HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-12-17; City Council; 17018; Smith Property Land Use Change- -
CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENUA BILL
f
1
t
c r 1
F
c
I'
c
h
E
F
r-
2
C
1
SMITH PROPERTY LAND USE CHANGE
GPA 02-02 I ZC 02-03 I LCPA 02-05
IEPT.
DEPT. HD.
CITY MGR
iECOMMENDED ACTION:
rhat the City Council INTRODUCE Ordinance No. NS-654 , APPROVING an amendment to
he Zoning Map (ZC 02-03), Local Coastal Program Zoning Map and Local Coastal Program Mello I
segment text (LCPA 02-05), and ADOPT Resolution No. 2002-366 , ADOPTING a Mitigated
Jegative Declaration, Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and
4PPROVING an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map (GPA 02-02), and Local Coastal
'rogram Land Use Map (LCPA 02-05), based upon the findings and subject to the conditions
:ontained therein.
TEM EXPLANATION:
Project application(s)
Final at Council Final at Planning Approvals
Reviewed by and Reviewed by and Administrative
Commission
Environmental Review -
Mitigated Negative Declaration
General Plan Amendment
X
X Local Coastal Program Amendment
X Zone Change
X
In September 18, 2002, the Planning Commission voted 4-2 (Baker and White)(Trigas absent) to
ecommend to the City Council adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum and
ditigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and to recommend approval of a General Plan
Imendment, Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment to change the land use and
:oning designations on a parcel of land located on the southeast corner of Interstate 5 and
'oinsettia Lane from commercial to residential, to remove the site from the Commercial Visitor
Serving Overlay Zone, and to modify the text of the Local Coastal Program Mello I Segment.
-he project consists of changing the land use and zoning designations on the project site as follows:
FROM:
General Plan N
Land Use (Neighborhood Commercial)
(Neighborhood Commercial/
Within fhe Commercial Visitor-
Serving Overlay Zone
C-I -Q
Zoning Qualified Overlay Zone)
Local Coastal Program N
Land Use (Neighborhood Commercial)
C-I -Q
Local Coastal Program (Neighborhood Commercial/
Zoning Qualified Overlay Zone)
Within the Commercial Visitor-
Serving Overlay Zone
I TO: I
RM
(Residential Medium Density -
4-8 du/ac)
(Residential Density - Multiple
Zone/ Qualified Overlay Zone)
Without the Commercial Visitor-
Serving Overlay Zone
RM
(Residential Medium Density -
4-8 du/ac)
(Residential Density - Multiple
Zone/ Qualified Overlay Zone)
Without the Commercial Visitor-
Serving Overlay Zone
RD-M-Q
RD-M-Q
e.
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA .. .LL NO. 17 I 018
The proposed Local Coastal Program amendment (LCPA) also includes text modifications to the
LCP Mello I Segment document. The text modifications will reflect the proposed land use
designation and will incorporate land use policies from the original Mello II Segment that supersede
the policies currently stated in the Mello I Segment.
During the September 18, 2002 Planning Commission meeting, four members of the public (property
owner‘s representative, and three members of the Seacliff HOA) spoke in regard to the project. The
property owner’s representative, Peter Walsh (property owner’s son), spoke in opposition to the
proposed land use and zone change. He stated that he did not understand what circumstances had
changed that led to the City Council’s direction to change the designation from commercial to
residential.
Mr. Walsh also stated that he has been working with the same developer to pursue a commercial
development on the site since 1998, however, the process has been delayed due to City actions that
affected the site, such as the Commercial Visitor-Serving Overlay Zone (approved by Council May
18, 1999), a Resolution of Intention to change the land use/zone on the site (Council voted not to
adopt May 1, 2000), and the Shopping Center Study (results presented to Council on March 23,
2000). (Note: A Preliminary Application was submitted for review in 1999 for a commercial center
on the site, however, no formal development application was submitted. There is no pending
development application on the site.)
The Seacliff HOA members spoke in favor of the land use and zone change. They explained their
opposition to a commercial land use on the site is due to concerns relative to the traffic impacts a
commercial development would have to Paseo Del Norte, which is the only ingress and egress to the
Seacliff community. The HOA members also stated that they felt there are a sufficient number of
commercial centers in the surrounding community that provide adequate commercial services to the
area, and that another commercial center is not needed.
The Planning Commission discussed the project and voted 4-2 in favor of the proposed land use and
zone change. One of the Commissioners opposed to the project stated the property owner’s rights
needed to be considered and respected. The other Commissioner opposed to the project stated that
the area does need another commercial development because the additional population anticipated
with new residential development will increase the need for commercial services.
The four Commissioners in favor of the land use and zone change stated that they felt there was a
sufficient amount of commercial development in the area to provide adequate services, and
expressed their concerns with the limited access to the site from Paseo Del Norte (only emergency
access can be provided to the site from Poinsettia Lane). They stated that the amount of traffic a
commercial development would generate could have a significant impact to traffic on Paseo Del
Norte and access to the Seacliff community, and that a residential use on the site would have less of
an impact and would probably be more appropriate.
A complete project description, chronology of relevant events and project analysis are contained in
the attached Planning Commission Staff Report, dated September 18, 2002.
If the City Council votes to approve GPA 02-02, the General Plan Amendment will be the fourth and
final general plan amendment to the Land Use Element for 2002.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
The Planning Commission has determined that some of the environmental impacts that are peculiar
to the project (specifically impacts related to noise) are potentially significant unless mitigation is
incorporated. The mitigation measures described in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5271
".
PAGE 3 OF AGENDA r..~L NO. 17,018
have been added as part of the findings for approval of the project. On July 25, 2002, the Planning
Director issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Local Coastal Program
Amendment consists of changing the land use and zoning designations on the project site from
commercial to residential, which may result in potential loss of sales tax revenue from a commercial
development.
However, in response to earlier general plan amendments on the new shopping center Policy
framework (GPA 00-04) and the Local Shopping Center land use designations (GPA 01-06), the
Finance Department provided the following observations, which are also applicable to the current
action:
"The Finance Department has undertaken an informal evaluation and believes that the general plan
amendment will not significantly affect the City's ability to meet future expenditure needs. The future
fiscal health of the City is dependent on a variety of factors in addition to land use decisions. Those
factors include the economic make-up and diversity of its tax base and the stability of the allocation
of its revenues. Various threats to City revenues have arisen over the years, usually based on
redistributions of taxes or tax cuts (i.e. property tax reallocations in the early go's, the threat to
change sales taxes to a per capita basis and the recent reductions in the vehicle license fees). To
the extent that there are no wholesale changes in the allocation formulas or tax rates for these
revenues, the City should remain in a fiscally sound position. However, should the State choose to
change the allocation formulas or tax rates on any of our key revenue sources, the long-term fiscal
health of the City could be threatened.
Protection of the existing revenue streams is critical to the City's long-term fiscal health. However,
since this land use decision is not expected to significantly affect future revenue streams; the
decision can be made on the merits of the land use effects of the policy alternatives without also
factoring in fiscal effects."
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Ordinance No. NS-654
2. City Council Resolution No. 2002-366 3. Location Map
4. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5271 , 5272, 5273 and 5274
5. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated September 18, 2002
6. Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated September 18,2002.
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
ORDINANCE NO. NS-654
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 21.05.030 OF
THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY AN AMENDMENTTO
THE ZONING MAP AND THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
ZONING MAP TO GRANT A ZONE CHANGE FROM C-1-Q TO
RDM-Q, AND TO REMOVE THE COMMERCIAL VISITOR-
SERVING OVERLY ZONE ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF INTERSTATE 5 AND POlNSElTlA
LANE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 4, AND
AMENDING THE TEXT OF SECTION 2 “OCCIDENTAL LAND,
INC.” POLICY 1 OF THE MELLO I SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM.
CASE NAME: SMITH PROPERTY LAND USE CHANGE
CASE NO.: ZC 02-03 / LCPA 02-05
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does ordain as follows:
SECTION I: That Section 21.05.030 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, being the
zoning map, is amended as shown on the maps marked Exhibits “ZC 02-03” and “LCPA 02-05
Zoning”, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
SECTION II: That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission as set
forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5271, 5273 and 5274 constitute the findings and
conditions of the City Council.
SECTION Ill: That Section 2 “Occidental Land, Inc.” Policy 1 of the Mello I
Segment of the City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program shall read as follows:
“2. Occidental Land, Inc.
Policy 1 - Land Uses
NOTE: The “Occidental Land, Inc.” landowners elected to pay an agriculture
conversion fee as required by the Agricultural Subsidy Program
established by the Mello II LCP Segment (AB 1971) adopted and certified
by the Coastal Commission on June 3, 1981. With the election to pay the
agriculture conversion fee, the Agricultural Subsidy Program allowed the
“Occidental Land, Inc.” properties to be developed in accordance with the
land uses described below.
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
Pursuant to State Legislation in 1984, the Agricultural Subsidy Program
was replaced with the Agriculture Conversion Mitigation Fee (Public
Resource Code Section 30171.2 and 30171.5) (Mello II Segment Policy
2-1 Option 3).
As per Public Resource Code Section 30171.2, the land use policies
established in 1981 by the adoption of the Mello II Segment remained
“operative” even though the Agricultural Subsidy Program was replaced.
The.Occidental Land parcels are hereby designated as follows:
The area located east of Interstate 5 and north of Poinsettia Lane shall be
designated for residential use at a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per acre.
The area located east of Interstate 5 and south of Poinsettia Lane shall be
designated for residential use at a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per acre.
The area located west of Interstate 5 and south of Poinsettia Lane shall be
designated for visitor-serving or neighborhood commercial development
according to Chapter 21.26 of the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance.
The area located west of Interstate 5 and north of Poinsettia Lane shall be
designated for visitor-serving or neighborhood commercial development
according to Chapter 21.26 of the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance, provided that a
minimum of 35% is developed as visitor serving uses.”
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after
its adoption, upon the effective date of GPA 02-02, or upon the effective date of the California
Coastal Commission’s approval of LCPA 02-05, whichever is the last to occur, and the City
Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at least once in
a newspaper of general circulation within fifteen (15) days after its adoption.
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at regular meeting of the Carlsbad City
Council held on the 17th day of DECEMBER , 2002, and thereafter.
Ill1
/Ill
/Ill
Ill1
/I//
I///
/I//
-2- 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the day of 2002, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
(S EAL)
-3- 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2002-366
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, ADDENDUM AND MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR A GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE AND LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM AMENDMENT, AND APPROVING SAID GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN AND LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE MAPS BY CHANGING THE
LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM “N” TO “RM” ON PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF INTERSTATE 5
AND POINSETTIA LANE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 4.
CASE NAME: SMITH PROPERTY LAND USE CHANGE
CASE NO.: GPA 02-02/ZC 02-03/LCPA 02-05
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning
Commission did, on September 18, 2002, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by
law to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and
Local Coastal Program Amendment, and recommended their approval; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 17th
day of DECEMBER , 2002, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider said
Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Local Coastal
Program Amendment, and at that time received recommendations, objections, protests, and
comments from all persons interested in or opposed to GPA 02-02, ZC 02-03 and LCPA 02-05;
NOW, THEREFORE, 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 Resolutions No. 5271, 5272 and
5274 are incorporated herein by reference and are the finings of the City Council.
3. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program are adopted as shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5271, on
file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference.
8
1
r L
1 L
4
4
c
5
8
4
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
24
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4. That the amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map (GPA 02-02), i:
approved as shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5272, on file with the City Clerk anc
incorporated herein by reference.
5. That the amendment to the Local Coastal Program Land Use Map (LCPA 02-05)
is approved as shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5274, on file with the City Clerk
and incorporated herein by reference.
6. That the approval of GPA 02-02 shall become effective within thirty (30) day:
after its approval, upon the effective date of ZC 02-03, or upon the effective date of the
California Coastal Commission's approval of LCPA 02-05, whichever is the last to occur.
7. That the approval of LCPA 02-05 shall not become effective until it is approved
by the California Coastal Commission and the California Coastal Commission's approval
becomes effective.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of DECEMBER 2002,
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Hall
NOES: Council Members Finnila, Packard
ATTEST: ,q %*- E M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL{
-2- 3
September 4,2002
PROPERTY ZONE CHANGE ZC 02-03
draft
Legal Description(s):
Lot 171 of Carlsbad Tract 73-24, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof
No. 7996, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August 5, 1974.
Approvals
To: Council Approval Date:
RD-M-Q (5.1 2 ac.) Ordinance No:
Zone Change _.
Property:
C-1-Q (5.12 ac.) APN: 214-471-53
From:
- Within Commercial Visitor- Serving Overlay Zone
i Attach additional pages if necessary I I
Withoot Commercia/ vjsitor-
Serving Overlay Zone
Effective Date:
Signature: ~
4
EXHIBIT 3
SMITH PROPERTY LAND USE .CHANGE
GPA 02-02lZC 02-03lLCPA 02-05
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
EXHIBIT 4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5271
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
ADDENDUM AND MITIGAI’ION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM FOR A GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE AND LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE
DESIGNATION FROM “N” TO “RM” AND THE ZONE
DESIGNATION FROM “C- 1 -Q” TO “RDM-Q”, AND REMOVE
THE COMMERCIAL VISITOR-SERVING OVERLAY ZONE
ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER.
OF INTERSTATE 5 AND POINSETTIA LANE IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 4.
CASE NAME: SMITH PROPERTY LAND USE CHANGE
CASE NO.: GPA 02-02 / ZC 02-03 / LCPA 02-05
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad, “Applicant,” has filed a verified application
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Caroline’s Survivor’s Trust (Caroline
Smith), “Owner,” described as
Lot 171 of Carlsbad Tract 73-24, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map
thereof No. 7996, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of
San Diego County, August 5,1974
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction
with said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 4th day of September, 2002
and on the 18th day of September, 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
II
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
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
according to Exhibit “ND” dated July 25, 2002, and “PII” dated July 17, 2002,
including the “Addendum” dated August 14, 2002, attached hereto and made a
part hereof, based on the following findings and conditions:
Findinps:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The Planning Commission has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated
Negative Declaration, Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program for SMITH PROPERTY LAND USE CHANGE - GPA 02-02, ZC 02-03
and LCPA 02-05, the environmental impacts therein identified for the project and any
comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
The Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program 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
It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad;
and
Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the
project will have a significant effect on the environment, provided the following
mitigation measures are incorporated into future residential development on the project
site:
A. Any proposal to construct residential units on the project site shall include a
site/project design specific noise analysis. Such noise analysis shall specify
the exact noise mitigation necessary for the specific project to reduce exterior
noise levels to not exceed 60 dB CNEL, and interior noise levels to not exceed
45 dB CNEL.
B. Unless evidence is provided that justifies mitigation other than that specified
in the Noise Analysis prepared for this project, dated July 10, 2002, the
following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into any future
residential development on the project site:
PC RES0 NO. 5271 -2- /a
~
1~
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
V.
vi.
vii.
...
...
...
...
...
.,.
PC RES0 NO. 5271
A 10-foot high solid wall along the west side of the property (5 feet
back from the top of the existing slope). City standards do not allow
walls to exceed 6 feet in height. Therefore, the noise barrier wall may
be a combination of earthen berm with a 6-foot maximum solid wall
above. Transparent materials, such as acrylic panels, may be utilized
to maintain views, if evidence shows that they will be effective in
providing the necessary noise mitigation. The design of all walls will
be subject to City review and approval.
An 8-foot high solid wall along the north property line. City
standards do not allow walls to exceed 6 feet in height. Therefore, the
noise barrier wall may be a combination of earthen berm with a 6-foot
maximum solid wall above. Transparent materials, such as acrylic
panels, may be utilized to maintain views, if evidence shows that they
will be effective in providing the necessary noise mitigation. The
design of all walls will be subject to City review and approval.
6-foot high solid wall along the east property line.
Closed-window condition on residential units, which will require an
alternative means of ventilation, such as heat pumps or forced-air
units.
Second story residential units would require double-pane windows
(no special window glazing would be necessary on first floor windows
with the construction of the noise walls specified above).
Windows and sliding glass doors facing Interstate 5 and Poinsettia
Lane would need to have a Sound Transmission Class (STC) of at
least 30 - 35.
Doors would need to be solid core and equipped with an appropriate
gasket.
-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 18th day of September 2002, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman, Segall, and Whitton
NOES: Commissioners Baker and White
ABSENT: Chairperson Trigas
ABSTAIN:
KER, Vice-Chairperson
PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. H-LER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5271 -4-
- -
City of Carlsbad Exhibit “ND”
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIOK
Project AddressLocation: Southeast Comer of Interstate 5 and Poinsettia Lane (APN: 214-471-53).
Project Description: The Carlsbad City Council has directed City staff to process and make recommendations for an appropriate residkntial land use designation on the
Smith property located on the southeast comer of Interstate 5 and Poinsettia
Lane. The project site is a 5.12 acre undeveloped infill site that is surrounded by
urban development.
The current General Plan land use designation is N (Neighborhood Commercial),
the current Zone designation is C-1-Q (Neighborhood Commercial in a Qualified
Development Overlay Zone). The site 1s also located within the Mello I Segment
of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program (LCP) with a land use designation of
General Commercial.
Pursuant to City Council direction, staff is processing a General Plan
Amendment (GPA 02-02), Zone Change (ZC 02-03) and Local Coastal Program
Amendment (LCPA 02-05) to change the current neighborhood commercial land
use and zoning designations to the following residential designations:
0 Land Use - RM - Medium Density (4 - 8 ddac)
(Note: Based upon the project site area (5.12 acres), the proposed RM land use
designation would allow up to 40 dwelling units on the site at maximum density.)
Zone - RDM-Q (Residential Density-Multiple Zone / Qualified Development
Overlay)
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to
the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental
Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2)
identified potentially significant effects on the environment? but with the incorporation of mitigation
measures, the potential significant effects can be mitigated to a level of less than significant. Therefore, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is
on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are invited.
Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of the date of this notice.
If you have any questions? please call Jennifer Coon in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4637.
CASE NO: GPA 02-02 / ZC 02-03 / LCPA 02-05
CASE NAME: SMITH PROPERTY LAND USE CHANGE
PUBLISH DATE: JULY 25,2002
MICHAEL J. HOLZMII~ER
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 0 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
”
“ Exhibit “PII”
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE: PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: GPA 02-02EC 02-03LCPA 02-05
DATE: July 16,2002
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
CASE NAME: SMITH PROPERTY LAND USE CHANGE
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad - 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carisbad.
CA 92008
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Jennifer Coon, Associate Planner - (760) 602-
4637
PROJECT LOCATION: Southeast comer of Interstate 5 and Poinsettia Lane (APN: 214471-531
PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad - 1635 Faraday Avenue,
Carlsbad, CA 92008
GENER4L PLAN DESIGNATION: N (Neighborhood Commercial)
ZONING: C-1-0 (Neighborhood CommerciaVOualified Overlay Zone)
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing
approval or participation agreements): California Coastal Commission (Local Coastal Promam
Amendment)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
The uroiect consists of a land use and zone change on a 5.12 acre parcel located on the southeast
comer of Interstate 5 and Poinsettia Lane. The uroiect site currently has a General Plan Land Use
and Local Coastal Promam Land Use designation of N (Neighborhood Commercial) and is zoned
C-1-0 (Neiphborhood CommerciaVOualified Overlay Zone). The proposed General Plan
Amendment, Zone Change and Local Coastal Promam Amendment would result in the following,
designations:
0 General Plan Land Use - RM (Residential Medium Density - 4-8 du/ac)
(Note: Based upon the proiect site area (5.12 acres). the proposed RM land use desimation
would allow UD to 40 dwelling units on the site at maximum density.)
Zoning - RDM-0 (Residential Density - Multiple Zone/Oualified Overlay Zone)
0 Local Coastal Program Land Use - RM (Residential Medium Density - 4-8 ddac)
0 Local Coastal Promam Zoning - RDM-0 (Residential Density - Multiple
Zone/Oualified Overlay Zone)
The uroiect site is an undeveloped infill site that is surrounded by a residential develoument to the
south, east and north. The site is bounded by Interstate 5 to the west, Poinsettia Lane to the north,
Paseo Del Norte (Lowder Lane) to the east, and residential (condominium) development to the .
south.
1 Rev. 07/03/02
16
” .-
street elevation of i -,eo Del Norte, which is located adjacent me site’s east property line. The
majority of the remainder of the site (excluding the western 25 feet) is located approximately 5
feet below the upper pad. The grade between the two pads is split by a 2: 1 manufactured slope.
The western 25 feet of the site consists of a manufactured slope that slopes dmn to Interstate 5
located approximately 30 feet below the site.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by :his project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Aesthetics 0 Geology/Soils
Agricultural Resources 0 HazardsMazardous Materials
0 Air Quality 0 HydrologyiWater Qual&
c] Biolog~cal Resources Land Use and Planning
0 Cultural Resources c] Mineral Resources
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Noise
0 Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
0 TransportatiodCirculation
2 Rev. 07/03/02
DETERMMATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A MmGATED 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 "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment,
but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have
been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed
project. Therefore, nothing further is required.
3 Rev. 07/03/02
18
ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTS
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 decidir?g whether to
prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
e 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 infomation 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.
e “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential
impact is not significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and
policies.
e “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.
e “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significantly adverse.
e Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse
effect on the environment, but potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EJR 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.
e
e
e
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to
prepare an EIR if the significant adverse 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 adverse effect on the environment.
If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the
4 Rev. 07/03/02
appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and
a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
e An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not
limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse 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 adverse impact to less than sipificant; (2) a
“Statement of Ovemding Considerations” for the significant adverse impact has not been made
pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to
less than significant; or (4) through the EM-Part I1 analysis it is not possible to determine the
level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation
measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form
under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be gwen to
discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant.
5
Issues (and Supporting Informanon Sources).
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildmgs within a State scenic lughway?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its smoundings?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Create a new source of substantial light and glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
II. AGRICULTRAL RESOURCES - (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would the project:
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Conflict with existing zoning for agncultllral use, or a Williamson Act contract?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Involve other changes in the existing environment,
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant lmpact Incorporated lmpact
0 D 0
0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0
O 0 0
6 Rev. 07/03/02 c31
Issues (and Supporting Infon In Sources).
III. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied
upon to make the following determinations.) Would the
project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated
0
cl
D
0 0
I7
cl
0
cl
Less Than Significant No
Impact lrnpact
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
0 0 ON
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, 0 aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
0 LIB
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
7 Rev. 07lQ3102
Issues (and Supporting Mom. n Sources).
