)
resource that would be of future value to the region and
theresidenhoftheState?(#l:Pgs5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5&
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
(#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited,to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals orradiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
5.10.1-5)
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
hazards?(#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 ~ 5.10.1-5)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9-
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9- 15)
1 - 5.9-15;#6)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)
Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4)
Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? )
Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
5.12.8-7)
XII.UTIL1TIES AM) SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Significant Sqmficant Slprmiticanr Impxr
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Impact Unless lrnpacr
Mitlgatlon
Incorporated 0 om
0 [XI no
17 e317
0
0
0 0
CI OIXI
0 ON
0 0 OIXI
0 0 0 IXI.
0 IXI on
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
17 0
N IXI IXI IXI N
7 Rev. 03/28/96 e9a
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentzally
S~gnificant
Impact Slgnificant Potentially
Unless
M~tigation Incorporated
0
Significant
Less Than
Impact
Impact
PUO
a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 . 5.12.1-5 8:
b) Communications system?
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
d) Sewerorseptictanks?(#l:Pgs5.12.3-1 -5.12.3-7)
e) Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
0 0
0 0 El [XI
0 0 0 0
0
Is] Is] El [XI g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.12.3-7)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
5.11-1 -5.11-5)
5.11-1 - 5.11-5) 0
0
0 0
0
0
[XI
Is]
El
0
0
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 5.8-
1 - 5.8-10)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
10;#6)
1 0)
XV.RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-7)
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
0 El
0
0
Is]
0
0
0 0
Is] [XI
0 IXI
0 0
0
[51
El 0
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
0 0
8 Rev. 03/28/96 2f
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Potentially Potentially Less Than No
S~gnificant S~gnificant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? 0 OB
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)? .~
c) Does the proiect have environmental effects which will n n n E4
cause the’substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
U U U -
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)@). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated,“ describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
9 Rev. 03/28/96 22
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Environmental Setting
The project site is a currently undeveloped 20.65 acre parcel located to the north of Marron Road
approximately 54 mile east of El Camino Real. The property is bordered to the north by Haymar
Road, to the south by Marron Road, to the east by undeveloped land and a golf driving range.
and to the west by an existing commercial center. High tension power transmission lines extend
approximately northwest to southeast through the northern portion of the site. Numerous dirt
roads provide access to most of the site. Topographically, the property slopes moderately to
steeply down to the north, south and west from a relatively flat mesa along the eastern site
development boundary. Two small canyons drain to the west within the northwestern and
southern portions of the site. An abandoned reservoir exists in the central portion of the site
along the eastern boundary. Approximate elevations across the site range from a high of 110
feet above MSL to a low of 40 feet MSL. A 60 foot high 1 %:I manufactured cut slope exists
along the western property boundary. The slope is covered with dry grass and many eucalyptus
trees. Vegetation on the site consists primarily of disturbed habitat and ornamental plantings;
however, plant communities onsite that are considered environmentally sensitive include coastal
sage scrub, southern willow scrub, herbaceous wetlands and unvegetated stream channel.
1.D. LAND USEPOPULATION AND HOUSING
The project does not conflict with the property’s RM General Plan designation existing on the
property and although a density increase is required for the development, the project does not
exceed local population projections. The project does propose to rezone the property from R-l-
10000 to RDM. The RDM zone, which permits both single family and multiple family units, is
consistent with the underlying Residential Medium (RM) density General Plan Designation that
allows a density range of 4 - 8 dwelling units per acre. The current R-1-10000 zoning would
restrict development to single family units and would not permit project density to exceed the
minimum density permitted by the range due to the 10,000 square foot minimum lot size.
Existing development surrounding the project includes multi-family apartment and condominium
projects to the south and a commercial center to the west. The proposed RDM zoning allows
multi-family development that is more compatible with surrounding development.
The density permitted on the site based on developable acreage is 75 dwelling units. The
proposed 143 unit apartment project requires the granting of a 91% density increase as an
incentive to enable the reservation of 29 of the proposed 143 apartment units to be made
affordable to families with incomes that are 60% of the area median income (AMI). The City’s
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires that 15% of the total units (21 units) be reserved as
affordable housing units for low income households (80% of the AMI). The proposed
reservation of 29 affordable units exceeds the minimum inclusionary housing requirement and
the requested incentive (density increase) to enable the provision of more affordable units at 60%
of the AMI is consistent with the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
The proposed density increase is also consistent with City Council Policy 43 which sets priorities
for the allocation of excess dwelling units existing in each quadrant in the City to avoid
exceeding the Growth Management maximum dwelling unit cap. A finding that excess units are
available must be made prior to granting density increases and the project must qualify as a
priority project. The project satisfies criteria established by Policy 43 for first, second and third
priority projects: it is an affordable housing project (first priority); it is a transit oriented
development in close proximity to major transit facilities and commercial support services
10 Rev. 03/28/96 23
(second priority); and it is an infill multi-family project that meets all development standards and
does not exceed the density of adjacent, existing multi-family projects (thlrd priority).
There has been no agricultural activity on the property for many years.
111. GEOLOGY
The “Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation” prepared for the project by Geotechnical
Exploration, Inc. dated January 20, 1999, states that the site is favorable for the proposed
development provided the recommendations in the report are followed. Implementation of the
report’s recommendations and standard City of Carlsbad erosion control measures will avoid
unstable conditions and potential erosion impacts.
IV. WATER
Additional impervious surfaces will he created with development of the project that will result in
reduced absorption rates and increased surface runoff.
The receiving water body for the proposed project is the Buena Vista Lagoon. The Buena Vista
Lagoon is classified as impaired waters due to the following 303(d) pollutant of concern:
High Coliform Count
The existing beneficial uses for Buena Vista Lagoon per the Watershed Management Plan are:
Contact Water Recreation (fishing firom shore or boat only) . Preservation of Biological Habitats of Special Significance ’ Estuarine Habitat (Potential Beneficial Use) . Wildlife Habitat . Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species
* Marine Habitat
Non-Contact Water Recreation
The proposed project qualifies under several Priority Development Project Categories listed in
Order 2001-01 of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB). The
permit identifies as priorities: . Home subdivisions of 100 housing units or more.
9 All hillside development greater than 5,000 square feet (development on slopes of 25% or . All development located directly adjacent to or discharging directly to an
greater).
environmentally sensitive area.
Parking lots 5,000 square feet or more. . Street, roads, highways and freeways of 5,000 square feet or more.
During construction, the City Draft Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Plan (JURMP) will
identify this site as a high priority potential threat to water quality. This classification is due to
the site being over 5 acres, and discharging through a lined channel into Buena Vista Lagoon.
To address the potential for pollutant discharge during construction, the project will be’
conditioned to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Due to the proximity
to the lagoon, the project will be required to implement and maintain an enhanced level of Best
11 Rev. 03/28/96 a4
Management Practices (BMPs). Specific BMPs will be identified in the preparation and City
review of the SWPPP.
After construction is complete, the proposed project is not anticipated to pose a major threat to
coliform levels in Buena Vista Lagoon. The typical impact to coliform levels from residential
development is from pet waste. Apartments typically have restrictions on pets, and the fact that
the green areas are for common use encourages responsible waste management by pet owners.
The project does have the potential to harm water quality through discharge of trash, oil and
grease, fertilizers and other pollutants. These potential impacts will be mitigated by the use of
structural BMPs identified in the SWPPP (Post-construction Section) or through the preparation
of a Water Pollution Control Plan (WPCP) or similar program. The site has been designed to
drain a portion of the pavement through a grass swale to the north of the site and along the
southern boundary to remove pollutants. Most of the rest of the site will drain through one point
before discharge to a proposed public storm drain in Marron Road. Prior to discharge into the
public storm drain, the stormwater will have to be treated by a “vortex” type system (VortechsB,
Baykeepem, Downstream Defend&), or other adequate system to remove pollutants. The
treatment specifics, sizing and maintenance will be addressed in the SWPPP or WPCP prior the
start of construction. In addition, the project will be required to identify non-structural BMPs to
prevent pollutants from entering stormwater.
Mitigation
Preparation of a SWPP andor WPCP to identify necessary BMFs.
V. AIR OUALITY:
In 1994 the City prepared and certified an ER which analyzed the impacts which will result
from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concludes that
continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have
cumulative significant impacts in the form of increased gas and electric power consumption and
vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon
monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates.
These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego
Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air
emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to build-out
as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air
quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan build-out, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2)
measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation
Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including
mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked
12 Rev. 03/28/96 J5-
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore. the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by
City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Ovemding Considerations” for
air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Ovemding Considerations” applies to all projects
covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MEIR
This document is available at the Planning Department.
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
The 143 unit apartment project would generate 858 ADT. This represents some increase in ADT
above the 750 trips that would be permitted by the 75 single family units permitted by the
General Plan. A traffic analysis performed for the project for a 187 unit apartment project
generating 1,122 ADT concludes that road segments and intersections impacted by the additional
project trip generation would not exceed existing levels of service. The 2010 Forecast traffic
volumes show the road segments and intersections serving the project operating at the acceptable
level of “D or better. Therefore, the addition of “net new” traffic from the project does not
result in a sipficant impact, is., reduce the level of service on any road segment or intersection
serving the site to below the City’s threshold.
In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would
result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concluded
that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will result in
increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build-out
traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional
through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all
freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the
implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the
City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at build-out.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan build-out,
numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include:
1) measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to
develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks,
pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation
strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate. or
State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to
control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either
been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at build-out of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. Ths project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a “Statement Of Ovemding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR.
This project is within the scope of that MEIR This document is available at the Planning
Department.
A MEIR may not be used to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior to the
filing of an application for a later project. The City is currently reviewing the 1994 MEIR to
13 Rev. 03/28/96 26
determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects. Although the MEIR was
certified more than five years ago, the City’s preliminv review of its adequacy finds that no
substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was
certified. The only potential changed circumstance, the intersection failure at Palornar Airpon
Rd. and El Camino Real, is in the process of being mitigated to below a level of significance.
Additionally, there is no new available information, which was not known and could not have
been known at the time the MEIR was certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate to
review later projects.
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Although no plant or animal species listed as endangered by State and Federal wildlife agencies
were detected at the site, the following sensitive plant communitiesihabitat types were identified
on the subject properly:
Acreages of Existing Plant Communities and Land Covers
Plant Community Acreage
Disturbed Coastal Sage Scrub
Herbaceous Wetlands
0.03 Southem Willow Scrub
0.88
20.91 Total
17.70 Disturbed Habitat
2.20 Ornamental Plantings
0.04 Unvegetated Stream Channel
0.06
Five of the six plant communitiedland covers will be directly impacted by the proposed
development: southem willow scrub (0.03 acre), herbaceous wetlands (0.06 acre), unvegetated
stream channel (0.04 acre), ornamental plantings (0.30 acre), and disturbed habitat (9.2 acres).
Figure 4 attached to this document illustrates the distribution of biological resources on the
properly and the locations where proposed grading would occur. The project site is identified as
a standards area by the City’s draft Habitat Management Plan. The disturbed coastal sage scrub
habitat located along the northern and eastern property boundary will not be impacted by the
project because it is within an area now proposed as an HMF’ hardline conservation area, linking
offsite adjacent lands to the east of the project site with areas of biological value to the north.
This portion of the property also provides a suitable link for possible gnatcatcher and other avian
dispersal between the Cities of Oceanside and Carlsbad. As designed, the project provides a core
linkage area and is therefore consistent with the City’s draft HMP.
The onsite wetland communities (southern willow scrub, herbaceous wetlands and unvegetated
stream channel) are located within the drainage channel along the southwestern edge of the site
within the area proposed for development. These communities are under the jurisdiction of the
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE).
The limited southern willow scrub, herbaceous wetlands and unvegetated stream channel,
located north of Marron Road and east of an existing commercial center, do not support sensitive
plant andor wildlife species and most likely do not aid in wildlife movement.
14 Rev. 03/28/96 27
Mitigation
Wetlands are considered a sensitive habitat and it is anticipated that direct impacts would require
a 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFG, a 401 Water Quality Certification from
the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, and a 404 permit from the ACOE.
Proposed mitigation for direct impacts to .03 acre of southern willow scrub is the creation of
southern willow scrub at a ratio of 31, and direct impacts to .06 acre of herbaceous wetland and
.04 acre of unvegetated stream channel is the creation or enhancement of southern willow scrub
at a ratio of 1:l. Total mitigation required for these impacts is anticipated to be approximately
.19 acre. The conceptual restoration plan would relocate the wetland area slightly to the south of
its existing location.
Indirect project impacts will be mitigated through implementation before and following
construction to ensure that siltation and erosion are minimized within the remaining drainages
onsite and will be incorporated into the final design of the project, as part of the required
SWPPP, in order to ensure that water quality is not degraded. Additionally, open space areas
within the conservation easement to the north will be protected by fencing along the top of slope
to reduce trespassing and dumping of trash. Landscaping on descending manufactured slopes to
the north of the project will be required to avoid the introduction of exotic and invasive species
within the open space to a greater extent than currently exists. Exotic plant species not to be
used include those species listed on Lists A & B of the California Exotic Pest Plant Council’s list
of “Exotic Pest Plants of Greatest Ecological Concern in California as of October 1999.” This
list includes such species as: pepper trees, pampas grass, fountain grass, ice plant, myopom,
black locust, capeweed, tree of heaven, periwinkle, sweet alyssum, English ivy, French broom,
Scotch broom, and Spanish broom.
x. NOISE
The project consists of an apartment complex with no required outdoor recreational areas. The
City’s 60 dBA CNEL exterior standard applies to exterior yard and/or patio areas required for
single family and condominium ownership units. The project is subject to the 45 dBA CNEL
interior noise standard required by the City and State (California CCR Title 24 Noise Insulation
Standards) applicable when openings to the exterior of the unit are open or closed. If openings
are required to be closed to meet the interior noise standard, then mechanical ventilation must be
provided. Units on all floor levels of buildings with a line of sight to SR 78 and El Camino Real
will exceed the exterior noise standard at various locations due to traffic noise generated from
these nearby roadways; therefore, mitigation necessary to attenuate interior noise levels is that an
interior acoustical analysis will be required to determine acceptable construction materials
(window, door and wall treatments) and building design measures to lower interior noise levels
to !he 45 dBA CNEL standard. This analysis shall be completed and its recommendations
incorporated into the project prior to issuance of building permits.
XIII. AESTHETICS
The project site is separated from existing development by Marron Road, and the proposed
development would be surrounded by open space on two sides (north and east). The rear of an
existing neighborhood commercial shopping center abuts the property to the west. Due to the
dedication and widening of Marron Road along the property’s frontage, a significant separation
from development to the south will result. The site requires 63,383 cubic yards of cut and fill to
create a somewhat terraced pad that raises and lowers the existing topography approximately 15
15 Rev. 03/28/96 28
to 20’ from north to south. The aesthetic impacts to surrounding properties of these chanses is
not significant.
