HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-08-06; City Council; 16845; Aviara Community ParkAB# 16,845
MTG. 8-6-02
DEPT. PLN
CITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL m:
ZONE 19 (AVIARA COMMUNITY) PARK - LCPA 02-03 AND
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MP
177(DD)/CUP 01-22/HDP 01-07/CDP 01-31
DEPT. HD.
CITY MGR -322
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 2002-236 , ADOPTING a Mitigated Negative
Declaration with Addendum dated January 24, 2002 and July 3, 2002 and a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, and APPROVING LCPA 02-03, and upholding the Planning Commission's decision
and DENYING the appeal of MP 177(DD)/CUP 01-22/HDP 01-07/CDP 01-31,
ITEM EXPLANATION:
Project application(s) To be Reviewed - Reviewed by and Administrative
Approvals Final at Council Final at Planning
Environmental Review
LCPA 02-03
MP 177(DD) X
CUP 01-22
X CDP 01-31
X HDP 01-07
X
X
X
x - on appeal
x - on appeal
x - on appeal
x - on appeal
The proposed project is the Zone 19 (Aviara Community) Park. The project site is located at the northern
terminus of Ambrosia Lane within Planning Area 32 of the Aviara Master Plan. The project requires the
approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Local Coastal Program Amendment and Minor Master Plan
Amendment (both for additional structure height), a Conditional Use Permit, Hillside Development Permit,
and Coastal Development Permit. This project was heard and approved by the Planning Commission on
to be decided upon by the City Council include: the environmental documents (a mitigated negative
February 20, 2002. That approval was appealed by residents in the Brindisi development. Thus, the items
declaration with two addendums), an LCPA (minor), and the appeal of the Planning Commission's
approval of the Minor Master Plan Amendment (MPA 177(DD)), Conditional Use Permit (CUP 01-22),
Hillside Development Permit (HDP 01-07), and Coastal Development Permit (CDP 01-31).
LCPA 02-03
When the Planning Commission acted upon this project (February 20, 2002), they approved a Minor
Amendment to the Aviara Master Plan. (The Master Plan procedures allow the approval of minor
amendments by the Planning Commission to be final unless appealed.) This amendment would allow the
height in Planning Area 32 to be consistent with the height allowed in other (non-master planned) Open
additional height is necessary to allow the construction of any adequate park community building or
Space Zones (Le., 25' plus any additional height approved through a Conditional Use Permit). This
gymnasium and is consistent with the height of similar park buildings in other City parks.
After the Planning Commission hearing, California Coastal Commission staff determined that a Local
Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) is necessary to maintain consistency between the Coastal Program
and the zoning (i.e., the approved Aviara Master Plan). Since the Master Plan serves as the Local Coastal
and a Local Coastal Program Amendment to approve the change in allowed height necessary to
Program for the Aviara Master Plan, Council must approve both the proposed Master Plan Amendment
accommodate the proposed community building. Planning staff has had several conversations with
Coastal Commission staff on this topic. Pursuant to those conversations, Planning staff has treated the
proposed LCPA as a "minor" amendment.
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 16,845
ADDeal Of Plannina Comnission ADDrOVak
The Planning Commission heard the proposed park project in a public hearing held on February20, 2002.
(CUP 01-22), Hillside Development Permit (HDP 01-07), and Coastal Development Permit (CDP 01-31) by
The Commission approved the Minor Master Plan Amendment (MP 177(DD)), Conditional Use Permit
a unanimous vote. On February 28, 2002 property owners in the Brindisi neighborhood filed an appeal of
those approvals. The appellants cited several specific reasons for their opposition to the project approval.
They fall into the following general categories: . the location of the park entrance off Ambrosia Lane rather than off Poinsettia Lane; . the anticipated increase in traffic and traffic control and safety issues; . potential noise issues; and, . potential nuisance issues from the use of alcohol at the park
Staff has considered each of the reasons cited in the appeal and still believes that the project design
approved by the Planning Commission is the best design for the park and that the environmental
documents prepared for the project adequately address each of these areas of neighbor concern. Staff
has included some responses on each of these appeal topics below.
Park Entrance
The placement of the park entrance at the northern end of Ambrosia was established in the Aviara
Master Plan approved in 1987. This access point is consistent with the design of the Brinidisi
neighborhood and with the Ciys intersection spacing policy. Engineering standards discourage
project designs which take direct access off major arterial roadways as such designs diminish the
ability of a major roadway to flow smoothly and can negativelyaffect the levels of service (LOS) of
such roadways. Utilizing a common access point, such as the Ambrosia Lane, Mch will ultimately
access to the site from the north, east, or west is not feasible due to constraints of topography,
be served by a traffic signal, is the most effective and safe way to serve the park. Additionally,
habitat, and existing developmnt.
Park Traffic
This site has been designated for development of a park since the master Aviara Master Plan was
developed and approved in 1987 and has been induded within build-out traffic model studies since
that time. The expected trip generation for the park (1,000 ADT) identified at the Planning
Commission public hearing was a conservative estimate of the trip generation for the park. The
the trip generation rate to the entire site, even though only 9.5 of the total 24.25-acre site will be
actual ADT may be considerably less than 1,000 ADT. The 1,000 ADTfigure results from applying
developed. The ADT was calculated using the latest (1998) SANDAG trip generation fgures.
Traffic projections have been previously addressed for this area. The northerly segment of
Ambrosia Lane will serve only two projects. Utilizing current SANDAG figures, it is anticipated that
Ambrosia Lane will handle 1,193 ADT (720 ADT from the Brindisi development plus 1,000 ADT
from the proposed park). Ambrosia Lane will function as a residential collector and is designed to
carry between 1,200 and 10,000 ADT. Thus, Ambrosia Lane is more than adequate to handle the
anticipated traffic from both the Brindisi development and the proposed park. A signal will be
installed at this intersection when the signal warrants are met. Once installed, traffic models
calculated for build-out of the City show that the Ambrosia LanelPoinsettia Lane intersection will
function at a LOS '"A". Minimum standards require that the intersection function at LOS "D or
better. This existing infrastructure and the design of the Zone 19 Park incorporate all of the
necessary measures required to control the anticipated traffic. Ambrosia Lane will carry both the
volume. The intersection of Ambrosia Lane and Poinsettia Lane will ultimately be served by a
park traffic and residential traffic. Ambrosia Lane is designed to handle the anticipated traffic
traffic signal when signal warrants are met as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. This will
provide safe vehicular turning movements onto Poinsettia Lane as build-out volumes are
approached.
A
PAGE 3 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 16 r 845
Noise and Alcohol Use Issues
Staff believes that the original project documents adequately addressed the potential for noise
issues on the site. The Park Department‘s Facility Use Regulations will govern the use of the park
grounds and buildings. Under these regulations organized outdoor activities would end at 1O:OO
p.m. on both weekday and weekend nights. Activities inside the community building (including
music) could continue until 1:00 a.m. at the latest. However, music would not be allowed on the
for “Jazz in the Park” activities. The Facility Use Regulations also govem the use of alcohol on the
patio areas of the community building after 1O:OO p.m. This park is conditioned to prohibit its use
site. The regulations allow the consumption of alcohol (to persons 21 years of age or older) in the
Community building, but prohibit alcohol consumption outside of the building.
New Condition OfADDrOVal
Staff is proposing to add one new condition of approval to the Coastal Development Permit (CDP). The
addition of this condition will ensure that grading/construction will not occur when there might be nesting
birds in the vianity of the project development activities. That condition reads as follows:
“All grading activities are prohibited from February 1st to September 15th. Grading activities are
therefore, allowed during a portion of the “rainy season”. All erosion control and revegetation
measures must be fully implemented prior to the grading prohibition period. Any extensions must
receive written approval of the City Engineer and the responsible wildlife agencies (California
Department of Fish and GamelUnited States Fish and Wildlife Service).”
ENVIRONMENTAL:
Environmental analysis was conducted for the project and resulted in the issuance of a Mitigated Negative
Addendum was prepared on July 3, 2002. No additional or changed mitigation was required as a result of
Declaration on November 28, 2001. An Addendum was prepared on January 24, 2002, and a second
either of those Addendum; thus, no recirculation of the environmental documents was required.
The initial study for the project was prepared in November 2001 and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was
January 24, 2002. This Addendum was prepared to clarify the discussion of the proposed height of the
issued on November 28, 2001. An Addendum to the original environmental documents was issued on
community building and the number of trips to be generated by the project in the original environmental
documents. A second Addendum was prepared in July 2002. The purpose of this second Addendum was
to incorporate additional environmental surveysheports which were prepared after the original
documentation, to incorporate a letter ofconcurrence received from USFWS and CDFG on tu0 topics, and
to clarify the need for the LCPA for the building height.
The project incorporates some grading necessary for slope stabilization (Le., a butress fill). Because this
work involves some encroachment into HMP preserve area, the USFWS and CDFG required that surveys
(for the presence of California gnatcatchers) be conducted. The surveys were conducted in late May and
early June, and the report concluded that no birds were seen or heard in the buttress fill area. That survey
information was provided to USFWS and CDFG along with a request that the proposed grading be
considered “de minimis”. (The area of impact is less than .03-acre, and the area will be replanted with
native vegetation.) Staff received a letter from USFWlCDFG dated July 1, 2002 providing the requested
concurrence that the proposed impact is “de minimis” in nature.
Planning staff had also requested concurrence from the agencies that the open space corridor on the
project site had been developed in consultation with the agencies and that it satisfied the requirements of
the NCCP. (This concurrence is a requirement of the Aviara Master Plan.) The July 1 letter acknowledges
that this requirement has been satisfied. The letter references the fact that the corridor has been
delineated aspart of the City’s HMP, which was developed in wnsultation with USFWS and CDFG.
3
PAGE 4 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 16,845
FISCAL IMPACT:
Development of this park is necessary in order to continue to meet the City's growth management
requirements. The funds to develop this park have been allocated by Council in the City's Capital
additional funds. The amount of such additional funds is not known, and would depend upon the nature of
Improvement Program Budget. Any redesign of the park at this time would require expenditure of
the design changes.
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Resolution No. 2002-236
2.
3.
Location Map
Letter from USFWSKDFG dated July 1, 2002
4.
5.
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5108, 5156, 5108, 51 IO, and 51 11
6.
Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 20, 2002
Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes dated February 20, 2002
7. Appeal Letter dated February 28, 2002.
I
II
1
1:
1:
I<
1:
If
1;
1I
15
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2002-236
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, ADDENDUMS 1 and 2 AND MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND TO
APPROVE A LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT AND
TO UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION AND DENY THE APPEAL FOR A COMMUNITY
PARK TO BE LOCATED AT THE NORTHERN TERMINUS OF
AMBROSIA LANE.
CASE NAME: ZONE 19 (AVIARA COMMUNITY) PARK
CASE NO.: LCPA 02-03/MP 177(DD)/CUP 01-22/HDP 01-
07/CDP 01-31
WHEREAS, on February 20, 2002, the Carlsbad Planning Commission held 2
duly noticed public hearing to consider a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum ’
and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and a Minor Master Plan Amendment (MF
177(DD)), Conditional Use Permit (CUP 01-22), Hillside Development Permit 01-07, anc
Coastal Development Permit (CDP 01-31) to allow the development of a City park on propert)
located at the northern terminus of Ambrosia Lane (Planning Area 32 of the Aviara Mastel
Plan); and,
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Planning Commission considered
all factors relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum 1 and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, Minor Master Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit,
Hillside Development Permit, and Coastal Development Permit; and,
WHEREAS, on February 20, 2002, the Carlsbad Planning Commission adopted
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5108, 5156, 5109, 51 IO. and 51 11 recommending that
the Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum 1 and a Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program and approving a Minor Master Plan Amendment (MP 177(DD)),
Conditional Use Permit (CUP 01-22), Hillside Development Permit 01-07, and Coastal
Development Permit (CDP 01-31); and,
L
c - ,
E
s
IC
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2c
2;
2i
WHEREAS, the Aviara Master Plan is the implementing document for the Aviar;
L
Master Plan Local Coastal Program; and, !
Master Plan Local Coastal Program and constitutes the regulations and policies of the Aviar:
L WHEREAS, the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment meets the
i
applicable policies of the Mello I segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program not being i
requirements of, and is in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act and al
amended by this amendment, in that no policies are being amended by this action; and,
1 WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to the Mello I segment of the Carlsbad
Local Coastal Program is required to bring it into consistency with the adopted Aviara Master
) Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did on the 6th day of August , 2002
!
Reporting Program, and Local Coastal Program Amendment, Minor Master Plan Amendment, '
Declaration and two Addendums (Addendum 2 attached) and the Mitigation Monitoring and '
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the Mitigated Negative
Conditional Use Permit, Hillside Development Permit, and Coastal Development Permit; and,
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as
follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct
2. That the findings of the Planning Commission in Planning Commission
Resolutions No. 5108, 5156, 5109, 5110, and 51 11 and the findings in this City Council
Resolution constitute the findings of the City Council in this matter.
....
....
....
....
. . ..
....
Page 2 of 3 of Resolution No. 20b2i-236 M J
i
f
E
s
IC
11
12
13
14
1 'g
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendums 1 and 2, the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are adopted, and the Minor Master Plan
Amendment (MP 177(DD)), Conditional Use Permit (CUP 01-22), Hillside Development Permit
(HDP 01-07), and Coastal Development Permit (CDP 01-31) are approved as shown on
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5108, 5156, 5109, 5110, and 5111 on file with the City
Clerk and incorporated herein by reference.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 6th day of August 2002, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Finnila, Nygaard. and Hal
ATT2T: *aywx?mTL LOR INE M. WOOD, City Clerk
Page 3 of 3 of
Resolution No. 2002-236 -3-
July 3,2002 -ADDENDUM 2
TO EIA FOR LCPA 02-031MP 177(DD)/CUP 01-22/HDP/01-07CDP 01-31
FOR ZONE 19 (AVIARA COMMUNITY) PARK
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15164 describes the
circumstances under which an addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration is required
and the required procedures for an addendum. Pursuant to that section, an addendum
may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary and those
technical changes or additions do not trigger a supplemental EIR or Negative
Declaration. Section 15164 also directs that an addendum need not be circulated but
can be included in or attached to the final Negative Declaration. The incorporation of
this additional discussion has not resulted in any new or changed mitigation for the
subject project. Thus, this information satisfies CEQA Section 15164 as an addendum.
Staff has prepared this second Addendum for this project in order to:
A. ensure that the environmental documents for this project fully incorporate and
reference all biological resources reports, letters, and survey information
related to the project and to clarify the discussion of project impacts;
B. incorporate correspondence from USFWS and CDFG offering their
concurrence on two topics; and,
C. clarify the need for the proposed minor LCPA.
A. Bioloqical Resources Surveys/Reports
A Biological Resources Report for Aviara Community (Zone 19) Park was prepared in
April 2002 by P&D Environmental. That report reiterates that the project would result in
temporary impacts to .03-acre of disturbed coastal sage scrub, as discussed in the
original environmental initial study. The report also discusses the encroachment into
approximately .Ol-acre of potential ACOE jurisdictional waters. The original
environmental analysis estimated this encroachment as approximately .09-acre.
However, the more detailed (later) biological report concludes that the encroachment
would be only .Ol-acre. This reduction in the encroachment/temporary impact area is
the result of a more detailed analysis/calculation. The original mitigation plan required
that the encroachment area (whatever its size) be replanted in native vegetation. That
mitigation is still required, so there is no change in the mitigation requirements for the
project as a result of this lessened impact.
The .03-acre encroachment into disturbed coastal sage scrub (for the necessary slope
stabilization) can be considered "de minimis" by CDFG and USFWS if there are no
California gnatcatchers in the area of disturbance. Consequently, protocol surveys
were conducted by P&D Environmental for the presence of gnatcatchers in late
May/early June, and a letter was prepared (dated June 11, 2002) to summarize the
survey results. That letter states that no gnatcatchers were sighted or heard in the
JULY 3,2002 -ADDENDUM 2
TO EIA FOR LCPA 02-03/MP 177(DD)/CUP 01-22/HDP/OI-O7CDP 01-31
FOR ZONE 19 (AVIARA COMMUNITY) PARK
Paqe 2
project impacts area. The letter concludes that, in the biologist's opinion, the proposed
project will not have any direct impacts on California gnatcatchers. The original
environmental documents and project conditions addressed such potential indirect
impacts as light spillage and grading restrictions.
B. USFWSlCDFG Concurrence
On the basis of the biological resources reports, City staff requested and received
written concurrence from CDFG and USFWS that the .03-acre take of coastal sage
scrub is "de minimis" in nature.
Staff also requested and received written concurrence from CDFG and USFWS that the
open space corridor on the site (to the north of the park use area) was established in
consultation with CDFG and USFWS and satisfies all NCCP requirements. The Aviara
Master Plan requires that the corridor be established in consultation with the agencies.
Since the City's HMP hardlines have been developed in consultation with the agencies,
this project is consistent with the HMP with the exception of the encroachments
(necessary for storm water management and slope stabilization) sited in the earlier
environmental documents for the project.
C. Minor Local Coastal Procram Amendment
As indicated in the Planning Commission staff report, dated February 20, 2002, this
project requires the approval of a Minor Master Plan Amendment to the Aviara Master
Plan. The amendment was necessary to revise the maximum allowed height in
Planning Area 32 (the park site) from its current limit (18') to the height typically allowed
in the Open Space Zone (25' plus any additional height allowed through a Conditional
Use Permit).
The park site is within the Mello I segment of the City's Coastal Program. When the
Aviara Master Plan was originally approved in 1987, a Local Coastal Program
Amendment was also approved. As a result of those actions, the approved Aviara
Master Plan is the implementing document for the Coastal Program within the Aviara
community. Since the Master Plan text (Le., the LCP) includes a height limitation of 18',
an LCPA must be approved by City Council to ensure continued consistency between
the proposed Master Plan and the Local Coastal Program.
It should be noted that the proposed building height has not changed since the original
EIA Part II was prepared for the project. Staff has spoken with Coastal Commission
staff, and Coastal staff has indicated that they believe the LCPA height limit change can
be considered "minor" in nature pursuant to Section 13554 of the California Coastal
Regulations and Section 30514(c) of the Public Resources Code. The Coastal
Commission can determine that an action is minor if it satisfies one or more of several
justifications. In this case, the proposed project satisfies the requirement that the
project does not "change the kind, location, intensity, or density of use".
EXHIBIT 2
ZONE I9 PARK
LCPA 02-03/MP 177(DD)/CUP 01-22/
HDP OI-O7/CDP 01-31
EXHIBIT 3
US Fish and Wildlife Service CA Dept. of Fish & Game
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office South Coast Regional Office
2730 Laker Avenue West
Carlsbad. CA 92008
4949 Viewridge Avenue
(760) 431-9440
San Diego. CA 92123
(858) 467-4201
FAX (760) 431-9624 FAX (858) 467-4299
In Reply Refer To: FWS-SDG-2944.1
Ms. Elaine Blackburn
Senior Planner
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad. California 92008-73 14
JUL 0 1 2002
Re: De nzininzus exemption under 4(d) Special Rule for the gnatcatcher, for Zone 19 Park in
Carlsbad, San Diego County, California
Dear Ms. Blackbum:
This letter responds to the City of Carlsbad’s request to process the loss of coastal sage scrub
associated with the Zone 19 Park project using an exemption to the 4(d) Special Rule. The de
minimus exemption can only be used if the following three criteria are met: . The coastal sage scrub to be lost has been determined to be of low value or, if of medium
. The project would result in the loss of less than one acre of coastal sage scrub loss which
value, is located outside of preserve planning areas;
is not occupied by the coastal California gnatcatcher; and . Habitat loss would not otherwise preclude reserve design
In order to determine if the use of the de minimus exemption would be appropriate for the Zone
19 Park project, we reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared for the
project, the City of Carlsbad’s draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP) dated December 1999, a
letter from Tito Marchant of P & D Environmental, dated June 11, 2002, and the Biological
Resources Report for Aviara Community Park, Carlsbad, California (P & D Environmental,
April 2002). Coastal sage scrub impacts which would occur as a result of project implementation
(including fuel modification zones) would be 0.027 acre which is not occupied by the coastal
California gnatcatcher.(Polioptila califmlica californica; gnatcatcher). The boundaries between
the area proposed for development and the open space associated with the project were
delineated as part of the HMP. After the HMP was submitted for public comment, an unforseen
geological problem at the Zone 19 Park project site was discovered. A buttress fill, in a portion
of the open space, was proposed to correct the geological instability. The fill would impact 0.027
acres of coastal sage scrub, and approximately 0.25 acre of ruderal and agricultural land.
Ms. Elaine Blackburn (FWS-SDG-2944.1) -
Upon completion of the buttress fill, the entire impacted area would be revegetated with coastal
sage scrub, resulting in a net gain of coastal sage scrub in the preserve; thus, the project would
not preclude reserve design. The coastal sage scrub on-site was characterized as disturbed, and is
considered low-quality, due to edge effects from adjacent agriculture. To assess potential for the
buttress fill to impact gnatcatchers, gnatcatcher surveys were conducted at the site on May 17,
24, and 31, 2002. A single male gnatcatcher was observed on May 24, approximately 1,000 feet
from the proposed buttress fill. Based on previous estimates of gnatcatcher home range area. it is
unlikely that this gnatcatcher uses the area proposed for the buttress fill
Based upon this information, we concur with the use of the de nzininzus exemption for this
project. It should be noted that even when using this exemption to the 4(d) Special rule,
mitigation must still conform to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), all other
underlying resource protection requirements of the jurisdiction, and NCCP guidelines. The City
of Carlsbad has exhausted their five percent coastal sage scrub loss allowance. but impacts
permitted under the de minimus exemption may exceed the five percent allowance. However, the
SANDAG.
loss of coastal sage scrub associated with a de minimus exemption must be reported to
If you have any questions concerning our review or comments provided in this letter, please
contact John Martin of the Service at (760) 43 1.9440, or Nancy Frost of the Department at (858)
637-55 11.