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filing, hydrological interruption, or other means?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Impact tributary areas that are environmentally
sensitive?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defmed in
§15064.5?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi-
cance of an archeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi-
cal resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Potentially Significant lmpact 0
0
0
0
0
-
Zotentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0
El
0
0
0
Less Than Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
No
Impact 151
la
Ix)
IXI
5
5
Ix1
Ix)
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
8 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporhng Infor on Sources). - Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred El 0 outside of formal cemeteries?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
V. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
0
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? El U
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 0 o
iv. Landslides?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0 0
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 0 0
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
0 0
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 U - l-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 0 0 e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
Less Than Significant No
lm6t lmn
NO
BO
Elm
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
9 Rev. 07/03/02 a+
- -
Issues (and Supporting Infor ‘on Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact VI. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would
the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
d) Be located on a site whch is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public anport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or worlung in the project area?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0
0
ON
0 0 OIXI
0 0 OIXI
10 Rev. 07/03/02 25
Issues (and Supporting Inforr )n Sources). - -
Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated imnt lmpg
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
0 0
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
WI. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project:
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? cl
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table
level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
0
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Impacts to groundwater quality?
0 UIXI
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
0 UIXI
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the 0 UBI
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off- site?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Create or contribute runoff water, which would
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
exceed the capacity of existing or planned 0 0 UKI
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
11 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting WOH 3n Sources).
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation UMp?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Place withm 100-year flood hazard area structures,
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Expose people or structures to a sigxuticant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters.
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash)
into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or
wetland waters) during or following construction?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Potentially Significanl Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than Significant
Impact 0
0
0
cl
0
0
0
17
12 Rev. 07/03/02 a7
Issues (and Supporting Inforxr "n Sources). -
Potentially Significant Impact
p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses?
0
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
Physically &vide an established community?
Potentially Significant
Mitigation Significant No Incorporated imGt lmgt
Unless Less Than
0
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (includmg but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
cl Ixl no
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 0 0 OB
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State?
0
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
0
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
XI. NOISE - Would the project result in:
Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels
in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of
other agencies?
0 IXI on
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise
levels?
(See Discussion of Environmktal Evaluation)
0 0 OH
13 Rev. 07/03/02
"
Issues (and Supporting Jnfom )n Sources). I Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Imgt 1mEt c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
cl cl
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
0 0 NU
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 0 0 OIxl e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, wih 2
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would I the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
0 om
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
W. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other inkstructure)?
0 Ixlcl
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0 0
0 0 0
Ixl
Ixl
14 Rev. 07/03/02 a?
Issues (and Supporting Infom m Sources).
WI. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a
need for new or physically altered government
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
\
XIV. RECREATION
Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFC - Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Potentially Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
- Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than Significant Impact
0
0
0
IXI
No
Impact
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
CI
15 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Inforr w Sources). -
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level
of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads
or highways?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Result in a change in air traffk patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Result in inadequate emergency access?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Result in insufficient parking capacity?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus tum-
outs, bicycle racks)?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project:
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would
cause significant environmental effects?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Potentially Significant Impact D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
cl
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation incorporated 0
Less Than Significant
impact El
NO impact
0
cl
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
El
IXI
5
El
IXI
16 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Infonrx- 1 Sources). -
Have suffkient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fuh or wildlife species, cause a fuh or 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?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumula- tively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?)
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Potentially
Significant
Impact 0
0
0
0
0
- ‘otcntially Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated 0
0
0
0
0
0
txl
Less Than Significanr Impact
c1
0
0
0
IXI
17 Rev. 07/03/02
Xvm. EARLIER ANAv - SES
-
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, promm EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)@). In this case a discussion should identifv 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
withm 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.
18 Rev. 07/03/02 33
DISCT";ION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EV, UATION
AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No Impact - The project site is located adjacent to two scenic corridors (Interstate 5 and Poinsettia Lane).
The proposed land usehone change does not mclude a proposal for any physical development of the
project site that could impact a scenic vista. The proposed land use and zone change will result in the
potential for future residential development on the site. Any future development proposal will be subject
to CEQA review and will be required to comply with City development standards, which will ensure an
aesthetically acceptable design. Therefore, the project will not have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
No Impact (b & c)- The project site is undeveloped and previously disturbed through grading. There are
no scenic resources on the site. The proposed land use and zone change does not include a proposal for
any physical development of the project site, and will not degrade the visual character or quality of the
site. There are no significant trees or vegetation that could be damaged from future development of the
site. Any future development proposal will be subject to CEQA review and will be required to comply
with the City's development standards that ensure high quality design and compatibility with the
surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, the project will not damage scenic resources or degrade the
existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.
d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
No Impact - The proposed land use and zone change does not include a proposal for any physical
development of and will not create any new source of light and glare. Any future development of the site
will be subject to CEQA review and will be required to comply with the City's light standards.
AGRICULTRAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact - The project site is not considered Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of
Statewide Importance. Therefore, the proposed land use and zone change will not convert farmland to a
non-agricultural use.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact - The project site is not zoned for agricultural use and is not subject to a Williamson Act
contract. Therefore, the proposed land use and zone change will not conflict with any agricultural zoning
or contracts.
19 Rev. 07/03/02 34
c) Involve othel “langes in the existing environment, ich, due to their location or -
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
No Impact - The project site is within an area that was subject to an agncultural subsidy program pursuant
to the Mello I1 Segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program. The site and surrounding properties were
permitted to develop with non-apcultural uses upon payment of an apcultural development fee. The
agncultural development fee has been paid for the site and surrounding properties, which have been
developed with non-agncultural uses. Therefore, the proposed land use and zone change from commercial
to residential will not result in the conversion of fdand to non-agricultural use because the conversion
has previously occurred.
AIR QUALITY-Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
No Impact - The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non-
attainment area for ozone (03), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to
10 microns in diameter (I‘Mlo). The periodic violations of .national Ambient Air Quality Standards
(AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that
a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San
Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in. the Regional Air Quality Strategies
(RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association
of Governments (SANDAG).
A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the
199 1 state-mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non-
attainment areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation
Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November
9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for
approval. After considerable analysis and. debate, particularly regarding airsheds with the worst smog
problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996.
The proposed project relates to the SIP andor RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that
are incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each
city’s and the County’s general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan,
then the project presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such
consistency would ensure that the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact.
Although the project consists of a land use and zone change from commercial to residential, the potential
residential units (40 du at max. density) on the site will be consistent with the City’s overall growth
assumptions. The additional residential units will be provided for through the City’s “excess dwelling
unit bank” (units not developed on properties that, based on the General Plan density provisions, could
have yielded more units than actually built).
Section 15 125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains
specific reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the
applicable air quality management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS.
The RAQS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal
ambient air quality standards. The California Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining
whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the following:
0 Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area?
Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan?
The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is
being implemented. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions of the City’s General Plan and
20 Rev. 07/03/02 35
”.
the RAQS. Therefore, th, .eject is consistent with the regonal ai. -slity plan and will in no wag
conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional plan.
-
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected
air quality violation?
Less Than Significant Impact - The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is in the City
of Oceanside. Data available for this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most recent air
quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both 2000 and
2001) and one day in 2001 for the federal 8-hour average for ozone and one day for the 24-hour state
standard for suspended particulates in 1996. No violations of any other air quality standards have been
recorded recently. Long-term emissions associated with travel generated from future residential
development of the site will be minimal. Although air pollutant emissions would be associated with a
future residential development, they would neither result in the violation of any air quality standard
(comprising only an incremental contribution to overall air basin quality readings), nor contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Any potential impact is assessed as less than
significant.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard?
Less Than Significant Impact - The Air Basin is cunently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and
suspended fine particulates. The proposed land use and zone change will result in a potential for future
residential development, which would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential
net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated
with a future residential development would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially
associated with a residential development of the site, air quality would be essentially the same whether or
not the a residential development is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15 130
(a)(4), the project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is
assessed as less than significant.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
No Impact - As noted above, the proposed land use and zone change will result in the potential for future
residential development, which would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or concentrations. In
addition, there are no sensitive receptors (e.g., schools or hospitals) located in the vicinity of the project
site. No impact is assessed.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
No Impact - The proposed land use and zone change will not result in any activity that could create
objectionable odors. Construction of future residential development could generate fumes from the
operation of construction equipment, which may be considered objectionable by some people. Such
exposure would be short-term or transient. In addition, the number of people exposed to such transient
impacts is not considered substantial.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game .
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
21 Rev. 07/03/02 36
-,
b) Have a subst: a1 adverse effect on any riparian, aqL x or wetland habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations
or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal.
etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact (a, b 8: c) - The project site is an undeveloped rnfill site, previously disturbed through
grading, and is surrounded by urban development. The site is not identified in a local or regional plan to
contain habitat or sensitive species. Also, the site does not contain and is not adjacent to any riparian,
aquatic or wetland habitat. In addition, the proposed land use and zone change does not include a
proposal for any physical development of the project site. Therefore, the project will not result in an
adverse effect on any sensitive habitat or species. Any future development proposals will be subject to
further environmental review pursuant to CEQA.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No Impact - The project site is an undeveloped infill site, previously disturbed through grading, and is
surrounded by urban development. The site is not located within any identified native or migratory
wildlife corridor, nor is it located adjacent any area identified as a wildlife corridor. In addition, the
proposed land use and zone change does not include a proposal for any physical development of the
project site. Therefore, the project will not interfere with any native or migratory wildlife comdor or
native wildlife nursery site. Any future development proposals will be subject to further environmental
review pursuant to CEQA.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact - The project site is an undeveloped infill site, previously disturbed through grading, and is
surrounded by urban development. There are no known biological resources on the project site that
would be protected by local policies or ordinances. In addition, the proposed land use and zone change
does not include a proposal for any physical development of the project site. Therefore, the project will
not conflict with the local policies and ordinances that protect biological resources. Any future
development proposals will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA.
0 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
No Impact - The project site is an undeveloped infill site, previously disturbed through grading, and is
surrounded by urban development. The site does not contain any habitat identified by a local, regional or
state habitat conservation plan. In addition, the proposed land use and zone change does not include a
proposal for any physical development of the project site. Therefore, the project will not conflict with
the provisions of any habitat conservation plan. Any future development proposals will be subject to
further environmental review pursuant to CEQA.
22 Rev. 07/03/02 37
g) Impact tribut - . areas that are environmentally sensit;
",
No Impact - The site does not contain and is not located adjacent to any environmentally sensitive
tributary area. In addition, the proposed land use and zone change does not include t proposal for an\.
physical development of the project site. Therefore, the project will not adversely impact any
environmentally sensitive tributary area. Any future development proposals will be subject to further
environmental review pursuant to CEQA.
CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined
in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
No Impact (a, b, c & d) - The project site is an undeveloped infill site that has been previously disturbed
through grading. There are no known historical, archeological, paleontological resources or human
remains on the project site. In addition, the proposed land use and zone change does not include a
proposal for any physical development of the project site. Therefore, the project will not adversely
impact a cultural resource. However, the city limits of Carlsbad are known to contain cultural resources
near the lagoons and surrounding areas. Any future development proposals will be subject to further
environmental review pursuant to CEQA, and will be subject to the City's Cultural Resource Guidelines.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less than Significant Impact (a.i. to a.iii.) - There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zones within
the City of Carlsbad and there is no other evidence of active of potentially active faults within the City.
However, there are several active faults throughout Southern California, and these potential earthquakes
could affect Carlsbad. The project site is located in an area of stable soil conditions and the risk of
seismic-related ground failure or liquefaction is very minimal (according to City of Carlsbad
Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992). In addition, the Geotechnical
Hazards Analysis identifies the project site to be in an area of low to moderate risk fiom ground shaking.
The risk fiom ground shaking is not significant when structures are built pursuant to the Uniform
Building Code (earthquake standards). Because the site is located in an area of stable soil conditions, and
any future dwelling constructed on the site must comply with the UBC earthquake construction standards,
the proposed land use and zone change will not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects
from the risks associated with earthquakes.
23 Rev. 07/03/02 38
- 4
iv. Landslidc
No Impact - According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study.
November 1992, the project site is in an area of stable soil conditions that are not subject to landslides.
Therefore, the proposed land use and zone change will not expose people to risks associated a.ith
landslides.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
No Impact - The proposed land use and zone change does not include any proposal for physical
development on the site, and, therefore, will not result in substantial soil erosion on the site. However,
according to the US Department of Agriculture, Soil Survey - San Diego Area, December 1973, the
project site contains soils that have high erosion limitations, as do most soil types in Carlsbad. The
potential for soil erosion is not significant, however, when the City’s Engineering standards are
implemented for a development project. Any future development proposal on the project site will be
subject to CEQA review and City’s Engineering standards, which will ensure that future development on
the site will not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
No Impact - According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study,
November 1992, the project site is located in an area of stable soil conditions and the risk of landslides,
lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse is very minimal. In addition, the proposed land use
and zone change does not include any proposal for physical development on the site. Therefore, the
project will not result in unstable soil conditions. Any future development proposal will be subject to
CEQA review and City development standards, which will ensure that future development on the site
does not result in unstable soil conditions.
d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
No Impact - According to the US Department of Agnculture, Soil Survey - San Diego Area, December
1973, the project site contains soils that are not considered “expansive soils”. The soil characteristics of
the site are known to drain well and do not expand substantially when they become saturated with water.
Therefore, the proposed land use and zone change will not result in substantial risks associated with
expansive soils.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
No Impact - The project site is an undeveloped infill site surrounded by urban development. Existing
sewer facilities are located near the site and are available and adequate to support a hture residential land
use on the site.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
24 Rev. 07/03/02 39
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials.
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or environment?
No Impact (a, b, c & d) - The project consists of a land use and zone change from a commercial
designation to a residential designation. Based upon the nature of a residential land use, there is no
routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials associated with residential uses. Therefore, there
is no potential of a significant hazard associated with the project from accidents involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment, or from the emission of hazardous substances within the
proximity of a school.
e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact (e & f) - The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan
has not been adopted. However, the project site is located approximately 1.8 miles from the McClellan-
Palomar Airport (public general aviation airport). The project site is not located within any flight, crash,
or safety hazard zones associated with the arport. Therefore, the proposed land use and zone change will
not result in a safety hazard for people residing on the project site.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
No Impact (g & h) - Based on the nature of the proposed residential land use designation, and the
adequacy of existing emergency services and facilities to serve the site and proposed land use, the project
will not impair the implementation or physically interfere with any adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation. In addition, the project site is an infill site surrounded by urban development.
There are no wildlands adjacent to the site that could expose people to significant risk from wildland fires.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water
recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells
would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
c) Impacts to groundwater quality?
25 Rev. 07/03/02
A
d) Substantially 'er the existing drainage pattern of th ite or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate
or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or
off-site?
0 Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff!
g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
No Impact (a, b, c, d, e, f & g) - The proposed land use and zone change does not include any proposal
for physical development on the site. Any future development on the site will be subject to City standards
regarding water quality, drainage and erosion control, including storm water permit (NPDES)
requirements and best management practices. In addition, according to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical
Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992, the project site is located in an area where
development will not have a significant impact to groundwater. Therefore, the project will not violate any
water quality standards, deplete groundwater supplies or quality, substantially alter existing drainage
patterns, cause substantial erosion or flooding, or significantly impact the capacity of stormwater drainage
systems.
h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map?
i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact (h & I) - The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to the
Flood Insurance Rate Map. Therefore, the proposed land use and zone change will not result in housing
or structures within a 100-year flood hazard area.
j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No Impact (j & k) - According to the City of Carlsbad GeotechnicaI Hazards Analysis and Mapping
Study, November 1992, the project site is not located within any dam failure inundation area, or area
subject to inundation by seiche or tsunami. Therefore, the proposed land use and zone change will not
result in exposing people or structures to significant risk from flooding as a result of a dam failure, or
from inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters.
m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives,
synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving
surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or
following construction?
26 Rev. 07/03/02 CGl
0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean
Water Act Section 303(d) list?
p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives
or degradation of beneficial uses?
No Impact (I, m, n, o & p) - The project site is not located adjacent to any body of water. Drainage
from the site is subject to the City’s drainage and storm water pollution control standards (NPDES and
best management practices), which ensure that sediment and pollutants from any development of the site
will not discharge into any downstream receiving surface waters. Also, the City’s drainage and storm
water pollution control standards ensure that development does not reduce water quality of any marine,
fresh or wetland waters or groundwater. In addition, the proposed land use and zone change does not
include a proposal for any physical development of the project site. Therefore, the project will not
adversely impact water quality. Any future development proposals will be subject to further
environmental review pursuant to CEQA, and will be subject to the City’s drainage and storm water
pollution control standards.
LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact - The project site is an infill site surrounded by urban development. The proposed land use
and zone change consists of changing the existing commercial designation to a residential designation.
The project site is surrounded by residential development. Future residential development of the site will
be compatible with and integrate into the existing community. Therefore, the project will not physically
divide an established community.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specifrc plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - The proposed project consists of a land use
and zone change fiom a commercial land usehone designation to a residential land use/zone designation.
It is not relevant to consider whether or not the proposed land use/zone designation conflicts with the
existing land usehone designation, since the proposal is to remove the existing designation and apply a
new one. With regard to consistency with the remainder of the policies and regulations of the City’s
General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program, the proposed residential land use
designation does not conflict with any of the provisions of those documents, with the exception of the
Noise Element of the General Plan. Further discussion of the noise issues and mitigation can be found
below under the questions related to “Noise”. With the mitigation described below, the proposed
residential land use designation will not conflict with the policies of the General Plan
With regard to other policies of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, the proposed residential land use
designation (RM - Residential Medium Density 4 - 8 du/ac) does not conflict with any other goal,
objective, policy or program. The proposed land use is consistent and compatible with the surrounding
residential development, which is also designated RM. The land use designation would provide for the
potential to develop 30 dwelling units on the site, which will not exceed any Growth Management
Program policy, and all public facilities and services are adequate to serve such a use. The site is also
adequate in area to accommodate a residential development consistent with all required development
standards.
27 Rev. 07/03/02 $2
_.-.
I With regard to the Local ~stal Program (LCP), the LCP land use A zoning designation will also be
changed from commercial to residential. The proposed residential land use and zone designation would
not conflict with any provision or policy within the LCP. The original adoption of the Mello I Segment
of the LCP required that the site be developed with 35% tourist commercial uses, which is a priority use
in the Coastal Zone. However, the later adoption of the Mello II Segment removed the requirement for
35% tourist commercial uses on the site, which eliminated the concern that a residential land use would
remove a priority land use designation. There is no other policy within the LCP that would prohibit a
residential land use on the property. Therefore, the proposed land use designation does not conflict with
the LCP.
c) Conflict with , any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
No Impact - The project site is an undeveloped infill site that is surrounded by urban development. The
site is not identified in any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural Community conservation plan
as having potential habitat or natural community constraints. Therefore, the proposed land use and zone
change will not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan.
MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future
value to the region and the residents of the State?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
No Impact (a & b) - According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping
Study, November 1992, the project site does not contain any mineral resources. Therefore, the proposed
land use and zone change will not result in the loss of availability of a know mineral resource or mineral
resource recovery site.
NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in
the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - The Noise Element of the General Plan
specifies that sixty (60) dl3 CNEL is the exterior noise level to which all residential units should be
mitigated, and that interior noise levels should be mitigated to 45 dB CNEL. According to the Noise
Contour Map contained within the General Plan, the project site contains noise contours of 70 - 75 dl3
CNEL These high noise levels are primarily generated from traffic on Interstate 5 (west of the site) and
Poinsettia Lane (north of the site).
URS Corporation prepared a Noise Analysis (July 10,2002) for the proposed land use and zone change.
The Noise Analysis verified that the noise levels on the site exceed the acceptable noise levels specified
in the General Plan for residential uses. The highest noise levels detected on the site were 76 dB CNEL at
the west side of the site near Interstate 5, and 66 dl3 CNEL at the north side of the site near Poinsettia
Lane. Future noise levels at City build-out are projected to be 77 dB CNEL on the west side of the
property, 69 dl3 CNEL on the north side, 65 dl3 CNEL on the east side, and 64 dB CNEL on the south
side. These projected noise levels are at ground-level. The Noise Analysis also calculated noise levels
for a second story, which are one to two decibels higher than the ground-level (first floor).
28 Rev. 07/03/02 43
_-- . ...
The Noise Analysis consi :d various land use scenarios, including .ee residential densities (RM 4-8
ddac, RMH 8-15 ddac, & RH 15-23 ddac), office, commercial (existing designation), and hoteL;motel.
For each land use alternative the Noise Analysis concluded that the noise level could be reduced to a level
acceptable for the specified land use with the incorporation of mitigation, sptdically a sound
barriedwall.
In the case of a proposed residential land use designation, including the proposed RM designation. the
Noise Analysis concluded that the following mitigation measures would be necessary to achieve an
exterior noise level of 60 dB CNEL and an interior noise level of 45 dB CNEL:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
10-foot high solid wall along the west side of the property (5 feet back from the top of the
existing slope)
8-foot high solid wall along the north property line
6-foot high solid wall along the east property line '
Closed-window condition on residential units, which will require an alternative means of
ventilation, such as heat pumps or forced-air units.
Second story residential units would require double-pee windows (no special window glazing
would be necessary on first floor windows with the construction of the noise walls specified
above).
Windows and sliding glass doors facing Interstate 5 and Poinsettia Land would need to have a
Sound Transmission Class (STC) of at least 30 - 35.
Doors would need to be solid core and equipped with an appropriate gasket.
Noise barrier walls would also be necessary to mitigate noise for the other land uses reviewed in the
Noise Analysis (office, commercial, hotel/motel). The noise walls would range form 6 to 8 feet (2 feet
less than those required for a residential land use).
Because there is no development project currently associated with the proposed land use and zone change,
the noise mitigation measures recommended in the Noise Analysis were made to determine the feasibility
of reducing noise levels to below the level of significance. A site-specific noise study based on an actual
project design will have to be completed for any future development proposal.
The Noise Analysis also calculated the potential noise generated by traffic from the different land uses,
and the impacts site generated traffic noise might have to adjacent properties. There are existing
residences located adjacent to the south property line of the site, across Paseo Del Norte to the east and
across Poinsettia Lane to the north. Many of the existing residences have existing barriers that minimize
roadway noise. The Noise Analysis concluded that noise levels at residences across Poinsettia Lane north
of the site would vary by less than 1 dBA for all land uses analyzed. The noise levels at residences along
Poinsettia Lane east of the site and south of the site would vary by less than 2 &A for residential, office
and hotel/motel uses, but would increase by approximately 6 dBA for commercial use. Therefore, traffic
generated noise from the proposed residential land use would not significantly impact adjacent properties,
while traffic generated noise from a commercial land use could potentially have a significant impact on
adjacent residences.
Therefore, with the mitigation measures specified in the Noise Analysis prepared by URS Corporation,
dated July 10, 2002, the proposed residential land use will not expose people to and will not generate
noise levels in excess of standards established in the General Plan.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or
groundbourne noise levels?
No Impact - Based upon the nature of the proposed residential land use, the project will not result in any
activity that would generate excessive groundboume vibration or groundboume noise levels. In addition,
the project site is not located adjacent to any use that generates excessive groundbourne vibration or
groundboume noise levels. Although the site is adjacent to Interstate 5, the noise levels from the freeway
29 Rev. 07/03/02
are traffic generated and d 3t generate excessive groundboume vib. an or noise (the impacts of the
traffic generated noise are discussed above). Therefore, the proposed land use and zone change will not
result in the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundboume vibration or groundbourne
noise levels.