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A single, large prehistoric cultural resource site was identified in the central area of the property
(CA-SDI-6139) by RECON that required a significance evaluation to determine impacts and
mitigation measures if necessary. A significance evaluation was performed by RECON which
included surface collection, excavation of four 1 x 1 meter units, excavation of 12 shovel test
pits, and analysis of the recovered artifacts and ecofacts. Sufficient information was collected
during the significance testing at the site to demonstrate that it is not a significant cultural
resource. The deposit integrity is poor as a result of agricultural activity, illegal dumping and
mechanical blading or some form of soil removal that has altered the original topography of the
property and possibly removed or substantially displaced the archaeological materials that may
have been present on this properly. Based on an absence of site integrity and the recovery of a
limited number and diversity of cultural items, CA-SDI-6139 is not a significant cultural
resource and no further work is recommended for the site.
The close proximity of the project site to the highly fossiliferrous localities of Jeff s Discovery
local fauna, a site discovered during the 1991 State Highway 78 road construction project,
coupled with the presence of nonmarine sedimentary rocks of the Santiago Formation observed
underlying the area indicate that the parcel has a high potential for yielding significant vertebrate
fossils during earthmoving activities. The Santiago Formation is considered to be a highly
sensitive paleontological resource. Construction activities necessary to develop the project will
result in potentially significantly impacts these resources unless the following mitigation
measures are incorporated into the project:
1. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of
excavations and, if necessary, salvage exposed fossils. The frequency of inspections will
depend on the rate of excavations, the materials being excavated, and the abundance of
fossils.
2. The palentologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an exposed
fossil to facilitate excavation and, if necessary, salvage.
3. Because of the small nature of fossils present in these rock units, matrix samples should
be collected for processing through fine mesh screens.
4. Provisions for preparation and curation shall be made before the fossils are donated to
their final reposity.
5. All fossils collected should be donated to a museum with a systematic palentological
collection, such as the San Diego National History Museum.
EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008,
(760) 602-4600.
16 Rev. 03/28/96 2 9
1. Final Master Environmental Imuact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Epdate
2. “Draft Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment for Summit at Carlsbad, City of
3. “Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation - The Summit at Carlsbad”, prepared by
4. “Preliminary Hydrology Calculations for The Summit at Carlsbad Apartments, City of
5. Concept Water Quality Plan
6. “Summit at Carlsbad Acoustical Study - Carlsbad, CA”, prepared by Investigative Science
7. “Significance Evaluations of CA-SDI-6139, The Summit Property, City of Carlsbad”,
(MER 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
Carlsbad”, prepared by Dudek & Associates dated May 2001.
Geotechnical Exploration, Inc., dated January 20, 1999.
Carlsbad”, prepared by Lohr + Associates, Inc., dated September 28, 2001.
and Engineering, Inc., dated April 25,2001.
prepared by RECON, dated January 5,2001
17 Rev. 03/28/96 30
LIST OFMITIGATmG MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
Mitigation measures shall be satisfied prior to issuance of grading permits or building permits.
whichever occurs first:
Preparation of a SWPPP or WPCP to identify necessary BMP’s.
2. Biological
a. Recreate a wetland area consisting of .19 acre of southern willow scrub.
b. Install adequate fencing (open iron rail fence with stone pilasters) at top of slope
around the perimeter of development.
c. Landscape descending, manufactured slope to the north of project required to
avoid the introduction of exotic and invasive species within the preserved open
space.
3. - Noise
a. Prepare an interior acoustical analysis to insure interior noise levels do not exceed
45 dBA Cnel.
6. Cultural Resources
a. A qualified paleontoologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of
excavations and, if necessary, salvage exposed fossils. The frequency of
inspections will depend on the rate of excavations, the materials being excavated,
and the abundance of fossils.
b. The palentologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an
exposed fossil to facilitate excavation and, if necessary, salvage.
c. because of the small nature of fossils present in these rock units, matrix samples
should be collected for processing through fine mesh screens.
d. Provisions for preparation and curation shall be made before the fossils are
donated to their final reposity.
e. All fossils collected should be donated to a museum with a systematic
palentological collection, such as the San Diego National History Museum.
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
18 Rev. 03\28/96 31
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
19 Rev. 03/28/96 3a
VEG€rATlON NPESNVYDCOVERS:
Coastal Sage Scrub
Disturbed Habitat
I..) Herbaceous Wetland
NO= A lanr cue 'd in fmnt of a
lndiatu that It 1s dlrNrbed. Yegctaeion Np duipnator
Ornamental
Southern willow Scrub
Ljrnits of Grading
Waters of the U.S.
""mpU1d h.nntl. pl~mbn wda or
Data Station
NO=
Summit at Carlsbad Project. ~iological Resources Report
Biological Resources Map with limits of Grading
33
WETJAND RESTORATION AND SUMMIT AT CARLSBAD ENHANCEMENTEXHIBIT
CARLSBAD, CA JACK H6NMORN & ASSOCUTE
39
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIG.. [ION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Age 1 of 2
I
rdid
3 3-
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIG. . ilON MONITORING CHECKLIST: Age 2 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 51 71
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMEhQING
ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF
MARRON ROAD BETWEEN EL CAMINO REAL AND
AVENIDA DE ANITA IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 2.
CASE NAME: THE SUMMIT AT CARLSBAD
CASE NO: zc 00-1 1
WHEREAS, Marron Road Ventures, LLC, “Developer,” and has filed a
verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Robert Patrick
Kelly, Richard Carroll Kelly, and Azalea Partnership, “Owner” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE FROM R-1-10.000 TO RD-M
Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 4838, 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 18, 1976 as
fildpage no. 76-190384 of official records.
That portion of Lot 3 of Section 32, Township 11 South, Range
4 West, San Bernardino base and meridian, according to
official plat thereof being in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California.
Those portions of Lots 3 and 4 in Section 32, Township 11
South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino meridian, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Zone Change as shown on
Exhibit “X” dated April 3, 2002, on file in the Planning Department, THE SUMMIT AT
CARLSBAD - ZC 00-11, as provided by Chapter 21.52 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of April 2002 and on
the 1st day of May 2002, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider
said request; and
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimon!
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Zone Change; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of THE SUMMIT AT CARLSBAD - ZC 00-
11 based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1. That the proposed Zone Change from R-1-10,000 to RD-M is consistent with the goals
and policies of the various elements of the General Plan, in that proposed zoning to
allow multiple family units is consistent with the RM General Plan designation.
2. That the Zone Change will provide consistency between the General Plan and Zoning as
mandated by California State law and the City of Carlsbad General Plan Land Use
Element, in that the RD-M zone implements the RM General Plan designation.
3. That the Zone Change is consistent with the public convenience, necessity and general
welfare, and is consistent with sound planning principles in that residential uses allowed
by the proposed zone change are compatible with surrounding residential
development.
Conditions:
1. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, SDP 00-17 and
HDP 00-13 contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5170, 5172, and
5173.
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
“feesiexactions.”
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 RES0 NO. 5171 -2- 38
1
I 1
-
L
'
t
I
<
1(
1'
1:
1:
1,
1
11
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
A
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 feesiexactions
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 feesiexactions 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, held on the 1st day of May, 2002, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Heineman, Segall,
White, and Whitton
NOES: Commissioner Dominguez
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
,3
:4
5
!6
!7
!8
- SEENA TRIGAS, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESONO. 5171 -3- 39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTIOh’ NO. 51 72
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSlON OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA. RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SDP 00-17 TO
ALLOW AN APARTMENT PROJECT ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF MARRON ROAD
BETWEEN EL CAMINO REAL AND AVENlDA DE ANlT.4 IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 2.
CASE NAME: THE SUMMIT AT CARLSBAD
CASE NO.: SDP 00- 17
WHEREAS, Marron Road Ventures, LLC, “Developer.“ and has filed a
verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Robert Patrick
Kelly, Richard Carroll Kelly, and Azalea Partnership, “Owner“ has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 4838, 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 18, 1976 as
file/page no. 76-190384 of official records.
That portion of Lot 3 of Section 32, Township 11 South, Range
4 West, San Bernardino base and meridian, according to
official plat thereof being in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California.
Those portions of Lots 3 and 4 in Section 32, Township 11
South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino meridian, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Site Development
Plan as shown on Exhibit(s) “A” - “R” dated April 3,2002, on file in the Planning Department.
THE SUMMIT AT CARLSBAD - SDP 00-17, as provided by Chapter 21.06/Section
21.53.120 ofthe Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 3rd day of April 2002 and on
the 1st day of May 2002, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said
request; and .YO
1
-
1 -
4
c -
t - I
8
s
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
IS
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS. at said public hearing. upon hearing and considering a11 teslimon!
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard. said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Site Development Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing. the Planning
Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of THE SUMMIT AT
CAFUSBAD - SDP 00-17, based on the following findings and subject to the
following conditions:
Findines:
1.
2.
3.
That the requested use is properly related to the site, surroundings and environmental
settings, is consistent with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, will
not be detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the area in which
the proposed use is to be located. and will not adversely impact the site, surroundings or
traffic circulation. in that the proposed site is located in proximity to other multiple
family projects of equal or greater density and the project is required to reserve
11.27 acres as a wildlife habitat corridor in accordance with the City’s draft Habitat
Management Plan and mitigate wetland impacts. The project exceeds the density
permitted by the RM General Plan designation by 68 units; however, the project
satisfies the criteria for allowing density increases in that it is in proximity to SR78
and a major NCTD transit center, commercial services and employment
opportunities, and served by or conditioned to construct adequate facilities. The
project is also consistent with Council Policy 43 priorities to allow projects to utilize
excess dwelling units available in the northeast quadrant in that the project
proposes 29 affordable units available to families with incomes that are 60% of the
area median income (AMI), it is in close proximity to commercial services and
transit centers; and the infill project is compatible with surrounding development.
That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in
that the project is clustered within 8.61 acres of the total 20.65 acres so that 11.27
acres of open space is preserved and lot coverage of only 26% of the 8.61 acres is
well below the 60% allowed.
That all yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to adjust
the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be
provided and maintained, in that all required minimum setbacks are exceeded,
perimeter iron rail with pilaster fencing and landscape screening is provided, and
enhanced architecture is provided.
PC RES0 NO. 5 172 -2- w
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2s
26
27
28
4. That the street systems serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic
generated by the proposed use. in that the additional ADT generated by the project ~
will not reduce road segment or intersection levels of service to below the City‘s
threshold level of “D” or better.
~
5. That the project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual (Carlsbad Municipal
Code Section 14.28.020 and Landscape Manual Section I B).
6. 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 issuance of
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
grading permit.
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 Site Development Plan.
Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Site Plan 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.
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.
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.
Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the Project Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program.
PC RES0 NO. 5172 -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.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
The Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnifi. protect. defend and
hold harmless the City of Carlsbad. its Council members. officers. emplo!-ees. 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. directl?
or indirectly. from (a) City's approval and issuance of this Site Development Pian. (b)
City's approval or issuance of any permir or action. whether discretionq 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. This obligation survives until
all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the Cit)-'s approval is not
validated.
The Developer shall submit to the Planning Director a reproducible 24" x 36. mylar
copy of the Site Pian 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.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
as part of the Zone 2 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 the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, ZC 00-11 and HDP 00-13 and is
subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5171 and
5173 for those other approvals.
This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this
project within 18 months from the date of project approval.
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.
Housing
13. 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 29 dwelling units as affordable to lower-income households at 60% AMI
for a minimum of fifty-five (55) years, in accordance with the requirements and process
set forth in Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and to participate in the
Section 8 Rental Assistance Voucher Program and to accept vouchers for all
PC RES0 NO. 5172 -4- 43
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.
restricted affordable units, if made available to a tenant for rent subsidy purposes.
The additional 8 affordable units above the project inclusionnn housing
requirement of 21 units shall not be marketed by the developer to any other ~
development. 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 1
successors in interest.
1
Developer shall construct the required inclusionary units concurrent with the project‘s
market rate units, unless both the final decision making authorih of the City and the
Developer agree within an Affordable Housing Agreement to an alternate schedule for
development.
Landscape
15.
16.
17.
1 8.
19.
20.
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. 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.
A three foot high privet hedge as shown on the Final Landscape Plan shall be
installed and maintained along the exterior of the iron rail fence along Marron
Road at all times for screening purposes.
All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and
concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in
substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6. to the satisfaction of the
Directors of Community Development and Planning.
Prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit the Developer shall provide all passive and
active recreational areas per the approved plans, including landscaping and recreational
facilities.
Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, Developer shall submit to the City a Notice
of Restriction to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction
of the Planning Director, notifying all interested parties and successors in interest that the
City of Carlsbad has issued a) Site Development Plan by Resolution No. 5172 on the
property. 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.
PC RES0 NO. 5 172 -5- ct4
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.
26.
27.
Developer shall construct trash receptacle and recychng areas enclosed hy a SIX-toor high
masonry wall with gates pursuant to City Engineering Standards and Carlsbad Municipal
Code Chapter 21.105. Location of said receptacles shall be located as shown on Exhibit
“A”. The enclosure located adjacent to Marron Road hehveen Buildings 1 and t
shall be constructed with the identical rock veneer proposed for the main structures.
Enclosure shall be of similar colors andor materials to the prqject to the satisfaction of
the Planning Director.
No outdoor storage of materials shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief.
When so required, the Developer shall submit and obtain approval of the Fire Chief and
the Planning Director of an Outdoor Storage Plan. and thereafter comply with the
approved plan.
Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of an exterior lighting plan
including parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any
impacts on adjacent homes or propem.
Developer shall construct, install and stripe not less than 305 parking spaces, as shown on
Exhibit “A”.
Developer shall dedicate an open space easement by separate document for open space
identified on the site development plan that is to be 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 “A”.
Removal of native vegetation and development of dedicated Open Space, 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” - “R”, 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 property owner accompanied by a report from a qualified
arborist/botanist 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.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall execute a document or
documents to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and the City Attorney which
accomplish at a minimum the following:
A. continued ownership of the open space lot by the Developer or its successor in
interest;
B. while in continued private ownership, active maintenance to protect and preserve
the quality of the habitat (including but not limited to reasonable prevention of
trespass); and
PC RES0 NO. 5172 -6- 45
I
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.
C. transfer of ownership and maintenance responsibility at some future date to the Cit!
or its designee simultaneous with transfer of funding or other acceptable financial
mechanism to provide for management and conservation in perpetuity. (The cost of
management is currently estimated to be approsimately $85.00 per year).
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall: I) consult with the
California Department of Fish and Game regarding the wetland impacts to the
project; and 2) obtain a Section 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement.
EnPineerine:
General
29. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site
within this project, Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the City Engineer
for the proposed haul route.
30. 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.
31. Developer shall install sight distance corridors at all street intersections in accordance
with Engineering Standards.
FeedAereements
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. 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.
Grading
35. 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 Intention for the start
of work has been submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board.
36. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the site
plan, a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall apply for and obtain a
grading permit from the City Engineer.
PC RES0 NO. 51 72 -7-
1
2
3
4
5
6
I
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dedicationshprovements
37.
38.
39.
40.
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 sho\\n on the site plan.
The offer shall be made by a separate recorded document. All land so offered shall be
offered free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and xvithout cost. Streets that dread!
public are not required to be rededicated.
Developer shall execute and record a City standard Development Improvement
Agreement to install and secure with appropriate securiq as provided by la\\. public
improvements shown on the site plan and the following improvements including. but not
limited to paving, base, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, grading. clearing and grubbing.
undergrounding or relocation of utilities, sewer. water, fire hydrants. street lights.
retaining walls and signing and striping. to City Standards to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
Curb and gutter, sidewalk, paving, street lights, signing and striping on
Marron Road to complete improvements to Secondary Arterial standards.