3
A Sincerely,
Acting Assistant Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
William E. Tippets
Environmental Program Manager
California Department of Fish and Game
L
cc: Betty Dehony, P & D Environmental
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1.3
14
15
16
17
18
19
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2E
EXHIBIT 4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5108
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADDENDUM
AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM TO ALLOW A COMMUNITY PARK ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHERN
TERMINUS OF AMBROSIA LANE IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 19.
CASE NAME: ZONE 19 PARK
CASE NO.: MP 177(DD)iCW 0 1 -22kIDP 0 1 -07/CDP 0 1-3 1
WHEREAS, City of Carlsbad, “Developer”/”Owner” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Those portions of Section 35, Township 12 South, Range 4
West and Section 2, Township 13 South, Range 4 West, San
Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California, according to official plan thereof,
said property being more particularly described in Exhibit
“A“ of Quitclaim Deed recorded March 28, 1989 as File No.
89-157040 of official records of said San Diego County.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum was prepared in
conjunction with said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 20th day of February 2002,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby ADOPTS the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program according to Exhibit "ND"
dated November 28, 2001, and "PII" dated November 7, 2001, and the
Addendum to "PII" dated January 24, 2002, attached hereto and made a part
hereof, based on the following findings:
Findinps:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A. It has reviewed, analyzed and considered Mitigated Negative Declaration
MP177(DD)/CUP 01-22/HDP 01-07/CDP 01-31 the environmental impacts
therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to
APPROVING the project; and
B. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines
and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
C. It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
D. Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
...
...
...
...
-2-
...
...
...
...
...
PC RES0 NO. 5108 I#
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
15
2c
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 20th day of February 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Heineman, Segall,
White, and Whitton
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Dominguez
ABSTAIN:
SEENA TRIGAS, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
v MICHAEL J. HOLZMI~~ER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5 108 -3-
__ City o
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: At the northern terminus of Ambrosia Lane
Project Description: A public park with a community building, maintenance facility,
restrooms, a softball diamond, soccer fields, a basketball court,
picnic area, tot lot and parking areas on a 25-acre site.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Elaine Blackbum in the Planning Department
at (760) 602-4621.
DATED:
CASE NO:
CASE NAME:
PUBLISH DATE:
NOVEMBER 28,2001
CUP 01-22/HDP 01-07/CDP 01-31
ZONE 19 PARK
NOVEMBER 28,2001 /l,Lf-& I/ 'I. 1,
MICHAEL, J. H~LZ~M~LER
Plinning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad. CA 92008-7314 - (760) 602-4600 - FAX (760) 602-8559 www.cl.carlsbad.ca.us
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASENO: CUP01-22kIDP 01-07ICDP 01-31
DATE: November 7.2001
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Zone 19 Park
2. APPLICANT: Citv of Carlsbad
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1635 Faraday Ave; Carlsbad. CA 92008
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: NIA
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A uublic Dark with a communitv buildinv maintenance facilitv,
restrooms, a softball diamond. soccer fields, a basketball court, picnic area, tot lot and uarking
areas on a 25-acre site.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
Unless Mitigation Incorporated as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
0 Land Use and Planning [XI TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing [XI Biological Resources nutilities L+ Service Systems
[7 Geological Problems [7 Energy & Mineral Resources c] Aesthetics
[7 Water
[XI Air Quality
0 Hazards
0 Noise
Cultural Resources
c] Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0
IXI
0
0
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier , including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore,
2 Rev. 03128196 1%
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96 /9
0 If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated“
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
0 An EIR must he prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part 11 analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96 010
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Potentially
Significant
Impact
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
SI@icant Less Than
lmoact
lrnpacr
No
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e& impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
e) Dismpt or divide the physical arrangement of an
land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
0 [XI
[XI
0
0
0 0
0
0 0
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrasttucture)’! (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 -
5.5-6)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
fl Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
5.1-1 -5.1.15)
5.1-15)
g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
0
17
0
0 0
[XI
[XI
IXI
0 0 0
0
0 0
0
0 1x1 [XI [XI
0 [XI
0 0 [XI 0 0 0 IXI
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
[XI El [XI i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface mnofi? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1) surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
11)
5
0
0
Rev. 03/28/96 A1
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated 0
Significant Less Than
Impact
lm~act
NO
0
0
0
0
0
0
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1)
fl Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11)
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
5.2-1 - 5.2-11)
11)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
1 - 5.3-12)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1
- 5.3-12) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 53-12’)
0
0 0 om
DEI om 0 0
0
VI. TRANSPORTATIONICIRCULATION. Would the
orooosal result in: 0
0
0
17
0
0
00 om
OEI nix
&. a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
~ ~~~~
5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
cumes or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
0
0
0
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#l:Pes 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) ~I d) Insufficient parking capacity or off-site? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
e) Hazards or harriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
t) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
transportation (e& bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 ~ 5.7.22)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -
5.7.22)
VILBIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
in impacts to:
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 ~ 5.4-24)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
6
0 om
0 0 om
0
0
IXI
0 0
Rev. 03/28/96 32
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant Impact Significant
Potentially
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated 0
Significant Impact
Less Than No
Impact
0
0
om d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
- 5.4-24) 0 om
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
1 - 5.13-9)
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5
& 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
0
0
0
om
OIXI
0
0
om 0
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals orradiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
5.10.1-5)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
0 0 om
om 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
om om om 0
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9-
15) 0 0
0 o b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
1 - 5.9-15)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4)
c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( )
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
5.12.8-7)
0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 0
7 Rev. 03/28/96 23
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact
Potential1.y Significant Unless Mitigation incorporated 0
Significant
Less Than
impact
impact
NO
b) Communications systems? ( )
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
e) Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
fJ Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
5.12.3-7)
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
[XI [XI €3 [XI
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
0 0
0
[XI
[XI
[XI
0 0
0 c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5) 0
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
1 0)
10) 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI
0 0 0 [XI
XV.RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 - 0
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#I :Pgs
5.12.8-7)
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) 0
0
0
cl
0
[XI
[XI
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
0 0 0 [XI
8 Rev. 03/28/96 a4
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Potentially Potentlaily Less Than Eo
Significant Significant Slgnlficant impact Impact Unless Impact
Mitieation I
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited. but cumulatively considerable? 0 0 Elm Incorporated
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
the effects of other current uroiects. and the effects of
probable future projects)? ._
c) Does the uroiect have environmental effects which will n n n E?
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly‘?
.I U U U -
9 Rev. 03/28/96 d 5-
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
10 Rev. 03/28/96 26
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Proiect Description
The proposed project is a public park on a 25-acre site. Structures will include a community
building (17,768 square feet), one restroom building (625 square feet), a second restroom
building (625 square feet) with an attached storage room (approximately 400 square feet), and a
maintenance building (1,200 square feet). The community building will contain a multi-purpose
room, activity room, senior family room, meeting room (which can be curtained off into two
smaller rooms), a kitchen, and various storage and office areas for staff use. Outdoor recreational
areas include a baseball field, two soccer fields, two basketball courts, a tot lot, and a picnic area.
Environmental Setting
The project site is a 25-acre parcel located at the northern terminus of Ambrosia Lane. The site
is an irregularly-shaped mesa. The mesa top is relatively level. There are steep slopes and a
canyon drainage to the north. The northern slopes are steeper than 1:l. Elevations on the site
range from 208 feet above MSL in a canyon bottom at the northern end of the site to 326 feet
above MSL in the mesa area. Much of the mesa area was previously used to grow flowers. The
site contains unpaved roads and a buried irrigation system for the flower-growing operation.
Easements on the site include a 30-foot wide Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD)
easement along the southern portion of the site and a 15-fOOt wide CMWD easement along the
eastern side of the site. The slope areas include both native and non-native vegetation. Existing
drainage basins are partially draining to all sides of the site, with the majority of the site flowing
to the north. The project site is bounded by residential developments to the east and south and by
open space to the west and north.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A. Non-Relevant Items
I. Land Use and Planning
The project site is within the Aviara (formerly Pacific Rim) Master Plan (MP 177). This
Planning Area (Planning Area 32) has an "Open Space" General Plan designation and zoning.
The site is designated for a park use. Therefore, the proposed project (a public park) is consistent
with the General Plan designation and zoning on the project site and is also consistent with the
Master Plan. The Coastal Development Permit (CDP) and Local Coastal Program Amendment
(LCPA) adopted with the Master Plan also anticipated a park on this site. Therefore, the project
will not conflict with any environmental plans or policies for the site. Surrounding uses (mostly
residential) were developed with the knowledge that this site would provide a park. The park has
been designed to reduce noise and light impacts to neighboring residential uses while protecting
the native vegetation on the site from disturbance by outdoor activities. Thus, the project will
not be incompatible with existing land uses in the vicinity. The project will not affect
agricultural resources or operations. The site has been previously used to grow flowers.
However, that use has already been discontinued. The project will not disrupt or divide an
established community. The site is vacant and has been designated for development of a park.
11 Rev. 03128196 a7
11. Population and Housing
The project is not in an undeveloped area and does not require the extension of major
infrastructure. It is a site surrounded by development. The use will provide recreational
opportunities for the residents of the surrounding community and the City as a whole. Therefore,
the project will not induce substantial growth and will not result in the growth which exceeds
official regional or local population projections. The project also will not displace any existing
housing. The project site is an undeveloped parcel which was designated in the approved Master
Plan for development with a park.
111. Geologic Problems
A geotechnical investigation was prepared for the proposed project by Geotechnics, Incorporated
in October 2001. Follow-up information from Geotechnics was provided in a letter dated
November 9, 2001. That study and the follow-up information concluded that the proposed
project is feasible on the subject site provided the recommendations and practices contained in
the study are followed. No geotechnical conditions were found which would preclude the
proposed project. The following statements reflect the conclusions in that geotechnical study.
There are no known active faults underlying the project site. Any potential seismic hazards at
the site are associated with ground shaking from an event along nearby active faults. This hazard
is typically addressed through design in accordance with the California Building Code. The
portion of the site where improvements are planned is underlain primarily by very dense
formational materials with a relatively minor amount of surficial soil. The surficial soil will be
removed and replaced as compacted fill as part of the site's development. There does not appear
to be a shallow water table beneath the site. Following development of the site, the potential for
liquefaction and associated dynamic settlement to occur at the site is remote. The project site is
located at elevations above 100 feet MSL and there are no open water bodies near the site.
Therefore, the potential for impacts due to tsunami or seiche is remote. The site contains no
evidence of existing landslides. However, some slopes on the northern site boundary and in the
canyon area do not meet minimum safety standards. Remedial grading is recommended to
enhance stability in those areas, The project will be subject to all applicable City regulations
governing grading and erosion control. These regulations ensure that potentially significant
erosion will not result. No potentially significant changes in topography are proposed. The
project will not result in unstable soil conditions. The proposed park will place fill over some
marginally stable natural slopes to create ball fields. The fills will result in slopes that do not
meet the generally accepted criteria for engineered slope stability. To stabilize these slopes, the
project requires a combination of reconfiguration of the fill areas and construction of earthen
buttresses. (See also the discussion under section VII. Biological Resources, below.) Some
portions of the materials may include highly expansive soils. However, the study includes
recommendations to reduce the potential effects of this condition (iq removal of from 2 to 5
feet of soils in some pad areas). The site does not contain any unusual geologic or physical
features.
IV. Water
The proposed project is subject to all applicable City, State, and Federal regulations governing
water runoff. The project is required to comply with the latest NPDES requirements. Two
detention facilities are proposed (one north of the project and one south of the soccer fields).
A Preliminary Hydrology Study dated October 1, 2001, was prepared for the project by P&D
12 Rev. 03/28/96 48
Consultants. The study concluded that these basins will limit the post-development flow to equal
or less than the pre-development flow. Therefore, the proposed development will not result in
potentially significant impacts in the form of changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rateiamount of surface runoff. The project site is located at elevations above 100 feet MSL.
There are no water bodies on or near the project site. Therefore, the project will not result in
exposure to water hazards such as flooding. With the installation of the detention basin, post-
development storm runoff will reduce storm flows to a level such that post-construction flows
will not increase for a 10-year 6-hour storm event. The project will not result in changes in
currents or the course or direction of water movements. The project does not involve any direct
additions or withdrawals to/from groundwater. Since there is no aquifer within the project site,
there will be no interception of an aquifer. Therefore, there will be no impacts to groundwater
quantity/quality or recharge capability. There also will be no impact to the flow of groundwater.
The project will not place an extraordinary demand for water on the public water supply.
Therefore, it will not result in any substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise
available for such supplies.
V. Air Ouality (b-d)
The project (a park) is a use type which does not generally generate potentially significant
pollution. The proposed structures will comply with all City regulations for maximum building
height and required building separation. Therefore, the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants and will not alter air movement, moisture, or temperature or cause a
change in climate. Activities at the park also will not create objectionable odors. Trash
containers will be placed conveniently on the site and will be emptied and cleaned regularly as
part of the routine maintenance of the site. Thus, the project is not expected to create potentially
significant objectionable odors. (See Section B.V. Air Quality, below, for discussion of
potentially significant air quality impacts.)
VI. TransportatiodCirculation (b-g)
The proposed project will generate 473 average daily vehicle trips and will contribute
incrementally to traffic and congestion on existing and planned roadways in the project vicinity.
The street system for the proposed project will comply with all applicable City regulations and
standards to ensure that no safety hazards result from the design. The proposed project will
require 261 parking spaces, and 270 spaces will be provided on site. The site does not include,
and is not near any rail, waterborne, or air traffic facilities and will not impact any such activities.
(See Section B.VI. TransportatiodCirculation, below, for discussion of potentially significant
traffic/circulation impacts.)
VII. Biological Resources
The project site is located within the "Hardline" area of the City's Draft Habitat Management
Plan (HMP). As designed, the project stays within the HMP Hardline area with the exception of
a buttress fill area (discussed below), which is necessary to stabilize slopes on the site.
A general biological resource survey of the project site was conducted by P&D Environmental.
Habitats mapped on the site included coast live oak woodland, scrub-oak-dominated maritime
chaparral, southern maritime chaparral, disturbed coastal sage scrub, non-native grassland,
agriculture, ruderal, disturbed, landscaped, and developed. Sensitive plants observed on the site
include Del Mar manzanita, Nuttall's scrub oak, summer holly, wart-stemmed ceanothus, and
Palmer's goldenbush. All of these plants except Palmer's goldenbush are HMP Covered Species.
13 Rev. 03/28/96 di9
Based upon this biological survey and mapping, the project has been designed to minimize
potentially significant impacts to the sensitive resources.
Potential jurisdictional waters exist on the northern portion of the site, where topographical
features convey water to a cement-lined brow ditch along the northern property boundary. This
area shows evidence of hydrologic activity, but does not support hydric soils or wetland indicator
vegetation. The area of hydrologic activity is disjunct from a wetland or stream. Existing storm
drains direct the flow from this area through pipes ultimately into a drainage. Review indicates
that this area could be defined as isolated, and thus not jurisdictional by the Corp. However, in
accordance with current interpretation of the Section 404 Permit, the Corps has taken jurisdiction
in similar situations. There will be an encroachment into 0.09 acres of potential jurisdictional
waters. This impact appears to be covered under a Nationwide 42 Permit and will require
Section 401 certification by the Regional Water Quality Control Board if confirmed to be
jurisdictional.
The entire project site contains a total of ,549 acre of dual criteria slopes. The buttress fill
activities will impact 5% (.027 acre) of those dual-criteria slopes. Those dual criteria slopes
being impacted contain.disturbed coastal sage scrub. Even though this area is outside of the
HMP Hardline area, no development of the area will occur; only grading to correct the stability
problem. The area will then be revegetated with native plant material. Therefore, the deviation
from the HMP Hardline boundary is not a potentially significant impact.
Although there are no potentially significant direct impacts to resources from the project, specific
mitigation measures were recommended as a result of the biological survey. Each of the
recommended measures has been included in the proposed Mitigation Measures list and in the
Mitigation Monitoring Report (attached).
VIII. Energy and Mineral Resources
Development of the proposed park will not conflict with any adopted energy conservation plans.
The proposed park also is not expected to use non-renewable resources in a wasteful or
inefficient manner. As with other projects, the park will be designed to be as energy-efficient as
feasible. The buildings will utilize florescent light bulbs. The sports lights (fields) will be on a
computerized system which results in their being on only when the fields are in use. The
irrigation system will also be computerized with an over-ride capability. Further, the sprinkler
system for the ball fields will utilize "valve-in-head" sprinklers, allowing each sprinkler to be
controlled independently to minimize water usage and waste. The soccer fields will utilize
artificial turf rather than grass. The development of a park on the site will not involve mineral
extraction or other activities which would result in loss of a known mineral resource.
IX. Hazards
The use of the site as a park will not introduce hazardous substances or materials onto the site;
nor will it increase the risk of explosion. The proposed use will require storage of some
janitorial supplies, fertilizers, and other similar supplies. However, the storage and use of these
materials in the quantities anticipated is typical of a park use and does not require permitting
from the County Health Department, the Air Pollution Control District, or the Regional Water
Quality Control Board. These materials have historically been exempt from permitting
requirements. The proposed project will not interfere with any emergency response or
evacuation plans and will not expose people to existing or new health hazards. The project will
not increase fire hazard in the area. The proposed community building will be located near a
14 Rev. 03/28/96 30
canyon containing native habitat. That building is being designed to incorporate boxed eaves
and minimal building openings in order to reduce any potential fire hazards to the structure and
its occupants.
x. Noise
Any development of the site, including development of the proposed park, will contribute to a
general increase in noise levels in the City. However, normal uses at the park would not be
expected to generate sufficient noise to expose people to severe noise levels. Further, the park
has been designed to buffer the adjacent residential uses from the park activities as much as
possible. Therefore, the project is not expected to result in potentially significant noise impacts.
XI. Public Se-
All necessary public services are readily available for the site. The use itself will not generate
any extraordinary demand for any particular public services. Therefore, the project will not
result in potentially significant impacts to public services.
XII. Utilities and Services Systems
All necessary public utilities and services systems are readily available for the site. The use itself
will not generate any extraordinary demand for public utilities or services. Therefore, the project
will not result in potentially significant impacts to public utility or services systems.
XIII. Aesthetics
The project site is a mesa from which there are distant scenic views to the north and northeast of
the project. The site does not, however, contain any designated public view corridors. The
project is designed to enhance opportunities for the distant views available from the site. The
community building incorporates a terrace which looks out to the north. The eastern part of the
project will consist of generally open playing fields. The community building and other project
structures/facilities are designed to be attractive and compatible with the surrounding
development. These structures/facilities will comply with applicable development standards
(e.g., setbacks, separation requirements, etc.). Therefore, the project will not negatively affect a
scenic vista or a scenic highway and will not have a negative aesthetic effect. The project will
included lighted ball fields. Therefore, there is the potential for light or glare. However, the
light will be focused as much as possible onto the playing fields and will be shielded. In
addition, the lighting will be controlled such that the lights are on only when the fields are in use.
Therefore, the project will not result in potentially significant light or glare.
XIV. Cultural Resources
Prior to the City's acquisition of the park site, a cultural resources study and an EIR were
prepared for the Pacific Rim (Aviara) Master Plan site (which included the park site) by
WESTEC Services, Inc. Literature review, records search, field survey and testing identified two
prehistoric sites within the park property. Both sites were tested to determine site significance.
The first site was identified as significant, and mitigation of impacts was achieved through the
completion of a data recovery program. The second site was tested and identified as not
significant. Given the presence of a significant cultural resource which might contain burials,
monitoring of the grading activities is being required as a mitigation measure.
15 Rev. 03/28/96 31
XV. Recreational
The project will not increase the demand for parks or other recreational facilities since the project
is a park. It will affect recreational opportunities by providing a new recreational opportunity for
the community. The project will, therefore, satisfy some of the current and anticipated future
need for recreational opportunities.
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
V. Air Ouality (a)
In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EIR which analyzed the impacts which will result
from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concludes that
continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have
cumulative significant impacts in the form of increased gas and electric power consumption and
vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon
monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates.
These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego
Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air
emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to build-out
as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air
quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan build-out, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Ovemding Considerations” for air
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Ovemding Considerations” applies to all projects covered
by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MEIR This
document is available at the Planning Department.
VI. TransuortatiodCirculation (a)
In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would
result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concluded
that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will result in
increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build-out
traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional
through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all
freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the
16 Rev. 03/28/96 32
implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the
City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at build-out.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan build-out,
numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include
measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to
develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks,
pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation
strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or
State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to
control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either
been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at build-out of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR.
This project is within the scope of that MEIR This document is available at the Planning
Department.
An MEIR may not he used to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior to the
filing of an application for a later project. The City is currently reviewing the 1994 MEIR to
determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects. Although the MEIR was
certified more than five years ago, the City’s preliminary review of its adequacy finds that no
substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was
certified. The only potential changed circumstance, the intersection failure at Palomar Airport
Road and El Camino Real, is in the process of being mitigated to below a level of significance.
Additionally, there is no new available information, which was not known and could not have
been known at the time the MEIR was certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate to
review later projects.
17 Rev. 03/28/96 33
111. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008,
(760) 602-4600.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2. Final EIR for Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort (Aviara Master Plan), dated August
1986, Westec Services, Inc. mote: The "Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort" was
later renamed "Aviara".)
18 Re*. 03/28/96 3+
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
To mitigate potential soils and geological impacts of the project, all gradingiconstruction
activities and operations shall comply with the recommendations of the soils and
geotechnical investigation, (Geotechnics, Incorporated dated October 2001 and follow-up
letter from Geotechnics dated November 9,2001) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
The Developer shall install a physical bamer between the gradingiconstruction activities
and the sensitive biological resources (including the Del Mar Manzanita) to prevent
inadvertent impacts to off-site sensitive resources.
All runoff shall be directed away from natural resource areas.