..-
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Less than Significant Impact (c & d) - As discussed above, a Noise Analysis was prepared for the
proposed land use and zone change. The Noise Analysis concluded that traffic generated noise from the
proposed residential land use (above that existing today and projected in the future) would be
insignificant (less than 1 &A). Other than traffic generated noise, typical residential land uses do not
generate a substantial amount of noise. With regard to temporary or periodic increase in noise levels, the
only potential increase in noise would be from construction activity associated with a future development
project. The City incorporates standard regulations on a11 project construction activity to ensure that noise
and other potential impacts to surrounding properties are not significant. Therefore, the proposed land
use and zone change will not result in a substantial permanent or temporary increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact (e & f) - The project site is located approximately 1.8 miles from the McClellan-Palomar
Airport. However, the site is not located within an area impacted by excessive noise levels generated by
the alrport. The site is not located near any other public or private airport. Therefore, the proposed land
use and zone change will not expose people to excessive noise levels generated from an airport.
POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
Less than Significant Impact - The proposed land use and zone change will result in the potential for 40
dwelling units on the site (at maximum density), which is not substantial. The additional 40 dwelling
units is consistent with the City’s growth projections contained in the Growth Management Program.
Because all public facilities (roads, infrastructure, etc) have been planned to accommodate the growth
anticipated in the Growth Management Program, no substantial new roads or infrastructure will be
necessary. Therefore, the project will not induce substantial growth either directly or indirectly.
30 Rev. 07/03/02 43/
"
b) Displace sub ltial numbers of existing housing, L ssitating the construction of -
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
No Impact (b & c)- The project site is undeveloped. Therefore, the proposed land use and zone change
will not displace any existing housing or people.
PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or
physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection? ii. Police protection? iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
V. Other public facilities?
No Impact (a.i to a.v.) - Although the proposed land use and zone change will result in additional
residential units, those additional units will be provided for through the City's "excess dwelling unit
bank", which ensures the dwelling unit limitations in the City's Growth Management Program, and those
of the applicable Local Facilities Management Plan, will not be exceeded. The project site is located
within Local Facilities Management Zone 4. The provisions of public facilities within LFMZ 4, including
fire & police protection, parks, libraries and other public facilities, have been planned to accommodate the
projected growth of that area. Because the project will not exceed the total growth projections anticipated
within LFMZ 4, all public facilities will be adequate to serve residential development on the site.
Therefore, the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts to or result in the need for additional
government facilities.
RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
No Impact (a & b) - As part of the City's Growth Management Program, a performance standard for
parks was adopted. The park performance standard requires that 3 acres of Community Park and Special
Use Area per 1,000 population within a park district (quadrant) must be provided.
The project site is located within Park District #3 (Southwest Quadrant). The necessary park acreage to
achieve the GMP standard (3 acres/1,000 population) for Park District #3 was based upon the GMP
dwelling unit limitation for the Southwest Quadrant, which is 12,859 units.
31 Rev. Q7lQ3fO2 46
- h
Although the proposed la’ use change will result in additional res. ntial units in the SW Quadrant.
those units will be provided for through the “excess dwelling unit bank”, which ensures the GMP
dwelling unit limit will not be exceeded. In addition, the Parks and Recreation Element states that the
park acreage demand for the SW Quadrant, based on the GMP dwelling unit limit, is 89.41 acres. and the
anticipated park acreage to be provided at build-out will be 96.25 acres. Therefore. there will be adequate
parkland within the SW Quadrant, and the proposed land use change will not cause additional demand for
parkland or expansion of recreational facilites. Because park facilities will be adequate to sene
residential development on the site, any increase in use of park facilities generated from future
development of the site will not result in substantial physical deterioration of any park facility.
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC-Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system?
Less Than Significant Impact. Based upon the density range (4-8 ddac) of the proposed RM land use
designation, which could result in 40 dwelling units on the site at maximum density, the proposed RM
land use designation has the potential to generate 400 Average Daily Trips (ADT) and 40 peak hour trips.
The 400 ADT is based on the standard trip generation rate for single family residential development (10
tripddu). The standard trip generation rate for multifamily development (condominiumdapartments) is
less (8 tripddu).
Traffrc from future residential development on the site will utilize Poinsettia Lane and Paseo Del Norte.
Existing traffic on Poinsettia Lane (major arterial) between Interstate 5 and Paseo Del Norte is 28,559
ADT (2001) and east of Paseo Del Norte is 22,030 ADT (2001). The existing traffic on Paseo Del
NorteLowder Lane (collector) south of Poinsettia Lane is 1,470 ADT (2002), and Paseo Del Norte
(secondary arterial) north of Poinsettia Lane is 10,406 ADT (2001). The 2001 peak hour level of service
at the arterial intersection impacted by the project (Poinsettia Lane and Paseo Del Norte) is LOS “A.
The design capacity of Poinsettia Lane is 40,000 vehicles per day. The design capacity of Paseo Del
Norte south of Poinsettia Lane is 10,000 vehicles per day and north of Poinsettia Lane is 20,000 vehicles
per day. According to the City Traffic Engineer, the proposed residential land use will not change the
LOS on any roadway. The street system has been designed and sized to accommodate traffic from such
development and cumulative development in the City of Carlsbad. The proposed land use and zone
change would not, therefore, cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system. The impacts from future residential development on the site are,
therefore, less than significant.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by
the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
Less Than Significant Impact - SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has
designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway
segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The Existing and Buildout average daily
traffic (ADT) and Existing LOS on these designated roads and highways in Carlsbad is:
Existing ADT* - LOS Buildout ADT*
Rancho Santa Fe Road 15-32 “A-C” 28-43
El Camino Real 2 1-50 “A-C” 32-65
Palomar Airport Road 10-52 “A-B” 29-77
SR 78 120 “F’ 144
1-5 183-198 “D” 2 19-249
*The numbers are in thousands of daily Qs.
32 Rev. 07/03/02 47
- ”,
The Congestion Manager. t Program’s (CMP) acceptable Level 01 mice (LOS) standard is “E”, or
LOS “F” if that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS “F” in 1990).
Accordingly, all designated roads and highways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable
standard LOS.
Note that the buildout ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region’s general and
community plans. The proposed land use and zone change is consistent with the growth projections of
the general plan and, therefore, its traffic was used in modeling the buildout projections. Achievement of
the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS) “E” standard assumes implementation of the adopted CMP
strategies. Based on the design capacity(ies) of the designated roads and highways and implementation of
the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the short-term and at buildout.
c) Result in a change in air trafflc patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or
a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
No Impact - The proposed residential land use designationhone does not include any aviation
components. The project site is not located within the McClellan-Palomar Airport influence area and
does not conflict with any provision of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar
Airport. It would not, therefore, result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety
risks. No impact assessed.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses?
No Impact - The proposed land use and zone change does not include a proposal for any physical
development of the project site. All circulation improvements associated with future residential
development of the site will be designed and constructed to City standards; and, therefore, would not
result in design hazards. The proposed residential land use is consistent and compatible with surrounding
land uses. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No impact assessed.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No Impact - The proposed land use and zone change does not include a proposal for any physical
development of the project site. Any future residential development resulting from the proposed land use
and zone change will be required to be designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and
Police Departments. No impact assessed.
0 Result in inadequate parking capacity?
No Impact - The proposed land use and zone change does not include a proposal for any physical
development of the project site. Any future residential development resulting from the proposed land use
and zone change will be required to comply with the City’s parking requirements to ensure an adequate
parking supply. No impact assessed.
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)?
No Impact - The proposed land use and zone change does not include a proposal for any physical
development of the project site. Any future residential development resulting from the proposed land use
and zone change will be required to comply with any applicable policies, plans and programs supporting
alternative transportation. No impact assessed.
33 Rev. 07/03/02 48
- - UTILITIES AND SERY’ :S SYSTEMS - Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Qualit!.
Control Board?
No Impact - The proposed land use and zone change does not include a proposal for any physical
development of the project site. Any future residential development resulting from the proposed land use
and zone change will be required to comply with all Regional Water Quality Control Board
Requirements. In addition, LFMP Zone 4 anticipated that the project site would be developed with a
commercial use and wastewater treatment facilities were planned and designed to accommodate a
commercial use on the site. The proposed residential land use will have a lesser demand for wastewater
treatment facilities. Therefore, the project will not result in development that will exceed wastewater
treatment requirements.
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand
in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
No Impact @, c, d & e) - AI1 public facilities, including water facilities, wastewater treatment facilities
and drainage facilities, have been planned and designed to accommodate the growth projections for the
City at build-out. In addition, LFMP Zone 4 anticipated that the project site would be developed with a
commercial use and water, wastewater treatment and storm water drainage facilities were planned and
designed to accommodate a commercial use on the site. The proposed residential land use will have a
lesser demand on such facilities than the anticipated commercial development. Also, the proposed
residential land use will not result in growth that exceeds the City’s growth projections. Therefore, the
proposed land use and zone change will not result in a significant need to expand or construct new water
facilitieshpplies, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage facilities.
0 Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact (f & g) - Based on the nature proposed residential land use, and the projected density (40
dwelling units), existing waste disposal services are adequate to serve a residential use on the site without
exceeding landfill capacities. In addition, any future residential development resulting from the proposed
land use and zone change will be required to comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste.
34 Rev. 07/03/02
MANDATORY F”DF- ’5 OF SIGNIFICANCE
“,
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or 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?
No Impact - Based upon the nature of the proposed residential land use/zone, the project will not degrade
the quality of the environment. The project site does not contain any fish or wildlife species. Therefore,
the project will not reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species.
The project site is an undeveloped infill site that has been’ disturbed through grading, and is not identified
by any habitat conservation plan as containing a protected, rare or endangered plant or animal
community. Therefore, the project will not threaten or reduce the number a plant or animal community.
In addition, there is no historic structures on the site and there. is no known cultural resources on the site.
Any future residential development on the site will be required to comply with the City’s Cultural
Resource Guidelines. Therefore, the project will not result in the elimination of any important examples
of California History or prehistory.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?)
Less than Significant Impact - San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects regional
growth for the greater San Diego area, and local general plan land use policies are incorporated into
SANDAG projections. Based upon those projections, region-wide standards, including storm water
quality control, air quality standards, habitat conservation, congestion management standards, etc, are
established to reduce the cumulative impacts of development in the region. All of the City’s development
standards and regulations are consistent with the region-wide standards. The City’s standards and
regulations, including grading standards, water quality and drainage standards, traffic standards, habitat
and cultural resource protection regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that development within
the City will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact.
There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a
cumulatively considerable impact on. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. As discussed
above, the proposed land use and zone change will result in a potential for future residential development,
which would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions
throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with a future residential
development would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with a residential
development of the site, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the residential
development is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 (a)(4), the project’s
contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than
significant.
Also, as discussed above, the County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) has designated three roads
(Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad
as part of the regional circulation system. The CMA has determined, based on the City’s growth
projections in the General Plan, that these designated roadways will function at acceptable levels of
service in the short-term and at build-out. The project is consistent with the City’s growth projections,
and therefore, the cumulative impact from the project to the regional circulation system is less than
significant.
35 Rev. 07/03/02
With regard to any other potential impact associated with the project, City standards and regulations will
ensure that fbture residential development on the site will not result in a significant cumulative
considerable impact.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - Based upon the nature of the proposed
residential land use, and that any future development of the site will comply with City standards, the
residential land use designation will not result in any substantial adverse environmental effects. However,
the project site is located in an area where human beings could be exposed to significantly high noise
levels generated from traffic on adjacent roadways. As discussed above, any potential impact from noise
can be mitigated to a level less than significant. Those mitigation measures will be incorporated as
conditions of project approval. Any future residential development on the site will be required to comply
with all applicable federal, state, regional and City regulations, which will ensure the development of the
site will not result in an adverse impact on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
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.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Reuort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MER
93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994.
2. CiW of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mappine; Study, November 1992.
3. Noise Analysis, prepared for the City of Carlsbad by URS Corporation, July 10,2002.
4. Carlsbad General Plan, September 6, 1994.
5. Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 4, May 1987.
36 Rev. 07/03/02
I
-
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURE
To mitigate noise levels on the site to not exceed 60 dB CNEL (exterior) and 45 dB CNEL (interior). as
specified in the General Plan for residential land uses, the following mitigation measures shall be applied
to any future residential development on the project site:
0 Any proposal to construct residential units on the project site shall include a site
specific/project design specific noise analysis. Such noise analysis shall specify the exact
noise mitigation necessary for the specific project to reduce exterior noise levels to not
exceed 60 dB CNEL, and interior noise levels to not exceed 45 dB CNEL.
0 Unless evidence is provided that justifies mitigation other than that specified in the Noise
Analysis prepared for this project, dated July 10, 2002, the following mitigation measures
shall be incorporated into any future residential development on the project site:
0 10-foot high solid wall along the west side of the property (5 feet back from the top
of the existing slope). City standards do not allow walls to exceed 6 feet in height.
Therefore, the noise barrier wall may be a combination of earthen berm with a 6 foot
maximum solid wall above. Transparent materials, such as acrylic panels, may be
utilized to maintain views, if evidence shows that they will be effective in providing
the necessary noise mitigation. The design of all walls will be subject to City review
and approval.
0 8-foot high solid wal1 along the north property line. City standards do not allow
walls to exceed 6 feet in height. Therefore, the noise barrier wall may be a
combination of earthen berm with a 6 foot maximum solid wall above. Transparent
materials, such as acrylic panels, may be utilized to maintain views, if evidence
shows that they will be effective in providing the necessary noise mitigation. The
design of all walls will be subject to City review and approval.
0 6-foot high solid wall along the east property line.
0 Closed-window condition on residential units, which will require an alternative
means of ventilation, such as heat pumps or forced-air units.
0 Second story residential units would require double-pane windows (no special
window glazing would be necessary on first floor windows with the construction of
the noise walls specified above).
e Windows and sliding glass doors facing Interstate 5 and Poinsettia Lane would need
to have a Sound Transmission Class (STC) of at least 30 - 35.
0 Doors would need to be solid core and equipped with an appropriate gasket.
37 Rev. 07/03/02 d-2
APPL W CONCURRENCE WITH MITlGA jN MEASURES
”
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
38 Rev. 07/03/02 53
ADDENDUM TO THE
MITIGATED MEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR
SMITH PROPERTY LAND USE CHANGE
GPA 02-02 / ZC 02-03 / LCPA 02-05
This Addendum to the project Mitigated Negative Declaration is to clarify and modify the project
description. The modification to the project description is insignificant and does not create any new
significant environmental effect that was not previously identified.
The modified project description is as follows:
Project Description:
The Carlsbad City Council has directed City staff to process and make recommendations for an
appropriate residential land use designation on the Smith property located on the southeast comer
of Interstate 5 and Poinsettia Lane. The project site is a 5.12 acre undeveloped infill site that is
surrounded by urban development.
The current General Plan and Local Coastal Program land use designation is N (Neighborhood
Commercial). The current Citv zone and Local Coastal Program zone designation is C-1-Q
(Neighborhood Commercial in a Qualified Development Overlay Zone). The site is also located
within the Commercial Visitor-Servinp Overlay Zone, and is within the Mello I Segment of
the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program (LCP) g.
Pursuant to City Council direction, staff is processing a General Plan Amendment (GPA 02-02),
Zone Change (ZC 02-03) and Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 02-05) to change the
current neighborhood commercial land use and zoning designations to the following residential
designations:
0 Land Use - RM - Medium Density (4 - 8 ddac)
(Note: Based upon the project site area (5.12 acres), the proposed RM land use
designation would allow up to 40 dwelling units on the site at maximum density.)
0 Zone - RDM-Q (Residential Density-Multiple Zone / Qualified Development
Overlay), without the Commercial Visitor-Serving Overlay Zone.
0 Local Coastal Program Land Use - RM (Residential Medium Densitv - 4-8
du/ac)
0 Local Coastal Program Zoninp - RDM-0 (Residential Densitv - Multiple
Zone/Oualified Overlav Zone), without the Commercial Visitor-Serving Overlay
Zone.
The Local Coastal Promam amendment also includes a modification to the Mello I Segment
text to reflect the proposed residential land use desimation. The text amendment will also
incorporate applicable land use policies previouslv adopted in the Mello II Segment that
supercede those in the Mello I Segment.
DATE: August 14,2002
54
ENVIRONMENTAL ,.dTIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 1 of 3
\ a z \ a z
0 C C C m a
.-
-
55
c
ENVIRONMENTAL I.,rTIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 2 of 3
\ Q:
Z
cn C C C m
.-
h
a
a 5 L
CI) C
C t m
.-
h
cn C
C C m
.-
h
cj
\ Q:
Z
cn C
C C ([I
.-
h
d
ENVIRONMENTAL I.lrTIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 3 of 3
\ a z
m ii
w
\ a z
LL
. a
2
m C c C m
.-
zi:
W c m
p! 8
cj
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. 5272
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO CHANGE THE
LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM “N” TO “RM” ON
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
INTERSTATE 5 AND POINSETTIA LANE IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 4.
CASE NAME: SMITH PROPERTY LAND USE CHANGE
CASE NO: GPA 02-02
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad, “Applicant,” has filed a verified application
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Caroline’s Survivor’s Trust (Caroline
Smith), “Owner,” described as
Lot 171 of Carlsbad Tract 73-24, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map
thereof No. 7996, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of
San Diego County, August 5,1974
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a General Plan
Amendment as shown on Exhibit “GPA 02-02,” dated September 4, 2002, on file in the
Carlsbad Planning Department SMITH PROPERTY LAND USE CHANGE - GPA 02-02 as
provided in Government Code Section 65350 et. seq. and Section 21.52.160 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 4th day of September 2002
and on the 18th day of September 2002 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law
to consider said request;
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the General Plan Amendment.
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of SMITH PROPERTY LAND USE
CHANGE - GPA 02-02, based on the following findings and subject to the
following conditions:
Findinm:
1. The proposed General Plan Amendment - changing the Land Use designation from
N (Neighborhood Commercial) to RM (Residential Medium Density - 4-8 du/ac), as
shown on Exhibit “A,” is in conformance with the Elements of the City’s General
Plan based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated September 4, 2002,
including, but not limited to the following:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
...
The proposed RM land use designation is consistent with the Land Use
Element in that it is compatible with the surrounding medium density
residential land uses, which are also designated RM; and
The proposed RM land use designation is in conformance with the Land Use
Element in that the provision for residential units on the project site will not
exceed the Growth Management Program’s dwelling unit limitation for the
Southwest Quadrant because the additional dwelling units will be provided
for through the “excess dwelling unit bank;’’ and
The proposed RM land use designation is in conformance with the
Circulation Element in that the design capacity of the surrounding roadways
is adequate to accommodate traffic from a medium density residential land
use on the site without reducing the existing acceptable level of service; and
The proposed RM land use designation is in conformance with the Noise
Element in that with the mitigation measures specified in the project’s
Mitigated Negative Declaration the noise levels on the site can be reduced to
a level acceptable for residential uses as specified in said Element, and noise
generated from a residential land use on the site will not significantly impact
adjacent properties.
The proposed RM land use designation is in conformance with the Housing
Element in that it will allow for the development of residential units on the
site, which will assist in meeting Carlsbad’s share of the regional housing
needs and the housing needs of Carlsbad’s existing and future population.
PC RES0 NO. 5272 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Conditions:
1. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for
GPA 02-02, ZC 02-03 and LCPA 02-05, as specified in Planning Commission
Resolution No. 5271, and subject to the approval of the proposed ZC 02-03 and
LCPA 02-05.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of September 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman, Segall, and Whitton
NOES: Commissioners Baker and White
ABSENT: Chairperson Trigas
ABSTAIN: None
.f\ n
R, Vice-Chairperson
COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HO-R
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5272 -3-
September 4.2002
GENERAL PLAN MAP CHANGE GPA 02-02
Project Name: SMITH PROPERTY LAND USE CHANGE I Related Case File No@): ZC 02-03 / LCPA 02-05
Property/Legal Description(s):
Lot 17 1 of Carlsbad Tract 73-24, in the City of Carlsbad. County of San Diego, State of California. according to Map thereof No
7996. filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August 5, 1974.
Approvals
Council Approval Date:
Resolution No:
Effective Date:
Signature:
I I Attach additional pages if necessary I,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5273
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE FROM C-1-Q TO RDM-Q,
AND REMOVAL OF THE COMMERCIAL VISITOR-SERVING
OVERLAY ZONE ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF INTERSTATE 5 AND
POINSETTIA LANE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 4.
CASE NAME: SMITH PROPERTY LAND USE
CHANGE
CASE NO: ZC 02-03
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad, “Applicant,” has filed a verified application
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Caroline’s Survivor’s Trust (Caroline
Smith), “Owner,” described as
Lot 171 of Carlsbad Tract 73-24, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map
thereof No. 7996, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of
San Diego County, August 5,1974
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Zone Change as
shown on Exhibit “A” attached to Planning Commission Resolution 5274 and Exhibit “ZC
02-03,” dated September 4, 2002, on file in the Planning Department, SMITH PROPERTY
LAND USE CHANGE - ZC 02-03, as provided by Chapter 21.52 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 4th day of September, 2002
and on the 18th day of September 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 factgrs
relating to the Zone Change; and
LJ
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
”
“
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of SMITH PROPERTY LAND USE
CHANGE - ZC 02-03 based on the following findings and subject to the
following condition: .
Findings:
1. That the proposed Zone Change fiom C-1-Q to RDM-Q is consistent with the goals and
policies of the various elements of the General Plan, in that the proposed RDM-Q zone
is consistent with the proposed RM (Residential Medium Density) Land Use
designation subject to the mitigation measures specified in the project Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Addendum.
2. That the Zone Change will provide consistency between the General Plan and Zoning as
mandated by California State law and the City of Carlsbad General Plan Land Use
Element, in that the proposed RDM-Q Zone designation, as shown on Exhibit “ZC
02-03,” implements the proposed RM Land Use Designation.
3. That the Zone Change is consistent with the public convenience, necessity and general
welfare, and is consistent with sound planning principles in that the residential uses
allowed by the proposed zone change are compatible with surrounding residential
uses.
4. That the removal of the Commercial Visitor Serving Overlay Zone is necessary
because it only applies to commercial land uses and not to the residential land uses
permitted in the proposed RDM-Q zone.
Conditions:
1. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for
GPA 02-02, ZC 02-03 and LCPA 02-05, as specified in Planning Commission
Resolution No. 5271, and subject to the approval of the proposed GPA 02-02 and
LCPA 02-05.
...
.. .
...
...