Public storm drain in Marron Road from the site to the existing 54” r.c.p.
parallel with El Camino Real.
Public water main to connect to the existing 10” water main behind the
existing Carlsbad Plaza Shopping Center.
Curb and gutter, sidewalk, paving, street lights, signing and striping on
Haymar Drive to provide a minimum 40-foot paved surface, with
appropriate transitions to existing improvements to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
Signing and striping on existing Avenida de Anita and the primary project
entrance.
Improvements listed above shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the
subdivision or development improvement agreement or such other time as provided in
said agreement.
The developer shall execute and record a City standard Development Improvement
Agreement for the design and construction of traffic signal improvements for the
intersection of Avenida de Anita and Marron Road and secure with appropriate
security as provided by law. The agreement will be for a five year period. The five
year period starts with the release of the security for public improvements. If,
during that five years, the City Engineer determines that the signal is needed, the
developer shall install the signal within six months of receiving written notice to do
so.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the owner shall apply for and receive
approval of a lot line adjustment to consolidate the open space into a single lot.
PC RES0 NO. 5172 -8- if7
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
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
Project secondary access is to be gated to allow egress only. Ingress for emergency
equipment to be provided by Knor box to the satisfaction of the Fire hlarshall. ~
Adequate prohibitions to ingress by other than emergency equipment to be ~
provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 1
Developer to increase project drainage to the north to match pre-development flows
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Marron Road shall be dedicated by Owner along the project frontage based on a center
line to right-of-way width of 42 feet and in conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards.
Prior to the issuance of grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first. the
applicant shall submit for City approval a “Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP)”. The SWPPP shall be in compliance with current requirements and provisions
established by the San Diego Region of the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board. The SWPPP shall address measures to reduce to the maximum extent possible
storm water pollutant runoff at both construction and post-construction phases of the
project. At a minimum, the Plan shall:
1) Identify existing and post-development on-site pollutants,
2) Recommend treatment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) to filter
said pollutants.
3) Establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine clean up. Special
considerations and effort shall be applied to maintenance personnel education
on the proper procedures for handling clean up and disposal of pollutants.
4) Ensure long-term maintenance of all post construction BMPs in perpetuity.
5) Identify how post-development runoff rates and velocities from the site will
not exceed the pre-development runoff rates and velocities for a 10-year. 6-
hour storm event. If maintaining post-development rates at pre-development
levels cannot be achieved, adequate justification subject to the City Engineer’s
approval must he provided.
Prior to Building Permit issuance, Developer shall have design, apply for and obtain
approval of the City Engineer, for the structural section for the access aisles with a traffic
index of 5.0 in accordance with City Standards due to truck access through the parking
area and/or aisles with an ADT greater than 500. The structural pavement design of the
aisle ways shall be submitted together with required R-value soil test information and
approved by the City Engineer as part of the building or grading plan review whichever
occurs first.
No grading permit for the project shall be issued until the commencement of
construction of the College Boulevard and Cannon Road connection or November
2002, whichever occurs first.
Prior to occupancy of the 97th market rate unit, construction of College Boulevard
PC RES0 NO. 5172 -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
from Carlsbad Village Drive to Cannon Road and Cannon Road from Collegc ~
Boulevard to El Camino Real shall be substantially completed to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer. i
I
- Fire:
48. All buildings shall be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers and alarms.
49. Fire hydrant locations must be approved by the Fire Department
50. Carports located in fire suppression zones must be constructed of non-combustible
material.
Code Reminders
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to
the following:
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
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 Site Plan 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 unsuccessfiil.
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.
The Average Daily Trips (ADT) and floor area contained in the staff report and
shown on the Site Plan are for planning purposes only. Developer shall pay traffic
impact and sewer impact fees based on Section 18.42 and Section 13.10 of the City of
Carlsbad Municipal Code, respectively.
Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. 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.
The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements
pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code.
Premise identification (addresses) shall be provided consistent with Carlsbad Municipal
Code Section 18.04.320.
PC RES0 NO. 5172 - 10-
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
51.
58.
...
.- ... , . . .. .. . .. .. ~ny signs proposed ror thls development snau at a mlnlmum be deslgned in conrormancc‘
with the City‘s Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval of the Plannins
Director prior to installation of such signs.
Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall pay drainage area fee in
accordance with the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
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
“feesiexactions.”
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 feeskxactions
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 feesiexactions 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 RES0 NO. 5172 -11- 50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
la
11
12
13
14
15
If
1;
It
15
2(
21
2:
2:
2r
2t
2(
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the plannin:
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of Rlay. ZOO?. by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Heineman. Segaii,
White, and Whitton
NOES: Commissioner Dominguez
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SeA, YT
SEENA TRIGAS, Chairperson
CAIUSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. H-ZM~LER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5172 -12-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
S
lG
11
12
13
14
15
16
15
18
1s
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5173
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA. RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF MARRON
ROAD BETWEEN EL CAMINO REAL AND AVENIDA DE
ANITA IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 2.
CASE NAME: THE SUMMIT AT CARLSBAD
CASE NO: HDP 00- 13
WHEREAS, Marron Road Ventures, LLC, “Developer,” and has filed a
verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Robert Patrick
Kelly, Richard Carroll Kelly, and Azalea Partnership, “Owner” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 4838, 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 18, 1976 as
file/page no. 76-190384 of official records.
That portion of Lot 3 of Section 32, Township 11 South, Range
4 West, San Bernardino base and meridian, according to
official plat thereof being in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California.
Those portions of Lots 3 and 4 in Section 32, Township 11
South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino meridian, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Hillside
Development Permit as shown on Exhibits “A” - “R” dated April 3,2002 on file in the Carlsbad
Planning Department, THE SUMMIT AT CARLSBAD - HDP 00-13, as provided by Chapter
21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of April 2002 and on
the 1st day of May 2002, consider said request; and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, at said hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Hillside Development Permit; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of THE SUMMIT AT CARLSBAD - HDP
00-13, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findinps:
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 the proposed development is consistent
with the existing topography to the extent feasible, is designed in an environmentally
sensitive manner to preserve wildlife habitats, and incorporates NPDES measures to
avoid erosion.
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 development of 40% slopes are necessitated by improvements required to
widen Marron Road, a circulation arterial roadway.
That the project design substantially conforms to the intent of the concepts illustrated in
the Hillside Development Guidelines Manual, in that the project has been designed to
relate to the slope of the land, slope heights are less than the 40’ maximum allowed,
and adequate building setbacks from manufactured slopes are proposed.
That the project design and lot configuration minimizes disturbance of hillside lands, in
that the grading volume is within the acceptable range and 11.27 acres of the 20.65
acre site will be preserved in its natural state as a wildlife habitat corridor.
Conditions:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to issuance of
grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first.
PC RES0 NO. 5 173 -2- 53
1
1
1
t
t
I
1(
11
12
12
14
15
1f
li
18
15
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I
I I
I 1. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5170, 5171. ! Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, ZC 00-11 and SDP 00-17, and is
and 5172 for those other approvals.
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 f?om date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. I1
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 feesiexactions
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 feedexactions 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 1st day of May 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Heineman, Segall,
White, and Whitton
NOES: Commissioner Dominguez
ABSENT:
SEENA TRIGAS, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5173 -3- 3-4
The CIty of Carlsbad Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
ItemNo. @
P.C. AGENDA OF: May 1,2002 Project Planner: Anne Hysong
SUBJECT: ZC 00-lllSDP 00-17EIDP 00-13 - THE SUMMIT AT CARLSBAD - Request
for a recommendation of adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and a recommendation of
approval for a Zone change from R-1-10,000 to RD-M, Site Development Plan
and Hillside Development Permit for a 143 unit apartment project located north of
Marron Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 2 in the northeast quadrant.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5170, 5171,
5172 and 5173 RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of ZC
00-1 1, SDP 00-17 and HDP 00-13 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained
therein.
11. BACKGROUND
This item was continued from the April 3,2002 meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5 170 (Mitigated Negative Declaration)
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5171 (ZC)
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5172 (SDP)
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5173 (HDP)
5. Staff Report dated April 3,2002 with attachments
The City of Carlsbad plannlag Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No. @
P.C. AGENDA OF: April 3,2002 Project Planner: AMe Hysong
SUBJECT: ZC 00-lllSDP 00-17/HDP 00-13 - THE SUMMIT AT CARLSBAD - Request
for a recommendation of adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and a recommendation of
approval for a Zone change &om R-1-10,000 to RD-M, Site Development Plan
and Hillside Development Permit for a 143 unit apartment project located north of
Marron Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 2 in the northeast quadrant.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5170, 5171,
5172 and 5173 RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of ZC
00-1 1, SDP 00-17 and HDP 00-13 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained
therein.
11. INTRODUCTION
The proposed project consists of a zone change from the One Family Residential, R-1-10000,
zone to the Residential Density - Multiple (RD-M) and Open Space (OS) zone to allow multiple
family units, and a site development plan and hillside development permit to allow a 143 unit
apartment project including 29 units affordable to families with incomes at 60% of the Area
Median Income (AMI). The applicant is requesting a 91% density increase as an incentive to
enable the reservation of the 29 affordable units and in exchange for the preservation of over half
of the site as open space. The 20.65 acre parcel, located north of Marron Road between El
Camino Real and Avenida de Anita, is a proposed hardline area in the City's draft Habitat
Management Plan (HMP); therefore, 55% of the property is proposed for preservation as an open
space wildlife habitat corridor. The project complies with City standards and all necessary
findings can be made for the approvals being requested.
111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The project site is an undeveloped, but previously disturbed, 20.65 acre parcel located to the east
of Marron Road, approximately !4 mile east of El Camino Real. The property is bordered to the
north by Haymar Road, to the south by Marron Road, to the east by undeveloped land and a golf
driving range, and to the west by an existihg commercial center. High tension power
transmission lines extend approximately northwest to southeast through the northern portion of
the site. Numerous dirt roads provide access to most'of the site. Topographically, the property
slopes moderately to steeply down to the north, south and west from a relatively flat mesa
located along the eastern site development boundary. Two small canyons drain to the west
ZC 00-1 I/SDP 00-17/HDP 00-13 - THE SUMMIT AT CARLSBAD
April 3,2002
within the northwestern and southern portions of the site. An abandoned reservoir exists in the
central portion of the site along the eastern boundary. Approximate elevations across the site
range from a high of 1 IO feet above mean sea level (MSL) to a low of 40 feet MSL. A 60 foot
high 1 %:l manufactured cut slope easement exists along the western property boundary. The
slope is covered with dry grass and many eucalyptus trees. Vegetation on the site consists
primarily of disturbed habitat and ornamental plantings; however, plant communities onsite that
are considered environmentally sensitive include coastal sage scrub, southern willow scrub,
herbaceous wetlands and unvegetated stream channel.
The site is identified as a standards area in the City’s draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP).
The HMP calls for preservation of approximately 75% of the site as a wildlife habitat corridor.
The proposed project would dedicate and preserve approximately 55% (11.27 acres) of the site
along the eastern boundary and within the northern half of the site as an HMP hardline
conservation area, linking offsite adjacent lands to the east of the project site with areas of
biological value to the north. This portion of the property also provides a suitable link for
possible gnatcatcher and other avian dispersal between the Cities of Oceanside and Carlsbad.
The applicant is requesting approval of a zone change from the One Family Residential, R-l-
10,000, zone to the Residential Density - Multiple (RD-M) zone to allow multiple family units,
and a site development plan and hillside development permit to allow a 143 unit apartment
project consisting of 114 market rate units and 29 affordable units. The infill parcel is
designated for Residential Medium (RM) density development by the General Plan. The
permitted density yield for the property is 75 units based on the Growth Management Growth
Control Point (GCP) dwelling unit allowance of 6 ddacre; therefore, the proposed 143 unit
project requires approval of a 91% density increase for an additional 68 units above the
permitted density. City Council approval of the SDP is required pursuant to Section 21.53.120
of the Zoning Ordinance which requires the processing of a site development plan for multi-
family projects with more than 4 units and for multi-family affordable projects of any size.
The 143 unit apartment project requires 136,766 cubic yards of balanced cut and fill grading to
create a building pad for 13 separate three-story apartment buildings, one recreationallleasing
office building, and a pool area. Each apartment building consists of 3 one-bedroom units, 7
two-bedroom units, and 1 three-bedroom unit for a total of 11 apartment units, 7 single car
garages, and 5 storage closets ranging in size from 368 - 396 cubic feet. A total of 143 covered
parking spaces in either garages or carports is provided: 90 single car garages and 53 carport
spaces. Additional parking is provided by uncovered spaces located adjacent to the interior and
perimeter vehicular circulation aisles in proximity to all of the apartment buildings. Units range
in size from 685 square feet to 1,275 square feet. All units are provided with a balcony or deck
that range in size from 69 square feet to 170 square feet. A 2,988 square foot single story
recreation facility that will also house the leasing office is proposed close to the project entry.
The recreation facility includes game rooms, an exercise room and outdoor swimming pool.
The proposed craftsman architectural style offers a great deal of wall and roof line articulation
(hip roofs), and exterior detailing. Buildings are enhanced with wood siding, stone veneer tim,
divided light vinyl windows with plaster trim, and rough sawn timber brackets, railings and facia
facings. The buildings include two story elements over the garages. Buildings are separated by
15 to 20 feet of landscaped courtyards with a central courtyard that provides pedestrian access to
units on both sides. Accent paving is provided between garages and to delineate pedestrian
57
ZC 00-1 l/SDP 00-17/HDP 00-13 -THE SUMMIT AT CARLSBAD
April 3,2002
crosswalks. The project includes a pedestrian circulation system throughout the development
that is separate from vehicular circulation aisles. Accent paving is provided to enhance the main
entry and circulation aisles and to delineate pedestrian crossings and garage entries. A single
ingress is provided to the project at the intersection of Avenida de Anita and a gated egress is
located approximately 340 feet to the west of the entry. Emergency access will be available at
this gated egress. A 5’ tubular steel fence with stone pilasters will surround the perimeter of the
project and a 3 foot high hedge will be planted and maintained adjacent to parking spaces located
at the top of slope for screening.
The proposed project is subject to the following plans, ordinances, standards, and policies:
A. General Plan
B. Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance)
1. Chapter 21.24 - RD-M Zone
2. Chapter 21.44 - Parhng
3. Chapter 21.53 -Multiple Family/Affordable Housing
4. Chapter 21.85 - Inclusionary Housing
5. Chapter 21.90 -Hillside Development Regulations
C. Draft Habitat Management Plan
D. Growth Management
IV. ANALYSIS
The recommendation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project’s
consistency with the applicable regulations and policies. The project’s compliance with each of
the above regulations is discussed in detail in the sections below.
A. General Plan
The project is consistent with the following elements of the General Plan as indicated by the
following table:
ZC OO-ll/SDP OO-l7/HDP 00-13 -THE SUMMIT AT CARLSBAD
April 3,2002
Page 4
ELEMENT
Land Use
Housing
GENERAL PLA
USE, CLASSIFICATION,
GOAL, OBJECTIVE, OR
PROGRAM
OS - Open Space
RM - Residential Medium
Density:
4 - 8 ddacre
GCP: 6 ddacre
Zoning consistency with
General Plan
Ensure all qualified projects
provide a range of housing for
all economic income ranges.