The Developer shall provide a permanent physical barrier with signage (i.e., "No
Trespassing") around all development that approaches native habitats to reduce human
intrusion into biologically sensitive areas.
The dual criteria slopes being impacted by the buttress fill grading shall be replanted with
native vegetation.
All lighting shall be designed to reduce light spillage and shall be oriented toward the
active use areas to minimize glare to surrounding uses and to shield sensitive resources.
a. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project, the developer shall provide
verification to the City of Carlsbad that a qualified paleontologist has been
retained to implement the resource mitigation monitoring on the site. A qualified
paleontologist is an individual with adequate knowledge and experience with
fossilized remains and who will be present during grading to identify
paleontological resources in the field and is adequately experienced to remove the
resources for further study. Verification shall be by letter from the applicant and
paleontologist to the City and approved by the City's Planning Director.
b. The qualified paleontologist shall attend any pre-grading and/or pre-construction
meeting to consult with the grading and excavation contractor(s). The
requirement for paleontological monitoring shall be noted on the grading and
construction drawings.
c. The paleontologist shall be on the site full time at all times during the grading
activities. Monitoring may be increased or decreased at the discretion of the
paleontologist, in consultation with the City, and will depend on the rate of
excavation, the fossil materials excavated, and their abundance.
d. The paleontologist shall be allowed to halt, divert, or direct grading in the area of
an exposed fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, to salvage
artifacts. The City Planning Department shall be immediately notified and shall
respond to the finding within 48 hours and shall approve salvaging procedures to
be performed before initial grading activities are allowed to resume in the affected
area.
e. All fossil remains collected shall be cleaned, sorted, catalogued, and then donated
to a public, non-profit institution that houses paleontological collections.
19 Rev. 03/28/96 35
f. A monitoring results report summarizing the results, analysis, and conclusions of
the above program, even if negative, shall be submitted to the City's Planning
Director within three months following the termination of the paleontological
monitoring program.
g. Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading/construction
activities on the project shall be resolved by the Planning Director and City
Engineer in consultation.
20 Rev. 03128196 36
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
Attached
21 Rev. 03128196 37
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
A
22 Rev. 03/28/96 38
JANUARY 24,2002 -ADDENDUM 1
TO EIA FOR CUP 01-22/HDP/01-07CDP 01-31
FOR ZONE 19 PARK
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15164 addresses the
circumstances under which an addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration is required
and the required procedures for an addendum. Pursuant to that section an addendum
may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary and those
technical changes or additions do not trigger a supplemental EIR or Negative
Declaration. Section 15164 also directs that an addendum need not be circulated but
can be included in or attached to the final Negative Declaration.
City staff has chosen to attach an addendum to the Negative Declaration for this
project, even though the proposed project is not changing in any way, in an effort to
fully inform the decision-makers and the public regarding two items. The first is the
proposed building height and the second is the anticipated trip generation of the
proposed park.
Buildinq Heiqht
First, this project requires the approval of a Minor Master Plan Amendment for the
building height of the proposed community building. Staff had initially determined that
the building height was consistent with the height limitation on the property through an
interpretation of the Municipal Code. However, upon further consideration staff
determined that a Minor Master Plan Amendment was required to achieve the proposed
building height.
The amendment is necessary to change the maximum height allowance called out in
the Aviara Master Plan to be consistent with the height allowed in the 0-S (Open
Space) zones throughout the City. When the Master Plan was approved an
impracticable building height limit of 18' was included in the Master Plan. The reason
for this height limitation is not clear. However, it is more restrictive than the height limit
for similar uses in 0-S zones elsewhere in the City. In addition, after the Master Plan
was approved, the City changed its definition of "building height" (Le., the way in which
height is measured). In the past, building height: a) was measured to the mid-point of a
structure and, b) was measured from a point 5' outside of the structure. Later the
building height definition was changed to measure building height to the peak of the
roof and to measure it from all points of the structure. This change effectively and
inadvertently lowered the maximum allowed building height in some of the planning
areas in the Master Plan (including the project site). Finally, the current height
restriction effectively precludes the development of a gymnasium or other similar public
building. These buildings typically must be 30' or higher in order to allow adequate light
and air into the building while accommodating public gatherings. One portion of the
proposed community building (the multi-purpose room) would measure 32'3%" at its
peak. The remainder of the community building would be at a lower height, varying
39
JANUARY 24,2002 -ADDENDUM 1
FOR ZONE 19 PARK
Paqe 2
from 16’ to 21’. The average of the various roof heights for the community building
would be 17’2”. Heights of the other proposed structures on the site are under 18’.
It should be noted that the proposed building height has not changed since the original
EIA Part II was prepared for the project. However, that EIA Part II did not specifically
reference the Master Plan Amendment application number (MP 177(DD)) and did not
specifically discuss the needed amendment. Therefore, staff determined that it was
appropriate to prepare an Addendum to the original EIA Part 11.
Trir, Generation
The second item requiring explanation is the trip generation for the project. The original
EIA Part II stated that the proposed park would generate 473 ADT (average daily trips).
That figure was based upon the trip generation calculation for a regional park.
However, the proposed park is a city park rather than a regional park. Therefore, the
anticipated trip generation figure should be 1,000 ADT. The project was reviewed and
evaluated for the correct trip generation. However, the number in the EIA Part II was
not corrected. The street system around the park remains adequate to handle all traffic
to be generated by the park and no mitigation requirements result from this calculation
correction.
Summary
The City will hold a public hearing on this project. No new mitigation is proposed or
required as a result of the application for Minor Master Plan Amendment or the revised
trip generation figure and thus, is not made a condition of the project. The obtaining of
appropriate permits (i.e., a Minor Master Plan Amendment) is required of the project
applicant. The Amendment application has been added to the other permits being
processed and has thus been incorporated into the project. Therefore, no recirculation
of the environmental document is required. The mitigation measures originally included
in the Mitigation Monitoring Report will continue to be adequate for the project.
TO EIA FOR CUP 01-22/HDP/OI-O7CDP 01-31
ENVIRONMENTAL 1. ,'IGATION MONITORING CHECKL.,T: Page 1 of 2
ENVIRONMENTAL h.. . IGATION MONITORING CHECKL. .I r: Page 2 of 2
E 0 20 2
f n
1
2
2
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. 5156
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A MINOR MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT
FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE
NORTHERN TERMINUS OF AMBROSIA LANE IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 19.
CASE NAME: ZONE 19 PARK
CASE NO: MP 177(DD)
WHEREAS, City of Carlsbad, "Developer", has filed a verified application with
the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by City of Carlsbad, "Owner", described as
Those portions of Section 35, Township 12 South, Range 4
West and Section 2, Township 13 South, Range 4 West, San
Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California, according to official plan thereof,
said property being more particularly described in Exhibit
"A" of Quitclaim Deed recorded March 28, 1989 as File No.
89-157040 of official records of said San Diego County.
("the Property"); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Minor Master
Plan Amendment as shown on Exhibit "X" dated February 20,2002, attached hereto and on
file in the Carlsbad Planning Department ZONE 19 PARK - MP 177(DD) as provided by MP
177 (AVIARA MASTER PLAN) and Chapter 21.38 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 20th day of February 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 Minor Master Plan Amendment.
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.
c/3
1
? '
-
L
I -
t - I
E
s
IC
11
12
11
14
15
16
17
18
19
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
APPROVES ZONE 19 PARK - MP 177(DD) based on the following findings
and subject to the following conditions:
Findinps:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
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 February 20, 2002 in that the proposed park use is the use anticipated
for the project site in the approved Aviara Master Plan and the approved Master
Plan has already been found to be in conformance with the General Plan.
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 public facilities necessary for the
development of Aviara Planning Area 32 (this park site) will be completed in
accordance with the Aviara Master Plan and the Zone 19 Local Facilities
Management Plan.
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 proposed park is of the same size as originally
anticipated and approved in the Aviara Master Plan, which was consistent with the
City's Growth Management requirements, and the park will have indoor and
outdoor recreational areas to serve both adults and children.
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 a) the lighting of the proposed park area will be
designed and focused to minimize light and glare to surrounding areas, b) fencing
and walls will he incorporated to prevent human intrusion and block vehicle lights,
c) and operating hours and conditions will be monitored to ensure that activities at
the park do not become a nuisance to surrounding developments.
That the streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitable and adequate to carry the
anticipated traffic thereon, in that the project will be served by Poinsettia Lane (a
major arterial) and Ambrosia Lane which can accommodate the anticipated traffic
to be generated by the use (1,000 ADT).
That the area surrounding the development is or can be planned and zoned in coordination
and substantial compatibility with the development, in that the approved Master Plan
already designates this site for a public park use.
That appropriate measures are proposed to mitigate any adverse environmental impact as
noted in the adopted Environmental Impact Report for the project, in that all applicable
mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project, and a Mitigated
PC RES0 NO. 5156 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
1s
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program to mitigate
light, noise, and other potential impacts has been issued by the Planning Director.
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.
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 feedexactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any feesiexactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
...
...
PC RES0 NO. 5156 -3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of February 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Heinernan, Segall.
White, and Whitton
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Dorninguez
ABSTAIN:
S& ss,
SEENA TRIGAS, Chairperson
CAIUSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J.MLZ&LLER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5156 -4-
Exhibit "X"
MP 177(DD)
February 20,2002
Planning Area 32: Pacific Rim Park
Height:
The maximum height allowed in Planning Area 32 and 32a is +Meet aspermitted in the
0-S Zone (Chapter 21.33 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) and as defined by Section
21.04.065 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The maximum height allowed in Planning
Area 32b is 30 feet.
.
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. 5109
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A COMMUNITY
PARK ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE
NORTHERN TERMINUS OF AMBROSIA LANE IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 19.
CASE NAME: ZONE 19 PARK
CASE NO.: CUP 01-22
WHEREAS, City of Carlsbad, “Developer”/”Owner” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Those portions of Section 35, Township 12 South, Range 4
West and Section 2, Township 13 South, Range 4 West, San
Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California, according to official plan thereof,
said property being more particularly described in Exhibit
“A” of Quitclaim Deed recorded March 28, 1989 as File No.
89-157040 of official records of said San Diego County.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Conditional Use
Permit as shown on Exhibits “A“ - “N” dated February 20, 2002, on file in the Carlsbad
Planning Department, ZONE 19 PARK - CUP 01-22, as provided by Chapter 21.42 andor
21.50 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 20th day of February 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 CUP.
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.
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
APPROVES ZONE 19 PARK - CUP 01-22 based on the following findings
and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
That the requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, is
essentially in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, and
is not detrimental to existing uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the
proposed use is located, in that a) the proposed park use is the use anticipated by the
OS General Plan designation and the 0-S zoning on the site and by the Aviara
Master Plan; and b) the park design provides adequate setbacks from surrounding
residential uses as required by the Master Plan, and incorporates screening (wall
and landscaping), and is conditioned to require that all lighting be designed and
oriented to minimize impacts to surrounding uses.
That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in
that the site can accommodate all the proposed uses while providing setbacks which
exceed the minimum requirement and providing adequate circulation and parking
on-site.
That all the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to
adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be
provided and maintained, in that a) the park design provides an 80' setback from
Poinsettia Lane and a 42' setback on the south side of the parking area, and a 44'
setback from residential uses to the east of the park; and b) the project includes
landscaped block walls along the east and south sides of the park near residential
uses.
That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic
generated by the proposed use, in that the project will be served by Poinsettia Lane (a
major arterial) and Ambrosia Lane which can accommodate the anticipated traffic
to be generated by the use (1,000 ADT) and all necessary parking (270 spaces).
That it is to be developed as part of a master-planned recreation area, industrial park,
regional or community shopping center, in that the Aviara Master Plan designates this
site (Planning Area 32) as a park site.
Conditions:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to issuance of
grading permit or building permit, whichever comes first.
Planning:
1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all
PC RES0 NO. 5109 -2- ii9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy
issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation IO
compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No
vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of
this Conditional Use Permit.
Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Conditional Use Permit documents, as necessary to make them
internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development
shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development
different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local
laws and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project
are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section
66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid
unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with
all requirements of law.
The DevelopedOperator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and
hold harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and
representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims
and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the City arising, directly
or indirectly, from (a) City’s approval and issuance of this Minor Master Plan
Amendment/ConditionaI Use PermitEIillside Development PermitlCoastal
Development Permit, (b) City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether
discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and
(c) DevelopedOperator’s installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby,
including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the
facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation
survives until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City’s
approval is not validated.
The Developer shall submit to the Planning Director a reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar
copy of the Site Plan reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making
body.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the
Director from the Carlsbad Unified School District that this project has satisfied its
obligation to provide school facilities.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
as part of the Zone 19 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to
that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
PC RES0 NO. 5109 -3- 53
1
.. '
L
C
f
F
s
1C
11
1;
12
14
15
It
17
18
1s
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing
water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that
adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the
time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and
facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy.
Approval is granted for CUP 01-22 as shown on Exhibits "A" - "N", dated Februan
20, 2002, on file in the Planning Department and incorporated herein by reference.
Development shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these
conditions.
A. This Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Director on a
yearly basis to determine if all conditions of this permit have been met and that
the use does not have a substantial negative effect on surrounding properties or
the public health and welfare. If the Planning Director determines that the use has
such substantial negative effects, the Planning Director shall recommend that the
Planning Commission, after providing the permittee the opportunity to be heard,
add additional conditions to reduce or eliminate the substantial negative effects.
B. This Conditional Use Permit is granted. This permit may .be revoked at any
time after a public hearing, if it is found that the use has a substantial
detrimental effect on surrounding land uses and the public's health and
welfare, or the conditions imposed herein have not been met.
This approval is granted subject to the approval of MP 177(DD), HDP 01-07, and CDP
01-31 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions
No. 5156,5110, and 5111 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference.
The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the Zone 19 Park
Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this
project within 2 years from the date of project approval.
This approval shall be null and void if the project site subject to this approval is not
annexed to City of Carlsbad CFD No. 1 within 60 days of the approval. The City shall
not issue any grading, building, or other permit, until the annexation is completed. The
City Manager is authorized to extend the 60 days, for a period not to exceed 120 days,
upon a showing of good cause.
All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and
concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in
substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the
Directors of Community Development and Planning.
The Developer shall construct trash receptacle and recycling areas enclosed by a six-foot
high masonry wall with gates pursuant to City Engineering Standards and Carlsbad
Municipal Code Chapter 21.105. Location of said receptacles shall be approved by the
PC RES0 NO. 5109 -4- 5"
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
Planning Director. Enclosure shall be of similar colors andor materials to the project to
the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
No outdoor storage of materials shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief.
When so required, the Developer shall submit and obtain approval of the Fire Chief and
the Planning Director of an Outdoor Storage Plan, and thereafter comply with the
approved plan.
The Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of an exterior lighting
plan including parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and
avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property.
Compact parking spaces shall be located in large groupsj and in locations clearly marked
to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
Developer shall construct, install and stripe not less than 270 parking spaces, as shown on
Exhibits “A“ - “N“.
The applicant shall pay an agricultural conversion fee, in an amount to be calculated by
the Planning Director, as part of the city’s Agricultural Land Conversion Mitigation
program.
Exterior activities lights (i.e., field lights and court lights) shall be turned off at
1O:OO p.m. with the exception that one bank of lights can remain on until 1O:lO p.m.
for purposes of safety in exiting the area.
Use of the playing fielddcourts after 1O:OO p.m. is prohibited.
Music exterior to the community building is prohibited after 1O:OO p.m.
“Jazz-in-the-Park” activities are prohibited at this park.
Developer shall construct, install and stripe not less than 270 parking spaces, as shown on
Exhibits “A” - “N”. The Developer shall limit the concurrent activities andlor total
occupancies at this park such that the parking demand does not exceed 270 parking
spaces.
Engineering:
General
28. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site
within this project, Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the City Engineer
for the proposed haul route.
29. Prior to issuance of any building permit, Developer shall comply with the requirements of
the City’s anti-graffiti program for wall treatments if and when such a program is
formally established by the City.
PC RES0 NO. 5109 -5- 2-a
1
2
3
4
5
t
7
E
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
IS
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30. Developer shall install sight distance corridors at all street intersections in accordance
with Engineering Standards.
Grading
31. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first,
Developer shall submit to the City Engineer proof that a Notice of Intention for the start
of work has been submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board.
32. Upon completion of grading, Developer shall file an "as-graded" geologic plan with the
City Engineer. The plan shall clearly show all the geology as exposed by the grading
operation, all geologic corrective measures as actually constructed and must be based on
a contour map which represents both the pre and post site grading. The plan shall be
signed by both the soils engineer and the engineering geologist, and shall be submitted on
a 24" x 36" mylar or similar drafting film format suitable for a permanent record.
33. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the site
plan, a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall apply for and obtain a
grading permit from the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for the
project.
Dedicationsfimprovements
34.
35.
36.
Developer shall install drainage structures, as may be required by the City Engineer, prior
to or concurrent with any grading or building permit.
Developer shall construct the following improvements including, but not limited to
(paving, base, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, medians, signing and striping, traffic control,
grading, clearing and grubbing, undergrounding or relocation of utilities, sewer, water,
fire hydrants, street lights, retaining walls and reclaimed water), to City Standards to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
A. Remove existing paving, curb, gutter, and sidewalk at the cul-de-sac on
Ambrosia Lane and reconstruct paving curb, gutter and sidewalk per City
Standards as shown on the site plan.
B. Relocate the existing 12-inch potable water main traversing the site. The
water main shall be placed within the proposed drive aisle of the parking lot
as shown on the site plan.
C. Extend a new 12-inch recycled water main from Ambrosia Lane to the
northerly property line as shown on the site plan.
D. Extend portion of paving, curb, gutter, and sidewalk, per City Standards,
along existing westerly terminus of Poinsettia Lane to accommodate the
access drive for the proposed maintenance building.
Developer shall have the entire drainage system designed, submitted to and approved by
the City Engineer, to ensure that runoff resulting from 10-year frequency storms of 6
PC RES0 NO. 5109 -6- 5-3
1
2
3
4
5
6
5
8
9
IC
11
12
13
14
1s
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
37.
38.
39.
hours and 24 hours duration under developed conditions, are equal to or less than the
runoff from a storm of the same frequency and duration under existing developed
conditions. Both 6 hour and 24 hour storm durations shall be analyzed to determine the
detention basin capacities necessary to accomplish the desired results.
Developer shall comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit, latest version. Developer shall provide
improvements constructed pursuant to best management practices as referenced in the
"California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook" to reduce surface
pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such
improvements shall be submitted to and subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of
the following:
A. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with
established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and
hazardous waste products.
B. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil,
antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such
fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain
or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides,
herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet
Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective
containers.
C. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants
when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements.
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, whichever occurs first, Developer
shall submit and obtain City approval for a "Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP)." The SWPPP shall demonstrate compliance with latest requirements and
provisions established by the San Diego Region of the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board. The SWPPP shall address measures to reduce, to the maximum extent
practical, storm water pollutant iunoff at both construction and post-construction phases
of the project. At a minimum, the SWPP shall:
A. Identify existing and post-development on-site pollutants.
B. Recommend source control Best Management Practices (BMPs) to filter said
pollutants.
C. Establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine clean up. Special
considerations and effort shall be applied to employee and customer education on
the proper procedures for handling clean up and disposal of pollutants.
D. Ensure long-term maintenance of all post construct BMPs in perpetuity.
E. Identify how post-development runoff rates and velocities from the site will not
exceed the pre-development runoff rates and velocities for a 10-year 6-hour event.
Prior to building permit or grading permit issuance, whichever occurs first, Developer
shall submit and obtain approval of the City Engineer, for the structural section for the
PC RES0 NO. SI09 -7- j"
1
1
t
s
5
I(
11
1;
1:
14
1:
It
li
18
15
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
access aisles with a traffic index of 5.0 in accordance with City Standards due to truck
access through the parking area and/or aisles with an ADT greater than 500. The
structural pavement design of the aisle ways shall be submitted together with required R-
value soil test information and approved by the City Engineer as part of the building or
grading plan review whichever occurs first.
40. Developer shall incorporate into the gradindimprovement plans the design for the project
drainage outfall end treatments for any drainage outlets where a direct access road for
maintenance purposes is not practical. These end treatments shall be designed so as to
prevent vegetation growth from obstructing the pipe outfall. Design could consist of a
modified outlet headwall to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Fire:
41. The east elevation of the community building must incorporate "blocked eaves" for
fire protection purposes.
Water:
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
Prior to approval of improvement plans, Developer shall meet with the Fire Marshal to
determine if additional fire protection measures (fire flows, fire hydrant locations,
building sprinklers) are required to serve the project. Fire hydrants, if proposed, shall be
considered public improvements and shall be served by public water mains to the
satisfaction of the District Engineer.
The Developer shall design and construct pubtic facilities within public right-of-way or
within minimum 20-feet wide easements granted to the District or the City of Carlsbad.
At the discretion of the District Engineer, wider easements may be required for adequate
maintenance, access and/or joint utility purposes.
Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall pay all fees, deposits, and charges
for connection to public facilities. Developer shall pay the San Diero Countv Water
Authority caDacitv charae(s) prior to issuance of Building Permits.
The Developer shall prepare a colored recycled water use map and submit this map to the
Planning Department for processing and approval by the District Engineer.
The Developer shall design landscape and imgation plans utilizing recycled water as a
source. Said plans shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the District Engineer.
The Developer shall install sewer laterals and clean-outs at a location approved by the
District Engineer. The locations of sewer laterals shall be reflected on public
improvement plans.
The Developer shall design and construct public water, and recycled water facilities
substantially as shown on the site plan to the satisfaction of the District Engineer.
Proposed public facilities shall be reflected on public improvement plans.
PC RES0 NO. 5109 -8-
1
2
3
4
z -
c - I
F
S
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
15
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
49. Prior to issuance of building permits, whichever is first, the entire potable water ana
recycled water system shall be evaluated in detail to ensure that adequate capacity,
pressure, and flow demands can be met to the satisfaction of the District Engineer.