PC RES0 NO. 5273 63 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 18th day of September 2002, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman, Segall, and Whitton
NOES: Commissioners Baker and White
ABSENT: Chairperson Trigas
ABSTAIN: None
n
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5273 -3- LL4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1s
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5274
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CARLSBAD
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (LCP) TO AMEND TEXT
WITHIN THE MELLO I SEGMENT OF THE LCP
DOCUMENT, AND TO CHANGE THE LCP LAND USE
DESIGNATION FROM “N” TO “RM,” THE LCP ZONE
DESIGNATION FROM “C-1-Q” TO “RDM-Q,” AND TO
REMOVE THE COMMERCIAL VISITOR-SERVING
OVERLAY ZONE, THEREBY BRINGING THE
DESIGNATIONS ON THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM,
GENERAL PLAN, AND ZONING MAP INTO
CONFORMANCE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF INTERSTATE 5 AND
POINSETTIA LANE.
CASE NAME: SMITH PROPERTY LAND USE CHANGE
CASE NO: LCPA 02-05
WHEREAS, California State law requires that the Local Coastal Program,
General Plan, and Zoning designations for properties in the Coastal Zone be in conformance; and
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad, “Applicant,” has filed a verified application
for an amendment to the Local Coastal Program document text, and Local Coastal Program
designations regarding property owned by Caroline’s Survivor’s Trust (Caroline Smith),
“Owner,” described as
Lot 171 of Carlsbad Tract 73-24, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map
thereof No. 7996, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of
San Diego County, August 5,1974
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, the proposed Local Coastal Program text amendment is set forth in
the draft City Council Ordinance, Exhibit “A,” dated September 4, 2002, and attached hereto
SMITH PROPERTY LAND USE CHANGE - LCPA 02-05; and
WHEREAS, said verified application also constitutes a request for a Local
Coastal Program Amendment as shown on Exhibits “B” and “C,” dated September 4, 2002, as
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- _.-
provided in Public Resources Code Section 30574 and Article 15 of Subchapter 8, Chapter 2,
Division 5.5 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations of the California Coastal
Commission Administrative Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 4th day of September 2002
and on the 18th day of September 2002 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law
to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Local Coastal Program Amendment.
WHEREAS, State Coastal Guidelines requires a six week public review period
for any amendment to the Local Coastal Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) At the end of the State mandated six week, review period, starting on June 20,
2002 and ending on August 1, 2002, staff shall present to the City Council a
summary of the comments received.
C) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of SMITH PROPERTY LAND USE
CHANGE LCPA 02-05 based on the following findings, and subject to the
following conditions:
Findinps: -
1. That 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 the proposed RDM-Q zone is consistent with the proposed
RM (Residential Medium Density) land use designation.
2. That the proposed land use and zone designation amendment to the Mello I Segment of
the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program is required to bring it into consistency with the
proposed General Plan Land Use designation (RM) and Zoning Ordinance zone
designation (RDM-Q).
PC RES0 NO. 5274 -2- 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3. That the proposed text amendment to the Mello I Segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal
Program is required to bring it into consistency with the proposed land use and zone
designations, and to incorporate land use policies established with the original
adoption of the Mello I1 Segment, which supercede the policies in the Me110 I
Segment.
4. That the removal of the Commercial Visitor Serving Overlay Zone is necessary
because it only applies to commercial land uses and not to the residential land uses
permitted in the proposed RDM-Q zone.
Conditions:
1. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for
GpA 02-02, ZC 02-03 and LCPA 02-05, and as specified in Planning commission
Resolution No. 5271, and subject to the approval of the proposed GpA 02-02 and
ZC 02-03.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 18th day of September 2002, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman, Segall, and Whitton
NOES: Commissioners Baker and White
ABSENT: Chairperson Trigas
ABSTAIN: None
R', Vice-Chairperson
COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHhL J. -LER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5274 -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
- EXHIBIT “A”
September 4,2002
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 21.05.030
OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY AN
AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP AND THE LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM ZONING MAP TO GRANT A ZONE
CHANGE FROM C-1-Q TO RDM-Q, AND TO REMOVE THE
COMMERCIAL VISITOR-SERVING OVERLAY ZONE ON
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
INTERSTATE 5 AND POINSETTIA LANE IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 4, AND AMENDING
THE TEXT OF SECTION 2 “OCCIDENTAL LAND, INC.”
POLICY 1 OF THE MELLO I SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM.
CASE NAME: SMITH PROPERTY LAND USE CHANGE
CASE NO.: ZC 02-03 / LCPA 02-05
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does ordain as folbws:
SECTION I: That Section 21.05.030 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, being the
zoning map, is amended as shown on the map marked Exhibits “ZC 02-03,” “LCPA 02-05 Land
Use Map” and “LCPA 02-05 Zoning,” attached hereto and made a part hereof.
SECTION 11: That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission as set
forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5271, 5273 and 5274 constitute the findings and
conditions of the City Council.
SECTION 111: That the Section 2 “Occidental Land, Inc.” Policy 1 of the Mello I
Segment of the City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program shall read as follows:
“2. Occidental Land, Inc.
Policy 1 - Land Uses
NOTE: The “Occidental Land, Inc.” landowners elected to pay an agriculture
conversion fee as required by the Agricultural Subsidy Program
established by the Mello I1 LCP Segment (AB 1971) adopted and certified
by the Coastal Commission on June 3, 1981. With the election to pay the
agriculture conversion fee, the AgTicultural Subsidy Program allowed the
“Occidental Land, Inc.” properties to be developed in accordance with the
land uses described below. b8
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
Pursuant to State Legislation in 1984, the Agricultural Subsidy Program
was replaced with the Agriculture Conversion Mitigation Fee (Public
Resource Code Section 301 7 1.2 and 301 71.5) (Mello I1 Segment Policy 2-
1 Option 3).
As per Public Resource Code Section 30171.2, the land use policies
established in 1981 by the adoption of the Mello I1 Segment remained
“operative” even though the Agricultural Subsidy Program was replaced.
The Occidental Land parcels are hereby designated as follows:
(1) The area located east of Interstate 5 and north of Poinsettia Lane shall be
designated for residential use at a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per acre.
(2) The area located east of Interstate 5 and south of Poinsettia Lane shall be
designated for residential use at a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per acre.
(3) The area located west of Interstate 5 and south of Poinsettia Lane shall be
designated for visitor-serving or neighborhood commercial development
according to Chapter 21.26 of the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance.
(4) The area located west of Interstate 5 and north of Poinsettia Lane shall be
designated for visitor-serving or neighborhood commercial development
according to Chapter 2 1.26 of the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance, provided that a
minimum of 35% is developed as visitor serving uses.”
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after
its adoption, upon the effective date of GPA 02-02, or upon the effective date of the California
Coastal Commission’s approval of LCPA 02-05, which ever is the last to occur, and the City
Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at least once in a
newspaper of general circulation within fifteen (1 5) days after its adoption.
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at regular meeting of the Carlsbad City
Council held on the day of ,2002, and thereafter.
Ill/
Ill/
Ill/
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the day of 2002, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
-3-
Exhibit "B"
September 4.2002
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
LAND USE MAP
LCPA 02-05
draft final 17
Project Name: SMITH PROPERTY LAND USE CHANGE I Related Case File No(s): GPA 02-02 / ZC 02-03 I Property/Legal Description(s):
ot 17 1 of Carlsbad Tract 73-24, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof NO
996, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August 5, 1974.
_c
Exhibit “C”
September 4,2002
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
ZONING
LCPA 02-05
draft final
Project Name: SMITH PROPERTY LAND USE CHANGE I Related Case File No@): GPA 02-02 / ZC 02-03
Property/Legal Description(s):
Lot 17 1 of Carlsbad Tract 73-24, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof Nc
7996, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August 5, 1974.
LCPA Map Designation Change Approvals
Property Council Approval Date: To: From:
APN: 21 4-471 -53 Ordinance No: RDM-Q (5.1 2 ac.) C-1 -Q (5.1 2 ac.)
Within Commercial Visifor-
Serving Overlay Zone Serving Overlay Zone
Without Commercial Visifor-
Effective Date:
Signature:
I Attach additional pages if necessary I
-1
The City of Carlsbad Planning DepartrtA EXHIBIT 5
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application complete date: July 10,2002
P.C. AGENDA OF: September 18,2002
Project Engineer: Jeremy Riddle
Project Planner: Jennifer Coon
SUBJECT: GPA 02-02/ZC 02-03/LCPA 02-05 - SMITH PROPERTY LAND USE
CHANGE - Request for a recommendation to the City Council to adopt a
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, and to recommend approval of a General Plan Amendment,
Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment to change the land use and
zoning designations on a vacant 5.12 acre parcel of land located at the southeast
comer of Interstate 5 and Poinsettia Lane from “Neighborhood Commercial” to
“Residential Medium Density,” and to remove the site from the Commercial
Visitor-Serving Overlay Zone. The proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment
also includes text modifications within the LCP Mello I Segment document.
I. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions
No. 5271, 5272, 5273 and 5274, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a General Plan Amendment (GPA 02-02), Zone Change
(02-03) and Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 02-05), based’ on the findings and
subject to the conditions contained therein.
11. BACKGROUND
This item was continued from the September 4,2002 meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5271 (Mit. Neg. Dec)
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5272 (GPA)
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5273 (ZC)
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5274 (LCPA)
5. Staff Report dated September 4,2002 with attachments
” The City of Carlsbad Plll.nning Departa-A
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No.
Application complete date: July 10,2002
P.C. AGENDA OF: September 4,2002
Project Engineer: Jeremy Riddle
Project Planner: Jennifer Coon
SUBJECT: GPA 02-02/ZC 02-03LCPA 02-05 - SMITH PROPERTY LAND USE
CHANGE - Request for a recommendation to the City Council to adopt a
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, and to recommend approval of a General Plan Amendment,
Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment to change the land use and
zoning designations on a vacant 5.12 acre parcel of land located at the southeast
comer of Interstate 5 and Poinsettia Lane from “Neighborhood Commercial” to
“Residential Medium Density,” and to remove the site from the Commercial
Visitor-Serving Overlay Zone. The proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment
also includes text modifications within the LCP Mello I Segment document.
I. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions
No. 5271, 5272, 5273 and 5274, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a General Plan Amendment (GPA 02-02), Zone Change
(02-03) and Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 02-05), based on the findings and
subject to the conditions contained therein.
11. INTRODUCTION
The discussion and analysis contained in this staff report focuses on the primary issues
associated with this project. There is a long history of actions that have led up to and are
relevant to the current proposal to change the land use designation on the project site from
neighborhood commercial to residential. A summary of the project’s background and history is
included to help put into perspective the series of events/actions that pertain to this project.
There are a few issues associated with the proposed land use change with regard to General Plan
Noise Element policies and environmental impacts associated with noise, and Local Coastal
Program (LCP) policies. The issues associated with noise have been resolved through proposed
mitigation measures described in the project Environmental Impact Assessmenthlitigated
Negative Declaration and are discussed below.
The issues associated with the LCP involve Coastal Commission concerns regarding the possible
loss of a “visitor-serving” commercial land use designation, which was originally designated on
the project site with the adoption of the Mello I LCP Segment. Through research of the LCP
history relative to the Mello I and Mello I1 Segments, staff has addressed the Coastal
Commission’s concerns.
“
GPA 02-02/ZC 02-03/LC .02-05 - SMITH PROPERTY LAND -&E CHANGE
September 4,2002
Pane 2
Directly related to the Coastal Commission’s concerns, is an issue regarding the current land use
policies in the Mello I Segment, which were superceded by policies established with the
adoption of the Mello I1 Segment. The Mello I1 Segment was adopted after the Mello I Segment.
Land use polices were established in the Mello I1 Segment that specifically apply to the project
site and surrounding properties in the Mello I Segment as part of an agriculture subsidy program.
The land use policies in the Mello I Segment were, by error, never modified to reflect the later
adopted policies in the Mello I1 Segment. To resolve this issue, staff is proposing to modify the
Mello I Segment text by incorporating the policies established by the original Mello I1 Segment
and modify them to reflect the proposed land use designation change on the project site.
Note: Throughout the following report, the term “tourist commercial” is used to reference the
wording of the Mello I Segment. The term “visitor-serving commercial” references the wording
of the Mello I1 Segment. The two terms are synonymous. ‘
In. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Proiect Description
The project consists of a land use and zone change on a vacant 5.12 acre parcel located on the
southeast comer of Interstate 5 and Poinsettia Lane. The proposed land use and zoning
designation changes are as follows:
FROM:
RM N General Plan
TO:
Land Use (Residential Medium Density - 4-8 du/ac) (Neighborhood Commercial)
C-1-Q RDM-Q
(Neighborhood Commercial/
Without the Commercial Visitor-Serving Within the Commercial Visitor-
(Residential Density - Multiple Zone/
Zoning Qualified Overlay Zone) Qualified Overlay Zone)
Serving Overlay Zone Overlay Zone
Local Coastal
Program (Residential Medium Density - 4-8 ddac) (Neighborhood Commercial) Land Use
RM N
C-1-Q RDM-Q Local Coastal (Residential Density - Multiple Zone/ (Neighborhood Commercial/
Program Without the Commercial Visitor-Serving Within the Commercial Visitor- Zoning
Qualified Overlay Zone) Qualified Overlay Zone)
Serving Overlay Zone Overlay Zone
The proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) also includes text modifications to
the LCP Mello I Segment document. The text modifications will reflect the proposed land use
designation and will incorporate land use policies from the original Mello I1 Segment that
supercede the policies currently stated in the Mello I Segment.
The project site is directly adjacent to Interstate 5 to the west, Poinsettia Lane to the north and
Paseo Del Norte (a.k.a. Lowder Lane) to the east. Other than the adjacent roadways, the
surrounding land uses consist of single-family residential development across Poinsettia Lane to
75
- A
GPA O2-O2/ZC 02-03LC .02-05 - SMITH PROPERTY LAND -;E CHANGE
September 4,2002
Pane 3
the north, and condominium developments across Paseo Del Norte to the east and northeast and
directly adjacent to the south property line.
Backmound
On March 12, 2002, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2002-84 approving three
amendments to the General Plan. One of the three amendments was a land use change on 15
properties to bring them into conformance with the new Local Shopping Center land use
designation, which replaced the Neighborhood Commercial and Community Commercial
designations. The Resolution also included a direction to the Planning Director to ‘process and
make recommendations for an appropriate residential and use designation for the SmithlWalslt
property. I’
The Council’s direction to change the land use on the Smith property to residential came in
response to discussion and public comments during the March 5, 2002 Council meeting. At that
meeting, staff presented a General Plan Amendment (GPA 01-06) to apply the new Local
Shopping Center land use designation on 17 sites. One of the 17 sites was the Smith property
(project site), and staff recommended the land use designation be changed from the current N
(Neighborhood Commercial) designation (which is no longer a valid land use designation) to the
new Local Shopping Center designation.
Several residents of the Seacliff community, which is located south and east of the Smith site,
spoke at the March 5, 2002 Council meeting. The Seacliff residents expressed concern with the
Smith site being developed with a commercial use and requested the land use designation on the
site be changed to residential. The residents stated their concerns with traffic circulation and
access on Paseo Del Norte and the impact a commercial development would have to the Seacliff
community from noise, lights and air pollution. The residents also stated that they thought there
was an “over saturation of commercial sites in the area of Poinsettia Lane and Paseo Del Norte”
and that “more shopping centers in that area are not needed.”
After listening to public comments and Council discussion, the Council directed staff to process
a land use and zone change on the Smith property to change the designation to residential. The
City Attorney prepared Resolution No. 2002-84 reflecting the Council’s direction, which was
adopted at the following Council meeting on March 12,2002.
Prior to the March 5, 2002 Council meeting, there were several proposals to develop the Smith
property with commercial uses, which resulted in opposition from the residents of the adjacent
Seacliff community. The following is a history of actions relative to the site and to the current
Council direction to designate the site as residential:
A. The project site has had a commercial designation since at least 1974, as reflected on the
City’s zoning map of that year, which at that time was C-2.
B. In 1980 the Mello I Segment of the Local Coastal Program (LCP) was adopted, which
designated the site as commercial with the requirement that 35% of the land on the south
side of Poinsettia Lane on both sides of Interstate 5 be developed with tourist commercial
uses.
“.
GPA O2-O2/ZC 02-03LC 02-05 - SMITH PROPERTY LAND - AE CHANGE ”
September 4,2002
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
In 1981 the Mello I1 Segment of the LCP was adopted, which established an agricultural
subsidy program that applied to the project site and surrounding properties in the Mello I
Segment. With the agricultural subsidy program, approval of the Mello I1 Segment
modified the permitted land uses on the site to “visitor serving or neighborhood
commercial.” The 35% tourist commercial requirement was removed from the site.
In 1982 the land use and zoning on the site were changed from General Commercial (C-
2) to Neighborhood Commercial with a Qualified Overlay Zone (C-1-Q).
On July 12, 1982, the City approved a tentative parcel map for a 4-lot subdivision on the
property, which included a condition that the map would expire one year from the date of
approval (if the map were not recorded).
On February 23, 1983, the Coastal Commission approved a coastal development permit
(CDP 6-82-537) for the tentative parcel map approved by the City in 1982.
The Coastal Commission required as a condition of approval of CDP 6-82-537 that a
deed restriction be placed on the property requiring the payment of an agriculture
conversion fee prior to development, and restricting the land use of the site to “the uses
defined as visitor-serving or neighborhood commercial., .as incorporated into the
certified City of Carlsbad (Mello I1 Segment) LCP.”
On July 12, 1983, the City’s approval of the tentative parcel map expired because no final
map was recorded. It is the City’s position that, because the tentative parcel map is no
longer in effect, the coastal development permit is no longer valid.
Pursuant to the conditions of approval of CDP 6-82-537, a deed restriction was recorded
on December 29, 1983 as File No. 83-475376. The deed restriction states that “said deed
restriction shall remain in full force and effect during the period that said permit [CDP 6-
82-5371.. .remains effective.” As noted above, it is the City’s position that the coastal
development permit is no longer in effect because the tentative parcel map expired.
On June 20, 1989, development applications were submitted to the City, which proposed
a commercial development on the site (Poinsettia Country Plaza). The Seacliff
Homeowner’s Association initiated and submitted a petition objecting to the commercial
development and requesting the property be redesignated from C-1-Q to office.
On July 18, 1989, the Council reviewed the petition, project issues and public testimony,
and voted unanimously to allow the commercial development proposal to continue its
standard processing.
On August 10, 1989, a meeting was held between the developers of the proposed
commercial development and the Seacliff Homeowner’s Association.
On October 2, 1989, the applicant withdrew their application for the commercial
development.
7
”
GPA 02-02/ZC 02-03/LC - 02-05 - SMITH PROPERTY LAND , SE CHANGE
-
September 4,2002
N.
0.
P.
Q.
R.
S.
T.
U.
V.
IV.
A.
In 1994 the Council adopted a comprehensive General Plan Update, which confirmed the
Neighborhood Commercial land use designation on the site.
On May 18, 1999, the Council approved the CommercialNisitor-Serving Overlay Zone,
which included the Smith site. As part of the approval, the Council requested a follow-up
report on the Smith site comparing office vs. commercial trip generation rates relative to
the parcel.
On June 3, 1999, a preliminary application @RE 99-43) was submitted requesting staff
review of a preliminary proposal for development of the Smith site (Sea View Pointe
Shopping Center), which included a Henry’s Market.
On October 19, 1999, the Seacliff Homeowner’s Association submitted a letter to the
City Council outlining their objections to the preliminarily proposed “Sea View Pointe”
commercial development and requesting the property be rezoned for residential uses.
On October 26, 1999, after reviewing the follow-up report that was requested on May 18,
1999, and the Seacliff HOA letter, Council directed staff to prepare a Resolution of
Intention (ROI) to rezone the property for either residential or office use. However, the
Council directed staff to not return with the ROI until a city-wide commercial study (in
process at the time) was presented to Council for review.
On March 23,2000 staff presented the results of the commercial study to Council.
On May 16, 2000, Council considered the ROI to rezone the Smith site to either a
residential or office designation. The Council voted (3-2) not to adopt the ROI.
In a letter to the property owner dated June 15, 2000, the California Coastal Commission
stated that it is “unlikely that staff would support any zone change which decreases
commercialhisitor-serving use on the property.”
On March 5, 2002, as discussed above, Council directed staff to change the land use
designation on the Smith site to residential.
ANALYSIS
GENERAL, PLAN AMENDMENT
_-
GPA 02-02/ZC 02-03LC’ .02-OS - SMITH PROPERTY LAND >E CHANGE
September 4,2002
-
Pane 6
FROM: TO: I Current Land Use Designation Proposed Land Use Designation
RM
N (Residential Medium Density / 4 - 8 ddac)
(Neighborhood Commercial) Growth Control Point - 6 ddac
Potential yield,of 30 du at Growth Control Point
Potential yield of 40 du at maximum density
The site is surrounded by existing residential development on properties to the north, south and
east, which also have a General Plan land use designation of RM. Interstate 5 is located directly
adjacent to the west side of the property.
The proposed land use change is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and programs of
the General Plan. The following is an analysis of the General Plan elements that are most
applicable to the proposed land use change:
Land Use Element
Typically when a project is reviewed for consistency with the Land Use Element of the General
Plan there is usually a proposed development associated with the project, and staff analyzes
whether or not the proposed development is consistent with the existing land use designation.
However, in this instance, the project consists of a land use change from a commercial land use
designation to a residential designation with no proposed development. Therefore, staffs
analysis focuses on whether or not the proposed residential land use designation is appropriate
for the site and compatible with surrounding properties. Also, staff reviewed the General Plan to
determine if there were any potential conflicts with existing goals, objectives, policies or
programs.
Compatibility with Surrounding Properties:
The proposed RM land use designation and RDM Zone allow for a variety of residential
development (single-family, two-family and multifamily) at a density of 4 - 8 dwelling units per
acre. The properties to the north contain existing single-family dwellings, and the properties to
the south, east and northeast contain existing condominium developments. The surrounding
residential properties have a land use designation of RM, the same as staff is proposing on the
project site. The existing residential developments and RM land use designation on surrounding
properties are consistent and compatible with the proposed RM land use designation on the
project site.
Compatibility with General Plan Goals, Objectives, Policies and Programs:
Staff did not identify any conflict that the proposed land use change would have with the goals,
objectives, policies or programs within the Land Use Element. Program C.4 of the
Implementing Policies and Action Programs for Residential land use categories applies to the
proposed land use change. Program C.4 states as follows:
Limit medium and higher density residential developments to those areas where
they are compatible with adjacent land uses, and where adequate and convenient
79
”
GPA 02-02/ZC 02-03LC 02-05 - SMITH PROPERTY LAND :E CHANGE ”
September 4,2002
commercial services and public support systems such as streets, parking, parks,
schools and utilities are, or will be, adequate to serve them.
Adequate Commercial Services
Although the proposed land use change will result in the elimination of a potential commercial
development site, there is an existing commercial shopping center (Poinsettia Village) located on
the southwest comer of Interstate 5 and Poinsettia Lane, which is convenient and adequate to
serve the site and surrounding residential properties.