Density Increase Policy
Minimum inclusionary
housing requirement of 15% of
all units approved shall be
affordable to lower income
households.
COMPLIANCE
CONSISTENCY
To be dedicated as HMP Open
Space
Proposed density = 1 1.4 ddacre
(75 units + 68 unit density
increase = 143 units).
The project exceeds the growth
control point of 6 ddacre
however the findings required by
the City’s Growth Management
Plan can be made to exceed the
GCP.
Proposed RD-M Zone:
Multiple Family Units are
permitted by RM designation.
The project will provide 143 one,
two and three bedroom rental
apartment units in proximity to
mass transit and commercial
services.
Project provides 29 units
affordable to families with
incomes that are 60% of AMI
The project satisfies the 15%
inclusionary housing requirement
by providing a minimum of 21
units to be constructed and
restricted both as to occupancy
and affordability for lower
income households. The
maximum income of the
households shall not exceed 80%
of the AMI, adjusted for
household size, and the rent shall
not exceed 70% of the AMI,
adjusted for household size.
COMPLY
?
Yes*
Yes*
Yes
Yes
3-9
ZC 00-1 llSDP 00-17iHDP 00-13 -THE SUMMIT AT CARLSBAD
April 3,2002
ELEMENT
Circulation
Open Space
Noise
Public Safety
I
GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE, continued
USE, CLASSIFICATION,
GOAL, OBJECTIVE, OR
PROGRAM
Require new development to
dedicate and improve all
roadways, utilities, and
drainage facilities
Preserve open space consistent
with the wildlife habitat
preserve and linkage areas
identified in the HMP.
Implement BMPs to avoid
degradation of water quality
that are necessary to serve
development.
Residential interior noise
standard of 45 dBA CNEL
Review new development
proposals to consider
emergency access, fire hydrant
locations, and fire flow
requirements.
CONSISTENCY
The project is conditioned to
improve Marron Road to full
street width and to install the
necessary utilities and drainage
facilities required for the project.
Project is consistent with the
provisions of the HMP in that it
preserves 11.27 acres in open
space that will link offsite
adjacent lands to the east of the
project site with areas of
biological value to the north.
The project is also conditioned to
prepare and implement a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) plan that will ensure
BMPs are imposed.
The apartment project is
conditioned to comply with the
45 dBA CNEL interior standard.
Project has two points of ingress
and egress, buildings are required
to be sprinklered, fire suppression
zones are provided, and the
necessary hydrant locations are
provided.
COMPLY
?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
*A finding of compliance with the RM land use designation is contingent upon approval of the
91% density increase requested as an incentive for preserving 29 inclusionary units affordable to
families with incomes at 60% of the AMI. The project is consistent with the provisions of the
Growth Management Ordinance and General Plan Residential Implementing Policy C.3 for
density increases in that there are excess dwelling units available in the northeast quadrant and
the project is compatible with surrounding development, adequate public facilities are provided,
and a major roadway, commercial center, transit center, employment opportunities are in
proximity to the development.
B1/2. RD-M Zone/Parking Ordinance
The project includes a request to rezone the property from its current One Family Residential, R-
1-10000, zone classification to the Residential Density - Multiple (RD-M) zone. The purpose of
ZC OO-ll/SDP OO-l7/HDP 00-13 -THE SUMMIT AT CARLSBAD
April 3,2002
Page 6
the rezoning is to enable multiple family units that can be clustered onto a smaller development
pad than single-family lots with full width public or private streets. The RD-M zone enables
more zoning flexibility in that it allows both single family and multiple family units. The project
is consistent with the RD-M zone standards as indicated by the following table:
Standard
Uses I
Setbacks:
Front:
Side:
Rear: I
RD-M ZONE STANDA
Requirement
Single Family/ Multiple
Family Units
10’ if no garages face the
street
5’ Minimum
10’
35’ Maximum
60% Maximum
1 bedroom
1 % spaces/unit
2/3 bedrooms
2 spaces/unit
Guest Parking
5 spaces /10 units
>IO units = .25 spaces/unit
DS
Multiple Family Apartment
Units
15’ Minimum (Accessory
Structure)
23’ Minimum
(Main structure)
Minimum 20’ from adjusted
property boundaries (limits of
grading)
Minimum SO’ from adjusted
boundaries
Three-story elements: 35’
Maximum
Two-story elements:
30’9” Maximum
24.4%
39 units = 59 spaces
104 units=208 spaces
5 spaces
33 spaces
Total: 305 spaces
Provided
B3/4. Inclusionary HousingMultiple Family/Affordable Housing
The City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires that a minimum of 15% of all approved
units in any qualified residential project be constructed and restricted both as to occupancy and
affordability for lower income households. At a minimum, this project is required to provide 21
units with rents set to be affordable to households at 70% of the area median income (AMI),
adjusted for household size. In exchange for additional density within the project, the applicant
is proposing to reserve 29 of the 143 total units as affordable units to lower income households at
60% of AMI, adjusted for household size. In addition to restricting more units than required by
the Inclusionary Ordinance and making those restricted units more affordable, the developer has
also agreed to participate in the City’s Section 8 Rental Assistance Program and accept subsidy
vouchers as a portion of the rent if made available to the tenant. This means that extremely low
and/or very low income households, those at 30-50% of AMI, may also benefit from the project.
ZC OO-ll/SDP 00-l7iHDP 00-13 -THE SUMMIT AT CARLSBAD
April 3,2002
Page 7
A minimum of ten percent (or 3 units) of the total affordable units will be three bedroom in size
in accordance with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
Section 21.53.120 of the Zoning Ordinance requires approval of a site development plan for
multi-family apartment projects exceeding 4 units and affordable housing projects of any size
based on findings that the project is consistent with the underlying zoning and in conformance
with the General Plan policies and goals and in accordance with the provisions of the Qualified
Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.06 of the Zoning Ordinance). Findings required by the Qualified
Overlay Zone ensure that the use is consistent with the General Plan and will not adversely
impact the site or surrounding uses, and that the site and street system are adequate to
accommodate the use. Incentives such as development modifications and density increases to
enable the reservation of affordable units are permitted. The proposed project is requesting a
91% density increase in exchange for reserving 29 of the 143 total units as affordable units to
families with incomes that are 60% of the AMI. Approval of the proposed site development plan
therefore involves both the overall apartment project and the 29 unit affordable housing proposal.
Based on an analysis performed by staff, the proposed 91% density increase to enable the
provision of 20% of the total units (29 affordable units) is a necessary incentive to offset the
subsidy necessary to reserve the affordable units at 60% AMI. The project complies with
General Plan policies requiring that projects requesting density increases above the density range
satisfy the following criteria: the project is compatible in density and design with surrounding
development; the infill project is served by or conditioned to construct adequate public facilities;
the site is in proximity to SR 78 and a NCTD transit center; and commercial services and
employment opportunities are provided by nearby neighborhood and regional shopping centers.
Since the proposed density increase requires the allocation of 68 units from the City’s “Excess
Dwelling Units”, findings that the project is consistent with City Council Policy 43 must also be
made. Policy 43 establishes priorities for the allocation of excess dwelling units existing in each
quadrant of the City to avoid exceeding the Growth Management maximum dwelling unit caps.
A finding that excess units are available must be made prior to granting density increases and the
project must qualify as a priority project. There are excess dwelling units available in the
northeast quadrant, and the project satisfies criteria established by Policy 43 for first, second and
third priority projects: 29 units are reserved for lower income households (first priority); it is a
transit oriented development located in close proximity to major transit facilities and commercial
support services (second priority); and it is an infill multi-family project that meets all
development standards and does not exceed the density of adjacent, existing multi-family
projects (third priority).
B5. Hillside Development Regulations
A Hillside Development Permit is required for the property because the property contains slopes
of 15 percent and greater with elevation differentials greater than 15 feet. The project consists of
a grading design to create a landform that is consistent with the City’s Hillside Development
Regulations. As shown on the following table, the proposed project is consistent with the
applicable Hillside Development regulations for development of steep slopes, slope height,
grading volumes, and slope screening. The project will not disturb natural slopes exceeding 40%
except along the Marron Road frontage. Marron Road is an existing partially improved
circulation arterial roadway located along the property’s southern property line. The project is
required to dedicate and construct improvements for the full width right-of-way of Marron Road
ZC 00-1 I/SDP 00-17HDP 00-13 -THE SUMMIT AT CARLSBAD
April 3,2002
along its frontage. Grading required for circulation arterial roadways is excluded from Hillside
Development regulations. The following table indicates compliance with the applicable
development standards:
STANDARD COMPLIANCE
Development prohibited on 40%+ Slopes
Exceeding 10,000 Square Feet
Exempt due to construction of Marron Road
7,942 cubic yarddacre Grading Volumes: Acceptable - 7,999 cubic
ydlacre
Slope Height: 40 Feet Maximum
Landscaping of manufactured slopes consistent
Landscaping consists of a combination of trees, Slope Screening:
Slope Height: 34 Feet Maximum
structure where slope heights exceed 15 feet.
diagonal plane measured from edge of slope to
0.7 foot horizontal to 1 foot vertical imaginary
50 feet from top of slope to structure Slope Edge Building Setback: 24.5 feet slopes. with the City’s Landscape Manual shrubs, and groundcover on all perimeter
C. Draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP)
The City’s December 1999 Draft HMP identifies the proposed project site as a standards area for
the purpose of establishing, enhancing and maintaining a habitat linkage from Core Area 2 to the
City limits with Oceanside to ensure Carlsbad’s portion of regional connectivity for gnatcatchers.
Standards for this area require the avoidance of coastal sage scrub and grasslands removal and no
net loss of any riparian and other wetland habitats. Since approval of the draft HMP, the City
and wildlife agencies have negotiated a proposed hardline area which comprises all of the area
delineated as open space on Exhibit “A”. The project is consistent with the HMP standards in
that no coastal sage scrub will be impacted and wetland habitats disturbed by the Marron Road
alignment will be recreated onsite.
D. Growth Management
The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 2 in the northeast
quadrant of the City. The impacts on public facilities created by the project, and its compliance
with the adopted performance standards are summarized in the following table.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE
63
ZC 00-1 l/SDP 00-17iHDP 00-13 -THE SUMMIT AT CARLSBAD
April 3,2002
GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE. continued
STANDARD
Schools I CUSD I Yes
~~ I IMPACTS I COMPLIANCE
Elementary: 36 Students
Middle School: 96 Students
High School: 20 Students
Sewer Collection System
*The project is 68 units above the Growth Management dwelling unit allowance
Yes 3 1,460 GPD Water
Yes Basin
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff has conducted an environmental impact assessment to determine if the project could have a
potentially significant effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Ordinance (Title 19) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The project
falls within the scope of the City’s MEIR for the City of Carlsbad General Plan update (EIR 93-
01) certified in September, 1994, in which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was
adopted for cumulative impacts to air quality and traffic circulation. MEIRs may not be used to
review projects if certified more than five years prior to the filing of an application for a later
project except under certain circumstances. The City is currently reviewing the 1994 MEIR to
determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects. Although the MEIR was
certified more than five years ago, the City’s preliminary review of its adequacy finds that no
substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was
certified. Additionally, there is no new available information which was not known and could
not have been known at the time the MEIR was certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate
to review later projects. All feasible mitigation measures identified by the MEIR which are
appropriate to this project have been incorporated into the project.
Potentially significant environmental impacts were identified for water quality, circulation,
biological resources, noise, and paleontological resources. The developer has agreed to
mitigation measures to reduce identified impacts to below a level of significance in accordance
with CEQA. In consideration of the foregoing, the Planning Director issued a Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the project on February 28, 2002. No comments were received during
the 30 day public review.
ATTACHMENTS:
2.
1.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
AH:c,:mb
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5 170 (Mitigated Negative Declaration)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5171 (ZC)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5 172 (SDP)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5173 (HDP)
Location Map
Background Data Sheet
Local Facilities Impacts Assessment Form
Disclosure Statement
Exhibits “A” - “R” dated April 3, 2002
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: ZC OO-ll/SDP 00-17/HDP 00-13
CASE NAME: The Summit at Carlsbad
APPLICANT: All Phase Develoument. Inc.
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Zone change to RD-M and site develoument ulan and hillside
develoument permit to made and construct 143 unit auartment project including 29 affordable housing
units.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel 2 of Parcel Mau No. 4838. in the Citv of Carlsbad, Countv of San
Diego, State of California, filed in the office of the Countv Recorder of San Diego Countv. June 18. 1976
as fileiuage no. 76-190384 of offzcial records.
That portion of Lot 3 of Section 32. Townshiu 11 South, Ranee 4 West, San Bemardino base and
meridian. according to official plat thereof being in the City of Carlsbad, Countv of San Diego. State of
California.
Those portions of Lots 3 and 4 in Section 32. Townshiu 11 South. Range 4 West. San Bemardino
meridian. in the Citv of Carlsbad. Countv of San Diego. State of California.
APN: 167-030-52: -55; -71 Acres: 20.65 Proposed No. of Units: r43
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: RM
Density Allowed 6 DU/AC Density Proposed 1 1.4 DU/ACRE
Existing Zone: R-1-10000 Proposed Zone: RD-M
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use:
zoning General Plan Current Land Use
Site R-1-10,000 RM Vacant
North Open Space os Vacant
south P-c RM Multi-Family
East 0-s os VacantiGolf Practice
Range
Commercial Center
West c-2 C Neighborhood
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: CUSD Water District: CMWD Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 143
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Negative Declaration, issued Mitigated Negative Declaration
0 Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
0 Other,
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: ZC 00-1 l/SDP OO-l7/HDP 00-13
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 2 GENERAL PLAN: RM
ZONING: R-1-10000
DEVELOPER’S NAME: ALL PHASE DEVELOPMENT. INC.
ADDRESS: 6060 SUNRISE VISTA DR. SUITE 1996. CITRUS HEIGHTS, CA 95610
PHONE NO.: 760-438-4090 ASSESSORS PARCELNO.: 167-030-51: -55: -71
QUANTITY OF LAND USEDEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 20.65 ACRES1143 DU
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: UNKNOWN
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 497.16
Library: Demand in Square Footage = 265.16
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) 143 EDU
Park: Demand in Acreage = .99
Drainage: Demand in CFS = “A”
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: Demand in ADT = 858
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 3
Open Space: Acreage Provided = 11.27
Schools: Elementary: 36 Students
Middle School: 96 Students
High School 20 Students
(Demands to be determined by staff)
Sewer: Demands in EDU 143
Identify Sub Basin = N/A
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
Water: Demand in GPD = 3 1.460
The project is 68 units above the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.
66
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
pplicant’s statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will requi e
discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee.
The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot be
reviewed until this information is completed. Please print.
Note:
organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and nn other county, city and count).. :it)
Person is defined as “Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal
municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit.”
Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be
provided below.
I. APPLICANT (Not the applicant’s agent)
Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of &LJ persons having a financial
interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership, include the
names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO
APPLICABLE @/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publicly-owned corporation,, include the
names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if
necessary.)
Person Corp/Rwt Marron Road Ventures, LLC
Title Title
Address Address 629 South Rancho Santa Fe. Ste 43 1
INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-
San Marcos, CA 92069
2. OWNER (Not the owner’s agent)
Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of & persons having any ownership
partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a
interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (Le.
than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES,
corporation or partnership, include the names, titles, addresses of all individuals owning more
PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publicly-
owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate
page may be attached if necessary.)
