Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-03-23; City Council; 17560; La Costa condosCITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL Project Applications Mitigated Negative Declaration CT 02-28 SDP 03-18 CP 02-13 HPD 02-14 0 0 N Administrative Reviewed by and To be reviewed - Ap p rova Is Final at Planning Final at Council Commission X X X X X a, 9 0 c, a F: : 4 c, c 0 u * 0 \ m N \ m LA COSTA CONDOMINIUMS CT 02-28/SDP 03-18/CP 02-13/HDP 02-14 DEPT. DEPT.HD. 6% CITY ATTY. CITY MGR- RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 2004-096 , ADOPTING a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and APPROVING Tentative Tract Map (CT 02-28), Site Development Plan (SDP 03-18), Condominium Permit (CP 02-13) and Hillside Development Permit (HPD 02-14) as recommended for adoption and approval by the Planning Commission. ITEM EXPLANATION: On February 4, 2004, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for this residential condominium project. Since the Tentative Tract Map and Condominium Permit is for more than 50 units, the Planning Commission has made a recommendation of approval to the City Council for its action. The project is a request to develop a previously graded vacant lot totaling 8.18 acres (5.05 net acres) with a 58-unit air space condominium project located on the south side of La Costa Avenue, east of El Camino Real and west of Castilla Way. The Planning Commission discussed the merits of the application, and voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the project to the City Council. A full disclosure of the Planning Commission’s discussion is included in the attached minutes. A complete description and staff analysis of the project is included in the attached report to the Planning Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance (Title 19) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, staff has conducted an environmental impact assessment to determine if the project could have any potentially significant impact on the snvironment. The site is not identified by any habitat conservation plan as containing a protected, rare or sndangered plant or animal cammunity. A Biological Resources Report and Impact Analysis was prepared for the proposed project by Affinis Environmental Services in August 2002 and was Jpdated in March, 2003. The report and update were based upon surveys of the site conducted in May 2002 and a literature review. The report identified that 1 .I acres of non-occupied Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) exist on site and- 0.29 acres of this total will be impacted by the project and will be mitigated by acquiring mitigation credit in a pre-approved mitigation area or mitigation bank. I PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 17,560 Since the project is subject to noise impacts from La Costa Avenue, an Acoustical Analysis report was prepared for the proposed project by Mestre Greve Associates in May 2002. The report indicates that the project site will he subject to a traffic noise level of about 66.3 CNEL from La Costa Avenue at the northern property line. In order to meef the 60 CNEL exterior noise standard, noise barriers are required along La Costa Avenue. The project is designed with a 5.5-foot high decorative noise attenuation wall located at the top of slope along La Costa Avenue. Also, to meet exterior noise levels for balconies located on the third floor, 5-fOOt high solid balcony barriers are required. The interior noise levels are required to be no greater than 45 dBA CNEL. The report indicates that the buildings closest to La Costa Avenue will be exposed to noise levels of less than 60 CNEL and therefore will require less than 15 dB exterior to interior noise reduction in order to meet the standard of 45 CNEL. With construction practices common in California, residential buildings achieve outdoor to indoor noise reduction of at least 20 dB. In addition a mitigation measure is included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program which requires mechanical ventilation for the units facing La Costa Avenue. The necessary mitigation measures have been agreed to by the developer and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared. Consequently, a Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was published in the newspaper and sent to the State Clearinghouse for public agency review. A letter was received from the wildlife agencies during the public review period. The letter and staff response are attached with the Planning Commission staff report. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impacts have been identified. EXHIBITS: 1. City Council Resolution No. 2004-096 2. Location Map 3. 4. 5. Planning Commission Reso!ution No. 5554, 5555, 5556, 5557, 5558 Planning Commission Staff Report, dated February 4, 2004 Draft Excerpts of Planning Commissiori Minutes, dated February 4, 2003. DEPARTMENT CONTACT. Saima Qureshy, (760) 602-361 9, s=lur~~ci.c,arlc;h;Id.ca us EXHIBIT 2 SITE LA COSTA CONDOMINIUMS CT 02-28/SDP 03-1 8/CP 02-1 3/HDP 02-1 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EXHIBIT 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5554 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF 58 AIRSPACE CONDOMINIUM UNITS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LA COSTA AVENUE, EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL AND WEST OF CASTILLA WAY, WITHIN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6. CASE NAME: LA COSTA CONDOMINIUMS CASE NO.: CT 02-28/SDP 03- 1 8/CP 02- 13/HDP 02- 14 WHEREAS, Calso, LLC, “Owner/Developer,yy has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as Lot 185 of La Costa South Unit 1, in the City of Carlsbad, in the County of San Diego, State of California, According to Map Thereof No. 6117, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, June 3,1968 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 4th day of February 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and 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 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program according to Exhibit “MND,” Exhibits “NOI” dated December 23, 2003, and “PII” dated December 9, 2003, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findings: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and said comments thereon, and Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (the Program), on file in the Planning Department, prior to RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the project; and the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Program have 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 b. c. they reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and d. based on the ETA Part II and comments thereon, the Planning Commission, finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. 2. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the Program is designed to ensure that during project implementation the Developer and any other responsible parties implement the project components and comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified in the CEQA Findings and the Program. Conditions: 1. Developer shall implement or cause the implementation of the La Costa Condominiums Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 2. This approval is granted subject to the approval of CT 02-28, SDP 03-18, CP 02-13 and HDP 02-14 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5555,5556,5557 and 5558 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference. ... ... ... . ... PC RES0 NO. 5554 -2- 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4th day of February 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson White, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, Segall, and Whitton NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MELISSA WHITE, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. H&dMILL& Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5554 -3 - - City of Carlsbad MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: La Costa Condominiums CASE NO: CT 02-28/SDP 03-18/CP 02-13/HDP 02-14 PROJECT LOCATION: South Side of La Costa Avenue Between El Camino Real and Castilla Way (APN - 2 16- 160-27) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan, Condominium Permit and Hillside Development Permit for the development of a 58-unit air- space condominium project. The site is located on the south side of La Costa Avenue, between El Camino Real and Castilla Way and currently consists of a vacant lot totaling 8.18 acres. The site is surrounded by an existing multi-family residential project to the west, a vacant lot to the east, duplexes to the south and single-family residences to the north. Three tiers of buildings are proposed with six, six-plex buildings, two three-plex buildings and four, four-plex buildings. Access to the site is fi-om La Costa Avenue and the project’s internal private driveways will provide access to individual units. The buildings will not exceed 35’ in height and will comply with all standards of the RD-M Zone and Planned Development Ordinance. The units will range in size from 1,340 to 2,016 square feet. A 14,330 square foot recreation area will be located in the northeastern comer of the subject site. The northern property boundary, adjacent to La Costa Avenue, is a moderately steep slope. The middle section of the site is relatively flat with very steep slopes located on the southwestern, southern, and southeastern portions of the property. DETERMINATION: 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 (EM Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: Ix] 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. 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. (Mitigated Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be addressed). 0 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 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us 4@ 3 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. A copy of the initial study (EM Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. ADOPTED: , pursuant to City Council Resolution No. ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director - City of Carlsbad NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: La Costa Condominiums CASE NO: CT 02-28/SDP 03-18/CP 02-13/HDP 02-14 PROJECT LOCATION: South Side of La Costa Avenue Between El Camino Real and Castilla Way (APN- 216-160-27) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan, Condominium Permit and Hillside Development Permit for the development of a 58-unit air-space condominium project. The site is located on the south side of La Costa Avenue, between El Camino Real and Castilla Way and currently consists of a vacant lot totaling 8.18 acres. The site is surrounded by an existing multi-family residential project to the west, a vacant lot to the east, duplexes to the south and single family residences to the north. Three tiers of buildings are proposed with six, six-plex buildings, two three-plex buildings and four, four-plex buildings. Access to the site is from La Costa Avenue and the project’s internal private driveways will provide access to individual units. The buildings will not exceed 35’ in height and will comply with all standards of the RD-M Zone and Planned Development Ordinance. The units will range in size from 1,340 to 2,016 square feet. A 14,330 square foot recreation area will be located in the northeastern comer of the subject site. The northern property boundary, adjacent to La Costa Avenue, is a moderately steep slope. The middle section of the site is relatively flat with very steep slopes located on the southwestern, southern, and southeastern portions of the property. PROPOSED DETERMINATION: 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 (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial ‘study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad City Council. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration are 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. The proposed project and Mitigated Negative Declaration are subject to review and approval/adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. Additional public notices will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Saima Qureshy in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4619. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD- December 23,2003 to January 23,2003 PUBLISH DATE December 23,2003 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CT 02-28/SDP 03-18KP 02-13EIDP 02-14 DATE: December 9,2003 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. CASE NAME: La Costa Condominiums LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: Citv of Carlsbad, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Saima Oureshy - (760) 602461 9 PROJECT LOCATION: South Side of La Costa Avenue Between El Camino Real and Castilla Way (APN - 216-160-27) PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: Calso. LLC 2683 Costebelle Avenue. La Jolla. CA 92037 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RMH (1 1.5 ddac) ZONING: RD-M (Residential Densitv-Medium) OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED &e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): None PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: Request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan, Condominium Permit and Hillside Develoument Permit for the develoument of a 58-unit air-space condominium uroiect. The site is located on the south side of La Costa Avenue, between El Camino Real and Castilla Way and currently consists of a vacant lot totaling 8.18 acres. The site is surrounded by an existing multi-family residential proiect to the west. a vacant lot to the east. duplexes to the south and single family residences to the north. Three tiers of buildings are prouosed with six. six-ulex buildings, two three-plex buildings and four, four-plex buildings. Access to the site is from La Costa Avenue and the uroiect’s internal private driveways will provide access to individual units. The buildings will not exceed 35’ in height and will comply with all standards of the RD-M Zone and Planned Develoument Ordinance. The units will range in size from 1,340 to 2,016 sauare feet. A 14,330 sauare foot recreation area will be located in the northeastern comer of the subiect site. The northern urouertv boundary, adiacent to La Costa Avenue, is a moderately steep sloDe. The middle section of the site is relatively flat with very steep slopes located on the southwestern, southern. and Southeastern uortions of the urouertv. 1 12 Rev. 07/03/02 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Geology/Soils Noise u Agricultural Resources 0 Hazards/Hazardous Materials u and Housing 0 Air Quality Biological Resources 0 HydrologyNater Quality 0 Public Services u Land Use and Planning Recreation Mineral Resources 0 Transportatioflraffic u Cultural Resources 0 Utilities Service Systems u Mandatory Findings of Significance 2 I3 Rev. 07/03/02 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) Cl [XI 0 0 0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have “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 fbrther is required. 12-1 \6 /03 Planner Signature Date /2// 7’0 3 Planning Director’s Signature Date I/ 3 14 Rev. 07/03/02 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect fiom “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly adverse. Based on an “Em-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 EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required. 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 appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. 4 Rev. 07/03/02 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 significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding 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 given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant. 5 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact Unless Less Than Potentially Significant Impact I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 0 ON 17 'XI b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and hstoric buildings within a State scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? cl d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 0 0 OB 11. AGRICULTURAL 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: 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? 0 0 ON 0 om b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 0 0 c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? 0 om 111. 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? 0 0 OB Ixlo b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 0 0 6 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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)? Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: 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? Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, 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? 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? 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? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? Potentially Significant Impact cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cl Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact Ixl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact 0 IXI [XI 1xI [XI IXI IXI Ix1 IXI 7 Rev. 07/03/02 /? Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Q 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi- cance of an archeological resource pursuant to 8 15064.5? o c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique pale ontological resource or site or unique geologic . feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 0 VI. 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: 0 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? 0 0 iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 0 o iv. Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 0 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 d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? Potentially Significant Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact Unless Less Than 0 UIXI OIXI OIXI [XI no 0 IXIO Ixl on Ixl no 8 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 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? Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 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? For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public auport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 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? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 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? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water. quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact Ixl IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 0 ON 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)? n 0 0 OB c) Impacts to groundwater quality? ON d) 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? U Ixlo 0 0 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? o f) 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! cl 0 0 0 0 g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 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? 0 0 i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? 0 0 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? 0 0 0 0 OB Ixlo k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. 0 Ixlo 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)? 10 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact Potentially Significant Impact No Impact 0 0 0 Ixl n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? 0 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? 0 0 [XI p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? 0 0 IXI 0 IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI [XI 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, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? c) 0 0 0 IXI X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: 0 0 0 0 IXI a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of fhture value to the region and the residents of the State? o 0 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? XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: 0 0 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? 0 0 0 IXI b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 0 IXI 0 0 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 0 Ixl 11 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). e) For a project located withn 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 worlung 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? XII. 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)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. 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 whch 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? XIV. 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? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 0 OH 0 0 0 0 OM 0 0 UBI 12 Rev. 07/03/02 a3 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Does the project include require the construction or recreational facilities or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATIONrrRAFFIC - Would the project: 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)? Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Result in inadequate emergency access? Result in insufficient parking capacity? Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn- outs, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 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? 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? Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 13 Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 17 0 17 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 17 IXI. [XI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact IXI 0 [XI [XI IXI Ixl IXI [XI [XI Ixl [XI Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Uriless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 UIXI e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, whch 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? Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 0 OIXI fj’ 0 0 nIx1 g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE om 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? b) 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?) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 0 0 IxIn 0 1xI no c) XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 14 Rev. 07/03/02 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is for a Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan, Condominium Permit and Hillside Development Permit to allow for the development of 58 condominium units on an 8.18 acre site. The project site is located on the south side of La Costa Avenue adjacent to and east of the Marbella Condominiums. Three tiers of buildings are proposed. The two northernmost tiers (closest to La Costa Avenue) will have access from Driveway “B”. The southernmost tier (with the hghest elevation) will have access from Driveway “A”. The Driveway “B” buildings include 2, tri-plexes and 6, six-plexes (one tri-plex and three six-plexes on each side of Driveway “B”). The Driveway “A” buildings will consist of 4, four-plexes. The buildings will not exceed 35’ in height and will comply with all standards of the RD-M Zone and Planned Development Ordinance. The units will range in size from 1,340 to 2,016 square feet. A 14,330 square foot recreation area will be located in the northeastern comer of the project site. The amenities in the recreation area include: swimming pool, spa, barbeque area, bathroodchanging room, play equipment, and turf play area. AESTHETICS No Impact. The project will not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista since the site is located in an urbanized area and will be constructed in compliance with the maximum 35’ height limitation allowed in the RD-M zone and the architectural guidelines contained in the Planned Development Ordinance. Development of the site with a multi-family condominium project would be consistent with the surrounding development pattern. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES No Impact. There will be no impact on agricultural resources due to the proposed project as the site is not designated as or used as farmland. The subject site is zoned for multi-family residential development (RD-M) and is not subject to a Williamson Act Contract. The project would not result in other changes to the environment that would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. The project would be characterized as infill development and has been surrounded by residential development for many years. 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 (PMlo). 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 1991 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 andlor 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. Section 15125(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 R4QS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California 15 Rev. 07/03/02 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 the RAQS. Therefore, the project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no way 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. The project would involve minimal short-term emissions associated with grading and construction. Such emissions would be minimized through standard construction measures such as the use of properly tuned equipment and watering the site for dust control. Long-term emissions associated with travel to and from the project will be minimal. Although air pollutant emissions would be associated with the project, 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 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 currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. The proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the proposed project would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the proposed project, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 (a) (4), the proposed 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 project 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. No impact is assessed. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. The construction of the proposed project 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. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES A Biological Resources Report and Impact Analysis was prepared for the proposed project by Affinis Environmental Services in August 2002 and was updated in March, 2003. The report and update were based upon surveys of the site conducted in May 2002 (a biological reconnaissance survey) and a literature review. The Biological Resources Report identified four plant communities on the 8-acre project site and project impacts to those communities as follows: 16 Rev. 07/03/02 HABITAT TYPE/ PLANT COMMUNITY PROPOSED EXISTING IMPACTED NON-IMPACTED ACREAGE ACREAGE ACREAGE Would the project: Non-Native GrasslandLandscaped Chaparral Disturbed Habitat TOTAL Coastal Sage ScrubMixed Landscaped 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? 0.6 0.6 0 1.1 0.3 0.8 2.7 0.5 2.2 3.6 3.6 0 8.0 5.0 3.0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A Biological Resources Report and Impact Analysis was prepared for the proposed project by Affinis Environmental Services in August 2002 and was updated in March, 2003. According to the report, no candidate, sensitive, or special status species have been identified on-site. No California gnatcatchers were observed on or adjacent to the property during the surveys conducted in 2002. The coastal sage scrublmixed chaparral (1.1-ac) found on the site is recognized as a sensitive community by local, state, and federal resource agencies. The proposed project would avoid direct impacts to the coastal sage scrub found on site, with the exception of possible disturbance to 0.3 acres of habitat from brush management and remedial grading. The applicant will acquire 0.3 acres of mitigation credit in a pre-approved mitigation area or mitigation bank to offset this impact. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, 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? No Impact. No riparian, aquatic, or wetland habitat is present on the site. No habitat under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Game, or the Regional Water Quality Control Board would be impacted. 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. See Response (IV b) above. 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. According to the Biological Resources Report and Impact Analysis prepared for this project, there are no wildlife corridors or habitat linkages on the project site. Native habitat is very limited on the project site. The coastal sage scrublchaparral mix is contiguous with habitat to the east, but ths off-site area is also relatively small and is surrounded by development on three sides. Overall, the property does not support high-quality biological resources. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? and f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 17 Rev. 07/03/02 No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with any HCP, NCCP, or other approved habitat conservation plan, or local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. It is not within the boundaries of or adjacent to any pre-approved mitigation areas, hardline areas, or standards areas identified in the City's Draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP). g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? No Impact. See response 1V.b (above). V. CULTURAL RESOURCES No Impact. The subject site is an infill site which is surrounded by residential development and there will be no impacts on cultural resources. There are no known historical, archeological, paleontological, or human remains on the project site. VI. 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 or 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, a project specific Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation was prepared by Leighton and Associates dated October 30, 2002. The report states that the potential for Liquefaction, earthquake induced settlement and lateral spread are considered to be low for the site because of the low susceptibility to liquefaction. iv. Landslides? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. There are known landslide deposits located either inside the limits of the planned grading or directly above and therefore have the potential to affect site development. Due to their potentially compressible nature and the relatively steep basal surface, the landslide deposits within the limits of the planned grading are not considered stable and are generally unsuitable for structural support in their present condition. Corrective measures (i.e. removals to competent material andlor buttressing with compacted fill) will be required to mitigate their potentially compressible nature (Update Preliminary Geotechnical Report, Lot 185, La Costa Avenue South Unit I, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Leighton & Associates, Inc. on October 30, 2002). Geotechnical issues will be reduced to a level considered less than significant through compliance with the mitigation measures recommended in the report. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact. Topsoil encountered during field investigations matches the ungraded portions of the site along the southerly property line. Soils were generally massive, porous, and contained scattered roots and other organics. The potentially compressible topsoil is estimated to be from 1 to 5 feet in thickness; however, localized areas of thicker accumulations of topsoil may be present. Although the soils on the site are relatively prone to erosion, all storm runoff collected onsite will be slowed down to a non-erosive manner prior to discharge off the site by using energy dissipaters. The applicant is required to prepare grading and erosion control plans prior to any construction. In addition, the applicant will be required to re-vegetate the slopes to increase their stability 18 Rev. 07/03/02 (Update Preliminary Geotechnical Report, Lot 185, La Costa Avenue South Unit 1, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Leighton & Associates, Inc. on October 30, 2002). Geotechnical issues will be reduced to a level considered less than significant through compliance with the mitigation measures recommended in the report. 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? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Due to their potential instability and compressible nature, the landslide deposits on the site are considered unstable in their present condition and remedial measures are required (Update Preliminary Geotechnical Report, Lot 185, La Costa Avenue South Unit I, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Leighton & Associates, Inc. on October 30, 2002). Geotechnical issues will be reduced to a level considered less than significant through compliance with the mitigation measures recommended in the report. d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - l-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Siltstone and claystone soils of the Santiago Formation are highly expansive and were found on site during field investigations. These expansive soils will be removed where present within 5 feet of finish pad grades and replaced with soils having a lower expansion potential or a special foundation design (i.e. post-tensioned design) will be provided. Incorporation of these mitigation measures into the overall project design will reduce these potential impacts to a level considered less than significant. 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. Sewers are available to the subject site and the project will be served by a public wastewater system. MI. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS No Impact. Based on 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. The project site is not located within an area covered by an airport land use plan or an area where such a plan has not been adopted. However, the project site is located approximately 2.7 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 airport. Therefore, the project will not result in a safety hazard for people residing on the project site. The project will not impair the implementation or physically interfere with any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation since the project site is an infill site surrounded by urban development which is adequately served by emergency services. There are no wildlands adjacent to the site that could expose people to significant risk from wildland fires. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY-Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No Impact. The applicant is required to comply with Order 2001-01 issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. A preliminary Storm Water Management Plan for the project was prepared by O’Day Consultants to address existing and proposed pollutants of concern and what measures will be implemented to ensure that pollutant loads are not increased as a result of this project, to the maximum extent practicable. 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)? No Impact. This project does not propose to directly draw any groundwater for potable or irrigation use. The project will be served via existing public water distribution lines adjacent to the site. The project also includes a 19 Rev. 07/03/02 30 detention basin. encourages water percolation back to the groundwater. The purpose of this basin is to reduce peak run-off to pre-development conditions, which c) Impacts to groundwater quality? No Impact. This project is required to implement measures to reduce urban pollutants prior to discharge, thus groundwater quality will not be affected by this project. d) 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? No Impact. This project does not propose to alter existing drainage patterns, nor any stream or river that would result in erosion or siltation on or offsite. 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? Less Than Significant Impact. The project includes a detention basin on-site to reduce peak run-off to pre- development flows. 0 Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? No Impact. The existing storm drain system as well as the planned system as identified in the City’s Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan will adequately convey runoff from the subject site. Since this project maintains peak runoff to predevelopment flows, there is no additional impact to consider. Compliance with NPDES requirements ensure that the off-site flow does not increase pollutant discharges. g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less than significant impact. As a result of the project: 1) Implementing source BMP measures to avoid pollutant contact and; 2) Installing treatment BMP measures to remove pollutants from storm water, this project is not anticipated to contribute additional pollutants, to the maximum extent practicable. 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? No Impact. The proposed project is not located 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. Therefore there will be no impacts regarding flooding. i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. The proposed project would not place structures within 100-year flood hazard areas. Therefore there will be no impacts from flooding. 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 Geotechnical 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. 1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters? 20 Rev. 07/03/02 3l 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? 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? Less than significant impact (I, m, n, o & p) - The project site is not located immediately adjacent to any body of water. The project is withm a watershed that ultimately drains to Batiquitos Lagoon. Batiquitos Lagoon is not listed as an impaired water body per the 303(d) list adopted February 4,2003. The project will be required to comply with Order 2001-01 and the Storm Water Management Plan for this project. Drainage and development will be controlled via best management practices to ensure that pollutants loads are not increased to the maximum extent practicable. Therefore, the project will not adversely impact water quality. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING No Impact. The subject site is an infill site which is surrounded by multi-family residential development to the west, duplexes to the south, single-family residences to the north and a vacant lot to the east. Proposed residential development of the site will be compatible with and will integrate into the existing community. The project is consistent with the property’s General Plan designation (RMH). The density permitted on the site is 8-15 ddac, with Growth Control Management Point at 11.5 du./ac. The project’s proposed density is 11.48 du/ac. The City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires that 15% of the units be reserved as affordable housing units for low income households. The project is proposing to build 9 affordable units on-site. The subject site does not conflict with any habitat conservation plans or natural communities plans in that the property is designated as an “UrbadDeveloped” area in the City’s Draft Habitat Management Plan. X. MINERAL RESOURCES No Impact. There are no known mineral resources, of local importance or otherwise, on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of such resources. XI. 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. An Acoustical Analysis report was prepared for the proposed project by Mestre Greve Associates in May 2002. The report indicates that the project site will be subject to a traffic noise level of about 66.3 CNEL from La Costa Avenue at the northern property line. In order to meet the 60 CNEL exterior noise standard, noise barriers will be required along La Costa Avenue. The barrier could be a wall, berm, or a combination of the two. The project is designed with a 5.5-foot high decorative noise attenuation wall located at the top of slope along La Costa Avenue. Also, to meet exterior noise levels for balconies located on the thxd floor, 5-foot high solid balcony barriers are required. Therefore, a mitigation measure has been included requiring third floor balcony noise barriers to have a density of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot with no openings and gaps. The barrier may be constructed of 3/8-inch plate glass, 5/8-inch plexiglass, stud and stucco construction or a combination of these materials. The interior noise levels are required to be no greater than 45 dE3A CNEL. The report indicates that the buildings closest to La Costa Avenue will be exposed to noise levels of less than 60 CNEL and therefore will require less than 15 dB exterior to interior noise reduction in order to meet the standard of 45 CNEL. With construction practices common in California, residential buildings achieve outdoor to indoor noise reduction of at least 20 dB. 21 Rev. 07/03/02 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 use, the project will not result in any activity that would generate excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels. In addition, the project site is not located adjacent to any use that generates excessive groundbourne 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) - 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 the development project. The City incorporates standard regulations on all project construction activity to ensure that noise and other potential impacts to surrounding properties are not significant. Therefore, the proposed project 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 not located within an area covered by an airport land use plan or an area where such a plan has not been adopted. However, the project site is located approximately 2.7 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 airport. Therefore, the project will not result in a safety hazard for people residing on the project site. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING No Impact. The project would result in the development of 58 dwelling units on an infill site surrounded by existing residential development that is served by existing roads and utilities and therefore, the project would not induce Substantial growth either directly or indirectly. The project is proposed on a vacant lot and would not displace any existing housing or individuals. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES No Impact. The project will result in 58 new dwelling units on 8.18 acres (11.48 unitslacre) which is consistent with the Growth Management Control Point of 11.5 ddac allowed on this site. The provision of public facilities within the Zone 6 LFMP, including fire & police protection, parks, libraries and other public facilities, have been planned to accommodate the projected growth in that area. Because the project will not exceed the total growth projections anticipated within the Zone 6 LFMP, all public facilities will be adequate to serve the proposed residcntial development on the site. Therefore, the project will not result in Substantial adverse impacts to or result in the need for additional government facilities. XIV. RECREATION No Impacts. 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 #I4 in the Southeast (SE) Quadrant. The necessary park acreage to achieve the GMP standard (3 acres/1,000 population) for Park District ##4 was based upon the GMP dwelling unit limitation for the SE Quadrant, which is 17,379 units. 22 Rev. 07/03/02 The proposed project will result in 58 additional residential units in the SE Quadrant. However, those units were anticipated on this site under the City’s Growth Management Plan. The 58 proposed dwelling units on the site at a density of 11.48 units per acre will not exceed the growth control point (1 1.5 ddac) allowed by the site’s General Plan designation. The Parks and Recreation Element states that the park acreage demand for the SE Quadrant, based on the GMP dwelling unit limit, is 120.49 acres, and the anticipated park acreage to be provided at build-out will be 140.27 acres. Therefore, there will be adequate parkland withn the SE Quadrant, and the proposed development will not cause additional demand for parkland or expansion of recreational facilities. Because park facilities will be adequate to serve residential development on the site, any increase in use of park facilities generated from development of the site will not result in substantial physical deterioration of any park facility. La Costa Ave/El Camino Real La Costa AveIRancho Santa Fe Road D B TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC-Would the project: D D D B C C 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. A traffic analysis was conducted for the project by Urban Systems Associates on May 16, 2003 to evaluate the impacts on La Costa Avenue and impact on level of service. The project is estimated to generate 464 Average Daily Trips (ADT), 38 AM peak hour, and 47 PM peak hour trips. This project is served by La Costa Avenue, which is a secondary arterial roadway. Existing traffic on this arterial is estimated at 9,737 ADT according to the 2002 Traffic Monitoring Report. The project traffic would represent slightly more than 2% of the existing traffic on La Costa Avenue near the project, but less than 2% on other arterials in the study area. The project’s percent of the roadway design capacities are slightly more than 1% on La Costa Avenue but less than 0.5% on other arterials. While the increases in traffic from the proposed project may be slightly noticeable, the street system has been designed and sized to accommodate traffic from the project and cumulative development in the City of Carlsbad. The study area intersections and existing peak hour levels of service with and without the proposed project are As shown, the arterial intersections in the study area are currently operating acceptably and will continue to operate acceptably with project traffic added. The proposed project would not, therefore, cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The impacts from the proposed project 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. The traffic analysis conducted for the project concludes that “intersection levels of service are not expected to change as a result of project traffic, and average peak hour delays per vehicle at study area intersections are expected to be less than a two second increase, so that project impacts would be less than significant. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. The project is located more than 2 miles from the McClellan-Palomar Airport and is not located within the boundaries of Airport Land Use Plan. It would not, therefore, result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact assessed. a Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? 23 Rev. 07/03/02 No Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City standards; and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City’s general plan and zoning. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No impact assessed. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police Departments. No impact assessed. 0 Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. The project complies with the City’s parking requirements of 2 parlung spaces per unit and 17 visitor spaces to ensure an adequate parkmg 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 project does not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS No Impact - The proposed residential development will be required to comply with all Regional Water Quality Control Board Requirements. In addition, the Zone 6 LFMP anticipated that the project site would be developed with a high density residential use and wastewater treatment facilities were planned and designed to accommodate hture residential uses on the site. All 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. The proposed density on the site will increase the demand for these facilities. However, the proposed density would not result in an overall increase in the City’s growth projection in the SE quadrant. Therefore, the project will not result in development that will result in a significant need to expand or construct new water facilities/supplies, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage facilities. Existing waste disposal services are adequate to serve the proposed residential use on the site without exceeding landfill capacities. In addition, the proposed residential development will be required to comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. MANDATORY FINDINGS 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 -The proposed residential 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 a vacant infill site which is surrounded by existing residential development. The site is not identified by any habitat conservation plan as containing a protected, rare or endangered plant or animal community. The impact to 0.29 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub located on-site will be mitigated by acquiring mitigation credit in a pre-approved mitigation area or mitigation bank. Therefore, the project will not threaten the number of a plant or animal community. In addition, there are no historic structures on the site and there are no known cultural resources on the site. 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 24 -.k , / 53 Rev. 07/03/02 ri’ 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 project would contribute to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the residential development would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the 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. 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. With regard to any other potential impact associated with the project, City standards and regulations will ensure that residential development of the site will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - Based upon the residential nature of the project and the fact that future development of the site will comply with all City standards, the project will not result in any direct or indirect substantial adverse environmental effects on human beings. 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. La Costa Condominiums Biological Survev, Affnis Environmental Services, August 14, 2002. 2. La Costa Condominiums Biological Survev Update, Affinis Environmental Services March 18,2003. 3. UDdate Preliminarv Geotechnical Investigation, Leighton & Associates, Inc., October 30,2002. 4. Preliminarv Noise Analysis for the “La Costa Condominiums” Proiect, Mestre Greve Associates, May 3, 2002. 5. Storm Water Management Plan for La Costa Condominiums, O’Day Consultants, May 20,2003. 25 Rev. 07/03/02 6. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. Citv of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analvsis and Mamine Study, November 1992. 7. 26 Rev. 07/03/02 LIST OF MITIGATION MEASURES 1. To achieve the required 60 dBA CNEL exterior noise level, include a 5.5 foot high noise barrier along La Costa Avenue. The noise banier may consist of a wall, a berm or a combination of the two. The barrier must have a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot and shall have no openings and gaps. The wall may be constructed of stud, stucco, 3/8-inch plate glass, any masonry material or a combination of these materials. The wall shall be located at the top of slope. 2. In order to meet the exterior noise standard of 60 CNEL, 5 foot high balcony noise barriers (relative to the balcony floor) are required for the thrd floor balconies for units located along La Costa Avenue. The barrier must have a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot and shall have no openings and gaps. The wall may be constructed of stud, stucco, 3/8-inch plate glass, any masonry material or a combination of these materials. 3. Mechanical ventilation is required for the units facing La Costa Avenue to achieve an interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL or less. 4. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant should acquire 0.29 acre of Coastal Sage Scrub mitigation credit in a pre-approved mitigation area or mitigation bank as approved by the City and the resources agencies. 5. Prior to commencement of grading, the lower boundary of the mixed chaparral/coastal sage scrub habitat shall be staked and flagged by a qualified biologist at the base of the slope. The contractor shall be advised to avoid encroachment into this habitat during project grading and construction of the retaining wall. THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATION MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. : -,i r .. i. .. , . i 27 Rev. 07/03/02 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 1 of 1 .. W z J a a a a > B ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 2 of 2 \ m cm 'C 8s .E 5 ?E W m C C C m .- E 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. 5555 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CARLSBAD TRACT NUMBER CT 02-28 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF 58 AIRSPACE CONDOMI- NIUM UNITS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LA COSTA AVENUE EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL AND WEST OF CASTILLA WAY WITHIN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6. CASE NAME: LA COSTA CONDOMINIUMS CASE NO.: CT 02-28 WHEREAS, Calso, LLC, “OwnerDeveloper,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as Lot 185 of La Costa South Unit 1, in the City of Carlsbad, in the County of San Diego, State of California, According to Map Thereof No. 6117, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, June 3,1968 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Tentative Tract Map as shown on Exhibits “A” - “WW” dated February 4, 2004, on file in the Planning Department LA COSTA CONDOMINIUMS - CT 02-28, as provided by Chapter 20.12 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 4th day of February 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Tentative Tract Map. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission 28, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of LA COSTA CONDOMINIUMS - CT 02- Findinps: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. That the proposed map and the proposed design and improvement of the' subdivision as conditioned, is consistent with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan, any applicable specific plans, Titles 20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and the State Subdivision Map Act, and will not cause serious public health problems, in that the proposed project satisfies all minimum requirements of CMC Titles 20 and 21 and the project is designed to comply with all applicable City regulations including the Planned Development Ordinance. That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since surrounding properties are designated for Residential Medium High (RMH) density development on the General Plan, and are developed with multi-family projects or single-family residences. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the density proposed, in that the project site can accommodate the proposed residential development while complying with all development standards and public facilities requirements. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements of record or easements established by court judgment, or acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, in that concurrent with the recordation of the final map the developer will vacate and adjust any easements that conflict with the proposed development. That the property is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act). That the design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, in that adequate separations will be provided to allow for breezes to cool the areas and landscaping will be installed to provide shade and reduce the temperature of developed areas. That the Planning Commission has considered, in connection with the housing proposed by this subdivision, the housing needs of the region, and balanced those housing needs against the public service needs of the City and available fiscal and environmental resources. That the design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat, in that the project site has been previously graded and is surrounded by existing development. 4% PC RES0 NO. 5555 -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 9. 10. 11. That the discharge of waste from the subdivision will not result in violation of existing California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, in that the project has been designed in accordance with the Best Management Practices for water quality protection in accordance with the City’s sewer and drainage standards and the project is conditioned to comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated February 4,2004 including, but not limited to the following: B. Land Use - The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan since the proposed density of 11.48 du/ac is within the density range of 8 - 15 du/ac specified for the site as indicated in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The project’s proposed density of 11.48 du/ac is slightly below the Growth Management Control Point density (11.5 du/ac) used for the purpose of calculating the City’s compliance with Government Code Section 65584. However, consistent with Program 3.8 of the City’s certified Housing Element, all of the dwelling units, which were anticipated toward achieving the City’s share of the regional housing need that are not utilized by developers in approved projects, are deposited in the City’s Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. These excess dwelling units are available for allocation to other projects. Accordingly, there is no net loss of residential unit capacity and there are adequate properties identified in the Housing Element allowing residential development with a unit capacity, including second dwelling units, adequate to satisfy the City’s share of the regional housing need. Circulation - The project is served by an existing fully improved public street, La Costa Avenue, which operates at an acceptable level of service. On-site circulation consists of two private driveways which provide access to garages for the units and guest parking spaces designed in accordance with City standards. Noise - The project is conditioned to comply with the 60 dBA exterior CNEL and 45 dBA interior CNEL noise standards. Housing - The project is consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan and the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance as the developer has been conditioned to enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement to provide and deed restrict nine (9) condominium units as affordable to lower income households for 55 years. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6 and all City public facility policies and ordinances. The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or provide funding to ensure that all facilities and improvements regarding: sewer collection’ and treatment; water; drainage; circulation; fire; schools; parks and other recreational facilities; libraries; government administrative facilities; and open space, related to the -3- if3 PC RES0 NO. 5555 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 12. 13. 14. 15. project will be installed to serve new development prior to or concurrent with need. Specifically, a. The project has been conditioned to provide proof from the Encinitas Union and San Dieguito Union High School Districts that the project has satisfied its obligation for school facilities. b. Park-in-lieu fees are required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 20.44, and will be collected prior to issuance of building permits. c. The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and will be collected prior to the issuance of building permit. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and said comments thereon, and Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (the Program), on file in the Planning Department, prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Program have been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and c. they reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and d. based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, the Planning Commission, finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the Program is designed to ensure that during project implementation the Developer and any other responsible parties implement the project components and comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified in the CEQA Findings and the Program. That the project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual (Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 14.28.020 and Landscape Manual Section I B). The Planning Commission hereby finds that all development in Carlsbad benefits from the Habitat Management Plan, which is a comprehensive conservation plan and implementation program that will facilitate the preservation of biological diversity and provide for effective protection and conservation of wildlife and plant species while continuing to allow compatible development in accordance with Carlsbad’s Growth Management Plan. Preservation of wildlife habitats and sensitive species is required by the Open Space and Conservation Element of the PC RES0 NO. 5555 -4- gq P 1 I L I c I E s 1( 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 City’s General Plan which provides for the realization of the social, economic, aesthetic and environmental benefits from the preservation of open space within an increasingly urban environment. Moreover, each new development will contribute to the need for additional regional infrastructure that, in turn, will adversely impact species and habitats. The In-Lieu Mitigation Fee imposed on all new development within the City is essential to fund implementation of the City’s Habitat Management Plan. 16. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project. Conditions: Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to final map approval or issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of this Tentative Tract Map. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Tentative Tract Map documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with all requirements of law. Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the City arising, directly PC RES0 NO. 5555 -5- +‘t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6. 7. 8. ‘9. 10. 11. 12. 13. or indirectly, from (a) City’s approval and issuance of this Tentative Tract Map, (b) City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non- discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein. The Developer shall submit to the Planning Department a reproducible 24” x 36” mylar copy of the Tentative Map reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making body. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the Director from the Encinitas Union and San Dieguito Union High School Districts that this project has satisfied its obligation to provide school facilities. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures, which are required as part of the Zone 6 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits. Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy. A note to this effect shall be placed on the Final Map. Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of the Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and SDP 03-18, CP 02-13 and HDP 02-14 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5554, 5556, 5557 and 5558 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference. This project is being approved as an air space condominium. There will be no individual ownership of land. A note to this effect shall be placed on the Final Map with the exact wording to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. This project has been found to result in impacts to wildlife habitat or other lands, such as agricultural land, which provide some benefits to wildlife, as documented in the City’s Habitat Management Plan and the environmental analysis for this project. Developer is aware that the City has adopted an In-lieu Mitigation Fee consistent with Section E.6 of the Habitat Management Plan and City Council Resolution No. 2000-223 to fund mitigation for impacts to certain categories of vegetation and animal species. The Developer is further aware that the City has determined that all projects will be required to pay the fee in order to be found consistent with the Habitat Management Plan and the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan. The fee becomes effective following final approval of the Habitat Management Plan. The City is currently updating the fee study, which is expected to result in an increase in the amount of the fee. If the I‘ PC RES0 NO. 5555 -6- .””f $8 1 2 1 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Habitat Management Plan is approved, then the Developer or Developer’s successor(s) in interest shall pay the adjusted amount of the fee. The fee shall be paid prior to recordation of a final map, or issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first. If the In-lieu Mitigation Fee for this project is not paid, this project will not be consistent with the Habitat Management Plan and the General Plan and any an all approvals for this project shall become null and void. If any construction activities including grading are to occur during February 15 to August 31, the applicant should clear the vegetation on-site prior to the bird breeding season. If construction is to occur during raptor breeding season of approximately February 1 to August 30, a qualified biologist should conduct a pre- construction survey of the subject site to determine if there are any active raptor nests on-site. If an active nest is observed, a buffer of 500 feet should be established between the construction activities and the nest and the buffer should remain in effect until the construction is completed or until the nest is no longer active. Prior to the approval of the final map of this project, the Developer shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City to provide and deed restrict nine (9) dwelling units as affordable to lower-income households for 30 years, in accordance with the requirements and process set forth in Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The draft Affordable Housing Agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Director no later than 60 days prior to the request to final the map. The recorded Affordable Housing Agreement shall be binding on all future owners and successors in interest. Developer shall construct the required inclusionary units concurrent with the project’s market rate units, unless both the final decision making authority of the City and the Developer agree within an Affordable Housing Agreement to an alternate schedule for development. Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of a Final Landscape and Irrigation Plan showing conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City’s Landscape Manual. Developer shall construct and install all landscaping as shown on the approved Final Plans, and maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris. The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to the landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Department and accompanied by the. project’s building, improvement, and grading plans. There shall be no combustible fencing within 100 feet of structures. Developer shall establish a homeowner’s association and corresponding covenants, conditions and restrictions. Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to final map approval. Prior to issuance of a building permit the Developer shall provide the Planning Department with a recorded copy of the official CC&Rs that have been approved by the Department of Real Estate and the Planning Director. At a minimum, the CC&Rs shall contain the following provisions: PC RES0 NO. 5555 -7- P”’ q 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 a. b. C. d. General Enforcement bv the City. The City shall have the right, but not the obligation, to enforce those Protective Covenants set forth in this Declaration in favor of, or in which the City has an interest. Notice and Amendment. A copy of any proposed amendment shall be provided to the City in advance. If the proposed amendment affects the City, City shall have the right to disapprove. A copy of the final approved amendment shall be transmitted to City within 30 days for the official record. Failure of Association to Maintain Common Area Lots and Easements. In the event that the Association fails to maintain the “Common Area Lots andor the Association’s Easements” as provided in Article , Section the City shall have the right, but not the duty, to perform the necessary maintenance. If the City elects to perfom such maintenance, the City shall give written notice to the Association, with a copy thereof to the Owners in the Project, setting forth with particularity the maintenance which the City finds to be required and requesting the same be carried out by the Association within a period of thirty (30) days from the giving of such notice. In the event that the Association fails to carry out such maintenance of the Common Area Lots and/or Association’s Easements within the period specified by the City’s notice, the City shall be entitled to cause such work to be completed and shall be entitled to reimbursement with respect thereto from the Owners as provided herein. Special Assessments Levied bv the City. In the event the City has performed the necessary maintenance to either Common Area Lots and/or Association’s Easements, the City shall submit a written invoice to the Association for all costs incurred by the City to perform such maintenance of the Common Area Lots and or Association’s Easements. The City shall provide a copy of such invoice to each Owner in the Project, together with a statement that if the Association fails to pay such invoice in full within the time specified, the City will pursue collection against the Owners in the Project pursuant to the provisions of this Section. Said invoice shall be due and payable by the Association within twenty (20) days of receipt by the Association. If the Association shall fail to pay such invoice in full within the period specified, payment shall be deemed delinquent and shall be subject to a late charge in an amount equal to six percent (6%) of the amount of the invoice. Thereafter the City may pursue collection from the Association by means of any remedies available at law or in equity. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, in addition to all other rights and remedies available to the City, the City may levy a special assessment against the Owners of each Lot in the Project for an equal prorata share of the invoice, plus the late charge. Such special assessment shall constitute a charge on the land and shall be a continuing lien upon each Lot against which the special assessment is levied. Each Owner in the Project hereby vests the City with the right and power to levy such special assessment, to impose a lien upon their respective Lot and to bring all legal actions and/or to pursue lien foreclosure procedures against any Owner and hisher respective Lot for purposes of collecting such special assessment in accordance with the procedures set forth in Article of this Declaration. PC RES0 NO. 5555 -8- I r L - L 4 - t r I 8 S 1c 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. e. Landscape Maintenance Responsibilities. The HOA shall be responsible for maintaining all the landscaping installed on the subject site. Developer shall meet with the North County Transit District and study the feasibility of providing a bus stop to service this development at a location and with reasonable facilities to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and the City Engineer. Said facilities, if required, shall be free from advertising and shall at a minimum include a bench and a pole for the bus stop sign. The facilities shall be designed to enhance or be consistent with the basic architectural theme of the project. This project is being approved as a condominium permit for residential homeownership purposes. If any of the units in the project are rented, the minimum time increment for such rental shall be not less than 26 days. The CC&Rs for the project shall include this requirement. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Developer shall submit to the Planning Director a recorded copy of the Condominium Plan filed with the Department of Real Estate which is in conformance with the City approved documents and exhibits. Prior to approval of the final map, the Developer shall: 1) consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding the impacts of the Project; and, 2) obtain any permits required by the USWFS. Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy #17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.030, and CFD #1 special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 6, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such taxedfees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxedfees are not paid, this approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void. Prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit the Developer shall provide all required passive and active recreational areas per the approved plans, including landscaping and recreational facilities. Prior to final map approval, Developer shall submit to the City a Notice of Restriction to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, notifying all interested parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Tentative Tract Map by Resolution No. 5555 on the property. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property description, location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The Planning Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer or successor in interest. Developer shall display a current Zoning and Land Use Map, or an alternative, suitable to the Planning Director, in the sales office at all times. All sales maps that are distributed -9- +'9 PC RES0 NO. 5555 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 or made available to the public shall include but not be limited to trails, future and existing schools, parks and streets. Developer shall post a sign in the sales office in a prominent location that discloses which special districts and school district provide service to the project. Said sign shall remain posted until ALL of the units are sold. Prior to the recordation of the final tract map or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property may be subject to noise impacts from the proposed or existing Transportation Corridor, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney (see Noise Form #1 on file in the Planning Department). 29. 30. Engineering General 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site within this project, Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the City Engineer for the proposed haul route. Prior to issuance of any building permit, Developer shall comply with the requirements of the City’s anti-graffiti program for wall treatments if and when such a program is formally established by the City. Developer shall provide to the City Engineer an acceptable means, CC&Rs or/and other recorded document, for maintaining the private easements within the subdivision and all the private improvements: streets/driveways, sidewalks, street lights, storm drain facilities, water quality devices, and detention basin, all located therein, and to distribute the costs of such maintenance in an equitable manner among the owners of the properties within the subdivision. Prior to occupancy, Developer shall install rain gutters to convey roof drainage to an approved drainage course or street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. There shall be one Final Map recorded for this project. Developer shall install sight distance corridors at all street intersections in accordance with Engineering Standards. The limits of these sight distance corridors shall be reflected on any improvement, grading, or landscape plan prepared in association with this development, and the restriction shown in the Final Map shall be included in the CC&Rs. FeedAgreements 37. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for recordation, the City’s standard form Geologic Failure Hold Harmless Agreement. PC RES0 NO. 5555 50 -10- 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 38. 39. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for recordation the City's standard form Drainage Hold Harmless Agreement regarding drainage across the adjacent property. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, Developer shall cause Owner to give written consent to the City Engineer to the annexation of the area shown within the boundaries of the subdivision into the existing City of Carlsbad Street Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1, and/or to the formation or annexation into an additional Street Lighting and Landscaping District. Said written consent shall be on a form provided by the City Engineer. Grading 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the tentative map, a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall apply for and obtain a grading permit from the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for the project. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer proof that a Notice of Intention for the start of work has been submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board. The project requires extensive remedial grading of the ' existing slope in the southerly portion of the site. The backfill of removed portions of the slope shall meet Engineering standards with a slope of 2:l (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. Prior to grading permit issuance, developer shall submit to the City Engineer, for review and approval, a specific grading procedure. The procedure shall have concurrence of the project's Certified Engineering Geologist. Monitoring of ground movement of adjacent structures shall be incorporated in the procedure. Upon completion of grading, but prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall file an "as-graded" geologic plan with the City Engineer. The plan shall clearly show all the geology as exposed by the grading operation, all geologic corrective measures as actually constructed and must be based on a contour map which represents both the pre and post site grading. The plan shall be signed by both the soils engineer and the engineering geologist, and shall be submitted on a 24" x 36" mylar or similar drafting film format suitable for a permanent record. Subject to approval of the City Engineer, building permits for the construction of unit models may be released prior to acceptance of the "as graded" geologic plan. This project requires off site grading. No grading for private improvements shall occur outside the limits of this approval unless Developer obtains, records and submits a recorded copy to the City Engineer a grading or slope easement or agreement from the owners of the affected properties. If Developer is unable to obtain the grading or slope easement, or agreement, no grading permit will be issued. In that case Developer must either apply for and obtain an amendment of this approval or modify the plans so grading will not occur outside the project and apply for and obtain a finding of substantial conformance from both the City Engineer and Planning Director. PC RES0 NO. 5555 -1 1- 3'1 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 Dedications/Improvements PC RES0 NO. 5555 45 I 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. Developer shall cause Owner to make an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City and/or other appropriate entities for all public streets and other easements shown on the tentative map. The offer shall be made by a certificate on the final map. All land so offered shall be offered free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost. Streets that already public are not required to be rededicated. Additional drainage easements may be required. Developer shall dedicate and provide or install drainage structures, as may be required by the City Engineer, prior to or concurrent with any grading or building permit. Developer shall provide the design of all private streets and drainage systems to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The structural section of all private streets shall conform to City of Carlsbad Standards based on R-value tests. All private streets and drainage systems shall be inspected by the City. Developer shall pay the standard improvement plancheck and inspection fees. Developer shall execute and record a City standard Subdivision Improvement Agreement to install and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, public improvements shown on the tentative map and the following improvements including, but not limited to paving, base, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, medians, signing and striping, traffic control, grading, clearing and grubbing, undergrounding or relocation of utilities, sewer, water, fire hydrants, street lights, retaining walls and reclaimed water, to City Standards to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. a. b. Public utilities as shown in the Tentative Map. Sidewalk and streetlights along La Costa Avenue. A list of the above shall be placed on an additional map sheet on the Final Map per the provisions of Sections 66434.2 of the Subdivision Map Act. Improvements listed above shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the subdivision or development improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement. Developer shall cause Owner to waive direct access rights on the final map for the project frontage along La Costa Avenue except at Private Drive "A." Developer shall comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, latest version. Developer shall provide improvements constructed pursuant to best management practices as referenced in the "California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook" to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be submitted to and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of the following: a. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and .12- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 51 52. hazardous waste products. b. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds sucll as gaso ine, motor oil, antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective containers. c. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements. Prior to the issuance of grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, Developer shall submit for City approval a “Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).” The SWPPP shall be in compliance with current requirements and provisions established by the San Diego Region of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and the City of Carlsbad. The SWPPP shall address measures to reduce to the maximum extent practicable storm water pollutant runoff during construction of the project. At a minimum, the SWPPP shall: a. b. c. include all content as established by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements; include the receipt of “Notice of Intent” issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board; recommend source control and treatment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be implemented with this project to avoid contact or filter said pollutants fkom storm water to the maximum extent practicable before discharging to City right-of-way or natural drainage course; and establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine clean up. Special considerations and effort shall be applied to employee education on the proper procedures for handling clean up and disposal of pollutants. d. Prior to the issuance of grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, Developer shall submit for City approval a “Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP).” The SWMP shall demonstrate compliance with the City of Carlsbad Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Order 2001-01 issued by the San Diego Region of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and City of Carlsbad Municipal Code. The SWMP shall address measures to avoid contact or filter said pollutants from storm water, to the maximum extent practicable, for the post-construction stage of the project. At a minimum, the SWMP shall: a. b. c. identify existing and post-development on-site pollutants-of-concern; identify the hydrologic unit this project contributes to and impaired water bodies that could be impacted by this project; recommend source controls and treatment controls that will be implemented with this project to avoid contact or filter said pollutants from storm water to the maximum extent practicable before discharging to City right-of-way; PC RES0 NO. 5555 -13- 53 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 53. 54. 55. 