HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-07-09; City Council; 16820; Bressi Ranch EIR 98-04/GPA 98-03/ZC 98-04CITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL
IB# 16,820 TITLE:
HTG. 7-9-02 EIR 98-04lGPA 98-03lZC 98-04lMP 178lLFMP 17 I. BRESSI RANCH IEPT. PLNd
II.
?ECOMMENDED ACTION:
rhat the City Council INTRODUCE Ordinances No.
4PPROVING Zone Change ZC 98-04 and Master Plan MP 178, and ADOPT Resolution No.
,he approval of Candidate Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Consideration, and a
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and APPROVING General Plan Amendment GPA 98-
13; and Local Facilities Management Plan LFMP 17.
TEM EXPLANATION:
NS-634 , and NS-635
2002-205 , CERTIFYING the Program Environmental Impact Report EIR 98-04 including
The City Council will be reviewing both legislative and adjudicatory applications. Legislative actions
:o change Un-Planned Area (UA), Open Space (OS), Residential Low (RL), Residential Low Medium
nclude a new master plan for the 585.1 acre Bressi Ranch; a General Plan Land Use Amendment
:RLM), and Residential Medium (RM) densities to OS, RLM, RM, Residential Medium High (RMH),
Tesidential High (RH) densities, Local Commercial (L), Community Facilities (CF), Private School
:P), and Planned Industrial (PI); and a Zone Change to change the site’s Limited Control (L-C)
designation to Planned Community (PC).
The adjudicatory application is a new Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 17. The LFMP
dentifies infrastructural needs and describes how the needed facility(s) will be either guaranteed or
:onstructed.
4pplications approved by the Planning Commission, contingent on the related City Council
approvals, include a 22-lot subdivision over the entire 585.1 acres. The subdivision will create lots
Nhich correspond with the individual master plan planning areas. There are six industrial lots accounting for 150.1 acres; seven residential lots accounting for 174.9 acres; six open space lots
accounting for 190.7 acres; one community facilities lot at 13.7 acres, and one mixed use lot at 27.7
acres. Roadways are not included in the lot area calculations and equal approximately 28 acres.
Each of the open space lots except OS 2 (lot 18) will be deed restricted as an open space preserve. 3s 2 will serve as a community recreation site.
3ther applications are a Hillside Development Permit (HDP), and two Special Use Permits (SUP).
The HDP and one of the SUP’S relate to the project‘s proposed grading. The second SUP is for the
El Camino Real Corridor Standards.
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 16,820
The Planning Commission by a vote of 6-0 (Dominguez absent) recommended certification of the
Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and approval of the Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; General Plan
Amendment; Zone Change; Bressi Ranch Master Plan; and, Local Facilities Management Plan for
Zone 17.
There were no speakers in opposition to the project. Several speakers including the Boys and Girls
Club of Carlsbad, Walk San Diego, and the Air Pollution Control District spoke in favor of the project.
Two conditions were added to the project at the request of California Indian Legal Services. The first
is to require the developer to enter into an agreement with the San Luis Rey Band of Indians
requiring Native American remains, if any should be found, be returned to the San Luis Rey Band of
Indians after they have been catalogued and the second, that a Native American monitor be present
during grading operations.
deleted by the Planning Commission and accepted by the applicant.
One standard of the master plan, which allowed Planning Area 11 to be a gated subdivision, was
ENVIRONMENTAL:
A Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the project in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental
Protection Procedures (Title 19) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The EIR addresses the
environmental impacts associated with all discretionary applications for the proposed project
including ultimate buildout of the entire project.
The analysis contained in the EIR concluded that all significant impacts would be mitigated to below
a level of significance with the exception of air quality (cumulative) which would be considered
significant and unmitigable. Cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual impacts that, when
considered together, are considerable or that compound or increase other environmental impacts.
The cumulative impact of several projects is the change in the environment that results from the
incremental impact of the project when added to other, closely related past, present, or reasonably
foreseeable, probable future projects. The cumulative impacts all arise from the marginal
future projects, to pre-existing conditions that fail to meet applicable standards currently.
contribution the proposed project will make, when combined with the impacts from existing and other
effects can be approved, the public agency must consider and adopt a “statement of overriding
Under CEQA, before a project which is determined to have significant, unmitigated environmental
considerations” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15043 and 15093. As the primary purpose of CEQA
is to fully inform the decision makers and the public as to the environmental effects of a proposed
effects below a level of significance, CEQA nonetheless recognizes and authorizes the approval of
project and to include feasible mitigation measures and alternatives to reduce any such adverse
explain and justify its conclusion to approve such a project through the statement of overriding
projects where not all adverse impacts can be fully lessened or avoided. However, the agency must
considerations setting forth the Proposed Project‘s general social, economic, policy or other public
benefits which support the agency’s informed conclusion to approve the project. The CEQA
Commission Resolution for the EIR.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations are attached to the Planning
FISCAL IMPACT:
A fiscal impact study titled “Lennar Communities Bressi Ranch Fiscal Impact Analysis” and related documents by Douglas Ford and Associates was prepared and is on file with the Planning
Department. The study was also previously distributed to members of the City Council. In summary,
3
PAGE 3 OF AGENDA BILL NO.
the study shows that the ultimate buildout of the Bressi Ranch Master Plan as proposed will result in
City revenues which fall short of City expenditures required to provide City services to the residences
within the Bressi Ranch community
EXHIBITS:
16,820
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Ordinance No. NS-634
Ordinance No. NS-635
City Council Resolution No. 2002-205
Location Map
Plannina Commission Resolutions No. 5201, 5202, 5203, 5204, 5205
Planning Commission Staff Report, dated June 5, 2002
Excerpts of Draft Planning Commission Minutes, dated June 5, 2002
Final Program EIR for the Bressi Ranch, dated April 2002 (previously distributed; copy on file
in the Planning Department)
Bressi Ranch Master Plan, dated May 2002 (previously distributed; copy on file in the
Zone 17 Local Facilities Management Plan, dated April 12, 2002 (previously distributed;
Planning Department
copy on tile in the Planning Department)
Fiscal Impact Analysis of Master Plan MP 178 and Related Documents, dated April 11, 2002
(previously distributed; copy on file in the Planning Department).
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDINANCE NO. NS-634
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE BRESSI RANCH
GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT AND
EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 17.
CASE NAME: BRESSI RANCH
CASE NO.: ZC 98-04
WHEREAS, the Bressi Ranch Zone Change is in conformance with the City of
Carlsbad Draft Habitat Management Plan for the subject property as well as current city
ordinances; and
ZONE CHANGE ZC 98-04 ON APPROXIMATELY 585.1 ACRES
WHEREAS, the City Council did on the 9th day of JULY
2002 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Zone Change as shown
on Exhibit "ZC 98-04" dated June 5,2002 , incorporated by reference.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad does ordain as
follows:
SECTION I: That the Zone Change ZC 98-04 dated June 5, 2002 on file in the
Planning Department, and incorporated by reference herein, is approved. The Zone Change
shall constitute the zoning for the property and all development shall conform to the zoning.
SECTION II: That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission in
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5203 shall also constitute the findings and conditions of
the City Council.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its
adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be
published at least once in a publication of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within
fifteen days after its adoption.
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at the regular meeting of the Carlsbad City
Council on the 9th day of JULY 2002, and thereafter.
Ordinance NS-634 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
la
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Carlsbad, California, 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)
Ordinance NS-634 Page 2 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDINANCE NO. NS-635
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE BRESSI RANCH
MASTER PLAN, MP 178 ON APPROXIMATELY 585.1 ACRES
GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT AND
EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 17.
CASE NAME: BRESSI RANCH
CASE NO.: MP 178
WHEREAS, the Bressi Ranch Master Plan is in conformance with the City of
Carlsbad Draft Habitat Management Plan for the subject property as well as current city
ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did on the day of
2002 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Master Plan as shown on
Exhibit "BRESSI RANCH MASTER PLAN - MP 178" dated June 2002, incorporated by
reference.
NOW, THEREFORE, the'City Council of the City of Carlsbad does ordain as
follows:
SECTION I: That the Master Plan 178 dated June 2002 on file in the Planning
Department, and incorporated by reference herein, is approved. The Master Plan shall
constitute the development plan for the property and all development within the plan area shall
conform to the plan except that no development shall occur on the proposed site at the
southwest corner of Palomar Airport Road and Melrose Drive in Planning Area No. 5 unless first
reviewed after notice and public hearing by the Planning Commission and approved by the City
Council.
SECTION II: That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission in
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5204 shall also constitute the findings and conditions of
the City Council.
Ordinance NS-635 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
I
8
9
la
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
1s
2c
21
22
2:
2L
2:
2t
2;
2f
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its
adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be
published at least once in a publication of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within
fifteen days after its adoption.
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at the regular meeting of the Carlsbad City
Council on the 9th day of JULY 2002, and thereafter.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the day of 2002, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
Ordinance NS-635 Page 2 of 2
JUNE 5,2002
EXISTING:
PROPOSED:
L-C
P-c
SITE
BRESSI RANCH
ZC 98-04
BRESSI RANCH
E I R 98-04/G PA 98-03/
ZC 98-041MP 1 78/LFMP I 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1c
11
12
i3
14
15
16
17
1s
IS
2(
21
2;
2:
2L
25
2t
2;
2f
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5201
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CERTIFICATION OF A PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT, EIR 98-04, FOR THE BRESSI RANCH
MASTER PLAN (MP 178) AND RELATED APPLICATIONS,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND THE MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT
ROAD AND EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL WITHIN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 17.
CASE NAME: BRESSI RANCH
CASE NO.: EIR 98-04
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
WHEREAS, Lennar Bressi Ranch Venture, LLC, ‘‘Developer/Owner,”
has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Parcel “A” of Boundary Adjustment 543, Document No. 1999-
0085753 on file in the Office of the San Diego County
Recorder, February 11, 1999; and, Parcel “B” of Boundary
Adjustment 543, Document No. 1999-0085753 on file in the
Office of the San Diego County Recorder, February 11,1999.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared in
conjunction with said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 5th day of June 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 Program EIR, Statement of Overriding Considerations and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, analyzing the information submitted by staff,
and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Program EIR.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Phning
Commission as follows:
/3
1
2
3
4
6 ”
t
? I
E
s
1C
11
12
12
14
1:
1t
1;
1t
15
2(
21
2;
2:
2L
2:
2t
2:
21
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That the Final Program Environmental Impact Report consists of the Final
Environmental Impact Report, EIR 98-04, dated April, 2002, appendices,
written comments and responses to comments, as amended to include the
comments and documents of those testifymg at the public hearing and responses
thereto hereby found to be in good faith and reason by incorporating a copy of the
minutes of said public hearing into the report, all on file in the Planning
Department incorporated by this reference, and collectively referred to as
the “Report”.
That the Environmental Impact Report EIR 98-04, as so amended and evaluated
is recommended for acceptance and certification as the final Environmental
Impact Report and that the final Environmental Impact Report as recommended is
adequate and provides reasonable information on the project and all reasonable
and feasible alternatives thereto, including no project.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS CERTIFICATION of the Program
Environmental Impact Report, EIR 98-04; RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of
the Candidate Findings of Fact (“CEQA Findings”), attached hereto marked
Exhibit “EIR-B” and incorporated by this reference; RECOMMENDS
APPROVAL of the Statement of Overriding Considerations (“Statement”),
attached hereto marked Exhibit “EIR-B” and incorporated by this
reference; and RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program (“Program”), attached hereto marked Exhibit
“EIR-C” and incorporated by this reference; based on the following findings
and subject to the following conditions:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find that the Final
Program EIR 98-04, the Candidate Findings of Fact, the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations have been prepared
in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State
EIR Guidelines, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Carlsbad.
2. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and
considered Final Program EIR 98-04, the environmental impacts therein identified for
this project; the Candidate Findings of Fact (“Findings” or “CEQA Findings”) and the
Statement of Overriding Considerations attached hereto as Exhibit “EIR-B” and the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“Program”) attached hereto as Exhibit
“EIR-C”, prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of this project.
3. The Planning Commission finds that Final Program EIR 98-04 reflects the
independent judgment of the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission.
4. The Planning Commission does accept as its own, incorporate as if set forth in full
herein, and make each and every one of the findings contained in the CEQA Findings
PC RES0 NO. 5201 -2- /4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5.
6.
7.
(Exhibit “EIR-B”), including feasibility of mitigation measures pursuant to Public
Resources Code 21081 and CEQA Guidelines 15091, and infeasibility of project
alternatives.
The Planning Commission hereby finds that the Program is designed to ensure that
during project implementation the Developer and any other responsible parties implement
the project components and comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified in
the CEQA Findings and the Program.
Although certain significant or potentially significant environmental effects caused by the
project will remain, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures and any
feasible alternatives, there are specific economic, social and other considerations that
render the unavoidable significant adverse environmental effects acceptable, as set forth
in the Statement.
The Record of Proceedings for this project consists of the Report, CEQA Findings,
Statement and Program; all reports, applications, memoranda, maps, letters and
other planning documents prepared by the planning consultant, the project
Applicant, the environmental consultant, and the City of Carlsbad that are before
the decision makers and on file in the Planning Department; all documents
submitted by members of the public and public agencies in connection with the EIR
on the project; and matters of common knowledge to the City of Carlsbad which
they consider including but not limited to, the Carlsbad General Plan, Carlsbad
Zoning Ordinance, and Local Facilities Management Plan which may be found at
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive in the custody of the City Clerk, and 1635 Faraday
Avenue in the custody of the Director of Planning.
..
Conditions:
1.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
The Developer shall implement the mitigation measures described in Exhibit “EIR-
C”, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, for the mitigation measures
and monitoring programs applicable to development of the Bressi Ranch Master
Plan Project.
PC RES0 NO. 5201 -3- /5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1$
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of June 2002, by the
~~ ..
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Heineman, Trigas,
White, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Dominguez
ABSTAIN: None
SEENA TRIGAS, CKairpQson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
PC RES0 NO. 5201 -4-
EXHIBIT “EIR-B”
CITY OF CARLSBAD RESOLUTION
NO.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
FINDINGS OF FACT
(Public Resources Code 5 21081 CEQA Guidelines 5 15091)
and
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
(CEQA Guidelines § 15093)
for the
FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR 98-04)
BRESSI RANCH MASTER PLAN (2002) MP 00-178
(SCH No. 99041010)
1. INTRODUCTION
Final Program Environmental Impact Report (hereafter “Final Program EIR’ or “FPEIR’)
has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act to address the potential
environmental effects of the Bressi Ranch Master Plan (2002) and associated actions (hereafter
“Proposed Project”) and considered by the City in connection with its public consideration of
requested approvals for the Proposed Project. While the full scope of the Proposed Project and
associated approvals are more detailed in Section 1.3 below, the Proposed Project generally consists
of development of not more than 623 residential units, 2,160,500 square feet ofplanned industrial
and office, a maximum of 130,000 square feet of commercial, church, boys and girls club, day care,
assisted living, a maximum of 138,000 square feet of community facilities and/or private school on
585.1 gross acres in the Southeast Quadrant of the City, together with appurtenant public facilities,
streets, parks, speciesihabitat natural preserve areas, and other open space. The Final Program EIR
also analyzed the environmental effects of a range ofproject alternatives as well. The Final Program
EIR and its separately bound technical appendices are incorporated herein by reference as though
fully set forth.
1.1 Purpose of CEQA Findings; Terminology. CEQA Findings play an important role
in the consideration of projects for which an EIR is prepared. Under PRC 521081 and Guidelines
515091 above, where a final EIR identifies one or more significant environmental effects, aproject
may not be approved until the public agency makes written findings supported by substantial
evidence in the administrative record as each of the significant effects. In turn, the three possible
findings specified in Guidelines 515091(a) are:
CEQA Findings of Facts Exhibit “EIR-B
and Statement of Overriding Considerations 1 5/29/02 /7
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
(2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such
other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
In turn, Guidelines §15092(b) provides that no agency shall approve a project for which an
EIR was prepared unless either:
(1) The project as approved will not have a significant effect on the environment, or
(2) The agency has:
(A) Eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects where feasible as
shown in the findings under Section 15091, and
(B) Determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found
to be unavoidable under Section 15091 are acceptable due to overriding
concerns as described in Section 15093.
Based on the foregoing, the Guidelines do not provide a bright distinction between the meaning of
“avoid” or “substantially lessen”. The applicable Guidelines are based on PRC $2 108 1, which uses
the phrase “mitigate or avoid”, and hence it is generally considered that to “avoid” is to include
changes or alterations that result in the significant effect being reduced to below a level of
significance. In contrast, the phrase “substantially lessen” is used to describe changes or alterations
that materially reduce the significant effect, but not below a level of significance, thus, while
mitigated, the effect remains significant. These Findings will distinguish, for the purposes ofclarity,
between effects that have been “avoided” (thereby reduced below a level of significance) and those
that have been “substantially lessened” (and thus remain significant).
In combination with the mitigation and monitoring program discussed immediately below,
the following Findings and Statement of Ovemding Considerations are binding obligations of the
project to implement all required mitigation measures.
1.2 Purpose and Legal Authorities. The California Environmental Quality Act (hereafter
“CEQA”) was adopted in 1970 and is codified in CaliforniaPublic Resources Code $5 21000 et.seq.
(hereafter “PRC 521000”). CEQA is an important environmental law applicable to most public
agency decisions to carry out, authorize or approve projects that could have adverse effects on the
environment. CEQA does not directly regulate project implementation or approvals through
substantive standards or prohibitions, but rather CEQA generally requires only that agencies inform
themselves about the potential environmental effects of a Proposed Project, carefully consider all
pertinent environmental information effects of a Proposed Project, carefully consider all pertinent
environmental information before they act, provide the public an opportunity to review and comment
CEQA Findings of Facts Exhibit “EIR-B”
and Statement of Overriding Considerations 2 5/29/02
on any environmental issues, and include conditions or other requirements to avoid or reduce
potential significant adverse effects of the project or action when feasible.
The City has codified environmental protection procedures implementing CEQA and the
state administrative guidelines issued pursuant to CEQA in Carlsbad Municipal Code, Chapter
19.04. Chapter 19.04 provides for the protection and enhancement of the environment by
establishing principles, objectives, criteria, definitions and procedures for evaluation ofboth public
and private projects, implementing CEQA and the state guidelines and providing for the preparation
and evaluation of environmental documents in accordance therewith. The City’s consideration of
Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations are key steps in the process of
considering the approval of the Proposed Project while concurrently protecting and enhancing the
environment. The applicable standards and scope of the City’s responsibilities are detailed in the
following excerpts ffom the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14,
Chapter 3, $5 15000 et. seq.; hereafter “Guidelines $15000”).
Guidelines 515040. Authority Provided by CEQA.
(a) CEQA is intended to be used in conjunction with discretionary powers granted to
public agencies by other laws.
(b) CEQA does not grant an agency new powers independent of the powers granted to the
agency by other laws.
(c) Where another law grants an agency discretionary powers, CEQA supplements those
discretionary powers by authorizing the agency to use the discretionarypowers to mitigate or
avoid significant effects on the environment when it is feasible to do so with respect to
projects subject to the powers of the agency. Prior to January 1, 1983, CEQA provided
implied authority for an agency to use its discretionary powers to mitigate or avoid
significant effects on the environment. Effective January 1, CEQA provides express
authority to do so.
(d) The exercise of the discretionary powers may take forms that had not been expected
before the enactment of CEQA, but the exercise must be within the scope of the power.
(e) The exercise of discretionary powers for environmental protection shall be consistent
with express or implied limitations provided by other laws.
Guidelines 515041. Authority to Mitigate.
Within the limitations described in Section 15040,
(a) A lead agency for a project has authority to require feasible changes in any or all
activities involved in the project in order to substantially lessen or avoid significant effects on the
environment, consistent with applicable constitutional requirements such as the“nexus”and“rough
proportionality” standards established by case law (Nollart 1’. Californin Coastal Commission (1987)
483 U.S. 825; Dofan v. City of Tigar, (1994) 512 U.S. 374; Ehrlich v. Cityof Culver City, (1996)
12 Cal. 4“ 854.).
CEQA Findings of Facts Exhibit “EIR-B
and Statement of Ovemiding Considerations 3 5/29/02 /9
(b) When apublic agency acts as a responsible agency for a project, the agency shall have
more limited authority than a lead agency. The responsible agency may require changes in a project
to lessen or avoid only the effects, either direct or indirect, of that part of the project which the
agency will be called on to carry out or approve.
(c) With respect to a project which includes housing development, a lead~or respnnsible
agency shall not reduce the proposed number ofhousing units as a mitigation measure or alternative
to lessen a particular significant effect on the environment if that agency determines that there is
another feasible, specific mitigation measure or alternative that would provide a comparable
lessening of the significant effect.
Guidelines 315042. Authority to Disapprove Projects.
A public agency may disapprove a project if necessary in order to avoid one or more
significant effects on the environment that would occur ifthe project were approved as proposed. A
lead agency has broader authority to disapprove a project that does a responsible agency. A
responsible agency may refuse to approve a project in order to avoid direct or indirect environmental
effects of that part of the project that the responsible agency would be called on to carry out or
approve. For example, an air quality management district acting as a responsible agency would not
have authority to disapprove a project for water pollution effects that were unrelated to the air quality
aspects of the project regulated by the district.
Guidelines 515043. Authority to Approve Projects Despite Significant Effects.
A public agency may approve a project even though the project would cause a significant
effect on the environment if the agency makes a fully informed and publicly disclosed decision that:
(a) There is no feasible way to lessen or avoid the significant effect (see Section 15091);
and
(b) Specifically identified expected benefits kom the project outweigh the policy ofreducing
or avoiding significant environmental impacts of the project. (See Section 15093.)
Guidelines 315090. Certification of the Final EIR
(a) Prior to approving a project the lead agency shall certify that:
(1) The final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA;
(2) The final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency
and that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information
contained in the final EIR prior to approving the project; and
(3) The final EIR reflects the lead agency’s independent judgement and analysis.
(b) When an EIR is certified by a non-elected decision-making body within a local lead
agency, that certification may be appealed to the local lead agency’s elected decision-making body,
if one exists. For example, certification of an EIR for a tentative subdivision map by a city’s
CEQA Findings of Facts Exhibit “EIR-B*
and Statement of Overriding Considerations 4 5/29/02
planning commission may be appealed to the city council. Each local lead agency shall provide for
such appeals.
Guidelines §15091. Findings.
The purpose of this resolution is to adopt the findings required by this CEQA Guideline
section and the underlying California Public Resource Code 4 201 8 1.
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been
certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the
public agency makes one or more written findings for each ofthose significant effects, accompanied
by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the final EIR.
(2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have
been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other
agency.
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
(b) The findings required by subsection (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence inthe
record.
(c) The finding in subsection (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has
concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or
alternatives. The finding in subsection (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting
identified mitigation measures and project alternatives.
(d) When making the findings required in subsection (a)(l), the agency shall also adopt a
program for reporting on or monitoring the changes, which it has either required in the project or
made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects.
These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.
(e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other
materials which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based.
(f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings
required by this section.
Guidelines 5 150364. Feasible.
CEQA Findings of Facts Exhibit "EIR-B"
and Statement of Overriding Considerations 5 5/29/02
Feasible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable
period of time taking into consideration economic, environmental, legal, social and
technological factors. Feasibility must also be considered in the context of alternatives
which obtain most of the basic objections of the Project, but would avoid and substantially
lessen any significant effects of the Project. See Guideline 5 15126.6(a).
Guidelines 515092. Approval.
(a) After considering the final EIR and in conjunction with making findings under Section
15091, the lead agency may decide whether or how to approve or cany out the project.
(b) A public agency shall not decide to approve or carry out a project for which an EIR was
prepared unless either:
(1) The project as approved will not have a significant effect on the environment, or
(2) The agency has:
(A) Eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the
environment where feasible as shown in findings under Section 15091, and
(B) Determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment
found to be unavoidable under Section 15091 are acceptable due to
overriding concerns as described in Section 15093.
(c) With respect to a project which includes housing development, the public agency shall
not reduce the proposed number of housing units as a mitigation measure if it determines that there is
another feasible mitigation measure available that will provide a comparable level of mitigation.
1.3 Program Environmental Impact Report Process. In accordance with CEQA, the
Guidelines and Chapter 19.04, the City considered an Initial Study. Based on the Initial Study, the
City concluded that the Proposed Project could have a significant impact on the environment and
that preparation of an environmental impact report was necessary and issued its Notice of
Preparation (“NOP”) on March 29, 1999. The NOP was distributed to all Responsible and Trustee
Agencies, as well as other agencies and members ofthe public. Subsequently, a Revised NOP was
issued on February 14,2001 to reflect changes to the Proposed Project and off-site improvements. A
number of written responses were received, and the City held a public scoping meeting in order to
increase opportunities for public input. The scoping session took place on April 29, 1999 at the
City’s Public Safety Center. At the scoping session, the public was invited to comment on the scope
and content of the EIR. Approximately 10 people signed in at the scoping session and comments
were received and considered in both verbal and written form. After consideration of all of the
foregoing the City developed a detailed “EIR 98-04 - Bressi Ranch Master Plan Program EIR Scope
of Work Letter” dated May 24, 1999 establishing the details of the Program EIR requirements. A
copy of the Initial Study, NOP, the written comments received in response to the NOP and public
scoping session are included in Volume I Appendix A to the Final Program EIR.
The May 24, 1999 City “Scope of Work” letter, after consideration of the Initial Study,
Scoping session comments and other comments on response to the NOP, identified the need and
CEQA Findings of Facts Exhibit “EIR-B
and Statement of Overriding Considerations 6 5/29/02
instructed that the Draft Program EIR to analyze the potential for environmental impacts associated
with the following twelve substantive potential impact areas in the Environmental Impact Analysis
section: - Land Use and Planning
- TrafficiCirculation - Air Quality
- Noise - Geology/Soils
- Biological Resources - Cultural Resources
- Agricultural Resources - Visual AestheticdGrading
- Public Services and Utilities - Water QualitykIydrology
- Hazardous Materials and Hazards
Additionally, the Draft EIR was directed to include other CEQA substantive sections including
Executive Summary, Project Description, Cumulative Effects, Effects Found Not to Be
Significant, Growth Inducing Effects and Alternatives. Because of the scope of the Proposed
Project, a Program EIR was determined to be the most useful and appropriate form of EIR.
Guidelines $15 168 establishes the benefits of a Program EIR as follows:
Guidelines $15168. Program EIR
(a) General. A program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that
can be characterized as one large project and are related either:
(1) Geographically,
(2) As logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions,
(3) In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to
govern the conduct of a continuing program, or
(4) As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or
regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be
mitigated in similar ways.
(b) Advantages. Use of a program EIR can provide the following advantages. The program
EIR can:
(1) Provide an occasion for a more exhaustive consideration of effects and
alternatives than would be practical in an EIR on an individual action,
(2) Ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case-by-
case analysis,
(3) Avoid duplicative reconsideration of basic policy considerations,
CEQA Findings of Facts Exhibit “EIR-B
and Statement of Ovemding Considerations 7 5/29/02
(4) Allow the lead agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program wide
mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal
with basic problems or cumulative impacts,
(5) Allow reduction in paperwork.
~ ~.
(c) Use With Later Activities. Subsequent activities in the program must be examined in the
light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be
prepared:
..
(1) If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR,
a new initial study would need to be prepared leading to either an EIR or a negative
declaration.
(2) If the agency finds that pursuant Guideline !j 15 162 and Public Resource Code !j
2 11 66, no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures would be required,
the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered
by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required.
(3) An agency shall incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives
developed in the program EIR into subsequent actions in the program.
(4) Where the subsequent activities involve site-specific operations, the agency
should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation ofthe site
and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects ofthe operation were
covered in the program EIR.
(5) A program EIR will be most helpful in dealing with subsequent activities if it
deals with the effects of the program as specifically and comprehensively as possible.
With a good and detailed analysis ofthe program, many subsequent activities could
be found to be within the scope of the project described in the program EIR, and no
further environmental documents would be required.
(d) Use With Subsequent EIR’s and Negative Declarations. A program EIR can be used to
simplify the task ofpreparing environmental documents on later parts ofthe program. The program
EIR can:
(1) Provide the basis in an initial study for determining whether the later activity
may have any significant effects.
(2) Be incorporated by reference to deal with regional influences, secondary effects.
cumulative impacts, broad alternatives, and other factors that apply to the program
asa whole.
(3) Focus an EIR on a subsequent project to permit discussion solely ofnew effects
which had not been considered before.
CEQA Findings of Facts Exhibit “EIR-B
and Statement of Overriding Considerations 8 5/29/02
(e) Notice With Later Activities. When a law other than CEQA requires public notice
when the agency later proposes to carry out or approve an activity within the program and to rely on
the program EIR for CEQA compliance, the notice for the activity shall include a statement that:
(1) This activity is within the scope of the program approved earlier, and
(2) The program EIR adequately describes the activity for the purposes of CEQA.
On January%, 2002 the Draft Program EIR was published and the City duly notified
interested Responsible and Trustee Agencies, as well as other interested agencies and sent out
“Notice(s) of Completion of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Bressi Ranch Master Plan
Project” to all members of the public who had signed on the interested party list at the scoping
session or otherwise requested notification, as well as to all property owners within 600 feet of the
Proposed Project area based on the most recent tax assessor’s rolls. The “Notice of Completion”
commenced an initial 45 day public review and comment period expiring on February 21,2002. The
“Notice of Completion” advised that the Draft Program EIR was available, and it was in fact
available, for review at four locations: the City of Carlsbad Planning Department (1635 Faraday
Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008); the City Clerk’s Office (1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA
92008); the Carlsbad Main Public Library (1775 Dove Lane, Carlsbad, CA 92009) and Carlsbad’s
Georgina Cole Public Library (1250 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008). Complete copies
were also available for purchase, with or without the Appendices, through the Planning Department.
The City established the cost of purchased copies at less than the actual reproduction cost.
~. ..
Following expiration of the public review and comment period to the Draft Program EIR,
every written comment letter was reviewed and written responses were prepared. The written public
comments and the written responses thereto are contained in the Final Program EIR.
On June 5, 2002 the City Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to
consider, among other things, Certification ofthe Final Program EIR in accordance with CEQA, the
Guidelines and Chapter 19.04. By Planning Commission Resolution No. 5201 the Planning
Commission certified the Final Program EIR as complete. Resolution No. 5201 is incorporated
herein by reference as though fully set forth.
1.4 Description of Proposed Project. The Proposed Project is the implementation ofthe
Bressi Ranch Master Plan as proposed by the Lennar Bressi Ranch Venture, LLC. The Bressi Ranch
Master Plan is a land use plan and policy document that will guide the development of an
approximately 585.1-acre area through a comprehensive set of guidelines, regulations, and
implementation programs. The Master Plan defines the allowable type and intensity of land uses,
provides detailed development and design criteria and describes how the Master Plan will be
implemented.
The proposed land uses for the Master Plan include single-family residential, multi-family
residential, local shopping center, industrial, community facilities and open space. The Master Plan
also identifies the phasing and development of infrastructure needed to support proposed land uses
(e.g., drainage, sewer, water, etc.). A maximum of 623 dwelling units, 2,160,500 square feet of
planned industrial, office, and research and development are proposed in the residential and
industrial portions of the Master Plan. The mixed-use portion of the Master Plan would allow a
maximum of I30,OOO square feet of commercial, church, boys and girls club, day care, assisted
CEQA Findings of Facts Exhibit “EIR-B
and Statement of Overriding Considerations 9 5/29/02
living, and 100 units maximum of high density residential. Also, the Master Plan would allow a
maximum of 138,000 square feet ofcommunity facilities and/or private school. Approximately 33%
of the Master Plan area consists of open space.
Offsite Poinsettia Lane. The project may also include the offsite construction ofPoinsettia
Lane and ifrequired a connection to El Fuerte Street if it is needed for the development-ofthe Bressi
Ranch prior to the development of the property between the Bressi Ranch and El Camino Real (the
Villages of La Costa).
1.5 Discretionary Actions. The necessary discretionary actions considered and to be acted
on by the City, other than certification ofthe Final Program EIR, include the following discretionary
actions on the Proposed Project:
1.5.1 General Plan Amendment. The project applicant isrequesting anamendment tothe
General Plan. The amendment consists of a change to the General Plan land use designations as
follows:
Existine General Plan
RL - Residential Low
RLM - Residential LowMedium
RM - Residential Medium
UA - Unplanned
OS - Open Space
Proposed General Plan
P-I - Planned industrial
L - Local Shopping Center
RLM - Residential LowMedium
RM - Residential Medium
RH - Residential High
OS ~ Open Space
CF - Community Facilities
P - Private School
1.5.2 Local Facilities Management Plan (Zone 17). The Local Facilities Management
Pian is required to reflect land use for Zone 17 of the City. Per the requirements of the Carlsbad
Growth Management Program, Zone 17 must be consistent with the General Plan land use
designation proposed by the Master Plan. The Zone 17 LFMP will demonstrate how and
approximately when each public facility will be developed within Zone 17 to accommodate the
proposed development.
1.5.3 Master Plan. The proposed Master Plan provides land uses and development
standards for the project site.
1.5.4 Zone Change. The Proposed Project will change the existing zoning ofthe project
site of Limited Control (L-C) to Planned Community (P-C). Since the P-C zone does not have
development standards the Master Plan will identify zoning ofRD-M, R-1, P-M, 0-S, C-2, and C-F
to implement the proposed General Plan designations.
1.5.5 Hillside Development Permit. A Hillside Development Permit is required for all
projects with a slope gradient of 15% or greater and a slope height of 15 feet or greater. The
approval of a Hillside Development Permit will ensure that the proposed grading is in conformance
with the requirements of Carlsbad’s Hillside Development Ordinance.
1.5.6 Tentative Map. The Master Tentative Map will not authorize the development of
individual dwelling units. The Master Tentative Map will subdivide the project area into 15 PAS and
six Open Space Areas and create the pads for the industrial portions, which are located in PAS 1,
2,3,4,5, and 14. This map will allow for the transfer ofownership of the individual Planning Areas
and the large lots created in the non-residential portion of the Master Plan.
1.5.7 Special Use Permits. Special Use Permits are required for grading and development
of the portion of the Master Plan within the El Camino Real Scenic Corridor. A very small portion
of the project site is located in the 100-year floodplain, thereby necessitating a second Special Use
Permit for flood plain development as defined in Section 21.1 10.130 of the Carlsbad Zoning Code.
Subsequent discretionary approvals that will be required prior to development of the Master Plan
areas will include one or more of the following listed below.
1.5.8 Tentative Map. One or more Tentative Maps will be required to subdivide the
residential neighborhoods to create individual lots or ownership units. Tentative maps may also be
submitted to further subdivide the commercial and industrial portions of the Master Plan.
1.5.9 Planned Unit Development Permits. These permits will be processed pursuant to
the Master Plan and Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and will be submitted with any
tentative map that creates lots less than 7,500 square feet in size or ownership multifamily units. A
Non-Residential Planned Development Permit pursuant to Chapter 21.47 will be submitted with any
non-residential tentative map that creates industrial lots less than one acre in,size, lots that do not
have frontage on a public street, or lots that share a common point of access or propose shared
parking.
1.5.10 Conditional Use Permits. Pursuant to the Master Plan and Chapter 21.42 and
21.25 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, Conditional Use Permits will be submitted for the
development of a church, private school, other community facility type use, assisted care facility,
service station, or day care.
1.5.11 Site Development Plan. A Site Development Plan is required by the Master Plan to
be submitted for the development of affordable apartment units, the community recreation center, the
overall design of the mixed uses in PA 15 and the commercial development in PAS 14 and 13.
1.5.12 Planned Industrial Permit. Pursuant to the Master Plan and Chapter 21.34 ofthe
Carlsbad Municipal Code, one or more Planned Industrial Permit(s) shall be processed for all
development in PAS 1,2,3,4,5, and 14.
1.6 Environmental Setting. The proposed Bressi Ranch Master Plan project site is located
in the City of Carlsbad in northwestern San Diego County. Regional access to the site is provided by
Interstate 5 (I-5), located approximately 3.5 miles to the west. The project site is located at the
southeast comer of Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real. Local access to the project site is
CEQA Findings ofFacts Exhibit “EIR-E”
and Statement of Overriding Considerations 11 5/29/02
currently provided via Palomar Airport Road, El Camino Real, and Melrose Drive. The Master Plan
project site is located within the southeast quadrant of the City of Carlsbad, within Local Facilities
Management Zone 17 (LFMZ 17) as established in the City’s Growth Management Plan.
The project may also include the offsite construction ofpoinsettia Lane if it is needed forthe
development of the Bressi Ranch prior to the development of the property between theBressi Ranch
and El Camino Real (the Villages of La Costa).
The topography of the project site is characterized by high terraces and canyons crosscut by
numerous drainages. Most of the project site has been disturbed by agricultural operations and is
presently being cultivated; however, native vegetation also exists in habitat “islands” on slopes too
steep for agricultural use. Elevations range from 125 feet above mean sea level (MSL) in the
southeast portion of the project site to 460 feet above MSL in the northeast portion of the site.
Currently, the project area is being dry farmed and there are two locations on the project site
that contain structures. The structures include a residence and an agriculture-related structure.
Adjacent to the residence is a storage area for trailerdstorage containers and miscellaneous farm
equipment. Existing land uses immediately surrounding the site consist of Carlsbad Oaks industrial
park to the north, the planned community of Villages of La Costa to the south (proposed), the
recently developed planned community of Rancho Canillo to the east, and the Palomar Airport
Business Park to the west (west of El Camino Real).
The McClellan-Palomar Airport is located northwest of the project site at the northwest
comer of Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real. A portion of the Master Plan site lies within
the McClellan-Palomar Airport Influence Area. The northem and westemmost portion ofthe site is
within the airport’s Flight Activity Zone, while the northwest comer is located within the runway
protection zone.
More detailed descriptions of the property area and its environs is set forth in the Final
Program EIR at pages 4-1 through 5.12-7 and incorporated herein by this reference.
1.7 Mitigation Monitoring Program. Pursuant to PRC $21081.6, the City has also
adopted a detailed mitigation and monitoring program prepared by the EIR consultant under the
direction of the City. The program is designed to assure that all mitigation measures as hereafter
required are in fact implemented on a timely basis as the Proposed Project progresses through its
development and construction phases. Compliance with the “Bressi Ranch Master Plan (2002)
Mitigation and Monitoring Program” (a copy of which is attached to this Resolution as
“Attachment B”) is a condition of any City approvals and incorporated herein by this reference.
1.8 Record of Proceedings. For all purposes of CEQA compliance, including these
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, the administrative record of all City
proceedings and decisions regarding the environmental analysis of the Proposed Project shall include
but are not limited to the following:
The Draft and Final Program EIR for the Proposed Project, together with all appendices and
technical reports referred to therein, whether separately bound or not;
CEQA Findings of Facts Exhibit “EIR-B
and Statement of Overriding Considerations 12 5/29/02
All reports, letters, applications, memoranda, maps or other planning and engineering
documents prepared by the City, planning consultant, environmental consultant, project
applicant or others presented to or before the decision-makers as determined by the City
Clerk;
All letters, reports or other documents submitted to the City by members of the public or
public agencies in connection with the City's environmental analysis on the Proposed
Project;
All minutes of any public workshops, meetings or hearings, including the scoping session,
and any recorded or verbatim transcriptshideotapes thereof;
Any letters, reports or other documents or other evidence submitted into the record at any
public workshops, meetings or hearings; and
Matters of common general knowledge to the City which they may consider, including
applicable state or local laws, ordinances and policies, the General Plan and all applicable
planning programs and policies of the City.
The custodian of the full administrative record shall be the City Clerk's Office, 1200
Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, provided however that portions of the record may be
contained in other offices of the City.
2. FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, REQUIRED MITIGATION MEASURES AND
SUPPORTING FACTS
2.1 Traffic/Circulation
2.1.1 Existing Plus Project Traffic
Impact. Significant direct project impacts prior to the application of mitigation
measures, are expected at the following intersection locations:
1) Palomar Airport Roam1 Fuerte Street
2) Palomar Airport Roadhielrose Drive
Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified
direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measure T1. The City has established mitigation for project-related
traffic impacts that includes payment of a Traffic Impact Fee (TIF). A TIF is defined as
improvements identified in the Carlsbad Traffic Impact Fee Study or improvements as of the type
described below that are not directly associated with other development within the City ofcarlsbad.
Prior to recordation of a final map, issuance of gradingpermit or building permit, whichever
occurs first within Zone 17, a financing guarantee shall be provided via an improvement agreement
for the construction of El Fuerte Street from Palomar Airport Road to the southern Zone 17 boundary
CEQA Findings of Facts Exhibit."EIR-B
and Statement of Overriding Considerations 13 5129102
which shall be in accordance with Section 66462 ofthe Subdivision Map Act and Section 20.16.060
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
El Fuerte Street from Palomar Airport Road to the southern zone boundary shall be
constructed prior to occupancy of any building as a four lane secondary arterial, and shall include the
following: ~. ..
Complete south leg improvements and dual left turn lanes on westbound Palomar
Airport Road, complete second left turn only lane on southbound El Fuerte Street at
Palomar Airport Road, complete southbound throughhght turn lane and southbound
right turn only lane at intersection with Palomar Airport Road.
- Construct new intersection with traffic signal at El FuerteiBressi North Access
intersection.
- Construct new intersection with traffic signal at El FuerteiBressi Central Access
intersection.
- Construct new intersection with traffic signal at El FuerteiBressi South Access
intersection.
Mitigation Measure T2. Prior to recordation of a final map that creates buildable
lots within Zone 17, a financing guarantee shall be provided via an improvement agreement for the
construction of Poinsettia Lane from El Camino Real to the existing terminus east of the Zone 17
boundary which shall be in accordance with Section 66462 ofthe Subdivision Map Act and Section
20.16.060 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Poinsettia Lane shall be constructed as a four lane major arterial from El Camino
Real to the existing terminus east of the Zone 17 boundary, and shall include the
following:
- Construct new intersection with traffic signal at intersection with El Fuerte Street.
Mitigation Measure T3. The portion ofPoinsettia Lane from El Camino Real to the
existing terminus east ofthe Zone 17 boundary is conditioned to be constructed by the Greens at the
Villages of La Costa development. The applicant shall provide their fair-share contribution to the
construction of Poinsettia Lane from the project’s (Zone 17) western boundary to El Camino Real.
Should the Villages of La Costa development not proceed as planned, the project applicant shall
provide for the construction of Poinsettia Lane from the project’s easterly boundary to El Camino
Real. However, the Villages of La Costa has been approved by the City and is proceeding. As such,
the applicant’s contribution to this mitigation measure is limited to the provision of a fair-share
contribution to the construction of Poinsettia Lane as described herein.
Factual Support and Rationale. As discussed hereinbelow and furtherprovidedin
other portions of the Administrative Record in 1986, the City established a comprehensive Growth
Management Program and ordinances to address the buildout of the City. Not only were land uses
and densities of use evaluated and significantly reduced, but a critical part of the Program was
establishment of citywide performance standards for public facilities, including traffic and
CEQA Findings of Facts Exhibit “EIR-B”
and Statement of Overriding Considerations 14 5/29/02
transportation. By setting performance standards, then adequacy of facilities could be measured, and
if performance standards were not being met, then projects significantly affecting those
underperforming facilities could be conditioned, or phased, to require the facilities performance
levels be assured before development could proceed. There performance evaluations are assured
through the requirement that Local Facilities Management Plans be approved before development
may proceed in the various development zones throughout the City. Underlying the performance
standards is the principle that facilities must be provided for concurrent with the need generated by
the subsequent development.
As the Proposed Project is one of the few remaining larger infill areas in the southeast
quadrant of the City and represents the bulk of the land left for development in that area, special
analysis was applied by City staff, planning and engineering, to confirm that the traffic assumptions
and citywide traffic modeling program used for the analysis was the most current and complete. In
that regard, the generally used SANDAG traffic models and assumptions were reviewed and updated
for the City of Carlsbad and surrounding areas before the Proposed Project traffic modeling was run,
such that the City would be confident of the resulting analysis and conclusions, and importantly, that
the analysis was calibrated to reflect the currently anticipated City buildout under the Growth
Management Program and General Plan. Among other things, it was required that the Proposed
Project evaluate impacts to arterial or major intersections whenever the modeling demonstrated that
the Proposed Project would contribute 50 or more trips during either the AM or PM peak hours as a
consistently applied standard of impact, and in tum, the Citywide intersection performance standard
of LOS D is applied consistently for all intersections within the Proposed Project’s influence area.
The assumptions, methodology and rules for the study was established by the City before the study
was undertaken so that reliable and consistent conclusions could be achieved. Additionally, over
300 pending and potential future projects were evaluated prior to undertaking the selected Year
2005,201 0, and 2020 impact scenarios and to determine what additions to existing traffic flows were
likely or anticipated. In this effort, the study went far beyond the Carlsbad City limits and evaluated
projects and conditions over a significant regional area. As Carlsbad is located along Interstate 5 and
also includes many regionally significant and impacted major corridors such as Palomar Airport
Road, Rancho Santa Fe Road and El Camino Real to name a few, the traffic loads and current and
future background levels were calculated without regard to origin, whether it was local or regional
traffic. In this way, the methodology and assumptions were targeted to provide the most accurate
projections of impacts and areas ofconcem. The findings and results of all studies and reports were
carehlly reviewed by City Staff for accuracy and consistency.
As part of the City Growth Management Program, the City enacted several trafic impact and
improvement funding programs intended to generate funds to be used for area or citywide facilities.
Thoseprograms include the City CFD No. 1 Communities Facilities District, which includes all the
Proposed Project. As new development occurs, it is required to pay special taxes to the City who
then uses the taxes, or leverages future taxes to sell bonds, to finance a range of city facilities,
including major roads. Additionally, the City has certain Traffic Impact Fee programs, that raise
additional funding. The Traffic Impact Fee programs are coordinated wlth CFD No. i where
applicable. For streets that largely serve only a particular development, the developer is required to
construct and finance them outside the citywide fee programs. Finally, in certain circumstances
special funding programs may be established, or combinations of funding sources utilized.
As required in Mitigation Measure T1, prior to recordation of a final map, issuance of
grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first within Zone 17, a financing guarantee will
CEQA Findings of Facts Exhibit “EIR-B
and Statement of Overriding Considerations 15 5129102
be provided via an improvement agreement for the construction of El Fuerte Street from Palomar
Airport Road to the southern Zone 17 boundary which shall be in accordance with Section 66462 of
the Subdivision Map Act and Section 20.16.060 ofthe Carlsbad Municipal Code. El Fuene Street
from Palomar Airport Road to the southern zone boundary will be constructed prior to occupancy of
any building as a four lane secondary arterial, including completion of south leg improvements and
dual left turn lanes on westbound Palomar Airport Road, completion of second left turn only lane on
southbound El Fuerte Street at Palomar Airport Road, and completion of southbound througWright
turn lane and southbound right turn only lane at intersection with Palomar Airport Road.
Additionally, roadway improvements include construction of a new intersection with traffic signal at
El FuerteBressi North Access intersection, construct new intersection with traffic signal at El
Fuerte/Bressi Central Access intersection, construct new intersection with traffic signal at El
FuerteBressi South Access intersection.
As required in Mitigation Measure T2, prior to recordation of a final map that creates
buildable lots within Zone 17, a financing guarantee shall be provided via an improvement
agreement for the construction of Poinsettia Lane from El Camino Real to the existing terminus east
of the Zone 17 boundary which shall be in accordance with Section 66462 of the Subdivision Map
Act and Section 20.16.060 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Poinsettia Lane will be constructed as a
four lane major arterial from El Camino Real to the existing terminus east ofthe Zone 17 boundary,
including the construction of a new intersection with traffic signal at intersection with El Fuerte
Street.
As required in Mitigation Measure T3, the applicant shall provide their fair-share
contribution to the construction of Poinsettia Lane from the project’s (Zone 17) westem boundary to
El Camino Real. Should the Villages of La Costa development not proceed as planned, the project
applicant shall provide for the construction ofpoinsettia Lane from the project’s easterly boundary to
El Camino Real. However, the Villages of La Costa has been approved by the City and is
proceeding. As such, the applicant’s contribution to this mitigation measure is limited to the
provision of a fair-share contribution to the construction of Poinsettia Lane as described herein.
2.2 Air Quality
2.2.1 Short-Term Construction
Impact. The Proposed Project will result in a short-term impact to localized air
quality as a result of grading and construction activity.
Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified
direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measure AQ1. During clearing, grading, earth moving or excavation of
the project site, the following measures shall be implemented:
Control fugitive dust by regular watering, paving construction roads, or other dust
preventive measures;
Maintain equipment engines in proper tune;
Seed and water until vegetation cover is grown;
Spread soil binders;
CEQA Findings of Facts Exhibit “EIR-B
and Statement of Overriding Considerations 16 5/29/02
Wet the area down, sufficient enough to form a crust on the surface with repeated
soakings, as necessary, to maintain the crust and prevent dust pick up by the wind;
Street sweeping, should silt be carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares;
Use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas where vehicies move dirt
enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site;
Wet down areas in the late moming and after work is completed for~.the day:
Use of low sulfur fuel (0.5% by weight) for construction equipment.
Factual Support and Rationale. The foregoing fugitive dust and dirt remedies will
be effective in reducing air born dust and particulate emissions from grading operations. The
combination of on-site watering, sweeping of pavement, load requirement limitations, surfacing
onsite construction roads with controlled trip frequencies and suspension of grading activities when
winds exceed 25mph have proven to be effective in mitigating construction dust and particulate
emissions.
2.2.2 Mobile Source Emissions
Impact. Due to the entire San Diego air basin’s non-attainment status under the
Clean Air Act of 1972, as amended, the increase in the total (mobile and stationary) projected air
pollutant emission at buildout are estimated at 2,699.53 pounds per day of CO, 742.74 pounds per
day of NOx, 395.20 pounds per day of PM10, and 305.53 pounds per day of ROC is considered a
significant impact.
Finding. Mitigation Measure AQ2 will be implemented to reduce the impact to the
extent feasible; however, no feasible mitigation measures are available to mitigate this project-level
impact and the impact remains significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure AQ2. The following measures shall be implemented for all
subsequent development projects within the Master Plan area:
A commercial site designed to serve the commercial needs of the occupants of the
business park and residential areas shall be provided.
Development within Bressi Ranch shall provide traffic control devices along all
roadway segments and at intersections and interconnect and synchronize the
operation of traffic signals along arterial streets.
Development within Bressi Ranch shall encourage commuter usage of busses,
carpools and vanpools through provision of a commuter database made available on a
website.
Development within Bressi Ranch shall encourage the expansion ofbus service and
new routes into the Master Plan area by providing the bus transit facility (as
described in Section 3.0 ofthe EIR), as well as accommodating bus pullouts/ stops at
appropriate locations within the Master Plan area if requested by the North County
Transit District.
CEQA Findings of Facts Exhibit “EIR-B
and Statement of Overriding Considerations 17 5/29/02
33
Provide incentives for car pooling, flex-time, shortened work weeks, and
telecommunications and other means of reducing vehicular miles traveled.
Develop and implement employer incentive programs to encourage the placement of
strategic bicycle storage lockers, and the construction of safe and convenient bicycle
facilities. ~ ~. ..
Development within Bressi Ranch will provide shade trees to reduce building
heatingicooling needs.
Development within Bressi Ranch shall use energy efficient and automated controls
for air conditioning.
Factual Support and Rationale. The reliance on the automobile for the future
household primary mode of transportation, given the entire San Diego air basin’s non-attainment
status, makes the incremental contribution from the Proposed Project to be significant. While the air
quality in the region has been improving, the overall resolution will need to wait cleaner burning, or
less polluting, modes of transportation, and shifting the travel patterns from single occupancy
vehicles to carpooling, bus, bicycle and walking modes. This represents as much cultural as well as
facility shift, but cannot realistically be fully implemented with this Proposed Project. The Proposed
Project is a mixed-use development that has incorporated numerous pedestrian friendly principles
that reduce the reliance on the automobile. The project’s mixed-use arrangement of land uses,
landscaping and street scape will encourage pedestrian activity. The project also incorporates bike
lanes, bus stops and a range of hiking and walking trails in addition to sidewalks. Its proximity to
employment centers and recreation opportunities will also serve to reduce overall driving distances
as will the location of the multi-family housing near the transportation and employment centers.
2.2.3 Stationary Source Emissions
Impact. The Proposed Project will result in the generation of stationary source
emissions in the region through on-site consumption of energy (i.e., lighting, water, and space
heating and cooling). Stationary sources include two types: point and area. Point sources are those
which are at a specific site that has one or two emission sources or at a facility with an identified
location (e.g., power plant). Area sources comprise many small emission sources (e.g., home offices
and shops) which do not have specifically identified locations, but for which emissions can be
calculated using per unit standards. As depicted in Table 5.3-3, stationary sources will generate
approximately 14.93 pounds per day of CO, 9.13 pounds per day of NO,, 0.04 pounds per day of
PM,,, and 32.56 pounds per day of ROC.
Finding. Mitigation Measure AQ2 will be implemented to reduce the impact to the
extent feasible; however, no feasible mitigation measures are available to mitigate this project-level
impact and the impact remains significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure AQ2. The following measures shall be implemented for all
subsequent development projects within the Master Plan area:
A commercial site designed to serve the commercial needs of the occupants of the
business park and residential areas shall be provided.
CEQA Findings of Facts Exhibit “EIR-B
and Statement of Overriding Considerations 18 5/29/02
Development within Bressi Ranch shall provide traffic control devices along all
roadway segments and at intersections and interconnect and synchronize the
operation of traffic signals along arterial streets.
Development within Bressi Ranch shall encourage commuter usage of.busses,
carpools and vanpools through provision of a commuter database made available on a
website.
Development within Bressi Ranch shall encourage the expansion of bus service and
new routes into the Master Plan area by providing the bus transit facility (as
described in Section 3.0 ofthe EIR), as well as accommodating bus pullouts/ stops at
appropriate locations within the Master Plan area if requested by the North County
Transit District.
Provide incentives for car pooling, flex-time, shortened work weeks, and
telecommunications and other means of reducing vehicular miles traveled.
Develop and implement employer incentive programs to encourage the placement of
strategic bicycle storage lockers, and the construction of safe and convenient bicycle
facilities.
Development within Bressi Ranch will provide shade trees to reduce building
heatingicooling needs.
Development within Bressi Ranch shall use energy efficient and automated controls
for air conditioning.
Factual Support and Rationale. While the stationary (non-point) emissions will be
significant, the project will incorporate all measures deemedpracticable to reduce the combustion of
non-renewable energy sources for purposes of heating, cooling, cooking, and the provision of
electricity. Development within Bressi Ranch will provide shade trees to reduce building
heatingicooling needs and shall use energy efficient and automated controls for air conditioning. All
future development within the Master Plan area will comply with the applicable building code
standards related to energy conservation
2.3 Noise
Impact. Proposed land uses may be significantly impacted by on-site noise generated
by vehicular traffic on internal roadways.
Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified
direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measure N1. Development within the Master Plan area shall be designed
so as to minimize exposure to noise from external and internal roadways. Specific recommendations
for lot layout, building location, and/or noise barrier design, and location shall be made based on
detailed, site specific acoustical evaluations for each planning area development proposal to attain
CEQA Findings of Facts Exhibit "EIR-B
and Statement of Ovemding Considerations 19 5/29/02
35"
the acceptable exterior and interior noise level for residential and non-residential uses established in
the city of Carlsbad Noise Guidelines.
Factual Support and Rationale. The Master Plan will incorporate sound walls
adjacent to major roadways as necessary. The specific locations and characteristics (height,
materials) of the soundwalls will be determined with more detailed acoustical engineering analysis
when specific development plans are proposed.
Impact. Noise from aircraft operations at the McClellan-Palomar Airport will affect
the master plan area. However, no development will occur within the 65 dBA CNEL Noise Contour
line of the Airport as identified in the McClellan-Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan
(CLUB). The residential uses are compatible with the Airport’s 60 dB CNEL noise contours.
According to the City’s Noise Guidelines Manual, if a residential project is located within the 60
CNEL contour from the McClellan-Palomar Airport, the City will require the posting of Aircraft
Noise Impact Area signs in all sales offices associated with that development and require the
recordation of a Notice Concerning Aircraft Environmental Impacts.
Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified
direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measure N2. Prior to the recordation of any residential tentative maps,
the notices shall be recorded that the future homes are subject to overflight, sight and sound of
aircraft operating from McClellan-Palolar Airport.
Factual Support and Rationale. No portion of the project site planned for
residential uses is located within the 60 CNEL as identified in the CLUP. Additionally, the Master
Plan is required to comply with the requirements for the Noise Impact Notification Area. Although
no significant impact has been identified, Mitigation Measure N2 is proposed to ensure notification
is provided in compliance with the requirements of the Noise Impact Notification Area.
2.4 Geology/Soils
Impact. There is the possibility of damage to proposed structures due to excessive
settlement resulting from compression of the porous and/or loose topsoil, from swelling and
shrinkage of the siltstone and claystone soils, and from the undocumentedtrash dump located on the
site.
Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified
direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measure GS1. All future grading and construction of the project site
shall comply with the geotechnical recommendations contained in the Preliminaty Ceotechnicai
Investigation. Bressi Ranch. Carlsbad> California (Leightov anclAssociates. July 1997). This report
contains specific recommendations for mitigating geotechnical conditions related to soils earthwork,
slope stability, and ground and surface waters. All recommendations contained in thereport shall be
incorporated into all final engineering and grading plans. The soil engineer and engineering
geologist shall review the grading plans prior to finalization to verify the plan’s compliance with the
recommendations of the report. If required, a third party review of the geotechnical report and final
CEQA Fmdings of Facts Exhibit “EIR-B
and Statement of Overriding Considerations 20 5/29/02
grading plans shall be conducted by the City of Carlsbad Engineering Department prior to the
issuance of a grading permit. Compliance with this measure shall be verified by the City of
Carlsbad.
Factual Support and Rationale. The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
contains specific recommendations for mitigating geotechnical conditions related tosoils earthwork.
All recommendations contained in the report will be incorporated into all final engineering and
grading plans. The soil engineer and engineering geologist shall review the grading plans prior to
finalization to verify the plan’s compliance with the recommendations of the report. If required, a
third party review of the geotechnical report and final grading plans shall be conducted by the City of
Carlsbad Engineering Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Impact. Due to their potentially compressible nature, the landslide deposits within
the limits of the planned grading are considered unsuitable for structural support in their present
condition.
Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified
direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measure GS2. Remove (or provide some other form ofstabilization) the
ancient landslides which occur in areas of proposed development. Final recommendations for
stabilization shall be approved prior to issuance of a grading permit.
Factual Support and Rationale. The requirement to remove, or in some other way
stabilize the ancient landslides will address the potential hazard associated with this geotechnical
condition. The City Engineer will assure that all grading plans address the areas of concern and
conform to the geotechnical studies.
Impact. On the south-central portion of the site, in an area of plaimed residential, a
small landslide complex extends offsite. Additionally, on the east side of the site, the potential for a
landslide has been observed.
Finding. With the incorporation ofthe following mitigationmeasures, the identified
direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measure GS3. Prior to grading and construction of the site, an off-site
investigation of potential landslide areas shall be conducted to confirm the locations and extent of
the potential landslides. Recommendations contained in the geotechnical investigation shall be
implemented to eliminate the risk associated with the potential landslide area. Measures may
include remedial grading and/or structural setbacks. Compliance with this measure shall be verified
by the City of Carlsbad.
Factual Support and Rationale. The off-site investigation of potential landslide
areas will be conducted to confirm the locations and extent of the potential landslides. Specific
recommendations such as remedial grading will be implemented to eliminate the risk associated with
the potential landslide area. The City Engineer will assure that all grading plans address the areas of
concern and conform to the geotechnical studies.
CEQA Findings of Facts Exhibit “EIR-B
and Statement of Overriding Considerations 21 5/29/02
37
Impact. The site is likely to be subject to at least one moderate to major earthquake
during the design life of the structures. During such an earthquake, the danger from fault offset
through the site is remote, but relatively strong groundshaking is likely to occur.
Finding. With the incorporation ofthe followingmitigationmeasures, the identified
direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measure GS4. All future development ofthe project site shall adhere to
the Uniform Building Code and State building requirements in effect at the time specific
development is proposed. Compliance with this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad.
Factual Support and Rationale. The Uniform Building Code and State building
requirements contain structural and earthquake requirements to address potential damage to
structures based on certain seismic parameters known in the Southern California region.
Impact. Ground water is present in the main drainages of the site. The control of
groundwater in a hillside development is essential to reduce the potential for undesirable surface
flow, hydrostatic pressure, and the adverse effects of ground water on slope stability.
Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified
direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measure GS5. Prior to grading and construction an additional
geotechnical investigation shall be conducted to identify possible future seepage areas that could
occur during grading. Field recommendations for mitigation-of future potential seepage, as well as I
for the provision of drainage in areas known to be susceptible to groundwater accumulation shall be
provided. Compliance with this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad.
Factual Support and Rationale. Recommendations for mitigation-of future I
potential seepage, as well as for the provision of drainage in areas known to be susceptible to
groundwater accumulation will be incorporated into grading and development plans for the project.
The City Engineer will assure that all grading plans address the areas of concern and conform to the
geotechnical recommendations regarding the presence of groundwater.
Impact. Geologic conditions that need to be addressed as part of grading and
construction of off-site improvements include undocumented fill, topsoil, moderate to highly
compressible and expansive colluvium and allumium, and one small surficial landslide.
Finding. With the incorporation ofthe followingmitigationmeasures, the identified
direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a levei of significance.
Mitigation Measure GS6. All grading and construction associated with
implementation ofthe off-site improvements shall comply with the geotechnical recommendations
contained in the Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Off-Site Poinsettia Lane, Alicante Road andBorrow
Sites within the Greens of the Villages ofLa Costa, Bressi Ranch Development, Carlsbad, California
(Leighton and Associates, January 5, 2001). This report contains specific recommendations for
mitigating geotechnical conditions related to soils earthwork, slope stability, and ground and surface
waters. All recommendations contained in the report shall be incorporated into all final engineering
CEQA Findings of Facts Exhibit “EIR-B
and Statement of Overriding Considerations 22 5/29/02
38
and grading plans The soil engineer and engineering geologist shall review the grading plans prior to
finalization to verify the plans compliance with the recommendations of the report. If required, a
third party review ofthe geotechnical report and final gradingplans shall be conducted by the City of
Carlsbad Engineering Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Compliance with this
measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad.
Factual Support and Rationale. The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
contains specific recommendations for mitigating geotechcal conditions related to soils earthwork.
All recommendations contained in the report will be incorporated into all final engineering and
grading plans. The soil engineer and engineering geologist shall review the grading plans prior to
finalization to verify the plan's compliance with the recommendations of the report. If required, a
third party review of the geotechnical report and final grading plans shall be conducted by the City of
Carlsbad Engineering Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
2.5 Biological Resources
Impact. 30.9 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub will be impacted by the Proposed
Project.
Finding. With the incorporation ofthe following mitigation measures, the identified
direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measure B1. Impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub shall be mitigated by
a combination of on-site preservation consistent with the Draft HMP, as well as on-site habitat
restoration and off-site habitat acquisition. The overall mitigation ratio shall be 2:1, resulting in a
mitigation requirement of 61.8 acres (30.9 x 2).
Preservation consistent with the guidelines of the City of Carlsbad's Draft HMP, shall be
accomplished through the preservation of approximately 35.7 acres (55 percent) of the Diegan
coastal sage scrub on site. Preservation shall occur within the planned open space on site and will
include the coastal sage scrub located in the southeastern comer ofthe project site which is identified
as within Linkage D of the Preserve Planning Area (PPA). However, based on discussions with the
USFWS, only 32.3 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub conserved on-site can be used toward project
mitigation. This results in a mitigation shortfall of 29.5 acres (61.8 - 32.3).
The balance ofthe coastal sage scrub mitigation required (29.5 acres), shall be accomplished
through on-site restoration and off-site acquisition of habitat should the HMP be finalized prior to
the issuance of a Section 7. Based on the biological opinion issued by the USFWS, mitigation
acreage required for off-site acquisition is 24.5 acres. On-site restoration of 5.0 acres shall use the
duff reapplication method. This method has proven successful in rehabilitating disturbed areas by
using existing topsoil scheduled to be impacted by the project. Existing Diegan coastal sage scrub
and the first six inches of topsoil from areas supporting DCSS proposed to be impacted will be
collected. The areas proposed for restoration will be disced prior to spreading of the collected duff.
The vegetation and topsoil will be spread over the restoration areas to a depth of approximately three
inches. The areas will be weeded three times during each of the two years following the duff
application. A mitigation credit of 0.5:l for each acre restored, pursuant to the Section 7
consultation, will be allowed using this method.
CEQA Findings of Facts Exhibit "EIR-B
and Statement of Overriding Considerations 23 5/29/02
39
For example, if 20 acres of area is restored, then 10 acres of mitigation credit will be allotted
to the project. The final location and amount of area available will be determined through
consultation with the City and USFWS.
Any remaining mitigation needs for the project will be provided through off-site acquisition
of Diegan coastal sage scrub at a location acceptable to the City and the USFWS, or through
payment of a habitat acquisition fee, should the HMP be finalized prior to project implementation.
The off-site acquisition of coastal sage scrub shall be in the form of a similar type and biological
value of the coastal sage scrub impacted by the project.
This mitigation program would result in 32.3 acres of good quality DCSS conservedon-site,
an additional 5.0 acres ofhabitat restored on-site over the long-term, and an additional 24.5 acres of
habitat acquired at a mutually agreed off-site location. The mitigation is identified as part of the
Biologicai Opinion already issued for the project by the USFWS and would meet the applicant’s
potential future obligations under the HMP.
Factual Support and Rationale. The City was an active participant and signatory of
Habitat Management Program (HMP) which is a subarea plan being spearheaded by SANDAG for
regional North County. The HMP program is still proceeding and includes USFWS, CDFG and any
number of other stakeholders and environmental groups as active participants. The HMP is a
subarea plan of the larger MHCP. As such, overall standards and biological principles have been
developed and applied to all these multi-species programs.
With respect to the Bressi Ranch project, preservation consistent with the guidelines of the
City of Carlsbad’s Draft HMP will be accomplished through the preservation of approximately 35.7
acres (55 percent) of the Diegan coastal sage scrub on site. Preservation will occur within the
planned open space on site and will include the coastal sage scrub located in the southeastern comer
ofthe project site which is identified as within Linkage D PPA. However, based on discussions with
the USFWS, only 32.3 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub conserved on-site can be used toward
project mitigation. This results in a mitigation shortfall of 29.5 acres (61.8 - 32.3). The balance of
the coastal sage scrub mitigation required (29.5 acres), will be accomplished through on-site
restoration, off-site acquisition or fee payment should the HMP be finalized prior to the issuance ofa
Section 7.
Impact. The Proposed Project will directly impact the coastal California gnatcatcher,
Cooper’s Hawk, white-tailed kite, and northern harrier.
Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified
direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measure B1. Mitigation for impacts to the coastal California gnatcatcher
would be mitigated through preservation of the coastal sage scrub cited above (B-1). Additional
mitigation is not required for the other sensitive species impacted on site due to their low sensitivity
status and/or limited extent on site. Mitigation for cumulative impacts to raptor hunting habitat will
be met in conjunction with habitat mitigation discussed above.
Factual Support and Rationale. The City was an active participant and signatory of
Habitat Management Program (HMP) which is a subarea plan being spearheaded by SANDAG for
CEQA Findings of Facts Exhibit “EIR-B
and Statement of Overriding Considerations 24 5/29/02
YO
regional North County. The HMP program is still proceeding and includes USFWS, CDFG and any
number of other stakeholders and environmental groups as active participants. The HMP is a
subarea plan of the larger MHCP. As such, overall standards and biological principles have been
developed and applied to all these multi-species programs.
With respect to the Bressi Ranch project, preservation consistent with the guidelines of the
City of Carlsbad’s Draft HMP will be accomplished through the preservation of approximately 35.7
acres (55 percent) of the Diegan coastal sage scrub on site. Preservation will occur within the
planned open space on site and will include the coastal sage scrub located in the southeastern corner
ofthe project site which is identified as within Linkage D PPA. However, based on discussions with
the USFWS, only 32.3 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub conserved on-site can be used toward
project mitigation. This results in amitigation shortfall of 29.5 acres (61.8 - 32.3). The balance of
the coastal sage scrub mitigation required (29.5 acres), will be accomplished through on-site
restoration, off-site acquisition or fee payment should the HMP be finalized prior to the issuance of a
Section 7.
Impact. Wetland habitats impacted include cismontain alkali marsh (0.02 acre),
southern willow scrub (0.08 acre), southern willow scrub disturbedcoastal and valley freshwater
marsh (0.29 acre), mule fat scrub (0.07 acre), tamarisk scrub (3.95 acres) and streambed (0.16 acre).
Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified
direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measure B2. All impacted cismontane alkali marsh, southern willow
scrub disturbedkoastal and valley freshwater marsh, mule fat scrub, tamarisk scrub, and streambed
habitats shall be mitigated at a 1: 1 ratio and implemented under a detailed creationirestoration plan
prepared and implemented by the applicant within on-site open space. The 1 :1 mitigation ratio has
been accepted as appropriate based on the Biological Opinion issued by the US. Fish and Wildlife
Service given that the restoration has been implemented in advance of any impacts, and because of
the overall low quality of the wetlands being impacted. (Wetland restoration on-site has already
been initiated.)
Factual Support and Rationale. The 1:l mitigation ratio has been accepted as
appropriate based on the Biological Opinion issued by the US. Fish and Wildlife Service given that
the restoration has been implemented in advance of any impacts, and because of the overall low
quality of the wetlands being impacted. Wetland restoration on-site has already been initiated and
meets the standards set forth in this mitigation measure.
Impact. Indirect impacts expected to occur as a result of implementation of the
Proposed Project include regional connectivity and several urban edge effects including habitat
insularization, edge effect, exotic species invasion, domestic pets, increased human intrusion,
lighting and noise impacts.
Increased human (and pet) intrusion into open space areas, fixed lighting, exotic species
invasion would be considered significant where they occur to any of the preserved Diegan coastal
sage scrub riparian habitats.
CEQA Findings of Facts Exhibit “EIR-B
and Statement of Overriding Considerations 25 5129102
Finding. With the incorporation ofthe following mitigationmeasures, the identified
direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measure B3. All backyard lighting installed on homes adjacent to open
space shall be shielded to prevent light over spill. Shielding shall consist of the installation of
fixtures that physically direct light away from the outer edges of the property or landscaping, berms,
or other barriers at the edge of the lots that prevent light over spill.
Mitigation Measure B4. Fencing shall be required along the common boundary
between homes abutting the adjacent open space to control domestic pet predation ofnative animal
species and access by residents into sensitive habitats.
Mitigation Measure B5. Construction adjacent to wetland habitats shall be done
under the supervision of a qualified biologist to ensure that construction activities do not impact
sensitive areas.
Mitigation Measure B6. Drainage facilities should be designed to avoid the
dumping of untreated urban runoff.
Factual Support and Rationale. The foregoing list of mitigation measures for
indirect impacts to habitat and protected species have been developed over the years in the field, with
the input ofbiologists, theUSFWS and CDFG, and have proven successful in substantially limiting
the collateral impacts. All backyard lighting installed on homes adjacent to open space will be
shielded to prevent light over spill including the installation of fixtures that physically direct light
away from the outer edges of the property or landscaping, berms, or other barriers at the edge of the
lots. Fencing will also be provided along the common boundary between homes abutting the
adjacent open space to control domestic pet predation of native animal species and access by
residents into sensitive habitats. Construction adjacent to wetland habitats will be conducted under
the supervision of a qualified biologist to ensure that construction activities do not impact sensitive
areas. Drainage facilities will be designed to avoid the dumping of untreated urban runoff.
Impact. Construction ofthe off-site improvements will impact 0.48 acre ofriparian
woodland, 1.85 acre of riparian scrub, 12.9 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub, 11.2 acres of
floodplain scrub, 12.9 acres of southern maritime chaparral, 0.3 acre of southern mixed chaparral,
46.8 acres of non-native grassland, 1.5 acres of eucalyptus woodland, and 11.3 acres of disturbed
habitat.
Finding. With the incorporation ofthe following mitigation measures, the identified
direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measure. The off-site improvement areas occur within the Villages of La
Costa project. The off-site improvement areas are part of the HCP/OSMP that was previously
approved through the Section 1O(a) process of the FESA, and Section 2081 of the SESA. Impacts
resulting from the off-site improvement areas all occur within the impact limits of the HCP/OSMP,
and therefore the only mitigation required will be that which is required for the Villages of La Costa
portion of the HCP/OSMP.
CEQA Findings of Facts Exhibit “EIR-B
and Statement of Overriding Considerations 26 5129102
Factual Support and Rationale. The mitigation required ofthe Villages ofLa Costa
project will require on-site creation and restoration assuring no net loss to wetlands in terms of
acreage or habitat value. The mitigation will proceed as directed by the City and permitting agencies
(ACOEiUSFWS, RWQCB and CDFG). Based on the evaluation ofthe quality ofimpacted wetland
habitat, the limited impact to existing lower quality wetlands on the Villages of La Costa site
compared with the restoration and creation of additional higher quality wetland will result in an
overall biological improvement to the wetland ecosystem on the La Costa Green project as a whole,
by improving the quality and total acreage, eliminating invasive vegetation and improving the
overall functionality of the wetland resource.
Impact. Indirect impacts expected to occur as a result of implementation ofthe off-
site improvements are the same as for the project.
Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified
direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measure. Implementation ofMitigation Measures B3, B4, B5 andB6 as
identified above.
Factual Support and Rationale. The foregoing list of mitigation measures for
indirect impacts to habitat and protected species have been developed over the years in the field, with
the input ofbiologists, the USFWS and CDFG, and have proven successful in substantially limiting
the collateral impacts. All backyard lighting installed on homes adjacent to open space will be
shielded to prevent light over spill including the installation of fixtures that physically direct light
away from the outer edges of the property or landscaping, berms, or other barriers at the edge ofthe
lots. Fencing will also be provided along the common boundary between homes abutting the
adjacent open space to control domestic pet predation of native animal species and access by
residents into sensitive habitats. Construction adjacent to wetland habitats will be conducted under
the supervision of a qualified biologist to ensure that construction activities do not impact sensitive
areas. Drainage facilities will be designed to avoid the dumping of untreated urban runoff.
2.6 Cultural Resources
Impact. Archeological site SDI-14,592 will be impacted by implementation ofthe
Proposed Project.
Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigationmeasures, the identified
direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measure C1. A data recovery program shall be completed for
archaeological site SDI-14,592 in compliance with the City of Carlsbad’s Cultural Resource
Guidelines Criteria and Methodology for Completing a Data Recovery Program Phase 111
(December, 1990). Data recovery provides for a sample of the site to be excavated, artifacts and
ecofacts to be analyzed, special studies (i.e. radiocarbon dating, residue analysis, obsidian hydration
and sourcing) and a report of finding which addresses the important research questions and curation
of any collections of cultural material, including associated records in a scientific institution with
permanent cultural resource collections or retained by the City and displayed to the public at an
appropriate location such as a library or City Hall.
CEQA Findings of Facts Exhibit “EIR-B”
and Statement of Overriding Considerations 27 5/29/02
43
Factual Support and Rationale. Site SDI-14,592 will undergo further testing and
data recovery prior to grading and disturbance and therefore, will fully protect and record the
significance of the site and any artifacts or materials.
Impact. Proposed grading plans for Poinsettia Lane indicate that construction will
have a direct impact on archaeological site CA-SDI-9846. Direct impacts are restricted to the
northern one-third ofthe site as defined by test excavations conducted by Pacific West Archaeology
(1998). Analysis indicates a sparse deposit ofarchaeological materials within this arearepresenting,
in part, redeposited materials from the knoll. Current data indicate that this portion ofthe site does
not contribute to the significance of the site. The most concentrated and significant portion of the
site is outside the Poinsettia Lane Area of Potential Effect (APE) and is to be preserved.
Finding. With the incorporation ofthe following mitigation measures, the identified
direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measure C2. The Master Plan identifies the area where SDI-9,846 is
located as open space. Preservation of this near-surface cultural resource would require
implementation of a capping and easement mitigation plan to protect the site from artifact collecting.
Capping would include placement of a semi-pemeable layer ofpolypropolene geofabric and a six-
inch (6") layer of clean, low saline sand and gravel fill across the site followed by a minimum two
feet (2') ofnon-compacted fill soil. In addition, the site shall be fenced and a conservation easement
shall be recorded over the site to preclude vehicle traffic, excavations in excess of two feet (2') and
pianting of deep-root trees and shrubs.
If avoidance of site SDI-9,846 is not feasible, then a data recovery program shall be
implemented in compliance with the City of
Carlsbad's Cultural Resource Guidelines Criteria and Methodology for Completing a Data
Recovery Program Phase I11 (December, 1990). Data recovery provides for a sample ofthe site to be
excavated, artifacts and ecofacts to be analyzed, special studies (i.e., radiocarbon dating, residue
analysis, obsidian hydration and sourcing) and a report of finding which addresses the important
research questions.
Mitigation Measure C3. A qualified archaeological monitor shall be on-site during
initial grading within CEQA important sites CA-SDI-9846 and CA-SDI-14,592 including a 100 foot
buffer. The goals of the archaeological monitor shall be to collect isolated diagnostic artifacts,
ensure the integrity of the preserved portion of archaeological site CA-SDI-9846 during initial
grading, and identify and record intact archaeological features.
Grading within and adjacent to archaeological sites CA-SDI-9846 and CA-SDI-
14,592 shall be incremental, i.e., approximately 6 inches at a pass, allowing the
archaeological monitor to examine surfaces prior to continuing. Monitoring in these
areas shall continue until such time as culturally sterile subsoil is obtained.
In the event archaeological features are discovered, the archaeological monitor shall
be empowered to suspend work in the immediate area of the discovery until such
time as a data recovery plan can be developed and implemented. Work outside the
CEQA Findings of Facts Exhibit "EIR-B
and Statement of Overriding Considerations 28 5/29/02
area of the find shall proceed along with the continuation of archaeological
monitoring.
A final summary report shall be completed and retained on file at the City that
outlines the results of the archaeological monitoring program. This report shall
include discussions of methods used, a catalog of archaeological features and
artifacts recovered and the results of analysis. Recovered materials shall be curated
in a manner consistent with other archaeological studies conducted for the project.
Factual Support and Rationale. The Master Plan identifies the area where SDI-
9,846 is located as open space. Preservation of this near-surface cultural resource will be
accomplished through implementation of a capping and easement mitigation plan to protect the site
from artifact collecting. In addition, the site will be fenced and a conservation easement recorded
over the site to preclude vehicle traffic, excavations in excess of two feet (2’) and planting of deep-
root trees and shrubs. Certain remedial grading activities may be required to correct existing
landslides in the project area. These remedial grading activities may, upon further geotechnical
study and recommendations, result in the intrusion of grading into this site. Monitoring will be
conducted to ensure the integrity of the preserved portion of the site CA-SDI-9846. If avoidance of
site SDI-9,846 is not feasible, then a data recovery program shall be implemented in compliance with
the City of Carlsbad’s Cultural Resource Guidelines Criteria and Methodology for Completing a
Data Recovery Program Phase 111 (December, 1990). Data recovery provides for a sample ofthe site
to be excavated, artifacts and ecofacts to be analyzed, special studies (Le., radiocarbon dating,
residue analysis, obsidian hydration and sourcing) and a report of finding which addresses the
important research questions.
Impact. The proposed grading activity has the potential to impact significant
paleontological resources.