Person Please see attached sheets. Corp/Part
Title Title
Address Address
3. NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST
If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonprofit organization or a trust. list the
names and addresses of person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit
organization or as a trustee or beneficiary of the.
Non ProtWTrust Please see attached Non Profit/Trust
Title sheets. Title
Address Address
4. Have you had more than $20 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (I 2) months?
0 Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s):
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary.
I certify that all the above information is true and correc
Please see attached sheets.
Signature of owneddate
lYAARoJ (?pM VrdW5; 46 Road Ventures, LLC
Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant
Signature of owner/applicant’s agent if applicable/date
Print or type name of owner/applicant’s agent
H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98 Page 2 of 2
OWNER DISCLOSURES~SIGNATURES
APN(S): 167-030-51,167-030-55,167-030-71
OWNER: Robert Patrick Kelly and Richard Carroll Kelly, trustees of the Declaration of Trust dated February 18,
ADDRESS: 11777 San Vicente Boulevard Ste. 600
1975, consisting of an undivided 113 interest for the benefit of Irene Alice Hendricks
A Angeles, CA 90049
Robert Patrick Kelly Richard Carroll Kelly
(print name) (print name)
Trustee Trustee
(title) (title)
APN(S): 167-030-51,167-030-55,167-030-71
OWNER: Robert Patrick Kelly and Richard Carroll Kelly, trustees of the Declaration of Trust dated February 18,
ADDRESS: 11777 San Vicente Boulevard Ste. 600
1975, consisting of an undivided 113 interest for efit of Richard Carroll Kelly
Robert Patrick Kelly Richard Carroll Kelly I
(print name) (print name)
Trustee Trustee
(title) (title)
APN(S): 167-030-51,167-030-55,167-030-71
OWNER: Robert Patrick Kelly and Richard Carroll Kelly, trustees of the Declaration of Trust dated February 18,
ADDRESS: 11777 San Vicente Boulevard Ste. 600
1975, consisting of an undivided 1/3 interest for the benef't of Robert Patrick Kelly n
Robert Patrick Kelly Richard Carroll Kelly
(print name) (print name)
Trustee Trustee
(title) (title)
Page 1 of 2
69
OWNER DISCLOSURES~SIGNATURES
.~ ~
{continued)
APN(S): 167-030-51,167-030-55,167-030-71
ADDRESS: 11777 San Vicente Boulevard Ste. 600
OWNER: Azalea Partnership, A California Limited Partnership
Los Angeles, CA 90049
Trust under the Will of Bernard Citron
BY: &&&a&
(signatureldate)
Cecile Citron Bartman James H. Frank
(print name) (print name)
(title)
Trustee
(title)
Successor Trustee
CJJ Limited Partnership, A California Limited
BY:
(signatur Idate) (signatureldate)
John W. Bartman
(print name) (print name)
General Partner
(title) (title)
Page 2 of 2
Planning Commission Minutes April 3,2002
6. ZC 00-111SDP 00-171HDP 00-13 - THE SUMMIT AT CARLSBAD - Request for a
recommendation of adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, and a recommendation of approval for a Zone change from R-1-10,000 to
located north of Marron Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 2 in the northeast quadrant. RD-M, Site Development Plan and Hillside Development Permit for a 143 unit apartment project
Mr. Wayne brought forward Item #6 and stated that the applicant requested a continuance to the meeting
of May 1,2002.
there would be enough Commissioners present for a quorum. Mr. Wayne stated there would be five
Commissioner Segall stated he would not be present at the May 1st meeting and wanted to make sure
Commissioners present which would be enough for a quorum.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Heineman and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission continue Item #6 regarding The Summit At Carlsbad to the Planning
Commission meeting of May 1. 2002. (ZC 00-1 l/SDP 00-17/HDP 00-13)
VOTE:
AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman, Segall, White, and
Whitton
6-0-0
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Planning Commission Minutes May 1,2002 Page 3
2. ZC 00-111SDP 00-17/HDP 00-13 - THE SUMMIT AT CARLSBAD - Request for a
recommendation of adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, and a recommendation of approval for a Zone change from R-1-10.000 to
RD-M, Site Development Plan and Hillside Development Permit for a 143 unit apartment project
located north of Marron Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 2 in the northeast quadrant.
assisted by Bob Wojcik, Deputy City Engineer.
Mr. Wayne introduced agenda item #2 and stated that Anne Hysong would make the presentation
Anne Hysong, Associate Planner, stated that the item is a request to approve a zone change from R-l-
10,000 to RD-M zone, a Site Development Plan and a Hillside Development Permit to allow a 143 unit
apartment project that will provide 29 affordable housing units. She stated that approval of a Site
Development Plan in accordance with the Qualified Overlay Zone for any apartment project exceeding 4
units and an affordable housing project of any size is required by the Zoning Ordinance.
Avenida de Anita just east of the Carlsbad Plaza Shopping Center. She described the topography of the Ms. Hysong stated the project is located on the north side of Marron Road between El Camino and
site and said it has been disturbed by past agricultural activity. Vegetation on the site consists primarily of
disturbed habitat and ornamental plantings, however, sensitive habitats that occupy the site include
coastal sage scrub along the northern boundary and wetlands along the southern boundary.
separated from existing multi-family developments to the south by Marron Road, and the density of the
Ms. Hysong pointed out the surrounding properties to the north, east and west of the project. The site is
existing multi-family projects is approximately 17-20 dwelling units per acre.
Ms. Hysong stated the 20.6-acre site is infill and was previously cultivated for agricultural use. It is
designated by the General Plan for Residential Medium density development and is currently zoned R-l-
10,000 allowing single-family lots that are a minimum 10,000 square feet in area. The site has been
identified as a standards area in the City's HMP but has since become a negotiated hardline conservation
area that will preserve 11.27 acres or 55 percent of the site as a wildlife corridor. The project requires the
density increase to increase the number of units allowed from 75 to 143.
property to be rezoned to RDM allowing multiple family units and the applicant is requesting a 91%
685 to 1,275 square feet located in 13 two and three- story buildings with 11 units in each building. 29
Ms. Hysong stated the project consists of 143 1, 2, and 3-bedroom apartment units ranging in size from
units are proposed to be affordable housing units. Each unit has a carport or garage as well as a private
patio or balcony. Pedestrian circulation is provided throughout the development and common amenities
from Marron Road at the intersection of Avenida de Anita. There is an egress only driveway located
include a recreation room, pool, and spa. Access to the project is provided by a single driveway access
further to the west that would be available for emergency access.
The project is required to provide on-site guest parking and to improve Marron Road to full-width
secondary arterial roadway standards. This includes the installation of 48-inch box trees to replace the
existing trees located along Marron Road that will have to be removed due to the roadway widening. She
pointed out the main entry drive, the circulation system, and the guest parking on the map.
Ms. Hysong stated that the project is subject to and consistent with the General Plan. The proposed
density of 11.4 dwelling units per acre exceeds the density allowed, therefore, findings are required for the density increase. These findings can be made because: 1) the project is compatible with the surrounding
development; 2) adequate public facilities will be provided; 3) it is located in proximity to Highway 78; and
a NCTD Transit Center; and 4) it is in proximity to Carisbad Plaza and Plaza Camino Real Shopping
Center and employment opportunities.
Ms. Hysong said since the density increase requires the allocation of the City's excess dwelling units,
Council Policy 43 requires that the project qualify as a priority project, meaning it must satisfy certain
criteria established for first, second, and third priority projects. The project satisfies criteria established for
first, second, and third priority project in that this project is an affordable housing project, it is a transit
oriented development located in close proximity to major transit facilities and commercial support services, and it is an infill multi-family project that does not exceed the density of the surrounding multi-
'Planning Commission Minutes May 1,2002 Page 4
family projects. The project is subject to and consistent with the proposed RD-M zone standards in that it
also provides adequate setbacks, is below maximum building height allowed, and provides required
parking.
by the Qualified Overlay Zone can be made. The project is compatible with the area and landscape
Ms. Hysong stated that the project has satisfied the Qualified Overlay Zone standards. Findings required
setbacks and amenities are provided. Streets are adequate to accommodate the additional traffic.
Council has previously recognized that road segments and intersections in the vicinity of Highway 78, Marron Road, and El Camino Real do not operate at acceptable levels of service due to the regional traffic
problems.
She added that the project is in compliance with the lnclusionary Housing and Affordable Housing Ordinances. It exceeds the minimum requirement of 21 units to be made affordable to households with
70% of the area median income. In exchange for the density increase the project will reserve 29
affordable units that are affordable to lower income families with 60% of the area median income. The applicant will also participate in the City's Section 8 rental assistance housing program, which requires an
even greater subsidy.
The project is also subject to and consistent with the Hillside Development Regulations. 40% slopes are
not disturbed except on Marron Road where widening is required. Grading volumes are in the acceptable
range. Slope heights don't exceed 40 feet and the manufactured slopes are screened with landscaping
and necessary setbacks from tops of slope are provided where applicable.
Ms. Hysong stated that necessary growth management findings can be made to exceed the growth
where adequate public facilities are provided in accordance with the growth management standards.
control point. Excess dwelling units exist in the northeast quadrant. The project is located in an area
Ms. Hysong said Staff believes the project is consistent with the hardline conservation area that was
negotiated with the wildlife agencies and that was subsequent to Council approval of the draft HMP. The
project will preserve an 11.27 acre habitat corridor located along the eastern boundary and the northern
half of the property that will link offsite adjacent lands to the east of the project in Carlsbad to areas of
biological value to the north.
She stated that potential and significant impacts to water quality, biological resources, noise, and
paleontological resources were identified based on the Environmental Impact Assessment conducted by
Staff. She said they have imposed mitigation measures to reduce those impacts below a level of
significance. She added that the Planning Director issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration on February
28. 2002 and they received a letter of response from the US. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California
Department of Fish and Game regarding the project's biological impacts.
that addresses each of the items in the letter received from the US. Fish and Wildlife Service and
Ms. Hysong stated that attached to the Errata sheet is a written response from the Planning Department
California Department of Fish and Game dated March 29, 2002. Prior to the conclusion of her
presentation she read the responses for the record as follows:
1. WILDLIFE CORRIDOR The wildlife agencies state that although preliminary project discussions
occurred for the purpose of establishing a hardline conservation area for the property, the
proposed hardlines were not finalized.
The Planning Department disagrees with the wildlife agencies statement that the proposed
established in the HMP for this Standards area in Zone 2, however, given that the property
hardline was not finalized. The finalized habitat corridor does not satisfy all of the criteria
contains almost no habitat for which the USFWS has jurisdiction, the negotiated area consisting
of more than 55% of the site was deemed adequate. The habitat corridor was designed to
ownership and then through the area at the eastern edge of the property which is contiguous with
provide connectivity of habitat areas along the northern portion, through the adjacent land
some native habitat.
2. NON-NATIVE GRASSLAND: The agencies state that they believe the impacts to annual non- native grassland are under-represented in the environmental document.
73
Planning Commission Minutes May 1,2002 Page 5
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
a.
9.
10.
11.
The Planning Department disagrees with the wildlife agencies statement that non-native
grassland is present on the site. The site has historically been used for agricultural use and disked annually. The areas mapped as disturbed habitat are predominantly disked land with little
vegetative cover.
COASTAL SAGE SCRUB IDENTIFICATION: The areas mentioned as requiring a correction in
mapping are not identified as coastal sage scrub habitat by the project biologist. This area is not
proposed to be disturbed. Since the area has not been disked as regularly as the remainder of
the southern portion of the site, it is expected that some species will occur, however, an individual species does not constitute a coastal sage scrub habitat community.
zone encroachments occur in the habitat corridor. These encroachment areas would not result in
FUEL MODIFICATION ZONES: The project is designed so that only very minor fuel modification
removal of any sensitive vegetation preserved to mitigate project impacts.
RARE PLANT SURVEYS: The site was surveyed for potential sensitive plant species and no
sensitive, threatened, or endangered species were observed on the site.
WETLAND IMPACTS: The impacts to poor quality wetlands existing along Marron Road are
unavoidable due to the Marron Road widening and the impact is proposed to be mitigated through
recreation of wetland habitat onsite in proximity to the existing wetland.
the developer, active maintenance, and funding for management and conservation in perpetuity.
MANAGEMENT OF OPEN SPACE: The project is conditioned to require continued ownership by
TAKE OF MIGRATORY BIRDS: No grading is proposed within sensitive habitats that may be
occupied by native birds except within a very minor wetland area. This issue will be addressed by
the California Department of Fish and Game through the Section 1603 Streambed Alteration
Agreement process.
DOMESTIC ANIMALS: The project site is proposed to be fenced with open iron rail fencing,
however, access to the open space is readily available to domestic animals from outside the
project boundaries.
USE OF NATIVE PLANTS ADJACENT TO OPEN SPACE: A mitigation measure is imposed to
and invasive plant species.
require that landscaping on descending manufactured slopes will avoid the introduction of exotic
AVOIDANCE OF WATER QUALITY IMPACTS: The project is conditioned to prepare a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Due to the project's proximity to the Buena Vista Creek and
Lagoon, the project will be required to implement and maintain an enhanced level of Best
Management Practices (BMPs). The project has been designed to drain a portion of the paved
areas through a grass swale to the north of the site and along the southern boundary to remove
pollutants before they reach the storm drain system.
12/13. POTENTIAL FLOODING IMPACTS: The project is designed to reduce velocities to pre- development conditions prior to entering the storm drain system.
14. STREAMBED ALTERATION: Impacts to the onsite wetlands have been fully identified and mitigation through recreation of a wetlands in proximity to the existing wetland is proposed. The
from the California Department of Fish and Game prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
project is conditioned to require the applicant to obtain a 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement
Chairperson Trigas mentioned that in addition to the Errata Sheet a letter was received from Jack
Henthorn and Associates dated April 30, 2002 with a response.
Commissioner Segall asked if it's normal procedure for the wildlife agencies to raise obvious issues, such
as fencing off for domestic animals when there are other complexes there, and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan which is the law now. Ms. Hysong replied that some of the items brought up are standard
Planning Commission Minutes May 1,2002 Page 6
responses to environmental documents that have biological impacts. She said they are particularly
concerned about storm water pollution and prevention because of this project‘s proximity to Buena Vista
Lagoon and the Buena Vista Creek.
Commissioner Segall asked her to comment on the issue of whether 75% or 55% of the area has to be
maintained for wildlife. Ms. Hysong replied that for the areas already negotiated as hardlines, called
standards area in the HMP. certain criteria were put into the document that were supposed to be used as a guideline. She said this particular project has no impacts to habitat, particularly coastal sage scrub. She
thought that 55% was still a generous area to set aside on a site that doesn’t have any habitat impacts. said she understood that this hardline was being negotiated during the HMP approval process and
Commissioner Segall asked what the next step would be if the Commission approves it with 55%
maintained for wildlife and the wildlife agencies say that 75% needs to be maintained. Ms. Hysong replied
that the City’s position is that we have a negotiated hardline so we are going forward with it.
Commissioner Segall wanted clarification on the entrances and exits of the project. Ms. Hysong pointed
out the location of the main entrance to the project at the intersection of Avenida de Anita and Marron
Road, and an exit only driveway to the west that will be gated and available to the Fire Department for
emergency access only.