56. ... ... d. establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine clean up. Special considerations and effort shall be applied to residents and HOA employees education on the proper procedures for handling clean up and disposal of pollutants; ensure long-term maintenance of all post construct BMPs in perpetuity; and identify how post-development runoff rates and velocities from the site will not exceed the pre-development runoff rates and velocities to the maximum extent practicable. e. f. Prior to building permit, Developer shall install streetlights along all public street frontages abutting and/or within the subdivision boundary in conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards. Prior to building permit, Developer shall install sidewalks along all public streets abutting the subdivision in conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards. Prior to building permit, Developer shall install wheelchair ramps at the public street comers abutting the subdivision in conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards. Prior to issuance of building permits within this development, Developer shall execute and record a Subdivision Improvement Agreement to design and install and post appropriate security as provided by law, public improvements shown on the site development plan and the following improvements including, but not limited to installation of traffic signals and ultimate intersection striping per City Standards and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The improvements consist Of: Design and construct a new fully actuated traffic signal at the intersection of La Costa Avenue and Private Drive “A” at the entryway of the project. Developer acknowledges the necessity of this signal is to serve only this project and Developer will bear all costs associated with the design and construction of this signal, if warrants are met. The signal shall be interconnected with adjacent signals to facilitate signal coordination. Developer shall post security for the design and construction of said improvements. The Agreement shall be kept in force and security kept valid for a period of 5-years after the last building permit has been issued within this Development. The traffic signal shall be installed only when written approval is received by the City Engineer. One year after the final occupancy of the project, the City Engineer is requested to conduct a traffic signal warrant analysis at/or near the project intersection or vicinity. PC RES0 NO. 5555 -14- 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 Utilities PC RES0 NO. 5555 -15- 59 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. Prior to approval of improvement plans or final map, Developer shall meet with the Fire Marshal to determine if fire protection measures (fire flows, fire hydrant locations, building sprinklers) are required to serve the project. Fire hydrants shall be considered public improvements and shall be served by public water mains to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. The Developer shall design and construct public facilities within public right-of-way or within minimum 20-feet wide easements granted to the District or the City of Carlsbad. At the discretion of the District Engineer, wider easements may be required for adequate maintenance, access andor joint utility purposes. Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall pay all fees, deposits, and charges for connection to public facilities. Developer shall pay the San Diego County Water Authority capacity charne(s) prior to issuance of Building Permits. The Developer shall prepare a colored recycled water use map and submit this map to the Planning Department for processing and approval by the Deputy City Engineer - Utilities. The Developer shall design landscape and imgation plans utilizing recycled water as a source. Said plans shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. The Developer shall install potable water and recycled water services and meters at locations approved by the District Engineer. The locations of said services shall be reflected on public improvement plans. The Developer shall install sewer laterals and clean-outs at locations approved by the District Engineer. The locations of sewer laterals shall be reflected on public improvement plans. The Developer shall design and construct public water, sewer, and recycled water facilities substantially as shown on the tentative map to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. Proposed public facilities shall be reflected on public improvement plans. The Developer shall provide separate potable water meters for each separately owned unit. This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be issued for the development of the subject property, unless the District Engineer has determined that adequate water and sewer facilities are available at the time of occupancy. Prior to Final Map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever is first, the entire potable water, recycled water, and sewer system shall be evaluated in detail to ensure that adequate capacity, pressure, and flow demands can be met to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. /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 68. 69. 70. A fire flow system shall be required for this development and it shall be constructed as a looped system. The Developer shall complete the looped water system by tying into the existing waterline system of the westerly adjacent development to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. The Developer shall coordinate with the District Engineer regarding the looped system and easements. The Developer shall meet with and obtain approval from the Leucadia County Water District regarding sewer infrastructure available or required to serve this project. Final Map Notes 7 1. Developer shall show on Final Map the net developable acres for each parcel. 72. Notes to the following effects shall be placed on the map as non-mapping data: a. All improvements are privately owned and are to be privately maintained with the exception of the following: 1.) 2.) Public utilities as shown in the Tentative Map. Sidewalk and streetlights along La Costa Avenue. b. Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the appropriate agency determines that sewer and water facilities are available. C. Geotechnical Caution: 1.) Slopes steeper than two parts horizontal to one part vertical exist within the boundaries of this subdivision. 2.) The owner of this property on behalf of itself and all of its successors in interest has agreed to hold harmless and indemnify the City of Carlsbad from any action that may arise through any geological failure, ground water seepage or land subsidence and subsequent damage that may occur on, or adjacent to, this subdivision due to its construction, operation or maintenance. d. Sight Distance corridors: 1.) No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object over 30 inches above the street level may be placed or permitted to encroach within the area identified as sight distance corridor in accordance with City Standard Public Street-Design Criteria, Section 8.B.3. The underlying property owner shall maintain this condition. 2.) No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object shall be placed or permitted on the subject property along or northerly of the PC RES0 NO. 5555 -16- 9'iJ 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 line designated as the sight line located at the project entrance. No obstructions shall impede nor conflict with the line-of-sight, which is established per City Standard Public Street-Design Criteria, Section 8. The sight line is depicted on the tentative map. The underlying property owner shall maintain this condition. Code Reminders The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to the following: 73 a 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. The tentative map shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date this tentative map approval becomes final. Developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to revent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Some improvements shown on the tentative map and/or required by these conditions are located offsite on property which neither the City nor the owner has sufficient title or interest to permit the improvements to be made without acquisition of title or interest. The Developer shall immediately initiate negotiations to acquire such property. The Developer shall use its best efforts to effectuate negotiated acquisition. If unsuccessfd, Developer shall demonstrate to the City Engineer its best efforts, and comply with the requirements of the Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 20.16.095 to notify and enable the City to successfully acquire said property by condemnation. Developer shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of the final map as required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein. NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as “fees/exactions .” You have 90 days from date of approval to protest imposition of these feedexactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for PC RES0 NO. 5555 -17- 3‘7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ' 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified feedexactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4th day of February 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson White, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, Segall, and Whitton NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MELISSA WHITE, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: ..- .I MICHAEL J. HOLYMILLSR Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5555 -1 8- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5556 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SDP 03-18 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF 58 AIRSPACE CONDOMI- NIUM UNITS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LA COSTA AVENUE EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL AND WEST OF CASTILLA WAY WITHIN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6. CASE NAME: LA COSTA CONDOMINIUMS CASE NO.: SDP 03- 18 WHEREAS, Calso, LLC, “Owner/Developer,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as Lot 185 of La Costa South Unit 1, in the City of Carlsbad, in the County of San Diego, State of California, According to Map Thereof No. 6117, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego, County, June 3,1968 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Site Development Plan as shown on Exhibits “A” - “WW” dated February 4th, 2004 on file in the Planning Department LA COSTA CONDOMINIUMS - SDP -03-18, as provided by Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 4th day of February, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Site Development Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission 18, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of LA COSTA CONDOMINIUMS - SDP 03- Findings: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. That the requested use is properly related to the site, surroundings and environmental settings, is consistent with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, will not be detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the area in which the proposed use is to be located, and will not adversely impact the site, surroundings or traffic circulation, in that the proposed 58 condominium units with nine (9) affordable units is consistent with the land use designation and density allowed by the General Plan and will help to meet the housing needs of the community. The project’s proposed density of 11.48 du/ac is slightly below the Growth Management Control Point density (11.5 du/ac) used for the purpose of calculating the City’s compliance with Government Code Section 65584. However, consistent with Program 3.8 of the City’s certified Housing Element, all of the dwelling units, which were anticipated toward achieving the City’s share of the regional housing need that are not utilized by developers in approved projects, are deposited in the City’s Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. These excess dwelling units are available for allocation to other projects. Accordingly, there is no net loss of residential unit capacity and there are adequate properties identified in the Housing Element allowing residential development with a unit capacity, including second dwelling units, adequate to satisfy the City’s share of the regional housing need. The project is consistent with all City policies and development standards including the goals, policies and objectives of the General Plan. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in that the project complies with all City policies and standards including the RD-M Zone and the Planned Development Ordinance. That all yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be provided and maintained, in that the project is consistent with the Planned Development Ordinance in that the project provides required setbacks, landscaping has been integrated throughout the site and the required recreation facilities and RV storage are integrated into the site plan. That the street systems serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use, in that the subject site is accessed from La Costa Avenue which is a fully improved public street and is adequate to accommodate the traffic generated by this project. The project is consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan and the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance as the Developer has been conditioned to enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement to provide and deed restrict nine (9) condominium units as affordable to lower income households for 30 years. PC RES0 NO. 5556 -2- bo 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6. All findings of Resolution No. 5555 for CT 02-28 are incorporated herein by reference. Conditions: Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to recordation of a Final Map or issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first. 1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or hrther condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of this Site Development Plan. 2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Site Development Plan documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different fiom this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. 3. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and CT 02-28, CP 02-13, and HDP 02-14 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5554, 5555, 5557 and 5558 for those other approvals incorporated by reference herein. NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as “fees/exactions.” You have 90 days fiom date of approval to protest imposition of these feeslexactions. If yow protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any feedexactions of which you have previously been given a PC RES0 NO. 5556 -3- ti4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4th day of February 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson White, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, Segall, and Whitton NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MELISSA WHITE, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOmILL@R Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5556 -4- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5557 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CONDOMINIUM PERMIT CP 02-13 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF 58 AIRSPACE CONDOMI- NIUM UNITS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LA COSTA AVENUE EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL AND WEST OF CASTILLA WAY WITHIN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6. CASE NAME: LA COSTA CONDOMINIUMS CASE NO.: CP 02- 13 WHEREAS, Calso, LLC, “OwnerDeveloper,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as Lot 185 of La Costa South Unit 1, in the City of Carlsbad, in the County of San Diego, State of California, According to Map Thereof No. 6117, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego, County, June 3,1968 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Condominium Permit as shown on Exhibits “A” - “WW” dated February 4th, 2004 on file in the Planning Department LA COSTA CONDOMINIUMS - CP -02-13, as provided by Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 4th day of February, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Condominium Permit. 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. 63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission 13, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of LA COSTA CONDOMINIUMS - CP 02- Findings: 1. That the proposed project complies with all applicable development standards included within Chapter 2 1.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, in that the proposed project of 58 condominiums on the subject site conforms with all the design and development standards applicable to the property as contained in Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) and the project is compatible with existing surrounding residential development. 2. That the proposed project’s density, site design and architecture are compatible with surrounding development, in that the proposed project of 58 condominiums (11.48 du/ac) on the subject site is consistent with the allowable density range of the RMH (8-15 du/ac) General Plan designation and the project’s density (11.48 du/ac) is slightly below the Growth Management Control Point density of 11.5 du/ac. The site is designed to be consistent with applicable development standards and its proposed residential use is compatible with adjacent existing and planned residential land uses. Conditions: Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to recordation of a Final Map or issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first. 1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of this Condominium Permit. 2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Condominium Permit documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. 3. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and CT 02-28, SDP 03-18, and HDP 02-14 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission PC RES0 NO. 5557 -2- 6q 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 Resolutions No. 5554, 5555, 5556 and 5558 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference. NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as “fees/exac tions .” You have 90 days from date of approval to protest imposition of these feedexactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified feedexactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4th day of February 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson White, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, Segall, and Whitton NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MELISSA WHITE, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. H Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5557 -3 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5558 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT HDP CONDOMINIUM UNITS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY. LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LA COSTA AVENUE EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL AND WEST OF CASTILLA WAY WITHIN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6. CASE NAME: LA COSTA CONDOMINlUMS 02-14 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF 58 AIRSPACE CASE NO.: HDP 02-14 WHEREAS, Calso, LLC, “OwnerDeveloper,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as Lot 185 of La Costa South Unit 1, in the City of Carlsbad, in the County of San Diego, State of California, According to Map Thereof No. 6117, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, June 3,1968 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Hillside Development Permit as shown on Exhibits “A” - “WW” dated February 4,2004, on file in the Planning Department LA COSTA CONDOMINIUMS - HDP 02-14, as provided by Chapter 21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 4th day of February 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Hillside Development Permit. 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. bb 1 2 3 4 5 0 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission 14, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of LA COSTA CONDOMINIUMS - HDP 02- Findings: 1. Undevelopable areas of the project, pursuant to Section 21.53.230(b) of this code, have been properly identified. 2. The project complies with the purpose and intent provisions of Section 21.95.010 of this chapter in that hillside conditions are properly identified and are incorporated in the design. The project is designed to relate to the slope of the land and alteration of natural hillside will be done in an environmentally sensitive manner so that lagoons and riparian ecosystems will be protected from increased erosion and no substantial impacts to natural resources, wildlife habitats or native areas will occur. 3. The project design substantially conforms to the hillside development guidelines manual in that the project complies with the design standards contained in the manual which include screening of manufactured slopes, building setback from the top of slope, hilltop architecture and hillside drainage. 4. The project complies with Section 21.95.120 in that the project qualifies for an exclusion to develop natural slopes of a gradient greater than 40% and exceed allowable grading quantities because of unusual geotechnical and soil conditions that necessitate corrective grading measures; manufactured slopes are not greater than 40 feet in height and will be landscaped consistent with the city’s landscape manual; the building elevations are consistent with the architectural guidelines and the buildings comply with slope edge building setbacks and the project complies with Section 21.95.140 in that no modifications are proposed to the development and design standards. Conditions: Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to recordation of a Final Map or issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first. 1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of this Hillside Development Permit. PC RES0 NO. 5558 -2- 1 2 1 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Hillside Development Permit documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. 3. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and CT 02-28, SDP 03-18, and CP 02-13 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5554, 5555, 5556 and 5557 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference. NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as “fees/exactions.” You have 90 days from date of approval to protest imposition of these feedexactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified feedexactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any feedexactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. ... ... ... PC RES0 NO. 5558 -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 4th day of February 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson White, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, Segall, and Whitton NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MELISSA WHITE, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOLZMILL~R Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5558 -4- EXHIBIT 4 The City of Carlsbad Planning Department P.C. AGENDA OF: February 4,2004 A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application complete date: July 2, 2003 Project Planner: Sainla Qureshy Project Engineer: Frank Jirneno SUBJECT: CT 02-2WDP 03-18/CP 02-13/HDP 02-14 - LA COSTA CONDOMINIUMS - Request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan, Condominium Permit and Hillside Development Permit to develop a 5 8-unit residential condominium project on an 8.18 acre site located on the south side of La Costa Avenue, east of El Camino Real and west of Castilla Way, within Local Facilities Management Zone 6. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5554 RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and ADOPT Planning Commissioii Resolutions No. 5555, 5556, 5557, and 5558 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of Tentative Tract Map (CT 02-28), Site Development Plan (SDP 03-18), Condominium Permit (CP 02-13) and Hillside Development Permit (HPD 02-14) based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. 11. INTRODUCTION The applicant proposes to develop a previously graded vacant lot totaling 8.18 acres (5.05 net acres) with a 58-unit air space condominium project located on the south side of La Costa Avenue, east of El Camino Real and west of Castilla Way. The development of the proposed condominium project requires the processing and approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan, Condominium Permit and Hillside Development Permit. The project proposes a density of 11.48 dwelling units per acre which is slightly below the growth management control point density of 11.5 dwelling units per acre for the Residential Medium- High (RMH) General Plan designation (8-15 ddac) for the subject site. The project as designed and conditioned is in compliance with all City standards including the General Plan, Subdivision Ordinance, Planned Development Ordinance, and Residential Density-Multiple (RD-M) zoning regulations of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC). The project will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project. The project conforms to all applicable standards, there are no outstanding project issues, and all necessary findings can be made for the approval being requested. City Council action is required as the subdivision contains more than 50 residential units. CT 02-28/SDP 03-18/CP 02-13/HDP 02-14 - LA COSTA CONDOMINIUMS February 4,2004 111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The subject site is 8.18 acres in size and is located on the south side of La Costa Avenue east of El Camino Real, west of Castilla Way and immediately adjacent to the eastern boundary of an existing multi-family development, called the Marbella Condominium project. The site is currently vacant and was previously graded under the jurisdiction of the County of San Diego, prior to the annexation of La Costa into the City of Carlsbad. Topographically, the site is characterized by a slope along the frontage of La Costa Avenue which increases in height as La Costa Avenue goes downhill from the east end of the property to the west end. A large, rectangular pad (5.05 acres) runs through the middle of the site with its longest dimension being east to west. A significant slope runs east-west along the southern section of the site and ranges in height from 50 to 90 feet. This slope separates the pad location on the site from the duplexes that back onto the property located on Sacada Circle and Torrejon Place to the south. Although the site has been previously graded, over time, vegetation has grown along the large slope that runs along the southerly side of the property. The slope and vegetation is not integrated into any open space system in the area. However, some minor patches of non- occupied Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) are located on this slope, totaling 1.1 acres. The project is proposing to impact 0.29 acres of the total CSS on site. The project is conditioned to mitigate all impacts to the coastal sage scrub by acquiring 0.29 acres of mitigation credit in a pre-approved mitigation area or mitigation bank as approved by the City and the resources agencies. The geotechnical study prepared for this project has revealed ancient landslides below the surface of the southerly slope. The slope itself ranges from 50 to 90 feet in height. The lots located south of the subject site, above the slopes drain down the slope to the subject site. A lack of an adequate drainage system has caused erosion and partial destabilization of the slopes. This project is conditioned to both stabilize the slopes and contain and control the runoff to the site. The project’s grading will contribute to the overall stabilization of these slopes. The applicant is proposing to excavate and re-compact the ancient landslides and use the upper pad of the development to serve as a buttress for this slope. The geotechnical study addresses this mitigation measure and staff has found this buttressing, along with drainage control, to be an adequate solution. The site is zoned RD-M and has a General Plan designation of RMH. Surrounding land uses consist of the Marbella Condominium project to the west, single family dwellings on the north side of La Costa Avenue, vacant land to the east, and duplex residences to the south. The duplex units are on average 80 feet above the subject site. The buildings proposed for this project have varied massing, roof forms, balconies and roof decks that follow the form of the topography, and are oriented to take advantage of the views to the north. The architectural design of the buildings is of a Mediterranean style and include sloping tile roofs, plaster exteriors, decorative recesses, wainscots at the base of the buildings, iron balcony rails, fabric awnings and rectangular and arched openings. There are three types of buildings proposed: two, three-plex buildings, four, four-plex buildings and six, six-plex buildings. The three-plex building is simply half of a six-plex building. The 71 CT 02-28/SDP 03-18/CP 02-13/HDP 02-14 - LA COSTA CONDOMINIUMS February 4,2004 Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 three-plex and six-plex buildings are proposed to be located on the lower, larger pad closest to La Costa Avenue and take their access off of Private Drive ‘B.’ The four-plex buildings would be located on the higher buttress pad at the base of the existing slope along the southerly edge of the site and will take their access off of Private Drive ‘A.’ The site is designed to provide pedestrian connections between the buildings. project 1,340 sq. ft. 3 bedrms./2 bath 14 9 1,590 sq. ft. 3 bedmd2 bath 14 0 1,737 sq. ft. 4 bedrms./2 bath 14 0 Three-Plex and Six-plex Buildings The three-plex and six-plex buildings have a variety of shapes and forms. Four of the six units are oriented around a motorcourt. The other two units have garages that are accessed directly from the private drive. The motorcourt design orients the garage doors inward and allows for a more pleasing street scene. Each six and three-plex building has three floor plans. Plan 1 is 1,340 square feet, Plan 2 is 1,590 square feet and Plan 3 is 1,737 square feet in size. These buildings contain a total of 42 units. I Floor Plans I Area 1 Bed rooms/ Baths 1 No. of units in I Affordable units I Four-olex Buildings The four-plex buildings are three story town homes and afford the best views from the site. They are of a split level configuration and their foundation is designed to help retain the slope behind them. The garages of these units face directly to the private drive at the lowest floor level. These units are 2,016 square feet in size and each unit contains 4 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms. There are four, four-plex buildings and they contain a total of 16 units. Recreation Area Two common recreation areas are proposed for the project; a centrally located pocket-park (530 square feet) and a 14,330 square foot active recreation area located in the northeastern comer of the project site. The amenities in the active recreation area include: swimming pool, spa, barbeque area, bathroodchanging room, play equipment, and turf play area. Both recreation areas are accessible by foot and are connected to the units by pedestrian walkways. IV. ANALYSIS The project is subject to the following plans, ordinances and standards: A. B. C. D. General Plan RMH (Residential-Medium High Density) designation; Hillside Development Regulations (Chapter 2 1.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code); RD-M Zone (Residential Density-Multiple) and Planned Development regulations (Chapters 21.24 and 21.45 respectively of the Carlsbad Municipal Code); Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code); CT 02-281SDP 03-18/CP 02-13MDP 02-14 - LA COSTA CONDOMINIUMS February 4,2004 USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL OBJECTIVE OR PROGRAM Site is designated for Residential Medium-High (8- 15 ddacre) w/ growth management control point of 11.5 ddac. 15% inclusionary housing requirement per Objective 3.6. E. F. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (Chapters 2 1.85 & 2 1.53 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code); and Growth Management Regulations (Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code). PROPOSED USES & IMPROVEMENTS Multi-family residential units at 1 1.48 ddac. Project conditioned to provide 9 affordable dwelling: units on site. The recommendation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project’s consistency with the applicable regulations and policies. The project’s compliance with each of the above regulations is discussed in detail in the sections below. A. General Plan The proposed project is consistent with the policies and programs of the General Plan. The property has a General Plan designation of RMH which allows the development of multi-family residential units at a density of 8-15 dwelling units per acre with a growth control point of 11.5 dwelling units per acre. The proposed density of the project, at 11.48 dwelling units per acre, is slightly below the growth management control point (11.5 ddac) used for the purpose of calculating the City’s compliance with Government Code Section 655 84. However, consistent with Program 3.8 of the City’s certified Housing Element, all of the dwelling units, which were anticipated toward achieving the City’s share of the regional housing need that are not utilized by developers in approved projects, are deposited in the City’s Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. These excess dwelling units are available for allocation to other projects. Accordingly, there is no net loss of residential unit capacity and there are adequate properties identified in the Housing Element allowing residential development with a unit capacity, including second dwelling units, adequate to satisfy the City’s share of the regional housing need. The project proposes fifty- eight condominium units being developed on a net 5.05 acre lot. The project complies with all the elements of the General Plan as outlined in Table 1 below: ELEMENT Land Use Housing COMPLY Yes Yes CT 02-28/SDP 03-18/CP 02-13/HDP 02-14 - LA COSTA CONDOMINIUMS February 4,2004 Pane 5 Tal ELEMENT Public Safety Noise Open Space & Conservation Circulation e 1 - GENERAL PLAN COMPL USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL OBJECTIVE OR PROGRAM Provide project review that allows consideration of seismic and geologic hazards. Residential interior noise standards of 45 dBA CNEL. Exterior noise level of 60 dB (A) CNEL in private open space areas. Minimize environmental impacts to sensitive resources within the City. Utilize Best Management Practices for control of storm water and to protect water quality. Requires new development to construct improvements needed to serve proposed development. ANCE CONTINUED PROPOSED USES & IMPROVEMENTS Project improvements will not significantly impact or be impacted by geologic or seismic conditions. The project is conditioned to stabilize the slopes located on site and contain and control the runoff to the site from adjacent properties located on top of the slope. The project is conditioned to comply with the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. North-facing private open space balconies comply with the 60 dBA exterior noise level standard with the implementation of mitigation measures. The project is designed with a 5.5’ high noise wall located along La Costa Avenue. The project is conditioned to mitigate impacts to non- occupied Coastal Sage Scrub by acquiring 0.29 acres of mitigation credit. The project will conform to all NPDES requirements. All public facilities including curb, gutter and sidewalk will be constructed along the property frontage. COMPLY Yes Yes Yes Yes CT 02-28ISDP 03-18ICP 02-13/HDP 02-14 - LA COSTA CONDOMINIUMS February 4,2004 Pape 6 B. Hillside Development Regulations A Hillside Development Permit is required for the project since the subject site contains slopes of 15 percent or greater and has an elevation differential greater than 15 feet. The constraints map associated with this project properly identifies existing and proposed hillside conditions and slope percentages. The geotechnical study prepared for this project has revealed ancient landslides below the surface of the southerly slope. The slope itself ranges from 50 to 90 feet in height. The existing residential lots located above and south of the subject site, drain over and down the slope to the subject site. A lack of an adequate drainage system has caused erosion and partial destabilization of the slopes. The applicant is proposing to excavate and re-compact the ancient landslides and use the upper pad of the development to serve as a buttress for this slope. As a result of this corrective grading work, the project grading quantities will exceed the acceptable level of grading (8,000 cubic yardslacre) identified in CMC Section 21.95.120. However, pursuant to CMC Section 21.95.120, grading quantities for the project are allowed to exceed identified allowable grading quantities due to unusual geotechnical and soil conditions that necessitate corrective grading measures. Grading into slopes in excess of 40 percent is also allowed since this grading is required for remedial purposes. The project is consistent with the Hillside Ordinance architectural guidelines in that all of the units, including balconies and patio covers, are set back from the top of slope a minimum of 15 feet. The 7:l ratio view line from La Costa Avenue, as required by the Hillside Development Ordinance, is maintained. C. RD-M Zoning/Condominium (Planned Development) The proposed project is subject to the RD-M Zone regulations, and the Planned Development (PD) regulations. The PD regulations provide the development standards for condominium projects. The proposed three-story structures, with a building height of 35 feet, will be compatible with existing and proposed developments and complies with all of the requirements of the RD-M zone and Planned Development regulations for multi-family developments. The project will be compatible in size, scale, and design with the surrounding multi-family/condominium projects. Access to the site meets all Fire Department and Engineering Department standards and the proposed parking (2 spaces per unit and 22 guest parking spaces) meets the parking requirements. Pursuant to the Fire Department’s requirement, all units will contain a sprinkler system and the project is designed with fire turnaround areas on both private driveways to mitigate the safety concerns of the Fire Department. To mitigate the Engineering Department’s concerns, a double-throated driveway entrance is proposed at the project’s entrance and the slope along La Costa Avenue will be cut back up to 30 feet to provide a 510 foot minimum site distance in both directions along La Costa Avenue CT 02-28/SDP 03-181CP 02-13/HDP 02-14 - LA COSTA CONDOMTNIUMS February 4,2004 PERMITTED/ REQUIRED Page 7 PROPOSED looking from the driveway entrance. Table 2 illustrates how the project complies with the applicable RD-M zoning and PD development regulations. 60% 30’ measured from ROW I I 14.96% 3 0’ minimum STANDARD Max. Lot Coverage (RD-M) Secondary Arterial Setback - La Costa Avenue (PD) 20 feet average with a minimum of 10 feet between structures 2 spaceddu - 1 coveredl uncovered Min. Side Setback (RD-M) Min. Rear Setback (RD-M) 20 feet average with a minimum 10 feet between structures 2 car garage for each unit (PD Setbacks) Setback from driveway (garage) Setback fkom driveway (residence) Max. Building Height (PD/RD- Minimum Building Separation M) (PD) 17 10 ft. x 10 ft. patio or 6ft x loft balcony 200 sq ft of community recreational space per unit Resident Parking 22 28 units will feature 10 ft. x 10 ft. patios and 30 units will have 6ft x loft decks 14,330 sq. ft. Visitor Parking Private Recreational Space (1 1,600 sq. ft. total) 20 sq. ft. per unit (1,160 sq ft) Common Recreation Area 30.2 sq. ft. per unit RV Storage 392 cubic feethnit Storage Space (1,750 sq ft) 392 cubic feet or aeatedunit D. Subdivision Ordinance 5’ 10’ 5’ 5’ The Engineering Department reviewed the proposed tentative map and concludes that the subdivision complies with all applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and the City’s Subdivision Ordinance (CMC Title 20). The project is conditioned to install all infrastructure improvements concurrent with the development. Access to the site will be from La Costa Avenue. The proposed building setbacks will allow for adequate air circulation and the opportunity for passive heating and cooling. CT 02-28/SDP 03-18/CP 02-13MDP 02-14 - LA COSTA CONDOMINIUMS February 4,2004 City Administration Librarv E. Inclusionary Housing 214.6 sf Yes 114.72 sf Yes The City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (CMC Chapter 21.85) requires that a minimum of 15% of all approved units in any qualified residential subdivision be made affordable to lower income households. The inclusionary housing requirement for this project would be 9 dwelling units. The applicant is proposing to satisfy this requirement by designating 9 of the proposed for sale units on-site as affordable. The affordable units will be type “Plan 1” located in the six-plex buildings. Each affordable unit is 1,340 square feet in size and will have three bedrooms and two bathrooms. The project has been conditioned to enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Therefore, with this condition in place, the proposed project complies with all applicable inclusionary housing requirements. Waste Water Treatment Parks Drainage F. Growth Management 58 EDU Yes 0.43 ac Yes 36.51 CFS Yes The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 6 in the Southeast quadrant of the City. The impacts on public facilities created by the project, and its compliance with the adopted performance standards, are summarized in Table 3 below. Circulation Fire 464 ADT Yes Stations No. 2 & 6 Yes Open Space Schools da Yes Encini t as/S an Die eui to Yes Sewer Collection System Water 58 EDU Yes 12.760 GPD Yes *The project is 0.02 dwelling units below the Growth Management Dwelling Unit allowance of 1 1.5 dwelling units for the subject property. V. ENVIRONMENTAL, REVIEW Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance (Title 19) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, staff has conducted an environmental impact assessment to determine if the project could have any potentially significant impact on the environment. The site is not identified by any habitat conservation plan as containing a protected, rare or endangered plant or animal community. A Biological Resources Report and Impact Analysis was prepared for the proposed project by Affinis Environmental Services in August 2002 and was updated in March, 2003. The report and update were based upon surveys of the site ql CT 02-28ISDP 03-18/CP 02-13/HDP 02-14 - LA COSTA CONDOMINIUMS February 4,2004 Page 9 conducted in May 2002 and a literature review. The report identified that 1.1 acres of non- occupied CSS exist on site and 0.29 acres of this total will be impacted by the project and will be mitigated by acquiring mitigation credit in a pre-approved mitigation area or mitigation bank. Since the project is subject to noise impacts from La Costa Avenue, an Acoustical Analysis report was prepared for the proposed project by Mestre Greve Associates in May 2002. The report indicates that the project site will be subject to a traffic noise level of about 66.3 CNEL from La Costa Avenue at the northern property line. In order to meet the 60 CNEL exterior noise standard, noise barriers are required along La Costa Avenue. The project is designed with a 5.5-foot high decorative noise attenuation wall located at the top of slope along La Costa Avenue. Also, to meet exterior noise levels for balconies located on the third floor, 5-foot high solid balcony bamers are required. The interior noise levels are required to be no greater than 45 dBA CNEL. The report indicates that the buildings closest to La Costa Avenue will be exposed to noise levels of less than 60 CNEL and therefore will require less than 15 dB exterior to interior noise reduction in order to meet the standard of 45 CNEL. With construction practices common in California, residential buildings achieve outdoor to indoor noise reduction of at least 20 dB. In addition a mitigation measure is included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program which requires mechanical ventilation for the units facing La Costa Avenue. The necessary mitigation measures have been agreed to by the developer and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program has been prepared. Consequently, a Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was published in the newspaper and sent to the State Clearinghouse for public agency review. A letter was received from the wildlife agencies during the public review period. The letter and staff response are attached to this report. ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5554 (MND) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5555 (CT) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5556 (SDP) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5557 (CP) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5558 (HDP) Location Map Background Data Sheet Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form Disclosure Statement Letter fi-om wildlife agencies and response from staff Reduced Exhibits Exhibits “A” - “WW’ dated February 4,2004 SQ:bd:mh BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: CT 02-28/SDP 03- 18/CP 02- 13/HDP 02- 14 CASE NAME: La Costa Condominiums APPLICANT: Calso. LLC REQUEST AND LOCATION: Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Promam, Tentative Tract Map. Site Development Plan. Condominium Permit and Hillside Development Permit to develop a 58-unit residential condominium on an 8.18 acre site located on the south side of La Costa Avenue, east of El Camino Real and west of Castilla Way, within Local Facilities Management Zone 6. LEGAL DESCFUPTION: Lot 185 of La Costa South Unit 1, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Dieno, State of California, according to map thereof no. 6117, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, June 3, 1968. APN: 2 16-1 60-27 Acres: 8.18 Proposed No. of LotsLJnits: one lot/% airspace condominiums GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation: RMH Density Allowed: 1 1.5 Existing Zone: RD-M Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use: Density Proposed: 1 1.48 Proposed Zone: RD-M Zoning General Plan Site RD-M RMH North R-1 RLM South R-2 RM East RD-M RMH West RD-M RMH Current Land Use VACANT Single Family Residential Duplexes Vacant Condominiums PUBLIC FACILITIES School District: Encinitas/San Dieguito Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Leucadia Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 0 Negative Declaration, issued 0 Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated Other, Mitigated Negative Declaration 19 CITY OF CARLSBAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM (To be Submitted with Development Application) PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT: FILE NAME AND NO: La Costa Condominiums - CT 02-28/SDP 03-18/CP 02-13/HDP 02-14 LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 6 GENERAL PLAN: RMH DEVELOPER’S NAME: Calso. LLC ADDRESS: 2683 Costabelle Drive, La Jolla, CA 92037 ZONING: RD-M PHONE NO.: (858) 453-4575 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 216-160-27 QUANTITY OF LAND USEDEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 8.18 acres ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. -I. J. K. L. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 214.6 Library: Demand in Square Footage = 114.72 Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) Park: Demand in Acreage = 0.43 Drainage: Demand in CFS = 36.51 Leucadia Identify Drainage Basin = PLDA D Circulation: Demand in ADT = 464 Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 2 & 6 Open Space: Acreage Provided = N/A Schools: (Student Generation: Elementary= 23.8; Middle = 19.14; High = 19.14) Sewer: Demands in EDU Leucadia Water: Demand in GPD = 12,760 The project is 0.02 dwelling units below the Growth Management Dwelling unit qllowance. Encinitas Union Elementadsan Dieguito Union High DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant‘s statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board. Commission or Committee. The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print. Note: Person is defined as “Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association. social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county. city and county, city municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit.” Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be provided below. 1 APPLICANT (Not the applicant’s agent) Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of persons having a financial interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON- APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW If a publicly-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person Bill Hofman Title President Title Address Address 5900 Pasteur Court, Suite 150 Corp/Part Hofman Planning Associates Carlsbad, CA 92008 2. OWNER (Not the owner’s agent) Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e, partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv- owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person Kwan So Title President Title Address Address 2683 Costabelle Drive Corp/Part Calso, LLC. La Jolla, CA 92037 1635 Faraday Avenue 0 Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 8 1 3. NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonprofit organization or a trust. list the names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the. Non Profit/Trust Non Profit/Trust Title Title Address Address 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (I 2) months? 0 Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s): NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. I certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. LO ? :LA.4., L- Signature of applica Bill Hofman Print or type name of applicant Kwan So Print or typ’e name of owner ~ ~ ~~~ Signature of owner/applicant’s agent if applicable/date Print or type name of owner/applicant‘s agent H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98 Page 2 of 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 60 10 Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad, California 92009 California Department of Fish & Game South Coast Regional Office 4949 Viewridge Avenue San Diego, California 92 123 (760) 43 1-9440 (858) 467-4201 FAX (760) 431-5902 + 9618 FAX (858) 467-4299 In Reply Refer To: FWS-SDG-3859.1 JAN 2 $1; & ‘*” Ms. Saima Qureshy, Associate Planner 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 City of Carlsbad Ga,\::’da Re: Mitigated Negative Declaration for the La Costa Condominium Project, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California (SCH# 2003 12 1 139) Dear Ms. Qureshy: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the California Department of Fish and Game (Department), collectively referred to as the Wildlife Agencies, have reviewed the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), dated December 23,2003, for the above-referenced project in the City of Carlsbad (City), California. The City issued a cover letter with the MND that states the public review period is from December 23,2003 to January 23,2004. The Wildlife Agencies have identified concerns regarding the potential effects of this project on wildlife and regional conservation planning. The comments provided herein are based on the information provided in the MND and related documentation; the Wildlife Agencies’ knowledge of sensitive and declining vegetation communities in San Diego County; and our participation in regional conservation planning efforts. The primary concern and mandate of the Service is the protection of public fish and wildlife resources and their habitats. The Service has legal responsibility for the welfare of migratory birds, anadromous fish, and endangered animals and plants occurring in the United States. The Service is also responsible for administering the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 153 1 et seq.). The Department is a Trustee Agency and a Responsible Agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Sections 15386 and 15381, respectively. The Department is responsible for the conservation, protection, and management of the state’s biological resources, including rare, threatened, and endangered plant and animal species, pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and administers the Natural Community Conservation Planning Program (NCCP). The City is currently participating in the NCCP program through the preparation of a draft Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP) Habitat Management Plan. TAKE PRIDE** 2 INAM E R I CA- Ms. Saima Qureshy (FWS-SDG-3859.1) 2 The 8.18-acre project site is located on the south side of La Costa Avenue between El Camino Real and Castilla Way, and is surrounded mainly by residential land uses, with patches of undeveloped land to the east and southwest. The project proposes a 58-unit condominium complex. Vegetation communities on site include coastal sage scrubjmixed chaparral (1.1 acres; CSS), annual grasslandlandscaped (0.6 acre), landscaped land (2.7 acres), and disturbed land (3.6 acres). Protocol-level gnatcatcher surveys, conducted by Affinis in July 2002, were negative. According to the MND, the proposed project will directly impact 0.3 acre of CSS, 0.6 acre of annual grasslandlandscaped, 0.5 acre of landscaped land, and 3.6 acres of disturbed land. Impacts to CSS are proposed to be mitigated through the acquisition of 0.3 acre of mitigation credit in a pre-approved mitigation area or mitigation bank. The Wildlife Agencies offer the following recommendations and comments to assist the City in minimizing and mitigating project impacts to biological resources and to assure that the project is consistent with ongoing regional habitat conservation. 1. The MND states that the proposed project will directly impact 0.3 acre of CSS and assumes the remaining 0.8 acre of CSS on site is impact neutral. The proposed project will cause significant indirect physical changes to that remnant patch by fbrther isolating the already tenuous connection between the CSS on site and larger block of habitat to the west. Additionally, small, edge effected patches of this habitat type would be expected to eventually lose long-term value. The issue of indirect effects is addressed in Section 15064 in the CEQA Guidelines which states: "In evaluating the significance of the environmental effect of a project, the lead agency shall consider direct physical changes in the environment which may be caused by the project and reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes in the environment which may be caused by the project." In light of the preceding information, the Wildlife Agencies recommend that City consider the significance of the indirect impacts to the remnant patch of CSS habitat, and propose mitigation pursuant to CEQA consistent with that decision. 2. The final MND should discuss how impacts to annual grassland will be mitigated. During a January 21,2004 phone conversation with Nancy Frost (Department), you confirmed that the City will require the applicant to mitigate impacts to annual grassland through the payment of an in lieu fee, a mitigation option that becomes effective following final approval of the City's Habitat Management Plan, or acquisition of annual grassland at a mitigation bank at a 0.5: 1 ratio. 3. The breeding season for nesting birds occurs approximately February 15 through August 3 1 ; however, raptors may begin breeding as early as January. Several bird species may nest in the habitat on site. If construction is planned during the bird breeding season, we recommend that the vegetation be cleared prior to the breeding season. Additionally, if construction occurs during raptor breeding season (approximately February 1 to August TAKE PRIDE@* + INAM ERICA- :‘;/23/2004 15:45 FAX 7604315902 US FISH AND WIIDI.TFE 002 Ms. Saima Qureshy (FWS-SDG-3859.1) 3 30, or July 3 1 for Buteo spp.), a qualified biologist should conduct a pre-construction survey of the project site and surrounding habitat tcs determine whether there are active raptor nests within that area. If an active nest is observed, we recommend that a buffer be established between the construction activities and thc nest so that nesting activities are not interrupted. The buffer should be a minimum c,f 500 feet and should be in effect as long as construction is occurring and until the nest is no longer active. Please contact Kurt Roblek of the Service at (760) 43 1-944.0, or Nancy Frost of the Department at (858) 637-5511, if you have any questions or comments concerning this letter. & Therese O’Rourkz Assistant Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Sincer,ely, William E. Tippets Deputy Regional Manager California Department of Fish and Game cc: State Clearinghouse - City of Carlsbad January 27,2004 Kurt Roblek U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 60 10 Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad, CA 92009 SUBJECT: CT 02-281 CP 02-131 HDP 02-14 - La Costa Condominiums FWS-SDG-3859.1 This letter is in response to your comment letter to the City for La Costa Condominiums project, FWS-SDG-3859.1. Following are the responses to the three issues raised in your letter: 1. The following response regarding your comment on indirect impacts to CSS is received from the Project Biologist Marcia Gross of Affinis Environmental Services dated January 27, 2004. “The remnant coastal sagekhaparral habitat on-site is not contiguous with any habitat to the west due to the presence of existing residential development immediately west of the site. It is contiguous with habitat to the east, and will remain connected to that habitat after project implementation. This habitat is already subject to edge effects from existing residential development at the top of the bluff, as well as noise from traffic along La Costa Avenue. Because this small area of habitat is of relatively low biological value, it was not included in any proposed hardline conservation areas or proposed standards areas of the City’s Habitat Management Plan (HMP). Thus, the project would be consistent with the HMP, which was developed to protect sensitive biological resources while allowing for new development in accordance with the City’s General Plan and Growth Management Plan. Presently, the site is not fenced and is subject to edge effects associated with trespass by the public. Upon project completion, this would no longer be the case. The remaining 0.8 acre of habitat on-site would not be expected to experience significant additional indirect impacts due to the design of the project and the site’s topography. The habitat is on a steep slope above the grade of the project and would be separated from the developed area by a concrete block wall averaging six feet in height. Thus, it would be very difficult for humans or pets to access, and would not receive any nuisance runoff from the development. None of the proposed residential units would be immediately adjacent to the habitat, which would minimize potential impacts from additional light and noise. For these reasons, no additional mitigation measures are expected to be necessary.” 