Finding. With the incorporation ofthe following mitigationmeasures, the identified
direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measure C4. A paleontological monitor shall be on-site as required
during the initial cutting ofpreviously undisturbed sediments to inspect cuts for contained fossils. In
the event that fossils are discovered, it may be necessary to increase the perlday in field monitoring
time. Conversely, if fossils are not being found then the monitoring should be reduced. A
paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has experience in the collection and salvage
of fossil materials. The paleontological monitor shall work under the direction of a qualified
paleontologist.
When fossils are discovered, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall
recover them. In most cases, the fossil salvage can be completed in a short period of
time. However, some fossil specimens (such as a complete large mammal skeleton)
may require an extended salvage period. In these instances the paleontologist (or
paleontological monitor) shall be allowed to temporarily direct, divert, or halt
grading to allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely manner. Because of the
potential for the recovery of small fossil remains, such as isolated mammal teeth, it
may be necessary in certain instances, to set up a screen-washing operation on the
site.
CEQA Findings of Facts Exhibit “EIR-B”
and Statement of Overriding Considerations 29 5/29/02
Fossil remains collected during the monitoring and salvage portion ofthe mitigation
program shall be cleaned, sorted and cataloged.
Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, and maps,
shall either be deposited (as a donation) in a scientific institution with permanent
paleontological collections such as the San Diego Natural History Museum or
retained by the City and displayed to the public at an appropriate location such as a
library or City Hall.
A final summary report shall be completed and retained on file at the City that
outlines the results of the mitigation program. This report shall include discussions
of the methods used, stratigraphic section(s) exposed, fossils collected, and
significance of recovered fossils.
Factual Support and Rationale. The geologic nature ofthe site creates the potential
for paleontological resources being uncovered during grading operations. The mitigation measures
require a monitoring program and approved qualified paleontological monitor be present during
initial grading, and pregrading meetings, with authority to halt grading ifresources are uncovered or
evident during the grading process to look for well-preserved fossil remains. If identified, the City
and the paleontologist will coordinate a salvage program before grading may resume in the fossil
area. Through this process, and the cleaning, storage and contribution of any fossil remains to a
museum or other depository, will protect any resources. These procedures, combined with a final
report from the monitor, have proven to be an effective program for preservation and recovery,
where appropriate.
2.7 Aesthetics
Impact. Project landform alteration will result in two slopes that are greater than 40
feet in height and do not qualify for exemption or modifications to the standard.
Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified
direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measure VAG1. The grading plan shall be redesigned to a height
consistent with the applicable design standard relative to slope height in the Hillside Development
Ordinance and/or as modified by the Bressi Ranch Master Plan.
Factual Support and Rationale. The grading plan of the project will require a
feasible modification to comply fully with the Hillside Development Regulations. The intent of the
Hillside Development Regulations is to implement the goals and objectives of the land use and open
spaceiconservation elements of the Carlsbad generai plan; assure hillside conditions are properly
identified and incorporated into the planning process; preserve and/or enhance the aesthetic qualities
of natural hillsides and manufactured slopes by designing projects which relate to the slope of the
land, minimizing the amount of project grading, and incorporating contour grading into
manufactured slopes which are located in highly visible public locations; and assure that the
alteration ofnatural hillsides will be done in an environmentally sensitive manner whereby lagoons
and riparian ecosystems will be protected from increased erosion and no substantial impacts to
CEQA Findings of Facts Exhibit "ER-B"
and Statement of Overriding Considerations 30 5/29/02
46
natural resource areas, wildlife habitats or native vegetation areas will occur. The redesign of the
grading plan will ensure consistency with this development standard.
2.8 Public Services and Utilities
Impact. The construction and operation ofthe community recreationcenter, drainage
facilities, water facilities, and sewer facilities will result in an impact to the environment as a
component of the overall development and operation ofthe Master Plan. The physical environmental
impacts associated with the construction of the community recreation center, drainage facilities,
water facilities, and sewer facilities are considered as part of the environmental evaluation contained
in the applicable sections of this EIR. Potential impacts associated with the construction and
operation of the community recreation center, drainage facilities, water facilities, and sewer facilities
generally include traffic, air quality, noise, geology/soils, biological resources, cultural resources.
Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified
direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measures. MitigationMeasures identified in Sections 5.2 Traffic, 5.3 Air
Quality, 5.4 Noise, 5.5 Geology/Soils, 5.6 Biological Resources, 5.7 Cultural Resources, and 5.1 1
Water QualityMydrology will reduce the impact from the construction and operation of the
community recreation center, drainage facilities, water facilities, and sewer facilities to a less than
significant level.
Factual Support and Rationale. The Proposed Project will place a demand on
certain public services and facilities, and will require the construction and operation of new facilities.
The physical impacts to the environment as a result of construction and operation ofpublic facilities
are evaluated throughout the EIR by virtue of the fact that these facilities have been defined as part
of the proposed land use plan and project components. Implementation of the mitigation measures
prescribed in the EIR identified above will mitigate the physical impact to the environment from the
construction and operation of these facilities.
2.9 Water Quality/Hydrology
Impact. A significant increase in surface runoffvolumes is anticipated, because the
Master Plan and off-site improvements will alter the existing topography and will introduce
impervious surfaces on a primarily vacant site.
Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified
direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measure WQHl. Subsequent to Master Plan approval, but prior to
approval of specific development plans within the Master Plan area, a preliminary hydrology study
shall be prepared which identifies the existing peak-flow runoff quantities as well as those
anticipated with proposed development. The study shall define design criteria as approved by the
City Engineer, to be utilized in the design of subsequent on-site storm drain systems.
Additionally, a detailed hydrology study shall be prepared concurrent with subsequent site
developments plans (e.g., tentative tract maps) within the Master Plan area. The hydrology study
CEQA Findings of Facts Exhibit “EIR-B
and Statement of Overriding Considerations 31 5/29/02
shall address the drainage characteristics of the proposed development and develop an appropriate
drainage control plan for the specific project site. The drainage control plan shall be implemented in
accordance with the recommendations of the hydrology study and shall address on-site and off-site
drainage requirements to ensure on-site runoff will not adversely affect off-site areas.
Factual Support and Rationale. The City assures that drainage patterns willnot be
significantly changed and adversely impacted through a series ofmeasures. First, drainage area fees
are assessed at final map stage to assure the financing source for city wide stormdrain facilities that
are located offsite of the project. These public stormdrain systems are maintained by the City.
Additionally, through the Engineering Department, onsite stormdrain systems and other
improvements elsewhere are reviewed as part of the subdivision improvement engineering plans and
specifications to assure adequate drainage facilities will be incorporated into the Project. With the
addition of the detention basins and water quality basins designed into the Project, and careful
review of the grading and improvement plans, surface water and drainage patterns are protected.
Impact. Pollutant discharges in surface water runoff associated with the industrial
and residential land uses on-site may contribute to an exceedance of applicable surface receiving
water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses.
Finding. With the incorporation ofthe following mitigation measures, the identified
direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measure WQHZ. Regarding the industrial land use, the Proposed Project
is required by the RWQCB to comply with the areawide Municipal Stormwater Permit, Order No.
2001-01. In addition, industrial land uses are required to comply with Order No. 97-03-DWQ,
NPDES, General Permit No. CASOOOOOOI Discharges ofstormwater Associated with Industrial
Activities Excluding Construction Activities. Further, all requirements contained in the Industrial
Concept Water Quality Plan shall be implemented in accordance with the Plan and verified by the
City Engineer. The Best Management Practices (BMP) Plan Options address the use of treatment
control methods using flow based and volume based BMPs such as: 1) Grass Biofilters and Strips; 2)
Wetland PondRetention Basins; 3) Continuous Deflective Separation (CDS) UnitsIFossil Filters; or
4) A combination of BMP options one through three.
Regarding the residential and mixed-use land uses, the Proposed Project is required by the
RWQCB to comply with the areawide Municipal Stormwater Permit, Order No. 2001-01. Further;
this Mitigation Measure requires that all MunicipaVPost-Construction BMP Plan Options contained
in the Concept Water Quality Plan shall be implemented and verified by the City Engineer. The plan
contains five BMP plan options. Option one would treat the storm flow with a single (CDS) Unit
near the downstream end of each major storm drain system and specific pad locations that drain
directly into adjacent canyon watercourses. Option two would treat storm flow surrounding
residential and mixed-use areas. Option three would treat the entire project storm flows with filters.
Option four would treat storm flow from the residential and mixed-use areas with units, filters, grass-
lined swales, and retention basins. Option five is similar to Option four (refer to Appendix 6,
Concept Water Quality Plan).
Factual Support and Rationale. The Regional Water Quality Control Board
adopted the new point source storm water discharge regulations and standards as part ofthe new San
Diego Municipal Storm Water Permit (Order No. 2001-1) pursuant to the Clean Water Act, which
CEQA Findings of Facts Exhibit “EIR-B
and Statement of Overriding Considerations 32 5/29/02 48
now becomes part ofthe NPDES Permit CA 0108758. As such, the storm water discharge standards
and requirements for new development have been significantly increased. The Proposed Project has
anticipated these new regulations and included detention basins and water quality basins in order to
capture the first 0.6 inches (approximately) ofrainfall on-site, so that sediment and urban pollutants
can be eliminated or removed prior to the storm water entering the watercourses, lagoons, and
ultimately the ocean. The water quality will be improved through a combination of natural and
mechanical filtration or sedimentation traps, thereby substantially improving the water quality of
storm water discharge in new development areas such as the Proposed Project. These efforts will
require, among other steps, a Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the
RWQCB, as well as meeting all the new storm water discharge requirements through a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan and associated NPDES permit and authorization. These new, higher
standards are intended to improve the overall municipal storm water quality before it discharges
through the public storm drain systems into the Batiquitos Lagoon. Under Order No. 2001-1, the
City, as a co-permitted, will have the primary responsibility for enforcement of the permits and
authorizations. The detention basins and water quality basins will be maintained by the applicable
associations as part of the common areas.
2.10 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact. The presence ofhazardous materials on-site will require mitigation to ensure
proper disposal and remediation if necessary.
Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified
direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measure HM1. Prior to site grading, the stained soil shall be properly
disposed of in accordance with federal, state and local requirements in order to eliminate this
potential health hazard from the project site. Additionally, the applicant shall ensure that the
unpermitted landfill is excavated and debris and organic material located in the dump is properly
dispose of in accordance with federal, state and local requirements. A hazardous materials specialist
shall verify that materials have been properly disposed of prior to site grading.
Factual Support and Rationale. The stained soil will be properly disposed of in
accordance with federal, state and local requirements. Additionally, the applicant will ensure that the
unpermitted landfill is excavated and debris and organic material located in the dump is properly
dispose of in accordance with federal, state and local requirements. A hazardous materials specialist
will verify that materials have been properly disposed of prior to site grading.
Impact. There may be asbestos present within construction materials including
linoleum, linoleum mastic and the plaster on the walls and ceilings ofthe ranch house. .Demolition
of the ranch house may result in a significant environmental impact related to therelease ofasbestos.
Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified
direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measure HM2. Prior to demolition of the ranch house, an asbestos
survey shall be conducted. An asbestos investigation shall be conducted and mitigation report
CEQA Findings of Facts Exhibit “EIR-B
and Statement of Overriding Considerations 33 5/29/02
prepared. The mitigation report shall identify appropriate clean-up and disposal requirements
necessary to avoid releasing asbestos into the air and these requirements shall be followed.
Factual Support and Rationale. An asbestos investigation will be conducted and
mitigation report prepared which will identify appropriate clean-up and disposal requirements
necessary to avoid releasing asbestos into the air. ~. ..
Impact. The unpermitted landfill that is located in the northeast portion ofthe project
site was remediated in 1989. Portions ofthe landfill remain and its contents need to be removed and
properly disposed of prior to development of the project site.
Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified
direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measure HMI. Prior to site grading, the stained soil shall be properly
disposed of in accordance with federal, state and local requirements in order to eliminate this
potential health hazard from the project site. Additionally, the applicant shall ensure that the
unpermitted landfill is excavated and debris and organic material located in the dump is properly
dispose of in accordance with federal, state and local requirements. A hazardous materials specialist
shall verify that materials have been properly disposed of prior to site grading.
Factual Support and Rationale. The applicant will ensure that the unpermitted
landfill is excavated and debris and organic material located in the dump is properly dispose of in
accordance with federal, state and local requirements. A hazardous materials specialist will verify
that materials have been properly disposed of prior to site grading.
Impact. The levels of toxaphene were above the preliminary remediation goals in
soil samples taken on-site. This is considered a significant impact.
Finding. With the incorporation ofthe following mitigation measures, the identified
direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measure HM3. Prior to site grading, the project developer, the City of
Carlsbad and the County of San Diego shall be consulted regarding development requirements on-
site, and due to the presence of pesticides (primarily toxaphene) in the upper 12 inches of former
cultivated areas, some areas may require further assessment and/or remediation prior to grading.
Soils shall be remediated to a level deemed acceptable for residential uses according to federal, state,
and local guidelines and standards.
Factual Support and Rationale. The project developer, the City of Carlsbad and the
County of San Diego will be consulted regarding development requirements on-site and some areas
may require further assessment and/or remediation prior to grading. Soils will be remediated to a
level deemed acceptable for residential uses according to federal, state, and local guidelines and
standards.
3. FINDINGS CONCERNING FEASIBILITY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
CEQA Findings of Facts Exhibit “EIR-B
and Statement of Overriding Considerations 34 5/29/02
50
3.1 Applicable Standards. Under CEQA, whenever apublic agency considers approving a
project for which the EIR concludes that notwithstanding the incorporated mitigation measures, there
will nonetheless remain significant impacts that are not avoided or lessened below a level of
significance, the public agency must consider and make findings regarding the feasibility of
alternatives discussed in the EIR. As stated in CEQA (PRC 521002):
“[It] is the policy of the state that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if
there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures available which would substantially
lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects .... The legislature further finds
and declares that in event specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such
project alternatives or mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of
one or more significant effects thereof.”
Here, the FPEIR concludes that after the incorporation of the specific mitigation measures
outlined in Section 2 above, the Proposed Project will still have the following significant,
unmitigable environmental effects:
Direct and Cumulative Impact to Air Quality.
The determination of the infeasibility of alternatives is necessarily an evaluation of the many
elements of specific economic, social or other considerations. (Guidelines $1 5091). Elsewhere in
the Guidelines 515364, “feasible” is defined as “...capable of being accomplished in a successful
manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal,
social, and technological factors.” At the same time, infeasibility is not equated with impossibility
and case law recognizes that an alternative or mitigation measure may also be infeasible if it is
undesirable or impractical from a policy standpoint. As an example, a conflict between project
alternatives and a city‘s growth management policies and programs supported a finding of
infeasibility in City ofDel Mar v. City of San Diego’(1982) 133 CA3d 401. ,The Court went on to
describe the alternatives analysis under CEQA necessarily involves the balancing of economic,
environmental, social and technological factors within the province of the decision makers.
In undertaking the comparative analysis called for under CEQA in considering the feasibility
ofproject alternatives, it is also necessary to keep in mind the Project objectives as expressed in the
FPEIR. The overall Project Objectives are set forth at Pages 3-15 and 3-16 ofthe FPEIR as follows:
. Develop a mixed-use community of integrated land uses, based on the Ahwanee
Principles, including residential, industrial, commercial, community facilities, and open
space uses on a 585.1 acre site.
. Create a unique Bressi Ranch image and identity which differentiates Bressi Ranch from
other communities in the City where all things required to meet the daily needs of the
residents are within walking distance, including commercial uses and a substantial
number ofjob opportunities.
. Provide for the development of 523 market rate homes and 100 affordable units which
will provide arange ofhousing types to add to the diversity ofthe City’s housing stock.
CEQA Findings of Facts Exhibit “EIR-B
and Statement of Overriding Considerations 35 5/29/02
. Develop up to 2,160,500 square feet of officeiindustrial uses in the portion ofthe Master
Plan within the Airport Influence area to create a wide variety of employment
opportunities in proximity to other industrial and residential uses of the City.
. Provide approximately 130,000 square feet of viable commercial facilities to serve the
needs of people working in the Master Plan, the residents of the Master Plan and
surrounding residential areas.
. Create a center focus that combines commercial, community facilities, residential, and
recreational opportunities within walking distance of the majority of residences.
’ Provide an ample supply of specialized open space in the form of squares, greens, and
neighborhood parks whose frequent use is encouraged by their convenient location.
. Create abusiness center and community destination at this significant location within the
City.
. Design internal streets and adjacent buildings in a scale which encourages pedestrian use
and discourages automobile use.
. Allow for sufficient residential and non-residential developmenr to ensure that public
facilities and services that serve the Master Plan area meet the applicable City standards
as called for in the Carlsbad Growth Management Plan.
. Provide for a fully integrated circulation system that facilitates movement and access
needs of automobiles, pedestrians, and bicyclists, yet discourages high speed traffic from
going through the residential portion of the project.
. Allow for sufficient development within the Master Plan to ensure that new development
and new roadways meet City ofCarlsbad growth management standards for traffic levels
of service. . Create an open space system that is consistent with the Preserve areas of the City’s Draft
Habitat Management Plan.
Provide open space areas for the preservation of the natural resources of the City.
. Allow for sufficient residential and non-residentia1,development to allow the developer
of the Master Plan to set aside a 13.7 acre community facilities site.
3.2 Findings on Project Alternatives
The Final Program EIR evaluated a range of potential project alternatives. The project
alternatives included a No ProjectiExisting General Plan Alternative, No Development Alternative,
Alternative Land Use Plan A, Alternative Land Use Plan B, and Alternative Land Use Plan C.
CEQA requires consideration of the No Project alternative and the City selected the others on the
basis they represent a reasonable range of alternative project proposals that appear to be potentially
compatible with most of the overall Project Objectives.
CEQA Findings of Facts Exhibit “EIR-B’
and Statement of Overriding Considerations 36 5/29/02
Applying the criteria discussed above for considering the feasibility of project alternatives
and considering the totality ofthe information in the Final Program EIR, testimony and information
received during the public hearings and the evidence in the administrative records as a whole, the
City has determined that the identified project alternatives are not feasible in light of the Project
Objectives, the City’s programs and policies, general legal principles applicable to a landowner’s
right or privilege to make beneficial use of its property in accordance with all applicable laws,
policies, standards and land use regulations uniformly applied and economic, legal, social,
technological, or other considerations specified below. The factual support, reasoning and analysis
supporting this conclusion is set forth below with respect to each ofthe Project alternatives evaluated
in the Final Program EIR.
3.2.1 No ProjecVExisting General Plan Alternative. (FPEIR Section 6.1)
The No ProjectExisting General Plan Alternative assumes that the project site would be
developed pursuant to the existing general plan land use designations of the project site. The
existing general plan land use designations of the project site are: Unplanned Area; Open Space;
Residential Low Density; Residential Low-Medium Density; and Residential Medium Density.
Figure 3-9 in the FPEIR depicts the existing general plan designations of the project site. For the
purposes of the environmental analysis set forth in the FPEIR, it was assumed that only 498
residential units would be constructed under this alternative. The intensity of non-residential
development was assumed to be similar to the Proposed Project.
(a) This alternative would incrementally reduce the impact to air quality, although the
impact to air quality from this alternative would remain significant and unavoidable. The No
ProjectExisting General Plan alternative will result in similar impacts with respect to the remainder
of the impact areas, including, but not limited to, traffic, land use, noise and cultural resources. The
scope and range of mitigation measure would remain the same for the No Project/Existing General
Plan alternative compared to the Proposed Project and therefore the alternative does not incorporate
significant environmental advantages overall.
(b) Implementation of the No ProjectExistjng General Plan Alternative may result in a
greater impact to biological resources as the existing general plan land use configurations ofthe site
are not consistent with the City’s Draft HMP.
(c) This alternative would not meet all of the basic Project objectives. With fewer
residential units, the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would limit the ability ofthe City
to successfully implement the mix of uses and pedestrian oriented concepts that are proposed under
the Master Plan. With fewer residential units, this alternative will also do less to remedy the existing
jobshousing imbalance that exists within the City of Carlsbad. The City’s analysis show
approximately 70% of the people who live in Carlsbad commute from other cities or the county.
(d) The No ProjecUExisting General Plan alternative substantially reduces residential units
by approximately 20%, but will not proportionally reduce the amount of circulation element roads
and back bone infrastructure. As a result, the No Project/Existing General Plan will cause a
significant increase in the infrastructure costs allocation to the remaining units. This would further
exacerbate housing costs in the Carlsbad area for existing and future residents.
CEQA Findings of Facts Exhibit “EIR-B
and Statement of Overriding Considerations 37 5/29/02 53
(e) The NoProjecWExisting General Plan alternative would not provide as much assistance
in meeting the affordable housing obligations in the City. The Proposed Project would add
approximately 100 units ofwork force affordable housing in the City to assist the City in meeting its
obligations under State law to provide its regional‘fair share of affordable housing. The No
Project/Existing General Plan will not create as many workforce affordable housing units.
3.2.2 No Development Alternative. (FPEIR Section 6.2)
The No Development Alternative assumes that the Proposed Project will not be developed
and the project site will remain vacant and used for agricultural activities. The existing residence
and agricultural buildings located in the central portion of the project site will remain along with the
adjacent storage area that contains several trailers and storage containers, as well as miscellaneous
fm equipment. The hazardous materials found on site will not be remediated.
(a) The private property owner has legal rights ofreasonable beneficial use of its property
consistent with uniformly applied policies, ordinances, regulations and constitutional protections.
The No Development Alternative is essentially a denial of all beneficial use.
(b) The No Development Alternative is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan, Housing
Element and Growth Management Program which identifies and permits a range of housing types
and other uses on the property. The Proposed Project is consistent with the existing and proposed
land uses surrounding the property. The No Development Alternative would likely result in the
continuation of the dry farming operations, without providing the uses, facilities, services and
infrastructure anticipated under existing City rules, regulations and policies. No development would
be inconsistent with the city’s responsibility under State Planning Law to adopt and implement a
General Plan providing for arange of land uses, including residential, employment, open space and
other area to provide for the orderly and balanced range of uses. If no development were to take
place in the areas designated for development, the City would fail to meet its local, regional and state
obligations to provide housing and job opportunities not just for existing residents, but forthe future
population growth forecast for the City and the region generally.
(c) The Proposed Project will provide a range of useful and needed public facilities and
other infrastructure that will serve existing and future residents of the City and enhance and improve
the quality of life. The public facilities and improvements that will not be provided by the No
Development Alternative include, but are not limited to, 13.7 acres of community facilities, parks;
walking and bike trails The No Development Alternative will also not finance or construct
circulation element roads to complete the City’s circulation element roads (Poinsettia Lane, Alicante
Road, and El Fuerte Street as examples) which are needed to support existing and future local and
regional traffic.
(d) The Proposed Project would add approximately 100 units of workforce affordable
housing in the City to assist the City in meeting its obligations under State law to provide its regional
fair share of affordable housing. The No Development alternative would not contribute to the
affordable housing obligations in the City.
(e) While the property would remain undeveloped, it would not dedicate the approximately
120 acres of HMP Open Space or protect that area with permanent conservation easements. Through
its open space preservation program, the Proposed Project will provide a direct linkage between the
CEQA Findings oiFacts Exhibit “EIR-B
and Statement of Overriding Considerations 38 5/29\02
Core 5 Preserve Planning Area (“PPA”) and the Core 6 PPA. Under the No Development
Alternative, preservation of this linkage would not be assured.
(0 The City’s efforts to provide a balance of jobs and housing opportunities would be
adversely affected as both needed housing stock and employment land would remain unbuilt. The
City’s analysis shows approximately 70% of the people who live in Carlsbad commute elsewhere to
work and roughly 70% of the people employed in Carlsbad commute from other cities or the county.
(8) By the property remaining undeveloped, existing surface water runoff and sediment
would remain uncontrolled and unfiltered. Without water quality control devises the No
Development alternative would continue contributing sediment and urban pollutants discharge to
receiving water such as Batiquitos Lagoon.
(h) The City, by not benefitting from the range of development fees and exactions, as well
as increased tax base would be adversely impacted in terms of tax revenues to support public
facilities and infrastructure that would have been built or financed by the Proposed Project. The
City’s Growth Management Program and facilities performance standards would be jeopardized as
the cost of additional facilities and infrastructure to serve existing and future citizens, and the sources
of those funds and facilities, were spread proportionately for future development to finance and
construct. This financing shortfall could affect a range of citywide facilities such as libraries, fire
support, police, city government, parks, recreation as well as transportation and the needed road
network. in other words, the Citywide capital infrastructure funding mechanism would be
jeopardized.
(i) The No Project Alternative does not meet any ofthe Project objectives. A primary goal
of the Proposed Project is to develop a unique master planned area that allows people to live, work,
shop and play in one community. If no development takes place, the property will not create a
mixed-use community of integrated land uses consistent with the Ahwanee Principles. The jobs,
services, housing, infrastructure and amenities included within the Proposed Project objectives will
continue to go unmet.
3.2.3 Alternative Land Use Plan A. (FPEIR Section 6.3)
Alternative Land Use Plan A - Reduced Intensity would develop the site with residential uses
inPAs6,7,8,9,10, 11,and12,mixed-usesinPA-15,andcommunityfacilitiesinPA-13. Theopen
space uses would be retained in OS-1, OS-2, OS-3, OS-4, OS-5, and OS-6. However, under this
alternative, the industrial uses would not be developed within PAS 1,2,3,4, and 5. Planning Areas
1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 would be developed with other uses that are also considered compatible with the
McClellan-Palomar Airport.
As shown in Figure 5.1-2 Airport ZonesiArea of the FPEIR, the northwestern portion of the
project site is iocated within the runway protection zone. The northern portion of the site is located
within the Flight Activity Zone (FAZ). The City of Carlsbad General Plan states that within the
FAZ, forreasons ofhealth and safety, residential development and most institutional land uses (e.g.,
hospitals, schools, etc.) must be precluded from the FAZ. Land within the FA2 can be utilized
principally for “industrial and supporting commercial development.” For example, compatible uses
within the FAZ include recreation areas, public right ofways, agriculture, and storage facilities. As
such, this alternative assumes that PAS 1,2,3,4, and 5 would be developed with an open space, or
CEQA Findings of Facts Exhibit “EIR-B’
and Statement of Overriding Considerations 39 5/29/02
5-5
recreational type of use. The overall development footprint would be the same as the Proposed
Project; however this alternative would develop 2,160,500 less non-residential square footage than
the Proposed Project.
(a) This alternative would incrementally reduce the impact to air quality, although the
impact to air quality would remain significant and unavoidable. The Alternative Land Use.Plan A
would also have fewer traffic, noise and visual quality/grading impacts. This alternative will result
in similar impacts with respect to the remainder of the impact areas, including, but not limited to,
traffic, land use, noise and cultural resources. The scope and range of mitigation measures would
remain the same for the Alternative Land Use Plan A compared to the Proposed Project and therefore
the alternative does not incorporate significant environmental advantages overall.
(b) This alternative would not meet all of the basic Project objectives. A primary goal of
the Proposed Project is to develop a unique master planned area that allows people to live, work,
shop and play in one community. With no industrial development, the Alternative Land Use Plan A
would limit the ability of the City to successfully implement the mix of uses and pedestrian oriented
concepts that are proposed under the Master Plan. Without the industrial uses, the development of
the property would not result in the creation of a business center that will provide jobs for existing
and hture residents of the City.
(c) The Alternative Land Use Plan A would substantially reduce planned industrial
development, but without proportional reduction in circulation element roads, back bone
infrastructure, resulting in a significant increase in the infrastructure cost allocation to the residential
component of the alternative. This would further exacerbate housing costs in the Carlsbad area for
existing and future residents.
(d) The City’s efforts to provide a balance of jobs and housing opportunities would be
adversely affected as Alternative Land Use Plan A would not provide needed industrial development
and the jobs associated with that use. The City’s analysis show approximately 70% of the people
who live in Carlsbad commute elsewhere to work and roughly 70% of the people employed in
Carlsbad commute from other cities or the county,
(e) The Alternative Land Use Plan A would result in 2,160,500 square feet less of revenue
generating development. The City, by not benefitting from the range of development fees and
exactions, as well as increased tax base would be adversely impacted in terms of tax revenues to
support public facilities and infrastructure that would have been built or financed by the industrial
portion of the Proposed Project. The City’s Growth Management Program and facilities
performance standards would be jeopardized as the cost of additional facilities and infrastructure to
serve existing and future citizens, and the sources of those funds and facilities, were spread
proportionately for future development to finance and construct. This financing shortfall could
affect a range of citywide facilities such as fire support, police, city government, as well as
transportation and the needed road network. In other words, the Citywide capita: infrastructure
funding mechanism would be jeopardized.
3.2.4 Alternative Land Use Plan B. (FPEIR Section 6.4)
This alternative would designate up to 10 acres of the eastern most portion ofPlanning Area
4 (PA 4) from Planned Industrial (PI) to Local Shopping Center (L) and allow this area to be
CEQA Findings of Facts Exhibit “EIR-B”
and Statement of Overriding Considerations 40 5/29/02
developed with up to amaximum of 100,000 square feet ofcommercial uses as allowed under the L,
General Plan designation. This would become PA 16 of the Bressi Ranch Master Plan. The total
acreage and square footage of commercial in PA 16 may be less, in that case a greater amount of
commercial would he developed in PA 15, but in no case would more than 130,000 square feet of
commercial be developed in the Bressi Ranch Master Plan. Up to 30,000 square feet of commercial
would remain in PA 15 which would keep its existing designationofResidentid'High Density (RH),
L, and Community Facilities (CF). These designations would allow PA 15 to be developed with
100 affordable dwelling units, up to 200 assisted care units, 30,000 square feet of commercial uses
and community facilities.
As noted above, up to 100,000 square feet of the 130,000 square feet of commercial proposed
in this area by the Bressi Ranch Master Plan would be relocated to PA 16 adjacent to the intersection
of Palomar Airport Road and El Fuerte Street. Additional community facilities could be located in
the portion of PA 15 that would have been used for commercial purposes under the proposed site
plan.
This alternative would eliminate the potential ofup to 100,000 square feet ofindustriaVoffice
uses that could have been developed in the 10 acres that were previously designated PI in PA 4 but
under this alternative would be developed for commercial purposes in PA 16. The impacts of this
alternative would be to slightly reduce the overall intensity of development, since it is highly
unlikely that there would be a demand for up to 100,000 square feet of community facilities.
However, this analysis assumes that this amount of community facilities will be developed in the
portion of PA 15 that would have been developed with commercial uses under the proposed Bressi
Ranch Master Plan.
Similar to the propos.ed Master Plan, the maximum number of dwelling units in the Master
Plan would be capped at 523 market rate units to be located in PAS 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 8.1 12 and 100
affordable units in PA 15.
Figure 6-1 ofthe FPEIR depicts Alternative Land Use Plan B. Other than the changes to the
land use designations in PAS 4, 15 & 16 this alternative would not make any other changes to the
proposed Bressi Ranch Master Plan. The overall development footprint would remain the same as
the Proposed Project as would the number of dwelling units and acres of open space, while there
would most likely be a reduction in the square footage of the non-residential development. A
statistical summary of this alternative is provided in Table 6-3 of the FPEIR.
(a) The change in land uses proposed by Alternative Land Use Plan B would result in 900
fewer traffic trips per day comparted to the Proposed Project. This reduction in development
intensity would slightly reduce impacts to traffic/circulation, air quality, noise, public services and
utilities. The impact to air quality would remain significant and unavoidable. The scope and range
of mitigation measures would remain the same for the Alternative Land Use Plan B compared to the
Proposed Project and therefore this alternative does not result in significant environmental
advantages over the Proposed Project.
(b) This alternative does not meet all the objectives of the Proposed Project. This
alternative would not result in the development of2,160,500 square feet of industrial and office uses
within the Airport Influence area or create as wide a variety of employment opportunities in
proximity to other industrial and residential uses of the City.
CEQA Findings of Facts Exhibit "EIR-B"
and Statement of Overriding Considerations 41 5/29/02 5'7
(c) By decreasing the amount of industrial development, this alternative would limit the
City’s ability to provide a balance of jobs and housing opportunities. The City’s analysis shows
approximately 70% of the people who live in Carlsbad commute elsewhere to work and roughly 70%
of the people employed in Carlsbad commute from other cities or the county.
3.25 Alternative Land Use Plan C. (FPEIR Section 6.5)
Alterative Land Use Plan C designates the 14 acres ofplanning Area 12 (PA 12) south of“B”
Street as Local Shopping Center (L) and allow this site to be developed with up to 110,000 square
feet of commercial uses as allowed under the L General Plan designation. This acreage would
become PA 16 of the Master Plan. The portion of PA 12 north of Street “D” would remain as
Residential Medium (RM). The overall number of market rate units in the Master Plan would not
exceed the residential dwelling unit cap of 523 units. Planning Area 15 which would keep its
existing designation of Residential High Density.(RH), L, and Community Facilities (CF). These
designations would allow Planning Area 15 to be developed with up to 100 high density affordable
units, up to 200 assisted care units, community facilities and a maximum of 20,000 square feet of
commercial uses, such as restaurants or small shops catering to the needs ofthe industrial portion of
the Master Plan.
Figure 6-2 of the FPEIR depicts the land use plan for Alternative Land Use Plan C. Other
than the changes to the land use designations of PAs 12, 15 and 16 this alternative would not make
any other changes to the proposed Bressi Ranch Master Plan. The overall development footprint
would remain the same as the Proposed Project, as would the number of dwelling units, square
footage of non-residential development and open space. A statistical summary ofthis alternative is
provided in Table 6-4 of the FPEIR.
(a) Implementation of this alternative would generally result in similar environmental
impacts compared to the Proposed Project. Under the Alternative Land Use Plan C, air quality
impacts would continue to remain significant and unmitigable. However, because ofthe replacement
of residential uses with commercial uses at the intersection of Poinsettia Lane and El Fuerte, the
noise impact from Alternative Land Use Plan C to on-site uses would be less than the Proposed
Project.
(b) This alternative does not meet all the objectives of the Project. This alternative would
not result in the development of2,160,500 square feet of industrial and office uses within the Airport
Influence area or create as wide a variety of employment opportunities in proximity to other
industrial and residential uses of the City.
(c) Be decreasing the amount of industrial development, this alternative would limit the
City’s ability to provide a balance ofjobs and housing opportunities. The City’s analysis shows
approximately 70% of the people who live in Carlsbad commute elsewhere to work and roughly 70%
of the people employed in Carlsbad commute from other cities or the county.
4. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
(CEQA Guideline 5 15093)
CEQA Findings of Facts Exhibit “EIR-B
and Statement of Overriding Considerations 42 5/29/02
As discussed in Section 4.1 ofthese CEQA findings, the FPEIR concludes that the Proposed
Project, even with incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures and consideration of alternatives,
will nonetheless have significant direct and cumulative impacts on air quality. The cumulative
impacts all arise from the marginal contribution the Proposed Project will make, when combined
with the impacts from existing and other future projects, to pre-existing conditions that fail to meet
applicable standards currently. ..
The City has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts, which
may have substantially lessened the impacts, but have not been successful in reducing them below a
level of significance.
Under CEQA, before a project which is determined to have significant, unmitigated
environmental effects can be approved, the public agency must consider and adopt a “statement of
overriding considerations”pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15043 and 15093. As the primary purpose
of CEQA is to fully inform the decision makers and the public as to the environmental effects of a
Proposed Project and to include feasible mitigation measures and alternatives to reduce any such
adverse effects below a level of significance, CEQA nonetheless recognizes and authorizes the
approval of projects where not all adverse impacts can be fully lessened or avoided. However, the
agency must explain and justify its conclusion to approve such a project through the statement of
overriding considerations setting forth the Proposed Project’s general social, economic, policy or
other public benefits which support the agency’s informed conclusion to approve the Proposed
Project.
The city finds that the Proposed Project has the following substantial social, economic, policy
and other public benefits justifying its approval and implementation, not withstanding not all
environmental impacts were fully reduced below a level of significance”
A. City General Plan and Policies. The Proposed Project is consistent with the City’s
General Plan and Policies in that it provides forresidential, commercial, and industrial development,
as well as open space in the southeast quadrant. The range of housing product types are compatible
with existing neighborhoods in the area and are located so as to harmonize and largely complete the
residential neighborhoods and supporting amenities for that portion of the City until buildout.
B. Growth Management Program; Zoning. The Proposed Project is fully consistent with the
density limitations, including the Growth Management control point, and the Southeast Quadrant cap
on total housing units and has not sought an increase in zoning or density. The standards that will
guide the entire buildout ofthe Proposed Project and the Local Facilities Management Plans setting
forth the phasing and timing of needed public infrastructure. These programs assure the Proposed
Project will develop as a baianced whole and needed public infrastructure and facilities will be
provided commensurate with need in order to meet the performance public facilities performance
standards of the City’s Growth Management Program.
C. Housing and Employment Opportunities. TheProposedProject will have amaximum of
623 residential units, approximately 150 acres ofbusiness park located adjacent to the City’s major
industrial/office area, mixed-uses, a designated community facilities area, and open space. to support
the surrounding residential areas. The range of housing types vary from multi-family, townhomes
and small and larger lot detached, located and sized to compliment the housing types in surrounding
neighborhoods. These units will assist Carlsbad in providing sufficient, desirable and safe housing
CEQA Findings of Facts Exhibit “EIR-B
and Statement of Overridine. Considerations 43 5/29/02 - 59
and neighborhood opportunities for existing and future residents and improve the jobshousing
balance.
D. Affordahie Housing. The Proposed Project will provide 20% of all units as workforce
affordable housing within the Bressi Ranch Master Plan boundaries in full compliance with the
City’s Affordable Housing Inclusionary Ordinance and policies. This commitment represents about
100 units that will be owned and managed to provide workforce housing to Carlsbad employees who
meet the income limitations beginning at 80% of the area median income levels. This represents the
continuation of an existing successful policy and is necessary to meet the City’s obligations and
commitments to increased housing opportunities in Carlsbad.
E. Open Space. Approximately 191 acres or (33 %) ofthe Bressi Ranch Master Plan consists
of Open Space. Open Space is proposed in areas OS 1 through OS 6. The Master Pian Open Space
program consists of: a) open space for the preservation of natural resources; b) open space for
outdoor recreation; c) open space for public health and safety; recreation areas, trails; and landscaped
parkways. Additionally, the Bressi Ranch Master Plan will provide recreation areas, where
applicable, per the requirements of the City’s Planned Development Ordinance.
F. Citywide Road Network Improvements. The Proposed Project will construct the portion
of Poinsettia Lane on-site, and contribute to the construction of Poinsettia Lane off-site from the
project site’s eastern boundary to El Camino Real, a critical eastiwest circulation element road. The
Proposed Project will construct El Fuerte Street onsite, and Alicante Road onsite, as well as
contribute to the construction of Alicante Road off-site extending south from the Master Plan area to
the future Poinsettia Lane.
CEQA Findings of Facts Exhibit “EIR-B
and Statement of Overriding Considerations 44 5/29/02
Exhibit "C"
c 0
$n
2e .E
I
I
I
- .- .-
m m
C 3
I
77
78
I
-
”
”
”
? i ,
”
”
5-
I
I
$3
.- e e I
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. 5202
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT
ROAD AND EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 17
CASE NAME: BRESSI RANCH
CASE NO: GPA 98-03
WHEREAS, Lennar Bressi Ranch Venture, LLC, “Developer/Owner,” has
filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Parcel “A” of Boundary Adjustment 543, Document No. 1999-
0085753 on file in the Office of the San Diego County
Recorder, February 11, 1999; and, Parcel “B” of Boundary
Adjustment 543, Document No. 1999-0085753 on file in the
Oftice of the San Diego County Recorder, February 11,1999.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a General Plan
Amendment as shown on Exhibit “GPA 98-03” ‘‘ dated June 5, 2002, on file in the Carlsbad
Planning Department BREW RANCH - GPA 98-03 as provided in Government Code Section
65350 et. seq. and Section 21.52.160 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 5th day of June 2002, hold a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request;
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the General Plan Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
1
2
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
la
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of BRESSI RANCH - GPA 98-03, based on
the following findings:
..