Commissioner Segall wanted to know if this meets the City Council’s criteria for ingress and egress. Mr.
Wojcik replied that the second exit to the west is an exit only for the residents and also allows for
emergency ingress so it meets the requirements of the City Council for two exits.
Commissioner Segall asked if there was information on traffic study reports showing ADT at the
intersection currently, when the project goes in, and then afler Cannon and College open.
traffic model that gave the best information for this particular area and project. He said the existing
Mr. Wojcik showed a slide from the Calavera Master Plan that incorporated the traffic study and City’s
volume is approximately 36,000 trips on El Camino Real between Marron and Plaza. Once College/
Cannon opens the volume on El Camino drops to approximately 27,000 trips or a 9,000 decrease, about
26%. This is without the barricade so cars can come through Tamarack or Carlsbad Village Drive. He
added that this scenario does not have CollegelCannon connected to it. The immediate result would be a
significant decrease on that stretch of El Camino Real.
Mr. Wojcik explained that the study in 2000 was done for an analysis for the year 2005 so it anticipated
would see with opening the barricade at College rises back up to its existing level of 36,000 trips afler so
approximately 5 years of growth. He said that within a matter of a few years the volume decrease that we
many years of growth. The key concern is what the impact is at the intersection of Marron and El Camino
Real. He showed the peak hour volumes through that intersection showing the different turning
movements with and without the barricades. He noted that almost number for number they were virtually
the same. He explained the reasons why they can have a reduction of 9,000 trips and still have the same
volume going through the intersection. He said the main reason during the p.m. peak is that you have to wait in a long line to go north on El Camino Real due to the regional traffic tie up at the ramps at Highway
78 and El Camino Real, so the numbers look very small for a one-hour period. He said the volume
capacity on lanes is 2,000 trips per lane per hour and we barely have 2,000 trips in all of the lanes. That‘s
because the traffic is backed up from Highway 78 so there is simply not the volume going through that
intersection. Even reducing the volume from 36,000 to 27,000 the backup from 78 still exists so there is
basically the same volume of traffic within the peak hour periods going through that intersection. So with or without this project there is basically no change in the volumes going through the intersection of the
growth management.
roadway, therefore, there is no impact to the levels of service at that intersection the way we measure
does and they also included the surrounding development as well as background traffic.
Commissioner Segall asked if these numbers take into account this project. Mr. Wojcik replied that it
Chairperson Trigas asked if the backup time would decrease. Mr. Wojcik explained that if there is
currently a peak period of an hour and a half with the backup, once the barricade is removed and there is a reduction of volume, that peak period may go down to an hour and 15 minutes. However, since they
only measure the peak hour, that peak hour is virtually the same.
Planning Commission Minutes May 1,2002 Page 7
Commissioner Baker asked since they're being asked to increase the density considerably how could
those numbers have been taken into account with this slide. Mr. Wojcik replied that the original study
would have looked at what the designation for this particular property would be and at the time the number
they were using was for 75 single-family homes which would translate to 750 trips. With this project
they're talking about 858 trips so there is an increase of 108 which was not accounted for. In the peak
of the backup you can only get so many cars through there, so there really isn't an impact of this project
hour that 108 trips account for a .03% increase of cars that want to go through that intersection. Because
because things progress as Highway 78 and the ramps allow them to progress.
Commissioner Heineman asked what the prospect is for any action whatsoever since this is a CalTrans
area is not under our control. CalTrans controls the signal timing in that area. He said there are a couple
project. Mr. Wojcik replied that City Council has made findings of overriding consideration because this
of possible improvements that may not have been taken into account for buildout: 1) The City of
Oceanside has applied to CalTrans to allow them to restripe the bridge across 78 that will allow an
additional lane of traffic in each direction. 2) Possibly widening the bridge over 78 to either formalize
those two lanes to the CalTrans standard or widen it to allow more lanes to cross 78. But we don't control those so we don't want to say it will happen.
Commissioner Whitton wanted to know when College and Cannon would be open in relationship to this
project. Mr. Wojcik replied that the projected start of construction for CollegelCannon is late this summer
and it will have a 12 to 18 month construction period, so early 2004. This project's construction schedule
predicts they will be in a position to take full occupancy in late 2003, so there would be a length of time
between full occupancy and opening of CollegelCannon of probably a few months to 6 months.
Commissioner Dominguez stated that there is quite a bit of traffic that goes in and out of those two
shopping centers and the extra 108 trips would have to impact that traffic some way. Mr. Wojcik said the
would have for the entire intersection.
impact the additional 108 trips would have to the shopping centers is basically the same impact they
Commissioner Dominguez said it's really an extra 858 trips and using 108 trips is misleading. Mr. Wojcik
said it would be 858 for the entire project and the study analyzed 750 trips, but again the volumes are
basically the same once CollegelCannon is open and there is a reduction on El Camino Real. It still
doesn't fix the congestion problem, so whether or not this project goes in, the level of service and the volume through the intersection in the peak hour is virtually the same.
Commissioner Dominguez said he thought some of the other commissioners were trying to find out what
additional impacts would occur with another 858 peak hour trips. Mr. Wayne clarified that it's not 858
peak hour trips. The diagram shows peak hour and the 750 translates to maybe 75 peak hour trips; 858
whole day versus peak hour. He added that when Commissioner Baker asked the question about the 108
may be 85 peak hour trips, so you need to look at the additional traffic all day long - the ADT for the
6 to 10 additional trips.
it wasn't really referring to this diagram because the peak hour trips for those 108 might be anywhere from
approximately 69 additional trips in the morning, and the 108 additional is approximately 8 additional trips
Mr. Wojcik replied with the specific numbers, stating that the 858 total trips for the project would generate
in the morning. So the actual impact of the number of vehicles trying to get through there with this project
would be an additional 69 in the morning and approximately the same in the evening. This assumes that
the entire peak hour trips would take Marron to El Camino and it didn't factor in any trips of people taking Avenida de Anita down to Carlsbad Village Drive and onto El Camino Real. So this would be looking at
the worst case with 69 additional trips in the peak hour.
Commissioner White wanted to know how trip generation is calculated since there are only 108 extra trips for the apartment project versus the 75 single-family homes and it appears that most of the apartments
are intended to have two cars per unit. Mr. Wojcik replied that the City parking standard is 2 cars per unit
The City uses SANDAG's trip generation charts that specify what volume of traffic is generated for a regardless of traffic volume generation from the site and there is also a requirement for guest parking.
particular types of land use; either trips per residential unit or trips per 1,000 square feet of commercial
industrial. Single-family homes generate 10 trips per unit, and the project site was assumed it would be 75
10,000 square foot lots. The 858 trips are taken from the 143 units, which is much higher density than
76
Planning Commission Minutes May 1,2002 Page 8
single family. The trip generation for high-density projects is six trips per unit so 6 times the 143 equals
858. The trip generation is 10 for a single-family project, 8 for a medium-density project, and 6 for a high-
density project.
Commissioner White asked if that's because there is an assumption that a high-density project is
supposed to be located next to public transportation. Mr. Wojcik replied that it is based on actual
measurements that SANDAG does. They look for projects that they can isolate so they can get accurate
counts and to measure what that project actually generates.
why there are no elevators in the project. Mr. Wojcik said he would defer to the applicant.
Commissioner Heineman stated the plans have many handicapped parking spaces and wanted to know
timeframe for completion of the project. Mr. Wojcik replied it is 69 additional trips in the a.m. and p.m. and
Commissioner Segall asked him to repeat the peak hour a.m. and p.m. trips on the 858 ADT and the
the project is scheduled for completion in late 2003 and the opening of College/Cannon in early 2004 or
Spring 2004. He said that allows for the 18-month construction period, which would be the worst case
scenario, as the developer of Calavera Hills believes it will be finished in 12 months.
Chairperson Trigas wanted to know if the number of trips would shifl back to the initial number in 2004
at College. Once it is removed, the volume on El Camino at Marron automatically drops. The longer the
now instead of 2005. Mr. Wojcik replied it depends on when City Council decides to remove the barricade
trips for that particular period in time. He said even though this study, done in 2000, is giving volumes for
removal of the barricade and opening of College and Cannon are delayed, there will be less reduction in
2005, they were assuming growth rate between 2000 and 2005. That growth rate will most likely still take
place whether the barricade is up or down. It's quite possible that in 2004 the volumes on El Camino with
today, but in 2004 it will probably be closer to 36,000 again.
barricades still in place could be over 40,000 trips. Once the barricade is out, theoretically it's 27,000
would take a large solution to have any positive impact and we don't have any control over that, either the
Chairperson Trigas said from what she's heard, the solution is out of their hands. Mr. Wojcik replied that it
bridge over 78 or the increased number of lanes on 78 to reduce the backup on the ramp metering.
Growth will occur whether this project is approved or not.
Jack Henthorn, Planning Consultant, 5435 Avenida Encinas, Suite A, Carlsbad, stated the project has
been in the process for quite awhile and thanked the Commission for allowing them to be there. He first
responded to the question regarding no elevators posed earlier by Commissioner Heineman stating that
only ground floor units are required to be adaptable to be handicapped accessible. The building codes
are set up so that 5% of the accessible units have to be fully handicapped accessible but all units have to
be adaptable to meet handicapped requirements and those are the ground floor units.
worked with the City and several agencies to establish an acceptable development on the site. He said it
Mr. Henthorn stated they basically initiated this project back in 1998 and gave a brief history of how they
was agreed that the best way to ensure that they could keep a key piece of the Habitat Management Plan
in place was to move to some sort of consolidated development, which basically led to evaluating
apartment type development. Given the proximity of services, public transportation, and other aspects of
the surrounding area, they began to evaluate the possibility of providing affordable units. He said they felt
it was an excellent opportunity to meet some of the City's higher priorities in terms of producing affordable
housing.
earning less than 60% of the area median income and also take as priority tenants those who are certified
Mr. Henthorn stated that the applicant has agreed to provide 20% of the total units on-site for families
under the HUD Section 8. Additionally, the applicant assured the City that he would not come back and
seek subsidy funding. This basically resulted in about $300,000 savings to the City and done in recognition of the fact that they were requesting additional units being allocated to the site. Under this
approach the roughly $10,000 per unit that the City establishes as their subsidy level for affordable type
projects was able to be applied to other projects. He pointed out that this project not only provides a
critical link that implements the City's Habitat Management Plan but also brings 114 market rate units to the city's rental stock. It also brings 29 affordable units available to families and individuals earning 60%
or less with the aforementioned Section 8 priority. He said they're also pledging 42.6% of our density
bonus to affordable restricted product.
77
Planning Commission Minutes May 1,2002 Page 9
Mr. Henthorn said they recognize the traffic conditions over there, but feel that based on all of the traffic
analysis done as well as the material presented by Staff, they don’t see anything that would create what
they would consider a noticeable change in the conditions. However, he said they have presented to the
would propose to restrict the occupancy of 18 of the units, which would result in the deferral of 108 ADT
Planning Commission a proposal that they would entertain in recognition of the situation. He said they
until such time as College is open or until January 2004. He said they think that this deferral would recognize the fact that they’re trying to assist in restricting some of that traffic from that intersection. He
added that the deferral would not affect the production of the affordable housing product, it would be in the
market rate portion of the product.
Commissioner Segall asked if the final lease up is not projected to occur until early 2004 and does lease
up mean that all units are rented early 2004. Mr. Henthorn replied that is their projection right now, which
is pretty consistent with the opening of CannonlCollege.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
de Anita. She said she didn’t know if any consideration had been given for the stretch of Avenida de Anita
Eleanor Schubert, 2813 Via Magia, Carlsbad stated her home is approximately one block east of Avenida
traffic coming down the hill from Carlsbad Village Drive that takes a shortcut through Avenida de Anita to
between Carlsbad Village Drive and Marron Road. In the past 2 years she has noticed a heavy amount of
get to Marron Road to El Camino Real or to the Von’s shopping center. She said there has been so much
traffic that three stop signs had to be installed to slow it down. She expressed concern that with 143 units
going into the new apartment complex it would greatly impact the volume on this stretch of private road
through a neighborhood. She said Avenida de Anita is a two-lane road through the Tanglewood
there is a minimum of two lanes, one each way, and with the additional traffic it makes for a very
Homeowners Association complex. There is usually parking along the curb on both sides of the street so
they all exit onto Avenida de Anita to go to Marron or to Carlsbad Village Drive and she feels a new
congested street in the middle of a neighborhood. She said there are 500 townhomes in Tanglewood and
complex will greatly impact it.
Commissioner Segall asked if she is suggesting they widen the street or not do the project. Ms. Schubert
said in addition to letting them know her concerns she feels that she is against changing the zoning. If it‘s
designated for single-family homes that would be a choice or just not develop it.
they have known it for years. That‘s part of the reason why the stop signs are there, not only to slow
Mr. Wojcik commented that he agreed with Ms. Schubert that there is a problem on Avenida de Anita and
traffic down but to deter traffic off that street. He said as he indicated with approximately 69 trips in the
morning and the evening, he was assuming they all went from Marron to El Camino Real. If you want to
assume the opposite and say all 69 trips go down Avenida de Anita, approximately 1 additional car per
minute, it is not something they would consider significant. He said they realize there is a traffic problem
when people use it as a bypass. Whether this project goes in or not the people who are using it as a
Anita.
bypass will continue to do so, and with this project they will probably have more cars using Avenida de
Commissioner Baker asked if they should include Mr. Henthorn’s proposal to delay leasing some of the
units in the motion, discuss it, or put it as a condition.
Chairperson Trigas recommended they have a discussion on that matter prior to the motion
feels that when College and Cannon go in and the barricades come down a lot of traffic is going to be
Commissioner Segall said he appreciates Mr. Henthorn’s offer to delay occupancy of the 18 units, and
diverted from that intersection and bypass 78 and go over College and Cannon. He thought that is the assumption the City has as well. He said he would feel more comfortable if there was some way they
could tie something (construction, pulling permits, grading) to have project completion more closely
coincide with the completion of College and Cannon to mitigate traffic.
whole project. Commissioner Segall replied it would be the whole project because the assumption is that
Chairperson Trigas asked if he was including what is offered here as far as the additional units or the
they would approve a 75-unit residential project, which wasn’t before the Commission. He said he has
Planning Commission Minutes May 1,2002 Page 10
concerns with the additional traffic going into an area that's probably the worst in North County in terms of
traffic congestion and they're just increasing it regardless of whether it's single-family or multi-family units.
He said he felt if they can tie it closer to the completion of College and Cannon then they would have a
mitigation that he could live with.
Commissioner Baker said she concurs with Commissioner Segail
Commissioner White said she would agree with Commissioner Segall's idea, but wanted to know if the
project is delayed or scaled back until the completion of those roads how inclusionary housing would be
affected and how much would be delayed or included in the first one or two phases.
Commissioner Dominguez stated that normally he would support any project that has inclusionary or
affordable housing, but he was having a very difficult time with the findings to approve this project. He
thought the tradeoffs were a bit much (the HMP being bent to the point of compromise, the grading almost
at max, the density tradeoffs way over the top) and he had some severe problems with the whole thing.
Commissioner Heineman asked if they could accept the proposal from Mr. Henthorn with the proviso that
if the opening of Cannon and College is delayed, the period that they don't finish renting would have to be
extended. He said he thinks it would be more palatable if they made a condition that if early 2004, College
and Cannon have not been opened, then the period of leaving 18 units empty would be extended until
such time as College and Cannon are open. Commissioner Heineman added that he didn't feel the intersection could be made any worse with the addition of a few cars.