2. The project is conditioned through Planning Commission Resolution No. 5555 to mitigate impacts to annual grassland. The standard condition regarding impacts to wildlife habitats or other land states “This project has been found to result in impacts to wildlife habitat or other lands, such as agricultural land, which provide some benefits to $b @ 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.cl.carlsbad.ca.us wildlife, as documented in the City’s Habitat Management Plan and the environmental analysis for this project. Developer is aware that the City has adopted an In-lieu Mitigation Fee consistent with Section E.6 of the Habitat Management Plan and City Council Resolution No. 2000-223 to fund mitigation for impacts to certain categories of vegetation and animal species. The Developer is further aware that the City has determined that all projects will be required to pay the fee in order to be found consistent with the Habitat Management Plan and the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan. The fee becomes effective following final approval of the Habitat Management Plan. The City is currently updating the fee study, which is expected to result in an increase in the amount of the fee. If the Habitat Management Plan is approved, then the Developer or Developer’s successor(s) in interest shall pay the adjusted amount of the fee. The fee shall be paid prior to recordation of a final map, or issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first. If the In-lieu Mitigation Fee for this project is not paid, this project will not be consistent with the Habitat Management Plan and the General Plan and any an all approvals for this project shall become null and void.” 3. The following condition has been added to the project resolution No. 5555, in response to your letter: “If any construction activities including grading are to occur during February 15 to August 31, the applicant should clear the vegetation on-site prior to the bird breeding season. If construction is to occur during raptor breeding season of approximately February 1 to August 30, a qualified biologist should conduct a pre-construction survey of the subject site to determine if there are any active raptor nests on-site. If an active nest is observed, a buffer of 500 feet should be established between the construction activities and the nest and the buffer should remain in.effect until the construction is completed or until the nest is no longer active.” Please call me, at (760) 602-46 19, if you have any questions or comments regarding this project. Sincerely, SAIMA QURESHY, AICP Associate Planner SQ:bd c: NancyFrost California Department of Fish & Game South Coast Regional Office 4949 Viewridge Avenue San Diego, CA 92123 b !I I 4 rl 2 i 1 P I r i 1 1 I i 1 f B I M- I+ 1 I \ .I I I 1 I E 1 I I I 97 2 ~ ~ .. ... . .. . ai q, *: 7'. I 1 P a .. r. '\ 3 0 u \ j 1- I 11 I i[\ 'r i --li.- i i I i N i . ~ 0- u __. - . "Mrm '5 0- 0 OI i i i j ~ ! I 9' . ... i! 4 --i I ,: i -4 "i ....... - .. .... .. j- .. __ .. t-. .. , ... I F 'I CY - ........ - - ...... <#E = i 2. E,. , .. - ......... P a JD __ . . . . .. . .. .. .. ____r I /o 3 ... .. - . 3 -* - ................... ...... 9- *SI 'W x1I( _.__ .. ___. - .......... .... . i_- .. .- +-e* ... ......... ..... i -.,. - .. .... -. -- , ,- -. _. -. @ -: .... ... .- I i U ,' C' J/ -: j - llJ /' . .:. I /a .. . 0- u ',i -- I \ I / i I I' c r-- I I 1 n I I I i I I I E i i? I I ct P 2 2 4L I i t w a I. L c 3 tt 4 Y 4 cll i .- ./- - - I' .. e: -- .......... -- - .. .- .. . ;---. ... --e ...... . C--* .. .- ............ 7- 3, 6-27 ... I 43 * 2 w a I. .-, , i -. _- I I ai I I --r j ! gi i , j I I I I? t 1 E IC :$ 'C F E T " Y F-: P I ,x I i , - - ....... -- --'T-T-*--- I - .............. ! .... --.+ -:- _IL>. : .. : ... .... , .--- -__ , TS7 .~ ....... 2% ......... .......... , I 0 u ,( .! ,'/ , I,'! ; i1 , I. '8' Ij / I i M 8 a 0 i5 8 a t 1 i ! I i 1 i i i ! I .. i- I , i Y w 8 i F if n z 2 E c u" la9 7 I 3 2, - * E-c Lo d w I- n 5 P U u a !I I . i' 1' w a I, ! i f P e 8 \ 00 N I N 0 L Planning Commission Minutes February 4, 2004 DRAFT 6. CT 02-28ISDP 03-18ICP 02-13lHDP 02-14 - LA COSTA CONDOMINIUMS - Request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan, Condominium Permit and Hillside Development Permit to develop a 58-unit residential condominium project on an 8.18 acre site located on the south side of La Costa Avenue, east of El Camino Real and west of Castilla Way, within Local Facilities Management Zone 6. Mr. Neu introduced Item 6 and stated that Associate Planner, Saima Qureshy, would make the presentation assisted by Frank Jimeno and Bob Wojcik of the Engineering Department. Chairperson White opened the public hearing on Item 6. Associate Planner, Saima Qureshy, presented the Staff Report stating that agenda Item 6 is a project to approve development of 58 air space unit condominiums located along La Costa Avenue. The subject site is located south of La Costa Avenue and is 8.18 acres. Surrounding land uses consist of an existing condominium complex to the west, vacant property to the east, duplexes to the south, and upslope from the site, existing single-family residences are located north of the property along La Costa Avenue. Topographically the site is characterized by a slope running along La Costa Avenue. A rectangular pad is located in the middle of the site. There is another slope running east-west along the southern section of the site. This slope ranges in height from 50-90 feet and separates the pad location on the site from the duplexes that back onto the property located along Sacada Circle and Torrejon Place. Due to this topography and grade change, the site has views of the golf course and the lagoon to the northwest and some views to the east as well. There are three types of buildings proposed, three- and six-plex buildings have three different floor plans which range in size from 1340 to 1700 square feet. The floor plan for units located in four-plex buildings is about 2000 square feet. All the buildings are three stories and are a maximum 35 feet high. All the units have two-car garages. In addition to the residential buildings common recreation areas are proposed which are connected to the units by pedestrian walkways. Access to the site is from La Costa Avenue and there will be two private drives on-site. The pad elevations for the four-plex buildings is on an average of 141 feet. The required common recreation area for the project is located in the northeast part of the site. The slope to the back of the four-plex buildings will be re-vegetated and recompacted for remedial grading. The slope in the back of the common recreation area will remain as is because there are patches of coastal sage scrub on that slope. The project General Plan designation is RMH which allows for 11.5 units per acre. The site is designated Residential Density Multiple which allows for condominium development. The project is consistent with development standards of planned development regulations and hillside development regulations. To comply with the City’s lnclusionary Housing Ordinance the applicant will designate nine units on site as affordable units to lower income households. The project is consistent with the subdivision ordinance and with Local Facilities Management Zone 6. In compliance with CEQA, an initial study was conducted for the project and the necessary mitigation measures have been agreed to by the developer, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and a recommendation of approval of the project to the City Council. Chairperson White acknowledged a letter received by the Planning Commission by Dr. Doshi who is a neighboring property owner. Commissioner Baker asked about the nine affordable units that would be Plan 1. She asked if there would be any Plan 1s that would be market rate. Ms. Qureshy stated that there were more than nine Plan Is, but only nine would be deemed affordable units. Commissioner Segall expressed concern about cars turning left out of the project into the 45 mph or more traffic on La Costa Avenue. Mr. Jimeno stated that the project would generate 464 average daily traffic and the peak hour traffic coming out of the units is 30 in the morning and 25 of those would make left turns going across the traffic. The traffic study did not find any conflicts in accessing La Costa Avenue. Commissioner Segall stated that he had been to the site and it looked like it would be a blind area along the curve on La Costa Avenue. Mr. Jimeno stated that the project complied with all the requirements of the Cal Trans site distance for the speed limit on the street. Commissioner Segall asked if Staff felt this was safe in terms of traffic. Mr. Jimeno reiterated that the project met all the City’s required standards. Planning Commission Minutes February 4, 2004 Page 12 Ms. Qureshy added that the existing slope along La Costa Avenue would be regraded because of site distance. Mr. Jimeno stated that there was a special condition on this project that if within five years of the final occupancy of the project the City determined a traffic signal was necessary, one would have to be installed. Commissioner Whitton asked where the closest signalized intersection was to the project’s driveway. Mr. Jimeno stated that it was to the west at El Camino Real. Commission Dominguez stated that he had visited the site because he had concerns about site distances as well. He asked what the grading requirements would be to improve the site distances. He noted that the traffic was moving at a very fast pace at 1O:OO in the morning and could be problematic at peak periods. Mr. Jimeno stated that at the driveway exit at La Costa Avenue to the west would be a retaining wall because of the site distance requirement and another retaining wall would be required to the east. Commissioner Dominguez asked where the pocket park would be. Ms. Qureshy stated that it was a smaller turf area in the middle of the site. She stated that the applicant had integrated a smaller park area centrally located in the project in addition to the recreation area. Commissioner Whitton asked if the condominiums would have sprinkler systems. Ms. Qureshy confirmed that they were required to have fire sprinklers. Commissioner Montgomery asked about the design of the four-plexes, noting that the garage elevations created the appearance of being a four-story building. He asked at what point an appurtenance which had full-width access to a roof deck became a level that had to be associated with the height limit. Ms. Qureshy stated that the height limit in an RDM zone was 35 feet and there was no requirement as to how many stories could be within the 35 feet. She stated that the code allowed certain elements to project above 35 feet, including a fireplace, or an enclosed staircase for roof access. Cornmissioner Segall asked if there was a balcony on the fourth story. Ms. Qureshy stated that there was a roof deck. Commissioner Segall. asked Inspector Ryan from the Fire Department if the Carlsbad Fire Department would have access to ventilate a roof on this kind of a building. Inspector Ryan stated that the Carlsbad Fire Department had stated in previous presentations to the Planning Commission that their longest ground ladders were 35 feet which had a vertical reach of 28 feet. He stated that these structures would be in excess of their ground ladder capabilities. He stated that with their mutual aid agreements with surrounding cities they would have appropriate ladder capabilities. Commissioner Segall noted that the Fire Department, thus, would not be self-contained to respond to a fire on these roof decks. Chairperson White invited the applicant to make a presentation. Bill Hofman, Hofman Planning Associates, 5900 Pasteur Court, Suite 150, Carlsbad, addressed the issue that Cornmissioner Montgomery raised stating that building height is measured from grade and in this four-plex the grade steps up the hill. There’s no part of the structure that exceeds 35 feet with the sole exception of the chimney. It meets the height code entirely. Mr. Hofman stated that he was there representing Mr. Kwan So of Calso, LLC, for the La Costa Condom‘inium project. Mr. So has owned this property since the mid-1970s. Mr. Hofman stated that he was the a City Planner in Carlsbad when Mr. So first brought in some concept plans for it back in 1978. For many reasons the project never got off the ground until the last couple of years. Mr. So hired him and asked him to pick the project team and he picked Stark Architects. Over the last couple of years they have spent a lot of time addressing the site constraints and other issues. As part of this process they met with the homeowners in the area. They met with the Marbella homeowners’ Board of Directors a year ago. They met twice with the residents who live along the north side of La Costa Avenue and twice with the residents who live in the duplex units on top of the slope overlooking the project. He stated that he had learned that evening that a lot of them didn’t receive a notice. He stated that their goal was to let everyone know about the project at a very early stage and to listen to concerns. He addressed the three main concerns expressed, (1) grading and erosion, (2) traffic, and (3) potential view blockage. He stated that the site is constrained and contains very poor soils and has a severe slope along its southern Planning Commission Minutes February 4, 2004 Page 13 boundary. The slope contains two ancient landslides. At its present state it constitutes a hazard and creates some risk for the duplexes above it. Most of the slopes are very steep and the soils are composed of clays which are expansive and don’t drain well. There is a considerable amount of drainage from the homes above. He stated that many homeowners had put PVC pipes in their backyards for drainage. He noted that this was graded back by the County and that Carlsbad would now require drainage into the street. There is a good deal of erosion occurring at the base of the slopes because of the drainage which if left unchecked, will cause further landslides and instability. He stated that this could pose an increasing risk for the homes above. He stated that their grading plan was designed to stabilize that slope. Per the recommendations of their soils expert, they will first remove the expansive soils and fill and compact with more stable materials. They will also create a large buttress that will be the upper pad where the four-plexes will be located. They are providing drainage structures throughout the site that will carry the water safely from the property. When completed, the slope will be far safer than it is today. With regard to traffic, they prepared a traffic study for the project and designed the site entry to meet all Engineering Department design standards. They will be cutting back the slope along La Costa Avenue as part of the grading upwards to 30 feet, which provides a site distance of 510 feet in both directions. This is in excess of the minimum Cal Trans City standards. The driveway location will be moved to the eastward which gives it a better location as it is the low point of the site and the easiest way to get on the property. The residents expressed concern that the speed of traffic on La Costa Avenue was too great and posed dangers for getting in and out of driveways along La Costa Avenue. He noted that they were conditioned to bond for a traffic signal if that proves to be a need within five years. He stated that they had designed the project to meet every existing safety design standard. The issue of view blockage pertained to views of the golf course and the lagoon. He showed a slide of a picture taken from ground level from the patio of one of the duplexes above the project toward those views. He then showed a slide of the project superimposed on that picture and stated that La Costa Avenue and the homes across the street would be blocked but virtually the entire golf course and the lagoon views will be maintained. He stated that a company independent of this project prepared the simulation with AutoCAD. He thanked Ms. Qureshy and Mr. Jimeno for all their help with the project. He stated that the architect was present to answer any questions. Commissioner Segall asked where the height distance was for the 35 feet. Mr. Hofman stated that the 35 feet was measured from existing grade below the point of where you would be measuring. Commissioner Montgomery stated that he liked the design of the project but that he had a problem with the appurtenances getting larger and larger in what comes before the Planning Commission. He discussed one of the side elevations that went above 35 feet. He asked again how high appurtenances could go before they would be considered another floor. Mr. Neu responded that the Municipal Code definition of building height did allow for certain protrusions above the height limit with the qualification that they are not to be for the purpose of providing additional floor space and they are not to be taller than the minimum height requirement to accommodate or enclose the intended use. In the current project it would not be providing livable or habitable floor space within that enclosure as it’s strictly an access point to the roof deck. Commissioner Dominguez remarked to Mr. Neu that this was the third time in the last year that this had become one of the key issues in a hearing. He stated that the issue needed to be addressed so that the Planning Commission could be more confident in giving direction to design groups and in judging appurtenances. He stated that he agreed with Commissioner Montgomery that when considering windows the size that were on this roof access, it made one wonder how easy it would be to convert these spaces to other uses, and yet they are still by definition appurtenances. Commissioner Baker asked Mr. Hofman how many Plan Is there were. Mr. Hofman reported that there were 14 Plan Is. Commissioner Baker asked if there would be any difference between the affordable units and the market rate Plan Is. Mr. Hofman stated the only difference would be the cost. Commissioner Baker wondered how that worked when people learned that their neighbor paid a considerable amount less for the unit than they did. She asked if they had had any issues surrounding that situation. Mr. Hofman stated that they had not had any issues directly regarding that, but he noted that it cut both ways when they went to sell a unit. Planning Commission Minutes February 4, 2004 Page 14 Commissioner Segall asked what the square footage was of the appurtenances. Ms. Qureshy stated that the roof deck was 12 x 12 and the stairwell had no flooring associated with it. Mr. Hofman asked Mr. Stark to come to the podium. Jamie Stark, Stark Architecture and Planning, 2045 Kettner, San Diego, stated that they were in compliance with the height because the definition of the height follows the slope. He stated that it is a terrain-fitted building. He discussed the measurements as they pertained to the slope and explained that as the slope went up the height limit went up. Commissioner Montgomery noted that the height limit would be following the manufactured slope, not the natural slope, and he asked if any slope could be created that would conform to City policy to attain the builder’s desired height limits. Ms. Qureshy explained that the definition was written for measuring building heights from existing or proposed grade, whichever was more restrictive. However, in this case, she stated that the site was being mass graded, in which case the ordinance allowed measuring from the proposed new grade. Mr. Neu added that if a grading design was proposed solely to elevate the buildings beyond a reasonable level, then they could go back to the existing grade part and reduce the grade and the peak of the structure to a lower elevation. He explained that there was discretion involved and it wasn’t automatically the more restrictive grade that took precedence. Chairperson White asked what would happen to all of the PVC drainage pipes up the hill. Mr. Hofman stated that they would continue to drain down the hill into the new drainage system that they would install. Mr. Jimeno stated that the project was required to keep the historical drainage patterns in the area. Mr. Hofman noted that the drainage pipes stopped right at the property line which was right in the middle of the slope. Chairperson White opened public testimony and invited those who would like to speak to the podium. Mehdi Zomorrodian, 2464 La Costa Avenue, Carlsbad, stated that he lived directly in front of the driveway that this development is proposing. He showed a document on the overhead signed by Bob Johnson. Mr. Zomorrodian stated that La Costa Avenue was built in the 1960s and is substandard. He stated that a City Engineer had told him that the maximum miles per hour for that road was 40 mph and the City has increased it to 45 mph. He discussed the dangers of drivers being T-boned and killed. He stated that there had been two fatalities in the past two years on La Costa Avenue. He declared that the Staff Report did not say how the subdivision would generate traffic, plus the road is curved at that point and rolls up and down. He stated that the nearest traffic light was about a mile down the road and picking up speed from one light to the next. He stated that in this development the road is not 90 degrees to the road which is a Cal Trans standard. He stated that the way the private drives were proposed that they were presenting serious fire dangers for fire trucks getting in and out. Kazem Zomorrodian, 2400 La Costa Avenue, Carlsbad, stated that he, too, lived across the street from this project. He stated that he has been a registered civil engineer for 24 years. He challenged the facts pertaining to this subdivision with regard to the Negative Declaration. He read from page 13 of the Staff Report where “No Impact” was checked for “Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature.” He expressed that there was substantial impact on traffic from the subdivision. He stated that when he designed roads they had to come 90 degrees to the main road. He accused the developer of not doing that in order to include more units. He stated that because parking was restricted to one side of La Costa Avenue many cars parked in front of his home making it difficult and hazardous to pull out of his driveway. He urged the City to correct the design of the driveway. He stated that he had built a house near there a year ago and was told by the City that he had to build from the existing grade and the height had to be measured from the existing grade. He took offense that one rule was applied to him as a single builder and another rule to a developer. He noted that the project grading had been engineered twice. Evelyn Montalbano, 2404 La Costa Avenue, Carlsbad, read from page 25 of the Staff Report and discussed the 3,000-home San Elijo Hills development and the widening of Rancho Santa Fe Road to six lanes. She noted that if 464 trips per day would result from these 58 condominiums, then from 3,000 homes, 24,000 average trips per day could result. She stated that if half of those cars came down to La Costa Avenue to access El Camino Real or 1-5, it would devastate La Costa Avenue. She stated that she Planning Commission Minutes February 4, 2004 Page 15 had just left Manhattan and was dismayed to find equally horrible traffic congestion at her home in Carlsbad. She addressed the cumulative total effect of traffic from this project. Peter Montalbano, 2404 La Costa Avenue, Carlsbad, stated that he lived across the street from this proposed project. He stated that two days last week he hadn’t received his mail because people from the Marbella Condominiums parked right by his mailbox. He asked when the traffic study had been done on this project. He stated that the air quality study looked outdated. He stated that he had trouble getting out of his driveway just as his neighbors did. Charlie Catt, 2408 Sacada Circle, Carlsbad, stated that he lived at the border of the project. He stated that he would like a flagpole put up to show the 35 feet; that the driveway of the project should be at 90 degrees to La Costa Avenue; that the signal lights were over half a mile apart; and that it was very dangerous even with a stop sign. J. Dan Clark, 2410 B Sacada, Carlsbad, stated that he lived next to Mr. Catt; and that turning left against the traffic is very scary. He expressed concern about the view being obstructed. He asked for story poles to be installed. He believed that the manufactured grade added 15 to 30 feet. Donna Bechthold, 2420 La Costa Avenue, Carlsbad, stated that she lived across the street from the project. Her concern is about pedestrian traffic in the area because there was no way for anyone to safely cross the street. She stated that there were no sidewalks up and down the road consistently. She expressed concern about the middle lane of the four lanes on La Costa Avenue being overused in that area. She asked that the children walking be considered and possibly restriping La Costa Avenue. She stated that there is no parking on the south side of La Costa Avenue. Betty Free, 2424 A & B, Badajoz Place, Carlsbad, stated that she lived on top of the hill that looked over this project. She expressed concern with the engineering of the site. She noted that a 15-fOOt berm was to be put at the base of the hill. She explained that she lived in a similar situation in Oceanside where a developer built below and disturbed the toe of the hill which caused hers and five other homes to go down the hill. She asked for reassurance that the engineering was sound. She expressed concern with the planned height of the buildings being on 15 feet of grading. She asked that the Planning Commission consider asking the developer to change the plans to make the condominiums two levels instead of three levels to preserve the views. She agreed with previous comments about the traffic. Melvin Kieschnick, 2422 B Badajoz Place, Carlsbad, stated that he lived next to Ms. Free. He wanted assurance that the water drainage plan would not alter what he had spent tens of thousands of dollars installing for drainage, with the approval of the Carlsbad Planning Department. He stated that his drainage system worked well and stabilized the slope. He expressed concern about the way the height calculations were being done. Wayne Cole, 2454 Torrejon Place, Carlsbad, stated that he lived above this project and was concerned about pollution from cars, barbeques, and light. He stated that at some of the meetings they were told that the highest point of any of the buildings would be 45 feet below the level of his lot. He is concerned that that may not be true any more. He expressed concern about privacy. Mr. Hofman responded to the comments about the traffic stating that the City Council has heard these concerns and that there was a basic dispute about the use of La Costa Avenue. He stated that the County had approved single-family units on a secondary arterial that wasn’t the best planning, but was designed to carry the traffic that it does. He stated that their project would not contribute significantly to the overall traffic. He stated that the design should improve the situation by cutting back that slope to improve site distance. A 90-degree driveway would cut more of the slope and encroach into the coastal sage. He stated that there was no City requirement for an exact 90-degree approach to the street. He stated that Bob Johnson had discussed this issue at length over many years; that they would meet and exceed the standards in all cases. Mr. Hofrnan stated that the photo simulation was completely accurate and provided a better depiction than putting flags up. He stated that parking on La Costa Avenue was in part due to the lack of guest parking at Marbella; and that there would be 22 guest parking spaces. Mr. Hofman stated that they would be regrading because of the extensive remedial grading required for the project. He stated that the situation for the people living above this project would be much improved because of the stabilization of the slope that the grading would provide. Mr. Hofman addressed the Planning Commission Minutes February 4,2004 Page 16 statement made that they were padding up 15 feet and then adding a three-story building. He stated that the buttress was 15 feet, but from existing grade it would not be 15 feet above the elevation. He noted that if his client had developed this project back when he was a planner, he could have built about another 100 units by code. He stated that they were not proposing a fence on the slope as it is very steep; that there would be a retaining wall about six feet up the slope; and that the units would have gas fireplaces, but that wood could be burned in them. He noted that they could not restrict people having barbeques. He stated that by code they were required to have all lighting facing downward into the property; that some of the neighbors had asked what the separation would be from their pad and the project; and that some were 45 feet above, but not all of them, as it could vary as much as 10 feet. Commissioner Whitton noted that the elevation of the pad facing La Costa Avenue had been raised up slightly, the second one back from La Costa Avenue was lower, and the one on the rear facing the hill was about even. He noted that the only one that was really raised was the pad on La Costa Avenue. Mr. Hofman confirmed that and stated that that pad was raised about three feet. He stated that it had to be that way for drainage purposes. Chairperson White stated that one speaker had asked about drainage and wanted assurance that it would not be affected by the grading. Mr. Hofman stated that there were two areas where they did have to grade offsite in order to stabilize the ancient landslides. He stated that they would have to get permission from that property owner in order to do that and it was a condition of approval. Chairperson White closed public testimony and asked Staff to respond to questions raised. Ms. Qureshy stated that there seemed to be some confusion about the height difference from the existing lots in the back to the proposed project; that the contours were taken from a City-wide study in 2001 and, thus, were fairly accurate. The highest pad elevation that the applicant was proposing for a four-plex unit was 141. She indicated on a map where the pad elevation would be 220 in some backyards. She addressed the comments about parking along La Costa Avenue stating that the PUD Ordinance required visitor and resident parking. The project was required to provide 17 spaces and they will provide 22 visitor spaces onsite. She reiterated that the new grade would not be very significantly raised 15 feet at any point. At a maximum the pads would be raised five feet above the existing contours. Mr. Wojcik addressed traffic concerns that were raised. He stated that the last traffic report that was done by the Traffic Engineer, Mr. Johnson, was dated October of 2002. The traffic study that Mr. Zamorrodian showed was from 1998, so it was an older study. Routinely, traffic studies are done every few years. He stated that the design speed along La Costa Avenue is 40 mph and the 85th percentile speed, which is what the legal speed limit is set by, was measured at 38 mph. He stated that the Police Department cannot enforce any speed below the 45 mph speed limit, otherwise it would be considered a speed trap. He stated that the speed-related accidents in this immediate area over a two-year period included three speed-related accidents. Total number of accidents on La Costa Avenue were 13 over two years. the traffic volume was measured at 15,000 trips per day west of Nueva Castilla and 9,900 west of Cadencia. The traffic report that the applicants did was dated 2003 and when they recorded the volumes on La Costa Avenue, they recorded them in this area at about 16,000 per day. The Traffic Engineer has had a lot of contact with people in this area of La Costa concerning speeding and volumes of traffic and trying to work with them. He stated that Mr. Johnson had signed the traffic study saying that it complied with all City and State codes. Mr. Jimeno stated that traffic generated by this project would be 464 trips which represented 2% of the existing traffic in La Costa. Regarding the EIA, he stated that the transportation traffic section addressed the overall traffic in the City not specifically how the traffic from this project would impact this area. Thus, it would not impact any of the levels of service now or in five years or in build-out. He stated that the angle of the driveway going into La Costa Avenue was allowed to be up to a 75-degree angle rather than having to be 90 degrees. He stated that this project would have sidewalks along the entire front of the project. He noted that there were sections of sidewalk missing along La Costa Avenue that would be added as new projects were built. With regard to grading, he stated that this project had a special condition where the developer had to submit a specific grading procedure to grade the site which would include monitoring of the upper lots to ensure there will be no impacts on the existing houses. That will need to be reviewed and approved prior to any grading permit being issued. He stated that this project would not change any of the historical drainage patterns. Planning Commission Minutes February 4,2004 Page 17 Ms. Mobaldi stated that there was no view ordinance in Carlsbad and the HDP was not considering protection of private views. Commissioner Baker asked Mr. Wojcik to comment on Ms. Bechthold’s concern about potential head-on collisions in the left-turn lane on La Costa Avenue. Mr. Wojcik stated that there were a number of different options that could be considered to make that safer, such as installing a median that would prevent making any left turns, however, the City was sensitive to access needs of those residents. Thus far, the City was not recommending a median. He stated that whenever there were shared center left- turn lanes, and driveways in close proximity to each other, there was always the possibility of conflicts. He stated that one of the reasons that they wanted the project driveway where it was designed was to get away from the Marbella driveway. Commissioner Heineman asked what precisely would trigger the five-year bond stoplight action. Mr. Wojcik stated that the condition was written specifically so that it was up to the City Engineer to determine whether it would be needed or not. He explained that in the past they had tied it to warrant analysis, however, there had been cases where warrants had not been met, yet for various reasons the City Engineer decided that a traffic signal should be put in. Commissioner Dominguez stated that one of the biggest potentials for serious or fatal injury was the arrangement of cars parking on the north side of La Costa Avenue. He asked what precluded opening up parallel parking on the south side. Mr. Wojcik explained that years ago that portion of La Costa Avenue was changed from two lanes to four lanes and in order to do that the parking on the south side had to be eliminated. He stated that parking on the south side might add view obstructions, and there simply wasn’t the width of roadway necessary to put parking on both sides. Commissioner Segall asked Ms. Mobaldi to comment on the story poles. Ms. Mobaldi stated that the flag might give a practical idea of what would be seen and not seen once the structure was there, but the Commission was not considering nor obligated to protect views, so it wasn’t relevant to the discussion. Commissioner Segall asked if the Planning Commission could make a determination to require a signal light in order to approve the project. Mr. Wojcik stated that the Planning Commission could condition for the developer to bond for the design and construction of it, but the actual construction of a traffic signal was decided by the City Council. Commissioner Segall asked if the Planning Commission could recommend a signal light to the City Council. Ms. Mobaldi clarified that before a signal light could go in, there had to be a recommendation from the Traffic Safety Commission and there was an entire process to go through before there would be a recommendation for a signal. She stated that the City Council would not consider a traffic signal until they had that recommendation and that process had been completed. Commissioner Montgomery stated that he was assuming there were many traffic needs along La Costa Avenue other than placing a traffic signal at the entrance to this project. Mr. Wojcik replied that Marbella had a higher volume of traffic and a higher number of units than this project and that would be one aspect that the Traffic Engineer would consider. Commissioner Montgomery stated that he would rather not tie the hands of where a signal should go. With regard to the intersection for the project, he asked if it was placed in a unique place for site distance in both directions. Mr. Jimeno stated that the project was designed to have the driveway as far as possible away from the Marbella driveway to eliminate any potential conflicts between the two. Commissioner Montgomery asked about the suggestion by speakers for two tiers instead of three. Mr. Jimeno stated that there were criteria to be followed in such a design and that the main one in this project was to fix the landslides. He stated that in order to do that they had to build a buttress at the bottom of the slope to hold the slope up, then the rest of the design had to be done so that the whole site drained properly. Commissioner Segall noted that this project had only one way in and one way out and he remarked that a number of years ago the City Council had a concern about that after some fires. He asked what the City Council policy was about emergency ingress and egress. Mr. Wojcik stated that the new design standards that the Engineering Department was proposing would put into effect the desires of the City Planning Commission Minutes February 4,2004 Page 18 Council. He stated that the number the City Council had used in the past was 50 units, or 580 ADT. He stated that typically they preferred to keep it at 50 units, but that there were constraint situations such as topography and habitat. He stated that in this project the driveway was required to be wider than normal so two lanes of traffic could exit. Chairperson White called for a motion. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Whitton, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 5554 recommending adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5555, 5556, 5557, and 5558 recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map (CT 02- 28), Site Development Plan (SDP 03-18), Condominium Permit (CP 02-13) and Hillside Development Permit (HPD 02-14) based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. DISCUSSION Commission Whitton agreed that there were problems on La Costa Avenue. He stated that this was a significant and beautiful housing project and the addition to the traffic on La Costa Avenue would be minimal. He stated that he could support this project. Commissioner Heineman agreed with Commissioner Whitton that the La Costa Avenue traffic problems stemmed from design going back to when La Costa was part of the County rather than part of the City. He stated that the project would not block the view and would be a very handsome project. He stated that he was in favor of it. Commissioner Dominguez stated that he was inclined to support the project also, however, in view of the discussions on traffic and in trying to mitigate such problems, he suggested adding a condition that one year after the certificates of occupancy were issued that the matter of the installation of a traffic light be reevaluated .by the Traffic Engineer. He noted that by that time there might be other factors to be considered and a better picture might emerge. Commissioner Baker remarked that it‘s not a perfect world and there were situations on La Costa Avenue with driveways on it that would no longer be permitted. She stated that she did support this project and was not concerned about the views, even if the Planning Commission was able to consider that issue. She stated that she was satisfied from the cross section that the project was being built to a reasonable degree with the existing topography. She stated that the traffic signal issue was troubling because too many traffic signals along a major road were just as annoying as not having enough of them. She stated that she was open to Commissioner Dominguez’s suggestion. Commissioner Montgomery stated that the project was designed with a good architectural eye. He stated that the buildings proposed along La Costa Avenue appeared to govern the views from the homes above. He stated concern about how the buildings were measured and he stated that the four-plexes were under 35 feet in height but their appurtenances were allowed. He stated that that was how he was evaluating this project; that this project had the maximum use of an appurtenance coming through a roof; and that he would approve it. Chairperson White asked if he would like to comment on Commissioner Dominguez’s suggestion regarding a traffic signal. Commissioner Montgomery stated that what troubled him was that there were public streets on the road that didn’t have traffic signals and he didn’t believe that this particular development would require a signal more than certain other areas along La Costa Avenue. He stated that he shared the concerns but didn’t see how it warranted a signal and he preferred to leave it to the experts. Commissioner Segall stated that he was struggling with the whole issue of traffic and the safety issue; and that Commissioner Montgomery had convinced him that there could be other areas where a signal was more necessary. He stated that he liked Commissioner Dominguez’s suggestion and he wanted to send a message to the City Council and the Traffic Engineer that the Planning Commission had a real Planning Commission Minutes February 4,2004 Page 19 concern with this. He liked the project and it would shore up the slope and protect the homes above; and that he appreciated seeing the photo simulation. He commended the project for the inclusionary housing. He commented on the architectural integrity and design and how excellent they were. He stated that he would support approving the project, but would like the Planning Commission to make a statement relative to the concern about this project having 58 dwelling units and adding so many cars to a potentially dangerous roadway condition. Commissioner Dominguez stated that one of the reasons he suggested a one-year review was because there was a bond that had been committed and he wanted to remind the Commissioners that had the Planning Commission bonded Marbella with the anticipation of future development, they may have been able to combine the ingress and egress for both of these projects and had a much better traffic control arrangement. He stated that many signals did not go up in the City unless funding was available for them and this was a case where the bonding would be a part of the approval. Commissioner Heineman stated that he was in favor of Commissioner Dominguez’s suggestions. Commissioner Whitton stated that he was in favor of it also, but wanted to add a caveat to determine if a traffic signal was required on or in close proximity to that development. Commissioner Dominguez asked if the bond could legally be used for something in close proximity. Ms. Mobaldi stated that there had to be a nexus between the requirement and the development, so the developer of this project might have to pay a share of it if the signal was not immediately adjacent to the development. Commissioner Montgomery stated that he would support Commissioner Whitton’s caveat as it added some leeway. Chairperson White stated that if this area needed a traffic signal that the Traffic Engineer would have already looked at this. She stated that she was hesitant to direct the Traffic Engineer to do something that was already in his purview or to ask the City Council to direct that. She stated that she thought the area would be monitored under this situation anyway. Commissioner Segall stated that Ms. Mobaldi had indicated that it was the Traffic Safety Commission that had to make those findings. Ms. Mobaldi replied that this Item was going to the City Council so the City Council could direct the Traffic Engineer to take another look at this. She stated that if the Traffic Engineer felt that there was justification for a signal, he would take the issue to the Traffic Safety Commission, and they would review it, offer their input, and it would work its way up to the City Council. She stated that it had to be submitted as an addendum if the Planning Commission wanted it to be part of the conditions of approval. Chairperson White asked for a motion for the amendment. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Dominguez, and duly seconded, that the approval include a review in 12 months following the issuance of certificates of occupancy to determine if a traffic signal is required at or in close proximity to the approved application. Dominguez, Heineman, Segall, and Whitton VOTE: 4-3 AYES: NOES: Baker, Montgomery, and White Chairperson White called for a vote on the main motion. VOTE: 7-0 AYES: NOES: None Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, Segall, White, and Whitton NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, 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, March 23, 2004, to consider a request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan, Condominium Permit and Hillside Development Permit to develop a 58-unit residential condominium project on an 8.1 8 acre site located on the south side of La Costa Avenue, east of El Camino Real and west of Castilla Way, within Local Facilities Management Zone 6 and more particularly described as: Lot 185 of La Costa South Unit 1, in the City of Carlsbad, in the County of San Diego, State of California, According to Map Thereof No. 6117, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, June 3,1968 Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on and after March 19, 2004. If you have any questions, please call Saima Qureshy in the Planning Department at (760) 602-461 9. The time within which you may judicially challenge this Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan, Condominium Permit and/or Hillside Development Permit, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan, Condominium Permit and/or Hillside Development Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: CT 02-28/SDP 03-1 8/CP 02-1 3/HDP 02-1 4 CASE NAME: LA COSTA CONDOMINIUMS PUBLISH: March 12, 2004 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL \ / LA COSTA CONDOMINIUMS CT 02-28/SDP 03-1 8/CP 02-1 3/HDP 02-14 h+t 3 - 23-o$/ Chtcago lytte Company March 22.2004 To Whom It May Concern: On December 30, 2003 at 8% am, I recstved a reqwat, from Roy Publlco of Hoffman Pl-, far a public notice package on the proparty identified as APN 216- 160-21. The project wm completed by Mr. Auguat Rodriguas prior to January 12,2006 The maps used lor this property were the most recant that the Assessors OfLlce made available to us. Tha ownership informationwas also the most recent available to Wac that time. The source used for the ownership information was Data Qdck. If you have any quaatloxu rsgardlng praparatlon of thie publlc notlca package, plsaee do not hesltats to eontact u. @&a CharHe Da Luz Chlcaga "%le c & I Department Ouatomer Service Manager (618) 544-6281 W2s B Stred, $an Dlago, Callfomle, 92101 (61 9) 844-6226(dlrect) (61 9) 686- (fecdmlle) duluzj@ctt.com From: Bob Wojcik To: Bob Johnson; Frank Jimeno Date: 3/23/04 9:02AM Subject: Re: La Costa Condos Here are 4 examples; Rancho Carrillo Village J has 56 sfd w\single access on Poinsettia Rancho Carrillo Village K has 48 sfd w\single access to Melrose fs3,st. u*> C\& “;n*tt$ e\e&-- Manzanita Apartments has 60 rnf units wkingle access internally Sabrina Greens, Oleans East and Pirineos Way condominiums totalling 128 units w\access off of Pirineos Way, a public CUI de sac. >>> Bob Johnson 03/23/04 06:56AM >>> A question at briefings yesterday that may corne up tonight in what other project has been approved with a one way in and one way out driveway. I mentioned there was a project in Rancho Carillo off Melrose Drive and I thought there was one in Calavera Hills. You might want to think of a good example. 3-23 -art All Receive-Agenda Item # 8 cc To '. For the Information of the: : T., @-I+ From: Bob Johnson CITY COUNC A$&*. c-.;t,-=w P To: Ray Patchett Asst* CM-CA-CCH b;-YfQt C\*W Date: 3/23/04 10:46AM Subject: La Costa Condos . -A-wity an age- Ray, clarification of two items from briefings yesterday. The centerline distance from El Camino Real to Nueva Castilla Way is 4,908 feet (not quite a mile). The distance between Nueva Castilla Way and Viejo Castilla Way (which has a traffic signal) is 438 feet. In the metric edition of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual they use a customary value for kilometers per hour to correspond to the English unit of miles per hour speed. There is a little mathematical difference in actual speed values versus what Caltrans is using as the customary value. I did a calculation of the actual kmlhr value to correspond to the 45 MPH speed discussed for corner sight distance. That minimum corner sight distance needed for the metric equivalent of 45 MPH value is 508.5 feet, which is slightly below the available 510 feet of corner sight distance. The metric corner sight distance equivalent for 40 MPH is 456 feet (versus 440 feet that Caltrans gives in the English unit version). Thus, corner sight distance provided exceeds the required length for the two speeds using metric values. I I I I I I I I I I I I* I I I I I 1 I I 11 I 1 I, I I I I' I 1 I I + .I t N ./ . March 29,2004 Jose L. lslas P. 0. Box 232488 Encinitas, CA 92023 NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING La Costa Condominiums The City Council of the City of Carlsbad continued a public hearing regarding the La Costa Condominiums Project to April 13, 2004. The City Council meeting will start at 6:OO p.m. The La Costa Condominiums are located on the south side of La Costa Avenue, east of El Camino Real and west of Castilla Way, within Local Facilities Management Zone 6. Enclosed for your review is the original public hearing notice and map that was mailed to property owners on March 11,2004. ISABELLE PAULSEN, CMC Deputy Clerk Enclosures 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, CA 92008-1 989 (760) 434-2808 @ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, 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, March 23, 2004, to consider a request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan, Condominium Permit and Hillside Development Permit to develop a 58-unit residential condominium project on an 8.18 acre site located on the south side of La Costa Avenue, east of El Camino Real and west of Castilla Way, within Local Facilities Management Zone 6 and more particularly described as: Lot 185 of La Costa South Unit 1, in the City of Carlsbad, in the County of San Diego, State of California, According to Map Thereof No. 6117, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, June 3, 1968 Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on and after March 19, 2004. If you have any questions, please call Saima Qureshy in the Planning Department at (760) 602-461 9. The time within which you may judicially challenge this Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan, Condominium Permit and/or Hillside Development Permit, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan, Condominium Permit and/or Hillside Development Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: CT 02-281SDP 03-1 8/CP 02-1 3/HDP 02-14 CASE NAME: LA COSTA CONDOMINIUMS PUBLISH: March 12, 2004 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL I I LA COSTA CONDOMINIUMS CT 02-28ISDP 03-1 8/CP 02-1 3/HDP 02-14 March 29,2004 Glenn & Donna Bechthold 2420 La Costa Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92009 NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING La Costa Condominiums The City Council of the City of Carlsbad continued a public hearing regarding the La Costa Condominiums Project to April 13,2004. The City Council meeting will start at 6:OO p.m. The La Costa Condominiums are located on the south side of La Costa Avenue, east of El Carnino Real and west of Castilla Way, within Local Facilities Management Zone 6. Enclosed for your review is the original public hearing notice and map that was mailed to property owners on March 1 1,2004. ISABELLE PAULSEN, CMC Deputy Clerk Enclosures 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989 - (760) 434-2808 @ March 29,2004 Waldemar & Caryl Brehm 2424 La Costa Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92009 NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING La Costa Condominiums The City Council of the City of Carlsbad continued a public hearing regarding the La Costa Condominiums Project to April 13, 2004. The City Council meeting will start at 6:OO p.m. The La Costa Condominiums are located on the south side of La Costa Avenue, east of El Camino Real and west of Castilla Way, within Local Facilities Management Zone 6. Enclosed for your review is the original public hearing notice and map that was mailed to property owners on March 11 , 2004. .A- ISABELLE PAULSEN, CMC Deputy Clerk Enclosures 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive 0 Carlsbad, CA 92008-1 989 0 (760) 434-2808 @ March 29,2004 James E. Forrest & Chan H. Ackerman 2432 La Costa Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92009 NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING La Costa Condominiums The City Council of the City of Carlsbad continued a public hearing regarding the La Costa Condominiums Project to April 13, 2004. The City Council meeting will start at 6:OO p.m. The La Costa Condominiums are located on the south side of La Costa Avenue, east of El Camino Real and west of Castilla Way, within Local Facilities Management Zone 6. Enclosed for your review is the original public hearing notice and map that was mailed to property owners on March 11, 2004. ISABELLE PAULSEN, CMC Deputy Clerk Enclosures 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989 0 (760) 434-2808 @ March 29,2004 ltalo Caparachini 134 Camino De Las Flores Encinitas, CA 92024 NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING La Costa Condominiums The City Council of the City of Carlsbad continued a public hearing regarding the La Costa Condominiums Project to April 13, 2004. The City Council meeting will start at 6100 p.m. The La Costa Condominiums are located on the south side of La Costa Avenue, east of El Camino Real and west of Castilla Way, within Local Facilities Management Zone 6. Enclosed for your review is the original public hearing notice and map that was mailed to property owners on March 11,2004. ISABELLE PAULSEN, CMC Deputy Clerk Enclosures 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989 0 (760) 434-2808 @ March 29,2004 David & Julie Smith Leetate P. 0. Box 131357 Carlsbad, CA 92013 NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING La Costa Condominiums The City Council of the City of Carlsbad continued a public hearing regarding the La Costa Condominiums Project to April 13, 2004. The City Council meeting will start at 6:OO p.m. The La Costa Condominiums are located on the south side of La Costa Avenue, east of El Camino Real and west of Castilla Way, within Local Facilities Management Zone 6. Enclosed for your review is the original public hearing notice and map that was mailed to property owners on March 11 , 2004. ISABELLE PAULSEN, CMC Deputy Clerk Enclosures 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive * Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989 (760) 434-2808 @ March 29,2004 Clive Walden Trust 2448 La Costa Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92009 NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING La Costa Condominiums The City Council of the City of Carlsbad continued a public hearing regarding the La Costa Condominiums Project to April 13, 2004. The City Council meeting will start at 6:OO p.m. The La Costa Condominiums are located on the south side of La Costa Avenue, east of El Camino Real and west of Castilla Way, within Local Facilities Management Zone 6. Enclosed for your review is the original public hearing notice and map that was mailed to property owners on March I I , 2004. ISABELLE PAULSEN, CMC Deputy Clerk Enclosures 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989 0 (760) 434-2808 @ March 29,2004 Stanley & Catherine Friedman 2452 La Costa Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92009 NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING La Costa Condominiums The City Council of the City of Carlsbad continued a public hearing regarding the La Costa Condominiums Project to April 13, 2004. The City Council meeting will start at 6:OO p.m. The La Costa Condominiums are located on the south side of La Costa Avenue, east of El Camino Real and west of Castilla Way, within Local Facilities Management Zone 6. Enclosed for your review is the original public hearing notice and map that was mailed to property owners on March 11 , 2004. ISABELLE PAULSEN, CMC Deputy Clerk Enclosures 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008-1 989 0 (760) 434-2808 @ March 29,2004 Douglas & Lisa Fess 2456 La Costa Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92009 NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING La Costa Condominiums The City Council of the City of Carlsbad continued a public hearing regarding the La Costa Condominiums Project to April 13, 2004. The City Council meeting will start at 6:OO p.m. The La Costa Condominiums are located on the south side of La Costa Avenue, east of El Camino Real and west of Castilla Way, within Local Facilities Management Zone 6. Enclosed for your review is the original public hearing notice and map that was mailed to property owners on March 1 I, 2004. ISABELLE PAULSEN, CMC Deputy Clerk Enclosures 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive 0 Carlsbad, CA 92008-1 989 0 (760) 434-2808 @ March 29,2004 Walter M. €4 Joan T. Heynacher 2458 Torrejon Place Carlsbad, CA 92009 NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING La Costa Condominiums The City Council of the City of Carlsbad continued a public hearing regarding the La Costa Condominiums Project to April 73, 2004. The City Council meeting will start at 6:OO p.m. The La Costa Condominiums are located on the south side of La Costa Avenue, east of El Camino Real and west of Castilla Way, within Local Facilities Management Zone 6. Enclosed for your review is the original public hearing notice and map that was mailed to property owners on March 11 , 2004. ISABELLE PAULSEN, CMC Deputy Clerk Enclosures 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989 0 (760) 434-2808 @ March 29,2004 Peter and Evelyn Montalbano 2404 La Costa Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92009 NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING La Costa Condominiums The City Council of the City of Carlsbad continued a public hearing regarding the La Costa Condominiums Project to April 13,2004. The City Council meeting will start at 6:OO p.m. The La Costa Condominiums are located on the south side of La Costa Avenue, east of El Camino Real and west of Castilla Way, within Local Facilities Management Zone 6. Enclosed for your review is the original public hearing notice and map that was mailed to property owners on March 11,2004. ISABELLE PAULSEN, CMC Deputy Clerk Enclosures 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive * Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989 * (760) 434-2808 @ March 29,2004 Michael and Alysia Ceja 2403-8 Sacada Circle Carlsbad, CA 92009 NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING La Costa Condominiums The City Council of the City of Carlsbad continued a public hearing regarding the La Costa Condominiums Project to April 13,2004. The City Council meeting will start at 6:OO p.m. The La Costa Condominiums are located on the south side of La Costa Avenue, east of El Camino Real and west of Castilla Way, within Local Facilities Management Zone 6. Enclosed for your review is the original public hearing notice and map that was mailed to property owners on March 1 1,2004. ISABELLE PAULSEN, CMC Deputy Clerk Enclosures 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive 0 Carlsbad, CA 92008-1 989 - (760) 434-2808 @ Page 1 _i I Isabelle Paulsen - Notices for La Costa Condos From: "Bill Hofrnan" <bhofrnan@hofrnanplanning.com> To: "Lorraine Woods" <Iwood@ci xarlsbad .ca. us> Date: 3124104 10:58AM Subject: Notices for La Costa Condos Lorraine, Here are the property owners who should be re-noticed for La Costa Condos. This were obtained by calling the San Marcos branch of the County Assessors office this morning. They assured us that this list is up to date. Call me if you need anything else. Bill Hofrnan Hofrnan Planning Associates 5900 Pasteur Court, Suite 150 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Phone 760-438-1465 Fax 760-438-2443 Web Site: www.hofrnanp1anning.com cc: ,"Saima Qureshy" <squre@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> 1 Isabelle Paulsen - TEXT.htrn Page 1 [ Lorraine, Here are the property owners who should be re-noticed for La Costa Condos. This were obtained by calling the San Marcos branch of the County Assessors office this morning. They assured us that this list is up to date. Call me if you need anything else. Bill Hofman Hofman Planning Associates 5900 Pasteur Court, Suite 150 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Phone 760-438-1465 Fax 760-438-2443 Web Site: www.hofmanplanning.com Hofman Planning Associates Planning Fiscal Analysis Environmental DATE: March 24,2004 PROJECT: La Costa Condominiums ATTENTION: Lorraine Wood cc: Saima Qureshy FROM: Bill Hofrnan MEMORANDUM The following are additional notices for the La Costa Condominiums project: - APN 2 16- 160-05 2 16- 160-06 2 16- 160-07 2 16-1 60-09 21 6-1 60-1 0 216-160-1 1 2 1.6- 160- 12 2 16- 160- 14 2 16-1 60- 15 2 16-240- 15 Mailing Address Jose L. Islas P.O. Box 232488 Encinitas, CA 92023 Glenn & Donna Bechthold 2420 La Costa Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92009 Waldemar & Caryl Brehm 2424 La Costa Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92009 James E. Forrest & Chan H. Ackerman 2432 La Costa Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92009 Italo Caparachini 134 Camino De Las Flores Encinitas, CA 92024 David & Julie Smith Leetate P.O. Box 131357 Carlsbad, CA 920 13 Clive Walden Trust 2448 La Costa Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92009 Stanley & Catherine Friedman 2452 La Costa Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92009 Douglas & Lisa Fess 2456 La Costa Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92009 Walter M. & Joan T. Heynacher 2458 Torrejon PI. Carlsbad, CA 92009 5900 Pasteur Court - Ste 150 . Carlsbad CA 92008 760-438-1465 Fax 760-438-2443 1 Isabelle Paulsen - Re: La Costa Condos Page 1 ' From: Lorraine Wood To: Saima Qureshy Date: 3/29/04 1 1 :22AM Subject: Re: La Costa Condos I think we may have but we still have plenty of time. Thank you and we will take care of it right away! >>> Saima Qureshy 03/29/04 10:54AM >>> Hi Lorraine, I hope you have'nt send out the notices already for this project because I have another neighbor who called and wants to get the notice. Here is their address: Peter and Evelyn Montalbano 2404 La Costa Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92009 Thanks for your help. Saima cc: Isabelle Paulsen - Isabelle Paulsen - address for disgruntled LaCostian Page 1 1 L From: Pam Pretz To: Isabelle Paulsen Date: 3/29/04 3:23PM Subject: address for disgruntled LaCostian Michael & Alysia Ceja 2403-6 Sacada Circle Carlsbad, CA 92009 9 0 I i W I- W w 4 70 k -L- I W .I 4 PROOF OF MAILING Letters mailed to: I Jose L. lslas J Glenn & Donna Bechthold J Waldemar & Caryl Brehm J James E. Forrest & Chan H. Ackerman J ltalo Caparachini ./ David & Julie Smith Leetate J Clive Walden Trust JStanIey & Catherine Friedman 4 Douglas & Lisa Fess d Walter M. & Joan T. Heynacher ./ Peter and Evelyn Montalbano J Michael and Alysia Ceja Picked up by Mail Room: Number of pieces: \7!# Taken to U. S. Post Office in Carlsbad (Roosevelt Street) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, 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, March 23, 2004, to consider a request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan, Condominium Permit and Hillside Development Permit to develop a 58-unit residential condominium project on an 8.1 8 acre site located on the south side of La Costa Avenue, east of El Camino Real and west of Castilla Way, within Local Facilities Management Zone 6 and more particularly described as: Lot 185 of La Costa South Unit 1, in the City of Carlsbad, in the County of San Diego, State of California, According to Map Thereof No. 6117, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, June 3, 1968 Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on and after March 19, 2004. If you have any questions, please call Saima Qureshy in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4619. The time within which you may judicially challenge this Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan, Condominium Permit and/or Hillside Development Permit, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan, Condominium Permit and/or Hillside Development Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: CT 02-28/SDP 03-18/CP 02-13/HDP 02-14 CASE NAME: LA COSTA CONDOMINIUMS PUBLISH: March 12, 2004 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL / LA COSTA CONDOMINIUMS CT 02-281SDP 03-1 8/CP 02-1 3/HDP 02-14 From: Isabelle Paulsen To: kpeczeli@nctimes.com Date: 2/20/04 9:25AM Subject: Public Hearing Notice - La Costa Condominiums Karen: Please publish a Notice of Public Hearing for La Costa Condominiums CT 02-28. Please publish this ad in the Friday, March 12,2004 newspaper. This will be a 2x3 ad with City seal and border. There is a map that must be published with this ad. Attached is the Notice of Public Hearing and related map. Thank you. Isabelle Paulsen, CMC Administrative Secretary City of Carlsbad City Clerk/Records Management ipaul@ci.carlsbad.ca.us cc: Saima Qureshy; Val Dinsmore Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for : CARLSBAD UNlF SCHOOL DlST 6225 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA 92009 ENClNlTAS CA 92024 ENClNlTAS CA 92024 ENClNlTAS SCHOOL DlST 101 RANCHO SANTA FE RD SAN DlEGUlTO SCHOOL DlST 701 ENClNlTAS BLVD CITY OF ENClNlTAS 505 S VULCAN AVE ENClNlTAS CA 92024 CITY OF VISTA PO BOX 1988 VISTA CA 92085 SD COUNTY PLANNING STE B 5201 RUFFIN RD SAN DIEGO CA 92123 CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME 4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE SAN DIEGO CA 92123 U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE 6010 HIDDEN VALLEY RD CARLSBAD CA 92009 HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOC STE 150 5900 PASTEUR CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY SERVICES LEUCADIA WASTE WATER DlST TIM JOCHEN 1966 OLIVENHAIN RD 1960 LA COSTA AVE ENCINITAS CA 92024 CARLSBAD CA 92009 OLlVENHAl N WATER Dl ST CITY OF SAN MARCOS 1 CIVIC CENTER DR SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949 OCEANSIDE CA 92054 CITY OF OCEANSIDE 300 NORTH COAST HWY SANDAG STE 800 401 B STREET SAN DIEGO CA 92101 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY STE 100 9174 SKY PARK CT SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340 AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DlST 9150 CHESAPEAKE DR SAN DIEGO CA 92123 CALSO LLC 2683 COSTABELLE DR LAJOLLA CA 92037 CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLIC W 0 RKS/ENG I NE E RI NG DEPT- PROJECT ENGINEER FRANK .IIMFNO I.P.U.A. SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND URBAN STUDIES SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505 LAFCO 1600 PACIFIC HWY SAN DIEGO CA 92101 CA COASTAL COMMISSION STE 103 7575 METROPOLITAN DR SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402 ATTN TED ANASIS SAN DIEGO COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY PO BOX 82776 SAN DIEGO CA 92138-2776 CITY OF CARLSBAD MU N IC I PAL WATER DISTRICT AVERW Address Labels Laser 5160@ * KSL LA COSTA RESORT 5 0 9 0 5 XJEN I DA BERMUDAS LA QUINT.4 CA 92253 BILL & CHRISTINE DAVIS 2412 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 KSL LA COSTA I TR TRAN 2450 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 TR KRAUSS 2460 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 ANDREW J SWEENEY 2504 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 50905 AVENI TR ABED1 22892 OCEANHFEE: E iV?.'i LAGUNA NIGlJEL (1.4 92677 PETER J MONTALBANO ANDRE & CONSTANCE 1 JEFFERSON AVE WILLIAMS SUITE C9 PO BOX 130004 ROCKVILLE CENTRE NY 11570 CARLSBAD CA 92013 50905 AVE KSL LA COSTA I LLC 50905 AVENIDA BERMUDAS LA QUINTA CA 92253 WILLIAM T & JENELL LEWIS KSL LA COSTA I 2428 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 KSL LA COSTA I MOHAMMAD M ZOMORRODIAN ' HASAN GADJALI 2464 LA COSTA AVE 42626 SULLY ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 FREMONT CA 94539 AMIR A ZAMANI 2508 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 KUO T CHANG BISHARA K & MONA BISHAR 19174 DE HAVILLAND DR 7607 LA CORUNA PL SARATOGA CA 95070 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CALSO LLC 2683 COSTEBELLE DR LA JOLLA CA 92037 SCUDDER G & MELANIE MERSMAN 7601 NUEVA CASTILLA WAY CARLSBAD CA 92009 MICHAEL K BROWN 2512 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 TR FERRIS 7605 NUEVA CASTILLA WAY CARLSBAD CA 92009 TR SARAIYA 3021 DEL REY AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 TR SAF..&IY$ 3021 EEL, PET< .&\'E CARLSBAD CA 9 2 0 0 9 MASHAALLAH & MARY JAMSHI DIAN 3347 JASMINE CRST ENCINITAS CA 92024 KENT E & SANDRA JENSEN 2353 LEVANTE ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 YVONNE B MURTHA 2422 LEVANTE ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CHRISTOPHER & VELYN ANDERSON 3314 VENADO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 JAMES R & ROSELYN ESH 2428 OVIEDO PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 TR SIENNE-BERGER 7936 DEERFIELD ST SAN DIEGO CA 92120 MICHELLE T WHITNEY 2431 SACADA CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009 THOMAS M GOETTLE 2415 SACADA CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009 TF. SARAIYA M E HULSE 4407 MANCHESTER AVE SUITE 202 ENCINITAS CA 92024 TR BROWN 2351 LEVANTE ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 JONATHAN ORBAUGH 2427 OVIEDO PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 TR BODJANAC 2425 SACADA CIR SUITE A CARLSBAD CA 92009 TOM N & BOBBYE BROOKS 2438 OVIEDO PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 PRESTON H MACLEAN 1839 BLUE BONNET PL ENCINITAS CA 92024 MARGARET & ROBERT STINE 971 HYGEIA AVE ENCINITAS CA 92024 TR BODJANAC 2425 SACADA CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009 FRANCIS & EVE KOEHNEN 2411 SACADA CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009 TR SARAIYA ROBERT A YOUNG 313 CROCUS CT ENCINITAS CA 92024 TR MARCOS 2424 LEVANTE ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 JAMES E JOHNSON 2429 OVIEDO PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 TR SELLARDS SUITE 52 KAHUKU HI 96731 57-091 LALO KUILIMA PL NIKOLA & OLGA BODJANAC 2702 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 WAYNE A & F STUTZMAN 2439 SACADA CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009 ROBERT R PETERSON 2433 SACADA CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009 ROBERT & NOELLE GEORGE 2419 SACADA CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009 ROBERT & KAREN SIEJA 2413 SACADA CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009 JOHN G PAPERA 2409 SACAD.&. CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009 MATTHElJ T SCHULZ 2403 SACADA CIR SUITE A CARLSBAD CA 92009 AGNES A TRINIDAD 24541 VANESSA DR MISSION VIEJO CA 92691 JOHN R SELLARDS PO BOX 927725 SAN DIEGO CA 92192 TR ENGEL 2406 SACADA CIR SUITE B CARLSBAD CA 92009 DANIEL L FRAZIER 2410 SACADA CIR SUITE A CARLSBAD CA 92009 IRVING B GOLDBERG 2412 SACADA CIR SUITE B CARLSBAD CA 92009 EMIL J & STELLA BANICH 3 PRESTWICK CT DEARBORN MI 48120 HARRY T HOFFMAN 19784 STAVANGER PL NE POULSBO WA 98370 TR FREE 2424 BADAJOZ PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 JOAN STANLEY 2407 SACADA CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009 MICHAEL J & ALYSIA CEJA BOX 1212 FPO AP 96322 PATRICIA A ELIA 2402 SACADA CIR SUITE A CARLSBAD CA 92009 TR ROSENFELD 2404 SACADA CIR SUITE A CARLSBAD CA 92009 TR RUNAGER 1055 SOLANA DR DEL MAR CA 92014 GERALDINE SWEENEY 2410 SACADA CIR SUITE B CARLSBAD CA 92009 ROSS C CERRA 2414 SACADA CIR SUITE A CARLSBAD CA 92009 JEFFREY A POWERS 2416 SACADA CIR SUITE B CARLSBAD CA 92009 TR MCGURGAB 2422 BADAJOZ PL SUITE A CARLSBAD CA 92009 MICHAEL L & TERESA DAVIS 2426 BADAJOZ PL SUITE 1 CARLSBAD CA 92009 SUSAN R MCGKA'I" DEL MAR C'A 92014 1155 SOL.~NA PI? PATRICIA A ELIA 2402 SACADA CIR SUITE B CARLSBAD CA 92009 MICHAEL R COTNER 2406 SACADA CIR SUITE A CARLSBAD CA 92009 CHARLES T CATT 2408 SACADA CIR SUITE B CARLSBAD CA 92009 NICHOLAS & URSULA BELICK 2412 SACADA CIR SUITE A CARLSBAD CA 92009 ROSS C CERRA 2414 SACADA CIR SUITE B CARLSBAD CA 92009 KEVIN STEPHENS 1500 W 11TH AVE SUITE 24 ESCONDIDO CA 92029 TR KIESCHNICK 2422 BADAJOZ PL SUITE B CARLSBAD CA 92009 TR SWENSKI 2426 BADAJOZ PL SUITE B CARLSBAD CA 92009 I*!ILLIAM K & MARGARET ?I AND EL 2428 BADAJOZ PL SUITE B CARLSBAD CA 92005, MICHELANGEI,, 5 bib! SCAFIDI 21~325 TEE i,,v ITASCA I L, (. 1’1 1 3 MICHAEL E ARRINGTON 2430 B:<.DAJOZ PL SUITE L. CAFLSRAD CA 92009 THOMAS E & MARGARET MCCARTHY 2432 BADAJOZ PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 KAZUMI I BLACKBITKN VISTA CA 92081 1080 JOSHUA PJrlY SAMUEL & PERRY KAGAN 2436 SACADA CIR SUITE B CAF.LSRAD CA 92009 ANTHONY C & CHERYL NENKO 2436 SACADA CIR SUITE A CARLSBAD CA 92009 PATRICIA LEMING 2438 SACADA CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009 KEVIN F STEPHENS 1500 W 11TH AVE SUITE 24 ESCONDIDO CA 92029 TR WATTERS 2440 SACADA CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009 GREGORY P FROST 7631 NUEVA CASTILLA WAY CARLSBAD CA 92009 HOWARD & PATRICIA ENLOW 7627 NUEVA CASTILLA WAY CARLSBAD CA 92009 MARCIA A MCLAUGHLIN 7619 LA CORUNA PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 KWILLDA S SHEPPARD 7623 NUEVA CASTILLA WAY CARLSBAD CA 92009 FREDERICK & LOUISE DALTROY 7617 LA CORUNA PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 STUART & SANDRA SCHUELER 7615 LA CORUNA PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 HARRY & ANNE HEYLIGERS 2343 LEVANTE ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 VINCENT & MEGAN NOWICKI 2426 TORREJON PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 RANDY & SHEILA NEUBERG 2430 TORREJON PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 WILL1 P HAUSER 2432 TORREJON PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 PETER D KRATZ 2434 TORREJON PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 SALLY A BUCKLEY 2436 TORREJON PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 TIMOTHY & JUDITH SWIFT 2438 TORREJON PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 KEVIN C SERAFINI 2442 TORREJON PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 DEVOTA M AGATHER 2444 TORREJON PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 JOEL W & CATHERINE BAILEY 2446 TORREJON PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 ALBENO L BOTTO 3446 DON ARTURO DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 WAYNE & CLAUDIA COLE 2454 TORREJON PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 3446 DON A . MICHELE F ClSHAUGHNESSY 2456 'r'npFCJI 'N ?L CARLSBAD CA 512009 VERONICA DALY 2464 TORP.EJON PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 ASHOK & MEGHAMALA DOSHI 931 GOLDENROD LN LAKE FOREST IL 60045 PATRICK K MORAN 2480 TORREJON PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 M T GRANT 2306 LEVANTE ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 STEPHEN & JUDITH RADICK 1812 HAWK VIEW DR ENCINITAS CA 92024 JACK B REAGAN 2451 TORREJON PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 KENNETH & SCOTT CORY 2425 TORREJON PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 TR AGUILAR 2409 TORREJON PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 TR FOX 2415 BURGOS CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 TR MASSER 2466 TORREJON PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 LANCET & DIANA HOWARD 2474 TORREJON PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 RICHARD A SALONY 2304 LEVANTE ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 EXEPMTION B WHETSTINE 2021 CIMA CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 KEVIN S & MARY MUMMAU 2467 TORREJON PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 CHESTER & REBECCA TUSSEY' 5724 DOLPHIN PL LA JOLLA CA 92037 KJK GROUP LLC 3972 GEORGETOWN CT NW WASHINGTON DC 20007 HELEN M MCLEAN PO BOX 234034 ENCINITAS CA 92023 DE-GUO & XIU-QING LI 12571 CARMEL CANYON RD SAN DIEGO CA 92130 JAMES R LACI(T.1. 2468 TORREJON l I CARLSBAD CA O? L'I~'~ AI" L COLLINS 2478 TORREJON FL CARLSBAD CA 92009 RICHARD A SALONY 2304 LEVANTE ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 DAVID & RICA GAFFNEY 2228 ENCINITAS BLVD ENCINITAS CA 92024 GEORGE & NANCY MURRAY 2459 TORREJON PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 CHRISTOPHER & VELYN ANDERSON 3314 VENADO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 SALVADOR & ARSENIA SIBUG 3016 CADENCIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 STEVEN E HANDELMAN 6164 CASTEJON DR LA JOLLA CA 92037 BURHAN & SUKRAN KIVRAK 2420 BURGOS CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 DONALD d SUS.‘IN . I !” T I,’ 2410 BUFGOS (‘7 CARLSBAD CA CHAD k ,-:CJLTQN 127 EL P0F.TA.L ST ENCINITAS CA 92024 JOHN D LINES 2309 LEVANTE ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 TR GRI SWOLD- SNELSON 2270 LEVANTE ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 I;.E I Z.0 AMAKAWA PCI BOX 232266 ENCINITAS CA 92023 DONALD F & ALIDA HARMS 2297 LEVANTE ST SUITE B CARLSBAD CA 92009 ROBERT E HORST 2303 LEVANTE ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 WING Y & NANCY LUM 722 DORADO DR SANTA BARBARA CA 93111 TR JANNATI 2287 LEVANTE ST SUITE B CARLSBAD CA 92009 KEITH J ANDERSON 2433 LA COSTA AVE SUITE C CARLSBAD CA 92009 TR BOSCO 2128 SUBIDA TER CARLSBAD CA 92009 GREGORY & DANIELLE MOHN 2433 LA COSTA AVE SUITE A CARLSBAD CA 92009 TR BROWN 13362 FAIRMONT WAY SANTA ANA CA 92705 TR BOSCO JEFF FOUDY 2431 LA COSTA AVE SUITE E CARLSBAD CA 92009 BONNIE ILIFF-STEINHAUER 2431 LA COSTA AVE SUITE C CARLSBAD CA 92009 SHIRLEY M OTIS PO BOX 102 DEL MAR CA 92014 CHRISTINE CHRYSSOVERGIS 2429 LA COSTA AVE SUITE B CARLSBAD CA 92009 SUSAN SHOJAEE 27501 W GOLDFINCH WAY CHANDLER AZ 85248 TR BOSCO VIRGINIA L WALTERS 2427 LA COSTA AVE SUITE B CARLSBAD CA 92009 .. OSWALD & CELINA OTTOLIA PO BOX 9563 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92658 SHARON F KEITH 1405 GLENWOOD DR SAN DIEGO CA 92103 TORPAKAI HARARI 2425 LA COSTA AVE SUITE F CARLSBAD CA 92009 PARKS APRIL 2425 LA COSTA AVE SUITE E CARLSBAD CA 92009 SIMON & NICHOLAS HUDDY MARLBOROUGH WILTS ENGLAND SN DANIEL & SAVO UKROPINA 2425 LA COSTA AVE SUITE B CARLSBAD CA 92009 THOMAS & MARGUERITE DUCKWORTH 4615 A ST SW SUITE 14 CALGARY AB T2T 3Y4 CA JEFFREY & RUTH OLDHAM 1657 GLENWOOD WAY DAYTON OH 45440 . JOSEPH lIJCTr1,~iNO 2423 LA C‘I~ST:~ AL~E SUITE B CARLSBAD C;> “2009 MICHELE P CAIN 2421 LA COST.;. AVE SUITE B CARLSBAD CA 92009 YOLANDA PLUTE 9906 CAMEL MOUNTAIN RD SAN DIEGO CA 92129 DIANA G HARNACK PO BOX 44185 PHOENIX A2 85064 EBRAHIM & FARIBA HOSSEINI PO BOX 178526 SAN DIEGO CA 92177 RYAN H MOURITZEN 2413 LA COSTA AVE SUITE A CARLSBAD CA 92009 IRADJ KHODADADEH 2411 LA COSTA AVE SUITE A CARLSBAD CA 92009 MICHAEL & LARA GIBBS 2409 LA COSTA AVE SUITE B CARLSBAD CA 92009 ERIC SHIPPEN 2407 LA COSTA AVE SUITE C CARLSBAD CA 92009 JAMIE & EDMOND ALLEN 2405 LA COSTA AVE SUITE D CARLSBAD CA 92009 ALISANDE T NIELSEN 1622 VIEWMONT DR WEST HOLLYWOOD CA 90069 RICHARD FOULKES 2421 LA COSTA AVE SUITE A CARLSBAD CA 92009 TODD L BREEDING 2415 LA COSTA AVE SUITE F CARLSBAD CA 92009 BETTY FLENNIKEN 2415 LA COSTA AVE SUITE C CARLSBAD CA 92009 KATHRYN M BANNISTER 2413 LA COSTA AVE SUITE C CARLSBAD CA 92009 KRISTINA PFEIFER 2411 LA COSTA AVE SUITE C CARLSBAD CA 92009 ANTHONY & FERNANDA MARSHALL 2409 LA COSTA AVE SUITE D CARLSBAD CA 92009 CLIFFORD W BLASI 2409 LA COSTA AVE SUITE A CARLSBAD CA 92009 TERI L. ARENZ-HARDING 2407 LA COSTA AVE SUITE B CARLSBAD CA 92009 LAURIE LINDLEY 2405 LA COSTA AVE SUITE C CARLSBAD CA 92009 LEE I JUREWITi SUITE C CARLSBAD CA 9 2 P O(J 2421 LA COSTA .A.,’F bJ I R HOLDINGS LLC 21031 VENTURA BLVD SUITE 210 WOODLAND HILLS CA 91364 NAVADA M BENNETT 2415 LA COSTA AVE SUITE E CARLSBAD CA 92009 SHERRI E BEHAR 2415 LA COSTA AVE SUITE B CARLSBAD CA 92009 ROBERT C DIPLOCK 2413 LA COSTA AVE SUITE B CARLSBAD CA 92009 LINDA P TILLOTSON 2411 LA COSTA AVE SUITE B CARLSBAD CA 92009 MAUREEN P TRACY 2409 LA COSTA AVE SUITE C CARLSBAD CA 92009 MICHAEL A & DENISE ROBINSON 2407 LA COSTA AVE SUITE D CARLSBAD CA 92009 ROBERT M STRONG 2407 LA COSTA AVE SUITE A CARLSBAD CA 92009 MARILYN & JEROME TIMMONS 2405 LA COSTA AVE SUITE B CARLSBAD CA 92009 - STANLE'I & ELIZABETH SEGEL 2 4 0 5 LA ~L'OST.& .4VE SUITE A CARLSBAD CA '12009 PJILLIAM S SIJGG SUITE B CARLSBAD CA 9200'1 2403 LA COSTA AI".I* WILL1.J.M 6 JENELL LEWIS 2428 LA COSTA AVE CARLSEAD CA 92009 JASON F LEI~JIS 2403 LA CCJST..;, AVE SUITE A CARLSBAD (-'.?a 92009 SARAH & ROBERT SLAGTER 2401 LA COSTA AVE SUITE D CARLSBAD CA 92009 DAN KYLE 2401 LA COSTA AVE SUITE C CARLSBAD CA' 92 009 PAR 72- LLC 427 C ST SUITE 300 SAN DIEGO CA 92010 TR GORAY 2401 LA COSTA AVE SUITE B CARLSBAD CA 92009 RICHARD A JARAMILLO 2401 LA COSTA AVE SUITE A CARLSBAD CA 92009 MAUREEN PELTON 2348 LA COSTA AVE SUITE 111 CARLSBAD CA 92009 W RODGERS 2348 LA COSTA AVE SUITE 112 CARLSBAD CA 92009 PAR 72 LLC 427 C ST ADAM C ORR 2348 LA COSTA AVE SUITE 113 CARLSBAD CA 92009 HAROLD & MARILYN JAFFA 2348 LA COSTA AVE SUITE 211 CARLSBAD CA 92009 DAVID SPENCER 2348 LA COSTA AVE SUITE 212 CARLSBAD CA 92009 PETER C BOOTH 2348 LA COSTA AVE SUITE 213 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CHRISTOPHER GLOAD 2348 LA COSTA AVE SUITE 214 CARLSBAD CA 92009 AARON A BROTMAN 2348 LA COSTA AVE SUITE 215 CARLSBAD CA 92009 MICHAEL W MAILE 2348 LA COSTA AVE SUITE 216 CARLSBAD CA 92009 STANLEY & SUSAN BOOTH 2348 LA COSTA AVE SUITE 311 CARLSBAD CA 92009 MARY C WALKER 2348 LA COSTA AVE SUITE 312 CARLSBAD CA 92009 KRISTINE PLANK 2348 LA COSTA AVE SUITE 313 CARLSBAD CA 92009 PATRICIA ZIFFERBLATT 220 LYON ST NW SUITE 800 GRAND RAPIDS MI 49503 LISA R LEHENBAUER 2348 LA COSTA AVE SUITE 315 CARLSBAD CA 92009 PATRICIA ZIFFERBLATT 220 LYON ST NW SUITE 800 GRAND RAPIDS MI 49503 CHARMAIN & STUART 2348 LA COSTA AVE SUITE 414 CARLSBAD CA 92009 NEWBY-FRASER JOHN M SCHAU 1093 E MAIN ST SUITE 284 EL CAJON CA 92021 WILLIAM BOTHWELL 2348 LA COSTA AVE SUITE 204 CARLSBAD CA 92009 TR WERNICK 6516 S HOLT AVE LOS ANGELES CA 90056 TERA LAMB 1667 SAN ELIJO AVE CARDIFF CA 92007 JEAN KOLINSFI SUITE 205 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA ',2ii,ly A ROSVALL 2348 LA COSTA AVE SUITE 303 CARLSBAD CA 92009 FRANCES HOLLENBECK 2348 LA COSTA AVE SUITE 302 CARLSBAD CA 92009 PAUL & LUAYNE BULLARA 2348 LA COSTA AVE SUITE 307 CARLSBAD CA 92009 SCOTT M GOLUEKE 2348 LA COSTA AVE SUITE 308 CARLSBAD CA 92009 JEANNE T REILLY 2348 LA COSTA AVE SUITE 402 CARLSBAD CA 92009 SEMIHA JOHNSON 2374 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 TR LINDQUEST 2380 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 HELEN S AZAR 2524 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 KENNETH G KADANSKY J EF.RY B SLEEF'EK SUITE C SUITE 201 CARLSBhD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 9299" 7720 EL CAMINO REAL 2 3 4 8 LA CoSrr,i .A'",-: CHERYL L WATERMAN 914 HIGHLAND AVE DEL MAR CA 92014 DEBRA J SEXTON 2348 LA COSTA AVE SUITE 301 CARLSBAD CA 92009 JOSEPH F & ANN MAKMri 580 SAFSTROM PL IDAHO FALLS ID 83401 JEFF M GOONEWARDENA 2348 LA COSTA AVE SUITE 306 CARLSBAD CA 92009 ARTHUR & ROSIE MEZA ROBERT B NATHASON 13403 MURPHY HILL DR 2015 SHADY TREE LN WHITTIER CA 90601 ENCINITAS CA 92024 NADIA L MUDRAK 2348 LA COSTA AVE SUITE 401 CARLSBAD CA 92009 KEVIN MCCARTHY 2370 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 ALAN S & SALLY NIES 2818 DECROS PT RICHMOND TX 77469 JAMES B & MARLENE CARTER 2516 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 MIHAMMAD K & FARNAZ ZOMORRODIAN 2400 LA COSTA AVENUE CARLSBAD CA 92009 EMAD I OBAIDI 2348 LA COSTA AVE SUITE 404 CARLSBAD CA 92009 ROBERT C MILLER 3222 LINDA VISTA DR SAN MARCOS CA 92069 WILLIAM & JENELL LEWIS 2428 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 KATRINA M GLUSAC 2520 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO p.m. on Tuesday, [DATE], to consider a request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan, Condominium Permit and Hillside Development Permit to develop a 58-unit residential condominium project on an 8.18 acre site located on the south side of La Costa Avenue, east of El Camino Real and west of Castilla Way, within Local Facilities Management Zone 6 and more particularly described as: Lot 185 of La Costa South Unit 1, in the City of Carlsbad, in the County of San Diego, State of California, According to Map Thereof No. 61 17, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, June 3,1968 Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on and after [DATE]. If you have any questions, please call Saima Qureshy in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4619. The time within which you may judicially challenge this Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan, Condominium Permit and/or Hillside Development Permit, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan, Condominium Permit and/or Hillside Development Permit 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: CT 02-28/SDP 03-18/CP 02-1YHDP 02-14 CASE NAME: LA COSTA CONDOMINIUMS PUBLISH: [DATE] CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL \ -w LA COSTA CONDOMINIUMS CT 02-28ISDP 03-1 8/CP 02-1 3/HDP 02-14