Findinm:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
That the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan from
Unplanned Area (UA), Open Space (OS), Residential Low (RL), and Residential
Low Medium (RLM) to Open Space (OS), Residential Low Medium (RLM),
Residential Medium (RM), Residential Medium High (RMH), Residential High
(RH), Local Commercial (L), Community Facility (CF), Private School (P), and
Planned Industrial (PI) is deemed to be in the public interest in that the General
Plan Amendment will enable the creation of a comprehensive master plan to guide
development of the site as a neighborhood within the City of Carlsbad that provides
a variety of housing, commercial services, community facilities, job opportunities,
and taxed based revenues for the City’s general fund.
That the proposed General Plan Amendment will result in approximately 16 more
acres of Open Space than the current General Plan has designated for Bressi Ranch.
That the proposed revision to the Official Open Space and Conservation Map will
bring the City’s General Plan into conformance with the city’s Draft HMP, as well
as expand the Open Space designation to cover 190.7 acres of the site compromised
of 186.7 acres of Open Space for the preservation of natural resources and 4.0 acres
of Open Space for outdoor recreation.
That the proposed Open Space areas are contiguous with preserve areas identified
in the City’s Draft HMP and are contiguous or within close proximity to Open
Space areas identified on the official Open Space and Conservation Map.
That the proposed Open Space designations create large contiguous conservation
areas that are visually pleasing and reflect the environmental value of the areas.
That the General Plan Amendment provides for the shift of dwelling units resulting
in a clustering of development.
An area of the property is proposed to be designated RH to accommodate
affordable housing.
Land Uses have been sited to be compatible with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan
for Palomar Airport.
-2-
Conditions:
1. This General Plan Amendment is subject to the certification of EIR 98-04 and
approval of Master Plan MP 178, ZC 98-04, and LFMP 17.
...
PC RES0 NO. 5202 87
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of June 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Heineman, Trigas,
White, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Dominguez
ABSTAIN: None
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
PC RES0 NO. 5202 -3-
SITE
BRESSI RANCH
GPA 98-03
a9
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. 5203
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL. OF A ZONE CHANGE FROM LIMITED
CONTROL TO PLANNED COMMLTNITY ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT
ROAD AND EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 17.
CASE NAME: BRESSI RANCH
CASE NO: ZC 98-04
WHEREAS, Lennar Bressi Ranch Venture, LLC, “Developer/Owner.” has
filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Parcel “A” of Boundary Adjustment 543, Document No. 1999-
0085753 on file in the Office of the San Diego County
Recorder, February 11, 1999; and, Parcel “B” of Boundary
Adjustment 543, Document No. 1999-0085753 on file in the
Office of the San Diego County Recorder, February 11,1999.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Zone Change as shown on
Exhibit “X “ dated June 5, 2002, attached hereto, BRESSI RANCH - ZC 98-04 as provided
by Chapter 21.52 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 5th day of June, 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, 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 BRESSI RANCH - ZC 98-04 based on the
following findings:
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
Findinps: ,
1. That the proposed Zone Change from Limited Control to Planned Community is
consistent with the goals and policies of the various elements of the General Plan, in that
the Planned Community zoning designation enables the creation of a master plan
which comprehensively establishes development patterns based on the existing
topography, needs of the community and General Plan.
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 harmonious zoning and general plan land use designations in the
master plan which implements the Planned Community Zoning will be established
in a master plan as required by the Planned Community zone.
3. That the Zone Change is consistent with the public convenience, necessity and general
welfare, and is consistent with sound planning principles in that the intent and purpose
of the L-C zone is to provide an interim zone for areas where planning for future
land uses has not been completed or plans of development have not been formalized.
Comprehensive planning has been completed and has resulted in the Bressi Ranch
Master Plan which will benefit the general public by creating a guide to “smart
growth” and “walkable communities.”
Conditions:
1. Zone Change ZC 98-04 is subject to the certification of EIR 98-04 and approval of
Master Plan MP 178, LFMP 17 and GPA 98-03.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these feedexactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given
a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
PC RES0 NO. 5203 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 5th day of June 2002, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Heineman, Trigas,
White, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Dominguez
ABSTAIN: None
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
PC RES0 NO. 5203 -3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
i
E
S
1C
11
11
12
14
1:
1f
1;
1f
IS
2(
21
2;
2:
2r
2!
2t
2:
21
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5204
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A 585.1 ACRE MASTER PLAN
IDENTIFYING SIX INDUSTRIAL PLANNING AREAS,
SEVEN RESIDENTIAL PLANNING AREAS, ONE MIXED
USE PLANNING AREA, ONE COMMUNITY FACILITIES
PLANNING AREA, AND SIX OPEN SPACE PLANNING
AREAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF REGULATING THE FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 623 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, 2.16
MILLION SQUARE FEET OF INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS,
130,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND
138,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMUNITY RELATED
SERVICES AND/OR FACILITIES ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT
ROAD AND EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 17.
CASE NAME: BRESSI RANCH
CASE NO: MP 178
WHEREAS, Lennar Bressi Ranch Venture, LLC, “Developer/Owner,” has
filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Parcel “A” of Boundary Adjustment 543, Document No. 1999-
0085753 on file in the Office of the San Diego County
Recorder, February 11, 1999; and, Parcel “B” of Boundary
Adjustment 543, Document No. 1999-0085753 on file in the
Office of the San Diego County Recorder, February 11,1999.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Master Plan
according to Exhibit “Y” dated June 5, 2002, attached hereto, BRESSI RANCH - MP 178
as provided by Chapter 21.38 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 5th day of June 2002,
consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Master Plan.
93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of BRESSI RANCH MP 178 based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1.
2.
3.
The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in conformance
with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the facts set forth in the staff
report dated June 5, 2002 including, but not limited to the following: proposed open
space lots create large contiguous conservation areas that are visually pleasing and
reflect the environmental values of the area; The project includes open space for the
preservation of natural resources, public safety and open space for outdoor
recreation; The general plan amendment provides for the shift of dwelling units
resulting in a clustering of development; The proposed master plan contains
development standards and architectural guidelines as well as a review process to
ensure that the desired level of quality is attained; The proposed land use
designations in the master plan provide for a mixed-use site and a community
facilities site which may allow for a private school and commercial uses such as a
service station or convenience store; Dedication and improvement of all circulation
facilities needed for the project will be completed; An area of the property is
proposed to be designated RH to accommodate affordable housing; Land Uses have
been sited to be compatible with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Palomar
Airport.
That all necessary public facilities can be provided concurrent with need and adequate
provisions have been provided to implement those portions of the Capital Improvement
Program applicable to the subject property, in that the master plan includes an analysis
of public facilities needed to support the anticipated development and includes
provisions requiring necessary improvements concurrent with future development.
That the residential and open space portions of the community will constitute an
environment of sustained desirability and stability, and that it will be in harmony with or
provide compatible variety to the character of the surrounding area, and that the sites
proposed for public facilities, such as schools, playgrounds and parks, are adequate to
serve the anticipated population and appear acceptable to the public authorities having
jurisdiction thereof, in that the residential segments of the plan include a wide variety
of housing types from lower income attached units to large lots for custom home
development; one third of the master plan is dedicated to open space which includes
areas for active recreation, passive recreation, and open space preservation; and the
master plan vision is to create a neighborhood within the Carlsbad community that
manifests the Ahwanhee principals of “walkable” and “Livable” communities.
PC RES0 NO. 5204 -2- 9q
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
That the proposed commercial and industrial uses will be appropriate in area, location,
and overall design to the purpose intended, that the design and development are such as
to create an environment of sustained desirability and stability, and that such
development will meet performance standards established by TitIe~21, in that the master
plan establishes substantial design guidelines and special development standards to
create the “walkable” and “livable” communities espoused in the master plan
vision; the commercial component of the plan is centrally located to be reasonably
accessible to all segments of the master plan community; and the industrial
component of the plan is located adjacent to Palomar Airport Road and El Camino
Real, further strengthening the Carlsbad industrial corridor and providing a land
use buffer between the roadways and flight activity of Palomar Airport Road and
the residential and community facilities components of the plan.
That in the case of institutional, recreational, and other similar nonresidential uses, such
development will be proposed, and surrounding areas are protected from any adverse
effects from such development, in that land uses have been located in the plan to the
greatest extent possible to reduce the potential of land use conflict and the plan
development standards, design guidelines and development processing procedures
provide additional scrutiny opportunities to ensure that conflicts bave been
minimized.
That the streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitable and adequate to cany the
anticipated traffic thereon, in that all required roadway improvements are per the
recommendations of the traf!ic analysis prepared by Urban Systems Associates, the
Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 17, and as established by the General
Plan.
That any proposed commercial development can be justified economically at the location
proposed and will provide adequate commercial facilities of the types needed at such
location proposed, in that an extensive commercial study was prepared by the City
and the Bressi Ranch location was established as a desirable location for commercial
services to satisfy the needs of the greater Carlsbad resident and daytime
population.
That the area surrounding the development is or can be planned and zoned in coordination
and substantial compatibility with the development, in that the east and south quadrants
of the Bressi Ranch Master Plan are designated as open space and residential
respectively which relates to the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan to the east and
Villages of La Costa Master Plan to the south, the Bressi Ranch Master Plan
designates the west and north quadrant as industrial which relates to the recently
redeveloped Lincoln-Northpointe property and the Olympic Resort west of El
Camino Real; and, property to the north which includes open space preserved for
the purpose of maintaining clear area for the Palomar Airport landing strip
approach as well as land already developed as the Carlsbad Airport Center.
That appropriate measures are proposed to mitigate any adverse environmental impact as
noted in the adopted Environmental Impact Report for the project, in that the plan
includes revisions from initial submittals to avoid or reduce environmental impacts and
PC RES0 NO. 5204 -3- 95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the plan refers to the comprehensive Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
developed as part of the Environmental Impact Report
Conditions:
1. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Master Plan document(s) necessary to make them internally
consistent and in conformity with final action on the project. Development shall occur
substantially as shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different
from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
2. Approval of Bressi Ranch Master Plan MP 178 is subject to the certification of EIR
98-04 and the approval of GPA 98-03, LFMP 17, and ZC 98-04.
3. Remove the term “gate-guarded” in the Master Plan text (page X-40) and modify
the graphic (page X-19) for Planning Area 11 to eliminate the concept of a “gate
guarded” development.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any 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.
...
...
..
...
..
PC RES0 NO. 5204 -4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of June 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Heineman, Trigas,
White, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Dominguez
ABSTAIN: None
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST: /I
PC RES0 NO. 5204 -5- 97
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. 5205
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING.
APPROVAL OF THE LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
PLAN FOR ZONE 17 ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND
EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 17
CASE NAME: BRESSI RANCH
CASE NO.: LFMP 17
WHEREAS, Lennar Bressi Ranch Venture, LLC has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad which has been referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City Council passed Resolution No. 8797 adopting the 1986
Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan establishing facility zones and performance standards
for public facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City Council passed Resolution No. 9808 requiring the
processing of a Local Facilities Management Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 8110 and 9829
implementing Proposition E approved on November 4, 1986, by the citizens of Carlsbad; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 5th day of June, 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, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 17.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the
Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Local Facilities
Management Plan for Zone 17 - LFMP 17, based on the following
findings and subject to the following conditions: 48
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
21
28
Findings:
1. That the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 17 is consistent with Chapter 21.90
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Growth Management), and with the Citjwide Facilities
and Improvement Plan, in that it contains all matters required by Section 21.90.110 and
thereby ensures implementation of and consistency with the General Plan and to protect
the public health, safety and welfare by ensuring that public facilities and improvements
will be installed to serve new development prior to or concurrently with need.
Conditions:
1. Approval is granted for the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 17 - LFMP 17
as contained in the Plan titled Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 17, dated May
2002, on file in the Planning Department, and incorporated herein by reference.
2. This Local Facilities Management Plan approval is subject to the certification of
EIR 98-04 and approval of Master Plan MP 178, ZC 98-04, and GPA 98-03.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of
the City of Carlsbad on the 5th day of June, 2002, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES : Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Heineman, Trigas,
White, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Dominguez
ABSTAIN: None
p,
+L "b.-
SEENA TRIGAS. Chaime&.on
CARLSBAD PL~G COMMISSION
ATTEST: /7
MICHAEL J OLZMILLM 7 Planning DP rector
PC RES0 NO. 5205 -2-
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department EX-6
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
@ Application submittal date: May 14, 1998
P.C. AGENDA OF: June 5,2002 Project Planner: Christer Westman
Project Engineer: Clyde Wickham
SUBJECT: EIR 98-04/GPA 98-03/ZC 98-04/MP 178LFMP 17/CT 00-06EIDP 99-06/SUP
99-O3/SUP 01-01 - BRESSI RANCH - Request for the certification of a
Program Environmental Impact Report, including the approval of Candidate
Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Consideration, and a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program; and a request for approval of a Master Plan
identifying six industrial planning areas, seven residential planning areas, one
mixed use planning area, one community facilities planning area, and six open
space planning areas for the purpose of regulating the future development of up to
623 residential units, 2.16 million square feet of industrial buildings, 130,000
square feet of commercial buildings, and 138,000 square feet of community
related services and/or facilities; General Plan Land Use Amendment, Zone
Change, Local Facilities Management Plan, Carlsbad Tract subdivision map,
Hillside Development Permit, and Special Use Permits for the purpose of
designating the type, location, and infiastructural needs of development within a
585.1 acre site south of Palomar Airport Road and east of El Camino Real in
Local Facilities Management Zone 17.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5201
RECOMMENDING that the City Council CERTIFY the Program Environmental Impact
Report ER 98-04 including the approval of Candidate Findings of Fact, a Statement of
Ovemding Consideration, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, ADOPT
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5202, 5203, 5204, and 5205 RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL of General Plan Amendment GPA 98-03, Zone Change ZC 98-04, Master Plan
MP 178, and Local Facilities Management Plan LFMP 17; and, ADOPT Planning Commission
Resolutions No. 5206, 5207, 5208, and 5209 APPROVING Carlsbad Tract CT 00-06, Hillside
Development Permit HDP 99-06, Special Use Permit SUP 99-03, Special Use Permit SUP 01-01
based on the findings and subject to the conditions found therein.
11. INTRODUCTION
Lennar Communities has prepared a master plan for the development of the 585.1 acre Bressi
Ranch. An environmental impact report has been prepared which analyzes potential impacts to
lhc environment which may be caused by the development of the site. The master plan has
identified land uses which include industrial, commercial, single-family residential, multi family
residential, community facilities, open space preserves, and open space for recreation.
EIR 98-04/GPA 98-03/ZC 98-04MP 178nFMP 17/CT OO-O6/HDP 99-06/
SUP 99-03/SUP 01-01 - BRESSI RANCH
June 5.2002
Associated applications which enable approval and implementation of the master plan include a
subdivision map to create 22 large “planning area” lots, a Hillside Development Permit
regulating the initial grading of the site;an El Camino Real Comdor Special Use Permit ensuring
compatibility with the development standards of the El Camino Real Comdor Development
Standards and a Floodplain Special Use Permit addressing the proposed development’s impacts
to the floodplain.
The environmental analysis identified that the cumulative impacts to air quality cannot be
mitigated and are therefore significant and unmitigable. A Statement of Overriding
Consideration must be adopted to approve the project. No other significant unmitigable
environmental impacts have been identified in the EIR. Prior to initializing the EIR, the
applicant consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and the California Department of Fish and Game and was issued a Section 7 permit for limited
impacts to significant environmental resources.
The applicant and staff have endeavored to design the master plan to provide clear direction for
future development. The applicant’s vision for the Bressi Ranch is a “walkable” community.
Goals to implement the vision are described at the beginning of the plan. Neighborhood and
individual planning area design criteria and development standards have been developed within
the master plan to manifest the goals.
The design criteria has been based on neo traditional town planning, the Ahwahnee Principals of
town planning and the personal and professional experiences of the applicant and City staff.
Specifically there should be a mix of land uses including housing, recreation, jobs, and services.
All of the land uses should be within walking distance of each other and transit stops. Housing
should be available to a wide range of economic levels and age groups, and there should be a
center focus that combines commercial, civic, cultural and recreational uses. The basis for the
individual planning area development standards was Title 21 (Zoning Ordinance). Some
variations to standards are proposed which will be unique to the Bressi Ranch. These variations
are described under the Master Plan heading of this report.
There are no outstanding staff issues and therefore approval of the associated resolutions is
recommended.
111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The project includes both legislative and adjudicatory applications. Legislative actions include a
new master plan for the 585.1 acre Bressi Ranch and a General Plan Land Use Amendment to
change Un-Planned Area (UA), Open Space (OS), Residential Low (RL), Residential Low
Medium (RLM), and Residential Medium (RM) densities to OS, RLM, RM, Residential Medium
High (RMH), Residential High (RH) densities, Local Commercial (L), Community Facilities
(CF), Private School (P), and Planned Industrial (PI). A Zone Change is proposed to change the
site’s Limited Control (L-C) designation to Planned Community (PC).
The site is in Local Facilities Management Zone 17. A Local Facilities Management Plan
(LFMP) has not been previously adopted for this zone. A new LFMP has been prepared which
EIR 98-04/GPA 98-03/ZC 98-04/MP 178/LFMP 17/CT OO-O6/HDP 99-06/
SUP 99-03/SUF' 01-01 - BRESSI RANCH
June 5,2002
identifies inffastructural needs and describes how the needed facility(s) will be either guaranteed
or constructed.
Adjudicatory applications include a 22 lot subdivision over the entire 585.1 acres. The
subdivision will create lots which correspond with the individual master plan planning areas.
There are six industrial lots accounting for 150.1 acres; seven residential lots accounting for
174.9 acres; six open space lots accounting for 190.7 acres; one community facilities lot at 13.7
acres, and one mixed use lot at 27.7 acres. Roadways are not included in the lot area calculations
and equal approximately 28 acres. Each of the open space lots except OS 2 (lot 18) will be deed
restricted as an open space preserve. OS 2 will serve as a community recreation site.
Other applications are a Hillside Development Permit (HDP), and two Special Use Permits
(SUP). Each of these permits relates to the project's proposed grading.
The project site is located at the southeast comer of Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real.
There are a total of 585.1 acres within the project boundaries which are vacant except for the
single-family home used by the Bressi Family.
The topography is rolling hills to some areas of steep slopes. The flatter areas have been used
for agriculture in the past most recently for dry farming.
There are some view opportunities to the west and southwest which include glimpses of the
ocean. The McClellan Palomar Airport is located to the northwest, industrial development exists
to the west and north, Rancho Canillo is to the east and Villages of La Costa to the south.
Applicable Regulations
The proposed project is subject to the following plans, ordinances, standards and policies:
1. Master Plan: Planned Community, Chapter 21.38 of the Municipal Code;
2. General Plan;
3. Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan Palomar Airport;
4. Zone Change: Title 21 Zoning Ordinance;
5. Growth Management, Chapter 21.90 of the Municipal Code;
6. Subdivision Ordinance, Title 20 of the Municipal Code;
7. Hillside Development Regulations, Chapter 21.95 of the Municipal Code;
8. El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards;
9. Floodplain Management Regulations, Chapter 21.1 10 of the Municipal Code;
1%'. ANALYSIS
The recommendation of approval for this project was developed by analyzing the project's
consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. The following analysis
section discusses compliance with each of these applicable regulations/policies utilizing both text
and tables. The format follows the discretionary actions being requested to permit the
development of the Bressi Ranch Project.
EIR 98-04/GPA 98-03IZC 98-04" 178LFMP 17/CT OO-O6/HDP 99-06/
SUP 99-03/SUP 01-01 - BRESSI RANCH
June 5,2002
1. Master Plan
Master plans are required for properties that are over 100 acres in size and are located in the
Planned Community Zone (Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.38). The Bressi Ranch site
falls within these boundaries.
The intent and purpose of creating a master plan is to:
(1) Encourage the orderly implementation of the general plan by the comprehensive planning
and development of large tracts of land under unified ownership or developmental control so that
the entire tract will be developed in accord with an adopted master plan to provide an
environment of stable and desirable character;
(2) Provide a flexible regulatory procedure to encourage creative and imaginative planning of
coordinated communities involving a mixture of residential densities and housing types, open
space, community facilities, both public and private and, where appropriate, commercial and
industrial areas;
(3) Allow for the coordination of planning efforts between developer and city to provide for the
orderly development of all necessary public facilities to ensure their availability concurrent with
need;
(4) Provide a framework for the phased development of an approved master planned area to
provide some assurance to the developer that later development will be acceptable to the city;
provided such plans are in accordance with the approved planned community master plan; and
(5) Ensure that all new and, as appropriate; existing master plans reserve a site or sites for
community facilities uses which benefit the community as a whole by satisfymg
sociaUreligious/human service needs.
The proposed master plan will control the type and intensity of land uses within the Bressi Ranch
by establishing planning areas and their corresponding zoning and development standards. The
following Table A, Bressi Ranch Master Plan Land Use Summary, provides a land use and
acreage tabulation for the Master Plan.
EIR 98-04lGPA 98-03lZC 98-04MP 178lLFMl' 17KT OO-O6/HDP 99-061
SUP 99-03lSUP 01-01 - BRESSI RANCH
June 5,2002
TABLE A - BRESSI RANCH MASTER PLAN LAND USE SU.MMARY
Land Use
Residential Development*
Total Acreage
174.9 Residential Subtotal:
64.0 Medium High Density (8-15 dulac)
16.2 Medium Density (4-8 ddac)
94.7 Low Medium Density (0-4 ddac)
Non-Residential Development
Conmiunity FacilitiesPrivate School
27.7 Mixed Use:
13.7
Community Facilities / Local
CommerciaVResidential High Density
Planned Industrial
585.1 Project Total:
410.2 Non Residential Subtotal:
28.0 Major Roadways
190.7 Open Space
150.1
*High Density residential development is part of the Mixed Use Planning Area 15.
Community Facilities / Local
CommerciaVResidential High Density
Planned Industrial
190.7 Open Space
150.1
Major Roadways
410.2 Non Residential Subtotal:
28.0
585.1 Project Total:
*High Density residential development is part of the Mixed Use Planning Area 15.
Chapter 21.38, Planned Community Zone, of the Municipal Code specifies the required contents
for all Master Plans. Requirements include a map of the property boundaries, land use map,
open space program, development process, infrastructural improvements, grading scheme,
development standards, and an analysis of the project's fiscal impact on .the City. The Bressi
Ranch Master Plan provides the necessary components within thirteen chapters plus appendices.
The following is a general listing of the contents of each chapter and the appendices.
Chapter I - Introduction: Introduction includes information such as the organization and scope
of the plan, a project description, master applications, master plan goals, and relationship to the
Rancho Canillo Master Plan and Villages of La Costa Master Plan.
Chapter I1 - Goals of the Bressi Ranch Master Plan: Outlines the various "Smart Growth"
techniques and Ahwahnee Principles that are incorporated into the Master Plan. The goal is to
make Bressi Ranch a livable community where people can live, work and play by building a
resource efficient community.
Chapter 111 - Land Use Entitlements & Provisions: Covers the authority granted by approval of
the Master Plan, and provides a discussion of the maximum number of units for the Master Plan,
Community Associations and CC&Rs, General Plan designations, Zoning designations, and a
description of land uses allowed by the Master Plan
Chapter IV - Streets: Provides the Bressi Ranch development standards and design guidelines
for streets.
Chapter V - Landscaue: Presents the overall vision for landscaping within Bressi Ranch
including a brush management plan. This chapter outlines specific landscape zones and includes
EIR 98-04lGPA 98-03lZC 98-04/Mp 178/LFM?’ 17lCT OO-O6/HDP 99-06/
June 5,2002
SUP 99-03lSUP 01-01 - BRESSI RANCH
a detailed list of trees, shrubs, vines, and groundcover that would best suit the Bressi Ranch
environment.
Chapter VI - Development Review Process: Describes the general development review process
for all of the individual planning areas within the Master Plan. This includes the review process
for tentative maps, industrial planning areas, residential planning areas, custom lots, mixed use
and community facilities.
Chapter VI1 - IndustrialIOffice Developments and Design Guidelines: Contains the standards
and guidelines that apply specifically to the industriaUoffice planning areas one through five and
fourteen. The chapter includes discussion of industrial driveways, site design criteria,
architectural guidelines, sign criteria, screening and edge treatments.
Chapter VI11 - CommerciaUCommunitv Facilities DeveIoDment Standards & Design Guidelines:
Contains the standards and guidelines that apply specifically to the community facilities and
mixed use planning areas thirteen and fifteen. The chapter includes requirements for site design
criteria, building and massing, landscaping, connection to adjacent uses, traffic calming, and
street lighting.
Chapter IX - Village Green Development Standards & Design Guidelines: hovides a set of
standards and guidelines that apply to the Village Green (Open Space Area 2).
Chauter X - Residential Development Standards & Design Guidelines: Contains the standards
and guidelines that apply specifically to the residential planning areas six through twelve. The
chapter includes discussion of site plan design, neighborhood development standards and design
guidelines, architectural guidelines, and individual planning area development standards.
Chapter XI - Open Space: Provides the requirements for the six open space planning areas, most
of which will remain undeveloped. This chapter includes details on the pedestrian trail system,
citywide trails, maintenance of open space, and special design criteria.
Chapter XI1 - Grading: Establishes appropriate guidelines for the grading within the Master
Plan. This includes a section on conformance with City of Carlsbad ordinances.
Chapter XI11 - Public Facilities: Discusses how the Master Plan will contribute to facilities and
services required by the City’s Growth Management Program.
Amendices - Appendix A and Appendix B: Appendix A contains a General Plan Consistency
Analyses. Appendix B contains an analysis of the Master Plan’s consistency with other
applicable planning documents.
Fiscal Impact Analysis - A fiscal impact study titled “Lennar Communities Bressi Ranch Fiscal
Impact Analysis” and related documents by Douglas Ford and Associates was prepared and is on
file with the Planning Department. The study was also previously distributed to members of the
Planning Commission. In summary, the study shows that the ultimate buildout of the Bressi
Ranch Master Plan as proposed will result in City revenues which fall short of City expenditures
required to provide City services to the residences within the Bressi Ranch community.
EIR 98-04lGPA 98-03lZC 98-04M 178LFMP 17lCT 00-06/HDP 99-061
SW 99-03/SW 01-01 - BRESSI RANCH
June 5,2002
Issues resolved through the development of the master plan include land use compatibility,
general circulation, residential density, community facilities, infrastructure, and development
standards specific to the Bressi Ranch Master Plan versus those that are otherwise applied to the
remainder of the City.
Land Use ComDatibiliQ
The Bressi Ranch Master Plan has been designed so that facilities essential to the daily life of the
residents are part of an integrated community including housing, employment, retail, community
passive and active open space, and community facilities. Land use compatibility was discussed
not only for all uses within the master plan but also for those existing uses adjacent to the Bressi
Ranch.
Adjacent properties include the Palomar Airport to the northwest, the Lincoln-North Pointe West
industrial development to the west, vacant and industrial development to the north, the Carrillo
Ranch to the east and the future La Costa Greens to the south.
Land uses within the master plan generally reflect the same type of land use adjacent and offsite.
The north and west planning areas are industrial. The east is predominately open space and the
south planning areas are primarily residential and open space. Establishing like land uses
adjacent to neighboring properties ensures basic compatibility. Buffers are created through open
space lots, grade changes and roadways.
Internally, the Bressi Ranch Master Plan will provide a variety of housing types serving different
income levels. In addition active and passive open space, commercial, industrial, office and
community uses have been planned.
Separation between the industrial uses and the residential planning areas is achieved through
intervening roadways and setbacks from property lines. None of the industrial planning areas are
immediately adjacent to a residential planning area. Additionally, industria1 operations such as
deliveries and the operation of mechanical devices are relegated by the development standards
and design guidelines to areas which are “interior” to the site which furfher reduces the potential
for conflicts with industrial land uses.
Otherwise, the goal of the Bressi Ranch Master Plan is to integrate housing, shops, jobs, parks
and community facilities so that each is within easy walking distance of each other. A mixed-
use area has been strategically located south of the industrial area and north of the residential
area to be within easy walking distance for both employees and residents. In order to achieve
this goal, buffers and separation of these uses were not established. Subsequent design of each
of the planning areas will be guided by the development standards and design guidelines which
focus is to allow physical development that is pedestrian accessible, and addresses the potential
daily conflicts that are inherent in combining dissimilar land uses like commercial and
residential.
EIR 98-04/GPA 98-03IZC 98-04/MP 178LFMP 17/CT OO-O6/HDP 99-06/
SUP 99-03/Sl.JP 01-01 - BRESSI RANCH
June 5,2002
Circulation
The project is required to construct frontage improvements to Palomar Airport Road and El
Camino Real, full width improvements of El Fuerte Street from Palomar Airport Road to the
existing northern terminus of El Fuerte Street in the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan, and Poinsettia
Lane from El Camino Real to the existing terminus east of the Bressi Ranch boundary. These
streets create the backbone for vehicular circulation through the ranch. Several lesser roads will
be constructed to complete a vehicular circulation network.
Circulation through the master plan will also be available for pedestrians and non-motorized
vehicles. Sidewalks and trails are an integral part of the master plan goals. The master plan
identifies a conceptual trails program which will be implemented through the subsequent
development of each of the planning areas.
Residential DensitdCalifornia State Densitv Bonus
The maximum number of residential dwelling units that will be allowed on the 585.1 acre site is
determined by establishing the site’s net developable acreage (all of the land that is not
constrained) and multiplying that number by the corresponding General PldGrowth
Management Ordinance growth control point. Based on the existing General PldGrowth
Management Ordinance and current constraint information, a total of 498 base residential
dwelling units may be allowed within Bressi Ranch. Through the use of California Government
Code Section 65915 (Density Bonuses and Other Incentives), an additional 125 (25% x 498)
dwelling units have been allocated to the master plan for a maximum total of 623 residential
dwelling units. In return for the “density bonus” 20% of the base dwelling units (20% x 498 =
100) must be made affordable to lower income households. One hundred units of affordable
apartments are proposed to be provided in Planning Area 15.
The 125 “Density Bonus” residential units come from the City of Carlsbad’s current existing and
future excess dwelling unit bank for the southeast quadrant of 1,409. The City Council will be
reviewing a “new” dwelling unit bank in the same time frame as this project for the entire city
which will have already considered the Bressi Ranch 125 “Density Bonus” residential units.
The allotment of the units from the bank to the Bressi Ranch project is appropriate in that, the
units will in part be for “affordable” housing, the Master Plan established location for the
housing is near major sources of employment at the Carlsbad Research Center, Carlsbad Airport
Center, and future Bressi Ranch industrial park. The master plan is situated on a Circulation
Element Roadway with direct access to Interstate 5. The master plan is also designed to create
pedestrian access and to provide all the necessary facilities to accommodate the buildout of the
Bressi Ranch throughout consistent with the Council’s policy regarding livable communities.
Community Facilities
Planning Areas 13 and 15 will be developed with community facilities to serve the residents of
the Bressi Ranch Master Plan. In accordance with the requirements of Chapter 21.25 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code, a minimum 5.09 acres of community facilities of which 2.0 acres
must be a day care center, must be located in Planning Area 13 of the Master Plan. Additional
Community facilities may also be provided in Planning Area 15.
EIR 98-04/GPA 98-03/ZC 9&04/MP 178LFMP 17/CT 00-06iHDP 9Y-06/
SUP 99-03/SUP 01-01 - BRESSI RANCH
June 5,2002
Infrastructure ..
All development must project and guarantee the infrastructure necessary to accommodate the
proposed project. Infkastructure includes roads, parks, facilities to convey both sewer and storm
water, schools and water supplies. A full analysis of the infrastructural needs for the Bressi
Ranch is in the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 17. The Bressi Ranch Master Plan
summarizes and illustrates the needs.
Develovment Standards
The development standards and guidelines were prepared based on existing ordinances and
policies which were modified in some cases to achieve a master plan goal consistent with good
planning principles. In most cases, the development standards for each planning area are the
same as those for the underlying Zoning designations. Standards proposed for the master plan
which are different from the Zoning Ordinance or existing policies are as follows:
An anticipated number of residential dwelling units has been established for each of the
planning areas. As subdivisions are processed for each, an actual number of dwelling units
will be established. If the actual number of dwelling units varies from the number stated in
the master plan by ten percent or less, a minor master plan amendment must be reviewed by
the Planning Commission concurrently with the subdivision. Variations greater than ten
percent must be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council as a major master
plan amendment.
Subdivisions creating residential lots greater than 5,000 square feet may be processed
without the inclusion of residential architecture. If the architecture is not included with a
subdivision creating lots greater than 5,000 square feet, it will be reviewed by the Planning
Commission as part of a follow-up Planned Development Permit amendment or Site
Development Plan.
Residential architectural review is the purview of the Planning Commission with the
exception of architectural review of four or fewer homes for “custom” lots in Planning Area
11 which will be reviewed by the Planning Director and architectural review included in a
Planned Unit Development application for more than 50 lots which will be reviewed by the
City Council. Appeals of Planning Commission action regarding architecture will be heard
by the City Council.
Single story homes are not required in Planning Area 12 as would otherwise be required by
City Council Policy 44. However, in order to comply with City Council Policy 44 on a
Master Plan level versus a neighborhood level, the requirement for single story homes as part
of a product mix for the Master Plan is not foregone. A modified standard is proposed which
allows the single story homes required for Planning Area 12 to be re-distributed to Planning
Areas 6, 9, 10, and 11 along with the requirement to create “single story dominant”
floorplans for Planning Area 12. The result is a higher percentage of single story units in
Planning Areas 6,9, 10, and 11.
EIR 98-04/GPA 98-03/ZC 98-04i” 178LFMP 17/CT 00-06MDP 9Y-06/
SUP 99-03/SUP 01-01 - BRESSI RANCH
June 5,2002
Page 10
Modifications to the Hillside Development Ordinance standards may be approved by the
decision making body if it finds that such modification will result in a grading design that
better achieves the goals of the Master Plan and the Ahwanhee Principals.
2. General Plan Amendment
Residential Densities
The General Plan Amendment will revise land use designations within the Master Plan from
Unplanned Area (UA), Open Space (OS), Residential Low (RL), Residential Low Medium
(RLM), and Residential Medium (RM) to OS, RLM, RM, Residential Medium High (RMH),
Residential High (RH), Community Facilities (CF), Private School (P), Local Commercial (L),
and Planned Industrial (PI). The proposed revisions will result in a variety of residential and
non-residential land uses including large natural open space areas that more accurately reflect the
natural constraints of the site. In coordination with the master plan, the proposed revisions will
not result in an increase in the potential number of residential dwelling units allowed under the
existing General Plan. An explanation of that coordination follows. Open Space areas are
increased and un-planned areas are designated as industrial and commercial.
The existing General Plan mix is approximately 174.5 acres of open space, 120.8 acres of RL,
92.6 acres of RLM, and 41.5 acres of RM and the remaining 155.7 acres is Unplanned Area and
roadways. Each of the General Plan residential land use designations has a dwelling unit per
acre (ddac) density range. The range for RL is 0.0-1.5 ddac, RLM is 0.0-4.0 ddac, and RM is
4.0-8.0 ddac.
The Growth Management Ordinance reduces the General Plan density range by the
establishment of a control point for each residential land use. The control point for RL is 1.0
ddac, for RLM is 3.2 ddac, and for RM is 6.0 ddac. The reduced dwelling unit per acre range
for RL becomes 0.0-1.0 ddac, RLM becomes 0.0-3.2 ddac, and RM becomes 4.0-6.0 ddac.
Applying these reduced ranges to the net developable acres for each of the residential land uses,
the existing General Plan and Growth Management Ordinance allows a range of zero to 498
residential units.
Additional units may be allowed under California State legislation as a density bonus. This law
allows for a minimum 25% density increase in return for allocating 20% of the project base units
(498 x 0.2 = 100) to lower income households. Projects proposing to implement the Density
Bonus incentive under the existing general plan could achieve at a minimum an additional 125
dwelling units for a total of 623.
By comparison, the proposed General Plan Amendment results in 190.7 acres of open space, no
land designated as RL, 94.7 gross acres of RLM, 16.2 gross acres of RM, 64.0 gross acres of
RMH, 27.7 gross acres of mixed use, 13.7 gross acres of Community Facilities (CF), and 150.1
gross acres of Planned Industrial (PI). The remaining 28 acres are for roads.
A comparison of the existing and proposed General Plan land use designations reveal that there
will be an increase in open space from 174.5 to 190.7 gross acres, a decrease in residential land
area but an increase in the number of residential units allowed from 498 to 1,466 not inclusive of
/o 9
EIR 98-04/GPA 98-03IZC 98-04iMP 178LFMP 17lCT 00-06MDP 9Y-061
SUP 99-03/SUP 01-01 - BRESSI RANCH
June 5.2002
any potential density bonus (254.9 gross acres to 174.9), and a change of 155.7 gross acres of
unplanned area plus approximately 50 acres of residential land use to 27.7 acres of mixed use,
and 178.1 gross acres of industrial uses and roads.
The residential land use areas have been decreased in size and the area spread out to other uses
like Community Facilities, Local Commercial, and Open Space, but seemingly the residential
densities have been increased. The mechanism used to maintain the residential density at the
same level as the existing General Plan is the master plan. A maximum number of dwelling
units for the entire master plan has been established. That number is 498 dwelling units per the
existing General Plan plus an additional 125 units, a 25% density increase in retum for allocating
20% of the project base units (498 x 0.2 = 100) to lower income households. The number of
units allowed by the General Plan becomes moot and the land use designation for each planning
area is assigned merely to describe each planning area’s potential product type.
hen Space
One of the goals of the General Plan is the preservation of open space. In the context of the
Draft Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP), Core 5 Preserve Planning Area (PPA) is
located to the north of the site and the southeastern comer of the project site is within Linkage D.
The primary objective of Carlsbad’s Draft Habitat Management Plan is to allow development
while identifying and maintaining a preserve system that allows for sustained existence of
animals and plants at both the local and regional levels. The portions of the project site which
fall within the PPA and Linkage D are considered as having moderate potential for conversion
because these areas form a linkage between high value areas. The General,Plan Amendment will
designate the preservation areas as open space on the General Plan Land Use Map, and result in
an increase of area in the site designated as open space from 174.5 to 190.7 acres.
In order to adjust the boundaries of any open space shown on the “Official Open Space and
Conservation Map”, dated June, 2001, the findings listed in implementing policy C.20 of the
Open Space Planning and Protection Section of the General Plan Open Space and Conservation
Element are required to be made. The three required findings and affirmative justification for
each are listed in the Planning Commission Resolution for the General Plan Amendment and
follow here.
1. The proposed open space area is equal to or greater that the area depicted on the Official
Open Space and conservation Map.
Proiect Finding: The Official Open Space and Conservation Map defines approximately 175
acres of Bressi Ranch as either “ExistingjApproved Open Space” or “Constrained Open
Space.” The proposed project designates 190.7 acres of Bressi Ranch as Open Space,
including open space for the preservation of natural resources and open space for outdoor
recreation. Because the proposed open space areas are greater than the areas depicted on the
City’s Official Open Space and Conversation Map, the proposed project is consistent with
this Finding.
2. The proposed open space area is of environmental quality equal to or greater than that
depicted on the Official Open Space and Conservation Map.
EIR 98-04/GPA 98-03/ZC 9&-04/MP 178LFMP 17/CT 00-06/HDP 9Y-06/
SW 99-03/SW 01-01 - BRESSI RANCH
June 5,2002
Page 12
Proiect Finding: The proposed revision to the Official Open Space and Conservation Map
will create more Open Space of equal value and will bring the City’s General Plan into
conformance with the city’s Draft HMP, as well as expand the open space designation to
cover 190.7 acres of the site compromised of 186.7 acres of open space for the preservation
of natural resources and 4.0 acres of open space for outdoor recreation. As discussed in
Section 5.6, Biological Resources, of the Program EIR for the Bressi Ranch Master Plan, the
General Plan Amendment would change the General Plan designation of the southeastern
comer of the project site to Open Space. Because this portion of the site is within Linkage D
of the City’s Draft HMP, it is considered as having moderate potential for conservation
because this area forms a linkage between high value areas. This linkage will preserve the
value of the site’s open space and assist in meeting the goals of the HMP.