Code Reminders:
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to
the following code requirements.
50.
51.
52.
Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the
Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building
permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements
pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code.
Developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to
prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance
with Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer.
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 feesiexactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified feeskxactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any 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. 5109
...
-9-
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
It
1;
16
IS
2(
21
2;
2:
21
2:
2t
2:
2f
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of February 2002 by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Heineman,
White, and Whitton
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Dominguez
SEENA TRIGAS, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5109 -10-
Segall.
3-7
1
2
3
4
5
6
5
E
s
1c
11
12
13
14
15
It
17
1E
IS
2c
21
2;
23
24
2:
2f
2;
2E
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5110
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHERN TERMINUS
OF AMBROSIA LANE IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 19.
CASE NAME: ZONE 19 PARK
CASE NO: HDP 01-07
WHEREAS, City of Carlsbad, “Developer”i”0wner” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Those portions of Section 35, Township 12 South, Range 4
West and Section 2, Township 13 South, Range 4 West, San
Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California, according to official plan thereof,
said property being more particularly described in Exhibit
“A“ of Quitclaim Deed recorded March 28, 1989 as File No.
89-157040 of official records of said San Diego County.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Hillside
Development Permit as shown on Exhibits “A“ - “N” dated February 20, 2002, on file in the
Carlsbad Planning Department, ZONE 19 PARK - HDP 01-07, as provided by Chapter 21.95
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 20th day of February 2002,
consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Hillside Development Permit; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
1
,. A .. -
L
c
t
L I
E
s
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
APPROVES ZONE 19 PARK - HDP 01-07, based on the following findings
and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
That hillside conditions have been properly identified on the constraints map which show
existing and proposed conditions and slope percentages;
That undevelopable areas of the project, i.e. slopes over 40%, have been properly
identified on the constraints map;
That the development proposal is consistent with the intent, purpose, and requirements of
the Hillside Ordinance, Chapter 21.95, in that the proposed project a) implements the
goals and objectives of the Open Space Element of the General Plan by preserving
sensitive resources and providing for recreational open space; b) incorporates
architectural design which relates to the site; and, c) preserves the aesthetic qualities
of the site by minimizing the amount of project grading as much as possible.
That the proposed development or grading will not OCCUT in the undevelopable portions of
the site pursuant to provisions of Section 21.53.230 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, in
that development generally will not occur in steep slope areas with two exceptions:
a) a small area (1,260 square feet) for the basketball courts, and b) a small area (.03
ac) of dual-criteria slopes which will be disturbed only for grading which is
necessary to stabilize currently unstable slopes.
That the project design substantially conforms to the intent of the concepts illustrated in
the Hillside Development Guidelines Manual, in that the proposed community building
incorporates design features (e.g., pitched roof) which contribute to compatibility
with the project site and surrounding uses.
That the project design and lot configuration minimizes disturbance of hillside lands, in
that the proposed project development area stays within the mesa area and does not
encroach into steep slopes except for a small amount of remedial grading (.03 ac)
which is necessary to stabilize slopes.
That the site has unusual geotechnical or soil conditions that necessitate corrective work
that may require significant amounts of grading, in that the site contains an area of
unstable slopes which must be corrected to provide slope stability.
Conditions:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to issuance of
grading permit or building permit, whichever comes first.
1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all
PC RES0 NO. 5110 -2- 59
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
25
28
2.
3.
4.
future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy
issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to
compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No
vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of
this Hillside Development Permit.
Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Hillside Development Permit documents, as necessary to make
them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project.
Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed
development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
Approval is granted for HDP 01-07 as shown on Exhibits “A“ - “N”, dated February
20, 2002, on file in the Planning Department and incorporated herein by reference.
Development shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these
conditions.
This approval is granted subject to the approval of MP 177(DD), CUP 01-22, and CDP
01-31 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions
No. 5156,5109, and 5111 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference.
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 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. 5110 -3-
1
2
3
4
4
t
i
E
s
IC
11
12
I?
1L
1:
1t
1;
18
1s
2(
21
2;
2:
2f
2:
2f
2:
2i
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of February 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Heineman, Segall,
White, and Whitton
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Dominguez
ABSTAIN:
SEENx TRIGAS, Chairperson U
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
1 MICHAEL J. HOL&ILLER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5 110 -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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5111
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHERN
TERMINUS OF AMBROSIA LANE IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 19.
CASE NAME: ZONE 19 PARK
CASE NO.: CDP 01 -3 1
WHEREAS, City of Carlsbad, “Developer”/”Owner” has filed a verified
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CDP 01-31 ON
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Those portions of Section 35, Township 12 South, Range 4
West and Section 2, Township 13 South, Range 4 West, San
Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California, according to official plan thereof,
said property being more particularly described in Exhibit
“A“ of Quitclaim Deed recorded march 28,1989 as File No. 89-
157040 of official records of said San Diego County.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Coastal
Development Permit as shown on Exhibits “A” - “N” dated February 20, 2002, on file in the
Planning Department, ZONE 19 PARK - CDP 01-31 as provided by Chapter 21.201.040 ofthe
Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 20th day of February 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 CDP.
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.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
APPROVES ZONE 19 PARK - CDP 01-31 based on the following findings
and subject to the following conditions:
Findines:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
That the proposed development is in conformance with the Certified Local Coastal
Program and all applicable policies in that a) no protected agricultural lands exist on
or near the site; b) no coastal access is possible or needed through the project site; c)
any erosion will be controlled by grading in conformance with applicable City
standards; d) the site contains no designated vista points or view corridors; and, e)
the environmentally sensitive habitat on the site will remain undisturbed except for
the minor amount (40%) of disturbance necessary to allow the proposed use and to
correct the existing slope instability and which requires no mitigation.
The proposal is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3
of the Coastal Act in that the site is not located along the shoreline and this cannot
provide any public access to the shoreline and cannot provide any coastal
recreational opportunities.
The project site is not subject to the requirements of the Coastal Agriculture
Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.202 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) because the site is
not located in the Coastal Agriculture Overlay Zone, according to Map X of the
Land Use Plan, certified September 1980.
The project site is not subject to the requirements of the Coastal Shoreline
Development Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.204 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code)
because the site is not located between the sea and the first public road parallel to
the sea.
The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection
Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.203 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) in that a) the
project will comply with all applicable City grading regulations and NPDES
requirements to avoid increased runoff and soil erosion, and b) the project will not
encroach into steep slopes or sensitive resources beyond the minor encroachment
(40%) allowed by Section 21.203.040 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and required
to allow the proposed use and to correct the existing slope instability.
Conditions:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to issuance of
grading permit or building permit, whichever comes first.
I. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all
future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy
issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to
compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No
PCRESONO.5111 -2- L3
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
IO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2s
26
25
28
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of
this Coastal Development Permit.
Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make. all corrections
and modifications to the Coastal Development Permit documents, as necessary to make
them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project.
Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed
development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
Approval is granted for CDP 01-31 as shown on Exhibits “A” - “N”, dated February
20, 2002, on file in the Planning Department and incorporated herein by reference.
Development shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these
conditions.
This approval is granted subject to the approval of MP 177(DD), CUP 01-22, and HDP
01-07 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions
No. 5156,5109, and 5110 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference.
The applicant shall apply for and be issued building permits for this project within two
(2) years of approval or this coastal development permit will expire unless extended per
Section 21.201.210 ofthe Zoning Ordinance.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall apply for and obtain a
grading permit issued by the City Engineer.
Grading activities shall be limited to the “dry season”, April 1st to October 1st of each
year. All grading activities shall be planned in phases so that can be completed by
October 1st. Grading activities may be extended to November 15th upon written
approval of the City Engineer, obtained in advance, and only if all erosion control
measures are in place by October 1st.
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 feesiexactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a
PC RES0 NO. 51 11 -3- 64
1
2
3
4
5
6
1 1
8
5
1C
11
12
12
14
15
1f
1;
1f
1:
2(
21
2:
2:
2r
2:
2t
2:
2>
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otheruise
expired.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of February 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Heineman, Segall,
White, and Whitton
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Dominguez
ABSTAIN:
SEENA TRIGAS, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
v
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PCRESONO. 5111 -4-
me City of CARLSBAD Planning Departmeh. EXHIBIT 5
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No. @
Application complete date: N/A
P.C. AGENDA OF: February 20,2002 Project Planner: Elaine Blackburn
Proiect Enemeer: Jeremy Riddle
SUBJECT: MP 177(DD)/CUP 01-22/HDP 01-07/CDP 01-31 - ZONE 19 PARK - Request
for a Minor Master Plan Amendment to the Aviara Master Plan for Planning Area
32 and a Conditional Use Permit, Hillside Development Permit, and Coastal
Development Permit, and addendum to the EIA Part I1 to develop a community
park on a site located at the northern terminus of Ambrosia Lane within Local
Facilities Management Zone 19.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5108
ADOPTING a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Addendum, and a Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5156 APPROVING
MP 177(DD) and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5109, 51 10, and 51 11
APPROVING CUP 01-22, HDP 01-07, and CDP 01-31 based upon the findings and subject to
the conditions contained therein.
11. Z_NTRODUCTION
The project involves the City's development of a park in Planning Area 32 of the Aviara Master
Plan located at the northern terminus of Ambrosia Lane at Poinsettia Lane. The proposed project
would include a 17,768-square foot community building, a maintenance building, restrooms and
storage area, ball fields for softball and soccer, basketball courts, a picnic area, and a tot lot. The
proposed project complies with all applicable regulations and development standards with the
exception of building height, for which a Minor Master Plan Amendment is being requested.
With the inclusion of the requested Minor Master Plan Amendment there are no unresolved
planning issues. If the Planning Commission chooses to approve the requested actions, the
Minor Master Plan Amendment (MP 177(DD)) would need to be approved first, prior Lo
approving the remaining permits, in order to preserve consistency with the Master Plan.
111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Site Description
The project site is a 25-acre parcel located at the northern terminus of Ambrosia Lane. The site
is an irregularly-shaped mesa, the top of which is relatively level. There are steep slopes and a
canyon drainage to the north. The northern slopes are steeper than 1:l. Elevations on the site
range from 208 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) in a canyon bottom at the northem end of the
site to 326 feet above MSL in the mesa area. Much of the mesa area was previously used to
grow flowers. The site contains unpaved roads and a buried irrigation system for the flower-
growing operation. The slope areas include both native and non-native vegetation. Existing
MP 177(DD)/CUP 01-22MUP 01-07ICDP 01-31 -ZONE 19 PAlW
February 20,2002
drainage basins are partially draining to all sides of the site, with the majority of the site flowing
to the north.
The project site has Open Space General Plan and P-C (Planned Community) zoning with an
underlying 0-S (Open Space) zoning designation and is currently undeveloped. There is existing
development located to the north, south and east. Canyon and open space areas exist to the west
of the site.
The areas to the north, east, and west of the project site are outside of the Aviara Master Plan.
Only the area to the south of the project site is within the Master Plan area. The area to the north
of the site has a PI (Planned Industrial) and OS (Open Space) General Plan designation and P-M
(Planned Industrial) zoning and is developed with an industrial park. The area to the east of the
project site has a General Plan designation of RM (Medium Density Residential) and RD-M
(Residential Density-Multiple) zoning. Development in this area is residential. The area to the
west of the project site has an RLM and OS (Low-Medium Density Residential and Open Space)
General Plan designation and R-I-Q/O-S (single family and open space) zoning. This area is
generally open space. The areas to the south of the project site include Planning Areas (PA) 19,
20, and 32B. PA 19 (on the east side of Ambrosia Lane north of Poinsettia Lane) has an RMH
General Plan designation and P-C zoning. This area is developed with residential uses. PA 20
(east of Ambrosia Lane and south of Poinsettia Lane) has an RH General Plan designation and P-
C zoning. This area is also developed with residential uses. PA 32B (west of Ambrosia Lane
and south of Poinsettia Lane) has an RM General Plan designation and P-C zoning. This area is
the location of the recently approved Daybreak Church, currently under construction.
Proiect Description
The proposed project is a public park which would consist of several structures and outdoor
recreation areas. Proposed structures include a community building (17,768 square feet), a
maintenance building (1,200 square feet), two restroom buildings (625 square feet), and a storage
room (approximately 400 square feet) attached to one of the restrooms. The community building
would contain a multi-purpose room. activity room, senior family room, meeting room (which
can be curtained off into two smaller rooms), a kitchen, and various storage and office areas for
staff use. This park has been designed to accommodate special events (e.g., weddings). Thus,
special attention has been given to the placement, design, and architecture of the community
building. The proposed grading will be terraced between the use areas, dropping down from
west to east. The proposed community building would be on the northwestern edge of the mesa.
This location places the building as far away from surrounding residential uses as possible and at
the high point of the site (322’ elevation). The large multi-purpose room would be located in the
northwestern portion of the community building to take advantage of the scenic views available.
The building also incorporates several terraces to further utilize this scenic opportunity. The
community building would be of SpanisWMediterranean design consistent with the prevailing
architectural themes in the surrounding residential areas.
Outdoor recreational areas include a baseball field, two soccer fields, two basketball courts, a tot
lot, and a picnic area. Parking is provided in two locations: one adjacent to the community
building and the soccer fields and another adjacent to the baseball fields, tot lot and picnic area.
The project would require 261 parking spaces and would provide 270, thereby meeting and
exceeding all parking requirements. (See Section IV. B. of this report for a detailed discussion of
parlung.) & 7
MF' 177(DD)/CUP 01-22ML)P 01-07iCDP 01-31 -ZONE 19 PARI(
February 20,2002
The park will include various types of exterior lighting. Lighting for parking areas would be on
25-foot high standards. The baseball field lighting would incorporate 60-foot high and 70-foot
high light standards. The soccer field would incorporate 80-foot high light standards. All
lighting would be focused and shielded to minimize light spillage onto neighboring residences
and sensitive vegetation. Lights for the playing fields will be turned off at 1O:OO p.m. with the
exception that one bank of lights for each field could be left on for 5-10 minutes to allow safe
exiting from the fields.
The proposed project incorporates walls and fencing in several locations. A 6-foot high
landscaped block wall would be placed along the edges of the parking areas on the southeast
portion of the project to reduce visual and light impacts to the residences to the east and south of
the project site. The existing chain link fence on the east side of the site will remain in place.
The project plans provide the opportunity for a gate in this area if the neighboring homeowners
in Poinsettia Hills would like to provide one. The proposed park project does not include the
gate. Black vinyl-coated chain link fencing would be used in several areas to minimize
accidental intrusion into the sensitive habitat areas. This fencing would be from 3% to 6 feet
high in various areas along the northern and westem portions of the site. The soccer and baseball
fields would include black vinyl-coated perimeter fencing. The community building would
incorporate a terraced edge wall on the west and north sides, and the maintenance building would
incorporate a screening wall. Finally, a 10-foot high retaining wall would be necessary at the toe
of a slope in the northeastern comer of the site. This would be a flexible plantable wall. Some
chain link or other fencing may be required around the proposed dentention basin.
Public vehicular access to the park would be from Ambrosia Lane. The existing cul-de-sac
terminus of Ambrosia Lane would be eliminated and the street would transition to a driveway
into the park. This access point is as originally anticipated for the project and shown on the
exhibits in the approved Aviara Master Plan. Access to the maintenance building would be from
a right-idright-out only driveway connecting directly to Poinsettia Lane. Direct property access
to a major arterial (Le., Poinsettia Lane) is typically prohibited or limited. In this case, the direct
access point would be for maintenance vehicles only. This would consist of one trip per week by
the local waste hauler truck and approximately one trip per month for deliveries. Therefore, the
proposed access locations and utilization are consistent with the City's intersection spacing
policies and other applicable traffic/circulation standards. The right-of-way widths for Ambrosia
Lane and Poinsettia Lane conform to City standards and no additional right-of-way dedications are
required. No off-site improvements are required and no standards waivers are required.
Water service to the project will be provided via a proposed on-site system that connects to an
existing water main in Ambrosia Lane. Water easements will be granted to the Carlsbad
Municipal Water District via separate documents to ensure access to proposed public facilities.
Sewer lines to this project will gravity flow, via proposed on-site sewer laterals that connect to an
existing sewer main system in Ambrosia Lane. Incorporation of detention basins on the site will
ensure compliance with both the Coastal Zone runoff requirements and the latest regulations issued
by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.
As stated above, grading for the project would result in terraced pads stepping down from west to
east. The grading would be balanced on site. Some remedial grading would be required to
stabilize an existing slope instability condition. (See Section IV. E. "Hillside Development
Regulations" of this report for a detailed discussion of the proposed grading.)
MP 177(DD)/CLJF' 01-22MDP 01-07KDP 01-31 -ZONE 19 PARK
February 20,2002
Activities at this park would be subject to the same standards and regulations as are other City
parks, including City Council Policy 28 and the City Recreation Department's "Facility Use
Regulations." These regulations, along with standard park operating policies, would govern the
times of activities and other considerations of use. Under these regulations organized outdoor
activities would end at 1O:OO p.m. week nights and weekend nights. Activities inside of the
community facility could continue until 1 :00 a.m. at the latest. Since this building could be used
for weddings and similar activities, music (live and otherwise) would be allowed inside the
building. However, music would not be allowed on the patio areas (on the north and west side of
the building) after 1O:OO p.m. There would be approximately two full-time staff members at the
facility at most times. In addition, some specific conditions of approval regulating activities at
the park have been included in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5 109 (attached). "Jazz in
the Park" will not be scheduled for this facility because there is no on-street overflow parking
available for such events. Staffhas, therefore, included a condition to this effect.
The development of this park has been anticipated since the Aviara Master Plan was approved in
1987. The Master Plan included information about the development standards for the park and
the general layout of and access to the park. (Exhibits were included in the Master Plan). In
addition, purchasers of the neighboring properties (e.g., Brindisi and Poinsettia Hills) were
notified of this information in the form of formal disclosures before they purchased their homes.
There has also been a sign posted at the park's future entrance announcing the park and lighted
fields. That sign has been in place since the Brindisi project opened for sale of units.
More recently, the City held two public workshops to invite public input on the design of the
Park through the development of the Zone 19 Park Master Plan. One workshop was held early in
2001 and another was held in early December, 2001. Invitations to these workshops were mailed
out to owners of surrounding properties and were posted in both public libraries and at
Stagecoach Park (the closest existing park to the project site). Copies of the Zone 19 Park
Master Plan and related exhibits were posted at the libraries. The City received over 90
responses to this information. The Zone 19 Park Master Plan and the comments received were
provided to the City Council. A third public meeting (with invitations to the surrounding
property owners) was held at the Dove Library on December 19,2001.
IV. ANALYSIS
The project is subject to the following regulations and requirements:
A. Minor Master Plan Amendments (Chapter 21.38.120 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code);
B. General Plan 0-S (Open Space) designation;
C. Open-Space Zone and Conditional Use regulations (Chapters 21.33 and 21.42 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code);
D. Aviara Master Plan (MP 177) regulations;
E. Hillside Development Permit regulations (Chapter 21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code);
MP 177(DD)/CUP 01-22klDP 01-07/CDP 01-31 -ZONE 19 PARK
February 20,2002
Page 5
F. Coastal Development regulations for the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone, and
Coastal Resource Overlay Zone Mello I LCP Segment (Chapters 21.201, 21.203, and
21.205 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code); and,
G. Growth Management regulations (Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code);
The recommendation for approval for this project was developed by analyzing the project's
consistency with the applicable City regulations and policies. The project's compliance with
each of the above regulations is discussed in detail in the sections below.
A. Minor Master Plan Amendment (Aviara Master Plan)
The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Aviara Master Plan development standards for
Planning Area 32 to increase the maximum height allowed on the site from 18' (under the current
Master Plan) to the height normally allowed in the city's Open Space zones (25' plus any
additional height allowed by approval of a conditional use permit (CUP)). This type of
amendment is considered minor in nature pursuant to Section 21.38.120 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code and, thus, does not require a public hearing with official noticing to surrounding
property owners and does not go on to City Council. However, since the amendment is directly
related to the development permits for the project, staff has included the proposed amendment
and the project permits in a single staff report rather than in two separate staff reports. If the
Planning Commission chooses to approve all of the requested actions, it would be necessary to
vote on the Minor Master Plan Amendment (MP 177(DD)) first, then approve the remaining
permits (CUP, HDP, CDP) as a separate second action. This would be necessary to preserve
consistency with the Master Plan. (Note: The Master Plan Amendment application number, MP
177(DD), was also included in the hearing notice for the project to ensure full disclosure.)
Several factors influenced staffs recommendation for approval of the proposed Master Plan
Amendment: 1) the reason for the original 18' height limit, 2) a change in the City's building
height definition (i.e., the way building height is measured), and 3) the normal height limit
allowed in the 0-S (Open Space) Zones throughout the City and achieved by other City parks.
1. When the Aviara Master Plan was approved the document contained a building height
limit of 18' for Planning Area 32 (the park site). This may have been the result of a lack of
detailed plans for the ultimate park development or may have been simply an error in the text of
the Master Plan. An 18' height limit for the park building would have been more restrictive than
the height limit applied to any of the surrounding area development. The neighboring residential
units have height limitations of from 24' (for flat roofs) to 30' (for pitched roofs). Typically, non-
residential uses in the City have a height limit of 30' to 35' with additional height beyond 35'
allowed under certain circumstances. Thus, a building height limit of 18' would have restricted
the height of this park building beyond the restrictions of any other buildings in the vicinity and
beyond other non-residential buildings in the City. Aside from such restrictions, an 18' height
limit for a park gymnasium or other community building would have been impracticable. The
heights of the gymnasiumsipublic use buildings in other City parks are just under 35'. (The gyms
at Stagecoach and Calavera Parks are 34'8'' in height.) The anticipated building height for the
tournament tennis center at Poinsettia Park will probably be greater than 35' because of its
special design needs. Staff believes that no reasonable size public gathering park building (a
gym or a community building) could be built within an 18' height limit.