In addition, the results of the commercial study (presented to Council on March 23,2000) found
that the trade area coverage of the Poinsettia Village shopping center includes the project site.
The commercial study recommended that the Smith site be retained as a shopping center site due
to its historical commercial designation and belief that it would complement Poinsettia Village.
However, the commercial study found that commercial development of the Smith site is not
necessary to meet future basic commercial needs, and that if the Smith site were to develop as a
shopping center, its trade area coverage would overlap with the trade area coverage of Poinsettia
Village.
Adequate Public Support System
The project site is adjacent to Interstate 5 to the west, Poinsettia Lane to the north and Paseo Del
Norte (Lowder Lane) to the east, which provide adequate street access for a medium density
residential development. In addition, there are existing public utilities, parks and schools in the
vicinity that are anticipated to adequately serve a residential development on the site.
Density
The Land Use Element also addresses density and the dwelling unit limitations established by the
Growth Management Program (GMP). The Land Use Element states that “the City shall not
approve any general plan amendment, zone change,. . .that could result in the development above
the limit in any quadrant.” Because the site was designated for commercial use when the GMP
was approved, the dwelling unit limitation established by the GMP for the Southwest Quadrant,
where the site is located, did not include any residential units for the site. Therefore, all
residential units developed on the site will have to be provided for through the City’s “excess
dwelling unit bank.”
The Land Use Element specifies a permitted density range of 4 - 8 dwelling units per acre for the
proposed RM land use designation, with a Growth Management Control Point of 6 units per
acre. The project site is 5.12 acres in area, therefore, with a RM land use designation there
would be the potential for 30 dwelling units based on the Growth Control Point and 40 dwelling
units based on the maximum density.
The GMP dwelling unit limitation for the Southwest Quadrant is 12,859 units. However, the
number of dwelling units anticipated within the Southwest Quadrant at City build-out is 10,595
units. Therefore, it is anticipated that there will be 2,264 units in the “excess dwelling unit
bank.”
- -
GPA 02-02/ZC 02-03LC .02-05 - SMITH PROPERTY LAND - 3E CHANGE
September 4,2002
Page 8
Council Policy No. 43 allows for the allocation of “excess” dwelling units, as a “third priority,”
for projects proposing a zone change from a non-residential designation to a residential
designation based on the following:
a. The property was zoned for other than residential use on July 1986.
b. The property is compatible for residential use without significant
c. The density of the project does not exceed the Growth Management
mitigation.
Control Points of any adjacent residential property.
The proposed land use and zone change is consistent with the provisions of Council Policy No.
43, and therefore, is eligible for the allocation of “excess” dwelling units.
Circulation Element
A primary goal of the Circulation Element is to provide an adequate circulation infrastructure to
serve the projected population. To achieve that goal the Circulation Element requires that new
development comply with the GMP performance standards for circulation facilities.
The performance standards of the GMP for circulation facilities are reflected in the requirements
for facilities improvements in each of the City’s Local Facilities Management Plan Zones
(LFMP). To ensure adequate circulation infiastructure, each LFMP establishes minimum
roadway requirements based upon projected traffic demands from existing and future land uses.
The project site is located within LFMP Zone 4, on the southwest comer of Poinsettia Lane
(major arterial) and Paseo Del Norte (collector street south of Poinsettia). When the minimum
roadway requirements .for LFMP Zone 4 were established, the project site was anticipated to
develop as a commercial center. LFMP Zone 4 projected that the site could be developed with
89,211 square feet of commercial uses, and that the traffic generated from the commercial
development of the site would not reduce the level of service at any road segments or
intersections.
The Average Daily Trips (ADT) that could be generated from an 89,211 square foot commercial
development is estimated to be 10,680 ADT. The proposed RM land use designation could
result in up to 40 dwelling units on the project site, and the ADT that could be generated from a
40 unit residential development is estimated to be 400 ADT. The 400 ADT is based on the
standard trip generation rate for single-family residential development (10 tripddu). The
standard trip generation rate for multifamily development (condominiums/apartments) is less (8
tripddu). By changing the land use on the site from neighborhood commercial (N) to medium
residential (RM), the traffic anticipated in LFMP Zone 4 to be generated from the site would be
greatly decreased.
The 2001 peak hour level of service at the intersection of Poinsettia Lane and Paseo Del Norte is
LOS “A.” The design capacity of Poinsettia Lane is 40,000 vehicles per day. The design
capacity of Paseo Del Norte south of Poinsettia Lane is 10,000 vehicles per day and north of
Poinsettia Lane is 20,000 vehicles per day. According to the City Traffic Engineer, the proposed
residential land use designation will not change the LOS on any roadway. The street system has
-
GPA 02-02/ZC 02-03LC -. 02-05 - SMITH PROPERTY LAND SE CHANGE
September 4,2002
Pane 9
been designed and sized to accommodate traffic from such development, and will comply with
the GMP circulation performance standards.
Noise Element
According to the General Plan “Existing Noise Exposure Contours” map dated 1993, the west
half of the project site is located within a noise exposure contour of 75 dB (decibel) Community
Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) and the east half of the site is within a 70 dB CNEL. These
noise contour levels are generated primarily from vehicle traffic on Interstate 5 located adjacent
to the west side of the project site and Poinsettia Lane located adjacent to the north side of the
site.
Noise Element Program C.5 of the Land Use Implementing Policies and Action Programs states
as follows:
“Enforce the policy of the City that sixty (60) dB CNEL is the exterior noise level
to which all residential units should be mitigated ...
Interior noise levels should be mitigated to 45 dB CNEL ... ’I
Because the General Plan identifies the site as being impacted by noise levels that exceed the
level that is acceptable for residential development, the City contracted with URS Corporation to
prepare a noise analysis of the site.
Noise Analysis:
The Noise Analysis prepared by URS Corporation (July 10, 2002) verified that the noise levels
on the site exceed the acceptable noise levels specified in the General Plan for residential uses.
Highest Noise Levels Detected
0 76 dB CNEL at the west side of the site near Interstate 5
0 66 dB CNEL at the north side of the site near Poinsettia Lane.
Proiected Future Noise Levels at Citv Build-Out
0 77 dB CNEL on the west side of the property
0 69 dB CNEL on the north side of the property
0 65 dB CNEL on the east side of the property
64 dB CNEL on the south side of the property
These projected noise levels are at ground-level, The Noise Analysis also calculated noise levels
for a second story, which are one to two decibels higher than the ground-level (first floor).
-
GPA 02-02/ZC 02-03LC -02-05 - SMITH PROPERTY LAND iE CHANGE
September 4,2002
Noise Impacts To Various Land Use Alternatives
For purposes of environmental review, the Noise Analysis considered various land use scenarios,
including three residential densities (RM 4-8 du/ac, RMH 8-15 ddac, & RH 15-23 ddac), office,
commercial (existing designation), and hoteVmote1. For each land use alternative the Noise
Analysis concluded that the noise level could be reduced to a level acceptable for the specified
land use with the incorporation of mitigation, specifically a sound barrierlwall.
In the case of residential land uses, including the proposed RM designation, the Noise Analysis
concluded that the following mitigation measures would be necessary to achieve an exterior
noise level of 60 dB CNEL and an interior noise level of 45 dB CNEL:
1. 1 0-foot high solid wall along the west side of the property (5 feet back from the top of the
2. 8-foot high solid wall along the north property line
3. 6-foot high solid wall along the east property line
4. Closed-window condition on residential units, which will require an alternative means of
ventilation, such as heat pumps or forced-air units.
5. Second story residential units would require double-pane windows (no special window
glazing would be necessary on first floor windows with the construction of the noise
walls specified above).
6. Windows and sliding glass doors facing Interstate 5 and Poinsettia Lane would need to
have a Sound Transmission Class (STC) of at least 30 - 35.
7. Doors would need to be solid core and equipped with an appropriate gasket.
existing slope)
Noise barrier walls would also be necessary to mitigate noise for the other land uses reviewed in
the Noise Analysis (office, commercial, hotel/motel). The noise walls would range form 6 to 8
feet (2 feet less than those required for a residential land use).
Because there is no development project currently associated with the proposed land use and
zone change, the noise mitigation measures recommended in the Noise Analysis were made to
determine the feasibility of reducing noise levels to below the level of significance, A site-
specific noise study based on an actual project design will have to be completed for any future
development proposal.
Potential Noise Impacts From Site Generated Traffic
The Noise Analysis also calculated the potential noise generated by traffic from the different
land uses, and the impacts site generated traffic noise might have to adjacent properties. There
are existing residences located adjacent to the south property line of the site, across Paseo Del
Norte to the east and across Poinsettia Lane to the north. Many of the existing residences have
existing barriers that minimize roadway noise. The Noise Analysis concluded as follows:
0 Noise levels at residences across Poinsettia Lane north of the site would vary by
less than 1 dBA for all land uses analyzed.
83
-"
GPA 02-02/ZC 02-03LC - 02-05 - SMITH PROPERTY LAND aE CHANGE
September 4,2002
Page 11
a Noise levels at residences along Poinsettia Lane east of the site and south of the
site would vary by less than 2 dBA for residential, office and hotel/motel uses, but
would increase by approximately 6 dBA for commercial uses.
Therefore, traffic generated noise from the proposed residential land use would not significantly
impact adjacent properties, while traffic generated noise from a commercial land use could
potentially have a significant impact on adjacent residences.
With the mitigation measures specified in the Noise Analysis prepared by URS Corporation, the
proposed residential land use will be consistent with the Noise Element of the General Plan.
Visual Impacts from Noise BarriedWall
Although it is feasible to reduce the noise levels on the site to those acceptable for residential
development, to do so will require the construction of solid noise barriers/walls. It is important
to consider the aesthetic appearance of such walls and the visual impacts they might have.
As stated above, a 10-foot high noise wall along the west side of the property and an 8-foot high
wall along the north property line adjacent to Poinsettia Lane will be necessary to mitigate noise
levels. Both Interstate 5 and Poinsettia Lane are designated as Scenic Corridors in the General
Plan, and therefore, special consideration must be give to the aesthetic appearance of
development along those corridors.
The City of Carlsbad does not permit walls to exceed 6 feet in height, even if they are necessary
to provide noise mitigation. However, a 6-foot high wall in combination with an earthen berm is
permitted to achieve the height necessary for noise mitigation. An exhibit from the City's Noise
Guidelines Manual is attached (Attachment 1 l), which demonstrates various noise barrier
alternatives.
The 10-foot and 8-foot high walls necessary for noise mitigation on the project site could be a
combination of solid wall and earthen berm, which would consist of a minimum 4-foot earthen
berm with a maximum 6-foot high solid wall above. The Noise Analysis stated that transparent
materials, such as acrylic panels, may be utilized to maintain views rather than solid masonry.
Staff has prepared two exhibits to illustrate what a 10-foot high bedwall might look like along
the west side of the site (Attachments 12 and 13).
The 8 to 10-foot high bedwalls required for residential uses are not significantly higher than
those that would be required for the existing commercial use (6 to 8 feet). It should be noted and
considered, however, that the earthen berms will reduce the flat yard area associated with
residential development. For instance, a 10-foot high noise barrier will require a minimum 4-
foot high earthen berm, which at a 2: 1 slope will have a width of 16 feet. This will be a
circumstance with any land use designation, however at a lesser degree with non-residential uses.
With regard to visual appearance, with appropriate landscaping and wall materials, the
bedwalls could be designed to not degrade the aesthetic appearance of the site or scenic
corridor. The design of any future development proposal, including the design of walls, will be
subject to City review and approval.
-
GPA 02-02/ZC 02-03/LC - - 02-05 - SMITH PROPERTY LAND e 3E CHANGE
September 4,2002
Page 12
Housinp Element
The primary goal of the Housing Element is to identi9 and meet housing needs of the population
in the City.
Goal 2 of the Housing Element states:
“New housing developed with a diversity of types, prices, tenures, densities and
locations and in suflcient quantity to meet the demand of anticipated City and
regional growth. ”
To achieve that goal, Objective 2.1 states:
“Allow development of sufficient new housing to meet Carlsbad’s share of the
total regional housing need, as identrfied in SANDAG ’s Regional Housing Needs
Statement ...”
The proposed land use change on the site from commercial to residential would potentially result
in up to 40 additional housing units in the City. Those units would assist in meeting Carlsbad’s
share of the regional housing needs and the housing needs of Carlsbad’s existing and future
population.
In addition, the project site is located adjacent to a transit comdor, which is one of the locations
where SANDAG recommends higher density residential land uses be located. Locating higher
density residential near transit corridors is a “Smart Growth” concept, and SANDAG
recommends it in an effort to meet the regions residential growth projections.
Although the proposed land use is a medium density residential designation, it does allow for the
development of townhomes, condominiums and apartment development at a density of 4 - 8
dwelling units per acre. In addition, the City allows for density increases above the Growth
Control Point or upper end of the density range to enable the development of lower-income
affordable housing. The provision for lower-income affordable housing is also a primary goal of
the Housing Element.
Pursuant to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, any residential development on the project site
will be required to restrict a minimum of 15% of the approved units as affordable to lower-
income households. Therefore, the proposed land use change from commercial to residential
will assist in meeting the goals and objectives of the Housing Element.
Parks and Recreation Element
As part of the Growth Management Program, a performance standard for parks was adopted.
The park performance standard requires that 3 acres of Community Park and Special Use Area
per 1,000 population within a park district (quadrant) must be provided.
The project site is located within Park District #3 (Southwest Quadrant). The necessary park
acreage to achieve the GMP standard (3 acres/1,000 population) for Park District #3 was based
upon the GMP dwelling unit limitation for the Southwest Quadrant, which is 12,859 units.
GPA 02-02/ZC 02-03LC 02-05 - SMITH PROPERTY LAND ,SE CHANGE
September 4,2002
Page 13
Although the proposed land use change will result in additional residential units in the Southwest
Quadrant, those units will be provided for through the “excess dwelling unit bank,” which
ensures the GMP dwelling unit limit will not be exceeded. In addition, the Parks and Recreation
Element states that the park acreage demand for the Southwest Quadrant, based on the GMP
dwelling unit limit, is 89.41 acres, and the anticipated park acreage to be provided at build-out
will be 96.25 acres. Therefore, there will be adequate parkland within the Southwest Quadrant,
and the proposed land use change will not cause additional demand for parkland.
B. ZONE CHANGE
The project also includes a proposal to change the zone designation of the project site as follows:
FROM: TO:
Current Zoning Proposed Zoning
(Neighborhood Commercial / (Residential Density Multiple /
Qualified Development Overlay Zone)
Without the Commercial Visitor-Serving Within the Commercial Visitor-Serving
Qualified Development Overlay Zone)
Overlay Zone Overlay Zone
C-1-Q RDM-Q
RDM Zone:
The uses permitted within the proposed RDM Zone are regulated by Chapter 21.24 of the
Municipal Code, which allows single-family, two-family and multi-family dwellings in the low-
medium through high density designations in the General Plan, including the proposed RM land
use designation.
The minimum lot size permitted in the RDM Zone for lots within a medium density designation,
as is the proposed RM land use designation, is 10,000 square feet. The project site is a single,
5.12 acre lot, which is sufficient to accommodate a medium density residential development
subject to the development standards of the RDM Zone.
The residential uses and accessory uses permitted within the RDM Zone are compatible with the
adjacent and surrounding residential uses.
Qualified Development Overlay Zone (Q):
The Qualified Development Overlay Zone (Q) is an existing overlay zone on the project site.
The intent of the Q Overlay Zone is to supplement the underlying zone by providing additional
regulations for development on properties with unique circumstances, such as special treatment
areas identified in the General Plan.
As mentioned above, the project site is located within an area designated by the General Plan as
a “scenic corridor.” Both Interstate 5 and Poinsettia Lane are designated as “Community Scenic
Corridors” in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. One of the programs identified in the
Circulation Element is to establish a special overlay zone along the designated scenic corridors.
-
GPA 02-02/ZC 02-03/LC .02-05 - SMITH PROPERTY LAW ,SE CHANGE
September 4,2002
Page 14
Because the site is located within a scenic corridor, the Q Overlay Zone is recommend to remain
as a supplement to the RDM Zone and to implement the General Plan.
Commercial Visitor-Serving Overlay Zone:
The project site is also currently located within the Commercial Visitor-Serving Overlay Zone,
which is intended to provide additional regulations for commercial/visitor-serving uses. The
overlay zone does not apply to residential uses. Therefore, because the proposed land use and
zoning would only permit residential uses, staff is recommending the Commercial Visitor-
Serving Overlay Zone be removed from the subject site.
C. LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT
The proposed LCPA consists of two parts as follows:
1. Change the LCP land use and zone designations on the project site; and
2. Amend the text of the Mello I LCP Segment to incorporate land use policies
established by the Mello I1 Segment in 1981, which apply to the project site and
surrounding properties in the Mello I Segment.
Proposed Change to the LCP Land Use and Zone Designations:
The LCP land use designation on the project is proposed to be changed as follows:
FROM:
Proposed Current
TO:
LCP Land Use Designation LCP Land Use Designation
LCP RM N I Land Use I (Neighborhood Commercial) I (Residential Medium Density - 4-8 ddac)
The LCP zone designation on the project site is proposed to be changed as follows:
I FROM: I TO: I
Current LCP Zoning Proposed LCP Zoning
C-1-Q RDM-Q
(Neighborhood Commercial /
Without the Commercial Visitor-Sewing Within the Commercial Visitor-Sewing
Qualified Development Overlay Zone) Qualified Development Overlay Zone)
(Residential Density Multiple /
Overlay Zone Overlay Zone
The proposed LCP text amendment is discussed below, after the following analysis of the LCP
history.
Analysis of LCP History Relevant to Proposed LCP Land Use/Zone Change
The project site is located within the Mello I Segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program,
which was adopted and certified by the California Coastal Commission in 1980. When the
Mello I Segment was originally adopted, the project site was part of an area of land called
“Occidental Land,” which consisted of approximately 143 acres north, south, east and west of
Interstate 5 and Poinsettia Lane. A map indicating the location of the “Occidental Land”
properties is attached (Attachment 10).
When the Mello I Segment was originally adopted, the “Occidental Land” properties were
designated for “Planned Development” in a “Planned Agriculture” zone. Residential and
commercial uses were permitted in the Planned Agriculture zone with the approval of a Planned
Agriculture permit. Under such a permit, the project site, along with the southwest comer of 1-5
and Poinsettia Lane, was allowed to develop as follows:
“Commercial uses may be allowed on the two parcels south of Poinsettia Lane
and adjacent to 1-5 on both sides of the freeway provided that 35% of the land
area is devoted to exclusively tourist commercial uses. ,,
“Tourist commercial’’ (visitor-serving commercial) uses are considered by the Coastal
Commission as priority uses (over residential).
In the discussion that follows, the history of the LCP land use policies pertaining to the site and
surrounding properties will be analyzed to support the following conclusion:
1. It is no longer necessary or required that the site be developed with a “tourist
commercial” (priority) use, based on the following:
a. The land use polices for the project site specified in the Mello I1 Segment,
which supercede those in the Mello I Segment, do not restrict the
development of the site to a “tourist/visitor-serving commercial” (priority)
use. (Note: As stated above, a part of the proposed LCPA is to amend the
policies of the Mello I Segment to reflect the correct land use policies
established in the Mello I1 Segment, which is explained in the discussion
that follows); and
b. The need for “tourist commercial” uses has been met on other properties
in the vicinity that were not anticipated to develop with touristhisitor-
serving commercial uses when the Mello I Segment was originally
adopted.
Summary of Staffs Research
In addition to the 35% tourist commercial requirement placed on the project site when the Mello
I Segment was originally adopted, the Mello I Segment limited the development of the other .
“Occidental Land” properties to either residential or agriculture. Most notably, the parcels west
of 1-5 north of Poinsettia Lane, which are currently developed with hotels, were required to be
preserved as “agricultural cropland” as follows:
88
-
GPA 02-02/ZC 02-03LC L 02-05 - SMITH PROPERTY LAND USE CHANGE
-
September 4,2002
“The two parcels north of Poinsettia Lane on either side of I-5 and the portion of
the easternmost parcel that contains any soils of Class 1 through IV under the
Land Use Capability Classification shall be permanentl-y protected as
agricultural cropland exclusively, through recordation of an agricultural
conservation easement that allows only agricultural uses. *’
When the 35% “tourist commercial” requirement on the properties south of Poinsettia Lane was
adopted, the land north of Poinsettia Lane and west of 1-5 was not anticipated to develop with
“tourist commercial” uses. However, there are currently four hotels and one restaurant located
north of Poinsettia Lane on the west side of 1-5. This hotel/ restaurant development (visitor-
serving commercial) was made possible when the Mello I1 Segment was adopted by the Coastal
Commission in 1981, which included provisions for the development of “developable
agricultural lands” subject to an agricultural subsidy program. The agriculture subsidy program
applied to the “Occidental Land” properties.
The original Mello I1 Segment stated that if the Occidental Land property owners elected to pay
an “agricultural development fee” the Occidental properties could develop as follows:
a. The area east of I-5 and north of Poinsettia Lane shall be designated for
residential use at a maximum density of 12 dwelling units per acre.
b. The area of approximately 28 acres located south of Poinsettia Lane and
immediately adjacent to I-5 on both sides of the Freeway shall be designated
for visitor-serving or neighborhood commercial development according to
Ch. 21.26 of Carlsbad Zoning Ordinances.
e. The remaining area west of I-5 and north of Poinsettia Lane shall be
designated for visitor-serving or neighborhood commercial development
according to Ch. 21.26 of Carlsbad Zoning Ordinances, provided that a
minimum of 35% of gross acres is developed as visitor-serving uses.
The “Occidental Lands” property owners elected to pay the “agricultural development fee.”
Although the Mello I Segment was not amended, the Mello I1 Segment was adopted after the
Mello I Segment, and therefore, the standards of the Mello I1 Segment that apply to lands in
Mello I supersede the Mello I standards. There are two significant changes to the development
requirements for the Occidental properties established with the Mello I1 Segment, which are as
follows:
1. The 35% “tourist commercial” requirement was removed from the land south of
Poinsettia Lane on both sides of 1-5. The development requirement was changed
to specify that the area be designated for “visitor-serving neighborhood
commercial development according to Ch. 21.26 of Carlsbad Zoning
Ordinances.” Chapter 21.26 of the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance establishes
standards for the Neighborhood Commercial Zone. Therefore, the site could be
developed entirely with neighborhood commercial uses.
89
-
GPA 02-02/ZC 02-03LC .02-05 - SMITH PROPERTY LAND ,3E CHANGE -
September 4,2002
2. “Visitor-serving or neighborhood commercial development” was allowed on the
area west of 1-5 and north of Poinsettia Lane, and a minimum of 35% of the area
was required to be developed as “visitor-serving uses.” It appears that the 35%
“tourist commercial” requirement was removed from the south side of Poinsettia
Lane and applied to the north side west of 1-5. The area north of Poinsettia Lane
and west of 1-5 has developed in accordance with this requirement (50% has been
developed with visitor-serving uses).
Based on the information above, staff has concluded that the requirement for 35% visitor-serving
commercial uses on the project site was adopted when other land in the area was not anticipated
to develop with visitor-serving commercial uses. The need for “tourist commercial” uses
identified in the originally adopted Mello I Segment has been met with the 11 acres of hotel
development on the north side of Poinsettia Lane west of 1-5, and with the commercial
development on the south side of Poinsettia west of 1-5, which includes approximately 3.5 acres
of existinghture restaurant development and a service station.
In addition, because the land use provisions established by the Mello I1 Segment removed the
requirement for 35% tourist commercial uses, and allowed the site to develop entirely with
neighborhood commercial uses, the land use designation on the site is not considered a “priority”
land use. (Therefore, there is no concern that a residential land use would remove a “priority”
land use designation,) There is no other policy within the LCP that would prohibit a residential
land use on the property.
Proposed LCP Text Amendment:
The proposed LCPA includes modifications to the Mello I Segment text as follows:
1. Replacing the land use policies currently stated in the Mello I Segment text with
the land use policies that were adopted with the Mello I1 Segment. The Mello I1
Segment was adopted in 1981, and those policies applicable to “Occidental Land”
properties supercede the policies of the Mello I Segment established in 1980; and
2. Modify the text to reflect the proposed residential land designation on the project
site (RM - Residential Medium Density).
In addition, the land use policies from the original Mello I1 Segment designated the “Occidental
Land” property located east of Interstate 5 and north of Poinsettia Lane as residential up to a
maximum density of 12 dwelling units per acre. The residentially designated “Occidental Land”
properties are designated, both on the City and LCP land use maps, as RM (Residential Medium
Density). In 1986, when the Carlsbad Growth Management Program was adopted, the City and
LCP residential densities were changed. The medium density range was lowered to a maximum
density of 8 dwelling units per acre. Therefore, the residential density range for the project site
and the “Occidental Land” area northeast of Interstate 5 and Poinsettia Lane is proposed to
reflect the 8 dwelling unit maximum of the medium density designation.
History of Mello I/Mello I1 Segment Text Modifications
The following discussion is intended to help clarify why the Mello I Segment was never
amended to reflect the land use policies established in the Mello I1 Segment:
GPA 02-02/ZC 02-03/LC - .02-05 - SMITH PROPERTY LANE ~ 3E CHANGE
September 4,2002
Page 18
As discussed above, the land use policies established in the Mello I1 Segment provided land use
policies for the “Occidental Land” properties subject to the payment of an agriculture subsidy
fee. By error, the Mello I Segment was not amended at the time the Mello I1 Segment was
adopted. Until later amendments occurred, it did not become an issue because the land use
policies and agriculture subsidy program in the Mello I1 Segment were understood to apply to
the “Occidental Land” properties and were implemented as such.
However, in 1984 Public Resource Code Section 30171.2 and 30171.5 were added to the Coastal
Act, which modified the agriculture subsidy program provided in the Mello I1 Segment of the
LCP. Section 30171.2 stated that “on or after January 1 , 1985, no agricultural conversion fees
may be levied or collected under the agricultural subsidy program provided in the local coastal
program of the City of Carlsbad.. .” It also stated that “all other provisions of that program shall
continue to be operative, including the right to develop designated areas as provided in the
program.”
Public Resource Code Section 30171.5 established a mitigation fee for the conversion of non-
prime agriculture lands to urban uses. This policy is now part of Policy 2-1 of the Mello I1
Segment. When the Mello I1 Segment was amended to remove the agriculture subsidy program,
pursuant to Section 30171.2, and add the mitigation fee policy, pursuant to Section 30171.5, the
land use policies for the “Occidental Land” properties were, in error, deleted. The land use
policies should not have been deleted, only the references to the agricultural subsidy program.
As Section 30171.2 states, all provisions for “the right to develop areas as provided in the
program” should have continued to be “operative.”
Local Facilities Management Plan - Zone 4
The project site is located within LFMP Zone 4. Staff analyzed the LFMP to determine if there
would be any conflict with the facilities planned for Zone 4 and the proposed residential land
use. The LFMP anticipated the project site would be developed with a commercial land use and
concluded that all public facilities have been planneddesigned to adequately serve the area,
including a commercial use on the site.
The proposed residential land use is generally a less intensive land use than commercial in terms
of demand for public facilities such as wastewater treatment, drainage, circulation, sewer, and
water. All facilities, including the facilities just mentioned along with city administrative
facilities, libraries, parks, fire/emergency services, and schools, are planneddesigned to
adequately serve the area based upon the projected build-out population.
The proposed FW land use designation has the potential to yield up to 40 dwelling units on the
site, which were not originally anticipated by the LFMP to be developed on the project site.
However, these additional dwelling units will be provided for through the “excess dwelling unit
bank” for the Southwest Quadrant, which ensures that the population projections in the LFMP
will not be exceeded and all facilities will be adequate to serve a residential development on the
site.
After the land use/zone change has been approved, the LFMP for Zone 4 will need to be
amended to revise all references to “commercial” land use on the site. The LFMP amendment
-
GPA 02-02/ZC 02-03LC .02-05 - SMITH PROPERTY LAND SE CHANGE -
September 4,2002
will consist primarily of text modifications to ensure consistency with the General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The initial study (EIA Part 11) prepared for this project concluded that some of the environmental
effects that are peculiar to the property or to this project (specifically effects related to noise) are
considered “potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated.” A Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Addendum for the proposed land use and zone change was signed and issued by
the Planning Director on July 18, 2002, and is being recommended for adoption as part of the
approval of the proposed land use and zone change.
As discussed above, the project site is located in an area impacted by noise levels that are above
the level acceptable for residential uses. A Noise Analysis was conducted for the project, which
concluded it is feasible to develop a residential land use on the site with certain mitigation
measures. The recommended mitigation measures consist of noise barriers/walls and minimum
window/door requirements in conjunction with a future residential development project. The
mitigation measures would ensure that noise levels on the site are reduced to a level of less than
significant. For further discussion and analysis of the noise impacts/mitigation, please see the
attached EIA Part I1 or the discussion above under “General Plan Analysis - Noise Element.”
A public notice for the Mitigated Negative Declaration was mailed to all property owners within
600 feet of the project site (City’s standard public notice radius), was posted in the newspaper,
and was mailed to the California Coastal Commission, and State Clearinghouse for circulation.
A letter was received from the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) providing
comments in response to the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment 15). Staff prepared
and mailed a letter responding to DTSC’s comments (Attachment 16).
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5271 (Mitigated Negative Declaration)
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5272 (GPA)
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5273 (ZC)
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5274 (LCPA)
5. Location Map
6. Background Data Sheet
7. Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
8. Proposed Local Coastal Program Mello I Segment Text Amendment
9. Copy of the Mello I1 Segment land use policies pertaining to “Occidental Land”
10. Map indicating the location of the “Occidental Land” properties
1 1. Noise Barrier Alternative exhibit from the Noise Guidelines Manual
12. Conceptual Diagram of 10 Foot High Noise Barrier/Wall
13. Photo Simulation of Conceptual Noise BanierlWall
14. Photo of Property without Noise Banier/Wall
15. Letter from Department of Toxic Substances Control (Re: Mitigated Negative Declaration)
16. Letter from City responding to comments from Department of Toxic Substances Control
JC:jt:mh
- BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
-
CASE NO: GPA 02-02iZC 02-03fLCPA 02-05
CASE NAME: SMITH PROPERTY LAND USE CHANGE
APPLICANT: Citv of Carlsbad
REQUEST AND LOCATION: General Plan Amendment. Zone Change and Local Coastal Program
Amendment to change the existinq land use designation from N (Neighborhood Commercial) to RM (Residential
Medium Densitv - 4-8 ddac), and Zone designation from C-1-0 (Neighborhood Commercial) to RDM-Q
{Residential Density MultipleiOualified Overlav). The proiect site is a vacant 5.12 acre uarcel located on the
southeast comer of Interstate 5 and Poinsettia Lane.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 171 of Carlsbad Tract 73-24, in the City of Carlsbad. County of San Diego. State
of California. according to Map thereof No. 7996. filed in the Office of the Countv Recorder of San Diego County,
August 5. 1974.
APN: 214-471-53-00 Acres: 5.12 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: No develoument uroposed. Land use and zone
designation change only. Proposed RM land use designation will result in a uotential vield of 40 dwelling units on
the site based on the maximum densitv Demitted by the RM land use designation.
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation:
Existing - N (Neighborhood Commercial)
Proposed - RM (Residential Medium Densitv - 4-8 dulac).
Density Allowed by Proposed RM Designation:
40 dwelling units at maximum density (8 ddac)
30 dwelling units at Growth Management Control Point (6 ddacl
None. Land use and zone designation change only.
C- 1-0 [Neighborhood CommerciallOualified Overly)
RDM-O (Residential Densitv MultipleiOualified Overlavl
Density Proposed:
Existing Zone:
Proposed Zone:
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use:
(Neighborhood Commercial/
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Carlsbad Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): None urouosed. Potential 40 dwelling units.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Mitigated Negative Declaration, issued Julv 25,2002 93
- -
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: SMITH PROPERTY LAND USE CHANGE
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 4
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN: RM (Residential Density Medium - 4-8 ddac)
PROPOSED ZONING: RDM-0 (Residential Density Multiple/Oualified Overlay)
APPLICANT’S NAME: City of Carlsbad
ADDRESS: 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad CA 92008
GPA 02-02 / ZC 02-03 / LCPA 02-05
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 214-471-53-00
QUANTITY OF LAND USE (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 5.12 acres
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: N/A - No development proposed
The following calculations are based on the maximum potential density (40 dwelling units) of
the proposed RM land use designation:
A. City Administrative Facilities: Potential Demand in Square Footage = 149.7
B. Library: Potential Demand in Square Footage = 79.84
C. Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) 40 EDU
D. Park: Potential Demand in Acreage = .30
E. Drainage: Potential Demand in CFS = 11.5 CFS
F. Circulation: Potential Demand in ADT = 400 ADT
G. Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 4
H. Open Space: No additional open space required in Zone 4.
I. Schools: Carlsbad Unified School District (school district has indicated that it is
able to provide capacity through the build-out of Zone 4)
J. Sewer: Potential Demands in EDU = 40 EDU
K. Water: Potential Demand in GPD = 8800 GPD
L. The project is 40 units the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance, as provided for
through the “excess dwelling unit bank”.
”
-
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM MEL, J 1 SEGMENT
“OCCIDEhTAL LAh?), INC.“ TEXT AMEhmMEhT
AlTACMllENT 8
2. Occidental Land. Inc.
Policy 1 - Land Uses
The “Occidental Land. Inc.” landowners elected to pav an apriculture
conversion fee as required bv the Agricultural Subsidv Program
established bv the Mello I1 LCP Segment (AB 1971) adopted and
certified bv the Coastal Commission on June 3. 1981. With the
election to pav the agriculture conversion fee. the Agricultural
Subsidv Propram allowed the “Occidental Land. Inc.” properties to
be developed in accordance with the land uses described below.
Pursuant to State Legislation in 1984. the Agricultural Subsidv
Program was replaced with the Amiculture Conversion Mitigation
Fee (Public Resource Code Section 30171.2 and 30171.5) (Mello I1
Segment Policv 2-1 ODtion 3).
As Der Public Resource Code Section 30171.2. the land use Dolicies
established in 1981 bv the adoption of the Mello I1 Segment remained
“operative” even though the Agricultural Subsidv Program was
replaced.
The Oc. dental Land ~arcels are herebv designatea as follows:
The area located east of Interstate 5 and north of Poinsettia Lane shall he
designated for residential use at a maximum densitv of 8 dwelling units per
acre. -
The area located west of Interstate 5 and south of Poinsettia Lane shall he
designated for visitor-serving or general commercial developmeni according
to Chapter 21.28 of the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance.
The area located east of Interstate 5 and south of Poinsettia Lane shall he
designated for residential use at a maximum densitv of 8 dwelling units per acre.
The area located west of Interstate 5 and north of Poinsettia Lane shall he
designated for visitor-serving or peneral commercial development according
to Chapter 21.28 of the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance. provided that a
minimum of 35% is developed as visitor serving uses.
97
AlTACWENT 9
1. Occidatd - 157 acres. Option \T . C. of *he ?ie> Bill I LCP
offered tbe prop- owners &e aption to participate in the Agridrural Subsidy Prop. As a part of any permit qplicarim for development
according to the agried~d subsidy prow, the aglicant shall submit
evidence of rearded agrement satisfactpry to the Coasml Conservancy that dl the property owners have elected @tian vi. c. wit.? +de land uses and requirements rwised as follows:
(a) Uses and Deasirv:
(I- the area Bast of 1-5 and north of oninsetria be shdu be desigrated for residential use =-=-of 12 dwelling units per acre;
(2) the area of qproximately 28 acres located south of
Poinsettia Lane and inmediately adjacent to 1-5 on both sides of the
Freeway skdl be designated for visitor-serving or neighmrfiood coannercial
development according to a. 21.26 oif Carlsbad Zoning Ordirrances ;
(3) the re-g area west of 1-5 ad nod of Poinsettia
lane shdll be designated for visitor-servi?g or n.ei,&boMd cnrmercirl
development accxding to Ch. 21.26 of Carlsbad zoning Ordinances, pdded
that a mhhm of 3% of ,sross acres is developed as visitor-shag uses.
(See policy 6-8 of tiis LL'P for a definition of such "es.)
- AlTACHMENT 10
.
Noise Guidelines Manual - csrY OF CARLSB.4D ATTACHMENT
FIGURE V-5
NOISE BARRIER ALTERNATIVES
ROADWAY
6' WALL ON 2 112
EARTHEN BERM
ROADWAY ACCEPTABLE COMBINATION
BERMWALL
ROADWAY v ROADWAY
ACCEPTABLE SCREEN WALL
ROADWAY
NOT ACCEPTABLE
SCREEN WALL
NOTE: The height of the borm. screen wall. or combtnatlon of both shall ba doterrnmed by the Noise Study
~ ~~
Preferred Noise Mitigation 36
AlTACHMENT 12
i a, .-
L
W 0
AlTACHMENT 13
r" a, Q E n
u- 0
L a, t
W 0 L
U v1 a, 3
f 0 z
u- 0
3
5 Q)
u- 0
a,
E e u-
0, c
Y 0 0 1
.-
L 0 W
- AlTACWENT 14
co 0 Ln-1 .- "
" X w
ATTACHMENT 15
Winston H. Hickox
Agency Secretary
California Environmental
Protection Agency
August 7,2002
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Edwin F. Lowry, Director
5796 Corporate Avenue Cypress, California 90630
PAS. Jennifer Cson, Planner
Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Gray Davis
Governor
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE SMITH PROPERTY LAND USE CHANGE
(SCH #2002071128)
Dear Ms. Coon:
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your Negative
Declaration (ND) for the above-mentioned Project.
Based on the review of the document, DTSC's comments are as follows:
1) The ND needs to identify and determine whether current or historic uses at the
Project site have resulted in any release of hazardous wastes/substances at the
Project area.
2) The NG neecis io identify any known fir poier1tia;iy contaminated site within the
proposed Project area. For all identified sites, the ND needs to evaluate whether
conditions at the site pose a threat to human health or the environment.
3) The ND should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation
and/or remediation for any site that may require remediation, and the
government agency to provide appropriate regulatory oversight.
4) The ND states that the project site is an undeveloped infill site. If the site is filled
up with imported soil, proper sampling is required to make sure that the site is
not contaminated with hazardous substances.
5) If the property had vegetation or agricultural use, onsite soils could contain
pesticide residues. The site may have contributed to soil, and groundwater
The energy challenge facing California is real. Every Californian needs to take immediate action to reduce energy consumption. For a list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs, see our Web-site at www.dtsc.ca.gov.
63 Printed on Recycled Paper
Ms. Jennifer Coon, Planner
August 7,2002
Page 2
contamination. Proper investigation and remedial actions should be conducted
at the site prior to its new development. As long as the proposed project is for
the development of residential dwellings, proper environmental studies to be
conducted to evaluate the health risks associated with these chemicals.
6) If any of the adjacent properties are contaminated with hazardous chemicals,
and if the proposed prGject is within 2,000 feet from a contaminated site, then the
proposed development may fall under the “Border Zone of a Contaminated
Property.” Appropriate precautions should be taken prior to construction if the
proposed project is on a “Border Zone Property.”
7) The project construction may require soil excavation and soil filling in certain
areas. Appropriate sampling is required prior to disposal of the excavated soil. If
the soil is contaminated, properly dispose of it rather than placing it in another
location. Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) may be applicable to these soils.
Also, if the project is planning to import soil to backfill the areas excavated,
proper sampling should be conducted to make sure that the imported soil is free
of contamination.
8) If the project requires demolition, renovation and addition of building structures,
investigate the presence of lead paints and asbestos containing materials
(ACMs) in the currently existing buildings at the site. If the presence of lead or
ACMs are suspected, proper precautions should be taken during demolition
activities. Additionally, the contaminants should be remediated in compliance
with the California environmental regulations.
9) if during construction the project, soii andior groundwater contamination are
suspected, construction in the area should cease and appropriate Health and
Safety procedures should be implemented. If it is determined that contaminated
soil and/or groundwater exist, the ND should identify how any required
investigation andlor remediation will be conducted, and the government agency
to provide appropriate regulatory oversight.
DTSC provides guidance for the Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA)
preparation and cleanup oversight through the Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP).
For additional information on the VCP, please visit DTSC’s web site at
www.dtsc.ca.gov.
lo 5
Ms. Jennifer Coon, Planner
August 7,2002
Page 3
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mr. Johnson P. Abraham,
Project Manager at (714) 484-5476.
Sincerely, 2
Haissam Y. Salloum, P.E.
Unit Chief
Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch
Cypress Office
cc: Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
P.O. Box 3044
Sacramento, California 9581 2-3044
Mr. Guenther W. Moskat, Chief
Planning and Environmental Analysis Section
CEQA Tracking Center
Department of Toxic Substances Control
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, California 9581 2-0806
ATTACMIIENT 16
City of Carlsbad
- ”
August 15,2002
Haissam Salloum, P.E., Unit Chief
Department of Toxic Substances Control
5796 Corporate Avenue
Cypress, CA 90630
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SMITH PROPERTY LAND USE
CHANGE (SCH #2002071128)
Dear Mr. Salloum:
This letter is in response to a letter received from the Department of Toxic Substances Control
(DTSC) dated August 7, 2002, which provided comments in response to the Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) referenced above.
Some of DTSC’s comments are applicable to a development project. However, it should be
clarified that the subject MND is for a project that consists of a land use and zone designation
change from a commercial designation to a residential designation. There is no development
proposal associated with the project. Therefore, some of DTSC’s comments are not applicable to
this project, but they have been noted and will be considered during the review of future
development proposals on the project site.
The following information is provided in response to the comments received from DTSC:
DTSC Comment:
1) The ND needs to identify and determine whether current or historic uses at the Project
site have resulted in any release of hazardous wasteshbstances at the Project area.
Response:
There are no uses or structures currently on the project site, and there is no known historic use of
the project site that resulted in any release of hazardous wastes/substances.
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad. CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.cl.carlsbad.ca.us
113 7
LETTER TO DEPARTMhrdT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONThdL
MITIGATED NEGATIV )ECLARATION
FOR SMITH PROPERTY LAND USE CHANGE
August 15,2002
Page 2 of 3
DTSC Comment:
2) The ND needs to ident$V an?! known orpotentiall\y contaminated sirc liithin thc proposed
Project area. For all identrfied sties, the ND needs to el;aluate rtdlethel- conditions ar tile
site pose a threat to human health 01- the environntent.
Response:
There is no known or potentially contaminated site within the project area. The nearest site
identified on the State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List is approximatel!.
1.5 miles north of the site and will not impact environmental conditions at the project site.
DTSC Comment:
3) The ND should identlh: the mechanism to initiate atlj. required investigation and/or
remediation for anJ* site that ma)? require remediation, and the governntellt agenc? to
provide appropriate regulaton oversight.
Response:
Because there are no known hazardous substances on the site, there is no required investigation
or remediation associated with the proposed land use and zone change. Any future development
projects on the site will be subject to CEQA review, which will be the mechanism to initiate any
investigation if it is determined necessary. The City of Carlsbad is the lead government agency
that provides regulatory oversight on projects that require investigation or remediation.
DTSC Comment:
4) The ND states that the project site is an undeveloped infill site. Tlhe sire is filled up with
imported soil, proper san~pling is required to make sure that the site is not contaminated
with hazardous substances.
Response:
The term “infill site” does not refer to soil fill. Rather, it is a planning term used to describe a
site that is located in an area that is mostly developed with few vacant parcels or areas of land
left to build on. In other words, an “infill” development would “fill-in” a vacant site in an area
that is mostly developed. With regard to this project, the site is vacant and surrounded by urban
development, and, therefore, is considered an “infill site”.
LETTER TO DEPARTI'&,,+T OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONV- JL
MITIGATED NEGATIL JECLARATION
FOR SMITH PROPERN LAND USE CHANGE
August 15.2002
DTSC comments 5 through 9 refer to the construction of a project on the site. As stated above.
there is no development associated with the proposed land use and zone change. Therefore.
those comments are not applicable at this time, but will be considered during the revien. of any
future development proposal on the site.
The City of Carlsbad appreciates DTSC's review and consideration of the project Mitigated
Negative Declaration. If you have any questions or require additional information. please
contact me at (760) 602-4637.
Sincerely,
Associate Planner
JC:mh
c: Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State, Clearinghouse
PO Box 3044
Sacramento, CA 95812-3044
Mr. Guenther W. Moskat, Chief
Planning and Environmental Analysis Section
CEQA Tracking Center
Department of Toxic Substances Control
PO Box 806
Sacramento, CA 958 12
Planning Commission Minute? - September 18,2002
2. GPA 02-02EC 02-031LCPA 02-05 - SMITH PROPERTY LAND USE CHANGE - Request for a
recommendation to the City Council to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and to recommend approval of a General Plan
Amendment, Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment to change the land use and
zoning designations on a vacant 5.12 acre parcel of land located at the southeast corner of
Interstate 5 and Poinsettia Lane from “Neighborhood Commercial” to “Residential Medium
Density,” and to remove the site from the Commercial Visitor-Serving Overlay Zone. The
proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment also includes text modifications within the LCP
Mello I Segment document.
Mr. Wayne introduced agenda item 2 stating that it was sponsored by the City and the presentation would
be made by Jennifer Coon, assisted by Bob Wojcik.
Jennifer Coon, Associate Planner, stated that the City of Carlsbad is the applicant on the project that
consists of a Land Use and Zone Change on property located on the southeast corner of 1-5 and
Poinsettia Lane. The site is currently designated as Neighborhood Commercial and is zoned C-1-Q with a Qualified Overlay Zone and is located within the Commercial Visitor-Serving Overlay Zone within the Mello
I Segment of the Local Coastal Program.
Ms. Coon described the surrounding areas to the site and stated that the surrounding uses consist
primarily of residential that has a designation of Residential Medium density. The project consists of
changing the land use and zone designation from commercial to residential, removing the site from the
Commercial Visitor-Serving Overlay Zone, and modifying the Local Coastal Program text. There is no
development proposal associated with the project.
Ms. Coon gave some historical background of City actions and development proposals for the site. There
were two different proposals in the last 13 years to develop a shopping center on the site. Those
proposals generated opposition from the Seacliff HOA who preferred residential. Both proposals were
either withdrawn or not followed through with a formal application. On March 5, 2002 Staff recommended
to the City Council to change the land use designation to the new Local Shopping Center designation,
however, after discussion and public comment, the Council directed Staff to change it to an appropriate
residential designation. In response to the City Council’s direction, Ms. Coon explained Staff‘s proposal to
change the land use and zone designations.
Ms. Coon stated that a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project because it was
determined by an environmental impact assessment that noise could potentially be significant unless
mitigation is incorporated. A noise analysis detected on-site noise levels at 76 dB CNEL and 66 dB CNEL
generated primarily from traffic on 1-5 and Poinsettia Lane. The noise levels exceed the acceptable levels specified in the General Plan for residential uses, which are 60 dB CNEL for exterior and 45 dB CNEL for
interior. The analysis concluded that noise levels could be reduced to acceptable levels with mitigation
that included a 10-foot wall along the west side of the site, an 8-foot wall along the north side, a 6-foot wall
along the east side, and special window and door standards. Since there is no development currently
proposed, the mitigation would have to be incorporated on any future residential development on the site.
Ms. Coon stated that the proposed RM land use designation allows 4-8 dwelling units per acre and has a growth control point of 6 dwelling units per acre. Therefore, the site could yield up to 40 dwelling units at
the maximum density range and 30 dwelling units at the growth control point. The Growth Management
Program did not anticipate residential units on the site, so the units would be provided through the excess
dwelling unit bank for the southwest quadrant.
In regard to circulation, Ms. Coon stated that the proposed RM land use designation with 40 dwelling units per acre would generate approximately 400 ADT based on trip generation for single-family dwellings. The
current commercial designation could result in 10,860 ADT if a commercial development of approximately
89,000 square feet was on the site.
Ms. Coon stated that the Local Coastal Program (LCP) land use change from Neighborhood Commercial
to Residential Medium density and zone change from C-1-Q to RDM-Q would require an amendment to
the LCP Land Use and Zone maps and the LCP Mello I Segment text.
Planning Commission Minutes - -. September 18,2002 Page 5
To understand the issues associated with the LCP Amendment, Ms. Coon provided some history on the
Mello I and II Segments and its relevance to this project. To correct the previous error in not modifying the policies in Mello I when the policies in Mello I1 were adopted, they are proposing to modify the text in the
Mello I Segment by incorporating the land use policies established with the adoption of the Mello II
Segment that specifically apply to “Occidental Land.” To reflect the proposed residential use designation
they are proposing to modify those policies that are being incorporated from Mello II and specify that the
site may develop with medium density residential land uses.
Ms. Coon stated that Staff would submit an application to the Coastal Commission for LCPA after City Council approval. Council approval of the LCPA will not become effective until the Coastal Commission
approves the LCPA.
Commissioner Segall asked if there’s only one way in and out of the Seacliff project and how many units
are in the project. Mr. Wojcik replied there is only one-way in and out. Mr. Wayne said there are about
300 homes.
Commissioner Segall asked if Staff evaluated the City Council’s concern about one way in and one way
out on projects and how it can be mitigated. Mr. Wojcik said they have evaluated that and there’s a space
available along the easterly end of the Poinsettia frontage at Seacliff that allows Seacliff to install an
emergency only ingress and egress at that location. Commissioner Segall asked if Staff was concerned
with 400 additional ADT based on the current situation. Mr. Wojcik said they’re not concerned because
it‘s much less ADT than a commercial project. When a development proposal comes in for this site, they
would require emergency ingress and egress out onto Poinsettia. Seacliff HOA could install the
emergency access if they wanted to.
Vice-Chair Baker asked if the same noise mitigation measures would apply for a commercial project. Ms.
Coon replied that if the impacts associated with a commercial project cause negative impacts to adjacent
properties they would be required to mitigate to a level of less than significant. A commercial project
would have to mitigate noise from existing circumstances, such as traffic, to reduce it to a level acceptable
for commercial use.
Vice-Chair Baker asked if there was any concern that a 10-foot high noise wall might block coastal views
protected by the Coastal Act. Ms. Coon replied that any residential building on the site would be higher
than 10 feet and located behind the wall, so the wall itself would not be an issue with blocking views
through the site.
Vice-Chair Baker asked why the property was given the RM designation rather than something with more density that might accommodate affordable housing since it is located near major thoroughfares, the train
station, and jobs. Ms. Coon said the primary reason is an existing Council policy on excess dwelling units,
which states that a project consisting of a zone change from non-residential to residential land use has to
meet certain criteria before they would be allowed to use units from the bank. Any unit built on this site
would have to come from the bank and one of the criteria that it would have to meet is that the total
density on the project site could not exceed the growth control point of the surrounding residential properties. The land use designation on the surrounding residential properties is RM; the growth control
point is 6 units per acre. They are recommending the RM designation be applied to be consistent with
surrounding land uses and to be consistent with the Council policy.
Vice-Chair Baker asked if there is any mechanism that they could use to increase the density since it appears to be a possible good site for affordable housing. Ms. Coon replied that they have provisions to
increase the density with provisions for affordable housing or through density bonus allowances.
Commissioner Segall asked if any other potential use other than residential had been considered, such as a park or open space. Ms. Coon replied that the City would have to acquire the property to develop it as a
park, because the property owner would probably not voluntarily develop it as a park. The Council would
have to determine if they want to pursue that use. In response to the first commercial development
proposal on the site, the Seacliff HOA requested the City consider changing the designation on the site to office, and the Council directed Staff to compare the traffic generation rates between an office use and
commercial use on the site. However, there was not direction to change the designation to office, and
Council’s direction in March was to change it to residential.
Planning Commission Minute? - A September 18,2002 Page 6
In regard to parks, Mr. Wayne added that it's no longer a growth management issue because the
southwest quadrant has adequate parks with the development of Aviara Park and it's not on the Park
Master Plan or part of the Parks and Recreation Element.
Commissioner Dominguez asked if there was any difference in the CNEL level that's allowable in a
commercial zone versus a residential zone. Ms. Coon said the acceptable noise level for residential is
lower than for commercial.
Vice-Chair Baker opened public testimony.
Peter Walsh, 2885 Sanford Lane, Carlsbad, stated he was present on behalf of his mother, Caroline
Smith, who is the owner of the property. As he was before the Commission previously, he expressed
some frustration and had questions as to why he should be there again. He said they have been working
with the same tenants and developer since 1998 and it's well known that they wanted a Henry's
Marketplace on the site that would be under 50,000 square feet and generate much less ADT than the
10,000 ADT projected for 89,000 square feet coverage. He asked the Commission to consider the following three questions prior to making their decision.
1.
2.
3.
What has changed since the resolution of intent to rezone was first considered last year and rejected?
The Mayor had asked for some information about another use other than what they were proposing at
the time. The Mayor did a resolution of intent to rezone; it got initial support but on the second vote it
was rejected. Mr. Walsh thought in part, it was because he supplied the City Council members with a
letter from the Coastal Commission stating that they would not support a change of use on that
property. He said there has not been one thing that has changed as far as any other subdivisions,
retail development, or anything in that area.
Why would you be removing this lot from the Carlsbad Ranch Overlay Zone (Commercial Visitor-
Serving Overlay Zone)? He said he asked on behalf of his mother in 1999 not to be put in the overlay
zone because they were in escrow and wanted to do a Henry's Marketplace, drug store, small
specialty center, and realized that any inclusion into the overlay zone would create a long delay. It
turned out to be about 11 months before the Coastal Commission ratified it. He said his argument
was rejected and they were included in the Overlay Zone so he wanted to find out what arguments
they have to reverse their point of view today and go 180 degrees in the opposite direction.
What benefit did his parents receive for a rezoning from 1982? As part of the requirements for the
rezoning they paid $24,000 an acre to the California Coastal Commission for conversion fees. They
also had to contribute to the construction of the desilting basin on Avenida Encinas and to the
construction of the overpass across the railroad tracks west of the freeway. In 1983 the property
taxes tripled because it was no longer agricultural reserved property. In 1997 there were enough
homes to justify construction of a shopping center and in 1998 they selected PDP to develop the site.
Since that time there has been one bureaucratic hurdle after another. Basically he wanted to know
what benefit the owner got for spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to get the zoning that was in
place, and once it was in place, she never got the benefit of it.
Vice-Chair Baker asked where they currently stand in negotiations on the development of the property.
Mr. Walsh said his mother executed escrow instructions in June of 1998 with Pacific Development
Partners. At that time the property was Neighborhood Commercial and was simply a straightforward deal.
They met with Staff and went through their process and then experienced several delays. Then they were
moving along as if they were changed from Neighborhood Commercial to the Shopping Center
designation. He said the Commission supported his request when he spoke to them the last time to
include overlapping trade services as a key component of the retail report because without it there would be no reason for a shopping center at that site. They had already announced approval of that property
along with 16 others and sent it to the Council. He thought that was going to be the last hurdle, only to be
surprised to find out again that they were revisiting the subject of rezoning.
Vice-Chair Baker asked if this is not rezoned could they have a Henry's Market put there. Mr. Walsh said
to his knowledge, Henry's Market has been holding on. At this point, they still maintain that it is an
excellent site for the proposed use; it's on a major arterial, and it's outside a neighborhood. There's only
one neighborhood objecting to it. He said he always found it odd that an adjacent property owner should
be expected to fix a mistake that was made on another property, which in this case, would be ingress and egress. Whoever engineered the Seacliff subdivision maximized their coverage of how many homes they
Planning Commission Minute? - September 18,2002 Page 7
could get in the subdivision and restricted it to one ingress and one egress and now his mother has to
minimize the size of coverage on her lot to accommodate a mistake made by Seacliff developers.
Commissioner White asked if they were in the business of agriculture when they purchased the 45 acres
designated as agriculture or was it an investment. Mr. Walsh said it was for development. When his
father and his partner purchased the property it was all designated as one map.
Sally Lyons, 7019 Lavender Way, Carlsbad, spoke on behalf of the Seacliff Homeowners Association.
She stated they support the Staff recommendation to change the land use to residential. They are
concerned about transportation and circulation if commercial development occurs on the site. A
commercial project would have to take access for the site on Lowder Lane, often referred to as Paseo Del Norte. Paseo Del Norte is shown on the circulation element of the General Plan as a secondary arterial
north of Poinsettia; it is not shown south of Poinsettia on the General Plan and is assumed to be a local
street. This segment dead ends at Seacliff, there is no through access, and it‘s the only point of access
for the 300 homes in Seacliff and the only way in and out for emergencies. Even if they widened the street
to a collector, access to a commercial site would have to be 300 feet from the intersection of Poinsettia on
Lowder Lane. Allowing for turning movements of semis and service vehicles the distance to their gate
becomes a safety issue, because they are only 363 feet from the intersection.
Lois Martyns, 7304 Lantana Terrace, Carlsbad, representing Seacliff HOA, stated that recent studies
conducted by the City and the Seacliff community have drawn the same conclusions that there are enough
commercial areas located close to the property and it is apparent that additional commercial properties
are not needed in the area. They strongly support the recommendation of the Planning Staff to change the land use designation to residential medium density.
Howard Heffner, 71 54 Lantana Terrace, Carlsbad, also representing Seacliff HOA stated they concur with Staffs recommendation for the land use change to residential. He said their concern, and the City’s, has
always been the quality of life for the residents of Carlsbad. Rezoning this parcel to residential will ease
these concerns and would mitigate any environmental concerns associated with a commercial project,
such as noise, light and glare, and air pollution, which would affect their quality of life.
Vice-Chair Baker closed public testimony.
In response to Mr. Walsh’s question as to why they’re recommending that they remove the Commercial
Visitor-Serving Overlay Zone, Ms. Coon said it‘s essentially because it would not apply to a residential
development and would not be needed on the site.
Regarding what has changed in the community since the last shopping center designation went through,
Ms. Coon said there was a finding that there were some overlapping service areas of the two commercial
sites, this project site and the Poinsettia Village site. When Council reviewed the study and the
recommendation to change the designation to local shopping center they found that due to the overlap in
service areas that this site may not be needed as a commercial designation and that residential land use
may be more appropriate.
Mr. Wayne added that he thought Mr. Walsh’s question on what has changed wasn’t appropriately directed to the Planning Commission because they didn’t have any action or involvement on the original
resolution of intent.
Regarding the question about the collector street, Lowder Lane, and the street designation, Mr. Wojcik
said when Seacliff was developed in the 80’s it was under different standards and allowances for the
number of units. Secondary emergency access didn’t come up in development reviews at that time. Because that portion of Lowder Lane has very few driveways on it, it would be considered to function as a
collector street, therefore, it would have a volume capacity of at least 5,000 trips. There isn’t any other
access available and when they were looking at a commercial site for the property, one of the things
considered was widening the street. With the traffic analysis that was done at the time, it was deemed
unnecessary for the additional traffic being proposed.
Commissioner Segall wanted to confirm that Mr. Walsh would not have to mitigate for Seacliff under the
new land use designation proposal; he would only have to put in a secondary or emergency access for this
property. Mr. Wojcik confirmed that was correct, he would not have to mitigate anything for Seacliff.
// 3
Planning Commission Minute? - September 18,2002 Page 8
Commissioner Segall asked what action they were taking and wanted to know what latitude they have.
Mr. Wayne replied that it‘s a procedural matter. The zones can be changed a number of ways: A
resolution of intent by the Planning Commission, a resolution of intent by the City Council, or a
recommendation by the Planning Director. In this case, the City Council directed Staff to do a study of
different types of residential land uses with the intent of changing the zone to residential. Along with that
would go all the other actions for consistency with the General Plan and LCP, but they cannot direct
anybody to change anything at that time. You actually have to do a study and support the proposed
changes based on evidence. That’s what we have done and now the procedure in the code requires a
Planning Commission hearing and a recommendation to the City Council. You can reject the Staff
recommendation and come up with a different recommendation, concur with, or modify their
recommendation.
Commissioner White asked if the site were to be developed as a commercial site, is there any size or type
of business that would not be appropriate for a commercial site of 5 acres. She also wanted to know how close the intersection ingress and egress would be because the Seacliff resident said it would have to be
300 feet from the intersection. Ms. Coon said if it were to remain a Neighborhood Commercial zone, it
would allow markets, neighborhood retail shops, and restaurants. The size of the uses would be based on
their conformance with lot coverage, parking, and setback development standards. Regarding the 300-
foot spacing, Mr. Wojcik said that is a requirement for intersection spacing. The standards state that once
driveways get to a certain density they would be considered intersections, so the 300 feet would be the
standard. In order to reduce that standard an engineering variance would have to be applied for and they
would look for safety of the existing residents, what the necessary storage capacity is at the intersection
for left turns, etc.
Commissioner White asked if there would be one in and out at the same intersection for a commercial or residential site. Mr. Wojcik said they consider that one entrance would be sufficient to handle the
volumes. It was reviewed for commercial uses at the time the application came in.
Commissioner Dominguez said the report stated that the current commercial designation for commercial
development could be up to 89,000 square feet of use, producing possibly over 10,000 ADT. Mr. Walsh
stated their commercial application would use around 50,000 square feet. He wanted to clarify if what was
stated in the report was the potential maximum. Ms. Coon said that‘s the size of a commercial
development that LFMP has anticipated for that site and that number was generated based on what could
potentially be yielded on the site.
Commissioner Dominguez wanted to know if the Smith-Walsh participation in the improvements on the
overpass and other improvements were derived from this site alone or from the combination of sites that
were developed by his father and partners. Mr. Wojcik stated that participation in the public improvements
for the project were based on Poinsettia Village, so the dollar allowance was taken from what was
proposed on that site and the generation of traffic that it would contribute. The amount of money paid was
not for this site. Traffic impact fees, bridge and thoroughfare district fees are not paid until building
permits are pulled.
Mr. Wayne added that the agricultural fees were already paid on the site. It’s been designated a
commercial site since the ‘70’s and at the time of Mello I and Mello II, the Coastal Commission was under
the gun to prepare a local coastal program or have the property removed from the Coastal Zone so they
prepared Mello I very rapidly. It anticipated the development of an agricultural subsidy program to be
brought forth in Mello 11. It was pretty clear that the agricultural restriction in Mello I was going to be
countermanded in Mello II and that these properties would become payers, not receivers. Mello II came
along with the ability for these certain properties to buy out of the agricultural program. This property has
been available for development and the other properties further inland were supposed to be agricultural in
perpetuity and were supposed to receive that subsidy. This property has been commercial since the ‘70’s
in its designation and basically had the ability to develop commercial since 1981.
Commissioner Segall wanted to know if Smith-Walsh paid something they would not have paid if the
designation is changed. Mr. Wayne recalled there were some assessments on the bridge that may come
out of the Occidental Land issue that they were part of, but it may be more complicated. He said they
would have had to pay the agricultural fees whether it was residential or commercial.
Planning Commission Minute? September 18,2002 A Page 9
Commissioner Dominguez asked if the City Council is the ultimate authority or could the decision be ultimately appealed to the Coastal Commission. Mr. Wayne replied they are not issuing a Coastal
Development Permit that could be appealed. This is an action that the Coastal Commission has to take. They will consider all of the evidence and the action that the City has taken. If the City ultimately denies
the Staff recommendation and keeps it as commercial, it's designated commercial in the LCP and would
probably cease any application to the Coastal Commission. If the City wants to change that designation it
has to be ratified by the California Coastal Commission.
Commissioner Heineman asked if someone could review the thinking of the City Council in recommending
that the Commission study the idea of changing the designation. Dennis Turner, Principal Planner, stated
that there were two issues involved. One was the longstanding discussion about the proper land use on
the site as a consequence of the Seacliff Homeowners desire to have something else there. The other was the matter of the trade area analysis that was part of the recommendation that Staff took to the
Council when they were considering the redesignations on the 16 sites. They did a trade area analysis of a number of sites to determine if there was adequate coverage for shopping centers throughout the city.
The key issue in this particular area was that there was basic coverage for trade areas supplied by the
Ralph's site across the freeway. This body recommended to the Council that they consider that there may
be some advantages to having overlapping trade areas when one of the shopping centers might be
complementary to the goods and services that the competitor would have. When the Council heard that
recommendation from the Commission, some members thought there was some merit to it and others
thought there were other issues in this particular area that outweighed that consideration, and that the
longstanding discussion with the Seacliff homeowners should hold sway over that position. The direction
of the Council was to evaluate alternative land uses on the property and to consider some unspecified
form of residential as a primary change.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner White and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5271, 5272, 5273, and
5274, recommending adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and recommending approval
of a General Plan Amendment GPA 02-02, Zone Change 02-03 and Local
Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 02-05, based on the findings and subject to
the conditions contained therein.
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Segall supported the Staff recommendation and stated that all properties contiguous with
the site are residential and it fits better in the neighborhood since there is a tremendous amount of
shopping and commercial in the neighborhood. He said he has a concern with ingress and egress of
Seacliff and would not be in favor of putting anything on the site that would cause more problems.
Commissioner White agreed that there is enough retail in the area and could see the potential for
emergency access problems. However, she felt the current owner's property rights need to be respected
because the property was purchased for commercial investment and therefore, could not support Staffs
recommendation and the property should remain commercial. She said she would prefer it to be
conditioned so that it would have to be a much smaller commercial use creating a smaller amount of
traffic going in and out of the site.
Commissioner Dominguez supported the Staff recommendations with compassion for the owners who
were caught in a procedural web for so many years. He thought something other than commercial would
be better for this property for the overall good, and hopes that whatever goes in will not compound the problems that already exist.
Commissioner Heineman stated that it's an awkward site for either commercial or residential with the
traffic and noise problems, but felt residential would be the better option.
Commissioner Whitton supported Staffs recommendation and felt commercial use would generate too
many ADT and residential would be more consistent with the contiguous areas.
Planning Commission Minutec- September 18,2002 Page 10
Vice-Chair Baker did not support Staffs recommendation and stood by their earlier recommendation to Council that this remain a commercial site. Even though there are overlapping trade areas there’s a huge
population that frequents the trade sites and she believes the city would be a better place if there were
more commercial sites closer to where people live so they can walk. She was also sympathetic to the
owner who bought the property when it was zoned commercial before Seacliff was developed.
VOTE: 4-2-0
AYES: Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman, Segall, and Whitton
NOES: Commissioners Baker and White
ABSTAIN: None
PROOF OF PUBL1C"'TION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the
above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of
the printer of
North County Times
Forrneriy known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by
the Superior Court of the County of San Diego,
State of California, for the County of San Diego,
that the notice of which the annexed is a printed
copy (set in type not smaller than nonpariel), has
been published in each regular and entire issue of
said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof
on the following dates, to-wit:
NOVERBER 17,24,2002
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at SAN MARCOS, California
this 25 TH day
of NOVERBER, 2002
This space is *, the County Clerk's Filing Stamp -
Proof of Publication of
Signature
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public
hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO
p.m. on Tuesday, December 17, 2002, to consider a request to adopt a Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approval of a
General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment to change
the land use and zoning designations on a vacant 5.12 acre parcel of land located at the
southeast corner of Interstate 5 and Poinsettia Lane from “Neighborhood Commercial” to
“Residential Medium Density,” and t‘o remove the site from the Commercial Visitor-Sewing
Overlay Zone. The proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment also includes text
modifications within the LCP Mello I Segment document and more particularly described as:
Lot 171 of Carlsbad Tract 73-24, in the City of Carlsbad, County
of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No.
7996, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego
County, August 5, 1974.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after Friday, December 13, 2002. If
you have any questions, please call Jennifer Coon in the Planning Department at (760) 602-
4637.
If you challenge the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Local Coastal Program
Amendment, Mitigated Negative Declaration, and/or Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone
else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered
to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk’s Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA
92008, at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: GPA 02-02/ZC 02-03/LCPA 02-05
+,
CASE NAME: SMITH PROPERTY LAND USE CHANGE
PUBLISH: SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2002
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
+'
SMITH PROPERTY
LAND USE CHANGE
G PA 02-02lZC 02-03lLCPA 02-05
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public
hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO
p.m. on Tuesday, [DATE], to consider a request to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approval of a General Plan
Amendment, Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment to change the land use
and zoning designations on a vacant 5.12 acre parcel of land located at the southeast corner of
Interstate 5 and Poinsettia Lane from “Neighborhood Commercial” to “Residential Medium
Density,” and to remove the site from the Commercial Visitor-Serving Overlay Zone. The
proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment also includes text modifications within the LCP
Mello I Segment document and more particularly described as:
Lot 171 of Carlsbad Tract 73-24, in the City of Carlsbad, County
of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No.
7996, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego
County, August 5,1974.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after [DATE]. If you have any
questions, please call Jennifer Coon in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4637.
If you challenge the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Local Coastal Program
Amendment in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else
raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to
the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: GPA 02-02/ZC 02-03/LCPA 02-05
CASE NAME: SMITH PROPERTY LAND USE CHANGE
PUBLISH: [DATE]
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
Smooth Feed SheetsfM - Use template for 5160@
CARLSBAD UNlF SCHOOL DlST SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DlST
801 PINE AVE 1 CIVIC CENTER DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008 SAN MARCOS CA 92069
SAN DlEGUlTO SCHOOL DlST
701 ENCINITAS BLVD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF ENCINITAS
505 S VULCAN AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
VISTA CA 92085
ENCINITAS SCHOOL DlST
101 RANCHO SANTA FE RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF SAN MARCOS CITY OF OCEANSIDE
1 CIVIC CENTER DR 300 NORTH COAST HWY
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949 OCEANSIDE CA 92054
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE STE 100
SAN DIEGO CA 92123 91 74 SKY PARK CT
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DlST
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
I.P.U.A. SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
URBAN STUDIES
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
SD COUNTY PLANNING
STE B
5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
SANDAG
STE 800
401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE CA COASTAL COMMISSION
6010 HIDDEN VALLEY RD STE 103
CARLSBAD CA 92009 7575 METROPOLITAN DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
SERVICES DEPT
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT PLANNER
JENNIFER COON
11/15/2002
AVERYm Address Labels Laser 5160@
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
HARBOR POINTE HOME
OWNERS ASSN
51 9 ENCINITAS BLVD #I 08
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
SAY EDITH
6970 SANDCASTLE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MORTENSEN FAMILY TRUST
6976 SANDCASTLE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BLANSFIELD JON & DOROTHY
6976 WHITECAP DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GALLEANO JOHN & SABINE
TRUST
6977 WHITECAP DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
TONDELLI CATHERINE
2260 UNIVERSITY DR
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660
FATHIE AMlR H.
834 W GRAPE ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
SWANN WILLIAM & LISA
6988 SANDCASTLE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DlAMONTOPOULOS TRUST
6990 SANDCASTLE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BlGORNlA ROBERT
5060 AVENIDA PLAYA CANCUN
SAN DIEGO CA 92124
_.
DYER WILLIAM & BETTIE
6979 CARNATION DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SONCK DONALD & TRACY
6969 SANDCASTLE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DAY RICHARD B JR
6975 SANDCASTLE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
EICHMAN NINA FAMILY TRUST
6980 SANDCASTLE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HAN TERRENCE & NANCY
6980 WHITECAP DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SCHILZ JAMES & PATRICIA
P 0 BOX 2196
CARLSBAD CA 92018
STEMLER JEFFREY
131 5 RIDGE RD
VISTA CA 92083
CONVERSE TRUST
6987 SANDCASTLE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MASON ALFRED, DOREEN &
ADRIEN
6989 SANDCASTLE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ENGLERT SEAN
6992 SANDCASTLE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use template for 5160@
WAMBACH RHONDA
6966 SANDCASTLE DR
CARLSBAD Ca 92009
MCTIGHE FAMILY TRUST
6970 WHITECAP DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BALABANOFF TARAS & LINDA
6975 WHITECAP DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
WllTEMAN TRUST
6979 SANDCASTLE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HUSSAIN AZlZ & TERESITA
2522 VIA LA MESA
CHINO HILLS CA 91709
EATON TODD & MONIQUE
6984 WHITECAP DR
CARLSBAD Ca 92009
YERMIAN JACKOB & JAYNE
3218 LONE JACK RD
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
WADMAN J THOMAS
6992 WHITECAP DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HUSSEY GENE & LOIS 6996 WHITECAP DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MURPHY FAMILY TRUST .
20027 FORTUNA DEL ESTE
ESCONDIDO CA 92029
aAvERY@ Address Labels laser 5160@
Smooth Feed SheetsfM
BRUCH THOMAS
&THAUNG DAPHNE TRUST
2363 TERRAZA RIBERA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SEA CLIFF HOMEOWNERS ASSN
C/O CURTIS MANAGEMENT CO.
4059 OCEANSIDE BLVD, SUITE M
OCEANSIDE CA 92056
TOOHEY JUNE
878 HEATHER WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ANDERSON PATRICIA
874 HEATHER WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SAMPSON GARMAN
866 HEATHER WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HRNA SANDRA
860 HEATHER WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BURTON ARNOLD & BEVERLEE
854 HEATHER WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CAROLINES SURVIVORS TRUST
6452 AVENIDA MANANA
LA JOLLA CA 92037
HRIBAR NEAL
867 HEATHER WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DUNNE LAWRENCE & MARTHA
863 HEATHER WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
TAYLOR DEBRA
PO BOX 131
BONSALL CA 92003
BIDWELL GARRETT
6996 SANDCASTLE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CHlU CHUNG-YEN & KEI-FENG
6995 SANDCASTLE DRIVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
POWELL KERRY & SHARON
872 HEATHER WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SUTY MICHAEL
4213 ELM ST
EAST CHICAGO IN 46312
FLAMMANG DENNIS &JANE
208 WITHAM RD
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
GLADDEN JANE REVOCABLE
TRUST
852 HEATHER WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
WESTBROOK 2001 TRUST
535 NORTHPARK BLVD
SN BERNRDNO CA 92407
CIGANKO JOHN & EILEEN TRUST
7008 LANTANA TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ESKESENANN
861 HEATHER WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
aAERY@ Address Labels ’
Use template for 5160@
ANVARINEJAD AHMAD
44 MANCERA
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA
CA 92688
STEPHENS TRUST
880 HEATHER WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CULBERTSON JOHN & SHARON
876 HEATHER WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SCHLEY LEILA
870 HEATHER WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KAY IAN & FELICE
862 HEATHER WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
TRUMBULL MARGERY
P 0 BOX 835
HANOVER NH 03755
WAHL RICHARD & THERESA
PO BOX 1328
EDWARDS CO 81 632
BROWN PERCY & MARGARET
869 HEATHER WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LEAHY PATRICIA REVOCABLE
TR.
865 HEATHER WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROMEY MARGARET
859 HEATHER WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Laser 5160@
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 51608
EPPRIGHT GARY & GERALDINE
701 0 LANTANA TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
.-
FURUSHIRO TRUST
7007 LAVENDER WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GRATES JOSEPH Ill
7012 LAVENDER WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MIDDLEMISS IRENE TRUST
7014 LAVENDER WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MITTAL RAMESH & RENU
30680 PAL0 ALTO DR
REDLANDS CA 92373
CONWAY DANIEL JR
6809 MILLWOOD ROAD
BETHESDA MD 20817
STEVES FAMILY TRUST
7024 LANTANA TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOHNSON THOMAS &
KATHERINE
863 SAMARA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CHISHOLM JOSEPH & RUTH
7005 LAVENDER WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SUBA A ROBERT & CLARKE-
SUBA JOWEN
7014 LANTANA TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MILES LIVING TRUST
7016 LANTANA TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CARNIELLO RICHARD & ELISA
TR.
1358 MAGNOLIA AVE
UPLAND CA 91786
TAYLOR LYNDA TRUST
7020 LANTANA TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GIBSON CATHERINE
701 2 LANTANA TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MAHONEY HELEN
7009 LAVENDER WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ELL LAWRENCE & KATHLEEN
69 LAKE SHORE DR
RANCHO MIRAGE CA 92270
SORENSON JOHN &JEANNIE
7013 LAVENDER WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MAZZA FRANK
&CARMELA R REVOCAB
7015 LAVENDER WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BUSMAN ROBERT & GLORIA TRS MOUSSAFIR FAMILY TRUST
7022 LANTANA TER 8532 TOPSIDE CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646
LYONS RICHARD REVOCABLE
TRS
7019 LAVENDER WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ANDRES WONNE
1429 TRABERT RANCH RD
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
AVAN ROGER & NANCY LORENZlNl A MARIE TR
7026 LANTANA TER 861 SAMARA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
BAUMGARTEN ELIZABETH CHABRA TRUST
859 SAMARA WAY 2418 E GLASS LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009 PHOENIX AZ 85040
WIEDEMANN FAMILY TRUST
7028 LANTANA TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
PATTEN SUSAN SNIDER JUDITH GARGAS STEPHEN & STEPHANIE
P 0 BOX 3565 853 SAMARA WAY 7030 LANTANA TER
RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
aAVERY@ Address Labels Laser 5160@
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
I
BLACKIM CHARLES & JUDITH
2020 RIDGEVIEW ROAD
SALINA KS 67401
TICE-SIMONS BARBARA
71 06 LANTANA TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LANTANA TERRACE RESIDENCE
TRS
71 05 LANTANA TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
FOREMAN FAMILY TRUST
71 12 LANTANA TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
WILLIAMS LEONA TRUST
71 04 LINDEN TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ODONOVAN ANDREW TRUST
71 11 LANTANA TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SEAHOLM DENNIS & DIANE
TRUST
71 16 LANTANA TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
RODENBUSH REBECCA
71 18 LANTANA TERRACE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CARR MARY FAMILY TRUST 71 15 LANTANA TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BOWEN DOROTHY A TRUST
PO BOX 2161
RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067
CARLIER ANDRE
71 04 LANTANA TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KENDALL BARBARA
71 03 LANTANA TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
FARAH TAWFIC & LINDA
71 10 LANTANA TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
FRENCH WILLIAM & IVA
37682 FESTIVAL DR
PALM DESERT CA 9221 1
CRAVEN CAROL
71 14 LANTANA TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROOK DORIS LIVING TRUST
7101 LINDEN TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DONAHUE SCHRIBER REALTY
GRP
2235 FARADAY AVE #O
CARLSBAD CA 92008
FISCHER TRUST
7103 LINDEN TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
REICHBACH FAMILY TRUST
12464 N 136TH PL
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85259
CANNON JOHN&MERLYN
71 07 LINDEN TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
@AWRY@ Address Labels
Use template for 51600
PAY LESS DRUG STORES NW
P 0 BOX 8431
HARRISBURG PA 17105
KRAUT BENJAMIN & RENEE TRS
3921 SANDUNE LN
CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625
BUTLER GWENDOLYN
71 07 LANTANA TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CHAVEZ REBECCA TRUST
1108 JOSEPH ST
NEW ORLEANS LA 701 15
RALPHS GROCERY CO
1100 W ARTESIA BLVD
COMPTON CA 90220
JOHNSON NATILEE
7106 LINDEN TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BARONE ROBERT TRUST
3753 W AVENUE J14
LANCASTER CA 93536
BLACKLEY FAMILY TRUST
7 1 20 LANTANA TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
71 22 LANTANA TERRACE
7720 EL CAMINO REAL #235
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BISHOP DEWITT&ANNElTE
824 OKRA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Laser 5160@
Smooth Feed SheetsfM
SCHNIEDERS RICHARD & DIANE
822 OKRA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
PICKENS WILLIAM & FRANCES
TRS
71 24 LANTANA TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GROVER FAMILY TRUST
7121 LANTANA TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
WALL KARLA TRUST
71 13 LINDEN TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CARLSON MARY
814 OKRA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
COTNER DONNA
71 25 LANTANA TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ETTINGER JOAN
66 GOLF LANE
RIDGEFIELD CT 06877
PEASE TRUST
71 29 LANTANA TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BUEHLER STEVEN & LAURI TRS
P 0 BOX 805
EL CAJON CA 92022
FRYE RUTH TR & FRYE MICHAEL
TR
7121 LINDEN TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
aAVERY@ Address Labels
MCMAHON DAVID & SUlTTS
DAWN
7807 BROCKWAY DR
BOULDER CO 80303
BREEN FAMILY TRUST
820 OKRA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ALBERICO JOHN TRUST
527 E CAMBERT STREET
SAN DIMAS CA 91773
MCINTEE BRIAN TRUST
816 OKRA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SINGLETON JOHN &JOANNE
TRS
7193 AVIARA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOHNSON F TED & C MARGO
7127 LANTANA TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
WEBER JAMES & BETTY TRS
825 OKRA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LUI LIVING TRUST
821 OKRA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MARSALA MARLENE TRUST
81 9 OKRA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LEVIN VICTOR & CLAIRE LIVING
TR
815 OKRA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use template for 5160@
ROSSETTI LOUIS REVOCABLE
TRS
BIRMINGHAM MI 48009
463 w MERR~LL ST
MONTGOMERY TRUST
71 11 LINDEN TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DENTON SARAH
818 OKRA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
RALLS SUSAN LIVING TRUST
2101 PRESTWICH PL
EUGENE OR 97401
CORTEZ MANUEL & JOANNA
4936 MOUNTAIN FOLIAGE DR
LAS VEGAS NV 891 13
KONTOGIANIS TERRY
71 17 LINDEN TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CALVARY CHAPEL NORTH
COAST
71 88 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92009
REDEMSKE KENNETH & CAROL
11616 LAKE SHORE DR
ORLAND PARK IL 60467
TAYLOR LESTER
755 ALMA REAL DR
PACIFIC PALISADES CA 90272
STO'CKMAN CONSTANCE
7123 LINDEN TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Laser 5160@
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160@
COMFORT ROBERT & CAROL
TRS
826 DAPHNE CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LEMMON ALLAN & KAREN
7125 LINDEN TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HATHAWAY CAROLINE
7127 LINDEN TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SIENA WES & PAMELA
P 0 BOX 134
ARLINGTON HTS IL 60006
.+
CROWLEY CONNIE FAMILY
TRUST 454 GAVIOTA
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660
FRANSON LIVING TRUST
5750 WlLSHlRE BLVD #590
LOS ANGELES CA 90036
DONAHUE SCHRIBER REALTY
GRP
200 BAKER ST E #IO0
COSTA MESA CA 92626
POPP KARIN LIVING TRUST
1 167 VIA CARRILLO
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
SlVl ISAK
2405 INGERSOLL AVE
DES MOINES IA 50312
MEYER FAMILY TRUST
7133 LINDEN TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
REITMAN SIDNEY & HARRIET
818 DAPHNE CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ENRIGHT JAMES & MARY TR
1439 S PACIFIC ST
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
VANNICE MARIA FAMILY TRUST
7145 LANTANA TERRACE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SHARP STEVEN & MARLENE TRS
1775 ELEVADO RD
VISTA CA 92084
HEYING JOHN & DIXIE
814 DAPHNE CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MARTIN HILDA
7137 LINDEN TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DUNBAR DUSTIN
868 HEATHER WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MEE SUSAN
6976 QUIET COVE DRIVE
CARSLBAD CA 92009
CHANEY DONALD TRUST
333 HEMLOCK AVENUE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
NARD1 RICHARD
1416 KINGS CROSS DR
CARDIFF CA 92007
OTTO-BROPHY DONNA
868 VIOLET CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LEYERLY CHARLES &
MARGARET
21988 US HIGHWAY 58
HINKLEY CA 92347
IRISH JACQUELINE
1320 S VALLEY VISTA DR #2004
MESA AZ 85204
RICHARDS CLYDE
858 VIOLET CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MOIOLA THOMAS & LAURA
4085 US HIGHWAY 115
BRAWLEY CA 92227
BROWN ROBERT & DEBBIE
12241 AVENIDA CONSENTIDO
SAN DIEGO CA 92128
JENSEN WILLIAM & MARGARET
854 VIOLET CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BRUCKNER LESLIE &JOAN TRS
1325 VALLEY VIEW RD
GLENDALE CA 91202
RUDY CONRAD & STEPHANIE
855 VIOLET CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MEYER ELAINE LIVING TRUST
857 VIOLET CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
~AVERY@ Address Labels Laser 5160@
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
MITTSKUS VMO TRUST
6805 WATERCOURSE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
VASSEUR WILLIAM &JOAN
531 1 NW 51ST STREET
COCONUT CREEK FL 33073
STILLER IRENE
843 RIVERTREE DRIVE
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
BERGELSON GORDON
11 947 BEATRICE STREET
CULVER CITY CA 90230
STOCKTON SALLY
7979 CAMINITO DIA #3
SAN DIEGO CA 92122
HARDAWAY ROBERT Ill
6953 CARNATION DRIVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROGAN ROBERT & FRANCES
6959 CARNATION DRIVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
7021 LAVENDER WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CALIFORNIA COASTAL
COMMISSION
7575 METROPOLITAN DR.
SUITE 103
SAN DIEGO CA 92108
DOUGLAS WRIGHT
CROSSMARK DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY STE 150
5120 SHOREHAM PLACE
SAN DIEGO CA 92122
I
"
BERMAN MARTIN & JACQUELINE
3799 TORITO CIRCLE
PALM SPRINGS CA 92264
MILLER JIM
2051 ACACIA DRIVE
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
KIM HYUNSOO
6983 CARNATION DRIVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MARQUAND MARY TRUST
6989 CARNATION DRIVE #2
CARLSBAD CA 92009
FISKE WALTER
6997 CARNATION DRIVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HEDBERG LILA
6955 CARNATION DRIVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
701 1 LAVENDER WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
7102 LINDEN TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BErrY WILLIAMS
6854 WATERCOURSE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROBERT PERKINS
LURAD LAND USE RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT INC
11 53 CERRO LARGO DR
SOLANA BEACH CA 92075
aAVERY@ Address labels
Use template for 5160*
TORR1 ALFRED & ERICA
1421 HYMEVUS AVENUE
LEUCADIA CA 92024
GIEGEL ROBERT JR & MARTHA
6975 CARNATION DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
STIRES CAROL
6985 CARNATION DRIVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
cox RAY
6993 CARNATION DRIVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HOWELL RICHARD
6999 CARNATION DRIVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
RUE JOHN & SHANNON
1041 CRESTBROOK DRIVE
RIVERSIDE CA 92506
OCCUPANT
7017 LAVENDER WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
7105 LINDEN TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ELEANOR WOJCIK
PRESIDENT SEA CLIFF HOA
71 32 LANTANA TERRACE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LOIS MARTYNS
7304 LANTANA TERRACE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Laser 5160@
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
.' HOWARD HEFFNER
7154 LANTANA TERRACE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use template for 5160@
PETER WALSH
2885 SANFORD LANE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
@AERY@ Address Labels laser 5160@
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 516?
CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF COMbliRCE ANTHONY & DICKY BONS
JAN SOBEL 25709 HILLCREST AV
5934 PRIESTLY DR ESCONDIDO CA 92026-8650
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CALTRANS DISTRICT 11
BILL FIGGE
MAIL ST 50
P 0 BOX 85406
SAN DIEGO CA 921 86-5406
U S FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE
JOHN MARTIN
6010 HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD
CARLSBAD CA 92009-
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
RONALD M JAEGER
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK
SUPERINTENDENT
1901 SPINNAKER DR
SAN BUENA VENTURA CA 93001
REG WATER QUALITY CONTROL BD
STE 100
9174 SKY PARK CT
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMIN WESTERN REG
PO BOX 92007
LOS ANGELES CA 90009
BARRY BRAYER, AWP-8
BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION & HSG AGENCY
PATRICIA W NEAL DEPUTY SEC HOUSING
STE 2450
980 NINTH ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
COASTAL CONSERVANCY
STE 1100
1330 BROADWAY
OAKLAND CA 9461 2
Laser 5 163@
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL JJALITY
CHAIRMAN
722 JACKSON PL NW
WASHINGTON DC 20006
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
LOS ANGELES DlST ENGINEER
PO BOX 271 1
LOS ANGELES CA 90053
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
STE 400
611 RYAN PLAZA DR
ARLINGTON TX 7601 1-4005
DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIV
P 0 BOX 944246
SACRAMENTO CA 94244-2460
DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
DOUG WICKIZER, ENVIR COORD
P 0 BOX 944246
SACRAMENTO CA 94244-2460
AER?% Shipping Labels
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
GARY RESOURCE CONSER
STE 102
DAVIS CA 95616
21214 SECOND ST
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.
CLIFFORD EMMERLING, DIR
STE 350
901 MARKET ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD &AGRICULTURE
STEVE SHAFFER, AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
RM 100
1220 N ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVE
DUNCAN LENT HOWARD, REG ADMIN
450 GOLDEN GATE AV
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102
Laser 5163@
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5167''
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
RM 700
110WESTAST
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
ENERGY RESOURCES, CONSERVATION &
DEVELOPMENT COMM
CHUCK NAJARIAN
1516 NINTH ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
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 94111-4704
STATE LANDS COMMISSION
DWIGHT SANDERS
STE 1005
100 HOWE AV
SACRAMENTO CA 95825-8202
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RM 5504
1120 N ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
MARINE RESOURCES REGION, DR & G
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, SPR
350 GOLDEN SHORE
LONG BEACH CA 90802
NATIONAL OCEANIC &ATMOSPHERIC
ADMIN OCRM,55MC4
N/ORM - 3
1305 EAST-WEST HWY
SILVER SPRING MD 20910
U S BUREAU OF LAND MGMT
STE RM W1834
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
Laser 5163@
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
-
U S FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE
2800 COTTAGE WAY
STE W-2605
SACRAMENTO CA 95825-1 888
USDA - RURAL DEVELOPMENT
DEPT 4169
430 "G" ST
DAVIS CA 95616
CITY OF ENCINITAS
COM DEV DEPT
505 S VULCAN AV
ENCINITAS CA 92024
SANDAG-EXEC DIRECTOR
GARY GALLEGOS
STE 800
1 ST INT'L PLAZA 401 "B" ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
A'UERYG Shipping Labels
U S BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
MID-PACIFIC REGION
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
TABATA FARMS
PO BOX 1338
CARLSBAD CA 9201 8-1 338
SIERRA CLUB S D CHAPTER
CRAIG ADAMS
3820 RAY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
Laser 5163@
Smooth Feed SheetsfM
LESLIE ESPOSITO
1893 AMELFI DR
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
LAKESHORE GARDENS
BILL McLEAN
7201 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOHN LAMB
1446 DEVLIN DR
LOS ANGELES 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
"
Use template for 5163' -
CYRIUMARY GIBSON
12142 ARGYLE DR
LOS ALAMITOS CA 90702
LANIKAI 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
Laser 5 163"
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 51W
S D CO PLANNING & LAND US€ JEPT CRA PRESIDENT
JAON VOKAC LEE ANDERSON
5201 RUFFIN ROAD CARLSBAD CA 92008
SAN DIEGO CA 92123 .)
STE B-5 5200 EL CAMINO REAL
COASTAL CONSERVANCY
RICHARD RETECKI
STE I 100
1330 BROADWAY
OAKLAND CA 94612
DALE/DONNA SCHREIBER
7163 ARGONAUTA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CALIFORNIA RESOURCES AGENCIES
STE 131 1
1416 9TH ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
FLOYD ASHBY
416 LA COSTA AV
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
GEORGE BOLTON
6583 BLACKRAIL RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SANDAG-LAND USE COMMISS
NAN VALERIO
STE 800
401 "B" STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
Laser 5163@