Commissioner Whitton concurred that there was nothing they can do about the traffic per se, however,
would like to see it conditioned to take the earlier of January 2004 out and put in until College and Cannon
are open.
Commissioner Baker asked if they both were agreeable to just the 18 units or more of the project
Commissioners Heineman and Whitton agreed it would be applicable to the 18 units.
was also generally in favor of anything that has inclusionary and low income housing to serve more of the
Commissioner Baker stated she agreed they may need to delay the opening of some of these projects but
traffic situation that's already bad and say there isn't anything we can do about this and go ahead and
housing problems. She said she was in a quandary and didn't know what to do because to make the
any harm but when we do this over and over again it has a cumulative effect. make it worse was a little unconscionable from her point of view. Adding a car a minute doesn't create
Chairperson Trigas stated she felt the HMP will be addressed and was concerned with the traffic issue.
She said she was leaning toward tying occupancy of the whole project to College and Cannon. She said
she likes inclusionary housing, but has a problem with compounding it as Commissioner Baker indicated.
She added that the increase in density is probably what bothered her the most, but would want it tied to
College and Cannon in some way to approve it.
Commissioner Segall asked Mr. Wayne what condition was set forth when they approved Calavera Hills
in terms of McMillin starting construction and the road being started. He said he didn't think that was
different than what he was proposing now in a very congested northeast quadrant and wanted to look at
what precedent was set with another project. Mr. Wayne said he would have to research that condition
but did not think it was as onerous. He said the cost of College and Cannon is a tremendous cost and usually the developer needs to have some way to start to recoup that cost, so it may have been tied to a
certain number of units or to occupancy, but at least they were allowed to start.
Commissioner Baker asked if this item should be continued to allow Staff to work on the issue.
Mr. Wayne said they have spent time trying to come up with something that might accomplish both the
concerns of the Commission and what the applicant is offering. For example, what happens if the start of
the construction of College, which is totally out of their hands, is delayed for whatever reason? He said
they've tried to think through that and address that issue and allow for the beginning of this project if it's
approved to coincide with a certain event as well as maybe holding back some of the units to coincide
with other events. Initiation of construction would be the first milestone and they wouldn't want this project
Planning Commission Minutes May 1,2002 Page 11
to begin perhaps until the beginning of the construction of the road. Council has stated they are not
interested in opening the barricade, which also impacts the intersection until College and Cannon are
want to get College and Cannon construction undenvay so there is some hope.
constructed. Ultimately, they may back off from that position before its ultimate opening but at least they
Commissioner Dominguez stated the proposal to delay construction kind of rings hollow to him since if it's
traffic we're concerned about the stats presented by the engineer show that by the time this project is
finished we'll probably be back to the numbers that we're currently dealing with. It's a larger problem than
the opening of College; it's a cumulative problem that we're facing, as Commissioner Baker pointed out.
CalTrans doesn't approve residential units: they're not the cause of the traffic. We're the ones that
approve the units that create the problems. We're caught in this crossfire and it's very difficult to come up
with any solutions at this point in time, but he said he would rather be part of the solution than part of the
problem.
Chairperson Trigas stated there are two proposals before them: No grading permit for the project be
issued until the commencement of construction of College and Cannon connection. The second one:
Prior to occupancy of the 97th market rate unit, that construction of College from Carlsbad Village Drive to
Cannon Road from College Blvd. to El Camino Real shall be substantially completed to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer.
first milestone is met and no occupancy of the 97th unit until it's substantially completed.
Commissioner Heineman commented that this seems to give two possible delays - no grading until the
Chairperson Trigas asked why the 97th unit. Mr. Wojcik replied that the 97th market rate unit would be
the first unit over the 750 trips. He is taking into account that the 29 affordable units are going to be built
in the early stages.
Mr. Wayne commented that the main difference between this condition and the one offered by the applicant is that his schedule and the schedule on CollegelCannon are pretty close together because he
probably couldn't receive a grading permit until September/October which is when we planned on initiating
construction on College/Cannon. so that coincides. If there is a delay then it delays the project as well
under this proposal. As far as the 97th unit, that is essentially the remaining 18 units that they're offering
the roads are open or it may be sometime before.
not to occupy. If it's substantially completed and it's opening is up to the City Engineer. It may be when
out of their hands and traffic would be backed up on 78 and backed up on 5 trying to get off on 78, and
Commissioner Whitton said in rethinking this, no matter what happens, the 781EI Camino intersection is
backed coming north on El Camino Real. He asked if it is conditioned any way on College and Cannon, if College and Cannon have been environmentally cleared to be built.
Mr. Wayne replied that it was his understanding they have the permits today for the reach that comes
down to the CollegdCannon intersection and Cannon west to El Camino Real. He said red tape should
not hold that up but didn't know if all permits have been issued.
Commissioner Segall expressed again that he thought opening College and Cannon and the barricade
would divert a lot of traffic away from El Camino and 78 which is causing all that backup to get on the
freeway to go to the same place. With that being a big issue right now with all the people in Oceanside
wanting that barricade down so they can come over and bypass the 78 he thought it would drop a lot of
that traffic. He said that would provide mitigation they need and he would feel comfortable with this
project.
Chairperson Trigas asked if occupancy would most likely coincide with the construction with College
applicant's presentation of what his schedule is, that's correct.
Boulevard. Mr. Wojcik replied that based on their estimate on the construction of College/Cannon and the
Chairperson Trigas said she felt more comfortable with making a condition on occupancy in general for
the entire project be upon the construction of the road and substantially completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer rather than saying prior to the occupancy of the 97Ih.
Planning Commission Minutes May 1,2002 Page 12
Commissioner Heineman asked if she would still retain the provision that no grading permit would be
occupancy. She said an empty building does not make traffic. The inclusionary housing would be
issued to begin with. Chairperson Trigas said that building it was not her concern, her concern was
when the roads are completed then why not make occupancy the issue.
beneficial to our city; so it‘s just a matter of the traffic. She said if we feel there will be some alleviation
Commissioner Heineman suggested they ask Mr. Henthorn if that would be palatable. Commissioner
Segall suggested we may need to check with Staff if it‘s doable from a legal standpoint.
Commissioner Whitton said his point ultimately was going to be to anchor the completion of this project on
College Boulevard and Cannon, which may slip for whatever reason. In retrospect he would rather tie it to
a date as Mr. Henthorn suggested.
Mr. Henthorn stated that they were present to find a solution that works for everyone. He said the
problem with an open-ended solution is that they would not be able to finance the project. There is no lender in his right mind that‘s going to step up and say you’ve got a condition that you can’t possibly
comply with. If the city decides not to build it for any number of reasons it just can’t happen from a
practical standpoint.
appeared that the improvements that are needed to alleviate this condition are actually complete and on
Mr. Henthorn said the other issue he’s kind of lost on is what he saw in the presentation earlier. It
the ground. He said it appears to him that the practical problem confronting this project and the circulation
College and Cannon and if those barricades don’t come down, the condition doesn’t mean anything.
in this area is the barricade that exists on College and they can’t control that. He said you could construct
Therefore, they thought that by coming forward with the proposal that would tie full occupancy of the
project to not only an event, but an outside date, they could go to a lender and represent that they can
occupy this project fully as of some date and can get partial occupancy during the intervening period of
time to generate the cash flow to pay the lender back.
Commissioner Baker said that doesn’t really solve the problem of the Planning Commissioners who are saddled with the dilemma of approving a project that really will create more traffic and delays on an
already miserable road.
Mr. Henthorn replied that one of the important things to note is the peak period situation because that road
is not operating at that level 24 hours a day. It operates at that constrained level for two relatively short
periods of time. The problem that we’re all faced with is that this whole thing with College is compounded
through the intersection back into Marron. The connection that you would like to condition us with exists by the fact that the left turn movement from northbound El Camino Real to westbound 78 just backs it up
on the ground. The condition doesn’t accomplish what you’re trying to accomplish and he said he didn’t
know what the alternative is other than offering what they’re attempting to offer up to allow the project to
move forward and to recognize the impacts and delay some of the occupancy.
well as they want it to, so they’re asking for something more and asked if that‘s all he is willing to do at this Commissioner Baker stated that she heard from the Commission that they don’t think his offer will work as
point. Mr. Henthorn said they would be willing to explore options, but at this point they’re faced with
deferring to the Commission. He said they’ve been working with the Staff to try to resolve the dilemma and took a shot at it, and they can certainly go back and take a look at it if they get some direction.
Commissioner Segall stated he thought it would be appropriate to continue. He said he thought Mr.
Henthorn and the applicant know their concerns and Staff knows and they should let them work it out and
come back. He said he wasn’t prepared to support the project at this point if they can’t resolve the issue
and he was not satisfied with what Mr. Henthorn proposed with just 18 units. He stated he is okay with the
rest of the project.
Commissioner Heineman stated it‘s difficult to come up with an agreement under these conditions and agreed with a continuance.
MOTION
8/
Planning Commission Minutes May 1,2002 Page 13
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Baker and duly seconded that the Planning
Commission continue Item # 2 to May 15, 2002. (ZC 00-1 l1SDP 00-171HDP 00-
13)
DISCUSSION
are any other issues that may come up that need to be addressed.
Commissioner Segall stated he's okay with the rest of the project. He said he would like to know if there
and asking him for independent findings because of the tradeoffs involved. He agreed in one respect with
Commissioner Dominguez stated that he found it very difficult to deal with this project as presented to him
Staff that this is not suitable for R-1-10,000 zoning but by the same token he thought the density
exchange for the affordable and the other amenities to supposedly help the HMP were a little severe. He
also had some real concerns about the disagreements that Staff had with the environmental agencies. He
also noticed that the grading was rather substantial, only within 40 yards of the max allowable for this
construction. He agreed with the Staffs assessment of the property that it had been disked for a long
time, not for agricultural purposes, but actually to remove any natural vegetation. He said in his
recollection he hasn't seen anything growing there. In the most recent times that property has been
consistently disked and he thought it degraded the natural waterway that exists on the north end of that
that his vote reflects an independent judgement of the Planning Commission of the City of Carisbad, he
property. He said he thought the property has some substantial problems. He said when asked to say
what those findings should be.
has a difficult time with that finding because he didn't think those findings were his individual judgement of
family homes. The only possible use of it would be a project of this sort. He thought their approach was
Commissioner Heineman agreed that it's a terrible piece of land and would be a very poor site for single-
good if they can do something about the additional traffic until they get some mitigation. He said if some
plan along those lines can be worked out he would be in favor of the project.
Commissioner Dominguez stated that the density bonus they received in this application was 68 units. He
said he would have felt better if there would have been some kind of a closer delineation between the
affordable units and the density bonus even if there was a positive to the density bonus side. He thought
the 68 unit bonus was a bit much for the tradeoffs and the added negatives that are a part of this overall
application. He realized that it is a difficult piece of property in a difficult location with difficulties that beset
they're going to, on a cumulative basis, compound the problems that already exist in the city, he doesn't
it that it has really not much control over but though that they have to be sensitive to that. He said if
think they're doing an adequate service to the city.
Commissioner White asked for an explanation on how the doubling of the units fits in with moving from 21
to 29. She also wanted to ask the applicant if they would consider scaling the project back some, which she assumed would mean they would want to scale back some of the inclusionary housing as a condition
of scaling back the whole project.
they have little or no control over it and there is probably not going to be tremendous alleviation of that in
Commissioner Whitton stated he supports the project. He said he has concerns about traffic but feels
the near future.
Commissioner Baker stated she likes the idea of transit oriented project and this is a good place to put in dense housing but just has an issue with the traffic and some of Commissioner Dominguez's concerns about the environment and the HMP, but was in favor of the overall concept.
meetings with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. An agreement was reached and solidified at
In regard to the environmental concerns, Mr. Henthorn responded that the City was in attendance at the
that meeting. He said it's been almost three years and personnel have transferred, but they currently have access to almost everyone who was there. It was 55% of the site and the primary reason for that
was because the location of the corridor needed to be a specific length in order to connect into Oceanside so the project design was predicated upon that basis.
As far as issues relating to the site design, Mr. Henthorn stated they tried to design the site so they didn't
have to rely on any public money. The reason for the amount of density requested is to get the rental fa
Planning Commission Minutes May 1,2002 Page 14
rates down to meet some of the City’s higher priority issues. They wanted to be able to accept the
Section 8 certificates and handle the administrative costs associated with that. There were a number of factors that went into why the density level is at the level that it is and it was justified through discussions
with the housing staff and the numbers were shared and everyone was aware of what those numbers
were. He said if we expect to get the same level of affordability. the same restrictions, the same waiver of
those things it‘s going to mean revisiting the entire package.
public subsidy, which were all part of a package that came forward, and if we need to go back and look at
up grading it more to create single-family pads. He said the amount of graded on this site was limited
He agreed that the site is not a single-family site from a design standpoint, and they would probably end
significantly and the grades to some extent were set. The grading is kind of a balance between staying
out of those environmental areas and having to raise grades in some areas so the numbers are merely a
function of trying to create an environmentally sensitive site.
Mr. Henthorn said the final item he wanted to note is that he had an opportunity to try to figure out if there
was a way to put something on the table tonight, given your Staff alternatives that were presented. He
said he talked to Mr. Wojcik, and if the grading permit and construction of the project were tied to
commencement of construction for College and Cannon they would be willing to commit to a November
date. He said he thought the City feels confident that they could have grading and construction of the
grading but in talking with the applicant they figured that if they were able to put a date on that so basically roadways underway by November. Mr. Henthorn said that‘s a little later than they anticipated starting
the two projects would run forward concurrently and the improvements were done when the projects were done, they could probably live with that. He proposed that if the Commission wanted to consider
something tonight that would do it.
Commissioner Segall asked if he could fill in the exact wording that he was referring to
RECESS
Chairperson Trigas called a recess at 755 p.m.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Chairperson Trigas called the meeting back to order at 8:02 p.m
Chairperson Trigas asked Mr. Henthorn and Mr. Wojcik if they came up with some wording.
Mr. Henthorn stated that they took the first sentence that says, “No grading permit for the project shall be
issued until the commencement of construction of College Boulevard and Cannon connection” and added
the words “or November 2002, whichever occurs first.” That was based on discussion with Mr. Wojcik
who feels confident that this gives the City sufficient time to work with the contractor to get the road
underway. Mr. Henthorn said it potentially delays them a month or two to get everything on line. So when
their product occupancy starts to take place in October 2003, they should be pretty close to having the
road open at the same time, not when it‘s fully occupied, but when it begins.
Commissioner Segall asked if that‘s the only condition and not the second one. Mr. Henthorn replied that
it takes care of the other concerns.
Chairperson Trigas stated that there was still a continuance on the floor. She wanted to clarity that they’re
not looking at the second suggestion, only at the first one that states no grading permit for the project shall be issued until the commencement of construction and the date November 2002, whichever occurs first.
She asked if this language was enough to withdraw the continuance.
Commissioner Segall and Commissioner Heineman stated that it was enough for them.
Commissioner Baker withdrew the motion to continue and Commissioner Heineman seconded the
withdrawal of the motion.