MP 177(DD)/CUP 01-22/HDP 01-07iCDP 01-31 -ZONE 19 PARK
February 20,2002
Page 6
2. The second factor is the definition of “building height”. When the Aviara Master Plan
was approved, building height in the City was a) measured to the mid-point of a structure and, b)
was measured from a point 5’ outside of the structure. (The Master Plan text incorporated a
reference to the building height definition in the Municipal Code.) Later the building height
definition in the Municipal Code was changed to a) measure building height to the peak of the
roof and to b) measure the height from all points of the structure. As a result of this definition
change, the allowed building heights in some of the planning areas in the Master Plan (including
PA 32) were unintentionally lowered without consideration of the specific projects anticipated.
3. The City’s 0-S (Open Space) Zones throughout the City allow a maximum height of 25’
unless a greater height is approved by a conditional use permit (CUP) approved by the Planning
Commission. 0-S zoning is the typical zoning assigned to park properties and parks require the
approval of a CUP. As indicated above, other park buildings similar to the proposed structure (at
Stagecoach and Calavera Parks) have been developed at a height of about 35’ through approved
Cup’s. The maximum height of the proposed community building would be 32‘3%” at its peak
(over the multi-puxpose room). The remainder of the community building would be at a lower
height, varying from 16’ to 21’. The average of the various roof heights for the community
building would be 17’2”. Heights of the other proposed structures (restrooms and storage areas)
are also under 18’.
Based upon the above factors, staff believes the requested Minor Master Plan amendment is
justified and that the resulting project would remain consistent with the approved Aviara Master
Plan.
B. General Plan 0-S (Open Space) Designation
The proposed park use is consistent with the approved Aviara Master Plan. The approved Aviara
Master Plan has already been found to be consistent with the City’s General Plan. Therefore, a
park use on the project site is consistent with the City’s General Plan.
C. 0-S (Open Space) Zoning and Conditional Uses Regulations
The project site has P-C (Planned Community) zoning, as do all Master Plan areas. The Aviara
Master Plan designates that the site be developed in accordance with the 0-S (Open Space) Zone.
A park use is allowed in all zones, including the 0-S zone, subject to the approval of a CUP
(Conditional Use Permit). Further, the Aviara Master Plan calls for the development of a park on
this site.
The findings necessary for the approval of the CUP and staffs responses to these findings are
discussed in Table 1, below. Based upon that analysis, staff believes that all of the findings
necessary for the requested CUP can be made.
MP 177(DD)/CUP 01-22MUP 01-07/CDP 01-31 -ZONE 19 PARK
February 20,2002
TABLE 1: CONDITIONAL US
FINDING
1. That the requested use is necessary or desirable
for the development of the community, is
mentially in harmony with the various elements
and objectives of the General Plan, including, if
applicable, the certified local coastal program, and
is not detrimental to existing uses or to uses
specifically permitted in the zone in which the
xoposed use is to be located
2. That the site for the intended use is adequate in
jize and shape to accommodate the use
3. That all of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences,
landscaping, and other features necessary to adjust
:he requested use to existing or permitted future
Jses in the neighborhood will be provided and
maintained
1. That the street system serving the proposed use
IS adequate to properly handle all traffic generated
,y the proposed use
FINDINGS AND RESPONSES
RESPONSE
The use is necessary in that it fulfills an antlcipated
need for recreational opportunities in the
community and City. The use will be in harmony
with the objectives of the General Plan in that the
use is allowed on the subject site by the General
Plan and the certified local coastal program. The
use will not be detrimental to existing or permitted
uses in that the project has been designed to be
compatible with such uses. The park has been
designed to provide adequate separation and
screening from neighboring uses, and the
architecture of the proposed buildings and the
design of the proposed walls and landscaping will
be compatible with the neighboring uses.
The site can accommodate all of the proposed uses
while providing all needed separation from
surrounding uses, including sensitive resources.
All uses will be on the mesa area and will not
encroach into required setbacks. The project will
also not encroach into sensitive habitat areas with
the exception of the area of remedial grading (.03
acre) necessary to stabilize slopes.
The Aviara Master Plan requires a structural
setback of 50’ from Poinsettia Lane and a
building/open parking setback of 30’ from all other
planning area boundaries. The project design
incorporates a setback of approximately 80’ from
Poinsettia Lane to the maintenance building. It
incorporates setbacks of approximately 44’ from
parking to the planning area boundary to the east
and approximately 43’ from parking to the
planning area boundary to the south. Thus, the
project provides setbacks in excess of all
applicable requirements. The project will include
several walls to minimize potential light, noise,
All such walls will be landscaped to enhance their
and visual impacts to neighboring residential uses.
appearance. Fencing will also be incorporated to
minimize accidental intrusion into sensitive
resource areas. Finally, light standards will be
designed to minimize light spillage onto
neighboring uses and sensitive resource areas.
The use will generate 1,000 ADT. These trips can
be accommodated by the streets serving the site:
Ambrosia Lane (a collector roadway) and
Poinsettia Lane (a major arterial roadway).
MP 177(DD)/CUP 01-22/HDP 01-071CDP 01-31 -ZONE 19 PARK
February 20,2002
Page 8
D. Aviara Master Plan
The proposed project is within the Aviara Master Plan. The Master Plan establishes the intended
use of the site and the development criteria for the project. As shown in Table 2 (Aviara Master
Plan Compliance), below, the proposed project clearly complies with the use expectation,
setback requirements, and parking requirements of the Master Plan. The parking required and
provided is discussed in detail below. The proposed building height is discussed in Section
1V.A. [“Minor Master Plan Amendment”) of this staff report.
The Aviara Master Plan calls for parking spaces to be provided for the park as prescribed by the
City’s Parks and Recreation Department. (This requirement recognizes that parks vary greatly in
their size, intended uses, and facilities, making it impossible to establish a single parking ratio
that fits all parks.) During the development of the Zone 19 Park Master Plan the Recreation
Department evaluated the anticipated usage of the proposed park and the uses at existing parks in
the City. This park will differ from other parks in that it is more likely to host weddings and
similar activities. On the other hand, this park will also have fewer ball fields than other parks of
a similar size. Based upon that evaluation and comparison, the Parks Department determined
that the park would require 261 parking spaces. The project provides 270 spaces.
Table 2: AVIARA MASTER PLAN COMPLIANCE
Standard/Requirement Compliance Project Proposal Master Plan Requirement
Use
Yes Min 43’ Min 30’ Setback from planning
Yes 80’ Min 50’ Setback from
Yes Park Park
Poinsettia Lane
area boundaries 1
Building, Height 32’3 %” I See “Minor Max 18’ to mid-point - -
(per previous building Amendment” 17’2” avg height definition)
Master Plan multi-purpose room
comm’y building
16’
section
other buildings
Parking Yes 270 SP’S Per Park MP
E. Hillside Development Regulations
A Hillside Development Permit (HDP) is required for the proposed project because the site
contains a slope of 15% or greater and an elevation difference of greater than 15 feet. Because
the proposed project is a non-residential development, Sections 21.95.120[D) [Volume of Grading)
and 21.95.120(E) (Slope Height) requirements of the Hillside Development Regulations do not
apply to the project.
The proposed improvements would entail grading of the site to create level pads for the buildings
and level playing fields. The grading would result in fill being constructed above the existing
natural slopes along the northern site boundary, a fill slope ascending from the eastern site
boundary, and a cut slope along the western site boundary. The existing graded slopes along
Poinsettia Lane and Ambrosia Lane would remain nearly unchanged, as would much of the
existing graded slope between the site and the residential development to the southeast. The 73
MP 177(DD)/CUP 01-22MOP 01-07/CDP 01-31 -ZONE 19 PARK
February 20,2002
Page 9
proposed fill necessitated by the remedial grading slopes would be up to 70’ high, and the
proposed cut slopes would be up to 20’ high. The resulting fill-over-natural slopes would result
in a total slope height of up to about 120’ for the remedial grading. This grading is justified due
to the unusual geotechnical condition which requires corrective work.
The proposed community building pad elevation is currently 325’. This area would be lowered
to 322’. The proposed soccer field pad is currently at 326’ and will be lowered to 316’. The
proposed baseball field area currently consists of terrain sloping down to the north with
elevations between 280’ and 320’. The baseball field would receive some of the excavation from
the soccer field area and would be graded to an elevation near 310’. This effort would be
required to balance the grading on the site.
The development to the north is an existing improved industrial lot situated near an elevation of
186’. The tenants currently view natural sloping terrain with elevations varying between 180’
and 327’. After construction, this industrial lot would view both natural and manufactured
slopes varying between 280’ and 307’. The manufactured slope would be required to support the
northern edge of the baseball field. The existing residential units to the east are set at an
elevation near 299’. They currently view natural sloping terrain varying between 280’ and 302’.
After project development, residents of this area would view a proposed tot lot and parking area
set at an elevation of about 302’. There would be an intervening 6’ landscaped wall between the
residential uses and the proposed tot louparking area which would block some of the view of
park activitiedareas. The residential units to the south are situated at an elevation near 275’.
They currently view a slope to the north that varies from 275’ to 302’ in elevation. After
development, residents would continue to view a slope varying from 275’ to 300’.
Total grading for the project would include 133,000 cubic yards of cut and fill and 90,000 cubic
yards of remedial (removal and recompacfon) grading. The grading would be balanced on site
(no import or export). A grading permit would be required for the project. No off-site grading is
proposed or required. The areas of grading are generally small. Therefore, the opportunity for
contour grading is limited. However, grading would be contoured wherever appropriate. The
geotechnical report indicates that soils-related issues exist within the proposed project area.
However, the report provides recommendations required to stabilize the site in accordance with
City standards. These efforts include, but may not be limited to, removal of existing unstable soil
and installation of key buttresses prior to additional fill soils being placed near the northerly end of
the property.
All applicable Hillside grading requirements would be satisfied by compliance with the
recommendation of the geotechnical report. (See Table 3, below.)
Table 3 - HILLSIDE REGULATIONS COMPLIANCE
PERMITTED/
STANDARD PROVIDED REQUIRED
Max. slope height
NIA Varied slope directions & undulation. Contour grading
7.733 cylac NIA Grading volume
10’ N/A
MP 177(DD)/CUP 01-22MUP 01-O'IICDP 01-31 -ZONE 19 PARk
February 20,2002
Pane 10
Table 3 -
STANDARD
Hillside Architecture i [LLSIDE REGULATIONS COM
PERMITTED/
REQUIRED
1. Use terraced pads andor foundations.
2. Maintain natural slopes with
structures and roofs.
3. Decrease building mass with
increased slope steepness. i LIANCE (Continued)
PROVIDED
I. Pads for use areas would be
terraced.
2. The proposed community building
would have a pitched roof which
mimics the natural slopes in the area.
F. Coastal Development Regulations
The project site is within the Mello I segment of the Local Coastal Program. The approved
Master Plan requirements implement the Mello I Coastal Zone requirements for the Master Plan
area. The Mello I segment focuses on several areas: provision of shoreline access, preservation
of agricultural uses, preservation of scenic resources, preservation of environmentally sensitive
resources, and prevention of erosion and geologic instability. The proposed project is not located
such that it could provide shoreline access. It also does not contain protected agricultural uses.
The project site does provide distant views from much of the mesa edge which will remain
available from the site. However, the site does not contain any Coastal Zone-designated view
points or view corridors. The proposed project would preserve large areas of environmentally
sensitive habitat. The grading footprint does involve some encroachment into dual-criteria
slopes where it is necessary to provide geologic stability for the site. However, this
encroachment is well within the amount allowed by the Coastal regulations and does not require
mitigation. (See next paragraph.) Because this project is a major public works project (Le.,
greater than $50,000 cost), it can be appealed by the Coastal Commission.
The project site is located within the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone. The Coastal
Resource Protection Overlay Zone regulations (Chapter 21.203 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code)
apply to properties located in the watershed of Batiquitos Lagoon. Only the southemmost edge
of the property is in the Batiquitos Lagoon watershed. The vast majority of the site is in the
Encinas watershed. This overlay zone is intended to protect sensitive resources. It requires
preservation of steep slopes with vegetation (dual-criteria slopes) with some exceptions.
Encroachment into dual-criteria slopes is allowed when such encroachment is necessary for
reasonable use of the property and when the encroachment does not exceed ten percent (10%) of
the total steep (25% and over) slope area of the site. The proposed project would require
encroachment into .03-acre of dual-criteria slopes in order to remedy a slope instability. This
.03-acre encroachment represents only five percent (So/) of the total dual-criteria slopes on the
site and less than one percent (.006 %) of the total steep slopes on the site.
G. Growth Management
The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 19 in the southwest
quadrant of the City. The impacts on public facilities created by the project, and its compliance
with the adopted performance standards, are summarized in Table 5, below.
MP 177(DD)/CUP 01-22ML)P 01-07/CDP 01-31 -ZONE 19 PARK
February 20,2002
Table 5: GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Environmental analysis has been conducted on the project site in the past and was conducted
again for the proposed park project. The first analysis occurred during the processing of the
Aviara (formerly Pacific Rim) Master Plan. An EIR was prepared for the Master Plan, which
included the current project site. The site was also included in the City's General Plan Update in
1994. An MEIR was prepared for that project. Most recently an environmental analysis (an EIA
Part 11) for the park project was prepared in November 2001 and an Addendum to the Part I1 was
prepared on January 24, 2002. The November 2001 analysis identified several areas of
potentially significant impacts which could be mitigated to less than significant by the
implementation of mitigation measures. Those areas include: 1) soils/geological impacts; 2)
storm water runoff impacts; 3) impacts to sensitive habitat; 4) light spillage; and 5) impacts to
paleontological resources. Mitigation measures which would reduce these potential impacts to
less than significant have been included in the mitigation monitoring report for the project.
Mitigation measures include generally: corrective grading; installation of fencing around
sensitive habitat; compliance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
requirements; revegetation of areas of corrective grading; control of light spillage; and
monitoring of the grading activities by a paleontologist. With the inclusion of these mitigation
measures, the Planning Director issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration on November 28, 2001.
No additional mitigation and no recirculation was required as a result of the January 24, 2002
Addendum.
MP 177(DD)/CW 01-22MOP 01-07/CDP 01-31 -ZONE 19 PARK
February 20,2002
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5108 (Mitigated Neg Dec)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5156 (Minor Master Plan Amendment)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5109 (CUP)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5 1 IO (HDP)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5 11 1 (CDP)
Location Map
Background Data Sheet
Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
Disclosure Statement
Exhibits “A” - “N dated February 20, 2002
EB:cs:mh
77
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: MP177(DDKUP 01-22/HDP 01-07iCDP 01-31
CASE NAME: ZONE 19 PARK
APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD
REQUEST AND LOCATION: a public park with a community building., maintenance facititv.
restrooms. a softball diamond. soccer fields, a basketball court, picnic area, tot lot and parking
areas on a 25-acre site
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Those portions of Section 35. Township 12 South. Ranee 4 West and
Section 2, Township 13 South, Range 4 West. San Bemardino Meridian. in the Citv of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego. State of California. according to official plan thereof, said propertv being
more particularlv described in Exhibit "A" of Quitclaim Deed recorded march 28, 1989 as File
No. 89-157040 of official records of said San Diego Countv
AF'N: 215-080-27.29 Acres: 25 Proposed No. of LotsAJnits: 1 LOT
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: OS
Density Allowed: Nia Density Proposed: Nia
Existing Zone: 0-S Proposed Zone: 0-S
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use:
Zoninn General Plan Current Land Use
Site 0-s os Undeveloped
North P-M PI and OS Industrial
South P-C RM and RH Residential and Church
East l7D-M-Q RM Residential
West R-1-Q and 0-S RLM and OS Open space
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: CUSD Water District: CMWD Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 11
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Negative Declaration, issued November 28. 2001
0 Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
Other,
78
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
(To be Submitted with Development Application)
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: ZONE 19 PARK -MP177(DD)/CUP 01-22MDP 01-071CDP 01-31
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 19 GENERAL PLAN: OS
ZONING: 0-S
DEVELOPER’S NAME: CITY OF CARLSBAD
ADDRESS: 1635 FARADAY AVENUE; CARLSBAD. CA 92008
PHONE NO.: 760-602-4600 ASSESSOR’S PAkCEL NO.: 215-080-27.29
QUANTITY OF LAND USEDEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 25 AC
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: N/A
City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = N/A
Library: Demand in Square Footage = N/A
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) 11
Park: Demand in Acreage = N/A
Drainage: Demand in CFS = 18.4
Identify Drainage Basin = Encinas Creek &
& Batiauitos
(Identify master plan facilities on site plh)
Circulation: Demand in ADT = 1.000
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 4
Open Space: Acreage Provided = 24.25
Schools: N/A
(Demands to be determined by staff)
Sewer: Demands in EDU 11
Identify Sub Basin = N Batiauitos
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
Water: Demand in GPD = 2.420
7 9
'.,
' ' planning Commission Minutes :S/>' February 20,2002 1 EXHIBIT 6
Page 2
Chairperson Trigas directed everybody's attention to the slide on the screen to review the procedures the
Commission would be following for tonight's public hearing. She added that members of the Commission have reviewed the agenda items in detail and are very familiar with the information, and in many cases
have met with the applicant and other parties regarding the projects before them.
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Taken out of order.
Chairperson Trigas asked Mr. Wayne to introduce ttie first item
2. CUP 96-14x1 RACEWAY CELLULAR FACILITY - Request for an extension of CUP 96-14 to
allow the continued operation of Raceway Cellular Facility located at 2714 Loker Avenue West in
Local Facilities Management Zone 5.
3. CUP 88-18fA)xI -CALIFORNIA CAFE 8 DELI - Request for a an extension of CUP 88-18(A) to
allow the continued operation of the California Cafe and Deli restaurant at 2205 Faraday Avenue,
Suite C in Local Facilities Management Zone 5.
4. CDP 01-45 - BROWN RESIDENCE - Request for approval of a Coastal Development Permit to allow for the construction of a single-family residence within the City's Coastal Zone located at
51 17 El Arbol Drive, just south of Cannon Road, within Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
5. CDP 01-13 - GOETZ RESIDENCE - Request for approval of a Coastal Development Permit to
allow for the construction of a single-family residence within the City's Coastal Zone located along the west side of Carlsbad Boulevard, between Cerezo Drive and Shore Drive withjn Local
Facilities Management Zone 3.
Mr. Wayne stated that agenda items 2, 3, 4, and 5 are normally heard in a public hearing context,
approval of all. He recommended they be acted upon and voted on as a group. If the Commission or
however, these projects are minor and routine in nature with no outstanding issues and Staff recommends
questions. He stated the Commission's action is final on all items. He added that there are Errata Sheets
someone from the public wishes to discuss or pull an item then Staff would be available to respond to
associated with items 4 and 5.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Baker and duly seconded that the Planning
Commission approve Staff recommendations on Items 2, 3, 4, and 5 including
any memos and Errata Sheets, (CUP96-14x1, CUP 88-18(A)x1, CDP 01-45.
CDP 01-13)
VOTE: 6-0-0
AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker. Heineman. Segaii, White, and
Whitton
ABSTAIN:
NOES: None
None
1. MP 177fDD)ICUP 01-221HDP 01-0711CPD 01-31 -ZONE 19 PARK - Request for a Minor Master
Plan Amendment to the Aviara Master Plan for Planning Area 32 and a Conditional Use Permit,
Hillside Development Permit, Coastal Development Permit, and addendum to the EIA Part II to
develop a community park on a site located at the northern terminus of Ambrosia Lane with Local
Facilities Management Zone 19.
planning Commission Minutes February 20,2002 Page 3
Mr. Wayne introduced the next agenda item stating that it was a continued public hearing and the
presentation would be made by Don Rideout. The Planning Commission's action on this item is final
unless appealed.
Don Rideout. Principal Planner, stated that the project site is a 25-acre parcel located at the northern
terminus of Ambrosia Lane within the Aviara Master Plan and designated as Planning Area 32 in that
slopes that contain both native and non-native vegetation. He stated there is a canyon to the north,
Master Plan. He described the site as an irregularly shaped mesa with a relatively level top and steep
residential developments to the east and south which include Poinsettia Hills, Brindisi. and Mirabella, and
Aviara Master Plan, therefore, the use is fully consistent with the Master Plan. an approved but undeveloped project to the west. Planning Area 32 is designated as a city park in the
Mr. Rideout stated that the following structures and Bmenities are proposed for the park: A community building of about 17,000 square feet, a maintenance building of about 1,200 square feet. and two
restrooms. The community building will include a multipurpose room, an activity room, a senior family
room, and a meeting room. It will be located at the northwestern edge of the mesa as far away from the
two basketball courts, a picnic area, and a tot lot. There will also be 270 parking spaces provided.
surrounding development as possible. The outdoor areas will include two softball fields, two soccer fields,
Mr. Rideout explained that the purpose of the Master Plan Amendment is to change the maximum allowed
building height in the Aviara Master Plan. For unknown reasons it's stated that there would be an 18-foot
height limit on structures, which would not allow any realistic structures to be built there. The proposal is
to have a minor amendment to the Aviara Master Plan that would change the height limit to be the same
as stated under the Open Space Zone in the Municipal Code, which is 25 feet or higher if allowed through
a Conditional Use Permit. The justification for this amendment is that there was no logical basis for the
that limit. There was also a change in the way that the City defined building height and the way it is
18-foot height limit stated in the Master Plan and it's not feasible to build any typical park structures within
measured after the Aviara Master Plan was approved that had the unintended affect of lowering the
building heights. The Open Space Zone throughout the rest of the city allows up to 25 feet and higher with a CUP, therefore Staff has no concerns with recommending the minor Master Plan Amendment to
allow the height as under the Open Space Zone. He added that all the findings can be made for the
approval of the CUP and are stated in the Staff Report.
Mr. Rideout stated the project requires a Hillside Development Permit because the site contains slopes of
15 percent or greater and an eievation difference greater than 15 feet. Because it is a nonresidential development, the volume of grading and slope height requirements of the hillside regulations do not apply.
Total grading for the project would include 133,000 cubic yards of cut and fill and 98,000 cubic yards of
remedial grading. The remedial grading is necessary to correct an area of geologic instability in the open
space slope below the mesa top and the area will be replanted with native plants after the corrective
grading is completed.
He stated the project is located in the Mello 1 segment of the City's Local Coastal Program and is
consistent with all applicable regulations and policies of the Mello 1 segment. It is also located in the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone and complies with that overlay zone by protecting the majority
of dual criteria slopes. The grading footprint involves some encroachment into dual criteria slopes where
coastal regulations and does not require mitigation.
it is necessary for the remedial grading. This encroachment is well within the amount allowed by the
that provides compliance with a Soils and Geologic Report recommendation which resulted in remedial
Regarding environmental review, Mr. Rideout stated that a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared
grading. It provides a physical barrier to separate the active park uses from the native habitat and
replanting of the remedial grading with native vegetation. It minimizes light spillage onto residential and habitat areas, monitors grading for paleontological resources, and directs all runoff away from the native
habitat areas.
Mr. Rideout said Staff prepared an addendum lo the Mitigated Negative Declaration to address a
correction to the trip generation calculation and to reference the need for the Master Plan Amendment for
the building height. No new or revised mitigation measures were required as a result of this addendum.
./f
. ~ Planning Commission Minutes February 20,2002 Page 4
Chairperson Trigas stated a packet of letters with a cover letter of February 13, 2002 and a letter dated
February 14,2002 were received regarding this item.
Commissioner Segall commented that it appears one of the main concerns of the neighbors is the fact
that Ambrosia will be the only way in and out and asked how people were notified of that. Mr. Rideout
replied that one of the conditions of approval of the Brindisi project indicated that all sales maps that were
distributed or made available to the public shall include, but not be limited to trails, future and existing
schools, parks, and streets. There was signage placed at the barricaded end of Ambrosia Lane indicating
that was a future park site. In the sales disclosure documents used for the Brindisi project there was also
a statement indicating that it would be a future park site.
Ambrosia. Mr. Rideout replied that the disclosure documents did not address the issue of access to the
Commissioner Segall asked if any of the correspondence specifically states that access would be off of
park site. They did indicate that there could be development in the surrounding areas and that no
assurances were made regarding traffic circulation or how access to any other adjacent properties might
be obtained.
terminates north of Poinsettia Lane and that termination point will be opened up with the construction of
Bob Johnson, Deputy City Engineer, Transportation Division, stated that Ambrosia Lane currently
the park and access to the park will be from that point northerly into the park. Ambrosia Lane is
considered a collector road and a collector road has a design capacity of between 2,000-10,000 vehicles
generates around 800, so the total trip generation expected on this portion of Ambrosia is a little less than
per day. He said the trip generation from the park is calculated at 1,000 trips per day. The Brindisi project
2,000 vehicles per day. He said it is a 40-foot curb-to-curb street and the number of vehicles projected to
Ambrosia Lane by virtue of its access point at its current termination point. use it is well within the design capacity. Therefore, the park would not cause any capacity problems on
Commissioner Segall asked when Poinsettia Lane will go through to the east and west of this project. Mr.
Johnson responded that Poinsettia Lane terminates at Cassia and there is currently no schedule as to
when the segment from Cassia to El Camino will be completed. It is called Reach E and is under the
Ambrosia should be completed in about two years. He said there are several projects that are required to control of future development and completion is several years or more away. The portion west of
provide their dedications. That will be a City project and it is expected that within two years Poinsettia
Lane will be virtually completed from 1-5 easterly to Cassia.
would function as a collector because it provides access to abutting parcels, although it is not designated Commissioner Segall asked if Cassia is large enough to handle this traffic. Mr. Johnson said that Cassia
as a collector on the circulation element of the General Plan. He said the roadway width and design would handle the traffic on Cassia that would access the park.
Commissioner Segall asked when the park would go in. John Cahill, Municipal Project Manager, replied
to complete. The park should be opened around January 2004, similar timing to the opening of Poinsettia.
that construction is tentatively scheduled to begin in early fall of 2002 and will require about 12-14 months
would be made. Mr. Johnson said he does not anticipate a stop sign on Ambrosia. Once the park is Commissioner Heineman asked if the people from Brindisi have to exit on Ambrosia and what provision
completed and there is a through traffic situation, the right-of-way rule would require that Brindisi traffic’
exiting yields to traffic on Ambrosia. They do not plan on stopping Ambrosia traffic with a stop sign at the Brindisi driveway.
Commissioner Heineman asked if he anticipates that the approximate 2,000 ADT would make it difficult
for the Brindisi people to exit. Mr. Johnson replied he does not because traffic generation from a park is
not like commuter traffic that has a peaking characteristic. The ADT would be spread out throughout the
day so the impacts to assignment of right-of-way at that driveway should be very minimal.
Commissioner White asked if there would be a stop light at the intersection of Poinsettia and Ambrosia.
Mr. Johnson said there would be a traffic signal in the future at that intersection.
Commissioner White was concerned about visibility for people making a left turn in the event of overflow parking. She wanted to know how the Brindisi residents would have good visibility making the left turn
Planning Commission Minutes February 20,2002 Page 5
and asked if there was a possibility of having a small no parking zone to the south of the Brindisi entrance
so they could clearly see the traffic crossing Poinsettia. Mr. Johnson said the issue of parked cars on a
public street at a driveway location occurs throughout the city and they look at each situation carefully.
maintenance issue. He said if overflow parking becomes an issue on that portion of Ambrosia due to the
He said putting in red curb to create a no parking zone can be done, but it then becomes a continuous
curb with the park development. He said they don't want to restrict the ability for people to park on the
park or the Brindisi development, they would look at that, but would not expect to immediately put in red
street, but will address it if it becomes a problem.
Commissioner White stated the letter received from the Brindisi association raised the concern that
overtlow parking may be totally prohibited on Ambrosia both to Brindisi and the park and asked for clarification on this issue. Mr. Johnson stated he was not aware of a proposal that the portion of Ambrosia
from Poinsettia northerly to the park entrance would be established as a no parking zone on one or both
sides. He said the City is not planning to establish a no parking zone. There may be a short distance of
red curb put in at the driveway in the future if it becomes a problem.
Commissioner Segall asked if a parking problem could be addressed quickly since there's a CUP
attached to the project. Mr. Johnson replied they could address it through the CUP process. He said it's
not unrealistic to expect some street parking in and around a city park. There may be times when on-
street parking is needed because of the type of events. If it were a chronic problem, the City would
address it through the CUP process.
prohibited in the park. Mr. Rideout stated that the project CUP has a condition stating that Jazz in the
Commissioner Segall said that as the CUP is currently written a city concert or some large event would be
Park or an event of that magnitude will not occur at this location because there isn't adequate parking.
Regarding the previous access question, Don Rideout wanted to add that the disclosure documents don't
talk about access off Ambrosia, but the Avlara Master Plan does indicate access to the park off Ambrosia.
Commissioner Baker wanted to know what kinds of activities are anticipated in the Community Center to
possibly alleviate some of the traffic and parking fears of the Brindisi residents.
Mr. Cahill stated the purpose of the recreation center and the large community room is to fulfill a long-
standing program need in their recreation program to have a facility for larger events. He said their staff is
inundated with requests at their existing facilities to have a venue for larger events.
Gail Watts, Recreation Supervisor 11, stated they have planned a variety of activities in the Community
Center. She said it has a dance room for exercise, martial arts, and dance classes for both children and adults. A multipurpose room is planned to be used for board meetings for non-profit organizations, offsite
there. There will be a catering kitchen where they can have cooking classes. There will also be a senior
meetings for area businesses, clubs, organizations, etc. They also may have some addrawing classes in
lounge in the community center. She said they are looking at a larger multipurpose room that will host a
who have a group of 200 people and they have to refer them to other cities.
variety of social activities such as weddings and anniversary parties. There is a big demand for people
Commissioner Segall asked what the maximum number of people is that could be at any event. Ms;
Watts said they were planning for a room capacity of 300 for the community building.
on experience with other parks, it would work and events would not always be happening at the same
Commissioner Segall asked if the 270 parking spaces would be enough. Mr. Rideout replied that based
time. If there is a recurring problem with this, adjustments could be made to the schedule so it doesn't
happen.
good job of booking the facilities so they have enough parking for the type of venue they are having at the
Ms. Watts added that they have this issue with the other parks and they try to be good neighbors and do a
facility.
Commissioner White asked how noise containment for music and any other noise generated from evening
parties would be monitored by the City. Ms. Watts said the community center is located high on a bluff
and it's not near any homes. They have a security guard program within the facility and security guards 83
"7
* Planning Commission Minutes ' /: February 20,2002 Page 6
are required for large parties, and they also have staff in the building whenever it is rented. If they do get
a concern, they react right away. She said they make sure applicants know they are in a neighborhood
area and that the noise must be contained.
the CUP indicating that music outside of the building would have to stop at 1O:OO p.m. There could be
Commissioner White asked if there would be a noise curfew. Mr. Rideout replied there is a condition in
music inside the building after that.
Dave Millikan. Recreation Supervisor, stated that generally Friday and Saturday nights are the only nights
they go past 1O:OO. The CUP for the park is generally 1O:OO p.m.. but it could go later in the community
center on a Friday or Saturday.
the priority system in the rules and regulations is that first priority is for City activities, second priority goes
Chairperson Trigas asked if there is a priority list for Garlsbad residents or businesses. Mr. Millikan said
to non-profit groups that do not have paid management, and the last priority is for non-resident
businesses. He said resident groups are taken care of first and the fees are scaled accordingly so non-
resident group in a small room. resident businesses would pay considerably more than a resident group. There would be no fee for a
Commissioner Heineman wanted to know if there was still a heavy influx of people from Encinitas using the parks. Mr. Millikan said that happens more in the Stagecoach area because traditionally Encinitas,
There is a timeframe that residents can put in requests and then it is opened up to nonresidents.
Leucadia. and La Costa were combined on a lot of their activities, but residents will have first choice.
the process involved in determining what activities would be held at the park and how they got input from
Commissioner Segall commented there were no tennis courts planned and asked for an explanation on
the public. Mr. Milligan said there is limited space for various activities. They decided on a playground,
soccer field. a baseball field, and an outdoor basketball court. He said there are going to be 11 tennis
courts at the Poinsettia Park eventually.
Mr. Cahill added that they had two public workshops in the past 6-12 months and all the neighbors were
invited to attend and they solicited their input. That input played directly into the program for the park.
City Council asked them to also solicit additional written input. They placed copies of all the master
planning components and some survey sheets at the libraries and Stagecoach Park and they received
about 200 written comments. He said tennis did not rank very high in this particular application, but they
did get a few requests. There are existing tennis facilities in close proximity and Poinsettia Park is and
will be the site of the City tennis complex when it is built out.
Chairperson Trigas asked how many attended the two public workshops. Mr. Cahill said they were
within the 600-foot radius throughout the entire Zone 19 park area. They also noticed all the Aviara
sparsely attended. about 30 at the first one and 20-25 at the second one. They sent notices to residents
homeowners associations.
requires a process to solicit public input and they received 168 written suggestions for naming the park.
Commissioner Segall asked if they have reached a name for the park. Mr. Cahill said Council Policy 48
The overwhelming recommendation is to name it Aviara Community Park to reflect its location in the
community and Staff is supporting that recommendation. He said Parks & Recreation is meeting oh
and the recommendation will go to the City Council in March.
February 2ist and one of the agenda items is to consider that name and they expect it will be approved
showed Ambrosia as the access point and asked if all the residents would have a copy of the Master
Commissioner Segall said he wanted to follow up on Mr. Rideout's comment that the Aviara Master Plan
and to anyone interested in the development of the Aviara area. Plan. Mr. Rideout said he didn't know if all the residents have a copy, but it's available for all residents
resolution: Condition #23 indicates that exterior lights have to be turned off at 1O:OO p.m. Condition 24
Mr. Rideout highlighted the following conditions in Resolution 5109 which is the Conditional Use Permit
the building has to stop at 1O:OO p.m. Condition 26 says Jazz in the Park is prohibited. Condition 27
indicates playing fields are not to be used after 1O:OO p.m. Condition 25 indicates that music exterior to
indicates that concurrent activities that exceed the parking capacity of the site will not be allowed.
Planning Commission Minutes February 20,2002
Jeanne Altman, 6351 Alexander Circle, Carlsbad, stated she did not understand how the entrance to the
out. If weddings with 200 people are held there, there is no way they will ever be able to turn out with 200
park can be allowed on Ambrosia when it literally will be impossible for the residents to make a left turn
cars going in and out. If a traffic light is put in on the corner of Poinsettia and Ambrosia, that would just
back up the traffic even further coming out of the park. She wanted someone to explain how they are
going to exit when a lot of things are going on. She said they have repeatedly asked for some alternative
to be found to move the entrance to the park off of Ambrosia. From everything they were given when they
concerned about the parking on the street because they have very limited guest or extra parking within
bought their homes, they understood that Ambrosia would remain a cul-de-sac. They are also very
Brindisi. so if there is overflow traffic from the park that will create another problem.
Mr. Rideout stated access needs to go where it is best for both safety and traffic flow purposes. For this
park site there is no other way to take access except from Ambrosia. He said it is shown that way in the
Aviara Master Plan for those reasons. There are civ standards related to intersection spacing and putting
way to provide access to that park site.
the access onto Poinsettia anywhere else would violate that standard. He said there is simply no other
traffic signal called a queuing detector. If vehicles back up from the traffic signal the queuing detector
Mr. Johnson stated that when the traffic signal goes in there is a feature that can be installed as part of the
one way to keep the vehicles from remaining in a backed up condition for a lengthy time. He said the
puts a call in to the signal controller and then a green indication is provided for Ambrosia. That would be
relatively non-peaking characteristics of a park should prevent exiting problems from the Brindisi project.
However, on occasion there may be an event leaving where there is a flow of traffic leaving the park
causing somewhat of a congested condition, and someone coming out of Brindisi at the same time would
experience that queuing on Ambrosia. Realistically most people will allow someone into the queue. He said they don’t expect large simultaneous exiting from Brindisi and the park to cause any major problems.
Chairperson Trigas wanted to clarify if traffic studies were done on the primary times that Brindisi
residents leave. Mr. Johnson replied that there was no specific traffic study for that, but typically it is the
a.m. and p.m. that generates most of the traffic from residential developments, with sporadic traffic in and out at other times. Typically park use isn’t in the 6:30-8:30 a.m. commute time so it should not be a major problem for exiting Brindisi.
Commissioner Baker asked if the 25-acre parcel were converted to housing would the ADT be more or
less than a park generates. Mr. Johnson said it would depend on the density of the 25 acres. The trip
generation from a single-family residence is ten trips per day. If there were 100 homes, it would be a
thousand, so it would be about the same, and most would be at peak hours.
Chairperson Trigas asked if there were any other possible access points. Mr. Cahill said the irregular
shape of the development suggests that the topography is rather difficult to the north and west. There is existing residential to the east and there is physically no other location to take access to the site.
Mr. Johnson added that the Staff Report talks about a driveway on Poinsettia for two maintenance
vehicles per month, but that access point was not anticipated to be public access.
would ever go through. He asked if a white barricade and sign are currently located there. Mr. Johnsdn
Commissioner Segall commented that Ms. Altman stated there was no indication that the cul-de-sac
they install signs at all locations and that location should have that sign.
stated there is an M9 barricade that is white with a sign indicating future access and reflectors. He said
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Baker and duly seconded that the Planning
Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 5108 adopting a
Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Addendum, and a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 5156
approving MP 177(DD) and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5109,
5110. and 5111 approving CUP 01-22, HDP 01-07, and CDP 01-31 based upon
the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
-7
Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2002 Page 8
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Segall stated he supports the project and understands the concerns of the residents and the issue of traffic on Ambrosia, He added that with the safeguard of the CUP, if traffic issues become a
major concern in the area, they could be addressed fairly quickly.
Commissioner White stated she supports the project because she thinks it will enhance the quality of life in Carlsbad and hopes that people in the surrounding residential areas will enjoy the proximity of the park
when it‘s completed. She stated she is concerned about the traffic on Ambrosia and expects the City to
do everything possible to monitor it carefully and to be responsive to the concerns of the Brindisi and
other neighboring residents.
Commissioner Heineman stated he favors the project. and thinks the community room use aspects are
very good. He felt they can have confidence in Parks and Recreation to closely monitor the activities and
to make corrections where necessary as they have in other city parks.
Commissioner Whitton stated he was also in favor of the project
Commissioner Baker stated she supports the project and suggested to the Brindisi residents that it may
not be as bad as they’re worried about. Having served on the Parks and Recreation Commission, she
said she has had experience with people concerned about parks in the neighborhood and they turned out
not to be as much of a problem as the neighbors feared. In general they are a good thing to have in neighborhoods and she applauded the City of Carlsbad for continuing to provide park land and park space
to the residents with many activities.
Chairperson Trigas stated she agreed with the comments and supports the project and thinks it will be a wonderful asset for the community. She also liked the idea that there is the ability to rectify a problem if it
occurs.
AYES: VOTE: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Heineman, Segall, White. and
Whitton
6-0-0
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECESS
Chairperson Trigas called a recess at 659 p.m.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
#6 and stated that a letter dated February 19,2002, was received just before the meeting.
Chairperson Trigas called the meeting back to order at 7:07 p.m. She opened the public hearing on Item
6. SDP 01-16 - SADDLERIDGE -A Site Development Plan to approve floor plans and elevations
for 26 single-family residential homes on approved lots that are a minimum 9,600 square feet; ttfe
east of Rancho Santa Fe Road and sough of Calk Acervo in Local Facilities Management Zone
proposed entry monumentation, fence design and location on the 9.92 acre site generally located
11.
Mr. Wayne introduced the next agenda item and stated that Christer Westman would make the
presentation. The Commission’s action on the item is final unless appealed.
Christer Westman. Senior Planner, stated the project is the review of the exterior elevations and the
proposed 20-foot or greater front yard setbacks, side yard building separation of 13 feet or greater and
placement of three different homes for 26 lots which is Unit 1 of the Shelley Tract Map. The applicant has
than the maximum allowed. Each model will be detailed with a Spanish, Tuscan, or ltalianate
rear yard setbacks that are typically greater than 40 feet. Building heights and lot coverage are both less
architectural style. The homes range from 4,100 to 4,500 square feet and each model is a two-story.
EXHIBIT 7
I (We) apped ths deciaian of the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission
bthsCarlsbadc*Coundl' (MP 177(DD)/CUP 01-22/HDP 01-07/CDP 01-31
Date of DecisiMl you am appealing. zone 19 Park February 20, 2002
1200 C4-d Village Drive - Cadsbad. California 42008-1 gee - (61 9) 434-2808 @
JUL-22-2002 RON 07:54 AM CITY OF CARLSBAD FAX NO. 760 602 e553
Appellant:
Appeal of:
Date of Decision:
Subject of Appeal:
Reasons for Appeal:
P. 03
,A 6..
_.
Sore1 Norlin, on behalf of the Brindisi at Aviara Premier Collection
Association
Decision of the Carlsbad Planning Commission, specifically the
addendum to the EL4 Part I1 to develop a community park on a site
located at the northern terminus of Ambrosia Lane within Local Facilities
Management Zone 19.
February 20,2002
Carlsbad Planning Commiss'ion February 20,2002, Itcms MP 177
(DD)/CUP 01-22/HDP 01-07DCP 01-31 -Zone 19 Park, Resolutions No.
5108,5156,5109,5110,5111
Planner: Elaine Blackbum
Engineer: Jeremy Riddle
Request for a Minor Master Plan Amendment to the Aviara Masfcr Plan
for Planning Area 32 and a Conditional Use Permit, Hillside Development
Panit, and Coastal Development Pennit, and addendum to the EIA Part I1
to develop a community park on a site located at the northern terminus of
Ambrosia Lanc within Local Facilities Management Zone 19.
The Bnndisi at Aviara Premier Collection Association specifically appeals
the development of a community park on a site located at the northern
terminus of Ambrosia Lanc within Local Facilities Management Zone 19.
We oppose the Planning Commission's decision to place the entrance fo
the proposed community park at the northern terminus of Ambrosia Lane.
The decision makers failed to adequately investigate and address noisc
abatement issues, increase in traffc/traffic control issues, and safety
issues. Thc decision makcrs failed to properly cnsure that this proposal
will not dctrimentally affcct the neighboring communities, and have
further not proven that the entrance to the proposed park cannot be located
at another site within Zone 19. Decision makers have inadequately
investigated the impact of the proposcd community center, the size of
community center, and thc issuance of future alcohol permits in
connection with the placemcnt of the community park
__ City of Carlsbad
Records Management Department
August 12,2002
Sore1 Nolin
6349 Alexandri Circle
Carlsbad, CA 92009
RE: ZONE 19 (AVIARA COMMUNITY PARK) - LCPA 02-03 AND APPEAL OF
PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MP 177(DD)/CUP 01-22IHDP 01-
07/CDP 01-31
The Carlsbad City Council, at its meeting of August 6, 2002, heard the above referenced
matter and adopted Resolution No. 2002-236, approving the project and upholding the
decision of the Planning Commission. Enclosed for your records is a copy of the fully
executed Resolution.
The Council also directed that the installation of the traffic light and queue detector be
expedited, and directed that the appeal fee be refunded. Our office has begun the process
to refund the fee per Council direction.
Enc. (1)
cc: David M. Peters, Esq.
Brindisi At Aviara
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989 - (760) 434-2808 @
PROOF OF PUBLICATION This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.) fi I. jj (z, yL/S STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego r
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 Time
formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and
llrnes-Advocate and which newspapers
been adjudged newspapers of ge
circulation by the Superior Court of the Cou
San Diego, State of California, for the citi
and San Diego County; that the notice of 1
Escondido. Oceanside, Carlsbad, Solana E
the annexed is a printed copy (set in lyp smaller than nonpareil), has been publish
each regular and entire Issue of said news[
and not in any supplement thereof 01 following dates, to-wit:
I certify (or declare) under penally of perjur the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at % AW64 , Califo
Signature
LiCT1379900
NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising
P. 01
FAX TRANSMITTAL
July 23, 2002
TIME SENT: 80055 G-*., Number of Pages Being Transmitted (Including Cover Sheet):2
TO: Janice
COMPANY: City Clerk
PHONE #: x2927
FAX #: 760-720-6917
FROM: Michele Masterson
DEPT.: Planning Department
PHONE: (760) 602-4615
FAX: (760) 602-8559
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
Janice,
Attached is the corrected Notice of Public Hearing for the Zone 19 Park.
Michele
1635 Faraday Avenue -3 Carlsbad, California 92008 *:* (760) 602-461 5
P. 02
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
DESCRIPTION: Request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mdendums 1 and 2: Mltigation Monltoring and Reporting Program; Local Coastal Plan Amendment and the appeal of the Planning Commission approval of Minor
Master Plan Amendment, Conditlonal Use Permit. Hillside Development Permit. Coastal Development Permit for
the development of a community park.
LOCATION:
This project is within the City of Carlsbad's Coastal Zone located at the northern terminus of Ambrosia Ibne within Local Facilities Management Zone 19.
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER
215-080-27
APPLICANT City of Carlsbad
Carlsbad, CA 92008 1635 Faraday Avenue
A public hearing on the above-proposed project will be held by the City Council In the Council Chambers, 12UO Carlsbad Vlllage Drive. Carlsbad. California, on August 0, 2002, at 600 p.m.
Persons are cordially invited to allend the public hearing and provide the decision makers whh any oral or written comments
testimony. questions and a decislon~ Copies of the staff report will be available on or after August 2, 2002.
they may have regardine the project. The pmjed will be described and a staff recommendation given, followed by public
Carlsbad Planning Department, Monday thmuQh Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Friday 8:OO a.m. lo 500 ,&m. at 1635
If you have any questions. or would like to be notified of the decision. please conhfl Elaine Blackburn at the City of
Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad. California 92008, (760) 6024621.
CWLGN~E. / APPEAL+
If you challenge the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Addmdurns 1 and 2; Mitigalion Manitwing and Reporting Program; Local Coaslal Plan Amendment and the appeal of the PlanninQ Commission approval of Minor Master Plan Amendment
only those Issue5 you or someone else raised at lhe public hearing described In this notica. or in written correspondence
Conditional Use Permit. Hillside Development Permit. Coastal Development Permit in court, you may be iimited to raising
delivered to the City of Carlsbad prior to the publlc hearlng~
s Coastal Commissim Appealable Project: 0 This site is located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area. @ This site is not located wilhin the coastal Zone Appealable Area.
Where the decision is appealable to the Coastal Commission, appeals must be filed with the Coastal Commission within ten
(10) working days after the Coastal Comrnisslon has received a Notice of Final Action from the City of Carlshd. Applicants will be notlfied by the Coastal Commission of the date that their appeal period will conclude. The San Die(1o office of the Coastal Commission is located at 7575 Metmpolilan Drive. Sulte 103. San Dlego. Callfornia 92108-4402.
CASE FILE: LCPA 02-031MP 177(DDyCUP 01-22iHDP 01-07/CDP 01-31
CASE NAME ZONE 19 PARK
PUBLISH: FRIDAY. JULY 26,2002
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
DESCRIPTION:
Monitoring and Reporting Program; Local Coastal Plan Amendment and the appeal of the
Request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum 1 and 2; Mitigation
Planning Commission approval of Minor Master Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit,
Hillside Development Permit, and Coastal Development Permit for the development of a
community park.
LOCATION:
This project is within the City of Carlsbad's Coastal Zone located at the northern terminus of
Ambrosia Lane within Local Facilities Management Zone 19.
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER:
215-080-27
APPLICANT:
City of Carlsbad
Carlsbad, CA 92008
1635 Faraday Avenue
A public hearing on the above-proposed project will be held by the City Council in the Council Chambers,
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, on August 6, 2002, at 6:OO p.m.
Persons are cordially invited to attend the public hearing and provide the decision makers with any oral or
written comments they may have regarding the project. The project will be described and a staff
recommendation given, followed by public testimony, questions and a decision. Copies of the staff report
will be available on or after August 2, 2002.
If you have any questions, or would like to be notified of the decision, please contact Elaine Blackburn at
the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, Monday through Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Friday 8:00
a.m. to 5:OO p.m. at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008, (760) 602-4621
CHALLENGElAPPEAL
If you challenge the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum 1 and 2; Mitigation Monitoring and
of Minor Master Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Hillside Development Permit, and/or Coastal
Reporting Program; Local Coastal Plan Amendment and the appeal of the Planning Commission approval
at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of
Development Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised
Carlsbad, Attention: City Clerks Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, prior to the
public hearing.
Coastal Commission Appealable Project: 0 This site is located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area.
This site is not located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area
Where the decision is appealable to the Coastal Commission, appeals must be filed with the Coastal Commission within ten (IO) working days after the Coastal Commission has received a Notice of Final Action from the City of Carlsbad. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission of the date that
their appeal period will conclude. The San Diego Office of the Coastal Commission is located at 7575 Metropolitan Drive, Suite 103, San Diego, California 92108-4402.
CASE FILE: LCPA 02-03/MP 177(DD)/CUP 01-22/HDP 01-07/CDP 01-31
CASE NAME: ZONE 19 PARK
PUBLISH: FRIDAY, JULY 26,2002
ZONE I9 PARK
LCPA 02-03/MP 177(DD)/CUP 01-221
HDP Ol-O7/CDP 01-31
Smooth Feed Sheets" Use template for 5160@
CARLSBAD UNlF SCHOOL DlST
801 PINE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NORTH COAST HWY
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
U.S. FISH &WILDLIFE
2730 LOKER AVE WEST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY
SERVICES
CITY OF ENClNlTAS
505 S VULCAN AVE
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
VISTA CA 92085
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STE 100
91 74 SKY PARK CT
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DlST
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
STE 103
7575 METROPOLITAN DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKWENGINEERING
DEPT
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
SANDAG
STE 800
401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
SD COUNTY PLANNING
STE B
5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
I.P.U.A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMlN AND
URBAN STUDIES
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
PETERS & FREEDMAN
ATTN DAVID M PETERS ESQ
STE 220
191 CALLE MAGDALENA
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT PLANNER
ELAINE BLACKBURN
07/18/2002
AWRY@ Address Labels
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
CO SHUKDEV TANTOD
1985 PALOMAR OAKS CORP
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1985 PALOMAR OAKS WAY
llse template for 5160@
AIR PRODUCTS&CHEMICALS INC
C/O J C SCHUMACHER CO
1969 PALOMAR OAKS WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ALTMAN GEORGE&JUDITH TRUST
05-14-01
6351 ALEXANDRI CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009
AMEN STEVEN RBJEANETTE M
P 0 BOX 3223
LIVING TRUST 12-14-01
LA JOLLA CA 92038
ARNOLD ROBERT M&RUTHE P
TRUST 03-10-97
1743 PIPIT CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
AVIARA BRlNDlSl LLC
C/O INSTITUTIONAL HOUSING PARTNER
IRVINE CA 92612 19800 MACARTHUR BLVD #700
BACA RICK&MARLENE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1709 CARISSA WAY
AD J HOLDINGS L L C
C/O ARlE DEJONG
622 E MISSION RD
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
ALEXANIAN ARLET
6439 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ALTUNGY EDOUARD&MARCHAL-
ALTUNGY SABINE
6483 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ANDERSON MAX H&DIANE L
6321 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ATKINSON RONALD E&RUTH E
6396 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
AVIARA BRlNDlSl LLC
BARTELS SANDRA M
6423 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
AIR PRODUCTS&CHEMICALS INC
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1969 PALOMAR OAKS WAY
ALLISON SHARI L
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1739 BLUEBIRD LN
AMBLER HEATHER
6435 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ARME JOHN C&MARY A TRS
6430 KINGLET WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO
C/O P&T TAX DEPT
P 0 BOX 512485
LOS ANGELES CA 90051
AVIARA SERENATA LLC
C/O INSTITUTIONAL HOUSING
PARTNER
IRVINE CA 92612
19800 MACARTHUR BLVD #700
BEHDIN NASSER&BADIEE FATEMEH
6383 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BERARDINELLI
DOMINICK&ANNELISE
175 CHEROKEE WAY
PORTOLA VALLEY CA 94028
BERG LIVING TRUST 10-17-89
6472 ALEXANDRI CIR
BLYTHE JACQUELINE M
6379 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
BOLENDER THOMAS L&KAMPS
LESLIE
6470 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BOURNE STEPHANIE B
6467 KINGBIRD LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BOWEN WILLIAM P&MARJORIE
KINGSBURG CA 93631
14088 E KAMM AVE
BOWERS BERKLEY REVOCABLE BREHM-AVIARA 111 DEVELOPMENT
TRUST 11-03-00 ASSOCIATES L P
6489 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92008 1935 CAMINO VlDA ROBLE #ZOO CAR
DA ROBLE #200
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 51613~
BRlNDlSl AT AVIARA PREMIER
COLLECTION HOMEOWNERS
C/O N N JAESCHKE INC
9610 WAPLES ST
SAN DlEGO CA 92121
BREHM-AVIARA 111 DEVE
1935 CAM1
BROCK CARISSA L
6480 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BROWN JOHN K
6392 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BUDA ROBERT F 111
CARLSBAD CA 92009 1700 CARISSA WAY CACHUELA JOSE M JRgCYNTHlA G
6411 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CAIN DANIEL J&SHARONE L
6412 CROSSBILL CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CANNON LIVING TRUST 04-03-00
6499 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CARROLL WILLIAM R&CAROL J
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6338 ALEXANDRI CIR
CHOl KYOUNG S TRUST 06-10-94
BARRINGTON IL 60010 1500 MACALPIN CIR CHOl LAISHAN VERA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1704 BLUEBIRD LN CHU DAVID&NATALIE
6407 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
COGBILL RONALD L&CHRISTINE L
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1719 BLUEBIRD LN COLOME DENNIS M
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1708 CARISSA WAY CITY OF CARLSBAD
COOPER BILLIE
1712 BLUEBIRD LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
COSTES CYNTHIA L
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1708 BLUEBIRD LN DAMUTH ROBERT&MICHELLIE
SAN MARCOS CA 92078
1536 COPPER CT
DAVIS JOHN P&JULIE A TRUST 05-
04-88
6446 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DAYBREAK COMMU HURCH DAYBREAK COMMUNITY CHURCH
2270 CAMINO VlDA ROBLE #M
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DEERING SHARON J
6385 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DEITCH DONALD I
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1738 CAMASSIA LN DEMORO DOUGLAS W
6438 KINGLET WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DIETZLER JOSEPH M&NORLIN
SOREL L DENEROFF ERIC S
6413 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DEVREKERRENE&ANNE
2940 WEST HAWKRIDGE DR
LA CRESCENTA CA 91214 6349 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DONDERO FREDERICK F
JR&COLLEEN
1723 BLUEBIRD LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DOSTAL ROSALIE LIVING TRUST 04-
20-90
6336 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DOWNS LANCE RGTEPHANIE H
6434 KINGLET WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160@
6444 ALEXANDRI CIR
FANNING PATRICK %LINDA M
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DRABEK THOMAS J
1726 CAMASSIA LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
FALLER RONALD L&DONNA M
6463 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
FARLEY RENAE D TRUST 11-08-01 FlRENZl KAREN A
6452 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 6447 KINGBIRD LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
FITZPATRICK BENJAMIN E&BERTHA FOLKEDAHL 6305 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
FOLKEDAHL SCOU A&ALLEN-
6363 ALEXANDRI CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009
FREED SHARON A
6435 KIWI PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
FRIJON LOUIS J
6474 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GALL1 JAESON PBOKEEFE MEGHAN GAD HONG-GUANG&LIN XIAO-
L
6459 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GENTZLER TAMARA L
6325 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HONG
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1715 BLUEBIRD LN
GOETZ MARY
6341 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HAGAN GERALD C&PATRICIA A HALDEMAN JENNIFER D
6442 KINGLET WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009 6478 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HALEY NANCY R
6369 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HILL KEVIN D&BOBBI L
6463 KINGBIRD RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HOPEFUL ASSOCIATES L L C
515 S FIGUEROA ST
LOS ANGELES CA 90071
HAWTHORNE FAMILY TRUST 03-10-
89
P 0 BOX 708
SAN DlEGO CA 921 12
HOLDEN FRANK F&JOAN G
P 0 BOX 131388
CARLSBAD CA 92013
HOSS NEAL R&STOLLAR GIG1 5
6398 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
FITZGERALD ELEANOR L
6437 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
FORNEY FAMILY TRUST 10-26-77
6359 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
FRUITLAND CORPORATION
C/O JOHN WEERSING
P 0 BOX 1732
TEMECULA CA 92593
GATTIS JEFFREY A
6419 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GREENIG RICHARD L&CLAUDETTE
A
1743 BLUEBIRD LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HALENZA JUSTIN M
6327 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HECHT-BAUMANN JOAN
REVOCABLE TRUST 01-08-99
1703 CAMASSIA LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HOLLISTER FAMILY TRUST 06-18-01
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1701 CARISSA WAY
HUBER COLETTE TRUST 08-24-93
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1742 PIPIT CT
Smooth Feed Sheets" llse template for 5160@
INNES TIMOTHY J
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1741 CAMASSIA LN
KAELIN JOSEPH&REED
6334 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JENNINGS BRIAN .%THERESA T
6400 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KAMDAR BHARAT V&MEERA B
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1716 BLUEBIRD LN
KATAREY SREENIVAS R&KULKARNI KATTUS DgSHARON
6406 KINGLET WAY
HlMGAURl K
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1710 CAMASSIA LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KHRUSTINSKIY MAXIM
6462 FICUS PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LANDIN RICHARD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1734 CAMASSIA LN
LEVENTHAL BARBARA J
6357 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LULU MARK A
7405 PELICAN ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KLABER W DANIELgTINA B M
1705 CARISSA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LAWHON KELLY L
6476 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LOHR GRANT W&BRENDA C
6400 CROSSBILL CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MAHASSENI REZA
6454 KINGLET WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JEWEL BREVEN
6377 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KAPSAL JOYCE J
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85259
11790 E BELLAVISTADR
KAUFMAN THOMAS G&PATRICIA A
5858 PALA MESA DR
SAN JOSE CA 95123
KNUDSEN PATRICIA 6416 GADWALL CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LESTED DOUGLAS C&DEBRA
6371 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LOWRIE WILLIAM E
6443 KIWI PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MALCHlODl NAlDA L
6466 FICUS PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MALONE SUSAN J TRUST 12-13-93
6441 ALEXANDRI CIR
MANDROIAN MARIE TRUST 05-21-87 MANUS EVA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6493 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6491 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MARTINEZ IRMA C
6419 GADWALL CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MAURER ALLYSON R
6347 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MASS CHRISTOPHER L
LOS ANGELES CA 90064
10525 TENNESSEE AVE
MATHESON-INGLE MARLENE G
6343 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MCLAUGHLIN STEVEN&LISA D
6409 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MCLOUGHLIN KENNETH ABKAREN
D
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1735 PIPIT CT
Smooth Feed Sheets”
00
MCNANIE ROSALYNN TRUST 07-07-
6405 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MEZZANOTTI NANCY A
6459 KINGBIRD RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MINK ROLAND G
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1737 CAMASSIA LN
MORONEY A GIG1
6467 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
NELSON JOHN AgDORlNE H
14814 SW 91ST CT
TIGARD OR 97224
PALOMAR OAKS BUSINESS CENTER
ASSN
C/O CHARLES DUNN CO
888 PROSPECT ST #I 10
LA JOLLA CA 92037
PAPALIA MICHAEL V&ELIZABETH L
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1733 CAMASSIA LN
PIC0 ALLISON A
6414 KINGLET WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
POINSETTIA HEIGHTS
HOMEOWNERS ASSN
2385 CAMINO VlDA ROBLE #IO7
C/O WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING
CARLSBAD CA 92009
POWELL ROGER&HEEREN LOIS J
CARLSBAD CA 92013
P 0 BOX 131433
MEHTA PRASHANT P&DARSHINI P
6418 KINGLET WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MIDTHUN RAYMOND E&MARCELLA
A
6329 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MIRDAS JOANNE T
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1700 BLUEBIRD LN
MURPHY THOMAS P&JANET L
6446 KINGLET WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
NETTLES ROBERT G&JANNETTE
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST
1731 BLUEBIRD LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
C/O CARRAMERCA NPAYABLE
PALOMAR OAKS L L C
2600 PARK TOWER DR #10
VIENNA VA 22180
PEDERSEN STANLEY K&DIANA T
LAS VEGAS NV 89144
1350 N TOWN CENTER DR #2087
PIRCH WILLIAM G&CAROL J LIVING
TRUST 05-14-01
1724 BLUEBIRD LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
POINSETTIA HEIGHTS
HOMEOWNERS A
C/O WESTE AClFlC HOUSING
2385 C 0 VlDA ROBLE #I07 ,””**-
RADEBAUGH KATHLEEN C
6427 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use template for 5160@
6471 KINGBIRD LN
MEYER GARY L&KRISTINE A
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MIKUTA STANLEY T&RAOME M
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1319 SAVANNAH LN
MORGAN FAMILY TRUST 03-15-87
6381 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
NAMVAR DAVOUD A&ROSHAN B
6390 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCONNOR TRUST 11-20-96
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1706 CAMASSIA LN
PERRY KEVIN R&KIMBERLY L
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1735 BLUEBIRD LN
AD CA 92009
P 0 BOX 36600
POTENZIANI FRANK A&CHERYL L
ALBUQUERQUE NM 87176
RAPKIN ROBERT E&BARBARA G
6361 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 516@
REDEEMER BY THE SEA LUTHERAN REITER TERRY&MARGARET
CHURCH OF CARLSBAD 6 SADDLEBACK RD
6355 CORTE DEL ABET0 #IO0 PALOS VERDES PENINSULA CA PALOS
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ES PENINSULA CA
90274
REYNOLDS GARY H
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1730 CAMASSIA LN
REYNOLDS THOMAS H
6410 KINGLET WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROBISON JEHU M JR&ANNA L ROSS TlFFANl L
641 5 GADWALL CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6373 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SAMONS FAMILY TRUST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1720 BLUEBIRD LN
SCALZO DENISE M
6448 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SHAW JIM L&SHARRON G
6450 KINGLET WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SILVER REAL ESTATE PARTNERS
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
1260 WHITE SANDS DR
SMITH PAUL E
20065 N TEALSTONE DR
SURPRISE AZ 85374
SOURADA VACLAV&VERA
6427 GADWALL CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SAMSAM-SHARIAT SEYED
6475 KINGBIRD
M&DAMADZADEHROYA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROBINSON WILLIAM R&LYNNE D
6331 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
RYBlCKl WILLIAM E&CONNIE L
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1728 BLUEBIRD LN
SANDQUIST FRED C&SANDRA L
6408 CROSSBILL CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SHARAK DAVID E&NICOL-SHARAK
MICHELE D
6355 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SHARAR DOLORES A
6458 FICUS PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SHAYMAN WILLIAM S
6394 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SIMONS FAMILY TRUST 12-18-84
331 1 CAMlNlTO CAB0 VIEJO
DEL MAR CA 92014
SMYTHE GERALDINE A TRUST 10-
09-91
6465 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SPITZER STEPHEN N&HAEJA L
6428 GADWALL CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SlLlDES NANCY
6451 KINGBIRD LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SlPE LIVING TRUST 11-09-00
6345 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SNEDEKER SARAH E
6424 GADWALL CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SSR WESTERN MULTIFAMILY L LC
C/O ARTHUR ANDERSEN
P 0 BOX 50748
DALLAS TX 75250
SSR WESTERN MULTIFAMIL
Use template for 5160@ Smooth Feed Sheets"
SSR WESTERN MULTlFAMl
DALLA 75250
/LLC C/O ARTHUR A
P 0 BOX
J8BARBARA S
STEINKIRCHNER PETER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1744 BLUEBIRD LN
SULLIVAN LYNN A
6319 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
TAYLOR ARTHUR RgPHYLLlS D
CARLSBAD CA 92009
171 1 CAMASSIA LN
TOLES KENNETH W
6387 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
VANEVERY GORDON R&DIANA L
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1731 PIPIT CT
P 0 BOX
75250
DAL X 75250
DALL 75250
STEPP JOHN W
6495 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
TAMBURlNl HECTOR A
SAN DlEGO CA 92121
11011 TORREYANA RD
TAYLOR REVOCABLE TRUST 04-02-
96
6439 KIWI PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
TUNA MUSTAFA E
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1739 PIPIT CT
VEITH DAVID&KELLY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
171 5 CAMASSIA LN
SSR WESTERN MULTIFA
C/O ARTHUR
STAKSTON BENJAMIN G
6403 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
STEWART STEPHEN R
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1729 CAMASSIA LN
TARANTINO CARMINE
CXONSTANCE J
6470 FICUS PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
TEKNON L L C
4630A NORTH AVE
C/O PROVIDENCE SEMINARS INC
OCEANSIDE CA 92056
TYLMAN MICHAEL A
6455 KINGBIRD RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
VILLA/PETERSEN FAMILY TRUST 10-
27-00
1738 PIPIT CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160@
VlTLlN LIMITED PARTNERS1
5 DORMAN AVE
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94124
WARREN CHRISTOPHER
6420 GADWALL CT
P&DEBORAH M
CARLSBAD CA 92009
iIP
AD CA 92008
WALLSTEDT ROLAND 6497 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
WARREN KELLY G
6454 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
W&ANN P
WHITE DOROTHY J TRUST 07-23-96
1704 CARISSA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ST WILLIAMS DAVID C
6467 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARL CA 92008
YU JI FENGUHANG LlQlNG YU JOSEPH JON G
6421 ALEXANDRI CIR 6433 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
WALSH JAMES V TRUST 06-14-01
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1740 BLUEBIRD LN
WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING-
POINSEnIA L P
5790 FLEET ST #210
CARLSBAD CA 92008
D CA 92008
WHITNEY ROBERT L&NINA M TRUST C/O JANE SANDERS
5055 AVENIDA ENCINAS #i20
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WOODS TERESA A
6404 CROSSBILL CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ZEMON FAMILY SURVIVING
SPOUSE TRUST A 05-02-94 E
1015 MUlR WAY
BELMONT CA 94002
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
OCCUPANT
6349 PALOMAR OAKS CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
OCCUPANT
OCCUPANT
CASSIA RD
OCCUPANT
OCCUPANT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1714 CAMASSIA LN
OCCUPANT
6431 KIWI PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ALEXANDRI CIR
OCCUPANT
CARLSBAD
OCCUPANT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6481 ALEXANDRI CIR
OCCUPANT
6350 PALOMAR OAKS CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
OCCUPANT
POINSE
OCCUPANT
6416 GROSBEAK CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1707 CAMASSIA LN
OCCUPANT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1713 CARISSA WY
OCCUPANT
1700 CARISSA WY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6417 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6485 ALEXANDRI CIR
Use template for 5160@
OCCUPANT
OCCUPANT
POINSET
OCCUPANT
6423 GADWALL CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1702 CAMASSIA LN
OCCUPANT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1709 CARISSA WY
OCCUPANT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1712 CARISSA WY
OCCUPANT
6425 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6491 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6305 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
OCCUPANT
ALEXANDRI
OCCUPANT
6437 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6444 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
OCCUPANT
6457 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6420 GADWALL CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6427 GADWALL CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6400 CROSSBILL CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6412 CROSSBILL CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1708 BLUEBIRD LN
OCCUPANT
6433 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6439 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6446 ALEXANDRI CIR
OCCUPANT
6452 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6461 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6424 GADWALL CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6419 GADWALL CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6404 CROSSBILL CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1700 BLUEBIRD LN
OCCUPANT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1712 BLUEBIRD LN
Use template for 5160@
OCCUPANT
6435 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6441 ALEXANDRI CIR
OCCUPANT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6448 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6454 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6474 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6428 GADWALL CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6415 GADWALL CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6408 CROSSBILL CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1704 BLUEBIRD LN
OCCUPANT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1715 CAMASSIA LN
Smooth Feed SheetsfM Use template for 5160@
OCCUPANT
6475 KINGBIRD LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
171 1 CAMASSIA LN
OCCUPANT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1703 CAMASSIA LN
OCCUPANT
6471 KINGBIRD LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6467 KINGBIRD LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6463 KINGBIRD LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6459 KINGBIRD LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6455 KINGBIRD LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6451 KINGBIRD LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1706 CAMASSIA LN
OCCUPANT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1710 CAMASSIA LN OCCUPANT
6447 KINGBIRD LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1701 CARISSA WY
OCCUPANT
6443 KIWI PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1705 CARISSA WY
OCCUPANT
6435 KIWI PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1704 CARISSA WY
OCCUPANT
6439 KIWI PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1708 CARISSA WY
OCCUPANT
6403 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6405 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6407 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6409 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6411 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6413 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6419 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT 6421 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6423 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6427 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6483 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
OCCUPANT
6489 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6497 ALEXANDRI CIR
OCCUPANT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6463 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6470 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6478 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6493 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6499 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6465 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6472 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT 6480 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use template for 5160@
OCCUPANT
6495 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6459 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6467 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6476 ALEXANDRI CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CALTRANS DISTRICT 11
BILL FIGGE
MAIL ST 50
P 0 BOX 85406
SAN DIEGO CA 92186-5406
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMIN WESTERN REG
BARRY BRAYER, AWP-8
PO BOX 92007
LOS ANGELES CA 90009
REG WATER QUALITY CONTROL BD
STE 100
9174 SKY PARK CT
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
RONALD M JAEGER
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION & HSG AGENCY CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK
PATRICIA W NEAL DEPUTY SEC HOUSING SUPERINTENDENT
STE 2450 1901 SPINNAKER DR
980 NINTH ST SAN BUENA VENTURA CA 93001
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
COASTAL CONSERVANCY
STE 1100
1330 BROADWAY
OAKLAND CA 94612
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
STE 102
GARY RESOURCE CONSER
DAVIS CA 95616
2121-C SECOND ST
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
722 JACKSON PL NW
CHAIRMAN
WASHINGTON DC 20006
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
LOS ANGELES DlST ENGINEER
PO BOX 271 1
LOSANGELES CA 90053
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
CLIFFORD EMMERLING, DIR
STE 350
901 MARKET ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103
STE 400
61 1 RYAN PLAZA DR
ARLINGTON TX 76011-4005
DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIV
P 0 BOX 944246
SACRAMENTO CA 94244-2460
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD &AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
STEVE SHAFFER, AGRICULTURE RESOURCES DOUG WICKIZER, ENVIR COORD
RM 100 P 0 BOX 944246
1220 N ST SACRAMENTO CA 94244-2460
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVE
450 GOLDEN GATE AV
DUNCAN LENT HOWARD, REG ADMIN
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RM 5504
1120 N ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
RM 700
110 WESTAST
SAN DlEGO CA 92101
ENERGY RESOURCES, CONSERVATION &
CHUCK NAJARIAN
DEVELOPMENT COMM
1516 NINTH ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
MARINE RESOURCES REGION, DR & G
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, SPR
350 GOLDEN SHORE
LONG BEACH CA 90802
NATIONAL OCEANIC &ATMOSPHERIC
ADMIN OCRMSMC4
1305 EAST-WEST HWY
SILVER SPRING MD 20910
NIORM - 3
OFFICE OF PLANNING & RESEARCH
OFFICE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
PO BOX 3044
SACRAMENTO CA 93044
SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION &
DEVMT COMMISSION
BILL TRAVIS
STE 2600
50 CALIFORNIA ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 941 11-4704
STATE LANDS COMMISSION
DWIGHT SANDERS
STE 1005
100 HOWE AV
SACRAMENTO CA 95825-8202
U S BUREAU OF LAND MGMT
STE RM "834
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
U S BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
MID-PACIFIC REGION
2800 COTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
U S FISH &WILDLIFE SERVICE
STE W-2605
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825-1888
U S ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
LILY ALYEA
STE 702
333 MARKET ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105-2197
WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BD
PO BOX 100
SACRAMENTO CA 95801
SANDAG-LAND USE COMMISS
NAN VALERIO
STE aoo
401 "B STREET
USDA - RURAL DEVELOPMENT
DEPT 4169
430 "G" ST
DAVIS CA 95616
CALIFORNIA RESOURCES AGENCIES
STE 131 1
1416 9TH ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
SAN DlEGO CA 92101
CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
JAN SOBEL
STE 128
5620 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
REG WATER QUALITY CONTROL BD
STE 100
91 74 SKY PARK CT
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340
CITY OF ENClNlTAS
COM DEV DEPT
505 S VULCAN AV
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
SANDAG-EXEC DIRECTOR
GARY GALLEGOS
STE 800
1ST INT'L PLAZA 401 "B" ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
LESLIE ESPOSITO
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
1893 AMELFI DR
ANTHONY & DICKY BONS
25709 HILLCREST AV
ESCONDIDO CA 92026-8650
U S FISH &WILDLIFE SERVICE
JOHN MARTIN
2730 LOKER AV WEST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
TABATA FARMS
PO BOX 1338
CARLSBAD CA 92018-1338
SIERRA CLUB S D CHAPTER
CRAIG ADAMS
3820 RAY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
CYRlLlMARY GIBSON
LOS ALAMITOS CA 90702
12142ARGYLE DR
LAKESHORE GARDENS
BILL McLEAN
7201 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOHN LAMB
1446 DEVLIN DR
LOSANGELES CA 90069
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC
KIM BLESSANT
101 ASH STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101-
COUNTY OF SD SUPERVISOR BILL HORN
ART DANELL
RM 335
1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
S D CO PLANNING & LAND USE DEPT
JAON VOKAC
STE 8-5
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
5201 RUFFIN ROAD
LANlKAl LANE PARK
SHARP SPACE 3
6550 PONTO DRIVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
STATE LANDS COMMISSION
MARY GRIGGS
STE 100 S
100 HOWE AV
SACRAMENTO CA 95825-8202
PERRY A LAMB
890 MERE POINT RD
BRUNSWICK ME 04011
CRA PRESIDENT
5200 EL CAMINO REAL
LEE ANDERSON
CARLSBAD CA 92008
COASTAL CONSERVANCY
RICHARD RETECKI
STE 1100
1330 BROADWAY
OAKLAND CA 94612
DALElDONNA SCHREIBER
7163 ARGONAUTA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
FLOYD ASHBY
416 LA COSTA AV
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
GEORGE BOLTON
6583 BLACKRAIL RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
eEAL FOW
I (We) appeal the decision of the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission
btheCarlsbadcwCoundl' (MP 177(DD)/CUP 01-22/HDP 01-07/CDP 01-31
Date of Decision you are appealing: Zone 19 Park February 20, 2002
.-
Please see attached ADDeal information
1200 Carlsbad Village Drivs - Carlabad. California 92008-1W9 - (619) 434-2808 @
Appellant:
Appeal of:
Sore1 Norlin, on behalf of the Brindisi at Aviara Premier Collection
Association
Decision of the Carlsbad Planning Commission, specifically the
addendum to the EIA Part I1 to develop a community park on a site
located at the northern terminus of Ambrosia Lane within Local Facilities
Management Zone 19.
Date of Decision: February 20, 2002
Subject of Appeal: Carlsbad Planning Commission February 20,2002, Items MP 177
(DD)/CUP 01-22MDP 01-07iDCP 01-31 - Zone 19 Park, Resolutions No.
5108,5156,5109, 5110,5111
Planner: Elaine Blackbum
Engineer: Jeremy Riddle
Request for a Minor Master Plan Amendment to the Aviara Master Plan
for Planning Area 32 and a Conditional Use Permit, Hillside Development
Permit, and Coastal Development Permit, and addendum to the EIA Part I1
to develop a community park on a site located at the northem terminus of
Ambrosia Lane within Local Facilities Management Zone 19.
The Brindisi at Aviara Premier Collection Association specifically appeals
the development of a community park on a site located at the northern
terminus of Ambrosia Lane within Local Facilities Management Zone 19.
Reasons for Appeal: We oppose the Planning Commission’s decision to place the entrance to
the proposed community park at the northern terminus of Ambrosia Lane.
The decision makers failed to adequately investigate and address noise
abatement issues, increase in traffdtraffic control issues, and safety
issues. The decision makers failed to properly ensure that this proposal
will not detrimentally affect the neighboring communities, and have
furfher not proven that the entrance to the proposed park cannot be located
at another site within Zone 19. Decision makers have inadequately
investigated the impact of the proposed community center, the size of
community center, and the issuance of future alcohol permits in
connection with the placement of the community park.
G:\12\193S!DMFMisc\CCity AppeaLwpd
SIMON J. FREEDMAN DAVID M. PETERS KEENAN A. PARKER
MARK T. GUITHUES
MICHAEL G. KIM STEPHEN M. KIRKLAND LAlJRlE F. MASOTTO ~~~~~~~~ JAMES R. McCORMlCK JR. STEVEN R. NAPOLES
JEFFREY R. PRATT
OF COUNSEL
LAURIE S. POOLE
PETERS & FREEDMAN, L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
191 CALLE MAGDALENA. SUITE 220 ENCINITAS. CALIFORNIA 92024
Fax: (760) 436-3442
Tel: (760) 436-3441
mail@hoolaw.com w.hao/ow.com
74-075 EL PASEO, SUITE C-4
PALM DESERT OFFICE
PALM DESERT, CA 92260 Tel (760) 773-4463 Assessments: (760) 773-2626 Fan: (760) 773-0919
March 1,2002
City of Carlsbad
Office of the City Clerk
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989
RE: Brindisi at Aviara Premier / Appeal to Planning Commission Decision on 2/20/02.
Our File No. 1935
Dear Sir or Madam:
Please be advised that the law firm of Peters & Freedman, L.L.P. represents the Brindisi at Aviara
Premier Collection Association in the above-referenced matter. Enclosed please find the
payable to the City of Carlsbad for $660.00.
Association’s Appeal form pertaining to the above-referenced matter, along with a check made
We request a copy of the agenda for the Appeal hearing date once such date has been determined.
Please direct all future communications through this office.
Sincerely,
PETERS & FREEDMAN, L.L.P. n
DaddM. Peters, Esq.
DMP\tmf
Enclosures
cc: Board of Directors
G:\12\1935\DMP\Ltrs\Ci~-Clerkl.wpd
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1635 FARADAY AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
(760) 602-2401
AMOUNT
-
!
..
PAY'EXACTLY ******660*DOLLARS AND QO*CENTS
TOTHE PAY
ORDER OF
- City of Carlsbad
Records Management Department
August 12,2002
Sore1 Nolin
6349 Alexandri Circle
Carlsbad, CA 92009
RE: ZONE 19 (AVIARA COMMUNITY PARK) - LCPA 02-03 AND APPEAL OF
PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MP 177(DD)iCUP 01-22iHDP 01-
07iCDP 0 1-3 1
The Carlsbad City Council, at its meeting of August 6,2002, heard the above referenced
matter and adopted Resolution No. 2002-236, approving the project and upholding the
decision of the Planning Commission. Enclosed for your records is a copy of the fully
executed Resolution.
The Council also directed that the installation of the traffic light and queue detector be
expedited, and directed that the appeal fee be refunded. Our office has begun the process
to refund the fee per Council direction.
Enc. (1)
cc: David M. Peters, Esq.
Brindisi At Aviara
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989 - (760) 434-2808 @ -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2002-236
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND TO
DECLARATION, ADDENDUMS 1 and 2 AND MITIGATION
APPROVE A LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT AND
TO UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION AND DENY THE APPEAL FOR A COMMUNITY
PARK TO BE LOCATED AT THE NORTHERN TERMINUS OF
AMBROSIA LANE.
CASE NAME: ZONE 19 (AVIARA COMMUNITY) PARK
CASE NO.: LCPA 02-03/MP 177(DD)/CUP 01-22/HDP 01-
07/CDP 01-31
WHEREAS, on February 20, 2002, the Carlsbad Planning Commission held a
duly noticed public hearing to consider a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum 1
and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and a Minor Master Plan Amendment (MP
177(DD)), Conditional Use Permit (CUP 01-22), Hillside Development Permit 01-07, and
Coastal Development Permit (CDP 01-31) to allow the development of a City park on property
located at the northern terminus of Ambrosia Lane (Planning Area 32 of the Aviara Master
Plan); and,
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Planning Commission considered
all factors relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum 1 and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, Minor Master Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit,
Hillside Development Permit, and Coastal Development Permit; and,
WHEREAS, on February 20, 2002, the Carlsbad Planning Commission adopted
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5108, 5156, 5109, 5110, and 5111 recommending that
the Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum 1 and a Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program and approving a Minor Master Plan Amendment (MP 177(DD)),
Conditional Use Permit (CUP 01-22), Hillside Development Permit 01-07, and Coastal
Development Permit (CDP 01-31); and,
1
.- L
* -
4
C -
t
r I
E
5
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, the Aviara Master Plan is the implementing document for the Aviara
Master Plan Local Coastal Program and constitutes the regulations and policies of the Aviara
Master Plan Local Coastal Program; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment meets the
requirements of, and is in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act and all
applicable policies of the Mello I segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program not being
amended by this amendment, in that no policies are being amended by this action; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to the Mello I segment of the Carlsbad
Local Coastal Program is required to bring it into consistency with the adopted Aviara Master
Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did on the 6th day of August , 2002
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and two Addendum (Addendum 2 attached) and the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, and Local Coastal Program Amendment, Minor Master Plan Amendment,
Conditional Use Permit, Hillside Development Permit, and Coastal Development Permit; and,
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as
follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Resolutions No. 5108, 5156, 5109, 5110, and 51 11 and the findings in this City Council
2. That the findings of the Planning Commission in Planning Commission
Resolution constitute the findings of the City Council in this matter.
....
....
II Page 2 of 3 of Resolution No. 20&"236
I il
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendums 1 and 2, the
Amendment (MP 177(DD)), Conditional Use Permit (CUP 01-22), Hillside Development Permit
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are adopted, and the Minor Master Plan
(HDP 01-07), and Coastal Development Permit (CDP 01-31) are approved as shown on
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5108, 5156, 5109, 5110, and 5111 on file with the City
Clerk and incorporated herein by reference.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 6th day of August 2002, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Finnila, Nygaard, and Hal:
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEAT
Page 3 of 3 of
Resolution No. 2002-236 -3-
July 3,2002 -ADDENDUM 2
TO EIA FOR LCPA 02-03/MP 177(DD)/CUP 01-22/HDP/01-07CDP 01-31
FOR ZONE 19 (AVIARA COMMUNITY) PARK
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) S-ection 15164 describes the
circumstances under which an addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration is required
and the required procedures for an addendum. Pursuant to that section, an addendum
may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary and those
technical changes or additions do not trigger a supplemental EIR or Negative
Declaration. Section 15164 also directs that an addendum need not be circulated but
can be included in or attached to the final Negative Declaration. The incorporation of
this additional discussion has not resulted in any new or changed mitigation for the
subject project. Thus, this information satisfies CEQA Section 15164 as an addendum.
Staff has prepared this second Addendum for this project in order to:
A. ensure that the environmental documents for this project fully incorporate and
reference all biological resources reports, letters, and survey information
related to the project and to clarify the discussion of project impacts;
B. incorporate correspondence from USFWS and CDFG offering their
concurrence on two topics; and,
C. clarify the need for the proposed minor LCPA.
A. Bioloqical Resources SurvevslReports
A Biological Resources Report for Aviara Community (Zone 19) Park was prepared in
April 2002 by P&D Environmental. That report reiterates that the project would result in
temporary impacts to .03-acre of disturbed coastal sage scrub, as discussed in the
original environmental initial study. The report also discusses the encroachment into
approximately .Ol-acre of potential ACOE jurisdictional waters. The original
environmental analysis estimated this encroachment as approximately .09-acre.
However, the more detailed (later) biological report concludes that the encroachment
would be only .Ol-acre. This reduction in the encroachmenUtemporary impact area is
the result of a more detailed analysislcalculation. The original mitigation plan required
that the encroachment area (whatever its size) be replanted in native vegetation. That
mitigation is still required, so there is no change in the mitigation requirements for the
project as a result of this lessened impact.
The .03-acre encroachment into disturbed coastal sage scrub (for the necessary slope
stabilization) can be considered "de minimis" by CDFG and USFWS if there are no
California gnatcatchers in the area of disturbance. Consequently, protocol surveys
were conducted by P&D Environmental for the presence of gnatcatchers in late
Maylearly June, and a letter was prepared (dated June 11, 2002) to summarize the
survey results. That letter states that no gnatcatchers were sighted or heard in the
JULY 3,2002 -ADDENDUM 2
TO EIA FOR LCPA 02-03/MP 177(DD)/CUP 01-22/HDP/OI-O7CDP 01-31
FOR ZONE 19 (AVIARA COMMUNITY) PARK
project impacts area. The letter concludes that, in the biologist's opinion, the proposed
project will not have any direct impacts on California gnatcatchers. The original
environmental documents and project conditions addressed such potential indirect
impacts as light spillage and grading restrictions.
B. USFWSKDFG Concurrence
On the basis of the biological resources reports, City staff requested and received
written concurrence from CDFG and USFWS that the .03-acre take of coastal sage
scrub is "de minimis" in nature.
Staff also requested and received written concurrence from CDFG and USFWS that the
open space corridor on the site (to the north of the park use area) was established in
consultation with CDFG and USFWS and satisfies all NCCP requirements. The Aviara
Master Plan requires that the corridor be established in consultation with the agencies.
Since the City's HMP hardlines have been developed in consultation with the agencies,
this project is consistent with the HMP with the exception of the encroachments
(necessary for storm water management and slope stabilization) sited in the earlier
environmental documents for the project.
C. Minor Local Coastal Proqram Amendment
As indicated in the Planning Commission staff report, dated February 20, 2002, this
project requires the approval of a Minor Master Plan Amendment to the Aviara Master
Plan. The amendment was necessary to revise the maximum allowed height in
Planning Area 32 (the park site) from its current limit (1 8') to the height typically allowed
in the Open Space Zone (25' plus any additional height allowed through a Conditional
Use Permit).
The park site is within the Mello I segment of the City's Coastal Program. When the
Aviara Master Plan was originally approved in 1987, a Local Coastal Program
Amendment was also approved. As a result of those actions, the approved Aviara
Master Plan is the implementing document for the Coastal Program within the Aviara
community. Since the Master Plan text (Le., the LCP) includes a height limitation of 18',
an LCPA must be approved by City Council to ensure continued consistency between
the proposed Master Plan and the Local Coastal Program.
It should be noted that the proposed building height has not changed since the original
EIA Part II was prepared for the project. Staff has spoken with Coastal Commission
staff, and Coastal staff has indicated that they believe the LCPA height limit change can
be considered "minor" in nature pursuant to Section 13554 of the California Coastal
Regulations and Section 30514(c) of the Public Resources Code. The Coastal
Commission can determine that an action is minor if it satisfies one or more of several
justifications. In this case, the proposed project satisfies the requirement that the
project does not "change the kind, location, intensity, or density of use".
3
Rec: 0 Approve 0 Disapprove Date
Finance Investigation:
Rec: n Approve 0 Disapprove Dept. Head Signature Date
City Manager's Action:
Approve 0 Disapprove City Manager Signature Date @