3. The proposed adjustment to open space, as depicted on the Official Open Space and
Conservation Map, is contiguous or within close proximity to open space as shown on the
Official Open Space and Conservation Map.
Proiect Finding: Proposed open space areas are contiguous with preserve areas identified in
the City’s Draft HMP and are contiguous or within close proximity to open space areas
identified on the official Open Space and Conservation Map. Some of the additional open
space areas provide a linkage between Core Areas of the City’s Draft HMP and, therefore,
provide more habitat value.
The General Plan is divided into eight elements. Proposed project consistency with applicable
envirbnmental goals of each of the eight elements is contained on pages 5.1-1 through page 5.12-
1 of the Bressi Ranch Program EIR. The proposed amendment is also in compliance with the
additional General Plan Goals, Objectives or Policies depicted in the following table:
Element
Land Use
Land Use
Land Use
TABLE B: GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE I
”
“
”
-
Goal, Objective, Policy
that is pleasing to the eye, rich in ’
Proposed Open Space designations Objective B.2 - Create a visual form
Project Consistency
pleasing and reflect the values.
conservation areas that are visually variety, reflecting environmental
create large contiguous
environmental value of the areas.
Policy C.4 - Encourage clustering The general plan amendment when it is compatible with adjacent provides for the shift of dwelling
development. units resulting in a clustering of
Policy C.6 -Review the architecture The proposed master plan contains of buildings to ensure the quality and development standards and
integrity of design and enhancement architectural guidelines as well as
of the character of each a review process to ensure that the
neighborhood. desired level of quality is attained.
development.
EJR 98-04IGPA 98-03/ZC 96-04/" 178LFMP 17/CT 00-06MDP 99-06/
SUP 99-03/SUP 01-01 - BRESSI RANCH
June 5,2002
Page 13
TA
Element
Land Use
Land Use
Circulation
Housing
Public Safety
;LE B: GENERAL PLAN COMPLI.
Goal, Objective, Policy
Policy C.8 -Provide for a sufficient
diversity of land uses so that schools,
parks and recreational areas, churches
and neighborhood shopping centers
are in close proximity.
Policy C.12 - Develop and retain
open space in all categories of land
use.
Streets & Traffic Control Policy C.18
-Require new development to
dedicate and improve all public
rights-of-way for circulation facilities
needed to serve development.
Policy 3.6a- A minimum of fifteen
percent of all units approved for any
master plan community shall be
affordable to lower income
households.
Airports Hazards Policy C.3 -
Review development proposals in the
Airport Influence Area to ensure
design features are incorporated to
address airport crash and noise
hazards.
NCE, continued
Project Consistency
The proposed land use
designations and master plan
provide for a mixed-use site and
community facilities uses and
allow for a private school and
commercial uses such as a service
station or convenience store.
The project includes open space
for the preservation of natural
resources, public safety and open
space for outdoor recreation.
Dedication and improvement of all
circulation facilities needed for the
project will be completed.
An area of the property is
proposed to be designated RH to
accommodate affordable housing.
Land Uses have been sited to be
compatible with the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan for
Palomar Airport.
3. Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan Palomar Airport
Portions of the master plan fall within the boundaries of the McClellan Palomar Airport
Influence Area and Flight Activity Zone. A very small area at the comer of McClellan Palomar
Airport Road and El Camino Real is within the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). All of these
areas have been designated for development with office, warehouse or industrial uses. Uses
within the RPZ have been further restricted to low intensity operations. Each of these land uses
is acceptably compatible with the airport operations per the airport's Comprehensive Land Use
Plan. Land areas outside the boundaries of the Airport Influence Area have been designated for
either residential, commercial, community facilities or open space uses. A notice will be
required for all properties within Bressi Ranch disclosing that there is the potential for noise due
to over flight.
EIR 98-04IGPA 98-03/ZC Y8-04IMp 178LFMP 17KT 00-06MDP 99-061
SUP 99-03/SUP 01-01 - BRESSI RANCH
June 5,2002
4. Zone Change
The intent and purpose of the L-C zone is to provide an interim zone for areas where planning
for future land uses has not been completed or plans of development have not been formalized.
After proper planning or plan approval has been completed, property zoned L-C may be rezoned
in accord with this title.
The applicant has developed a Master Plan for the subject property. Consistent with the
intention of the L-C zone, a Zone Change has been requested to designate the property as
Planned Community. Planned Community is appropriate in that the entire property will be
subject to the comprehensive Bressi Ranch Master Plan.
5. Local Facilities Management Plan
A Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) has been prepared for Zone 17 pursuant to the
requirements of the Growth Management Ordinance, Chapter 21.90 of the Municipal Code. No
LFMP has ever been previously adopted for Zone 17. Zone 17 comprises 585.1 acres. The
proposed zone plan covers the entire zone and analyzes the requirements for the eleven public
facilities included within the growth management program. For each of the eleven public
facilities the plan lists the required performance standard, provides a facility planning and
adequacy analysis, required mitigation, and financing sources for any required mitigation. The
zone will be in compliance with the required performance standards by satisfying the general and
special conditions listed in the zone plan.
The impacts of the build out in Local Facilities Management Zone 17 are based on a projection
of 623 residential units, 2,160,000 square feet of industrial uses, 130,000 square feet of
commercial uses and 138,000 square feet of community facilities and schools.
The applicant is requesting approval of a density bonus per California State Legislation to
provide “affordable” housing. The bonus is equal to 25% of the base units allowed by the
Carlsbad Growth Management Ordinance. The base units allowed are 498. Granting a density
bonus results in allotting 125 residential units to the project over and above the base Growth
Management Ordinance allowance.
The project’s facilities impacts are summarized below:
TABLE C - LFMP ZONE 17 SUMMARY
EIR 98-04/GPA 98-03/ZC ’IX-O4/” 178LFMP 17/CT OO-O6/HDP Y9-061
SUP 99-03/SUP 01-01 - BRESSI RANCH
June 5,2002
TABLE C - LFMP ZONE 17 SUMMARY, continued
STANDARD IMPACTS COMPLIANCE I
WISTANDARDS
Fire
Carlsbad Unified
Yes: School Fees Elementary: 13 1.3 1 Schools:
Yes 157.1 eligible acres provided Open Space
Yes Station #2 & #5
Yes 1,994 EDU Sewer Collection System
High: 80.34 School District
Middle: 65.21
Water 7JeS 4v.hxn
6. Tentative Tract Map
A major subdivision (the subdivision of five or more lots) is required per Title 20 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code. Chapter 20.12 identifies the procedure for processing major subdivisions and
includes the required findings for approval of same. Chapter 20.16 identifies the requirements
that must be met in the design of the subdivision. The proper procedure was followed regarding
the submittal of the application for the requested subdivision including the provision of all of the
required information on the map.
The proposed map and the proposed design and improvement of the subdivision as conditioned,
is consistent with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan, Titles 20 and 21 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code, and the State Subdivision Map Act. Subdivision of the property will
not cause serious public health problems in that the subdivision is proposed in an area
historically designated for development, and although the site had been used in the past for
agriculture and there may be some surface agricultural chemical residue, the soils will be
remediated.
The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since surrounding
properties are also designated for development on the General Plan and in the Bressi Ranch
Master Plan. The site is physically suitable for development since there is access to public
rights-of-way, soils are suitable for the required compaction, and sensitive habitat and slopes too
steep for development have been preserved.
The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements required of the project will not
conflict with easements of record or easements established by court judgment, or acquired by the
public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, in that
dedications for El Fuerte Street, Alicante Road, Poinsettia Lane, Palomar Airport Road, El
Camino Real and various internal streets have been included as conditions of approval and the
project does not otherwise propose building encroachment into any easement.
The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural
heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, in that the geographical disposition of the
project site will allow for the design of structures to implement passive heating and cooling
systems.
EIR 98-04/GPA 98-03/ZC 98-04/MP 178LFMP 17/CT OO-O6/HDP 99-06/
SUP 99-03/Sl.JP 01-01 - BRESSI RANCH
June 5,2002
The proposed lot sizes conform to the requirements of the proposed zone as required in Title 21
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The smallest lots proposed are Lot 14 which is 1.1 acres and
Lot 1 which is 2.5 acres. Both are proposed industrial planning areas. The proposed lots are
larger than usual because it is the applicant’s intention to further subdivide the planning areas
after approval of the “master” tentative map and Master Plan.
In order for the proposed lots to have utility services and access kom the adjacent streets, the
developer will be required to offer various dedications (e.g., drainage easements, street right-of-
way) and install street and utility improvements, including but not limited to, driveway aprons,
gutters, sewer facilities, drainage facilities, and fire hydrants.
7. Hillside Development Permit
Chapter 21.95 requires that a Hillside Development Permit accompany any development
proposal which involves slopes of greater than 15 percent and an elevation differential greater
than 15 feet in height. These conditions apply within the 585.1 acre subdivision. A Hillside
Development Permit may only be approved if the six hillside findings can be made.
The first two findings require that hillside and undevelopable areas have been properly
identified. The proper identification of these circumstances are provided through the project
submittal in the form of a hillside conditions exhibit and a constraints exhibit. Both exhibits
were provided as required. Approximately 53.5 percent of the site is comprised of slopes
between 0 and 15 percent, 17.3 percent of the slopes are from 15 to 25 percent, 23.5 percent of
the slopes are from 25 to 40%, and 5.7 percent of the slopes are grades over 40 percent.
The third criterion is that the development must be consistent with the purpose, intent and
requirements of the Hillside Ordinance. The stated purpose and intent of the ordinance includes
the avoidance of substantial damage or alteration of significant natural resource areas;
preservation of the natural appearance of hillsides; consistency with the Open Space and
Conservation Element of the General Plan; prevention of erosion and protection of the lagoons
from excessive siltation; and assurance that development is compatible with existing topography.
Generally, the project has avoided alteration of the site’s significant natural slopes and
incorporated them into the open space preserve system. The grading proposed over the
remainder of the site includes varying slope heights and terraced pads which, to the best of their
ability, reflects the site’s natural slope progression from low near the intersection of Palomar
Airport Road and El Camino Real and upward movement in elevation to the east. Because the
grading scheme is to create large pads suitable for industrial and commercial development,
significant terracing cannot be accomplished. Erosion control is a standard function of the
grading permit process. The project is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Hillside
Ordinance.
Criterion number four requires that no residential or habitable development or grading will occur
in those portions of the property which are undevelopable pursuant to the provisions of Section
21.53.230. The undevelopable lands include beaches, permanent bodies of water, floodways,
slopes greater than 40%, significant wetlands, riparian or woodland habitats, land subject to
major power line easements, land upon which other significant environmental features are
EIR 98-041GPA 98-031ZC 98-04/MP 178LFMP 17/CT 00-06/HDP 99-06/
SUP 99-03/SI.JP 01-01 - BRESSI RANCH
June 5.2002
located, and railroad track beds. No residential or habitable development is proposed in areas
that are undevelopable.
The fifth and sixth criteria relate to the project’s design, The project must be designed to
minimize disturbance to hillside lands and substantially conform to the intent of the concepts
illustrated in the hillside design guidelines manual.
The majority of the project is proposed in areas that have been previously disturbed by
authorized grading. Some areas of hillside which will be disturbed by the project are isolated
and not a part of the greater significant slopes. The proposed development substantially follows
the hillside pattern of the site. Some areas of steep slope disturbance are required to access
flatter portions of the site and to enable the creation of major circulation roadways like Poinsettia
Lane and El Fuerte Street.
Two slopes have been identified which exceed the 40 height allowed by the Hillside Ordinance.
The Hillside Development Permit has been conditioned to require these slopes to be redesigned
to comply with the Hillside Ordinance maximum height standard. With this condition, all of the
hillside findings can be made.
Relative to the preservation of natural slopes and vegetation, approximately one third of the
Bressi Ranch Master Plan will remain as native vegetation. This could create a potential fire
hazard to structures within the Master Plan if not treated properly. Therefore, based on input
from the Carlsbad Fire Department, a defined separation between native vegetation and
residential structures is mandated in the Master Plan.
For residences adjacent to slopes with native vegetation, the City’s Landscape Manual requires a
minimum sixty-foot separation between native vegetation and residential structures. This
separation is divided into three, 20-foot sections, the first of which usually starts at the edge of
the structure. The sixty-foot Brush Management Zone for Bressi Ranch will start at the edge of
the building pad instead of the edge of the building for the residential portions of the Master
Plan. Creation of the fire zones from the edge of pad effectively increases the distance from
native flammable habitat to the structure.
Where nonresidential uses occur adjacent to a slope with native vegetation, the guidelines
contained in the City’s Landscape Manual will be followed. For nonresidential uses, the fire
setback shall start at the edge of the building. The Master Plan provides a written summary of the
planting required in the suppression areas.
8. El Camino Real Special Use Permit
The intent and purpose of the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards (ECRCDS) is to
maintain and enhance the appearance of the El Camino Real roadway area. Land subject to the
ECRCDS is limited to that which is within 500 feet of the El Camino Real right-of-way. An
emphasis is placed on preserving the natural topography adjacent to the roadway and allow
minimal cut or fill that does not detract from the existing identified characteristics.
EIR 98-04/GPA 98-03IZC 91(-04/MP 178LFMP 17/CT OO-O6/HDP 99-06/
SUP 99-03/SUP 01-01 - BRESSI RANCH
June 5,2002
Page 18
General development standards for the entire length of El Camino Real include landscape
treatments and street lighting. Specific development standards for private property south of the
intersection of El Camino Real with Palomar Airport Road include a maximum building height
of 35 feet, a 30 foot building setback from the right-of-way, and no cut or fill exceeding 15 feet
unless specific findings are made.
The Bressi Ranch project complies with the development standards of the ECRCDS in that no
buildings are being proposed at this time, the associated Master Plan also regulates building
height to 35 feet, the Master Plan has designated a minimum 50 foot setback along El Camino
Real which exceeds the requirements of the ECRCDS, and most grading is within the 15 foot
height (higher or lower than existing grade) limitation. The southem-most part of Planning Area
2 (Lot 2) adjacent to El Camino Real slopes down away from the road and is proposed as a fill
area. The fill area is needed to create a pad suitable for industrial development. The fill is not
designed to create a pad higher than the existing road elevation but is predominantly below the
road grade. The majority of Planning Area 1 (Lot 1) is proposed as a cut area dictated by the
approved grading to the south in the Villages of La Costa and the adjoining Street “A”
intersection with El Camino Real.
These two areas of deviation can be approved by the Planning Commission if the following
findings can be made:
Compliance with the 15 foot standard is infeasible
The project has been designed to meet the intent of the comdor standards.
The scenic qualities of the comdor will continue to be maintained
The project will not have an adverse impact on traffic safety, and
The infeasibility of complying with the 15 foot limitation regards the need to create pads large
enough to accommodate industrial development. Specifically if more than 15 feet of fill is not
permitted in Planning Area 2 then the pad area will be reduced by nearly 50%.
The proposed pad elevations for the area in question are below that of the roadway. For this
reason the findings can be made that the intent of the comdor standards are being met since the
visibility of future development will be diminished because height has been effectively reduced.
The final finding can be made since the proposed street system servicing the proposed pads are
located at proper intervals along El Camino Real and are not affected by pad grades.
9. Floodplain Special Use Permit
The Floodplain Management Regulations are included in Chapter 21.1 IO of the Municipal Code.
The purpose of the chapter is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare, and to
minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas. Areas of the project
site are located within an area designated as a special flood hazard area inundated by a 100-year
flood. A 100-year flood is defined as a flood which has a one percent annual probability of
being equaled or exceeded. A Special Use Permit is required to be obtained in addition to any
other required permits or entitlements before construction or development begins within any area
7
EIR 98-04/GPA 98-03/ZC 9&04/MP 178LFMP 17/CT 00-06/HDP 99-061
SUP 99-03/SUP 01-01 - BRESSI RANCH
June 5,2002
of special flood hazard. Hydrology studies have been prepared for the project and reviewed by
staff of the Engineering Department. The proposed grading and drainage improvements will
modify the location of the 100-year flood. The after-project improvements 100 year flood area
will not be located within areas where structures are proposed. The necessary findings to
approve the Floodplain Special Use Permit can be made.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the project in accordance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental
Protection Procedures (Title 19) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The EIR addresses the
environmental impacts associated with all discretionary applications for the proposed project
including ultimate buildout of the entire project. To determine the areas of potential impact, city
staff prepared an initial study and issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on February 14, 2001,
distributing it to all Responsible and Trustee Agencies, as well as other agencies and members of
the public. Six written responses were received and city staff scheduled a public scoping
meeting session in order to increase opportunities for public input. Notices of the scoping
meeting were sent to all property owners within a 600-foot radius of the project boundaries as
well as being published in the newspaper. The public scoping session took place April 29, 1999
at the Public Safety Center. At the scoping session, the public was invited to comment on the
scope and content of the EIR. Five people signed in at the scoping session. No additional scope
was identified beyond what had already been received. After consideration of all of the
foregoing city staff developed a detailed scope of work for the EIR. The EIR analyzed the
following areas of potential environmental impact:
Land Use and Planning
Traffic/Circulation
Air Quality
Noise
Geology/Soils
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Agricultural Resources
Visual AestheticdGrading
Public Services and Utilities
Water QualitykIydrology
Hazardous Materials and Hazards
Additionally, the Draft EIR includes other sections required by CEQA such as an Executive
Summary, Project Description, Cumulative Impacts, Growth Inducing Impacts, Significant
Irreversible Environmental Changes, Unavoidable Significant Environmental Impacts, and
Effects Not Found to Be Significant.
On January 8, 2002, the Draft Program EIR was published and the City notified interested
Responsible and Trustee Agencies, as well as other interested agencies. The “Notice of
Completion” commenced an initial 45 day public review and comment period initially expiring
February 21, 2002. A joint letter from California Department of Fish and Game and the US.
/If?
EIR 98-04/GPA 98-03/ZC 98-04/MP 178/LFMP 17/CT 00-06/HDP 99-06/
SUP 99-03/SUP 01-01 -BRESSI RANCH
June 5,2002
Fish and Wildlife Service was received and accepted on March 7, 2002. The “Notice of
Completion” advised that the Draft Program EIR was available for review at four locations: the
City of Carlsbad Planning Department; the City Clerk’s Office; the Carlsbad Dove Library and
the Georgina Cole Public Library. Complete copies were also available for purchase, with or
without the Appendices, through the Planning Department.
The analysis contained in the EIR concluded that all significant impacts would be mitigated to
below a level of significance with the exception of air quality (cumulative) which would be
considered cumulatively significant and unmitigable. Direct impacts, also referred to as primary
effects, are those caused by the project and that occur at the same time and place. In contrast,
cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual impacts that, when considered together, are
considerable or that compound or increase other environmental impacts. The cumulative impact
of several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental impact of
the project when added to other, closely related past, present, or reasonably foreseeable, probable
future projects. The cumulative impacts all arise from the marginal contribution the proposed
project will make, when combined with the impacts from existing and other future projects, to
pre-existing conditions that fail to meet applicable standards currently.
A total of IO comment letters were submitted. Responses were prepared for each of the letters
and mailed to the commenter on May IO, 2002. The response transmittal letter also provided
notice of the availability of the Final Program EIR. Included as a part of the Final Program EIR
is a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The MMRP is also attached to the
Planning Commission Resolution for the EIR.
Under CEQA, before a project which is determined to have significant, unmitigated
environmental effects can be approved, the public agency must consider and adopt a “statement
of overriding considerations” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15043 and 15093. As the primary
purpose of CEQA is to fully inform the decision makers and the public as to the environmental
effects of a proposed project and to include feasible mitigation measures and alternatives to
reduce any such adverse effects below a level of significance, CEQA nonetheless recognizes and
authorizes the approval of projects where not all adverse impacts can be fully lessened or
avoided. However, the agency must explain and justify its conclusion to approve such a project
through the statement of overriding considerations setting forth the Proposed Project’s general
social, economic, policy or other public benefits which support the agency’s informed conclusion
to approve the project. The CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
are attached to the Planning Commission Resolution for the EIR.
EIR 98-04/GPA 98-03/ZC 98-04/MP 178LFMP 17/CT 00-06MDP 99-06/
SUP 99-03/SUP 01-01 - BRESSI RANCH
June 5,2002
Page 2 1
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
IO.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5201 (EIR 98-04)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5202 (GPA 98-03)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5203 (ZC 98-04)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5204 (MP 178)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5205 (LFMP 17)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5206 (CT 00-06)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5207 (HDP 99-06)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5208 (SUP 99-03:ECR)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5209 (SUP 01-10:Flood)
Location Map
Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
Background Data Sheet
Disclosure Statement
Final Program EIR for the Bressi Ranch, dated April 2002 (previously distributed; copy
on file in the Planning Department)
Bressi Ranch Master Plan (previously distributed; copy on file in the Planning
Department
Zone 17 Local Facilities Management Plan, dated April 12,2002 (previously distributed;
copy on file in the Planning Department)
Fiscal Impact Analysis of Master Plan MP 178 and Related Documents, dated April 11,
2002 (previously distributed; copy on file in the Planning Department)
Exhibits “A” - “HH’, dated June 5, 2002 (previously distributed; copy on file in the
Planning Department)
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: Bressi Ranch EIR 98-04/GPA 98-03/ZC 98-04MP 178/LFMP 17/CT
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 17
GENERAL PLAN: OS/RLM/R"H/RH/CF/L/P/PI
ZONING: PC
DEVELOPER'SNAME: Lennar Bressi Ranch Venture, LLC.
ADDRESS: 5780 Fleet Street Suite 320 Carlsbad CA 92008
OO-O6/HDP 99-06/SUF' 99-03/SUP 01-01
PHONENO.: 760-918-7765 ASSESSOR'S PARCELNO.: 213-030-17 and 18
QUANTITY OF LAND USEDEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 585.1 acres/22 lots
City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 2.166 Sa.Ft.
Library: Demand in Square Footage = 1.155 Sa.Ft.
Wastewater Treatment Capacity 1.994 EDU
Park: Demand in Acreage = 4.33 acres
Drainage:
Identify Drainage Basin = D
Circulation: Demand in ADT = 31.230 ADT
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = Stations # 2 and 5
Open Space: Acreage Provided = 157.1 acres
Schools: Elementan/:131.31
Carlsbad Unified School District Middle: 65.21
High: 80.34
Sewer: Demands in EDU 1,994
Identify Sub Basin = 17A
Water: Demand in GPD = 438.680
The project is 125 units above the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance. The
additional units are requested under California State Density Bonus legislation for the
purpose of providing housing to lower income households.
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: EIR 98-04/GPA 98-03/ZC 98-04MP 178/LFMP 17/CT 00-06/HDP 99-
06/SUP 99-03/SUP 01-01
CASE NAME: Bressi Ranch
APPLICANT: Lennar Bressi Ranch Venture. LLC.
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Certification of an Environmental Impact Report and approval
of a Master Plan. General Plan Amendment, Zone Chanee. Local Facilities Management Plan,
Tract Map. Hillside Development Permit. and two Special Use Permits for the 585 acre Bressi
Ranch located at the south east comer of Palomar Aimort Road and El Camino Real.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Beine a portion of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 of Parcel Map NO.
1763, in the Citv of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map
thereof on file in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, Julv 20. 1973
AF'N: 213-030-17 and 18 Acres: 585.1 ProposedNo. ofLotsAJnits: 22 lots
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: Unplanned Area. Open Space. Residential Low. Residential Low
Medium, and Residential Medium
Density Allowed: 498 Density Proposed: 498 plus 25% State Densitv Bonus
Existing Zone: Limited Control Proposed Zone: Planned Communitv
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use:
ZoninR
Site L-c
North PM
South Villages of La Costa
East Rancho Carrillo
West PM
General Plan Current Land Use
UA, OS, RL, RLM, RM One single family home
PI Industrial, Open Space
OS, RLM Vacant
OS, RLM, RH Residential Development
PI Industrial Development
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Carlsbad Unified Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 1.994
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
0 Negative Declaration, issued
Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated April 2002
- L L Citv of Carlsbad
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require
discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee.
?he following information MUST be disclosed at the tlme of applicatlon submittal. Your project cannot
be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print.
Note:
Person is defined as "Any individual. fm co-pamership, joint venlure. association, social club, fraternal
organization, corporation. estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county. city and county. city
municipality, disnict 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 properry owner must be
provided below.
1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent)
Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of persons havmg a financial
interest in the application. If the applicant Includes a cornoration or uartnershiu, Include the
names, title. addresses of all indtvlduals ownmg more than 10% of the shares. IF NO
APPLICABLE O\i/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW If a publicly-owed comoratlon. Include the
names, tltles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached If
necessary.)
Person U/A
Tltle By: Lennar Bressi Carlsbad, LLC
INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-
LENNAR BRESSI RANCH VENTURE, LLC
a California limited liability company
Its: Managing Member
GENERAL AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
a California corporation
a Missouri Corporation 1ts:r;;z;;
Thomas E. Nieman Its: Vice President
Regional Vice President
By: Lennar Homes of California, Inc
By : By:
-
Address: 5780 Fleet Street Ste 320 Address: 1100 E. Orangethorpe Ave, #190 Carlsbad, CA Y2008 Anaheim, CA 92801
'9
3. NON-PROFIT 0 d 'ANIZATION OR TRUST
If any person identified pursuant to (I) or (2) above IS a nonurofit OrEanlzatIon or a Inst. llst the
names and addresses of ANy person serving as an officer or director of the non-profir
organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the.
Non Profitrrmst A/,/A Non ProfiVTrust
Title Title
Address Address
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of C~ty staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) 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 correct to the best of my howledge.
Signature of owneridate
Print or type name of owner
Signature of ownerlapplicanr's agent if applicable/date
LENNAR BRESSI RANCH VENTURE, LLC
a California limited liability company
By: Lennar Bressi Carlsbad, LLC
Its: Managing Member
By: Lennar Homes of California, Inc.
a California corporation
Its: Managing Member
BY. -"=A - Its: Vice President
Address: 5780 Fleet Street Ste 320
Carlsbad. CA 92008
Print or type name of ownedappllcant's agent GENERAL AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
H:ADMINKOUNTER\OISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98
Address: 1100 E. Orangethorpe Ave., #190
Anaheim, CA 92801
-. 7 OWNER (Not the ler's agent)
' Provlde the COMF",iTE. LEGAL names and addresses of persons havlng any ownership
interest in the property ~nvolved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (].e.
parmershlp, tenants In common, non-profit. corporation, etc.). If the ownershlp Includes a
cornoration or uarmershlp, tnclude the names, title, addresses of all individuals ownlng more
than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAh' 10% OF THE SHARES.
PLEASE NDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (WA) PJ THE SPACE BELOW If a publ~clv-
owned cornoration. include the names, titles. and addresses of the corporate officers. (.A separate
page may be attached ifnecessary.)
Person hJ!A
Title
LENNAR BRESSI RANCH VENTURE, LLC
a California limited liability company
By: Lennar Bressi Carlsbad, LLC
Address Its: Managing Member By: Lennar Homes of California, Inc.
GENERAL AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY a California
a Miss -3- ' Its: Managlng Member
By :
Thorn3s E. Niernan By: \k>, A
Regional Vice President Its: Vice President
-
Address : 1100 E. Orangethorpe Ave . , #1g&ddress: 5780 Fleet Street Ste 320
Anaheim, CA 92801 Carlsbad, CA 92008
, ..
Planning Commission Minutes June 5,2002 DRAFT P&XWT 7
2. EIR 98-04lGPA 98-031ZC 98-04lMP 178lLFMP 17lCT 00-06lHDP 99-06lSUP 99-03lSUP 01-01 -
BRESSI RANCH - Request for the certification of a Program Environmental Impact Report,
including the approval of Candidate Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Consideration,
and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and a request for approval of a Master Plan
identifying six industrial planning areas, seven residential planning areas, one mixed use planning
area, one community facilities planning area, and six open space planning areas for the purpose
of regulating the future development of up to 623 residential units, 2.16 million square feet of
community related services and/or facilities; General Plan Land Use Amendment, Zone Change, industrial buildings, 130,000 square feet of commercial buildings, and 138,000 square feet of
Local Facilities Management Plan, Carlsbad Tract subdivision map, Hillside Development Permit,
and Special Use Permits for the purpose of designating the type, location, and infrastructural needs of development within a 585.1 acre site south of Palomar Airport Road and east of El
Camino Real in Local Facilities Management Zone 17.
Mr. Wayne introduced item #2 on the agenda and stated that Christer Westman would make the
presentation assisted by Clyde Wickham and Elizabeth Cobb.
Chairperson Trigas opened the public hearing.
Christer Westman, Senior Planner, stated that the approximately 585-acre Bressi Ranch project is located
in the central part of the City, south of Palomar Airport Road, east of El Camino Real, and west of
Melrose. He pointed out the industrial and residential developments surrounding the project. He listed
the following project components under consideration for review: EIR, Master Plan, Zone Change,
General Plan Amendment, LFMP, Tract Map, Hillside Permit, Special Use Permit ECR, Special Use
Permit Flood Plain.
Mr. Westman stated that an EIR, prepared by Cotton Bridges Associates, was done for the project and contains several components analyzing the potential environmental impacts the project would have on the
environment within the City of Carlsbad as well as cumulative impacts on a regional basis. The EIR
includes sections on land use, traffic circulation, air quality, noise, geology/soils, biological resources,
cultural resources, agricultural resources, visual aesthetics, public services, water quality/hydrology,
hazards, and an alternatives and cumulative impacts section.
Mr. Westman said that nearly all identified impacts can be mitigated to levels of less than significant.
Statement of Overriding Consideration was prepared and is included in the documents regarding
However, the air quality Impacts are significant and cannot be mitigated by this project alone. Therefore, a
certification of the EIR. He explained it is unmitigable because it is a regional issue and the Bressi Ranch
experience in the San Diego air basin.
project doesn't have the ability to implement measures that would mitigate the air quality impacts that we
Mr. Westman stated the Master Plan describes the goals and visions that are the underlying principals of
the Bressi Ranch Master Plan to create a walkable community within the City and has the parts necessary
to encourage interaction between those who reside and work there. Part of the vision implementation can
include planned industrial, local commercial, community facilities, residential, and open space. He
be found in the land use pattern. He pointed out on the map and described the various.land uses, which
specific lot layout, or internal streets. The purpose is to designate the land use pattern for the Master Plan
explained that at this meeting the Commission would not be granting approvals for any specific use,
and identify the major street pattern for the Master Plan.
Mr. Westman stated that the Master Plan includes the review process and development standards which
create a framework for future development of the site. The property adjacent to El Camino Real and
Palomar Airport Road is designated as industrial; a 27-acre parcel interior to the site is designated as
mixed use, the eastern boundary and southernmost sections of the plan are open space and the central portion of the master plan is residential.
Mr. Westman said the Master Plan allows up to 623 residential units to be built and the existing General
Plan designation allows 498 residential units. Therefore, the Master Plan is recommending approval of a 25% density bonus resulting in 125 units, of which 100 must be made affordable to lower income
households. Each residential planning area has been allocated an anticipated number of residential units
Planning Commission Minutes June 5,2002 Page 6
adding up to the 623 total. Other maximum development limits are 130,000 square feet of commercial,
138.000 square feet of community-related facilities, and 2,160,000 square feet of industrial uses.
Mr. Westman reiterated that the Master Plan only establishes land uses. All developments within the
Master Plan will be processed according to the requirements of the Master Plan and the Carlsbad Zoning
Ordinance. In most cases the subsequent development review process and standards are the same as
the Zoning Ordinance. Proposed standards different from the Zoning Ordinance include:
A deviation from the anticipated number of residential units. A deviation of less than 10% may be done by a minor master plan amendment. Deviations greater than 10% require approval of a major
master plan amendment.
The review of residential architecture may be deferred when processing subdivisions of lots greater
than 5,000 square feet.
0 Regardless of the number of lots in a major subdivision, follow-up architectural review is the purview
of the Planning Commission.
Including a single story floor plan in the product mix is required on a master plan level and not
specifically required in Planning Area 12.
Hillside standards may be modified if the modification is for the sake of achieving the walkable
community goals of the Master Plan and the Ahwanhee Principals.
The current General Plan land use designations of Unplanned Area, Open Space, Residential Low,
Mr. Westman stated that integral to the development af the Master Plan is a General Plan Amendment.
Medium Residential Medium, Residential Medium High, Residential High, Community Facilities, Private
Residential Low Medium, and Residential Medium will be changed to Open Space, Residential Low
School, Local Commercial, and Planned Industrial.
Mr. Westman said the plan anticipates open space areas for preservation, habitat restoration, passive and
active recreation. He pointed out the open space areas stating that some of the areas don’t have any
natural habitat currently growing on them but are still preserve areas and over time natural vegetation will
continue to grow in those areas.
Mr. Westman stated that the current zoning of Limited Control will be changed to Planned Community, a zone which requires the development of a Master Plan.
Mr. Westman described the tract map as being 22 lots consisting of 6 open space, 6 industrial, 1 mixed
use, 1 community facilities, and 8 residential. The map includes a circulation framework, mass grading
concept and is the mechanism to put in place all of the infrastructure improvements needed to support the
development of the site.
a Hillside Development Permit is required. The project was reviewed for consistency with the hillside
Mr. Westman stated that because the site has slopes greater than 15% and elevation greater than 15 feet,
development criteria. The grading volume falls within the potentially acceptable range and is required for
the completion of roadways such as Poinsettia Avenue and El Fuerte Street as well as the creation of
acceptably flat pads for the development of industrial uses and a walkable grid pattern for residential
streets.
Regarding the El Camino Real Special Use Permit, Mr. Westman stated that the site is within the
The development standards were written to address structural development along the corridor and this
boundaries of the El Camino Real Corridor Area 4 and therefore subject to its development standards.
fill has been set in this planning area. The project will comply with this limit in Lots 1 and 2 of the industrial
project‘s development limit is grading (no buildings are proposed at this time). A limit of 15 feet of cut and
pads because additional fill is required to build street “A” and to create pads large enough to accommodate industrial developments. Findings to allow the additional fill are provided in the Hillside
Permit resolution.
Planning Commission Minutes June 5,2002 Page 7
Mr. Westman stated there is also a Floodplain Special Use Permit. The southeast portion of the project is
and the impacts associated with the proposed development will cause downstream flooding or an increase
located within the 100-year floodplain. An analysis is required to determine if the proposed development
in the level of the 100-year floodplain. He added that the project is consistent with the Villages of La
Costa and with the analysis that supports the proposed development, primarily Poinsettia Lane. There are
no proposed dwellings located within the existing or within the proposed 100-year floodplain.
Mr. Westman stated that another action before the Commission is the adoption of the Local Facilities
Management Plan for Zone 17. Pursuant to the provision of the Growth Management Ordinance, future
The development must prove that the demands created by future development will conform to 11 Facility
development in Zone 17 is required to analyze the impacts and demands on public services and facilities.
Performance Standards. If it is determined that a facility fails the performance standard at any time during
the development, development is halted until the facilities are upgraded. Conditions are included in each
zone plan that requires a commitment to construct the needed facility. He said The LFMP for Zone 17
was reviewed by City Staff and departments that are currently monitoring the effectiveness of the 11 public
facilities. Specific conditions are included in the Local Facilities Management Zone and are mirrored and
supported with similar conditions in the Master Plan. He stated that at this time, all 11 performance
standards are being maintained. Conditions in the Circulation, Water, and Sewer sections are included to
turned the presentation over to Clyde Wickham.
allow for continued compliance with the Growth Management Performance Standards. Mr. Westman
Clyde Wickham, Associate Engineer, stated that the City contracted with RBF Consulting as a third party
review for the traffic analysis and for the review of the regional modeling for this project. He turned the presentation over to Elizabeth Cobb to present an overview of the project circulation and traffic analysis.
Elizabeth Cobb, Senior Transportation Planner with RBF Consulting, stated that the majority of Bressi
The project is anticipated to generate a total of 31,230 ADT and 27.874 external trips. The residential,
Ranch development is projected to come on line in the City of Carlsbad by 2005 with the balance by 2010.
commercial, and industrial components provide attractions in internal capture of those trips by reducing
the overall trip generation. Because of the proximity of this development to other developments in the
term and long-term impacts of this project as well as others. The model update took approximately two
LFMP the City Staff undertook a significant effort to update the traffic model used to forecast the short-
years. Existing land uses were updated in the original model for the Carlsbad sub-area based on building
permit information and site verification. Future land uses were updated based on specific information for
each of the planned developments, including Bressi Ranch. City Staff worked with the surrounding
communities to gather information from other jurisdictions to include them in the model calibration.
Ms. Cobb stated that the analysis methodology looked at CMP requirements as well as the City's Growth
Management Plan. The study intersections were identified based on CMP and SANTEC guidelines which
to the site must be included in the analysis. Likewise, the freeway segments where there are 150 or more
state that any intersection or significant arterial where 50 or more peak hour trips are generated or added
two-way peak hour project generated trips must also be included in the analysis. The study area and
distribution project generated trips were based on the select zone analysis methodology. The method
utilized the traffic model to determine whether vehicles will go from the project site on the roadway
network. It is based on land use and trip length. The model determines what will attract the trips and how
far those people will travel. The traffic impact analysis evaluated the City's Growth Management Plan
consistent with those methodologies and the LFMP was included in that analysis as well.
evaluated for analysis years 2005, 2010, and 2020 conditions are expected to operate at a level service
Ms. Cobb stated that based on the analysis findings, all the roadway segments and intersections
"D or better during peak hours within the project traftic and with planned improvements. She said that no
freeway mainline evaluation is required per the regional CMP guidelines. Based on the model
Airport Road, Faraday Avenue between El Fuerte Street and Melrose Drive, and Poinsettia Lane between assumptions, for the year 2005, it is assumed that Melrose Drive between Faraday Avenue and Palomar
El Camino Real and Melrose Drive will be completed. For the year 2010, the completion of Faraday
Avenue between El Camino Real and El Fuerte Street is assumed, and by year 2020 the General Plan
roadway network is assumed.
Ms. Cobb stated that project buildout is 2010, but the majority of the project occurs by 2005. She pointed
out the study area and identified project roadway frontage improvements along Palomar Airport and El
/d 8
Planning Commission Minutes June 5,2002 Page 8
Camino Real. She said El Fuerte Street as well as Poinsettia Lane improvements will be completed with
this project.
Ms. Cobb added that frontage improvements to Palomar Airport Road as well as El Camino Real are
further clarified in the resolution. Full street improvements of El Fuerte Street, Alicante Street, and a
portion of Poinsettia are also spelled out in the resolution. Project access improvements are included with
this development along Poinsettia, El Camino Real, and Palomar Airport Road. Project mitigation is
primarily Palomar Airport Road, El Fuerte Street, and at Melrose Drive. Those improvements have been
conclusion is that the evaluation of the short and long term future conditions indicates that with the
included in the resolution as well as mitigation identified within the Mitigation Monitoring Program. The
contribution, study area intersections and roadway segments operate acceptable levels of service "D or planned intersection mitigation by others, and traffic impact fee, bridge and thoroughfare district
better. She noted that if improvements that are planned and assumed in the analysis are not
implemented as designed or become failing, then the development cannot pull its building permits until
those deficiencies are rectified.
Mr. Wickham continued the presentation speaking on the topic of water quality. As part of Staffs review,
a comprehensive Water Quality Plan was required. The developer had a plan for the industrial portion
and one for the residential portion. The industrial portion identified anticipated pollutants and also
anticipated Best Management Practices and controls to filter those pollutants. The goal of the Water
Quality Plan was to eliminate unauthorized storm water discharges and to provide for the industrial portion
wanted to address post construction - how they want to continue maintaining these basins and pass it on
source point control. They also wanted to identify possible erosion control issues during construction and
to either the homeowners or the City. Finally, a Maintenance and Monitoring Program needs to be
addressed and included. There are two detention basins and it is proposed that the buildout runoff will be
equal to or less than the current condition. He displayed a slide and pointed out the various basins.
Chairperson Trigas noted that a letter dated May 30, 2002 was received from Steven Ahlquist supporting
the project.
Commissioner Segall asked to see the traffic circulation routes showing how people would enter and exit
the project. Mr. Wickham indicated access points from Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real. Both
are right inlright out. El Fuerte and Poinsettia are both signalized intersections.
Airport Road and El Fuerte Street. Mr. Wickham replied that the traffic splits itself very well between the Commissioner Segall asked if the traffic study assumed that the main access point would be Palomar
intersections; the site is almost a square grid and it's not overloaded in any one intersection more than
another. For the industrial portion, El Fuerte Street takes a large amount of traffic but coming from the
west it's the first signalized access.
Commissioner Segall asked if the assumption is that people going to the west would go out to El Camino
ways would be easiest to exit.
Real rather than Palomar Airport Road. Mr. Wickham said it's a pretty good split and pointed out which
Commissioner Segall asked if the traffic actually fails, what potential mitigation actions would the applicant
have to take to bring it back to a level "D." Ms. Cobb replied that if level service 'D is not met and the
objectives of the Growth Management Plan are not achieved, they will have to evaluate intersection improvements to either add additional lanes to make movements work or to look at where roadway
facilities need to be improved.
Commissioner Segall said that if intersections failed, part of it is beyond the control of the City of Carlsbad
because traffic comes from other communities. He asked if this project would be impacted by a potential
level of service failure that may occur, not as a result of this project, but because of vehicles coming
through Carlsbad. Ms. Cobb responded that the analysis looked at the existing condition but also at worst case; the buildout condition, The buildout condition assumes the buildout of the adjacent jurisdictions and
the related traffic impacts. She said when they look at this analysis for buildout. that is the worst case
scenario, and they're assuming at that point the City's buildouts of their other jurisdictions that would have
that effect.
Planning Commission Minutes June 5,2002 Page 9
Commissioner Segall asked if it does fail, it's not just that particular project, would any project within that
quadrant have to mitigate or just the applicant contiguous with the failure. Mr. Wickham replied that they
could stop and wait for another applicant or the owner of the property to mitigate it, or they can come up
with a district or financing program and try to work it out.
Commissioner Baker asked what exactly could be done if it does fail, e.g., at Palomar Airport Road and El
Camino Real. Mr. Wickham replied that Faraday Avenue is a direct parallel link to Palomar Airport Road
and that's the missing piece. It's not part of this project and they have assumed it to be in place by the
year 2010. If it doesn't occur or if a failure occurs, they will have to find a mechanism to put it in place. He
confirmed that if Faraday were in place, the level of service at buildout would not fail at those intersections.
Chairperson Trigas asked if failure is likely to occur if Faraday is not in place by 2010 at buildout. Ms.
Cobb responded that the question was posed about adjacent jurisdictions and their impacts and pointed
counts for 2005, 2010, and 2020. They are assuming those growth occurrences within the analysis. For
out that the study does account for that, both in the existing counts as well as for the modeled future
the project buildout they have demonstrated by 2005 that their locations are, within the study area
operating acceptable per the growth management criteria, so it's not an issue for them at that point. At
their development, they do see that need to occur. complete buildout where they assumed that the continuation of Faraday, which is very small percentage of
Commissioner Segall wanted to ensure that air quality is the only unmitigable element as stated in the EIR
and that traffic couldn't also be considered unmitigable because it's beyond the City of Carlsbad's control.
quality impacts. The EIR and traffic consultants had set up a program and identified mitigation for
Mr. Westman replied that the determination was made in the EIR that this project could not mitigate the air
circulation and traffic impacts and the determination was made that if those mitigation measures are put in
place then it is mitigated to an acceptable level. There are some assumptions made regarding those
mitigation measures.
Mr. Wickham added that they argued about this issue quite a bit. They talked about it as a regional
saturation of our roadways. To address that, they thoroughly reviewed all the adjacent projects and the industrial parks in Vista and Encinitas. That was put into this model and that was the growth of the region
that could impact our roadways. With that growth in control they looked at how fast projects are going to be coming on line and how well our system would hold it. He said it was found that it works at 2005 but
2010 gets to a critical year of saturation where they need Faraday in place.
Commissioner White, referencing the Staff Report, stated that if the builder of the Villages of La Costa
does not build out the connection of Poinsettia to El Camino Real, that Bressi Ranch is committed to do that, and wanted to know the timeline. Mr. Wickham replied that they are conditioned to build Poinsettia
from El Camino Real to its terminus west of Melrose with their first phase. If they come on line first there's
also a reimbursement agreement for them to get paid back for the portion offsite. It is required upfront
because the roadway system won't hold that impact without the roadway links connected.
Commissioner Whitton said he didn't understand why there wouldn't be any single-story homes in
Planning Area 12. Mr. Westman said he could not answer the reason why, but when Staff looked at the
request that came from the applicant they evaluated it against the policy for the requirement of single-
story, and Staff felt that because the single-story component would be provided on a master plan basis
that it was okay for Lennar to ask for entirely two-story homes in that one planning area when they come
in with the development plan. Those single-story units will be transferred elsewhere within the master plan
so that will essentially create more single-story units in the other planning areas and still satisfy the
minimum requirement for single-story as far as making a single-story product available in the master plan.
Commissioner Baker asked what the rationale was for changing the RL General Plan designation. Mr.
Westman replied that the General Plan designations that are in the Master Plan are more reflective of a product type than density. Because the total number of units throughout the whole Master Plan area is consistent with the existing General Plan, Staff didn't feel there was a great benefit to the community to
retain the RL designation forcing a half-acre or one-acre lot size for a residential area.
Commissioner Baker asked how the request to grant a density increase of 125 units interrelates to the fact
that the Commission also needs to approve a Statement of Overriding Consideration for the fact that we
cannot mitigate for air quality. Mr. Westman replied that the best way he could answer that is there is a
Planning Commission Minutes June 5,2002 Page 10
tradeoff. Specifically, a Statement of Overriding Consideration is that there are other benefits that override
the impact whereby you can adopt the Statement of Overriding Consideration. In this case, the additional
units granted to this project is a mechanism to provide affordable housing, so there is a social benefit that may override the environmental impact of air quality.
Commissioner Heineman stated he had not heard where the children of these 623 units would attend
school and they're only providing for a possible private school on the site. Mr. Westman replied that
Bressi Ranch is in the Carlsbad School District, which is aware of the project and has reviewed it. There are state-mandated fees that are paid and in this case that would be the mechanism to contribute to the
provision of schools. If there were a need for a public school onsite, then the school district would have
been able to negotiate with the City and the applicant to create a space on the property.
Commissioner Segall said he recollected that when the Villages of La Costa were approved there was a
school site that the Carlsbad Unified School District is considering in the Greens community. At that time
the Commission was told that students from Bressi Ranch and the Greens would potentially go to that
school. Chairperson Trigas added that she also recalled that, but that site was not guaranteed.
Commissioner Segall said he assumes when the property is disked it's because it's been farmed over a
period of time and it's not going to be an issue in terms of habitat and native species being destroyed. He
asked how long ago dry farming took place. Mr. Westman said that disking does occur through
agricultural operations but there's also an issue of weed abatement. Areas that are identified as
significant habitat and protected vegetation have not been disked. He was not sure how long ago the site
had dry farming.
Commissioner Segall asked him to explain the statement under Fiscal Impact Analysis on page 6 of the
Staff Report that says, "In summary, the study shows that the ultimate buildout of the Bressi Ranch Master
Plan as proposed will result in City revenues which fall short of City expenditures required to provide City
services to the residences within the Bressi Ranch community." Mr. Westman explained that it's more expensive to provide services to residential properties and neighborhoods than it is to commercial/
the fiscal report essentially identifies that because of the greater weight toward cost of services to
industrial. In this case there are also subsidies that have to be provided regarding affordable housing, so
residential versus what would be generated by the industrial commercial, there's a net loss. He said it's
not atypical to have that kind of imbalance.
open space. She said in Open Space 1 it seems like a lot of revegetation is on the slopes that are going Commissioner White wanted to know where the duff revegetation method was going to be used in the
to support Alicante and Street "A" and the center which is disked property right now. She wanted to know
if that's going to be left to naturally revegetate and how long that takes. She had the same issues for
with the duff method, and about 30 acres to be purchased offsite. She asked if that is going to be
Open Space 4 where there are 30 acres of mitigated property, and some of that is going to be created
purchased locally or has there been any discussion about pieces of valuable habitat property that might be
purchased with that 30 acres.
Mr. Westman deferred the question to Tim Gnibus of Cotton Bridges Associates, the project manager who
Jones pointed out on the map the area for the duff reapplication. He pointed out the location of about 25 prepared the EIR for this project. Mr. Gnibus asked Barry Jones, the project biologist, to respond. Mr.
acres of existing habitat and showed where the remaining 25 acres of duff will be distributed. He said
there would be a 24.9 acre offsite component that will occur in the core area in the area east of the City of
Carlsbad within a pre-approved mitigation area consistent with the Carlsbad HMP. In the remaining areas that they don't apply the duff to, some natural restoration will occur over the long term and, ideally with the existing sagescrub and revegetated sagescrub, will result in long term recovery of the area.
Commissioner White asked if Open Space 4 which is about 90 acres, and has about 5 acres of habitat on
it now and it's going to have 25 acres of duff; it will share that with Open Space 3. Mr. Jones said correct
and clarified that that's for the sagescrub component. The overall plan was looked at, not just for
sagescrub, but for riparian species as well. The areas that are currently disked will revert to a non-native
grassland component. There will be some potentially weedy species as well, but those are habitats that
are part of the HMP that are also important for the City's long term goals of preservation.
Planning Commission Minutes June 5,2002 Page 11
Commissioner White asked how long it takes for the disked field to return to grass. Mr. Jones replied that
the Carlsbad Raceway and Palomar Forum projects were both mapped as disturbed agricultural areas and were farmed until the mid-to-late 90's and have now reverted back to non-native grasslands, so within
5 years there would be non-native grasses. Commissioner White asked if it would be sufficient to support
raptor populations in 5 years. Mr. Jones replied there would be raptors using disturbed areas.
purchased before building permits are pulled. Mr. Jones replied that is correct.
Commissioner White asked if there is a condition or understanding that the offsite property will be
Commissioner Segall asked if one third of the property is open space. Mr. Jones replied he believed it's
33%.
RECESS
Chairperson Trigas called a recess at 7:26 p.m.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Chairperson Trigas called the meeting back to order at 7:37 p.m
Applicant, Bob Santos, President of Lennar Communities Southern California, 5780 Fleet Street, Suite 320, Carlsbad, complimented Staff on their presentation. Mr. Santos talked about the visionary framework
that led to the plan. He said when they began to look at the Bressi Ranch community 3 or 4 years ago the
first thing they did was look at the local context and regional features and how this property fits into that
scheme of things. They looked at why the City of Carlsbad was such a desirable place to live, found it had a lot to do with the fact that it's the Village by the Sea and has a lot of the character and charm that goes
along with the concept of village. It's a mixed-use community, a wonderful blend of various land uses, and
a major economic generator in the north coastal area. In addition, it's governed by managed growth
policies that make it a very progressive community and balance all the various economic engine drivers
with quality of life. They wanted to have a community that would build on the legacy that Carlsbad is.
wanted to make sure the continuity between City regulations and the vision occurs. He went on to
Mr. Santos said they like to start with the end in mind and come up with a vision for the community and
describe a number of key elements and features inherent to their vision and plan:
Walkable Community - They wanted an arrangement of land uses and an allocation of land that
allowed a walkable community to occur. Their first effort was to allocate land appropriately so that
most of the features would be within easy walking distance from every home. They crisscrossed the community with paths and trails to dethrone the automobile and make walking and bicycling more of a
choice in terms of transportation within the community. Roughly 2,000,000 square feet of office/office
commercial space will be part of the community.
Village Center - It has a pedestrian friendly human scale type of atmosphere, keeping in the vein of
the Village of Carlsbad. It is as much a place to socialize and recreate as it is to buy a loaf of bread.
They also have a Village Square within the Village Center that can become the social hub within the
Village Center.
Village Green - This is where the more active recreation components would be located such as a
recreation center, play fields for the youth and would be within about a 5-minute walking distance of the homes.
the neighborhood enclaves. They felt it was important not to just have a few large green spaces, but
Neighborhood Parks - Parks are sprinkled throughout the Community to give form and function within
to intersperse green within the neighborhoods to give character and to form social points at the
neighborhood level.
Church, Daycare Center, School Site - An important part of a walkable community and the village
concept as they perceive it is to have public spaces that provide the backbone for the community.
They took special effort and time to locate and allocate space to non-economic uses that are
important to how the community will eventually live. Therefore, they provided a site for a church, a
Planning Commission Minutes June 5,2002 Page 12
daycare center, and a school site. They approached the Carlsbad Unified School District about
putting a school in the community, but they had other plans for the school location, so they allocated
land for a private school opportunity.
0 Civic Uses - Provided for additional community facility spaces for civic uses, such as a Boys and Girls
Club.
Mr. Santos stated that residential enclaves are the heart of the community. There will be a wide range of
pricing and types of homes for over 500 for-sale homes. He said they identified a series of market niches
that they need to supply. He said they are totally in compliance with the Carlsbad General Plan. He said
they tried to not only honor the plan in terms of regulations and policies but the goals and objectives
themselves, and much of what is envisioned in the General Plan is embodied in this plan.
Mr. Santos stated that early on in the program they looked at how this community fits into the City‘s
function; it actually separates residential and other areas and it needs to be protected and preserved.
greenbelt. There is a greenbelt that is formed along the Poinsettia corridor that provides form and
They took great pains early on to identify how that greenbelt interfaced with the Bressi Ranch property and
they allocated land to that greenbelt in excess of what the City’s requirements were. As a result of that
they ended up with an HMP for the property that was adopted hardlined prior to the City adopting its own
City HMP.
capacity. He said there’s about 10%-20% more capacity created in their plan than they actually would use
Mr. Santos said they proposed a plan that incorporates traffic mitigation measures and increased traffic
at buildout of the community. He said they will also extend Poinsettia as part of this plan to provide
regional traffic circulation and sub-regional community-wide circulation necessary for the ultimate Growth
Management Plan for the City. They are producing close to $30M of traffic improvements in one
continuous phase starting with the inception of this community and will be working with the City to make
sure the roads are in when they are needed.
Mr. Santos said this is the very first community in the City of Carlsbad that will use the Traffic
calming devices, streets that are village scale and scope, and pedestrian friendly.
Management Program recently adopted. They are proud that it will be a community notable for its traffic
generation capability in the City. He believes this is the only community in Carlsbad that will have this kind
Mr. Santos stated jobs would be created in the community, an important addition to the economic
of nexus between jobs and housing, providing the very essence of smart growth as they understand it. He
said it will also have village scale retail that will be as much a social activity as a commercial shopping
activity.
Mr. Santos stated there will be a diversity of homes ranging in price from probably $400,000 to well over a
million dollars. 20% of the community will be allocated to affordable housing in a location on the Village
Square in the Village Center immediately adjacent to the jobs created in the community. It will be a multi-
generational community and they have also provided a site for an assisted living facility.
Mr. Santos said they wanted something that differentiates it from the other neighborhoods and
communities in the area and builds on and enhances the local character. They tried to find visual cues
and icons that they could use to create a visual identity to make their community come to life. They kept
coming back to the Flower Fields of Carlsbad and the planning team identified the concept of a garden district that will bring the flower field concept and village concept already existing in Carlsbad and make it
come to life in the distinct thematic essence at Bressi Ranch.
Mr. Santos concluded by stating that Bressi Ranch is a walkable garden community in the hills of Carlsbad
and respectfully asked for approval so they could move forward with their program.
Commissioner White asked how the industriallcommercial planning areas would develop in parallel with the residential areas. She asked if the jobs would be there first and then some of the employees will wish
to live in Bressi Ranch or would the homes be built first and sold to people who may or may not be
working in Carlsbad. She wanted to know what specific types of industry they’re thinking of and if they’re
the kinds of jobs that will support homes in their price range.
Planning Commission Minutes June 5,2002 Page 13
Mr. Santos replied that the dynamics are not totally in their control. They try to create the opportunity for
that to happen. They will grade and develop the employment center concurrently with the residential area but it will not be a phase 1 or phase 2 lag. The goal is that there will be industrial and commercial office
space created at the same time that there will be a housing component created. Their hope is that the
people who will be hired into the employment area or who relocate to it will be looking for houses in the
area. They have the type of housing that is matched up to the type of employee they expect. They expect
the business park to include some research and development and business offices. They don’t expect
any major industrial, manufacturing, or warehouse uses.
Commissioner White asked if any studies were done in communities similar to this as to how that match
goes between housing and employment. Todd Morefield. Metropolitan Life Insurance, 333 South Hope
Street, Los Angeles 90071, responded that Met Life owns the industrial/office commercial portion of this
market will allow them to build at the same time that the residential portion is built. He said there were no
site and at this time they can’t say specifically what the exact timing would be. It is their hope that the
specific studies done regarding Commissioner White’s specific question. He said there were some
market studies done on a broad basis and they think the level of professionals employed here will be
definite targets for the residential portion.
Commissioner Segall asked Mr. Santos to elaborate on what their vision is for the types of shops and
discussions with tenants but in general, they are looking for boutique type uses or small community level
services that will be provided in the Village Square. Mr. Santos replied that they have not yet had
service uses that will provide a service to the residents within the community and the employment center.
It‘s very likely that there will be a supermarket component to the Village Center but probably not to the
scale and scope as some of the new supermarkets. He said they had to sacrifice putting the location on
Poinsettia, as an example, where it might have had higher traffic visibility, and decided instead to locate it
within the Village Center. As a result it will probably be a smaller scale store. There are also a number of
spaces available for barbers, yogurt stores, and coffee shops that cater to the local population. They tried
the Boys and Girls Club is not a retail commercial use it will function as an anchor because it‘s on the to create the opportunity for people to come together and for merchants to sell their wares. Even though
park. He said it won’t all happen on day one; people will have to move into the homes and business park
before there’s going to be enough energy financially to make the center happen.
communities have a tendency to walk or ride their bike to the store to shop. Mr. Santos replied that they
Commissioner Segall asked if, in their studies with Calthorp, do people who live in these types of
do. He said Peter Calthorp and his staff are militant about that and have given speeches and authored
books and convinced a lot of people that if they create the opportunity, people take advantage of it.
David Blake. Calthorp Associates, Berkeley, California added that one thing they found in their projects is
that when they provide a village square surrounded by mixed uses, they not only get people that walk and
ride bikes, they use alternative transportation to get to the center. One thing that helps promote that is the
use of a narrow, intraconnected street system that connects the community together. They strive to
eliminate the big arterials and implement the connector streets and people tend to feel more comfortable
in that setting.
Commissioner Segall asked him to explain the concept of alley-loaded streets and how that works. Mr.
Blake said they try to bring back streets that are much more livable and where a lot of service is put
trying to downplay the dominance of the automobile. There is more on-street guest parking. They try to
behind the house. The alley gets used as a service road and the garages are placed in the rear. They’re
bring the porches forward to diminish the garage and create more of a community feel. They try to create
more of a sofler feeling pathway that doesn’t seem so oppressive with the alleys they designed and it
seems to be pretty successful.
Commissioner Heineman stated he was curious if they explored the idea of service from North County
Transit District. Mr. Santos said that one of his associates, Mark Rohrlick, met with them and they talked
about a transit center within the employment center. It‘s a significant hub location with bus turnouts and
bus stands throughout the community.
Commissioner Baker asked how far out he sees the vision he described occurring. Mr. Santos replied that they’re hoping to be able to start grading late this year. They’re going to grade and put in mad
improvements in one phase, so theoretically in 2004 they will have homes and office buildings occupied.
Planning Commission Minutes June 5,2002 Page 14
It‘s conceivable the homes could sell in a year or two. Within five years from start of construction he
believed they would see the village.
Commissioner Baker asked if he has done this type of project anywhere else in the U.S. Mr. Santos said
they’re very active all over the state right now and thought they have 14 different large-scale master
planned communities. They have a project in San Jose, called Rivermark, that‘s very similar to this. They
also have a project that they’re currently grading in Temecula that‘s around 2,000 homes with a village
center. He said they are one of the largest publicly owned real estate developer in the nations. They built
close to 30,000 homes this year alone in the nation.
Commissioner Whitton asked if they were also going to hook up El Fuerte Street. Mr. Santos replied that
El Fuerte Street will be continuous from Palomar Airport Road to Poinsettia.
Commissioner Whitton stated it would seem to him that some senior citizens and empty nesters would like
to be in Planning Area 12 and thought some single-story units would break up the massiveness of 94 units
and asked him to address that. Mr. Santos replied that originally they tried to do some single-story homes
center and Poinsettia elevations pretty much dictate an elevation on the pad for the homes. They tried to
in that area but the grade of the roads necessary to come off El Fuerte Street and go up into the village
balance the height of the slopes along Poinsettia and keep them as low as possible and still get the
grades to work, and when they tried to move the home sites into the area they ended up with small home
sites. He said they’re relatively small and not their high end product. What they found is if they follow the
City’s criteria on coverage and floor area ratios, if they try to put a single story on those home sites, they
end up with a very small single story home site which is not desirable for the marketplace. It would also
compete with some other cottage type units they will have in the village center. They made the decision to
They also put one-story element requirements in their design criteria so that homes on intersections or
rather than try to force a solution, that they would try to transfer the single story obligation to other areas.
corners will look like one story from that side of the street but will slope up and have an actual second
story.
Chairperson Trigas added that she thought a one story would be highly marketable because of the huge
empty nester population and asked for further clarification of why they can’t have one stories in that
location.
Alan Fishman. Hezmalhalch Architects, 17875 Von Karman. lrvine 92614, followed up on why it would be
a hardship to build a single story product in Planning Area 12. They are the smallest lots in the community, 46 x 90 and they would only be able to realize about a 1,600-1,800 square foot product given
the setback criteria in the Master Plan. They worked with Staff to try to find a solution and Staff offered a
larger lot coverage from 50% to 60% to allow them to build a larger single story building, but they found the limitations they placed on themselves would not allow them to get more than a 1,700 or 1,800 square
foot building. He said these are intended to be more affordably priced homes, maybe for entry level
families at the lower end of the price range in the $400,000’~. He said all they’re asking to transfer is 15
homes out of a total of 94 and they think that‘s a pretty modest amount. He added that the best argument
for allowing them to do that is their Master Plan guidelines contain quite a bit of text and graphics which
talk about how they’re going to create these livable pedestrian neighborhoods, and Planning Area 12
contains a lot of information on the additional single story elements, various setbacks at the ground floor, additional setbacks to the second story, varied garage placements, swing garages, deep recessed
garages, getting the garages off the street, and a variety of architectural styles. They are going to do a lot
of things in Planning Area 12 and the rest of the community to make the streets livable and they think they can do that with all two-story product.
Commissioner Baker asked how much more square footage of livable space they achieve on average in houses with single story elements. Mr. Santos replied that the smallest home in Planning Area 12 would
be about 2,300 or 2,400 square feet versus the 1,600 or 1,700 square feet so it would be 500 or 600
square feet.
Commissioner Trigas stated that she believes the empty nesters are looking for more moderately priced
another comparably priced area. Mr. Fishman replied that he didn’t know if it would be comparable in homes, not the million dollar homes, and wanted to know if they’re planning to move the single stories to
terms of price but it would be in square footage.
/35
Planning Commission Minutes June 5,2002 Page 15
Chairperson Trigas added that another purpose of offering single story is that you don’t see the same
elevation. Mr. Fishman replied they understand that, but would like the opportunity to place those homes
in other areas where they have a lot size where they can deliver a product for the pricing to support the land cost and construction.
Chairperson Trigas said if they’re going to put the single story in the million dollar homes they won’t be
satisfying the need that Carlsbad has for moderate $400,000 homes. Mr. Santos responded they would
be back again with their plans and would try to address and satisfy their concern at the next level, if the
Commission allows them.
Mr. Wayne explained that the way the Master Plan is set up, they have to have elevations on these lots in
with the original submittal, so the Commission would see them at the time they see Planning Area 12
come in. In all likelihood it will be a planned development and at that time they’re going to have a rule in
the Master Plan that says that Planning Area 12 cannot have single story or they won’t, depending on how
the Commission and Council vote on it. When they come in with Planning Area 12 they’re going to show
that they’re going to fix the row housing effect issue. He said the harder issue is another variety of
housing for people who don’t want to walk upstairs and he doesn’t know how they would address that.
floor. Mr. Santos said that was an excellent suggestion and added they heard their comments and
Commissioner Baker suggested that a way to address that would be to put master bedrooms on the first
assured the Commission they would address that.
Commissioner Whitton asked if they go ahead with the Master Plan with the developer having distributed
the 15% through all the other planning areas and they come in separately for Planning Area 12, when it
comes time to develop it, wouldn‘t it be too late to change. Mr. Wayne responded that‘s up for the Commission’s review tonight and a recommendation to the City Council.
Commissioner White said she felt they did a great job trying to make this a neighborly community with a
think a gated community, especially a gated community with the most expensive houses in the
real sehse of cohesion with one exception, and that is the possibility of a gated community. She did not
She wanted to know if this is a definite item. Mr. Santos replied that it is not a definite item and knew that
neighborhood, is in keeping with their general vision and may not be in keeping with the Calthorp plan.
Calthorp didn’t want that to happen. Mark Rohrlick of Lennar Communities stated they have no problem
at this time removing the language relative to gated communities.
tonight was a collaboration with the Staff over the last several years. He said the Staff was very much a
Mr. Santos commended the Staff for all the work they put into this project and said everything shown
part of the process that led to the plan and he hoped they are as proud of it as they are.
Chairperson Trigas opened public testimony and first read a statement from Dr. Patrick Scott, 3318
Camino Coronado, Carisbad, that basically stated he is in favor of the project and likes the concept of
smart growth that the Bressi Ranch addresses.
Andy Hamilton, 9150 Chesapeake Drive, San Diego, stated he works for the Air Pollution Control District
which is a county agency overseeing air pollution issues over the entire County of San Diego. He said his
job is to promote non-polluting forms of travel and for that reason he came to the meeting because he thought it was important to let them know their feeling about the project. He said this project was done
with a great deal of care to other modes of transportation and was done at the same time the City was
developing its livable streets and livable neighborhood concepts, and they participated in the process in a less formal level. He said they’re glad to see this project come forward and begin to implement the things
that the City has done. He said a lot of communities purport to be walkable, but there’s no place for
that went into this project make it a model that North County needs to pay attention to. If they want a people to walk. He said while they can’t advocate for a particular project he thinks the design elements
visual models on the ground to follow. He added that another facet of air quality that this project will vision of what to do with traffic congestion and the air pollution that it produces, they need to have some
address is the inclusion of street trees and because of the way the livable street standards put the buffer area for planting trees right up on the street, not only does the pedestrian benefit, but the trees can
years the temperatures next to the homes can be as much as 10 degrees lower and that translates into a provide cover over the street areas which reduces the heat island effect from the trees. Over a period of
direct air quality benefit. One reason air quality is an unmitigable significant impact in this EIR is that the
Planning Commission Minutes June 5,2002 Page 16
EIR consultants and the developer chose the most conservative way to measure whether air quality
impacts were significant.
Ron Sipiora, Chief Professional Officer for the Boys and Girls Club of Carlsbad, 3115 Roosevelt Street,
Carlsbad, stated he was not only representing himself and the Boys and Girls Club of Carlsbad, but also
their 25 member board of directors to support Lennar Communities in their efforts to develop Bressi
the past several years, not only in a financial sense but with countless hours of employee time and effort in Ranch. He stated that Lennar Communities has been a staunch supporter of the Boys and Girls Clubs for
the last couple years and the type of support they provide not only allows non-profit organizations such as
a volunteer sense. He mentioned a holiday treat Lennar Communities provided for 150 of their kids during
theirs to exist but provides the essential services that they can provide the community. He said almost
from the inception of the Bressi Ranch they have been connected with the Boys and Girls Club in
the village square and they have secured some funds through the City of Carlsbad's Community
developing this community concept. They hope there will be a Boys and Girls Club community center in
Development Block Grant Program that are ready to be used for this project. He reiterated the need for a
Boys and Girls Club center and applauded Lennar's efforts to put in place all the necessary components
to assure a healthy, vibrant community neighborhood.
the project. He spoke as a Carlsbad citizen activist in trails, open space, and walkable communities, and
Gary Hill, 3289 Donna Drive, Carlsbad. stated he was wearing two hats, both recommending approval of
also as the Chairman of the Board for the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce, which seeks to find balance
between economic development and quality of life. He said the Chamber can see this project will create
some very good jobs, a mixture of housing and affordable housing. The location of housing and housing
Village Center is important, again trying to change people's attitudes and getting them out of their cars.
types in relation to the industrial and commercial development is very important. The mixed use in the
quality of life side, Mr. Hill said this project will bring in a very important link on the Carlsbad citywide trail
He mentioned that the walkable street concept was begun in Carlsbad by a citizens' initiative. On the
with the trail system in Villages of La Costa and the trail system that already exists in the Carrillo Ranch
system - a link that will cross Palomar Airport Road at Melrose and link it down to Poinsettia to connect
area as well as the open space that is going to go along with it. As open space disappears in the North
County area it's more and more important to the citizens, and the City found that out via their surveys. He
recommended approval of the project from both a citizen and Chamber standpoint.
Commissioner Segall stated for the record that he is an officer of the Chamber of Commerce and was not present and did not participate in any official actions in the discussion of Bressi Ranch.
Bailey Noble, 5470 Los Robles Drive, Carlsbad, a resident of 31 years, stated he was present as a Vice
and Girls Club to expand and stated that !he Bressi group has been very helpful and cooperative in
President of Facilities for the Boys and Girls Club Board of Directors. He expressed the need for the Boys
helping them with their plans to expand. He said even if they could build a new site today they would not
be able to accommodate the number of youngsters that deserve a place to go. He said the church they
are leasing from has been extremely good to them but told them about four years ago they had two years
to go because they had to expand their church. He said they heartily agree and support this because he
has seen how lives are turned around by the Boys and Girls Club.
Charles Rynerson. 4411 North Avenue, San Diego, 92116 stated he's a board member of Walk San
Diego. a grass roots organization with a mission that they need to make existing neighborhoods more
walkable but in particular to take the opportunity when building a new neighborhood. He said a lot of
neighborhoods claim to be walkable by putting the front porch on and paths to nowhere. With the
comprehensive land use plan, the mix of housing, the parks, trails, business district, employment, and
multiple connections to surrounding neighborhoods, and the Village Square, he said Walk San Diego feels
this has the potential to be an exceptional project, something there is no example of in San Diego County.
adoption of the documents related to the Bressi Ranch development.
They have a regional interest in this being developed and successful and their board recommends
Chairperson Trigas asked if Walk San Diego is a countywide organization. Mr. Rynerson replied that it is and they have members who live in Carlsbad and Encinitas. He said they're a volunteer organization so
they advocate for better walkability wherever it's needed and played some part in testifying in favor of the
narrower streets in Carlsbad's residential street plan that was recently adopted.
I3 7
Planning Commission Minutes June 5,2002 Page 17
Deirdre Marie-lha, Staff Attorney for California Indian Legal Services, 609 S. Escondido Blvd., Escondido,
stated she was present on behalf of the San Luis Rey Band of San Luis Mission Indians. San Luis Rey
Band is a San Diego County tribe whose traditional territory includes the cities of Carlsbad, Oceanside.
and Vista. They are concerned that any Native American human remains that may be uncovered during project developments are properly treated and likewise any artifacts that are uncovered are also properly
treated. The San Luis Rey Band is committed to working with the Pala Band of Mission Indians. another
San Diego County tribe. The Pala Band also has an interest in this project because some years ago they were declared to be the most likely descendants (MLD) under state law for remains that were located a
few years ago. The tribes have been in consultation with each other and intend to enter into a cooperative
agreement about how cultural resources issues will be addressed for this project from their point of view.
Ms. Marie-lha stated that the San Luis Rey Band requests that some changes be made to the EIR and
Conditions of Approval. She said she has not been able to discuss some of them in detail with the
applicant's counsel. She noted for the record that it is the tribe's preference and the preference of the
CEQA that significant archaeological sites, there are two located in this project, be preserved in open
space. That is the preference under State law and the preference of the tribe. She said they would like to have provisions for Native American monitoring. Currently the mitigation measures provide only for
archaeological monitoring and archaeologists and scientists have a very distinct and different perspective
from the cultural perspective that a Native American monitor will bring to the evaluation of archaeological
and cultural sites. They would like to be able to arrange with the developer that any artifacts or cultural
items can be returned to the tribe. Typically they address the details of both monitoring and the return of
with or without a pre-excavation agreement, the proper treatment of Native American human remains
cultural items in a special kind of contract called a pre-excavation agreement. The State law requires,
found and discovery of such remains starts a mandatory State law process. What they look to do with the
they happen. It's been their experience that this is a benefit to both the tribe and the developer because in
pre-excavation agreements is to streamline that process and address any potential contingencies before
the event that remains are discovered, it all proceeds smoothly and there's basically no confusion, and
delay to the project is minimized. They ask that a pre-excavation agreement with the San Luis Rey Band
developer about the terms of such an agreement and are in the midst of negotiating that.
be required as part of the mitigation measures for the project. They are already in discussions with the
fourth portion of C3. They would like those to be amended to remove any requirement for curation of
Ms. Marie-lha wanted to draw attention to two mitigation measures in the chart C1 of the final EIR and the
artifacts found. Instead. they would like to let the decision regarding the disposition of any artifacts left to
the developer and the tribe. The tribe's preference, as they consider these artifacts to belong to their
ancestors, is to have the artifacts returned to them. They have also discussed this issue with the
developer and their counsel has indicated they are not opposed to their request to have the artifacts
the disposition of artifacts. Regarding Native American monitoring, she said they are pleased that the
returned to the tribe. This will allow the developer and the tribe to come to a mutually agreeable plan for
mitigation measures require archaeological monitoring and request that Native American monitoring be
inserted into those provisions. The archaeological monitoring provisions are very good. The details will
be addressed in the pre-excavation agreement. She said they must know for the record that the Bressi
that is their preference. However, there is some chance written into the EIR that that may not happen. In Ranch EIR contemplates Site 9846 will be preserved in open space. They are in full support of this, as
the event that that is not possible, they would prefer capping of the site which is permanent preservation
under soil.
Commissioner Baker asked what happens to the artifacts if they are returned to the tribe. Ms. Marie-lha
replied that the artifacts would be kept by the tribe in a culturally appropriate manner.
Commissioner White asked which open space area contains the site. Ms. Marie-lha replied that the
the details in a public hearing.
location of archaeological sites is noted only in confidential appendices and she is not willing to discuss
Mark Mojado, P.O. Box I, Pala, 92059 stated his father is a member of the Pala Band and his mother is
Luiseno. He said he is working with the Pala Band on this project and stands behind everything said by
Ms. Marie-lha. He said Lennar has been very helpful and has taken them out to the site to view and
wish the project to go very smooth and proper. He said they have the facilities to store and keep the
inspect and thanked them for their cooperation and willingness to accommodate their needs. He said they
artifacts in a good manner and they may soon have a museum for them.
138
Planning Commission Minutes June 5,2002 Page 18
Craig Beam, Esq., of Luce Forward, et al, 600 West Broadway, Suite 2600, San Diego stated he is the
with requests that she made. First, they are in the process of finalizing the pre-excavation agreement, and
applicant's attorney. He said they have been working with Ms. Marie-lha and are in substantial agreement
secondly, this request will require the City's approval with respect to any artifacts found. They have no objection to that request to the extent the City chooses to grant it, otherwise they would like the terms in
they want to make sure any request made is not otherwise inconsistent with the California Environmental
the Mitigation Monitoring Agreement to apply if the City should choose not to grant the request. Third,
conditions of approval associated with archaeological or historical artifacts, they would like to state they
Quality Act. He said because they are in the process of working on their 404 permit which may itself have
granted for this particular project. He added they're basically all in accord. He said they ask this agency's
have to ask because it's a federal agency, that their request is not inconsistent with any 404 permit
support for the Band's request and ask if the federal agencies come out in different plays we must abide
by their directives and regulations.
community and wanted to know what type of lighting they were planning to put up in Bressi Ranch.
Rosemary Kalkofen, 2801 Rancho Rio Chico, Carlsbad, stated that Rancho Carrillo is a low lighting
lighting are the yellow lights and he said he's not familiar with any in Carlsbad. Bressi would have the
Mr. Wickham stated that the lighting in Rancho Carrillo is standard city lighting. The low-pressure sodium
same type of street lighting as Rancho Carrillo.
Commissioner White asked if the lighting on Open Space 4 would be shielded for the benefit of the open
space habitat. Mr. Wickham said they do have shielded cobrahead lights but they still are the standard
city light.
Chairperson Trigas suggested this might be something the applicant could work with the neighboring
community if there is a problem. Mr. Wickham said they have talked to the applicant about trying
want to introduce lights they don't carry in stock and lights that wouldn't be compatible with other areas.
substitute lights similar to the downtown streetscape. They're very sensitive to that, however, they don't
They want to try to keep districts similar.
Mr. Rohrlick added that a couple of things they are conditioned to adhere to are lighting against the open
space needs to be shielded and there are specific conditions in their biological opinion that speak to that.
Under their thematic, it's their intent when they go forward with the design of the property to place a type of
gaslamp style light. It may be slightly modified in the neighborhood streets, which also would be shielded,
the fact that the open space between Rancho Carrillo and Bressi on El Fuerte is considerable and the
so the overall effect would be more of a low intensity in some of those neighborhoods, but also reiterated
terrain is such that the road is down below Rancho Carrillo even more, creating less of an opportunity for
light pollution to affect the folks living there now.
Chairperson Trigas asked if they could get some feedback on the legal issue as far as the pre-excavation
agreement.
Ms. Mobaldi stated that since the developer and tribe are in consensus on this, it's probably just a
clarification of what's to be done with these artifacts and can be viewed as a tightening up of the mitigation
measures. She said she doesn't see any problem with adding them into the environmental mitigation
measures at this time without having a necessity for recirculating.
Mr. Gnibus of Cotton Bridges Associates stated they concur with the Assistant City Attorney and see the
the mitigation would be the same. It doesn't trigger any need to recirculate the document and it's
recommendations as tightening up the mitigation measures and the intent and end result of implementing
something they think they can address between now and the City Council. They will need to revise the
Mitigation Monitoring Program and the CEQA findings to reflect the revised language.
Mr. Beam, speaking on behalf of the applicant, stated that he concurs that it does not appear it would
with what happens to the artifacts if discovered after they're catalogued and then they would show
create any problem with CEQA guidelines or would require any recirculation of the EIR. It has to do more
deference to the tribe's request to the extent that the City approves it and it's consistent with City policy.
Planning Commission Minutes June 5,2002 Page 19
Chairperson Trigas asked if the motion needed to be amended to include this. Ms. Mobaldi said she
thinks you need to indicate that you're recommending that those be clarifications to the mitigation
measures when Council certifies the EIR. Commissioner Segall suggested it might be appropriate for the
Assistant City Attorney to draft something so they have the right wording.
Mr. Wickham asked to clarify two questions that had been asked by Commissioner Segall during the Staff
presentation. Regarding the traffic loading of the project on the adjacent circulation, Mr. Wickham said it is not necessarily equally distributed. It's 40% at El Fuerte Street and Palomar Airport Road, 30% travels
through Palomar Airport Road and Melrose. and 11% travels through Poinsettia and El Camino Real.
They don't add up to 100% and it's not an equal distribution, however, it's a wide distribution. The point
that Commissioner Segall was trying to make was with that large volume of traffic at Palomar Airport Road
and El Fuerte Street, if there was to be a U-turn condition, such as a right turn onto Palomar Airport Road
and a U-turn at El Fuerte Street, that could restrict that intersection. Mr. Wickham said he asked Traffic
Engineer, Bob Johnson, if he felt it could be an operational correction or mitigation and he concurred that
if Staff felt that U-turns at El Fuerte Street were a problem and restricting the operation of El Fuerte Street,
U-turns could be restricted. If it ever became an issue they would definitely address it.
Commissioner Segall said that the point of his question was to get some indication if there is enough
intersection spacing to allow a right turn out of Loker West and then cutting across 3 lanes of traffic to get
conditions on no U-turn; he just wanted to make sure the spacing was there and a process in place.
into the left lane to make a U-turn that could become a traffic issue. He said it wasn't his intent to put any
occur in this area; i.e.. Melrose and Palomar, the quadrant wouldn't necessarily be stopping development.
Regarding the Growth Management Circulation failure, Mr. Wickham explained that if a failure was to
Staff would look at who generates traffic to that intersection and look at the Local Facility Management
Plan zones that actually have a 20% loading of that intersection and those zones would be stopped for
development until it is corrected.
Commissioner Segall asked if that's a change in policy and referenced the time that Palomar Airport Road
and El Camino Real failed and there was a system in place where everyone throughout the City had to
mitigate with a fee until that intersection went back to Level D.
management failure and there were 4 or 5 zones that were responsible. It also became a CEQA issue.
Mr. Wayne responded they were dealing with two separate things at that time. One was a growth
As a CEQA issue the fee was established because every development in the city could have the potential
of going through that intersection. That's why the fee was established for everything.
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Segall stated that each year when the Commission goes to the League of California Cities
Planning Institute in Monterey they hear speakers like Peter Calthorp or William Fulton talk about what
other cities are doing with livable communities, walkable communities, and smart growth. He said he's
we're doing. He said he's excited about this project and especially likes that it's a walkable community
real happy to see us doing that in Carlsbad and perhaps next year can show other communities what
he said he's a very strong advocate of one-story units, however, in this case he thinks the applicant
with destinations and wholeheartedly supports it. Regarding the issue of single story in Planning Area 12.
adequately satisfied it and every single planning area doesn't need to have one-story. He would like that,
but if planning doesn't allow it, he can certainly support the alternative they proposed. He wanted to go on
support is that it was because he was asking for an indication of how a one-story unit would fit under record that he was the lone vote against the PD Ordinance and one of the main reasons he did not
Planned Development Ordinance in a small lot. He never got that information from Staff. He said now an
them to do it at that time. If they can't put on something that really makes sense and it's the square
applicant says it's going to be difficult to do, so he would like to see the picture and if it works we can ask
footage that's required, he said he can't support mandating it. He said he supports the project as
felt the applicant satisfied those issues.
presented, and he's not supportive of asking Planning Area 12 to have a requirement of one-story as he
Commissioner White stated she likes the project very much, the concept of the walkable community, all
the social activities, and the town center. She likes very much the inclusion of assisted living facilities
because it's important and very useful to people who are in an assisted living situation to be in a vibrant
Planning Commission Minutes June 5,2002 Page 20
community where they can participate in things. She would like to see some single-story units because
this is moderate priced housing, per the developer, and thinks people who need to live on one floor and
are paying $400,000+ should be able to use the entire house. The views from this particular location are
fine to have something less than 15% in this planning area, but would like to see accommodation made
very nice and they should be available for people who are restricted to a single story. She said it might be
for some single story. Other than that, she thinks it's a great project and can support this plan.
Commissioner Heineman agreed with Commissioners Segall and White, however, on Planning Area 12
he agreed with Commissioner Segall and said as long as the one-story houses are distributed in the
proper proportion throughout the other planning areas they've satisfied the requirement. He could
understand that the small lot sizes in 12 could seriously hamper the design of one-story units of sufficient
size. He said he feels the proposed solution is fine and thinks it's an excellent project and likes the idea
there is someplace to walk to and is very much in favor.
Commissioner Whitton agreed that it's an excellent, very well thought out community that addresses all
the needs of Carlsbad and thinks it will be another gem in the Carlsbad community. He was concerned
about the lack of single story in Planning Area 12, but was okay with it as long as there are single story
units available in other areas that are moderately priced that seniors could afford. He would be much
more concerned if there are not. He complimented the Staff and applicant on the very good and
comprehensive documentation and planning documents that answered all the questions he had.
Commissioner Baker stated she is looking forward to seeing this project come to life. As an avid
pedestrian she's excited about a community that would be walkable for more people. Unfortunately too
much of this community and much of North County has been designed and built where it's not only
She stated that the single story issue is almost always one of her main issues and she has voted against unpleasant, it's dangerous because of traffic. She said she's excited to see what the project will look like.
projects that do not include single stories. But as long as a single story can be satisfied in a similar price
range somewhere else in the project and it's close and within walking distance, she thought it would meet
the spirit of what they're trying to accomplish. She said her main concern is always how it looks from the
street, not so much the living space and if it doesn't look right they will have to address it at a later time.
extensively and was glad that they will be removed. She doesn't think they belong anywhere in the City of
She commended Commissioner White for bringing up the gated community, as she dislikes them
the project.
Carlsbad; they're against the flow of traffic and walkable streets. She said she could confidently support
dimension to Carlsbad and wished it would have happened earlier. She said the single story is a struggle
Chairperson Trigas agreed that this is a wonderful and very exciting project that's going to bring a new
for her, but as long as the same income level can afford it in another area of the community, it would
satisfy her. She doesn't want to see it all in affordable housing or million dollar homes, but something for
middle income or retiree types. She thanked everyone for coming out and was impressed with the
support.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Baker and duly seconded, that the Planning
that the City Council certify the Program Environmental Impact Report EIR 98-04
Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 5201 recommending
including the approval of Candidate Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding
the following language, "Exhibit C to the EIR shall be modified to delete any
Consideration, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program modified with
5.7 C3 the following language, 'The disposition of artifacts is to be determined by
reference in Section 5.7 to mandatory curation and to add to the end of Section
mutual agreement of the applicant and tribes, namely the Pala Band of Mission
Indians and the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians to the extent that the
disposition is not inconsistent with the federal permits andlor not prohibited by
City policy.' ", Adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5202, 5203, 5204,
Change ZC 98-04. Master Plan MP 178 and Local Facilities Management Plan
and 5205 recommending approval of General Plan Amendment GPA 98-03, Zone
LFMP 17; and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5206, 5207, 5208,
and 5209 approving Carlsbad Tract CT 00-06, Hillside Development Permit HDP
Planning Commission Minutes June 5,2002 Page 21
99-06, Special Use Permit SUP 99-03, and Special Use Permit SUP 01-01 based
on the findings and subject to the conditions found therein and modified with the
following language ”and to add a new Condition 2 to Resolution 5204 that says,
to Planning Area 11 strike the term “gate guarded and modify Exhibit X-19 to
‘The Master Plan text and graphic on Page X-40 and Graphic X-19 with respect
eliminate the gate guarded entrance on the concept sketch.’ ”
DISCUSSION
None.
VOTE: 6-0-0
AYES:
Whitton
Chairperson Trigas. Commissioners Baker, Heineman, Segall, White, and
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
None
None
From: "Shan Misthos" <shanmisthos@earthlink.net>
To: <mstro@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>
Date: 7/8/02 10:40AM
Subject: Bressi Ranch Project
Dear Council:
traffic on Palornar Airport Road bad enough already? Does today's economy really justify more office
Hasn't there been enough building, especially of new houses, in Carlsbad in the last few years? Isn't
buildings being built? Please do not approve the Bressi Ranch Project--it is not warranted or necessary at this time. Thank you.
George Misthos
Carlsbad
7/8/02
, '.
To:
From: <Plachnov@aol.com>
6/13/02 3:25PM
<MSTRO@CI.CARLSBAD.CA.US>
Subject:
Date:
Concerns on the Bressi Ranch Project
TO: MAYOR BUD LEWIS
COUNCIL MEMBER MATT HALL
MAYOR PRO TEM ANN KULCHIN
COUNCIL MEMBER JULIANNE NYGAARD
COUNCIL MEMBER RAMONA FINNILLA
SENT BY E-MAIL TO: MSTRO@CI.CARLSBAD.CA.US
DATE: JUNE 13,2002
AGENDA ITEM # ! 1
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
E: Mayor
Dear Mayor Lewis, Mayor Pro Tem Kulchin and Council Members Hall, Nygaard and
Finnilla.
We are Ron and Valerie Plachno and we live at 6223 Paseo Colina in the Rancho
Carrillo development. We recently attended a Planning Council meeting
regarding the Bressi Ranch Development. We were surprised at much of what we
heard and also have some deep concerns with the project, as do several of our
neighbors.
The proponents of the Bressi Ranch project seem to say how much this project
is going to add to Carlsbad. All of those that we have talked to think that
damage appearance and traffic. We are sure that you do not truly believe the
is an illogical comment, and that our only question is how much it will
valley and then adding traffic to an already congested North County are not
brochures either. Cementing over a large portion of a beautiful Carlsbad
features - at least to the current Carlsbad residents. While we don't want
to be against progress, we believe that such developments should either add
to the community or at least not subtract appreciably from it. And in the
current plans, that has not been in evidence.
Our concerns are in two categories, the industrial portion and traffic.
The industrial portion of the project was a big surprise to us as it has been
to many of our neighbors. The city planning personnel that we have spoken to
regarding this have said that this had been on the books for a while.
However, regardless of that, lining the major roads of Carlsbad with
industrial and intermingling with the very residential areas of Rancho
Carrillo and Bressi Ranch is disturbing to many of us. Many of us are much
more used to cities and villages that keep industrial (mostly) in one portion
of the city in business parks and keep residential neighborhoods residential.
Some examples of our expectations that we had before this news:
- San Diego is famous for Sorrento Valley, off by itself and primarily a
business community - I had worked near UTC and La Jolla Village Drive in San Diego. It was very
clear that Industrial was not allowed on La Jolla Village drive, at least not
noticeably. Our industrial site and many other industrial sites were north
of UTC and not on La Jolla Village drive. Again, mostly in business parks - San Marcos seems quite concerned about appearance along Palomar Airport
developments, a high school, and mostly rustic looking commercial on the
Road. Traveling Eastward out of Carlsbad one passes some nice housing
sides of the road. Of course, there is also the rustic looking Restaurant
Row on Palomar. Industrial, is mostly out of site.
- Vista does well with its industrial park near Business Park Drive and
height and addition of trees block much of it. One must drive down Business
Palomar Airport Road. While a few buildings are in sight, the difference in
- Carlsbad in this same area of Palomar Airport Road between El Camino Real
Park Drive to see much of the industrial area.
Again, hills and trees block much of the impact. One must mostly drive North
and Melrose mostly does well with the industrial site north of the road.
on El Fuerte or the other two side roads North to get into the industrial
park and full impact.
-The rustic downtown area of Carlsbad adds, in my opinion, to the natural
beauty of the ocean and beaches. And of course, mixing industrial in there
would be a giant negative to its appearance. - The area around Route 5 and Palomar Airport Road clearly has also been
given much thought by Carlsbad Councils, past and present. The TGIF is
quaint looking and adds. Even McDonalds has a tiled roof and adds pleasantly
to the community. Someone has clearly thought this area out, and ensured
that it adds to Carlsbad beauty. Even Carl's Junior, and Subway are fine
looking.
By sharp contrast, the Bressi plan intends to line a major Carlsbad roadway,
believe, currently allowed 35 foot high. That appearance is going to be a
Palomar Airport Road, with Industrial complexes, much at ground level, and I
giant negative with respect to the current combination of nature and
residential. It will even be a poor contrast to the rustic commercial look of
Palomar Airport Road in San Marcos. Whether Industrial here was planned 5
minutes ago or ten years ago, I just don't see this as a good move given
Carlsbad's natural beauty and our mutual interests to keep our community
beautiful. What we need, I believe, is some of the cleverness that had
a rustic, pretty, and very friendly appearance.
previously gone into other areas of Carlsbad and San Marcos, leaving it with
Traftic is of course going to get worse along Palomar Airport Road near this
planned development. Traftic there is already not good. We understand from
the city planning group that it is already at a C level and likely to drop to
a D level with the Bressi planning. For those of us that live there, we are
already aware that traffic is indeed a problem particularly on weekday
evening rush hours. For example, those that think they are going to go to
dinner in San Marcos and head Eastward on Palomar Airport Road are liable to
give up and turn around due to congestion. One could say that this is worse
nearer San Marcos - but that flow through traffic had mostly all come through
Carlsbad. Of course, adding more industrial in Carlsbad is going to worsen
for the day.
even this situation during the evening rush hour, when those places adjourn
We will be talking with several of our neighbors and try to propose some
reasonable alternatives for the Council to consider. We also ask the Council
to begin to look into this on their own and help work with us to make the
best of this project, and again, preserve as much as we can of the natural
situation in North County.
beauty of Carlsbad, and also make the best of our already congested traffic
Thank you for listening.
Ronald J. Plachno
Valerie L. Plachno
6223 Paseo Colina
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Phone: 760-603-9312
cc: <Plachnor@aol.com>, <Plachnov@aol.com>
~,~(o-.....*,~"~.~,.~," ,~,~,-.~.~.~,~,~~..~.~.~..~ '.,. . .. . .. .- " ..
From:
Date:
Kate / Tom <katetom@znet.Com
6/11/02 2:39AM
Subject: Palomar Airport Noise
Apparently the Carlsbad Planning folks didn't learn a damn thing from
PAR2000, the airport noise round table. Now they've allowed a
Airport traffic pattern!
developer to build homes and apartments right under the Palomar
From the San Diego Daily Transcript Thursday, 6/6/02
Bressi Ranch, a major, master planned Carlsbad project was
unanimously approved by the Carlsbad Planning Commission Wednesday
night. It now moves to Carlsbad's City Council at the end of June or
early July for final approval.
The large mixed-use development is on 585 acres at the southeast
corner of Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real. Mark Rohrlick. a
vice president of Lennar Communities, the developer, said if the
Planning Commission meeting is any indication (there were no speakers
in opposition) the development should sail through the City Council
as well.
While plans could be fine tuned, they call for 523 single-family
homes, 100 "affordable" apartment units, more than 2.1 million square
feet of industrial space, an assisted living facility for 200
residents, schools, and a commercial center with neighborhood retail
and offices, all designed to be within walking distance.
LennadGreystone (the two firms merged about 12 months ago) could end
up building more than half of the homes, but Rohrlick suggested at
least some lots will be sold to merchant builders. "We haven't
decided how many we will build." he said.
The homes are expected to range from 2,100 to more than 4,000 square
feet. About 25 lots in the project are expected to be set aside for
custom homes.
The plans originally called for townhomes and condominiums, but city
officials made it clear, with the exception of the apartments, they
apartment units would be clustered around the commercial center area
preferred single-family homes over the higher density units. The
to provide easy access and so as to minimize the impact on local
streets.
light manufacturing and warehousing. When asked if the industrial
Rohrlick said the industrial part of the plan could include offices,
portion of the plan could change due to changing market conditions,
Rohrlick said he expected it would change little, if at all. "We
would never put residential in that area. It's too close to Palomar
Airport," he said.
c: Mayor
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
The commercial center would be the focal part of the project. Nearly
all the housing and indeed the rest of the development would be
located within a quarter mile of the center.
"The schools ... the retail ... the housing, are all within walking
distance," Rohrlick said. And treelined parkways, most of which are
seven feet wide, will make people want to walk."
Rohrlick said the 130,000-square-foot center could include a
specialty store, restaurants and an array of smaller retailers. "We
want to make it a vibrant, sustainable design," he said.
About one-third of the project site would be left in permanent open area
From: <EHydel999@aol.com>
To: cmstro@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>
Date: 6/15/02 9:41 PM
Subject: Bressi Rancho Proposal: A Citizen's Strong Objections
To: Mayor Lewis and the City Council of Carlsbad.
Rancho Costero, in The Estates of Rancho Carrillo, Carlsbad. CA.
I have been a property owner in Carlsbad for over 4 years and live at 2820
is up for vote before the Council on July 9, 2002.
I must express my strong objections to the proposed Bressi Ranch project that
These are my specific concerns and requests:
1) The zoning and proposed building of an industrial buildings on the land
south of Palomar airport road will create not only substantially more traffic
congestion but will blight the area adjacent to and directly behind it. Our
development, the Estates, contains homes in excess of $1M in value ... l
specifically object to 35 ft tall industrial buildings adjacent to a high end
values. At the very least, reduce these building heights to a level more
community given the blight impact, noise and deleterous impact on property
compatible with the citizens who have recently built here and have
substantial investments to protect.
2) The extension of El Fuerte into a 4 lane, 80 ft wide road directly behind
my property will also contribute noise, blight, and will negatively impact
property values. I understand the need for additional roads, but I
specifically request that this road be reduced in width and moved further
west, more in line with the existing single lane road on Bressi ranch today.
3) I specifically request definition of the use of the land immediately south
this will be a community facility, a school, church?? Before this plan is
of the Ei Fuerte extension. In the plan I have seen it is unclear whether
approved, I would request a clearer definition of this land use and
mitigation of the environmental impact given that it will be placed
immediately west of a canyon with significant wildlife.
4) I would request that if this plan is approved that the parks and space
contained in the existing layout be maintained or expanded before this
project moves forward.
5) I have noted an enormous increase in traffic congestion and noise on
Palomar Airport Road and Melrose. The plan calls for an increase in the
traffic level from 'C' to 'D'which will make the current situation
substantially worse. I suggest that this change not be made.
others in Rancho Carrillo objecting to this development, including several of
I have also signed a petition with several citizens in my development and
the points above.
I am deeply concerned that the City Council is too heavily influenced by
development interests and is rapidly overbuilding an otherwise excellent
community. I was extremely concerned by the process by which the City
.G;ENDA WEIM # //
C: Mayor
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
approved the Villages of LaCosta; this is yet another example of overbuilding
and negative impacts on the quality of life of people like myself who have
chosen to invest in Carlsbad.
This letter should be added to the record of considerations of the Bressi
Ranch project by the City of Carlsbad.
I strongly oppose this project in its current form.
Eric A. Hyde
2820 Rancho Costero
Carlsbad. CA
cc: <EHydel999@aol.com>
Page 1 of 1
Marilyn Strong - meeting of July 9
From: "anthony zankich" <anthonyzankich@hotmail.com>
To:
Date: 07/09/2002 9:29 AM
<mstro@ci.carlshad.ca.us>
Subject: meeting of July 9
To our dear City Council Members. Please, vote against the addition of the industrial project of the
Bressi Ranch Development. The traffic on Palomar Airport Road and its connectors is just going crazy.
We, personally, can adjust our driving times to avoid the congestion on the road, but our younger
neighbors who have to get to and from work on a scheduled time are already having the stress of
"gridlock". We drove around our area last week and find there are already many industrial
developments under way. There are no more needed. Take the drive for yourselves and see. We live in
Rancho Carillo and have for nearly two years. We moved from Bonsall and are so glad to be away from
there. Traffic is unbelieveable and the back ups degrade the quality of life, we realize we live in the city
and it is not the same as "old" Bonsall, but we would hate to see this lovely area of ours be downgraded
because of too much industrial growth. Please cast your vote NO. Protect our communities and do not
let it be said that our City Council members are in the back pocket of developers. Respectfully, Tony
and Kathi Zankich
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: Click Here
AGENDA ITEM # 1
(1 Mavor
City Couneil
City Manager
Clty Attornq
Cllr-
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\mstro\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW}OOOO1.HTM 07/09/2002
"~
Flyn Strong - Industrial . . ~~ .. . zoning ~ ,, issue. - ~ .. - ...- Page 1 ! "'"1 "
,, , , ..
.~ ... ~
~
To:
From: Henning Rsschke <hroschke@sbcglobal.net>
<mstro@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>
Date: 7/9/02 2:IOPM
Subject: Industrial zoning issue.
To whom it may concern.
awareness of the proposed Industrial Zoning at the Bressi Ranch site. We
Recently my wife and I received a pamphlet lefl at our house, raising the
thought there would never be anything but houses built on the South side of
Palomar.
We just moved to Carlsbad in February, and the location we chose was so that
we could be out of the hideous view and dangerous neighborhood of an
Industrial park. We live in Rancho Carrillo and enjoy the peace and safety
of our newfound dwelling.
To be told only months afterward that it is going to be next to a new
development of Concrete Buildings, of which there are WAY to many of in San
Diego County anyway, has just crushed our hopes of a quiet, tranquil living
now as we are getting older. It also raises the question of "Who is
that have a little personal interest as well?
benefiting from all this?" Maybe it's not just the city but council members
news. Can't someone think that wiping out an entire landscape of rolling
I think the standard of living was on it's right track till we heard the
concrete buildings don't vanish so fast? Zone it for a Golf course at least.
hills and canyons that are pleasing to the eye, will be gone forever and
than Industrial buildings do. And by the way how many Golf courses are there
I don't play golf, but I think it preserves the area in a more pleasing way
top of that our children of the future may have something to look forward to
in Carlsbad? Certainly not any in Comparison to the industry it supports. On
by setting an example for them.
Remember Health issues are also at stake here. I work in an Industry where
there is constant activity with trucks and likewise equipment nearby all day
long. When I get home I can taste the fresh air where I live. I don't want
the air to remind me of work. Don't forget we have an Elementary school
right in the neighborhood and there are young children's lives at stake here
too.
If it has to be Zoned:
THINK FIRST BEFORE YOU VOTE
want ruined.
I also have interest of peace in Carlsbad and an investment that I don't
Henning Rsschke
Vice President
Westphal Enterprises, Inc
fax# 1-858-635-9481
handy# 1-858-342-8657
hroschke@sbcglobal.net
ph# 1-858-635-8578
From: "Jim Miller" <jrniller@pmbank.com>
To: <mstro@ci.carlsbad.ca.us.z
Date: 7/9/02 10:36AM
Subject: Bressi Ranch
voice my most vehement opposition to the project. Simply stated
industrial zoning has no place adjacent to our residential area. I did
July 9th meeting where vocal opinions may be made. Please accept this
not know of the details until this week and will be out of town for the
future to oppose this project.
notice as my protest and be assured I will do all in my power in the
As a resident of Rancho Carillo,6214 Paseo Aka Rico. I want to
James R. Miller
David Sternfeld
6398 Paseo Aspada, Carlsbad, California 92009
(760) 43 1-0100 cel 889-1 100 fax 43 1-0300 email jazzdave~adel~hia.net
AGENDA ITEM # / (
Wednesday, July 03,2002 CZ Mayor
Carlsbad City Council City Manage
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008 *a*t
Dear City Council,
city comdl
We are opposed to approval of the Bressi Ranch Project as it is seeking master plan
approval.
Our opposition is based on several concerns regarding incompatibility:
1. The estimated 31,000 plus additional daily vehicle trips through our community
will make the current poor traffic circulation measurably worse.
2. Placing industrial properties close by residential areas will cause unhealthy
conditions due to the diesel fumes from industrial trucking and operations.
Several studies have warned that this is a hazard for growing children.
3. Mixing 2,160,000 square feet of industrial zoned buildings with a requested
height of 35 feet is a poor fit with the current 1466 homes in Carrillo Ranch and
the requested 623 homes in the Bressi Ranch proposal.
We are not opposed to some other possible uses, such as low/moderate income housing,
shopping/commercial, office park buildings or any combination of these.
Industrial developments are needed to provide a balanced master plan. Locating industrial
buildings near the airport is also wise. Consider such developments under the flight path
of the airport, north of Palomar Airport Road and away from residential areas. Please,
make a decision to approve development for the master plan that will he a wise use now
and 50 years from now.
Sincerely, ,
David Sternfeld Y
Ricki Sternfeld
sent BY: STEPSTONE REAL ESTATE SERVICES; 619 231 8389; JUl-8-02 2:53PM; Page 111
June 27,2002
Honorable Claude Lewis, Mayor
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Rancho Cmillo Rcsidcnts Support Rressi Ranch
Dear Mayor Lewis and Members of the Carlsbad City Council:
AGENDA ITEM #
e: Mayor
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
We are writing in support of the proposcd Brcssi Ranch community due to Council for a
vote in early July. We are currently residents ofrhe City of Carlsbad in the Kancho
Camllo community, which is adjacent to the Bressi Ranch. Over the years, we have
actively followed the City’s efforts to enhance our community. We believe Bressi Ranch
will be a great addition to the City dCarlsbad and the surrounding area.
According to the plans and news information we have reviewed, the Bressi Ranch plan to
create a livnble, wdkable community, along with its people friendly style. will greatly
enhance this area and provide the ambiance of the mall town feel that we have come to
love about Carlsbad. We believe this is exactly the type of new home community we
should support and encourage in Carlsbad.
As working commuters, one of Urcssi’s significant benefits is its close proximity to local
businesses and nearhy industrial parks, as well as the integration of commercial-induqttial
office space within the community’s plnn. We bclicvc that this proximity and design
advantagc will help to reduce automobile traffic on Carlsbad Strcds. Since we live in the
area, we are sensitive about the concerns ovm traffic, but we know it is impossible to
achieve any significant road improvements, which are already needed, without thc
financing projects liks this provide.
It is for these reasons that wc are writing to ask you to support the proposed Bressi Ranch
community. Thank you for your considmation and the hard work you do for Carlsbad.
Sincerelv.
* P.kb&
ippe Br Pete McAfce
CC: Members, Carlsbad City Council
From: "Brian Miller" <bfmillerl l@hotmail.com>
To: <rnstro@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>
Date: 7/6/02 12:24PM
Subject: Bressi Ranch Development
Hello,
I am sending this in regards to the Proposed Bressi Ranch Development going before the Carlsbad City
Council on July 9th.
As a recent re-plant back to Carlsbad, home purchased in Rancho Carillo. I am sadden by the ever
continual development of land in beautiful Carlsbad. The traffic along Palomar Road has already become
a nuisance and the proposed Bressi Ranch Development will most definitely make thing worse and the
allowed 35 foot building height.
Industrial zone, no matter how well hidden among tree will still be an eye sore particularly the proposed
continually development such as this will ensure that it will not hold that quality for much longer.
I am a Carlsbad citizen and moved back here because it is unlike any other part of San Diego County, but
Brian Miller
To:
From: "frank william belina" <billbell@msn.com>
Date: 7/6/02 9:47PM
<mstro@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>. <plachnor@aol.comz
Subject: Proposed Bressi Ranch Project Industrial Zoning
Members of the Carlsbad City Council,
Palomar Airport Rd between El Camino Real and Melrose. As my property practically abuts Melrose in the
I recently moved into Rancho Carrillo and just learned of the proposed industrial zoning south of
area to be so zoned, I feel I must express my concern. I moved from an area in L.A. that was partially
"industrial zoned" and witnessed an alarming proliferation of manufacturing facilities, warehouses, trucking
and other non-residential activities to a point that I considered them a blight on quality of life, safety, traffic and health of those in the residential area. I chose Rancho Carillo because of the careful planning, quality
residences, clear air, landscaping, open spaces, cleanliness and, most importantly, no industry. Although
residences in the Bressi Ranch Project are inevitable, I hope they are developed with the same attention
to detail, quality, architecture and efficient traffic control as exhibited in Rancho Carrillo and, further, follow
the example of no industry
I thus would like to go on record as being adamantly opposed to the proposed industrial zoning in the
Bressi Ranch Project.
6080 Citracado Circle
F. W. Belina
Carlsbad. Ca. 92009
..iENDAITEM# f / -.
From: Farzad Varahramyan <farzad@oastudios.comz city Couadl
To:
Date:
<mstro@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>
7/7/02 4:18PM
Subject: Bressi Ranch Project Petition
Dear Sir or Madam,
and my wife’s vote, Vera Varahramyan, to count AGAINST the approval of the
Regarding the Bressi Ranch project, I would very much like to have my vote
Industrial Zoning for this project.
My wife and I are new parents, and we are very concerned regarding the
to keep the community feel and look of this area intact ... this was the
safety issues that this zoning would produce. We also would very much like
whole reason we move to Carlsbad, and this particular area.
Thank you very much for your time.
Farzad
”. Mayor
City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
/j Council LII Internet Email ,, -. - CITY OFCARLSBAD i CONTACT ..., Us ~.~ . . ~., ~. . .~ rEi3 ".
From: <roswithaminder@aol.com>
To: Date: Wed, Jul 3, 2002 258 PM
Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD I CONTACT US
A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed
and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, City Council
<Council@smtp.ci.carIsbad.ca.us>
AGENDA ITEM W /
E: Mayor
city Coundl
City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
Below, please find the information that was submitted:
First Name: Rolf & Roswitha
Address: 2806 Rancho Pancho
Last Name: Minder
City: Carlsbad
State: CA
Zip: 92009
Country: San Diego E-mail: roswithaminder@aol.com
Message: We are very concerned about the Bressi Ranch project. It concerns the increased traffic and
health hazzards a project like that would cause. We moved to the Rancho Carrillo area 2 years ago
because of its neighborhood of private homes etc. We don't need any more business districts in this area
Thank you for your consideration.
User details:
Mozillal4.0 (compatible; MSlE 6.0; AOL 7.0; Windows NT 5.1) I web browser
152.163.207.183 I ip address I hostname
From: Camilla Tausworthe <cjtausworthe@earthlink.net> AGENDA ITEM # 1 /
To:
Date:
<mstro@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>
6/19/02 5:06PM
Subject: Bressi Ranch Project city comodl
C: Mayor
City Manager
To The Carlsbad City Council:
Dear Sirs:
to hear about the plans for the development of the Bressi Ranch land. I
I am a resident of The Estates in Rancho Carrillo and have been waiting
received some information from a neighbor who had attended the last
meeting concerning this property. One of my concerns is for the level
of traffic that will increase at the corner of Palomar Airport Road and
Melrose Drive. Could a right hand turn lane onto Melrose be
incorporated at that juncture? This would alleviate some of the
congestion for those many residents of the Rancho Carrillo area who must
access their homes through this intersection. Another concern is one of
esthetics as well as practicality. I am interested in seeing that the
landscaping surrounding the industrial area, especially to the rear of
well as reducing noise levels.
the buildings, serves the dual purpose of screening the hardscape as
I appreciate any consideration that you can give to these concerns.
2002 and we look forward to hearing the discussion regarding this Bressi
My husband and I plan to attend the next City Council meeting on July 9.
Ranch issue and other civic matters.
Sincerely,
Camilla Tausworthe
2812 Rancho Costero
Carlsbad. CA 92009
-
AGENDA lTEM # //
e: M.yor From: "Kevin A. Spousta" <kspousta@net-cetera.com>
To: cmstro@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Clb Cwadl
Date: 7/2/02 1:16PM City Manager
Subject: Bressi Ranch Project CltgAttOlll~
I am writing to you in regards to the pending Master Plan approval of the Bressi Ranch Project along Palomar Airport Road between El Camino Real and
Melrose Drive. I am vehemently opposed to having this land being zoned for
industrial use.
we have to deal with moderate traffic noise from both Melrose Drive and
I am a resident of Rancho Carillo in the Benicia development and currently
Palomar Airport Road. The proposed plan to zone the Bressi Ranch area as an
Carillo area.
industrial zone will adversely affect the quality of life in the Rancho
The proposed zoning would cause an increse in traffic of some 10,000+
vhhicleslday into the community, many of these large diesel powered trucks.
The noise and the exhaust from these vehicles will have a negative impact on
the residences closest to this area - mine being one of them. I don't want
vehicles, (Not to mention the YEARS of construction noise & mess while this
my children exposed to the noise and the exhaust fumes from these additional
area is being developed) nor do I want my neighbors exposed to it.
The 35 foot tall zoning height being proposed would effectively "wall away" the northernmost regions of Rancho Carillo. spoiling the "feel" of this
area. We all moved into this area because it's clean, safe and relatively
quiet. Adding 2.16 million square feet of industrial area would effectively
destroy the community's feel and the quality of life therein.
take into consideration the people and families who live in this area.
I strongly urge you to reconsider the industrial zoning of this area and
Thank you,
Kevin A. Spousta
CttrQerlr
From: billholmes <billholmes@adelphia.net> AGENDA ITEM # //
To: "Council Members" <mstro@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> el Mayor
Date: 7/4/02 1:59PM City Council
Subject: Bressi Ranch Project City Manager
A petition circulated by Valerie and Ron Piachno, 6223 Paseo Colina, City Attorney
Carlsbad, CA 92009 advocates that I mail or email you and attend a City Clerk
meeting on July 9 concerning the Bressi Ranch Project,
As a Libertarian, I firmly believe in private property rights. I believe it is immoral to control the property of others by way of government.
Hence, I encourage you to not interfere with right of the Bressi Ranch
encourage you to eliminate all zoning restrictions, because they cause
property owners to develop their property as they please. Furthermore, I
suboptimum land use, arbitrarily increase the value of the property of
some at the expense of others, and invite bribes of you and City
officials.
I will, however, consider contributing to the purchase of the land should
a large number of property owners in the vicinity desire to acquire the land from the owner at market value for a purpose of their choosing.
Bill Holmes
P.O. Box 130755
Carlsbad, California 92013
billholmes@adlephia.net 760-476-9418 home, 760-804-8884 x 374 Office
http://wtholmes.com
To:
From: "Eugene Zoval" <eugene52036@hotmail.com>
<mstro@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>
Date: 7/4/02 7:37AM
Dear City Council, -
orooosed INDUSTRIAL ZONING of 2.16 million Sa.Ft. in Carlsbad. - Please add me to the growing list of persons opposed to the "Bressi Ranch"
,
' Thank you from a concerned citizen, Eugene Zoval
Join the worldEs largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
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, July 9, 2002, to consider a request for the certification of a Program
Environmental Impact Report, including the approval of Candidate Findings of Fact, a Statement
of Overriding Consideration, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and approval
of a Master Plan identifying six industrial planning areas, seven residential planning areas, one
mixed use planning area, one community facilities planning area, and six open space planning
areas for the purpose of regulating the future development of up to 623 residential units, 2.16
million square feet of industrial buildings, 130,000 square feet of commercial buildings, and
138,000 square feet of community related services andor facilities; General Plan Land Use
Amendment, Zone Change, Local Facilities Management Plan, for the purpose of designating the
type, location, and infrastructural needs of development within a 585.1 acre site south of Palomar
Airport Road and east of El Camino Real in Local Facilities Management Zone 17 and more
particularly described as:
Being a portion of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 1763,
in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to Map thereof on file in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, July 20,1973
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 July 5, 2002. If you have any
questions, please call Christer Westman in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4614.
If you challenge the Environmental Impact Report, Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of
Overriding Consideration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan
Amendment, Zone Change, Master Plan and/or Local Facilities Management Plan in court, you
may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn:
City Clerk, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: EIR 98-04/GPA 98-03/ZC 98-04/MP I7WLFMP 17
CASE NAME: BRESSI RANCH
PUBLISH: JUNE 28,2002
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
BRESSI RANCH
E I R 98-04/G PA 98-031
ZC 98-04/MP 178/LFMP 17
Smooth Feed SheetsTw,
SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DlST
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
CARLSBAD UNlF SCHOOL DlST
801 PINE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ENClNlTAS SCHOOL DlST
101 RANCHO SANTA FE RD
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
SAN DlEGUlTO SCHOOL DlST
701 ENClNlTAS BLVD
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
LEUCADIA CNTY WATER DlST
1960 LA COSTA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OLIVENHAIN WATER DlST
1966 OLIVENHAIN RD
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
CITY OF ENClNlTAS
505 S VULCAN AVE
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NORTH COAST HWY
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
I.P.U.A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMlN AND
URBAN STUDIES
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
VISTA CA 92085
VALLECITOS WATER DlST
788 SAN MARCOS BLVD
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STE 100
9174 SKY PARK CT
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340
SD COUNTY PLANNING
ST€ B
5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DlST
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
SANDAG
STE 800
401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
U.S. FISH &WILDLIFE
2730 LOKER AVE WEST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CA INDIAN LEGAL SERVICES
609 SO ESCONDIDO BLVD
ESCONDIDO CA 92025
LENNAR BRESSI VENTURE LLC
STE 320
5780 FLEET ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKSKOMMUNITY
SERVICES
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKSENGINEERING
DEPT
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT PLANNER
CHRISTER WESTMAN
06/13/2002
. . .. ~. .,
OF COUNTY / 00000 /
E F B P ASSCS
5414 OBERLIN DR STE 140
SAN DIEGO CA 921214744
PAC STARR ESSEX-CARLSBAD L L C
650 SIERRA MADRE VILLA AVE If 10 PASADENA CA 91107-2013
JOHN MUCKEL
6024 OCEAN TERRACE DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275-5755
TECHBILT CONST CORP
SAN DIEGO CA 92138-0036
PO BOX 80036
SAN ELlJO PROP L LC
ENClNlTAS CA 92024-5105
1105 ARDEN DR
CANOGA-RINCON LOKER INDUSTRIAL INC
2121 PALOMAR AIRPORT RO STE 100 CARLSBAD CA 92009-1422
I
DANIEL SHELLEY
PO BOX 230985
ENClNlTAS CA 92023-0985
ASHWORTH INC
2765 LOKER AVE W
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6601
PALOMAR CREST L L C
4370 LA JOLLA VILLAGE OR STE 655 SAN DIEGO CA 92122-6226
PICTURE MOTION 1 BUSH ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 941044425
SOAP CA QRS 12-37 INC
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6626 2885 LOKER AVE E
SUN CONTRACTING CORP
SAN DIEGO CA 92138-0036
PO BOX 80036
INDUSTRIAL DEV INTERNATIONA 18101 VON KARMAN AVE STE 120 IRVINE CA 92612-0167
RE COLLATERAL MGMT C 2700 SANDERS RD PROSPECT HEIGHTS IL 60070-2701
VECTOR ASS0 L L C
1810 S BAYFRONT
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92662-1345
LEVINE INV LTD PTRNRS
2901 N CENTRAL AVE STE 200
PHOENIX A2 85012-2705
PONDEROSACOUNTRYHOWNRSASSN 23382 MILL CREEK DR STE 120 LAGUNA HILLS CA 92653-1697
RACEWAY PROP L LC
SAN DlEGO CA 92130-2874 12672 CAMINITO RADIANTE
MARY HOWELL 6203 PASEO COLINA
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2101
GREGORY a BONNIE DOWD 6211 PASEO COLINA CARLSBAD CA 92009-2101
BRIAN a KELLEY WALKER
6219 PASEO COLINA
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2101
CALWEST INDUSTRIAL PROP L L C
2121 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD STE 100
CARLSBAD CA 92009-1422
CALWEST INDUSTRIAL PROP L L C
2121 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD STE 100
CARLSBAD CA 92009-1422
RE COLLATERAL MGMT C
770 N WOOD DALE RD STE K WOOD DALE IL 60191-1134
PALOMAR FORUM ASS0 LP
1420 BRISTOL ST N STE 100 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-2914
STEVEN a KIM PAYNE
6207 PASEO COLINA CARLSBAD CA 92009-2101
JOSEPH a EILEEN MOTAMED
6215 PASEO COLINA
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2101
RONALD a VALERIE PLACHNO
6223 PASEO COLINA
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2101
CONTINENTAL RANCH INC
2237 FARADAY AVE # 100
CARLSBAD CA 92008-7209
KIM FAMILY
6235 PASEO COLINA
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2101
RAMANA8SUDHAKATRAGADDA
6226 PASEO COLINA CARLSBAD CA 92009-2103
GUSTAVO 8 KELLY LUNA
6220 PASEO COLINA CARLSBAD CA 92009-2103
ARJANG MlREMADl
2533 RUETTE NICOLE LA JOLLA CA 92037-2009
BRIAN 8 CAROLINE WRIGHT
6226 RANCHO BRAVADO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2112
PETER 8 ELIZABETH MULDOWNEY
6217 PASEO ALTA RlCO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2110
RCH CARRILLO MASTER ASSN
2237 FARADAY AVE # 100
CARLSBAD CA 92008-7209
DETTBARN
6239 PASEO COLINA CARLSBAD CA 92009-2101
GOLDMAN
6231 PASEO COLINA
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2101
THOMAS 8 MARY PALMER
6232 PASEO COLINA
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2103
TAE-WOONG 8 HELEN IM 6224 PASEO COLINA CARLSBAD CA 92009-2103
TRAVIS PARK 6204 PASEO COLINA CARLSBAD CA 92009-2102
HAYA ESSUDAIRY
6222 RANCHO BRAVADO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2112
ROBERT 8 DIANE HERRMANN
6230 RANCHO BRAVADO CARLSBAD CA 92009-2112
CLAYTON BLEHM 6213 PASEO ALTA RlCO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2110
JOHN 8 KIMBERLY PARIZEK
6243 PASEO COLINA
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2101
RONALD HRITZ
2803 RANCHO DIAMONTE
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2106
PIERRE 8 ANISA TOWNS 6236 PASEO COLINA CARLSBAD CA 92009-2103
GORDON STOWE 6252 RANCHO BRAVADO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2113
GORDON 8 SANDRA ANGUS
2800 RANCHO COSTERO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2104
WILLIAM 8 PATRICIA KROUTIL
2808 RANCHO COSTERO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2104
WELLINGTON
2816 RANCHO COSTERO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2104
JOAQUIN 8 MELINDA ALDRETE
6229 PASEO ALTA RlCO CARLSBAD CA 92009-2111
RICHARD 8 BRENDA DICKINSON
6221 PASEO ALTA RlCO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2110
MARK a JULIE LAURITZEN
2824 RANCHO COSTERO CARLSBAD CA 92009-2104
DAVID 8 LYNN WATKINS
2807 RANCHO DIAMONTE
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2106
CHRISTOPHER a KIMBERLY LEHNER
2812 RANCHO DIAMONTE
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2108
RAMESH 8 DAXA AMlN
6256 RANCHO BRAVADO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2113
GREGORY 8 SHIRLEY ADAMS
2804 RANCHO COSTERO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2104
ROBERT 8 CAMILLA TAUSWORTHE
2812 RANCHO COSTERO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2104
JOHN 8 ANDREA GlLLlS
6233 PASEO ALTA RlCO CARLSBAD CA 92009-2111
GLADYS DURFEY
6225 PASEO ALTA RlCO CARLSBAD CA 92009
ERIC HYDE
2820 RANCHO COSTERO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2104
JOHN a DENIA CHASE
6278 PASEO ELEGANCIA CARLSBAD CA 92009-2105
WILLIAM 8 FRANCES CAMPBELL
6274 PASEO ELEGANCIA CARLSEAD CA 92009-2105
~~~~~ ~~~~~~
6266 PASEO ELEGANCIA
DENA MALASEK
CARLSEAD CA 92009-2105
/
RODERICK 8 MIA NAFRADA
6198 CITRACADO CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2284
DAVID JENKINS
6202 CITRACADO CIR
CARLSEAD CA 92009-2285
CRAIG BLAKEY
6206 CITRACADO CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2285
KARl RAIDER
6238 CITRACADO CIR
CARLSEAD CA 92009-2285
LAURA ROEERGE
6242 CITRACADO CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2285
MICHAEL TEISHER
6246 CITRACADO CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009-2285
KORRISON
6270 PASEO ELEGANCIA
CARLSEAD CA 92009-2105
ROSS8EAREARABUCK
6262 PASEO ELEGANCIA
CARLSEAD CA 92009-2105
CAR1 SRAII
600 W BROADWAY STE 1070 SAN DIEGO CA 92101-3355
- . . . ." -. . -
MARC SHELBY 6200 CITRACADO CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009-2285
CHRISTOPHER 8 GRETCHEN PEARSON
6204 CITRACADO CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009-2285
MATTHEW 8 PATTI PAULSEN
6236 CITRACADO CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009-2285
ROGER 8 DENA OLSEN
6240 CITRACADO CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009-2285
JULIANA'DALEO
2673 PENROSE ST SAN DIEGO CA 92110-2229
ALEXANDRA LEGGITT
6248 CITRACADO CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2285
JAMES 8 MICHELLE CASPER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2285 6250 CITRACADO CIR
SCOTT LEBEL
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2285 6254 CITRACADO CIR
JAMES KELLEY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2285
6258 CITRACADO CIR
MARK 8 KIMBERLY ESKES
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2285 6227 CITRACADO CIR
CHRISTOPHER DEMlRJlAN
6231 CITRACADO CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2285
SCOTT 8 COR1 GRASLEY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2285
6235 CITRACADO CIR
CHARLES 8 DAVINA COX
6263 CITRACADO CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2285
BRENTON &JULIE JOSLIN
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2285
6267 CITRACADO CIR
JEFFREY PLOSKI
6271 CITRACADO CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009-2285
6252 CITRACADO CIR DANIEL 8 ERIKSEN FISCH
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2285
TAEWOO KIM . . . - . . - - . . . . . .
6256 CITRACADO CIRCLE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JASON 8 RENEE SOWERS
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2285 6225ClTRACADOCIR
MOBILITY CENDANT 40 APPLE RIDGE RO DANBURY CT 06810-7301
LOIS LAM
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2285 6233 CITRACADO CIR
ARTURO RlCO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2285 6261 CITRACADO CIR
6265 CITRACADO CIR ROBERT COMESTRO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2285
DEAN DEADMON
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2285 6269 CITRACADO CIR
6273 CITRACADO CIR
IRAJ AFKARIAN
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2285
NICHOLAS 8 LISA GOUDORAS
6275 CITRACADO CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2285
JULIE WEATHERFORD
6279 CITRACADO CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2285
BRANDON 8 CYNTHIA DIETER
6283 CITRACADO CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2285
JACQUELINE NGUYEN
6288 CITRACADO CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2285
LYLE 8 SUSAN ANDREW 6292 CITRACADO CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2285
TODD 8 NICOLE HORTON
6296 CITRACADO CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2285
JEANETTE JACKSON
6300 CITRACADO CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2286
MELIZA SANCHEZ
6304 CITRACADO CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2286
MARCUS BORING
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2286 6308 CITRACADO CIR
SERENACHAN
6277 CITRACADO CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2285
MICHAEL 8 LAURA PETERS
6281 CITRACADO CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009.2285
KEVIN 8 TANYA COON
6286 CITRACADO CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2285
SCOTT THOMPSON 6290 CITRACADO CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009-2285
JAMES MILLS 6294 CITRACADO CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2285
ERIC 8 DARLEE WOODS
6298 CITRACADO CIR
CARLSBAO CA 92009-2285
6302 CITRACADO CIR BRIAN CASSARO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2286
WARREN FEY 6306 CITRACADO CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009-2286
CHRISTOPHER 8 RACHEL CHRISTENSON
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2286
6309 CITRACADO CIR
MARSHA BELL 6307ClTRACADOCIR CARLSBAD CA 92009-2286
BRUCE 8 ELIZABETH CHAPLIN
6303 CITRACADO CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2286
SCOTT a ANA HELMS
6299 CITRACADO CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2285
ALICE WIEDENHOFF
6295 CITRACADO CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2285
BRIAN CARD
6291 CITRACADO CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2285
ROBERT HAYWOOD 6287 CITRACADO CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2285
PETE MCAFEE 6333 CITRACADO CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009-2286
TODD 8 MACDONALD DERR 6329 CITRACADO CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009-2286
MAURA AHERN 6325 CITRACADO CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009-2286
THIESSE 6305 CITRACADO CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009-2286
MARTIN 8 TAMARA HAYEK
6301 CITRACADO CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2286
MAN1 SARAN1 . . . . . . . . -. . . .. . . . .
6297 CITRACADO CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2285
ROBERT 8 CHOOSRI HAWTHORNE
6293 CITRACADO CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2285
KIMBERLY KELLER 6289 CITRACADO CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009-2285
CHAD a DARA CADAM 6335 CITRACADO CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009-2286
MICHAEL ZNACHKO 6331 CITRACADO CIR CARLSBAD CA 920092286
SETH QUARSHIE 6327 CITRACADO CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009-2286
KYUNGSCHUNGPARK 6323 CITRACADO CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009-2286
WEI a wu CHENG
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2286
6321 CITRACADO CIR
DAMON GIDNER
6317 CITRACADO CIR
CARLSEAD CA 92009-2286
6313 CITRACADO CIR BRENDA GODFREY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2286
6179 PASEO CAMAS RONALD 8 JENNIFER WHITE
CARLSEAD CA 92009-2276
SAMUEL a CYNTHIA ROMERO
6171 PASEO CAMAS CARLSBAD CA 92009-2276
ELIZABETH SALAZAR
6162 PASEO GRANITO CARLSBAD CA 92009-2274
MARK 8 REEEKAH CHAMBERLAIN
6170 PASEO GRANITO CARLSBAD CA 92009-2274
OLUN GRAVES
6165 PASEO GRANITO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2272
ALAN ROEMER 6157 PASEO GRANITO CARLSBAD CA 92009-2272
KEISHA HUFFMAN
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2286 6319 CITRACADO CIR
SHARON ALFORD 6315 CITRACADO CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2286
DANAALBERT 6183 PASEO CAMAS CARLSEAD CA 92009-2276
MANUEL 8 LEILA AEIFAKER 6175 PASEO CAMAS CARLSBAD CA 92009-2276
SARKIS 8 AMANDA BAGHOYAN 6158 PASEO GRANITO CARLSBAD CA 92009-2274
DENISE GURULE
6166 PASEO GRANITO
CARLSEAD CA 92009-2274
MICHAEL BLISS
PO BOX 131058
CARLSBAD CA 92013-1058
KEVIN EOCKES
6161 PASEO GRANITO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2272
RlCCl VELASQUEZ
6153 PASEO GRANITO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2272
DAVID SCHNITTA
6152 PASEO ENSILLAR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2278
JULIE WALKER
6160 PASEO ENSILLAR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2278
JOSEPH 8 TlFFlNY HICKEY
6168 PASEO ENSILLAR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2278
6163 PASEO ENSILLAR DAWN JOHNSON
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2278
GINA KNIGHT
6155 PASEO ENSILLAR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2278
MARTIN 8 DURDN ARCOS
6150 PASEO PICADOR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2279
JUSTIN a ERICKA MARCHAND
6158 PASEO PICADOR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2279
LAWRENCE &MELISSA SANGIS
6168 PASEO PICADOR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2279
ALIREZA AMJADI
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2281 2908 RANCHO POSTA
JAMES 8 TAYLOR STATON
6156 PASEO ENSILLAR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2278
TRAVIS 8 NICOLE PRATT
CARLSBAD CA 92048-1312
PO BOX 1312
LEONARD a SARAH BROWN
6167 PASEO ENSILLAR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2278
ADAM 8 BRIANA STRAND 6159 PASEO ENSILLAR CARLSBAD CA 92009-2278
JOSE MENDEZ
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2278
6151 PASEO ENSILLAR
WENDY NETTLES 6154 PASEO PICADOR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2279
HELEN DVILAC 6162 PASEO PICADOR CARLSBAD CA 92009-2279
THEODORE 8 MAYA GRAHAM 2904 RANCHO POSTA
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2281
TIFFANY OSTERHOUT
2912 RANCHO POSTA
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2281
CARLOS 8 ROC10 SENTENO
2916 RANCHO POSTA CARLSBAD CA 92009-2281
MELANIE LUND
6104 PASEO VALLA
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2282
JANET DALTON
6112 PASEO VALLA
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2282
DOUGLAS 8 SANDY CULLINS
2915 RANCHO POSTA CARLSBAD CA 92009-2281
BRENTBEACHLER
2907 RANCHO POSTA CARLSBAD CA 92009-2281
MICHAEL 8 TRACY STANLEY
6120 PASEO PICADOR CARLSBAD CA 92009-2280
CYNTHIA BOWERS PO BOX 130591 CARLSBAD CA 92013-0591
FRANCINE PETERS
6136 PASEO PICADOR CARLSBAD CA 92009-2280
SIBYLLE DELEON
6133 PASEO ENSILLAR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2277
BRIAN GEORGE
6100 PASEO VALLA CARLSBAD CA 92009-2282
ANDREA SCHUCK
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2122
2721 ATHENS AVE
SCOTT 8 HEIDI CASEY
6116 PASEO VALLA CARLSBAD CA 92009-2282
ELVA CISNEROS
2911 RANCHO POSTA CARLSBAD CA 92009-2281
BETTY LARSON
CARLSBAD CA 92018-4184
PO BOX 4184
BARRY SHELTON
6124 PASEO PICADOR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2280
JOSE 8 FIERRO CAMACHO 6132 PASEO PICADOR CARLSBAD CA 92009-2280
LORI FOX
6137 PASEO ENSILLAR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2277
SUSAN BALK 6129 PASEO ENSILLAR CARLSBAD CA 92009-2277
FRICK DELVAL - . . . - . . - - - . . . -
6125 PASEO ENSILLAR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2277
N GELLER
6126 PASEO ENSILLAR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2277
ORACIO 8 LUZ SANCHEZ
6134 PASEO ENSILLAR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2277
CARMEN CHAVIRA
6145 PASEO GRANITO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2271
LlVlU 8 SIMONA ROSU
6137 PASEO GRANITO CARLSBAD CA 92009-2271
B KNOWLES
6117 PASEO GRANITO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2271
DEBRAHECKMAN
6109 PASEO GRANITO CARLSBAD CA 92009-2271
MATTHEW SMITH
6101 PASEO GRANITO CARLSBAD CA 92009-2271
KEVIN 8 SHANNON YAKELY
6106 RANCHO BRIDA
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2270
MATTHEW METZGER
6121 PASEO ENSILLAR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2277
MESHANDA WYCKOFF . . __ - . . . . . . -. . . . . . . . - . .
6130 PASEO ENSILLAR CARLSBAD CA 92009-2277
YEFIM 8 ANNA PRAKHOVNIK
6138 PASEO ENSILLAR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2277
RICHARD NAVARRO
6141 PASEO GRANITO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2271
FRANCISCO OROZCO
6133 PASEO GRANITO CARLSBAD CA 92009-2271
RANDALL 8 GRACE HOOD
6113 PASEO GRANITO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2271
MICHAEL 8 GRUSH UHREN
6105 PASEO GRANITO CARLSBAD CA 92009-2271
ERIC 8 RAINA TINGEY
6102 RANCHO BRIDA CARLSBAD CA 92009-2270
JENNIFER FOSTER 6110 RANCHO BRIDA CARLSBAD CA 92009-2270
JONATHAN a KRISTIN MDERSCH
6114 RANCHO BRlDA
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2270
JOHNNY EK
6123 RANCHO BRlDA
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2270
RICHARD GLEASON
6131 RANCHO BRlDA
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2270
BRYAN HARRIS
6139 RANCHO BRIDA
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2270
ERIK 8 NICOLE BARONE 6140 PASEO GRANITO CARLSBAD CA 92009-2273
GAEL DIDLOFF 6148 PASEO GRANITO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2274
RCH 2237 CA- FARADA
CARL9 A 92008-7209
,’ _,
CONTINENTAL RANCH INC
SAN DlEGO CA 92130-2071
12636 HIGH BLUFF DR STE 300
JEFF LEIDER
6118 RANCHO BRIDA
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2270
FARSHAD a KERISHCHI LADJAVARDI
VISTA CA 92083-7446
1515 S MELROSE DR APT 86
YUAN WANG
6135 RANCHO BRIDA
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2270
RICHARD a CONNIE HARRIS
6136 PASEO GRANITO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2273
CHRISTOPHER 8 LAURA BROVOLD 6144 PASEO GRANITO CARLSBAD CA 92009-2273
CARLS
/,
SHEA HOMES LTD PTRNRSP
SAN DlEGO CA 92131-1038 10721 TREENA ST STE 113
THOMAS 8 KATHY OBRIEN
2846 RANCHO RIO CHIC0 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3004
SHARON LANE 2838 RANCHO RIO CHIC0
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3004
LISA SANCHEZ
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3003 2805 RANCHO RIO CHIC0
CAVA
2813 RANCHO RIO CHIC0
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3003
DAVID GLENDENNING
2821 RANCHO RIO CHIC0
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3003
BRYON COOK 2829 RANCHO RIO CHIC0 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3003
STEVENBKATHYHEGSETH
2837 RANCHO RIO CHIC0
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3003
SCOTT 8 SHAUNNA MONTlCELLl
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3004
2842 RANCHO RIO CHIC0
RICHARD a ROSEMARY KALKOFEN
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3003
2801 RANCHO RID CHIC0
WALSH 2809 RANCHO RIO CHIC0 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3003
ROBERT 8 SALLY KDNOPKA 2817 RANCHO RIO CHIC0 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3003
STANLEY a XIAO WONG 2825 RANCHO RIO CHIC0
CARLSBAO CA 92009-3003
KAMRAN TAFRESHI
2833 RANCHO RIO CHIC0
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3003
MOHAMMAD a HASSAN EL-KALAY
2841 RANCHO RIO CHIC0
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3003
Bob Santos, President
Lennar Communities Southern California
5780 Fleet Street, Suite 320
Carlsbad, CA 92028
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the
above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of
the printer of
North County Times Proof of Publication of
-
Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been
adiudicated newspapers of general circulation by
the Superior Court-of the County of San Diego,
State of California, for the County of San Diego,
that the notice of which the annexed is a printed
copy (set in type not smaller than nonpariel), has
been published in each regular and entire issue of
said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof
on the following dates, to-wit:
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at SAN MARCOS, California
This 17TH day
Of JULY, 2002
Signature
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
This space is for the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp
0 0
M S E U S a, S
a, m S m 5
8
a, S
n 2 LL J
E
W -
.- M
E % n
U
m I a
0 2
I3 0
I
k
S m - a.
b CI
r" v)
a, 0) S m 5
a, S 0 N
U S
u 0
00 m
I
& U
a, cn 3
U S cr5 -I
+ +
v)
+++ +++
h 0 0
++
S 0 .- I
L
Q) C
N 0
c 0 C 2 .- to to
Q) a
0
u 0
a 0
*
I c
v) S
v) S A
‘v
F4
.- U .- c, 6
U E r co
0 .- Y
x E
z a,
h s
2
U m
F4
nr
(/j S 3
a r 0 N
L
F4
n
0
C,
+
-E
m ba
h
4
3
G G 0 G 0 0
>> a,a, nn
E S
U .-
2 E E 3
U .-
2
(u
cn
.-
c, L 3 0 J 0 0
0
c/)
a, U
3 U S
~.
- a, 0
(u Q ul
c, >s .- -
(u .- Y S z
6 E
U a, S
T C a, 8 L
E a,
+ + + +++ + + +
d)
bc)
d) a 0
3 E 8 c, cn
a, c
0 cn
(u
c, rc
-
8
0 c,
a " P I
" .
z 0
L 0 V
"CJ Z
"1 d > LLI a
-u .I
Z TT vf
401 5 Street
Suite 1100
San beyo
CA 92101
619.234.8484
61 9.234.1935 fax
April 8,2002
Mr. Craig Benedetto, Principal
Benedetto Communications
780 W. G. Street, Ste 281
San Diego, CA 92101
Re: Bressi Ranch Project - Carlsbad
Dear Mr. Benedetto,
The Housing Action Network (H.A.N.) has reviewed the proposed Bressi Ranch
Project and we regret to inform you that the H.A.N. cannot support it. The H.A.N.
found that while the project design met the networks criteria and that it met most of
the other H.A.N. criteria, the density is well below the thresholds that we can
support.
The San Diego Housing Action Network is a broad range of organizations and
interests whose members share a common goal: the provision of affordable, well-
constructed and appropriately located housing in San Diego County. The H.A.N.
brings together a broad-based group of business, environmental, community, faith
and real estate organizations.
It is the intent of the H.A.N. to support good projects that help our region grow
smarter. The H.A.N. Background, Goals and Evaluation Criteria are enclosed. Also
enclosed is a list of member organizations.
The H.A.N. believes that with the neo-traditional design of the project, its relation
to job centers and transit connections that the project can and should include a
much greater number of homes. We are sorry that the City of Carlsbad did not take
this into consideration when reviewing the applicants original proposal.
The Housing Action Network met on three different occasions to discuss the Bressi
Ranch Project, most recently on March 26,2002. The network members thought
the Bressi Ranch project was an outstanding design but felt that it was also a
missed opportunity in that it was not of higher density. The density of the proposed
project was well below our minimum density threshold of 12 ddacre. The network
felt that the project could support a greater number of units and that greater number
of units in this location could not only help meet the region's housing needs but as
importantly, it would reinforce the infill and utilization of this area in Carlsbad.
www sanci~e~ohusirress.org
If you have any questions or require further assistance of the network please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely, ,
ing Action Network
Direction of Land Use and Housing
San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation
Phone: 619-615-2952
Email: ms@sandiegobusiness.org
Enclosures:
Cc:
Mr. Mark Rohrlick, Lennar Builders
Mr. Ray Palchett, City Manager, Carlsbad
Mr. Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, Carlsbad
THE HOUSING ACTION NETWORK
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The Housing Action Network is a broad range of organizations and interests whose members
share a common goal, the provision of affordable, well-designed, well constructed and
appropriately located housing in the San Diego region. The Network is modeled after a very
successful organization in the Silicon Valley. Similar organizations are currently in the formation
stage in Los Angeles, Atlanta and other areas.
The lack of relatively, affordable and accessible housing continues to be a chronic concern to our
region’s residents and employers. High housing prices and low vacancy rates are leading to
serious social and economic problems as existing units are becoming overcrowded and San
Diego workers are forced further and further out to find housing in the price ranges that they can
afford. One of the most important and fundamental reasons for our region’s high housing costs is
the lack of supply. During the 1970’s and 1980’s San Diego developed approximately one home
for ever 1.35 jobs, between 1995 and 2000 this had slipped to one home built for every 3.19 jobs
created. This jobdhousing imbalance has produced serious problems in our region. These trends
threaten not only the area’s overall quality of life, but its economic vitality as well. This lack of
affordable housing contributes to continued urban sprawl and the destruction of natural
resources, and results in increasing traffic congestion, air pollution and difficulties in attracting
and retaining employees.
To address these problems and implement a regional Smart Growth Strategy it is critically
important that we maximize the efficient use of land, particularly at infill sites and to begin
developing projects at adequate and appropriate densities. The greatest barrier to this kind of
development is the intense community opposition that often emerges to these projects during the
entitlement process. As a consequence of community concerns, developers often scale back the
size and intensity of their projects. The end result is that the region sees less development within
the urban core, more development pressure on the urban fringe, and greater gaps between
purchasing power and home prices.
The San Diego Housing Action Network is envisioned as a counter vailing force in this debate.
By bringing together a broad-based group of business, environmental, community, faith, and real
estate organizations, the intent of the founders of the network is to support good projects that
help our region grow “smarter.” By adding this third voice to the debate, we hope to provide
support to planners, planning commissioners, council members, and supervisors who want to
approve good projects.
An integral part of the Network is its set of 10 criteria that spell out the kind of project that the
Network is interested in endorsing. The Network’s members believe that projects meeting these
criteria will help our region meet its housing needs while enhancing our region’s livability.
Wednesday, April 17,2002
Perspective on Real Estate
By SANFORD GOODKIN
Next to the business world, real estate is the heartbeat of stability. Even
giant GE suffered the fallout,from Enron and Andersen, laying off 7,000
workers. The list of suspicion creeps into formerly safe havens of the
comfortable. Madam Fate respects no one; she is truly equal opportunity for the famous along with the infamous.
Real estate is supply us. demand, nothing more or less. Except for housing,
where it is influenced by bureaucracy in attention, intimidation and
hypocrisy. Corruption replaces action; corruption is also inaction and
in.do1ence and worse than a payoff One corrupts the politician; the other corrupts the system resulting in deprivation of citizens and their families
--for generations.
We look at the.fast climbing median price of housing, where the community
is divided into "Our home went up 17percent in a year, honey, 'I while the
other side whispers '7t's even more hopeless now than last year. "Even the
condos have advanced to their median stratosphere of $220,000, and that's
the used ones.
Within the reality and redundancy is the battleground. Usually caring and ethical people become deaf to possible solutions. Their attention span
covers only how high the value of their homes will rise, and anything less
expensive than their own is garbage and must not be allowed to be built to
pollute their neighborhood. Thepolitical chambers, where the battles usually take place, is no place.for education of the leaders or the led. It
is too late, as anger andfrustration become theproducts, rather than housing supply.
However, there are growing forces which are being nurtured by wiser and more objective organizations. Some are foundations, faith-based nonproj(its
(the power of God can be formidable once it goes beyond Saturdays and
Sundays), and various others, like Century Housing, a productive nonprofit, meeting in Sun Diego, at its annual retreat next week. (I am honored to be
their keynoter.)
The San Diego Regional Economic Development Corp. recognizes the dearth of
housing for small and large corporations it is trying to attract. It has
created "The Housing Action Network. If I am sure it is born of the
frustration of listening to job-rich prospects telling them, "We love the
place but our workers can't afford the rents or the homeprices." This has
propelled formerly deaf businesspeople into the battle zone to create more
affordable supply.
The Housing Network was created as a consensus-building force to help
educate thepublic and thepoliticians. It has established IO criteria
wherein any development can be evaluated for its benefits or harm to the
community in which it is proposed.
Some of their criteria include: Promote development which encourages
transit use (to reduce trafic); encourage production of affordability;
supportprojects which are eficient andproductive in terms ofplace, scale and land utilization; promote adequate infrastructure andpedestrian
activity; support regional habitat and open space plans; promote mixed use
(where residential, retail, recreational and work can be developed); maintain and promote our environmental form (beaches, bays, water runoff,
sensitivity to the natural landscape and blending in with the natural form).
Here are the power of ideas whose time and need for our attention have
come. You and your organization can write them at The Housing Network, 401
B St., Suite 1100, San Diego, CA 92101. They are not closed to other ideas as long as they promote selflessness and a better region. It is time for
your attention, your ethical devotion and your action.
Goodkin has been a business ethicist and housing analyst since 1956. He may
be reached at sandy.goodkin@sddt.com.
November 15,2001
SAN DIEGO HOUSING ACTION NETWORK
Background and Goals
The San Diego Housing Action Network is a broad range of organizations and interests whose
members share a common goal: the provision of affordable, well-constructed and appropriately
located housing in San Diego County.
The lack of relatively affordable and accessible housing continues 10 be a chronic concern to our
region’s residents and employers. High housing prices and low vacancy rates are leading to
serious social and economic problems as existing units are becoming overcrowded and San Diego
workers are forced further and further out to find housing in the price ranges that they can afford.
One of the most important and fundamental reasons for our region’s high housing costs is the lack
of supply. During the 1970s and 1980’s San Diego developed approximately 1 home for every
1.35 jobs, between 1995 and 2000 this had slipped to 1 home built for every 3.19 jobs created.
This jobshowing imbalance has produced serious problems in our region. These trends threaten
not only the area’s overall quality of life, but its economic vitality as well. The lack of affordable
housing contributes to continued urban sprawl and the destruction of natural resources, and results
in increasing traffic congestion, air pollution and difficulties in attracting and retaining employees.
To address these issues many of the regions municipalities and agencies have begun major
planning efforts. They include the SANDAG Region 2020 Program, San Diego County’s General
Plan 2020, The city of San Diego’s City of Villages/Strategic Framework Element, The City of
Chula Vista General Plan update and the Metropolitan Transit District Transit First Plan. All of
these efforts are based on the concept of Smart Growth.
SANDAG defines Smart Growth as “a compact, efficient, and environmentally sensitive pattern of
development that provides people with additional travel, housing, and employment choices by
focusing future growth away from rural areas and closer to existing and planned jobs centers and
public facilities.”
SANDAG’s Smart Growth implementation strategy emphasizes the inter-relationship of “five
interrelated and interdependent regional issues: economic prosperity, transportation, housing,
environment, and fiscal reform.
SOLUTION
To address these problems and implement a Smart Growth Strategy it is critically important that
we maximize the efficient use of land, particularly at infill sites, and to begin developing projects
at adequate and appropriate densities. The greatest barrier to this kind of development is the
intense community opposition that often emerges, not always unjustified, to these projects during
the entitlement process. As a consequence of community push-back, developers, often scale back
the size and intensity of their projects. The end result is that the region sees less development
1
within the urban core, more development pressure on the urban fringe, and greater gaps between
purchasing power and home prices.
The San Diego Housing Action Network is envisioned as a countervailing force in this debate. By
bringing together a broad-based group of business, environmental, community, faith, and real
estate organizations, the intent of the founders of the network is to suppcrt good projects that help
our region grow “smarter”. By adding this third voice to the debate, we hope to provide support to
planners, planning commissioners, council members, and supervisors who want to approve good
projects but which fear the backlash from community opponents.
An integral part of the Network is its set of 10 criteria that spell out the kind of project that the
Network is interested in endorsing. The Network‘s members believe that projects meeting these
criteria will help our region meet its housing needs while enhancing our regon’s livability.
It is the expectation of the Network that the members would meet on a regular basis to review
projects and endorse them. It is also the expectation of the Network that it will set up
subcommittees to review requests for endorsements and work in detail with the developer to
understand how hidher project fits with the criteria and goals of the Network.
Evaluation Criteria
The Network is interested in endorsing projects that meet the following criteria.
1. Support projects that build at efficient density and scale
As a general rule, the project should have an overall density of at least 12 units per acre. The
overall minimum density does not require 12units per acre on each individual acre in a
development. It is the overall minimum average number of units on a project’s total acreage. The
Network is willing to consider projects with lower densities in jurisdictions that have a history of
significantly lower densities, if the project’s density is more than 50% higher than the nom for
that community. Conversely, the Network may recommend developments with average densities
of less than 12 units per acre if warranted by site-specific conditions
2. Promote communities that encourage transit use
Developments seeking the Network’s endorsement should be within one half-mile from a transit
station, bus corridor, or job center since increasing the region’s housing stock along transit
comdors can help ease congestion and increase the return on the region’s investment in its mass
transit system
3. Encourage housing affordability
Projects seeking the Network’s endorsement should seek to promote balanced communities that
provide housing for households with different needs and income levels. For this reason, the
Network advocates new housing developments of all types including affordable housing,
market-rate housing, and mixed-income housing. The Network is particularly iaterested in
endorsing developments that increase the supply of affordable housing in San Diego.
2
c
For those developments that receive public financing, such as in redevelopment areas, the
affordable component that is built should be defined as follows:
Special Needs Housing: Housing affordable to households at or below 35% of Area Median
Rental Housing: Housing affordable to households with incomes up to 80% of Area
Ownership Housing: Housing affordable to households with incomes up to 120% of Area
Income
Median Income
Median Income
4. Promote efficient use of city services and provide adequate infrastructure
Project’s seeking the Network’s endorsement should be within an existing city urban service area
or, in the unincorporated areas, within a defined village core. The network also is particularly
interested in endorsing projects that incorporate, through innovative design, public areas and
amenities that provide benefits to the entire neighborhood.
5. Design
The proposed project promotes a distinctive attractive community with a strong sense of place.
Does the design, layout, and mix of land use provide a distinctive style and feel to the place, with
all elements blending harmoniously?
6. Promote pedestrian activity in the local community.
Projects seeking the Network’s endorsement should be designed to promote pedestrian use
through the incorporation of public spaces, easy access to sidewalks, paths, and walking trails, and
other circulation elements in the project design. These should, when possible, ease pedestrian
access to retail services and transit facilities.
7. Economic Development and Sustainability
The proposed project provides housing that encourages the, jobshousing balance opportunities for
people to live near where they work.
8. Support regional habitat and open space plans.
Projects seeking the Network’s endorsement should be consistent with adopted Habitat
Conservation Plans (HCPs) as these plans promote the preservation of critical habitats and open
space resources while providing development certainty in less environmentally valuable areas.
9. Promote mixed uses within neighborhoods
The Network is interested in endorsing projects that encourage the construction of housing,
employment, and retail areas within the same neighborhoods as this helps decrease auto-
dependency and enhances our communities. The Network is particularly interested in projects that
develop different uses within the same building.
3
4
10. Promote clean beaches and bays and preserve the region’s environmental form
Projects seeking the Network’s endorsement should include Best Management Practices (BMPs)
to control storm water runoff as this will help minimize downstream impacts on our beaches and
bays, something critical to our region’s health and well-being. Projects should also be sensitive to
the natural landscape, working to blend in with the natural form.
PROCESS
The San Diego Housing Action Network represents a broad range of organizations and interests
who share a common goal - the provision of affordable, well-constructed and appropriately located
housing to serve the needs of San Diego County.
The Housing Action Network will, upon request review proposed projects and, as appropriate add
its endorsement before community organizations and appointed as elected officials for those
projects that fulfill the network’s as the communities goals.
A request for endorsements should be received at least four weeks before the action for support is
needed. However we encourage project proponents to contact the Network at the earliest possible
date, preferable at the ccrncept or design development stage. This allows the project to be
adequately reviewed, and time for the Housing Action Network to thoroughly examine the project
through its committee process.
The Network may consider project plans, specific plans, master plans, and general plan
amendments that would likely result in housing developments that reflect the criteria of the
Network.
REQUESTS FOR REVIEW should include at least the following information:
Proposed Development: A map of the proposal (site plan and area map, as well as its
geographic location should be submitted along with the following development details:
The timeline for development
The total number of units, with umber of bedrooms per unit
0 The total acres of the development
Elevations
Plans for mixed use
0 Neighborhood Context
0 Location of nearest rail or bus transit station and information on service
Information on traffic LOS, and mitigation plan, if needed
List of interested parties, both potential supporters and opponents
The proposed price of units, the number of units proposed at each price
level and the range of incomes necessary to purchase or rent these
properties.
frequency
0 Relevant general plan and zoning information
A
.
Environmental Review:
Projects that require either an EX or an EIS should submit a draft summary of the report with
their proposal. If further information is required The Housing Action Network will contact the
applicant for submittal of a full report.
Criteria Summary:
A brief statement describing how the project meets each of the ten criteria.
Political Process:
The person(s) or organizations submitting the request should provide a schedule of public hearings
and their locations.
Background Summary:
A brief background summary should be included with the request for support. Please provide the
following type of information: Summary of past work in the area and background information on
the applicant.
Endorsement:
Requests should be sent to the following address:
Housing Action Network
C/O San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation
401 “B’ Street Ste. 1100
San Diego, CA 92101
Housing Action Network Support
HAN support may include any or all of the following:
A letter of support for the project from the Housing Action Network that
Support letters room individual HAN members and organizations can be
Active advocacy of the project, including testimony at public hearings
HAN and organizational advocacy of the project, including hearing
can be publicly circulated at the discretion of the developer.
written for public circulation
by a HAN representative
testimony by a HAN representative, along with Han members
representing their individual organizations.
5
THE SAN DIEGO HOTJSING ACTION NETWORK
GROUPS THAT HAVE FORMALLY ENDORSED PARTICIPATION IN THE HOUSING
ACTION NETWORK:
8 Alliance for Habitat Conservation
4* Apartment Owners Association
*:+ Biocom San Diego
*:* Board of Realtors
*:* Citizens Coordinate for Century Three
*:* East County Economic Development Corporation
*:* Endangered Habitat League
*:* San Diego Building Industry Association
C* San Diego Chapter American Institute of Architects
*:* San Diego Council of Design Professionals
*:* San Diego Housing Federation
43 San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce
*:* San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation
*:* Quality of Life Coalition
PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE NOT YET FORMALLY ENDORSED:
Q Community Housing of North County
*:* Local Initiative Support Corporation + North County Collaborative
+:+ San Diego Organizing Project
*:* San Diego Sierra Club
Ex Officio
City of San Diego Planning Department
Housing Commission
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)
tu3 - I C,b CONCERNED NEIGHBORS TO THE PROPOSED BRESSI
RANCH PROJECT REQUEST THE CITY COUNCIL TO
CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. We are very concerned with the mixture and close proximity of industrial with the
neighboring residential communities of both Rancho Carrillo and Bressi Ranch. Therefore, we ask that the City Council use their influence and ordinances to provide the
best possible blending of the industrial community with the local residential area.
2. We ask that the maximum industrial building height be reduced to 25 feet. This height
would be more in line with surrounding residences.
3. We ask that any building at the corner of Palomar Airport Road and Melrose be of single
story height in order to provide adequate cornering vision and to soften the mix of
industrial with residential.
4. The rear of the industrial buildings will be facing the residential areas of both Bressi
incorporated to include screening at the rear of the building as well as heavy screening
Ranch and Rancho Carrillo residents. We request the amount of landscaping be
at the rear property line in order to camouflage these buildings from the residential
neighborhoods.
5. We request that the parking lot lighting on the front and rear of the buildings should take
into consideration that residential neighborhoods are bordering these buildings.
6. Due to the substantial increase in traffic at Palomar Airport Road and Melrose Avenue,
we request that a right hand turn lane be provided on the southwest comer for traffic
turning south onto Melrose Avenue.
Page: Concerned Neighbors of the Bressi Ranch Project
.
Page: 3 Concerned Neighbors of the Bressi Ranch Project
Page: Concerned Neighbors of the Bressi Ranch Project
,
Page: < Concerned Neighbors of the Bressi Ranch Project
Page: b Concerned Neighbors of the Bressi Ranch Project
Page: 7 Concerned Neighbors of the Bressi Ranch Project
Page: % Concerned Neighbors of the Bressi Ranch Project
Name Address Phone
Page: 7 Concerned Neighbors of the Bressi Ranch Project
Page: / 0 Concerned Neighbors of the Bressi Ranch Project
C- Page: /o Concerned Neighbors of the Bressi Ranch Project
3
Page: // Concerned Neighbors of the Bressi Ranch Project
Name Address Phone
Page: /a- Concerned Neighbors of the Bressi Ranch Project
PETITION OPPOSING INDUSTRIAL ZONING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD BETWEEN EL CAMINO REAL AND MELROSE
DRIVE AS PROPOSED IN THE BRESSI RANCH MASTER PLAN.
We are opposed to this proposal for the following reasons:
1, Similar zoning. Industrial building developments should be grouped with
other industrial buildings. They should not be mingled with residential
property.
2. Established residential property. The backs of the proposed industrial
these homes are in the $1,000,000 plus price range. The proposed homes
property will be facing single family residences already in existence. Most of
in Bressi Ranch will also be behind the industrial property. The rear of these
buildings will give views of loading docks, garbage, trucks, and parking lots.
This will only devalue our homes.
3. Traffic. Industrial buildings bring additional traffic to our already overcrowded
Melrose Drive will be graded at a 'D" level. roads. As previously disclosed the traffic at Palomar Airport Road and
4. Children. South of Melrose Drive approximately .6 of a mile, there is the ''
along Melrose Drive is 55 miles an hour. Additional traffic will present serious Rancho Carrillo elementary school and a day care center. The speed limit
concerns regarding our precious children.
5. Pollution and environmental hazards. Trucks traveling along Palomar
Airport Road and in the proposed industrial area will bring noxious odors of
diesel fuel. This is not conducive to healthy living.
property be included in the Bressi Ranch master plan.
For these reasons, we respectfully request that you reject the proposal that industrial
June 19,2002
Name n
SING
UYQ!JSFON EL CAMINO THE REAL SOUTH AND SIDE MELROSE OF
DRIVE AS PROPOSED IN THE 5RESSl RANCH MASTER PLAN.
We are opposed to this proposal for the following reasons:
1. Similar zoning. Industrial building developments should be grouped with
other industrial buildings. They should not be mingled with residential
property.
2. Established residential property. The backs of the proposed industrial
property will be facing single family residences already in existence. Most of
these homes are in the $1,000,000 plus price range. The proposed homes in Bressi Ranch will also be behind the industrial properly. The rear of these
buildings will give views of loading docks, garbage, trucks, and parking lots.
This will only devalue our homes.
3. Traffic. Industrial buildings bring additional traffic to our already overcrowded
roads. As previously disclosed the traffic at Palomar Airport Road and Melrose Drive will be graded at a "D" level.
4. Children. South of Malrose Drive approximately .6 of a mile, there is the
Rancho Carrillo elementary school and a day care center. The speed limit
along Melrose Drive is 55 miles an hour. Additional traffic will present serious
concerns regarding our precious children.
5. Pollution and environmental hazards. Trucks traveling along Palomar
Airport Road and in the proposed industrial area will bring noxious odors of
diesel fuel. This is not conducive to health living.
For these reasons, we respectfully request that you rejerd the proposal that industrial
properly be included in the Bressi Ranch master plan.
June 19,2002
I
.
.
n to Oppose Industrial Zoning, Bressi Ranch ~. Project