Mr. Wayne stated that there are some subtleties in the condition. He explained that it means if the City,
McMillin, or whatever is delayed past November for any reason, they still get to start in November. If for
83
Planning Commission Minutes May 1,2002 Page 15
some reason it takes longer than 12 months to construct the road, which we feel is a disincentive for the
contractor because of the penalties, they can start occupancy, because you’re not tying up occupancy.
That is a concern of some but not others. He said it basically tries to even out the start and they’re both at
approximately a 12-month construction basis. Therefore it solves the problem but if circumstances beyond
anybody’s control should arise and things come out of sync you would have to realize that they would be
able to go forward, and that was Staffs recommendation all along.
Chairperson Trigas stated that was the concern she had and was wondering if the second sentence to the condition could be “occupancy shall not occur until the roads are substantially completed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.” She said she would feel more comfortable with that.
Commissioner Heineman stated that it would read this way: “No grading permit for the project shall be
issued until the commencement of construction of the College Boulevard and Cannon Road connection or
the City Engineer.”
November 2002, whichever comes first and the road shall be substantially completed to the satisfaction of
Commissioner Segall reminded them that Mr. Henthorn said earlier that he couldn’t get financing if they
do that.
everybody’s going forward on the same timeframe. then we’re okay. He said if the second part is added Mr. Henthorn responded that the November date takes care of the problem because the intent is
about the improvements as part of occupancy, they wouldn’t be able to get a loan if they can’t get
occupancy.
Commissioner Segall said he understood that concern and that the first part addressed part of his
concern. He said he was willing to support it since they still don’t know what‘s going to happen at the
other end but hopefully it will bring both projects to completion either simultaneously or close enough.
work some language out that would combine the two conditions and as long as they could get a specific
Chairperson Trigas asked about putting the restriction on the end. Mr. Henthorn said they could probably
date for the start, they would be willing to restrict on the 97th unit basis.
Chairperson Trigas and Commissioners Heineman and Segall agreed that the combination of the two
conditions would suffice.
correctly instead of acting like a union negotiation would be the best way to approach this.
Commissioner Dominguez stated that the first inclination of the Commission to continue it and do this
Commissioner Segall stated that he thought Mr. Henthorn would rather solve it now and if Mr. Henthorn
and Staff are satisfied, then he would be satisfied.
Commissioner Baker asked if this is one of those deals that will have some unintended implication that‘s
being overlooked because we’re trying to get this done.
Chairperson Trigas added that since there is no urgency to get a grading permit, she would like to make
sure the implications are clear.
Commissioner Baker asked if their action was final on this. Commissioner Segall said it goes to the
Council.
Commissioner Heineman asked Mr. Henthorn if two weeks would make a big difference. Mr. Henthorn
replied that it‘s 4 years into this project so it‘s not really patient money anymore. He asked if they go with
the continuance, the purpose of the continuance would be to bring back the language in a form they would
work out with the Staff, and that is the issue.
would not be present at the next meeting.
Chairperson Trigas confirmed that the language is the main issue and stated that two commissioners
Commissioner Segall wanted to verify that if they make a condition that could be the only issue that they
could take up and other issues couldn’t be brought up. 84
Planning Commission Minutes May 1,2002 Page 16
Mr. Wayne responded that they would have to reopen the public hearing. He said he was a little confused
they can accept that first condition if you at least guarantee a start date because it's totally out of their
at this point because he wasn't sure what they would accomplish with the wording. They have said that
control and they will never be able to finance the project. Staff is saying okay because we're going to be
underway on this road in September, and the first action is for McMillin to go out there and clear and that
guarantees the start. The second one was the whole issue that you were debating and we wrote this in
anticipation of that and he's willing to accept it because it also allows him certainty at least for 125 units
with 750 ADT. The beauty of it is that they really coincide if everything goes according to plan, which
sometimes it doesn't, but we think it will in this case because there is so much public interest in getting
those two roads put in. So we have the conditions and I don't know what we're going to do in two weeks.
Commissioner Baker asked if he was 100% comfortable with these. Mr. Wayne said he just wanted to
explain what that means because he knows there was a split on the Commission as to whether or not
some units or none and this allows some units. It allows all the way up to 125, but Staff thinks that's okay for the reasons that were brought out here tonight.
Chairperson Trigas stated her concern was the occupancy and that's why she mentioned that she would want that second part tacked on. Since it was now added, she said they could have a motion.
MOTION
ACTION:
Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5170, 5171, 5172, and Motion by Commissioner Baker and duly seconded, that the Planning
5173 recommending adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program and recommending approval of ZC 00-11,
SDP 00-17 and HDP 00-13 based on the findings and subject to the conditions
contained therein including these following conditions: No grading permit for the
project shall be issued until the commencement of construction of the College
first and prior to the occupancy of the 97th market rate unit construction of
Boulevard and Cannon Road connection or November 2002, whichever occurs
College Boulevard from Carlsbad Village Drive to Cannon Road and Cannon
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Road from College Boulevard to El Camino Real shall be substantially completed
DISCUSSION
Sheet and the additional item that Mr. Wojcik mentioned to eliminate Condition No. 40, in Planning
Ms. Hysong stated she did not hear the additional condition that they asked to be included in the Errata
Commission Resolution 5172, since it is not longer necessary.
Commissioner Segall asked what that condition was. Ms. Hysong replied that it's a condition requiring
that prior to issuance of grading permit the owner shall offer to dedicate by separate document, an
easement over the project entrance driveway for construction and maintenance of traffic signal detection
loops. She said she was told that it is now done by video detection so the condition is no longer
necessary.
ADDITION TO MOTION
ACTION:
Agencies and also eliminate Condition No. 40 in Resolution 5172.
Motion by Commissioner Baker to add the Errata Sheet concerning the Wildlife
VOTE: 6-1 -0
AYES:
Whitton
Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Heineman, Segall, White, and
ABSTAIN:
NOES: Commissioner Dominguez
None
Commissioner Segall stated he had an engagement and asked to be excused.
. PROOF OF PUBLIC-TION
(2010 82 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I
This space is !" the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the
above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of
the printer of Proof of Publication of
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING North County Times
Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been
I
1
s
C
I
tk
D
th
adiiidi,rnted nc.wcnancrc nf mener-1 circnldinn hv ,.
~~
., , ~. ,
' 'NOTICE OF PUBtlC H,EARlNG
Y GIVEN that the City Council of the City of carlsbed will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200
and MWgation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approval for a Zone change from R-1-10,MX) to RD-M, Site
ve, Carlsbad, California at 600 p.m. on Tu&ay, June 4, Mo2, to consider a request for adoption of a Mitigated
Hillside Development Permit for a 143 unit apapartment pmjd bled north of Marron Road in Local Facilities
Manaoemant Zone 2 in the northeast auadrant and more partkUlarlV described as: ~ ~~~ ~ -~ ~
ParCrlZ of hral Map No. 4838, In & CHy oi Wflsbad, d Son Dkgo, d Wlllomla, flled In the olRce d the County Recorder d San Dlego County, June 18,1978 as Rle@age no. 78-190384 d oftlclrl Iocordl.
That portion of Lot 3 of section 32, Township 11 swth, rsnge 4 West, San Bernardino base and meridian, according to Micial plat thereof being in the city of Carlsbad, county of San Diego, stale of Witornia.
Those portions of Lots 3 & 4 in Section 32, TownJlip 11 South, rsn city of Carlsbad, county of San Dlego, state ot CA.
Those persons wishing to speek on this proposal are cordially invited to anend zhe public hearing. Copies of the
staff !port win be available on and after May 3lI2lN2,~ If you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4622.
If you chalm the Mitigated Negatiw Declaratlon and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Zone Change, Site Development Plan or Hillside Development Permit, you may be limited ta.miaing ow moSe isauas you or someone e1.y raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in wrilten correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad. Ann: City Clerk's office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad. California, at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE NAME: THE SUMMIT AT CARLSBAD
PUBLISH: FRIDAY, MARCH 24,2002
CASE FILE ZC LW-ll/SDP.OO-l7/HDP 00-13
of
Signature
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a
public hearing at the Carlsbad City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive,
Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO p.m. on Tuesday, June 4, 2002, to consider a request for
adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, and approval for a Zone change from R-1-10,000 to RD-M, Site Development
Plan and Hillside Development Permit for a 143 unit apartment project located north of
Marron Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 2 in the northeast quadrant and
more particularly described as:
Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 4838, 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 18, 1976 as filelpage no. 76-190384 of official
records.
That portion of Lot 3 of Section 32, Township 11 South, Range 4 West,
San Bernardino base and meridian, according to official plat thereof being
in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California.
Those portions of Lots 3 and 4 in Section 32, Township 11 South, Range
4 West, San Bernardino meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the
public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after May 31, 2002. If
you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at (760)
6024622.
If you challenge the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, Zone Change, Site Development Plan or Hillside Development
Permit, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at
the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the
City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk's Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad,
California, at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: ZC 00-11lSDP 00-17lHDP 00-13
CASE NAME: THE SUMMIT AT CARLSBAD
PUBLISH: FRIDAY, MARCH 24,2002
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
HIGHWAY 78
SUMMIT AT CARLSBAD
ZC 00-1 I/SDP 00-1 7/HDP 00-1 3
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 51bCe
CARLSBAD UNlF SCHOOL DlST SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DlST CITY OF ENClNlTAS
801 PINE AVE 1 CIVIC CENTER DR 505 S VULCAN AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008 SAN MARCOS CA 92069 ENClNlTAS CA 92024
CITY OF SAN MARCOS CITY OF OCEANSIDE CITY OF VISTA
1 CIVIC CENTER DR 300 NORTH COAST HWY PO BOX 1988
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949 OCEANSIDE CA 92054 VISTA CA 92085
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME REGIONAL WATER QUALITY SD COUNTY PLANNING
4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE STE 100 STE B
SAN DIEGO CA 92123 9174 SKY PARK CT 5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340 SAN DIEGO CA 92123
U.S. FISH &WILDLIFE
2730 LOKER AVE WEST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
I.P.U.A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
URBAN STUDIES
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKSlCOMMUNlTY PUBLIC WORKSlENGlNEERlNG MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
SERVICES DEPT
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT PLANNER
ANNE HYSONG
Laser 5160@
RICHARD C & ROBERT P KELLY
TRUST
STE 600
11 777 SAN VICENTE BLVD
LOS ANGELES CA 90049
RICHARD C & ROBERT P KELLY
TRUST
2770 SUNNY CREEK ROAD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
VANDERBURG TRUST
PO BOX 7788
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92658
HELIX ASSOCIATES
305 HlHlLL WAY
EL CAJON CA 92020
EVERHART FAMILY TRUST
1615 BACCHARIS AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
VICKI E LAMBOU
2608 VIA ASTUTO
CARLSBAD CA 92008
AZALEA PARTNERSHIP
STE 600
11777 SAN VICENTE BLVD
LOS ANGELES CA 90049
AZALEA INC
STE 645
150 N SANTA ANITA AVE
ARCADIA CA 91006
VANDERBURG REAL ESTATE
HOLDINGS LP
STE 100
12700 NORTHBOROUGH NOB
HOUSTON TX 77067
ELDER TRUST
PO BOX 308
LA JOLLA CA 92038
TRACY R & MARLENE
STUMPIMARY J HlGNlTE
9001 N 60TH ST
PARADISE VALLEY AZ 85253
ELAINE L DRIEMEYER
924 QUAIL HILL RD
FALLBROOK CA 92028
RICHARD C KELLY TRUST ET AL
STE 645
150 N SANTA ANITA AVE
ARCADIA CA 91 006
FORE PROPERTIES LLC
600 3RD AVE
NEW YORK NY 10016
VANDERBURG TRUST
STE 645
150 N SANTA ANITA AVE
ARCADIA CA 91006
JOE SHERMAN
PO BOX 1848
SAN GABRIEL CA 91778
EDDY W EWAIN
261 0 VIA ASTUTO
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BETHANY L &JAMES F
FITZGERALD
2604 VIA ASTUTO
CARLSBAD CA 92008
HERBERT S WOODWARD II THOMAS K & ATHLEEN S DAVID CRAWFORD FAMILY TRUST
2602 VIA ASTUTO 2534 VIA ASTUTO 2532 VIA ASTUTO
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
ROBERT J & ELAINE A MCBRIDE JOYCE E LAVELY SHYVERS TRUST OF 1990
29816 MONTEREY LANE 2801 VIA DIEGO 3201 MACARTHUR BLVD
EVERGREEN CO 80439 CARLSBAD CA 92008 OAKLAND CA 94602
ROBERT E & ROBIN L PARRISH
2805 VIA DIEGO
CARLSBAD CA 92008
KENNETH R & NANCY A DEEDS & RANDl
STE 47
333 ORANG€ AVE
CORONADO CA 921 18
2804 VIA DIEGO
CARLSBAD CA 92008
RICHARD & KARIN BARNES PATRICK W FORD HAYES TRUST
7623 RUSTIC0 DR 218 E 3RD ST 4852 SAN JACINTO CIRCLE
CARLSBAD CA 92009 FREDERICK MD 21701 FALLBROOK CA 92028
SUSAN L WALCH NATHAN &JUDITH SUBITZKY TIBURON CARLSBAD HOA
2812 VIA DIEGO 261 9 VIA ECO 6215 HOLLY MONT DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008 LOS ANGELES CA 90068
GREENE PROPERTIES INC RCSS INVESTMENT INC
PO BOX 1388 3170 VISTA WAY
VISTA CA 92085 OCEANSIDE CA 92056
SUMITOMO BANK OF
CALIFORNIA
320 CALIFORNIA ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104
FORD ASSOCIATE V OCEANSIDE L8H ASSOCIATES VISTA WILAI & PARTNERS
STE 21 3 LIU ASSOCIATES
4540 KEARNY VILLA RD 2045 PALMA DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92123 ROWLAND HEIGHTS CA 91748
NATIONAL GOLF OPERATING
STE 3001
2951 28TH ST
SANTA MONICA CA 90405
JACK HENTHORN &ASSOCIATE ALL PHASE ENTERPRISES
STE A STE 1996
5365 AVENIDA ENCINAS 6060 SUNRISE VISTA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CITRUS HEIGHTS CA 95610
EEA~O~ SHIJERT am flP6IA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public
hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO
p.m. on Tuesday, [DATE], to consider a request for adoption of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approval for a Zone change
from R-1-10,000 to RD-M, Site Development Plan and Hillside Development Permit for a 143
unit apartment project located north of Marron Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 2 in
the northeast quadrant and more particularly described as:
Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 4838, in the City of Carlsbad, County
of San Diego, State of California, tiled in the office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, June 18, 1976 as tilelpage no. 76-
190384 of official records.
That portion of Lot 3 of Section 32, Township 11 South, Range 4
West, San Bernardino base and meridian, according to official plat
thereof being in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State
of California.
Those portions of Lots 3 and 4 in Section 32, Township 11 South,
Range 4 West, San Bernardino meridian, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after [DATE]. If you have any
questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4622.
court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public
If you challenge the Zone Change, Site Development Plan, and Hillside Development Permit In
hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, at
or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: ZC 00-1 llSDP 00-17lHDP 00-13 ()) @&
CASE NAME: THE SUMMIT AT CARLSBAD b’ , f c ; i:
PUBLISH: [DATE} ::‘I( ~f,~:~. 2t.l 2.
7s i-,
U’V pa&
w/
(
u P
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL