The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2004-05-18; City Council; 17642; Black Rail RidgeCITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL BLACK RAIL RIDGE ZC 03-08/LCPA 03-09/CT 03-1 3KDP 03-37 MTG. 5/18/04 Project application(s) Administrative Reviewed by and Approvals Final at Planning Commission Environmental Review ZC 03-08 LCPA 03-09 CT 03-1 3 CDP 03-37 RECOMMENDED ACTION: To be Reviewed - Final at Council X X X X X That the Council INTRODUCE Ordinance No. NS-705 , APPROVING Zoning Change ZC 03-08, and ADOPT Resolution No. 2004-170 ADOPTING a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and APPROVING Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 03-09, Carlsbad Tract CT 03-1 3, and Coastal Development Permit CDP 03-37 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. On April 21, 2004, the Planning Commission recommended approval (6-1) of an 11 unit single-family residential subdivision on a vacant parcel of land located on the southwest corner of Poinsettia Lane and Black Rail Road. The project requires a Zone Change and Local Coastal Program amendment to change the Limited Control (L-C) designation of the property to one-family Residential, 7,500 square foot minimum (R-l-7,500) to implement the Residential Low-Medium (RLM) General Plan Land Use designation. The proposed subdivision includes two panhandle lots, which requires City Council approval, as does the associated Coastal Development Permit. The Planning Commission revised the project to include conditions for: rear building plane separation between units; revision of unit plotting; additional rear elevation architectural review by the Planning Director; and architectural treatment for the noise mitigation wall. ENVIRONMENTAL: Based on an environmental impact assessment conducted by staff, potentially significant impacts related to noise impacts from traffic on Poinsettia Lane and residual agricultural pesticides were found to impact the project. Mitigation measures have been imposed to reduce those impacts to below a level of significance. The project is also conditioned to record a notice of restriction for impacts related to the over flight of aircraft from Palomar Airport. The Planning Director issued a Notice of Intent to Issue a Mitigated Negative Declaration on November January 27, 2004. No comments were received during the 30-day public review period. FISCAL IMPACT: All public infrastructure required by this project would be funded by the developer. ... ... PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 17,642 EXHl B ITS: 1. City Council Ordinance No. NS-705 2. City Council Resolution No. 2004-170 3. Location Map 4. 5. 6. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5602, 5603, 5604, 5605, and 5606 Planning Commission Staff Report, dated January 27, 2004 Draft Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes, dated April 21, 2004. DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Van Lynch, (760) 602.461 3, vlync@ci.carlsbad.ca.us 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. NS-705 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 21.05.030 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP TO GRANT A ZONE CHANGE FROM LIMITED CONTROL (L-C) TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) 7,500 ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF POINSETTIA LANE AND BLACK RAIL ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20. CASE NAME: BLACK RAIL RIDGE CASE NO.: ZC 03-08 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does ordain as follows: SECTION I: That Section 21.05.030 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, being the City’s zoning map, is amended as shown on the map marked Exhibit “ZC 03-08” attached hereto and made a part hereof. SECTION II: That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution 5603 constitute the findings and conditions of the City Council. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at least once in a publication of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within fifteen days after its adoption. (Not withstanding the preceding, this ordinance shall not be effective within the City’s Coastal Zone until LCPA 03-09 is approved by the California Coastal Cornmission.) Ill Ill IN Ill Ill Ill Ill Ill 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 INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council on the 18th day of May 2004, and thereafter. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the day of 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor ATTEST: LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk (SEAL) Ordinance No. NS-705 page 2 -2- 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2004-1 70 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND APPROVING A LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO REZONE, GRADE, SUBDIVIDE 3.71 ACRES INTO 12 LOTS AND CONSTRUCT 11 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF POINSETTIA LANE AND BLACK RAIL ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20. CASE NAME: BLACK RAIL RIDGE CASE NO.: ZC 03-08/LCPA 03-09/CT 03-1 3/CDP 03-37 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as follows: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on April 21, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Local Coastal Program Amendment 03-09, according to Exhibit “LCPA 03-09” attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 5604 and incorporated by this reference, Tentative Tract Map 03-1 3, and Coastal Development Permit 03-37 to rezone and allow the development of 3.71 acres of land with 11 single-family houses, and adopted Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5602, 5603, 5604, 5605, and 5606 recommending to the City Council that they be approved; and WHEREAS, the City Council did on the 18th day of Ma:T , 2004 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, and Coastal Development Permit and; WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the City Council considered all factors relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, and Coastal Development Permit. ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does hereby resolve as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5602, 5603, 5604, 5605, and 5606 constitute the findings and conditions of the City Council in this matter as amended by City Council adding these conditions: “The developer shall submit to the Planning Department a uniform fencing plan subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director.” “The developer shall post an Aircraft Noise Notification Sign pursuant to the City of Carlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual with a minimum dimension of 36”.” 3. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is adopted for the Zone Change 03-08, Local Coastal Program Amendment 03-09, Tentative Tract Map 03-13, and Coastal Development Permit 03-37 as shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5602, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 18th day of May 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Finnila., Kulchin, Hall and Packard NOES: None CLAUDE A. L ATTEST: , f OOD, City Clerk (SEAL) -2- PROPERTY ZONE CHANGE Zone Change Property: From: To: A. 21 5-070-33-00 Limited Control R-l-7,500 B. C. D. Attach additional pages if necessary ZC: 03-08 draft 0 finat Approvals Council Approval Date: Ordinance No: Effective Date: Signature: 5 EXHIBIT 3 SITE BLACK RAIL RIDGE ZC 03-08lLCPA 03-091CT 03-1 3lCDP 03-37 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 . EXHIBIT 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5602 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING 7,500, GRADE, SUBDIVIDE AND CONSTRUCT 11 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF POINSETTIA LANE AND BLACK RAIL ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20. CASE NAME: BLACK RAIL RIDGE PROGRAM TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM LC TO R- 1 - CASE NO.: ZC 03-08/LCPA 03-09/CT 03-13/CDP 03-37 WHEREAS, Pacific Coast Development, “Developer,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Norman G. Gallagher and Laird and Catherine Ann Cameron, “Owners,” described as The north half of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 22, Township 12 south, Range 4 west, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to the official plat thereof (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 21st day of April 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 as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and mitigation monitoring and reporting program, Exhibit “ND” according to “NOI” dated January 27, 2004 and “PII” dated January 21, 2001, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findin PS: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration for BLACK RAIL RIDGE - ZC 03-0WLCPA 03-09/CT 03-13/CDP 03-37, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and d. based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Conditions: 1. The Developer shall implement or cause the implementation of the Black Rail Ridge Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. ... .. ... ... ... ... ... PC RES0 NO. 5602 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st day of April 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson White, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, and Whitton NOES: Commissioner Segall ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MELISSA WHITE, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOL&ILLE~! Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5602 -3- - City of Carlsbad MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: BLACK RAIL RIDGE PROJECT LOCATION: CASE NO: ZC 03-OS/ LCPA 03-091 CT 03-13/CDP 03-37 The Southwest comer of Black Rail Rd and Poinsettia Lane PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project proposes to rezone 3.71 acres of land located on the southwest corner of Black Rail Rd and Poinsettia Ln. from L.imited Control to Residential Single- Family, minimum lot size 7,500 sq ft. The application also includes the subdivision, grading and construction of 11 residential lots and one open space lot. 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: 0 Ix1 0 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). 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. 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: ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director /a @ 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760).602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us - City of Carlsbad NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: BLACK RAIL RIDGE CASE NO: ZC 03-081 LCPA 03-091 CT 03-13/CDP 03-37 PROJECT LOCATION: The Southwest comer of Black Rail Rd and Poinsettia Lane PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project proposes to rezone 3.71 acres of land located on the southwest comer of Black Rail Rd and Poinsettia Ln. from Limited Control to Residential Single-Family, minimum lot size 7,500 sq A. The application also includes the subdivision, grading and construction of 11 residential lots and one open space lot. 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 (EL4 Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad City Council. A copy of the initial study (EL4 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 Van Lynch in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4613. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD January 27,2004 to February 27,2004 PUBLISH DATE January 27,2004 /3 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www. i car1 Fanuary3tj,?~o!ia.us @ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 CASE NO: ZC 03-08/ LCPA 03-09/ CT 03-13/CDP 03-37 DATE: January 2 1,2004 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: BLACK RAIL RIDGE 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: Citv of Carlsbad 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Van Lvnch (760) 602-46 13 4. PROJECT LOCATION: The Southwest corner of Black Rail Rd and Poinsettia Ln 5. PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: Brett Shaves, 567 San Nicolas Dr. #130, Newport Beach CA 92660 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Low-Medium 7. ZONING: Limited Control (L-C) 8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): California Coastal Commission (For LCPA) 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: The project proposes to rezone 3.71 acres of land located on the southwest comer of Black Rail Rd and Poinsettia Ln. from Limited Control to Residential Single-Family, minimum lot size 7,500 sq ft. The application also includes the subdivision, mading and construction of 11 residential lots and one open space lot. The site is presently a plant nurserv with container-mown plants and is surrounded by residential development to the north, northeast, south, and a proposed church to the east and undeveloped land to the west. 1 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. 0 Aesthetics [7 Geology/Soils H Noise [7 Agricultural Resources HazardsMazardous Materials c] and Housing [7 Air Quality 0 HydrologyNater Quality 0 Public Services 0 Biological Resources 0 Land Use and Planning 0 Recreation 0 Cultural Resources 0 Mineral Resources 0 TransportatiodCirculation 0 Utilities & Service Systems u Mandatory Findings of Significance 2 Rev. 07/03/02 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 0 I8 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 further is required. I124/D4- Date 3 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 from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly adverse. Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but fl 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 19 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 EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for’impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant. 5 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact Potentially Significant Impact No Impact I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 0 0 0 [XI b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? 0 0 [XI 0 c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 0 0 0 [XI d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 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: 0 0 0 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 0 0 0 0 El [XI b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 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? 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 0 0 IXI 0 0 [XI b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Rev. 07/03/02 6 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated 0 0 c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 0 0 0 0 e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: 0 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 0 0 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? 0 0 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? 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? 0 0 0 0 0 e) 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? f) 0 0 g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? 7 Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 0' IXI OIXI OIXI OIXI Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant No Impact Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: 0 OB a) Cause a Substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? 0 0 0 OBI b) Cause a Substantial adverse change in the signifi- cance of an archeological resource pursuant to $15064.5? 0 0 0 OB om c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi- cal resource or site or unique geologic feature? 0 d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 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 0 om 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. o 0 om OB OBI OB om OH ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? 0 0 0 0 b) Result in Substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 0 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 0 d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1 997), creating Substantial risks to life or property? Rev. 07/03/02 a 8 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 airport 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 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 [XI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact [XI IXI [XI [XI IXI [XI [XI Ixl Ixl Ixl 9 Rev. 07/03/02 da 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)? Impacts to groundwater quality? 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? 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? 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? Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 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? Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? 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? Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. 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, Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? - - Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I7 No Impact IXI IXI IXI IXI [XI IXI [XI IXI I8 [XI Ixl IXI 10 Rev. 07/03/02 os3 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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? IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? 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? 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? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IxI 0 El 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant No Impact Impact OH OH OH OH OB om om om 24 11 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). e) For a project located within an aqort 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? 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 Would the project result in Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? 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 Impact Incorporated Impact 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact 0 IXI IXI IXI El [XI IXI IXI [XI [xi IXI 12 Rev. 07/03/02 25 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - 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 (eg, 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? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact IXI. Ixl Ixl 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact [XI 0 0 0 [XI Ixl IXI Ixi [XI IXI IXI IXI 13 Rev. 07/03/02 46 - Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 0 om e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the . provider’s existing commitments? 0 0 om Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s, solid waste disposal needs? 0 om g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. 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? 0 0 0 0 0 om 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 OH 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 higation 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 d7 The project site is located in an area which is subject to the requirements of the Zone 20 Specific Plan approved by City Council in 1994. A program EIR (PEIR) (EIR 90-03) was certified for the Zone 20 Specific Plan. The Zone 20 PEIR identified, analyzed, and recommended mitigation to reduce potential significant impacts to insignificant levels. The Zone 20 Program PEIR analyzed potential impacts to agriculture, air quality, biology, circulation, land use, noise, pesticide residue, paleontology, public facilities financing, soils/geology, and visual aesthetics that could result from the development of the specific Plan area. The PEIR is intended to be used in the review of subsequent projects within zone 20. The project incorporates the required Zone 20 PEIR mitigation measures, and through the analysis of the required additional geotechnical, hydrology, and noise analysis a determination has been made that no additional significant impacts beyond those identified and mitigated by the PEIR will result from this project. The following environmental evaluation briefly explains the basis for this determination along with identifying the source documents that support the environmental determination. The Zone 20 PEIR and additional technical studies are cited as source documents for ths environmental evaluation. 15 Rev. 07/03/02 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AESTHETICS - Less than significant - The project is subject to the architectural and landscaping standards contained in the Zone 20 Specific Plan and the City of Carlsbad Policy 44 regarding building architecture, which are designed to reduce the impacts along arterial roadways. 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 RAQS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the following: 0 Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area? Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan? The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being implemented. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions of the City’s General Plan and 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 viola tion? 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 minimnl. 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. 16 I Rev. 07/03/02 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 15 130 (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. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Less than significant impact - The project site is shown as an area of non-prime agricultural land in the Coastal Agricultural Overlay Zone of the Local Coastal Program. The project site has been designated for residential development and agricultural uses are allowed as interim uses and conversion of the property from agricultural to urban development shall be permitted subject to mitigation measures as specified in the LCP, Policy 2-1. Mitigation measures were adopted with the EIR for the Zone 20 Specific Plan to mitigate the impacts to a level of insignificance. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -The site may contain residual hazardous chemical as a result of the previous agricultural uses. The site shall be re-inspected once the existing uses have been removed, and prior to grading, for indicators of agricultural chemical residues or hazardous materials release. The project shall implement the mitigation measures identified in the Zone 20 EIR. TRANSPORTATION/TFUFFIC-Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? Less Than Significant Impact. The project will generate 110 Average Daily Trips (ADT) and 11 peak hour trips. While the increase 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 proposed project would not, therefore, cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The impacts from 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. SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The Existing and Buildout average daily traffic (ADT) and Existing LOS on these designated roads and highways in Carlsbad is: 17 Rev. 07/03/02 30 Existing ADT* Los Buildout ADT* Rancho Santa Fe Road 15-32 “A-C” 28-43 El Camino Real 21-50 “A-C” 32-65 Palomar Airport Road 10-52 ‘‘A-B” 29-77 SR 78 120 “F” 144 *The numbers are in thousands of daily trips. 1-5 183-198 “D” 2 19-249 The Congestion Management Program’s (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is “E”, or LOS “F” if that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS “F” in 1990). Accordingly, all designated roads and highways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS. Note that the buildout ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region’s general and community plans. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan and, therefore, its traffic was used in modeling the buildout projections. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS) “E” standard assumes implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on the design capacity(ies) of the designated roads and highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the short- term and at buildout. c) Result in a change in air 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 consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Airport. It would not, therefore, result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact assessed. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? No Impact. 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 proposed project is not requesting a parking variance. Additionally, the project would comply with the City’s parking requirements to ensure an adequate parking supply. No impact assessed. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)? No Impact. The project in an area conducive to public transportation, being adjacent to Poinsettia Ln, a major circulation element roadway. No impact is assessed. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - The subject site is a previously graded and developed site which is surrounded by residential and agricultural development. There are no known biological resources on the site. The subject site is identified as an ‘‘Agricultural” area on the City’s Draft Habitat Management Plan. NOISE - The site is adjacent to Poinsettia Lane and is subject to roadway noise which exceeds the 60 &A CNEL threshold established by the Noise Guidelines Manual, City of Carlsbad. Mitigation in the form of noise attenuation walls is required to attenuate the noise from the roadway. The project site is located approximately 4,800 feet south of the Palomar Airport and is subject to over flight. The noise from aircraft is below 60 dBA CNEL. The following noise mitigation measures are required for the project: 18 Rev. 07/03/02 31 1. The project shall incorporate the noise mitigation measures identified in the Acoustical Analysis, Black Rail hdge, Gordon Bricken and Associates, Dated September 11.2003. 2. Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map, the developer shall prepare and record a Notice that the property is subject to over flight, sight, and sound of aircraft in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and the City Attorney (see Noise Form #2 on file in the Planning Department). EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORR/IATION 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. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. Final Proqram Environmental Impact Report for the Zone 20 Suecific Plan proiect. Carlsbad. California, (EIR 90-03), City of Carlsbad, CA, June 1992 (SCH 90010134) Acoustical analvsis, Black Rail Ridge, Citv of Carlsbad, Gordon Bricker and Associates, September 11, 2003 Preliminarv Geotechnical Evaluation, Black Rail Ridqe, APN 2 15-070-33, Citv of Carlsbad, San Diego County, Geosoils, Inc, September 3,2003 Stormwater Management Plan for Black Rail Ridge Tentative Map, Michael L. Benesh, RCE 37893, August 28,2003 Drainage Study, Tentative Mar, CT 03- . Black Rail Ridge, Michael L. Benesh, RCE 37893, August 28, 2003. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment. 6571 Black Rail Road. Carlsbad. CA'92009 APN 215-070-33, January 2, 2004, Planning Systems 19 Rev. 07/03/02 34 LIST OF MITIGATrNG MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) The project shall incorporate the noise mitigation measures identified in the Acoustical Analysis, Black Rail Ridge, Gordon Bricken and Associates, Dated September 11,2003. Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map, the developer shall prepare and record a Notice that the property is subject to over flight, sight, and sound of aircraft in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and the City Attorney (see Noise Form #2 on file in the Planning Department). A detailed soils report shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer, and submitted to the City and County Health Departments for review and approval. This report shall evaluate the potential for soil contamination on-site due to historic use, handling, or storage of restricted agricultural chemicals. The report shall also identify a range of possible mitigation measures to remediate any potentially significant public health impacts if hazardous chemicals are detected at high concentrations in the soils. 20 Rev. 07/03/02 33 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. 21 Rev. 07/03/02 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 1 of 1 a E c PI n K a c n - .- i 1.P C S nJ h 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. 5603 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE FROM LIMITED CONTROL TO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY 7,500 GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF POINSETTIA LANE AND BLACK RAIL ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20. CASE NAME: BLACK RAIL RIDGE SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE MINIMUM ON PROPERTY’ CASE NO: ZC 03-08 WHEREAS, Pacific Coast Development, “Developer,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Norman G. Gallagher and Laird and Catherine Ann Cameron, “Owners,” described as The north half of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 22, Township 12 south, Range 4 west, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to the official plat thereof (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Zone Change as shown on Exhibit “X” dated April 21, 2004, attached hereto and on file in the Planning Department, BLACK RAIL RIDGE - ZC 03-08 as provided by Chapter 21.52 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 21st day of April, 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 all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Zone Change; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: 36 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) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the pu-_ic hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL ZC 03-08 - BLACK RAIL RIDGE based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings: 1. That the proposed Zone Change from Limited Control (LC) to Residential Single- Family 7,500 lot size minimum (R-1-7,500) is consistent with the goals and policies of the various elements of the General Plan, in that the proposed zone replaces the LC zone which is intended to be an interim zone designation. The proposed R-1-7,500 zone is consistent with the Residential Low-Medium (RLM) General Plan designation and the Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 208) which was earlier found to be consistent with the General Plan. 2. That the Zone Change will provide consistency between the General Plan and Zoning as mandated by California State law and the City of Carlsbad General Plan Land Use Element, in that the zone designation shown on Exhibit “X” attached hereto, implements the existing General Plan Land Use designation of RLM. 3. That the Zone Change is consistent with the public convenience, necessity and general welfare, and is consistent with sound planning principles in that residential uses allowed by the proposed zone change are compatible with the adjacent and future residential uses. Conditions: 1. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and LCPA 03-09 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5602 and 5604 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 “ feedex ac tions. ” You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified feedexactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this PC RES0 NO. 5603 -2- 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any feedexactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 21st day of April 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson White, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, and Whitton NOES: Commissioner Segall ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MELISSA WHITE, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOBMILL%R Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5603 -3- 38 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. 5604 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM TO BRING THE DESIGNATIONS ON THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, GENERAL PLAN, AND ZONING MAP INTO CONFORMANCE ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF POINSETTIA LANE AND BLACK RAIL ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20. CASE NAME: BLACK RAIL RIDGE CASE NO: LCPA 03-09 WHEREAS, California State law requires that the Local Coastal Program, General Plan, and Zoning designations for properties in the Coastal Zone be in conformance; and WHEREAS, Pacific Coast Development, “Developer,” has filed a verified application for an amendment to the Local Coastal Program designations regarding property owned by Norman G. Gallagher and Laird and Catherine Ann Cameron, “Owners,” described as The north half of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 22, Township 12 south, Range 4 west, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to the official plat thereof (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Local Coastal Program Amendment as shown on Exhibit “LCPA 03-09” dated April 21, 2004, attached hereto, as provided in Public Resources Code Section 30574 and Article 15 of Subchapter 8, Chapter 2, Division 5.5 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations of the California Coastal Commission Administrative Regulations; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 21st day of April 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Local Coastal Program Amendment; and WHEREAS, State Coastal Guidelines requires a six week public review period for any amendment to the Local Coastal Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) At the end of the State mandated six week review period, starting on December 11, 2003 and ending on January 22, 2004, staff shall present to the City Council a summary of the comments received. C) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission based on the following findings, and subject to the following conditions: RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of BLACK RAIL RIDGE - LCPA 03-09 Findinm: 1. That the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment meets the requirements of, and is in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act and all applicable policies of the Mello I1 segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program not being amended by this amendment, in that the proposed R-1-7,500 zoning is consistent with the existing Residential Low-Medium General Plan Land Use designation and the project is required to provide drainage and erosion control measures. 2. That the proposed amendment to the Mello I1 segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program is required to bring its designation on the City's General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map (as amended), and Mello I1 Implementation (the zoning map) into conformance. 3. That the project is conditioned to provide the payment of an agricultural conversion' mitigation fee which will mitigate the loss of agricultural resources by preserving or enhancing other important coastal resources. Conditions: 1. This approval is granted subject to the approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation monitoring and reporting program and ZC 03-08 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5602 and 5603 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference. ... PC RES0 NO. 5604 -2- ' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting to the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 21st day of April 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson White, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, and Whitton NOES: Commissioner Segall ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MgLISSA WHITE, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOLMILLEX Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5604 -3- PROPERTY ZONE CHANGE Property: A. 21 5-070-33-00 B. C. D. LCPA: 03-09 From: To: Council Approval Date: Limited Control R-1-7’500 Ordinance No: Effective Date: Signature: draft 0 final 0 April 21, 2004 Project Name: Black Rail Ridge Related Case File No(s): ZC 03-08/CT 03-1 3/ CDP 03-37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5605 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CAFUSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING SUBDIVIDE 3.71 ACRES INTO 12 LOTS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF POINSETTIA LANE AND BLACK RAIL ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20. CASE NAME: BLACK RAIL RIDGE APPROVAL OF CARLSBAD TRACT CT 03-13 TO CASE NO.: CT 03-13 WHEREAS, Pacific Coast Development, “Developer,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Norman G. Gallagher and Laird and Catherine Ann Cameron, “Owners,” described as The north half of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 22, Township 12 south, Range 4 west, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to the official plat thereof (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Tentative Tract Map as shown on Exhibits “A” - “S” dated April 21, 2004, on file in the Planning Department BLACK RAIL RIDGE - CT 03-13, as provided by Chapter 20.12 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 21st day of April 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. 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of BLACK RAIL RIDGE - CT 03-13, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings: 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 project is consistent with all the minimum requirements of Titles 20 and 21 governing lot size and configuration and has been designed to comply with all applicable City regulations. That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since surrounding properties are designated for residential development on the General Plan, and are developed with single-family development with a comparable housing type and density. 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 all required development standards and design criteria required by the applicable zoning ordinances are incorporated into the project without the need for variances from development standards. 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 the project has been designed and conditioned such that there are no conflicts with established easements. 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 structures are oriented to allow for solar exposure and take advantage of prevailing breezes. 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 or wildlife or their habitat, in that the site has been previously disturbed by agricultural activities and no sensitive plant or animal habitats'are present on the site. PC RES0 NO. 5605 -2- 4f4 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. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 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 Pollutant 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 and Specific Plan 203 based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated April 21, 2004 incorporated herein by reference. That the property cannot be served adequately with a public street without panhandle lots due to unfavorable conditions resulting from unusual topography, surrounding land development, or lot configuration, in that the use of a public street results in an unfavorable cross slope condition for a public street design and the depth of the property would create lots exceeding the 3:l lot depth to width ratio. That subdivision with panhandle lots will not preclude or adversely affect the ability to provide full public street access to other properties within the same block of the subject property, in that no other properties are proposed to be served by the development where the panhandle lots are proposed as the panhandle lots are adjacent to a circulation element roadway (Poinsettia Lane). That the buildable portion of the lot consists of the entire lot exclusive of any portion of the lot less than thirty-five feet in width that is used for access to the lot and areas not subject to required setbacks which meets the requirements of Section 21.10.080(c) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The front yards for Lots 8 and 9 are determined to be from the easterly and westerly property lines of each lot respectively. That any panhandle lot hereby approved satisfies all the requirements of Section 2 1.1 O.OSO(d) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 20 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 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 Carlsbad Unified School District that the project has satisfied its obligation for school facilities. PC RES0 NO. 5605 -3- 45 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 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. b. c. Park-in-lieu fees are required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 20.44, and will be collected prior to issuance of building permit. 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 project has been conditioned to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to Chapter 2 1.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project. This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 20. That the project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual (Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 14.28.020 and Landscape Manual Section I B). That all necessary public facilities required by the Growth Management Ordinance will be constructed or are guaranteed to be constructed concurrently with the need for them created by this project and in compliance with adopted City standards. , 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 recordation or issuance of 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 Tentative Tract Map. 2. 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. 3. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance. PC RES0 NO. 5605 -4- 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 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 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, and (c) Developer/Operator’s installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation survives until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City’s approval is not validated. Developer shall submit to 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 Carlsbad Unified School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to provide school facilities. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required as part of the Zone 20 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. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation and Monitoring Report, ZC 03-08, LCPA 03-09, and CDP 03-37 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5602, 5603,5604 and 5606 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference. Prior to the approval of the final map for any phase of this project, or where a map is not being processed, prior to the issuance of building permits for any lots or units, the Developer shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City to purchase two (2) affordable housing credits in the Villa Lorna housing project in accordance with the requirements and process set forth in Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal PC RES0 NO. 5605 -5- 47 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. 16. Code. The draft Affordable Housing Agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Director no later than 90 days after the California Coastal Commission action on the project. The recorded Affordable Housing Agreement shall be binding on all future owners and successors in interest. 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. Concurrent with the approval of the final map, the Developer shall provide an irrevocable offer of dedication, by separate instrument, to the City of Carlsbad for a trail easement for trail(s) shown on the Conceptual Landscape Plan within the remainder parcel. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the trail shall be constructed as a public trail for public use and accepted by the City of Carlsbad upon adoption of a Citywide Trails Program that includes provisions for maintenance and liability. Otherwise, prior to issuance of any building permits, the obligation for acceptance, construction, maintenance, and liability shall be the responsibility of another agency designated by the City or the responsibility of the Homeowner’s Association. Developer shall provide a minimum of 25 percent of the lots with adequate sideyard area for Recreational Vehicle storage pursuant to City Standards. The CC&Rs shall prohibit the storage of recreational vehicles in the required front yard setback. 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: a. General Enforcement bv the Citv. 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. b. 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. c. Failure of Association to Maintain Common Area Lots and Easements. In the event that the Association fails to maintain the “Common Area Lots and/or the Association’s Easements” as provided in Article , Section the PC RES0 NO. 5605 -6- 48 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 City shall have the right, but not the duty, to perform the necessary maintenance. If the City elects to perform 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. d. Special Assessments Levied by 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 Lut 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 hidher respective Lot for purposes of collecting such special assessment in accordance with the procedures set forth in Article of this Declaration. e. Landscape Maintenance Responsibilities. The HOAs and individual lot or unit owner landscape maintenance responsibilities shall be as set forth in Exhibit 17. 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 or made available to the public shall include but not be limited to trails, future and existing schools, parks and streets. 18. 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. PC RES0 NO. 5605 -7- ’ L/9 1 2 3 4 5 6 c I E S 1c 11 12 13 14 15 It 1; 1E 1s 2c 21 22 23 24 25 26 25 2E 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map or the issuance of building pemiits, 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). 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 Carlsbad Tract Map by Resolution No. 5605 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. Rear home elevations that are fully exposed to a street shall incorporate design elements typical to that architectural style, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, including window shapes, sizes, configurations and surround treatments such as pop-outs, headers, ledges, shutters, window boxes, etc. The noise wall shall be stucco masonry and include pilasters subject to the approval of the Planning director. Developer shall vary the rear building planes of Lots 4 and 6 to be offset from the adjacent units building plane by a minimum of five feet. Lot five shall have a Plan 2B. The Developer shall construct and install landscaping on the remainder parcel with a landscape palette similar to the Cantamar project (CT 93-03), and maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris. Engineering Genera 1 26. 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. 27. 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. 28. There shall be one Final Map recorded for this project. PC RES0 NO. 5605 -8- 50 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 29. Developer shall install sight distance corridors at all public street intersections in accordance with Engineering Standards. FeedAgreements 30. 31. 32. 33. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for recordation the City’s standard form Drainage Hold Harmless Agreement regarding drainage across the adjacent property. 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. Developer shall cause property owner to execute, record and submit a recorded copy to the City Engineer, a deed restriction on the property which relates to the proposed sight distance corridor as shown on the Tentative Map over a portion of Lot 11. The deed restriction document shall be in a form acceptable to the City Engineer and shall: A. Clearly delineate the limits of the sight distance corridor; B. State that the sight distance corridor is to be maintained in perpetuity by the underlying property owner; and C. State that no objects be permitted within the sight distance corridor that restrict, or impede sight distance pursuant to Caltrans and City sight distance standards. Developer shall cause property owner to execute, record and submit a recorded copy to the City Engineer, a deed restriction on the property which relates to the proposed cross lot drainage as shown on the Tentative Map. The deed restriction document shall be in a form acceptable to the City Engineer and shall: A. Clearly delineate the limits of the drainage course; B. State that the drainage course is to be maintained in perpetuity by the underlying property owner; and C. State that all future use of the property along the drainage course will not restrict, impede, divert or otherwise alter drainage flows in a manner that will result in damage to the underlying and adjacent properties or the creation of a public nuisance. Grading 34. 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 PC RES0 NO. 5605 -9- 51 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 35. 36. 37. 38. obtain a grading permit from the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for the project. Developer shall submit for and receive approval for a precise grading permit to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This project shall comply with the City's Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan (SUSMP) during all phases of construction. 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. 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. All grading activities shall be planned in units that can be completed by October 1st. Grading activities shall be limited to the "dry season," April 1st to October 1st of each year. Grading activities may be extended to November 15th and beyond upon written approval of the City Engineer, obtained in advance, and only if all erosion control measures are in place by October 1st. Dedications/Improvements 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. Developer shall cause Owner to grant a private easement for reciprocal access and utility purposes over the panhandle portion of Lots 8 and 9 for their shared-use. The private easement shall be reserved on the final map for the benefit of future owners of Lots 8 and 9. Developer shall cause Owner to dedicate to the City and/or other appropriate entities for all public 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 to the City. 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. On the Final Map, Developer shall cause Owner to waive direct access rights to and from Black Rail Road over Lots 9 and 11. Developer shall execute and record a City standard Subdivision Improvement Agreement PC RES0 NO. 5605 -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 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, signing & striping, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, medians, grading, 'clearing and grubbing, undergrounding or relocation of utilities, storm drain, sewer, water, fire hydrants, street lights, retaining walls and reclaimed water), to City Standards to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The improvements are: a) Full-width street improvements along the frontage of Poinsettia Lane, Black Rail Road and Triton Street including pavement and striping transitions to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Proposed storm drain, sewer and potable water line improvements in Triton Street, including extensions of proposed sewer and storm drain improvements to the west in Poinsettia Lane necessary to serve this project. c) Proposed streetlights along Poinsettia Lane, Black Rail Road and Triton Street. d) Driveway improvements, including transitions necessary to maintain street access for APN 215-070-08 to Triton Street. e) Construct median hardscape, landscape, and irrigation improvements along the frontage of Poinsettia Lane to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. b) 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. 44. 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 ensure pollutant loads are not increased as a result of this development to the maximum extent practicable. Plans for such improvements shall be submitted to and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of the following: A. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and hazardous waste products. B. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil, antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective containers. C. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants PC RES0 NO. 5605 .11- d-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 when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements. 45. 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 City of Carlsbad Requirements. 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: 1. 2. 3. 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 from storm water to the maximum extent practicable before discharging to City right-of-way or natural drainage course. 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. 4. 46. 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 Runoff Management 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: 1. 2. 3. Identify existing and post-development on-site pollutants-of-concern. The hydrologic unit this project contributes to and impaired water bodies that would 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. Establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine clean up. Special considerations and effort shall be applied to resident education on the proper procedures for handling clean up and disposal of pollutants. Ensure long-term maintenance of all post construct BMPs in perpetuity. 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. Provide calculations to ensure that numeric sizing criteria is met. 4. 5. 6. 7. 47. Developer shall install streetlights along all public street frontages abutting and/or within PC RES0 NO. 5605 -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 the subdivision boundary in conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards. 48. Developer shall underground all existing overhead utilities within the subdivision boundary. 49. Prior to approval of the Final Parcel Map, Developer shall contribute pro-rata share of the cost for design and construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of Black Rail Road and Poinsettia Lane. The pro-rata share shall be based upon average daily traffic as determined by a traffic analysis approved by the City Engineer. 50. The existing slope easement granted to the City of Carlsbad per document 1998- 0691665, recorded October 26,1998 shall be quitclaimed per the final map. Final Map Notes 5 1. Developer shall show on Final Map the gross and net developable acres for each parcel. 52. Notes to the following effects shall be placed on the map as non-mapping data: A. Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the appropriate agency determines that sewer and water facilities are available. B. 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 corridors. C. Portion of Lots 8 and 9 is encumbered by a private reciprocal access and utility easement for the shared benefit of Lots 8 and 9. Water 53. 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. 54. 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. 55. Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall pay all fees, deposits, and charges for connection to public facilities. Developer shall pay the San Dieno County Water Authority capacity charge(s1 prior to issuance of Building Permits. PC RES0 NO. 5605 -13- ' 55 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 56. 57. 58. 59. The Developer shall install potable water and/or recycled water services and meters at a location 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 a location approved by the District Engineer. The locations of sewer laterals shall be reflected on public improvement plans. The Developer shall design and construct public water, 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 services and meters for each lot. Code Reminders: 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 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. 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. The tentative map shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date this tentative map approval becomes final. The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code. Premise identification (addresses) shall be provided consistent with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 18.04.320. Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance with the City’s Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval of the Planning Director prior to installation of such signs. Developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The Average Daily Trips (ADT) and floor area contained in the staff report and shown on the Tentative Map are for planning purposes only. Developer shall pay traffic impact and sewer impact fees based on Section 18.42 and Section 13.10 of the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code, respectively. PC RES0 NO. 5605 -14- 3-6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “impositim” 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 fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified feedexactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any 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 21st day of April 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson White, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, and Whitton NOES: Commissioner Segall ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MELISSA WHITE, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: 8 MICHAEL J. HOL%ILL& Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5605 -15- 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 s 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5606 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING 37 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF POINSETTIA LANE AND BLACK RAIL ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20. CASE NAME: BLACK RAIL RIDGE APPROVAL OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CDP 03- CASE NO.: CDP 03-37 WHEREAS, Pacific Coast Development, “Developer,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Norman G. Gallagher and Laird and Catherine Ann Cameron, “Owners,” described as The north half of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 22, Township 12 south, Range 4 west, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to the official plat thereof (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Coastal Development Permit as shown on Exhibits “A” - “S” dated April 21, 2004, on file in the Planning Department, BLACK RAIL RIDGE - CDP 03-37 as provided by Chapter 2 1.201.040 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 21st day of April 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 all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the CDP NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: 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) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of BLACK RAIL RIDGE - CDP 03-37 based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings: 1. 2. 3. 4. That the proposed development is in conformance with the Certified Local Coastal Program and all applicable policies in that the development does not obstruct public views of the coastline as seen from public lands or rights-of-way; erosion will be controlled by grading in conformance with the City’s Standards and restricted to the summer season; no sensitive resources, public access or shoreline access, or water-oriented recreation activities are impacted. The proposal is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act in that the site is located over 1 mile from Batiquitos Lagoon and 1.5 miles from the Pacific Ocean and no coastal access areas or water-oriented recreational activities exist on or near the site. The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.03 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that the project will adhere to the City’s Master Drainage Plan, Grading Ordinance, Storm Water Ordinance, Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) and Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program (JURMP) to avoid increased urban run off, pollutants and soil erosion. No steep slopes or native vegetation is located on the subject property and the site is not located in an area prone to landslides, or susceptible to accelerated erosion, floods or liquefaction. The project complies with the requirements of the Coastal Agricultural Overlay Zone as the project is conditioned to pay the agricultural conversion mitigation fee to develop with other than agricultural uses. Conditions: Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to final map recordation or issuance of 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 Coastal Development Permit. 2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Coastal Development Permit documents, as necessary to make PC RES0 NO. 5606 -2- 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3. 4. 5. 9. 10. 11. 12. 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 or indirectly, from (a) City’s approval and issuance of this Coastal Development Permit, (b) City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non- discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator’s installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation survives until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City’s approval is not validated. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation and Monitoring Report, ZC 03-08, LCPA 03-09, and CT 03-13 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5602, 5603, 5604 and 5605 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference. The applicant shall receive and record a final map for this project within two (2) years of approval or this coastal development permit will expire unless extended per Section 2 1.201.2 10 of the Zoning Ordinance. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall apply for and obtain a grading permit issued by the City Engineer. To offset the conversion of non-prime agricultural land to urban land uses per the requirements of the Mello I1 Local Coastal Program, the applicant shall provide payment of the agricultural mitigation fee, the amount of which shall not be less than $5,000 nor more than $10,000 for each net converted acre of non-prime agricultural land. The amount of the fee shall be determined by the City Council and be paid by the applicant prior to approval of the final map or issuance of any grading permit, whichever occurs first and shall be consistent with the provisions of Carlsbad’s Local Coastal Program. lo PC RES0 NO. 5606 -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 NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as “fees/exactions.” You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these feedexactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified 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. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st day of April 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson White, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, and Whitton NOES: Commissioner Segall ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MELISSA WHITE, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: Planning Director -4- PC RES0 NO. 5606 Ll EXHIBIT 5 The City of Carlsbad Planning Department A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item No. @ P.C. AGENDA OF: April 2 1,2004 Application complete date: December 3, 2003 Project Planner: Van Lynch Project Engineer: Jeremy Riddle SUBJECT: ZC 03-0WLCPA 03-09/CT 03-13/CDP 03-37 - BLACK RAIL FUDGE - Request for a recommendation of approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, a Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment to change the land use designations from Limited Control (L-C) to One-family Residential, 7,500 square foot minimum lot size (R- 1-7,500) on a 3.71 acre property. This request includes a Tentative Tract Map and Coastal Development Permit to create a 12 lot subdivision with 11 residential lots and one open space lot and construct 11 dwelling units on property generally located on the southwest comer of Black Rail Road and Poinsettia Lane in Local Facilities Management Zone 20. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5602, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5603, 5604, 5605 and 5606 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of Zone Change (ZC 03-08), Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 03-09), Tentative Tract Map (CT 03-13) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP 03-37), based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. 11. INTRODUCTION The proposed project is for the creation of an 11-unit single-family residential and one open space lot subdivision and the construction of 11 single family homes on a parcel of land located on the southwest comer of Black Rail Road and Poinsettia Lane. The 11 single-family lots vary in size from 7,600 square feet to 12,300 square feet. The applicant is requesting approval to purchase 2.0 affordable housing credits in the Villa Loma housing project to satisfy the affordable housing requirements of the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The project requires a Zone Change (ZC) and Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) to change the zoning and Local Coastal Program land use designation from L-C to R-1-7,500. In addition, a Tentative Tract Map (CT) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP) are required. The project complies with City standards and all necessary findings can be made for the approvals being requested. The Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment require City Council approval. ZC 03-08/LCPA 03-09/CT 03-13/CDP 03-37 - BLACK RAIL RIDGE April 21,2004 Page 2 111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The 3.71-acre project site is located within the Zone 20 Specific Plan and Local Facilities Management Zone 20. It is bordered to the north by Poinsettia Lane, to the east by the Twin D reservoirs and Redeemer by the Sea church, to the south by single-family residential and small infill type properties, and raw land to the west. The alignment of Poinsettia Lane through the northern portion of the original parcel left a small remainder parcel (3,300 sq ft) onthe north side of Poinsettia Lane. Citywide Trail Segment number 30 will pass through this undeveloped portion. The elevation difference from high point to low is 57 feet. The site has been used for agricultural purposes and presently has an operating container-grown plant nursery. The property does not have any sensitive vegetation or steep slope constraints; all of the site is considered developable. Topographically, the site falls to the west from Black Rail Road. The proposed ZC and LCP designations are necessary to change the Limited Control (L-C) designation of the property to One-family Residential, 7,500 square foot lot size minimum (R-I- 7,500) to implement the Residential Low-Medium (RLM) General Plan designation. As shown on Exhibits “A” through “C,” the 11 residential lots will all be greater than 7,500 square feet and greater than 8,000 square feet for the two panhandle lots. Access to the project site is from Triton Street, which is off Black Rail Road just south of Poinsettia Lane. All of the lots will take access off of Triton Street. Grading for the project will require 4,800 cubic yards of cut, 14,400 cubic yards of fill, and an import of 9,600 cubic yards of material. Most of the imported fill will be located in the northeast portion of the property to raise the grade for Lots 8 through 11 between 7 and 12 feet. The pad elevations of Lots 8 and 9 will be from two to seven feet higher than Black Rail Road and Poinsettia respectively. Lots along Triton Street will be near the elevation of the street. Of the 11 units, two are single-story. Two different floor plans are proposed: Plan One is a single-story with 2,503 square feet with three bedrooms and 2.50 baths; Plan Two is 3,508 square feet with four bedrooms and 3.0 bathrooms. Plan One provides a two-car garage and separate single-car garage. Plan Two provides a two-car garage with a tandem third garage space. All of the unit’s architectural style is Spanish building materials consisting of stucco walls with concrete s-shaped tiles. Plan One provides an entry courtyard, while Plan Two has a front porch as part of the entry to the home. There are a variety of roof plans that provide tower elements, different roof heights, hips and gables. Each plan has one chimney. Garages are oriented to the street and each plan has a two-car garage door. IV. ANALYSIS The project is subject to the following plans, ordinances and standards: A. B. C. Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM) General Plan Land Use Designation; R-1 One Family Residential Zone Regulation; Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 203); ZC 03-08/LCPA 03-09/CT 03-13/CDP 03-37 - BLACK RAIL RIDGE April 21,2004 Page 3 PROPOSED USES & IMPROVEMENTS D. E. F. G. H. 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. Mello 11 Segment of the Local Coastal Program, the Coastal Agriculture Overlay Zone, and the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone; Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code); Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 2 1.85); Policy 44 and 66; and Growth Management Regulations (Local Facilities Management Zone 20). COMPLY ? A. General Plan The purchase of 2.0 affordable housing credits in Villa Lorna. The project includes a fire hydrant. Project will conform to all NPDES requirements. Project is conditioned to mitigate noise and disclose noise generated by Poinsettia Lane and Palomar Airport. Project will provide roadway improvements including Triton Street and frontage improvements for Black Rail Road The General Plan designation for the project site is Residential Low-Medium (RLM). The surrounding properties in Zone 20 are General Plan designated RLM as shown on the attached Exhibit “X.” This designation allows single-family residential development at a range of 0-4 dwelling units per acre (ddac). The RLM range has a Growth Control Point of 3.2 ddac. The density of the proposed single-family subdivision is 3.0 ddac. The project complies with all elements of the General Plan as illustrated in Table A below: Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ELEMENT Land Use Housing Public Safety Open Space & Conservation Noise Circulation Table A - GENERAL PLAP USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL, OBJECTIVE OR PROGRAM Site is designated for Residential Low-Medium at 3.2 ddac. Provision of affordable housing To require a minimum fire flow of water for fire Protection Utilize Best Management Practices for control of storm water and to protect water quality Residential exterior noise standard of 60 CNEL and interior noise standard of 45 CNEL Require new development to construct roadway improvements needed to serve proposed development COMPLIANCE I Yes Single-family lots at 3.0 ddac. ZC 03-0WLCPA 03-09/CT 03-13/CDP 03-37 - BLACK RAIL RIDGE April 2 1,2004 Page 4 Standard Min. Lot Size: 7,500 sq. ft./8,000 sq ft for panhandle lots Min. Lot Width: 60 Feet Building Height: 30 feet maximum B. R-1-7,500 Regulation Proposed .’ Compliance 7,730 sq. ft. - 12,250 sq. ft./ 10,560 Yes and 12,3 10 sq ft for panhandles 60 feet Yes Tallest model is 25’ 6” to the peak of Yes the Pitched roof The project site, part of a County island annexed in 1987, is currently zoned Limited Control (L- C). The L-C zone designation is given to annexed properties and is an interim zone for areas where planning for future land uses has not been completed nor have plans of development formalized. Proposed as part of the project is a zone change from L-C to R-1-7,500. This will result in the zoning for the site being consistent with the General Plan Land Use designations of RLM. The proposed zone is also compatible with the existing adjacent residentially zoned properties and probable future residential zones of the adjacent R-1-7,500 and L-C zoned properties as shown on the attached Exhibit “X.” ~ Front Yard Setback: 20 feet Front yards vary from 20-foot minimum minimum to 39 feet Rear Yard Setback: 20 percent Rear yards meet or exceed 20 percent of lot width minimum of lot width Side Yard Setback: 10 percent of Side yards meet or exceed 10 percent lot width minimum of lot width reauirement Yes Yes Yes The proposed project meets or exceeds all applicable requirements of the R-1-7,500 Zone as demonstrated in Table B below. Lot Coverage: 40 percent maximum for each lot Dwelling Unit Width: 20 feet minimum Lot coverage maximum is 37 percent Units measure between 50 and 60 feet wide Yes Yes C. Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 203) The project is within an area subject to the Zone 20 Specific Plan. The Zone 20 Specific Plan provides a framework for the development of the vacant properties within Zone 20 to ensure the logical and efficient provision of public facilities and community amenities for the future residents of Zone 20. The project complies with the following requirements of the Specific Plan as demonstrated in Table C below. ZC 03-0WLCPA 03-09/CT 03-13/CDP 03-37 - BLACK RAIL RIDGE April 2 1,2004 Page 5 REQUIRED Grading prohibited between Oct. 1 and April 1 Three conversion options uermitted R- 1 Table C: ZONE 20 SPECIFIC PLAN REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED Grading limitation included as CDP condition Payment of Agricultural Conversion Mitigation Fee R-1-7,500 STANDARD Required Zoning Local Coastal Plan Grading Reauirement s All required land or easements shall be dedicated to the City Construct required trails identified on the citywide plan LCP Agricultural Conversion Street right-of-way and easement dedications proposed Project will construct portion of Trail Segment 30. (+ 100 feet) on the north side of Poinsettia Lane Dedications Trail System Affordable Housing RV parking 15% of the units must be provided as affordable units 25% of lots with adequate sideyards to accommodate RV parking Project will purchase 2.0 affordable housing credits in Villa Loma Three (3) lots could accommodate RV parking in the sideyard The Zone 20 Specific Plan includes architectural standards. These standards are redundant to the City’s Policy 44 Architectural Guidelines. Please refer to Section G below for the discussion on the projects compliance with the architectural standards. D. Local Coastal Program The project site is located within Site III of the Mello I1 Segment of the Local Coastal Program. Development of the project site is also subject to, and consistent with, the requirements of the Coastal Agriculture Overlay Zone and the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone. Approval of a Coastal Development Permit is required for the project. One of the primary requirements of the applicable coastal regulations pertains to the conversion of agricultural land to urban use. The project has been conditioned to ensure the payment of an agricultural conversion mitigation fee, which will mitigate the loss of agricultural resources by preserving or enhancing other important coastal resources. The grading restrictions that apply in the coastal zone are proposed as conditions of the Coastal Development Permit. The project site does not have any sensitive coastal resources in the form of slopes over 25% or native vegetation. The development does not obstruct views of the coastline as seen from public lands or from the public right-of-way. The Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) is required to implement the proposed zone change from L-C to R-1-7,500. The LCPA will result in the zoning and coastal land use designations for the site to be consistent. One comment regarding future utility service and future road extension of Triton Way was received during the required six-week LCPA public notice. ZC 03-08/LCPA 03-09/CT 03-131CDP 03-37 - BLACK RAIL FUDGE April 21,2004 Page 6 Guideline 1. Fifteen percent of homes single story. 2. A Maximum of 20% not required to have single story edge 3. Sixty-five percent shall have a single story edge or courtyard 4. Sixty-six percent of homes shall have four street side building Dlanes E. Subdivision Ordinance Proposed Complies? Two units (1 1 x .15 = 1.65) All units comply with single story edge requirement Sixty-six percent of units have single story edge andor courtyard 82% of homes have at least four building planes on street side Yes Yes Yes Yes The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed project and has concluded that the subdivision complies with all applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. All major subdivision design criteria have been complied with including the minimum lot depth of 90 feet, provision of public access, required street frontage, and minimum lot area. The project is consistent with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan and Title 21. It is also compatible with surrounding land uses. The proposed R-l-7,500 Zone requires a minimum 7,500 square foot lot size and that panhandle lots have an area of 8,000 square feet. The panhandIe lots are required as standard lots would be too deep and would exceed the 3:l lot length to width ratio. The lots back up to Poinsettia Lane and no access would be allowed to the lots from that roadway. Each of the proposed lots exceeds the minimum requirement. The developer will be required to offer various dedications (e.g., drainage easements, street right- of-way) and will be required to install street and utility improvements, including but not limited to, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, sewer facilities, drainage facilities, fire hydrants, and street lights. The grading for the project requires an import of 9,600 cubic yards of material. F. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance The City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (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 2.0 dwelling units. The applicant is requesting to purchase 2.0 affordable housing credits in the Villa Lorna housing project to satisfy the project’s affordable housing requirements. The City’s Housing Committee has approved the request to purchase affordable housing credits. G. Policy 44 - Architectural Design Guidelines and Policy 66 - Livable Neighborhoods The proposed architectural elevations comply with City Council Policies 44 and 66 regarding architectural design and livable neighborhoods as shown in Table D below. Table D: ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES 67 ZC 03-08/LCPA 03-09/CT 03-13/CDP 03-37 - BLACK RAIL RIDGE April 21,2004 Page 7 Guideline 5. Sixty-six percent of homes shall have rear elevations with four building planes 6. Sixty-six percent of homes shall have a minimum sideyard Table D: ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES. CONT’D Proposed 82% of homes have at least four rear building planes All homes have sideyard average of 8.5 feet or greater average of 8.5 feet 7. Sixty-six percent of homes shall have recessed or projected windows More than sixty-six percent have recessed windows 8. Fifty percent of homes shall have a covered porch, open courtyard, or balcony (min 60 sq ft) in front of home. 9. Varity of roof ridges and heights All homes have either courtyard or covered porch (min 60 sq ft) in front Varied roof heights and ridges provided 10. Seventy-five percent of homes must have front entry visible from All homes have visible front entry Complies? Yes 11. Three different floor plans for projects over 30 12. Chimney in scale with home. Yes Project is less than 30 units - Two provided Chimney in scale with home Yes 13. Four design elements incorporated into front of home Yes Homes have arched elements, towers, varied window shapes, wood elements, Yes Varied and articulated facade with I Varied and articulated facade with Yes Yes Yes identifiable entries and porches Garages side-, front-, alley-loaded Yes identifiable entries and porches Front and side loaded garages and no Yes Yes or recessed Street interconnectivity Parkways Pedestrian walkways more than two doors visible Project not of scale to provide interconnectivity Project provides parkway and street trees Project provides sidewalks and a portion of the citywide trail system along Poinsettia Lane Not applicable Yes Yes Centralized Community recreation Zone 20 Specific Plan - Poinsettia Park Yes ZC 03-08/LCPA 03-09/CT 03-13/CDP 03-37 - BLACK RAIL FUDGE April 2 1,2004 Pane 8 STANDARD City Administration Library Waste Water Treatment H. Growth Management IMPACTS COMPLIANCE 38.2 sq. ft. Yes 20.4 sq. ft. Yes 11 EDU Yes The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 20 in the southwest quadrant of the City. The impacts on public facilities created by the project, and its compliance with the adopted performance standards, are summarized in Table E below. 1 Parks Drainage Circulation Fire Open Space Schools .OS acre Yes Basin D Yes 110ADT Yes Station No. 4 Yes 0 acres N/A Carlsbad Unified Yes Sewer Collection System 3 elementary students 2 junior high students 2 high school students 11 EDU Yes I Water I 2420 GPD I Yes I The proposed project is at the Growth Management dwelling unit allowance of 11 dwelling units (3.0 units per acre). V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff has conducted an environmental impact assessment to determine if the project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Ordinance (Title 19) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. A potentially significant environmental impact was identified for noise and residual agricultural pesticides. The developer has agreed to mitigation measures to reduce the identified impacts to below a level of significance in accordance with CEQA. In consideration of the foregoing, a Notice of Intent to Issue a Negative Declaration was posted on January 27, 2004. No public comments were received during the 30-day public review period. ZC 03-0WLCPA 03-09/CT 03-13/CDP 03-37 - BLACK RAIL RIDGE April 2 1,2004 Page 9 ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. VL:bd Planning Commission Resolution No. 5602 (Mit. Neg. Dec.) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5603 (ZC) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5604 (LCPA) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5605 (CT) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5606 (CDP) Location Map Background Data Sheet Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form Disclosure Statement Reduced Exhibit Full Size Exhibits “A” - “S” dated April 2 1, 2004 BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: ZC 03-08/LCPA 03-09/CT 03-13/CDP 03-37 CASE NAME: BLACK RAIL RIDGE APPLICANT: Pacific Coast Development REQUEST AND LOCATION: 11 unit single-family dwelling __ proiect located on the southwest comer of Poinsettia Lane and Black Rail Road. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The north half of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 22. Township 12 south, Range 4 west, San Bemardino Base and Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad. County of San Diego, State of California. according to the official plat thereof. APN: 215-070-33-00 Acres: 3.71 Proposed No. of LotsKJnits: 12/11 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONIPU’G Land Use Designation: Residential Low-Medium (RLM) Density Allowed: 3.2 Existing Zone: Limited Control (LC) Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use: Density Proposed: 3.0 Proposed Zone: R-1-7,500 Zoning Site LC North R-1 South R-l/LC General Plan RLM Current Land Use Nursery RLM Poinsettia Lanemesidential RLM East R- 1 RLM West LC RLM Residential Church/Twin D tanks Vacant PUBLIC FACILITIES School District: Carlsbad Unified Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 11 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Mitigated Negative Declaration, issued January 27,2004 Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated 0 c] Other, CITY OF CARLSBAD 3 elementary students 2 junior high students GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM 2 high school students PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT: FILE NAME AND NO: BLACK RAIL RIDGE - ZC 03-08/LCPA 03-09/CT 03-13/CDP 03-37 LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 20 GENERAL PLAN: RLM ZONING: Limited Control (LC) DEVELOPER’S NAME: Brett Shaves, Pacific Coast Development ADDRESS: 567 San Nicolas Dr, Ste 130, Newport Beach CA 92660 PHONE NO.: /949) 759-7720 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 215-070-33-00 QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 3.71 Ac ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: ASAP A. B. c- D. E. F. G. H. I. City Administrative Facilities: Library: Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) Park: Demand in Acreage = Drainage: Demand in CFS = Demand in Square Footage = Demand in Square Footage = Identify Drainage Basin = Circulation: Demand in ADT = Fire: Open Space: Acreage Provided = Schools: Served by Fire Station No. = 38.2 20.4 11 EDU .OS 6.2 Basin D 110 4 0 (N/A) J. Sewer: Demands in EDU 11 Identify Sub Basin = 20B (BuendVallecitos) K. Water: Demand in GPD = 2420 L. The project at the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance. (3.0ddac - 11 du proposed3.2 du/ac - 1 1.8 du allowed) - City of Carlsbad DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant’s statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee. 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, corpmtion, 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 m’the application. If the applicant includes a cornoration or uartnership, include the - names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF. NO APPLICABLE (WA) M THE SPACE BELOW If a publiclv-owned cornoration, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON- necessary.) Person Brett Shaves Title President Addresst 130 OWNER (Not the owner’s agent) Newport Beach, CA 92660 2. CorpRart Pacific Coast Developmed Title Address 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 cornoration or uartnershiu, 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 cornoration, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) 73 1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad. CA 92008-731 4 - (760) 602-4600 - FAX (760) 602-8559 @ 3. NON-PROFIT OhGANIZATION OR TRUST If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonmofit 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 Profinrust Non ProfitiTrust 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 (12) months? [7 Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s): NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. e above information is true and cone Norm Gallaqher Brett Shaves Print or type name of applicant Signature of owner/applicant’s agent if applicable/date ----- - Print or type name of owner/applicant’s agent H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98 7cI Page 2 of 2 a I TT i 51 2 2 d d a f a a B h H d H : 1 4 1 1 i e s 3 , 3 : ‘I - 3 \ f 2 cy> 78 80 f CA I L I a- 83 - i i i . - L C L C < 84 f * i 5 1 E c c t L t E I 1 I 85 t eo . n t 1 z-P 1 w L 7.d I I f .o-r M L 88 7 89 90 0 0 c, 0 a, 0 -- a. I :I E + rA x + S O - a I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I a, i 4 B a 93 Planning Commission Minutes 8. ZC 03-0WLCPA 03-09KT 03-13KDP 03-37 - BLACK RAIL RIDGE - Request for a recommendation of approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, a Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment to change the land use designations from Limited Control (L-C) to One-family Residential, 7,500 square foot minimum lot size (R-1-7,500) on a 3.71 acre property. This request includes a Tentative Tract Map and Coastal Development Permit to create a 12-lot subdivision with 11 residential lots and one open space lot and construct 11 dwelling units on property generally located on the southwest corner of Black Rail Road and Poinsettia Lane in Local Facilities Management Zone 20. Mr. Neu introduced Item 8 and stated Senior Planner Van Lynch will make the staff report. Chairperson White opened the public hearing on Item 8. Mr. Lynch stated the project is a Zone Change, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Tract Map, and Coastal Development Permit for an 11 lot residential subdivision and one open space lot. The project site is located on the southwest corner of Black Rail Road and Poinsettia Lane. The project will extend Triton Way from Black Rail Road westerly and includes a portion of the pedestrian trail on the north side of Poinsettia Lane. The project has only two floor plans. Mr. Lynch directed the Commission to the Power Point presentation. The proposed Zone Change is from Limited Control to R-1-7,500 which is consistent with the General Plan. The open space easement will be placed on the open space lot. The project is in the Coastal Zone and the Local Coastal Program will be amended to bring the coastal zoning maps and land use maps into conformance. Mr. Lynch stated the project meets all requirements and staff recommends approval of the project. Chairperson White stated the Commission received the errata sheet for the project and asked if there are any questions of staff. Commissioner Whitton asked about the grading plan and if there is going to be fill to the extent that the existing homes are on one level and the new homes on another, much higher level? Mr. Lynch replied that the homes that face onto Triton Way will be pretty much at-grade with Triton Way and will not be raised in elevation. Lots 8 and 9 will be raised somewhat in order to sewer out onto Triton Way. Commissioner Whitton asked who will be responsible for maintaining the road to the two panhandle lots. Mr. Lynch stated that will be the responsibility of the two homeowners and not the responsibility of the homeowners association. Commissioner Baker commented that the staff report stated 14,000 cubic yards of fill and asked if it is going to Lots 8 and 9. Mr. Lynch replied that is correct. Lot 8 is approximately 7 feet higher than Poinsettia Lane, Lot 9 is 4 feet higher than Poinsettia Lane and the rest of the lots are actually lower than Poinsettia Lane. Commissioner Baker asked if that would be for the extension of Triton Way. Mr. Lynch replied that Triton Way would follow roughly the existing topography. Commissioner Baker expressed her concern about the existing homes to the south and the roadway transition. Mr. Lynch stated that the new road will follow roughly the same area where there is currently a dirt road and it should transition pretty smoothly. 94 Planning Commission Minutes April 21,2004 Page 15 Commissioner Segall inquired about the elevations relevant to Poinsettia Lane. He also inquired about Policy 44 and how many floor plans are required. Mr. Lynch stated that under Policy 44 projects over 30 units require at least 3 floor plans. Since this project is under 30 units, it does not require more than 2 floor plans. A discussion was held regarding rear elevations. Commissioner Montgomery inquired about what type of treatments the developer is proposing for the wall that will screen the side elevation from Poinsettia Lane. Mr. Lynch stated the wall will be a masonry stucco wall with pilasters along the wall to give it some relief. He further said that staff can condition the project to be similar to other projects in the area if the Commission desired. Chairperson White asked if the applicant can address the possibility of Lots 1, 2, 4 and 5 so that maybe at least two of the four lots could be in Plan B so that there is not a run of lots that are Plan 2 with Elevation A and C. Chairperson White asked if the applicant would like to make a presentation. Dennis Cunningham, from Cunningham Consulting at 5835 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, representing the applicant and stated he didn’t really have a presentation but would be available for questions. Brett Shaves, 567 San Nicolas Dr, Newport Beach, CA, (the applicant) is in agreement with all the conditions of the project. Chairperson White asked if the applicant would consider breaking up the rear elevations. Mr. Shaves stated that Lot 3 is a single story which breaks up the first 5 lots along Poinsettia in addition to the fact that the sites are significantly below grade. With the wall along Poinsettia and the landscaped setback, only the rooftops of the homes would be visible. A discussion was held regarding rear elevations. Chairperson White stated her concerns with the same elevations within the run of those lots. Commissioner W hitton reiterated Chairperson White’s concern. Commissioner Segall stated he cannot support the project with the existing rear elevations. He would like the integrity of the front elevations to be carried around to the rear elevations. Commissioner Heineman pointed out that the plan, as it currently is, makes the houses look like a lineup of row houses and would like that to be taken into consideration as well. Dennis Cunningham stated that he is willing to work with the Commission. Chairperson White opened public testimony. Michael Cardosa, 6579 Black Rail Road, Carlsbad, is in favor of the proposed project. The project appears to fit in with the other projects in the area. He is concerned with the Tentative Tract Map and sewer capacity, street lights and elevations. He believes the developers can get creative with the various materials so that the houses do not look like row houses. Seeing no one wishing to testify, Chairperson White closed Public Testimony. Mr. Wojcik responded to Mr. Cardosa’s concerns regarding street lights and the sewer capacity. He stated that staff can look into the issue of the street light. Also, staff takes into consideration how new Planning Commission Minutes April 21,2004 Page 16 developments fit into existing developments. Mr. Wojcik stated that staff has already addressed the issue of sewer capacity for this development as well as the adjoining properties. Commissioner Baker asked if the streetlight cannot be moved, could it at least be shielded. Mr. Wojcik stated that shields can be placed on the street light so that it would impact Mr. Cardosa’s house less. Commissioner Montgomery asked Mr. Wojcik if one or two of the houses in the project can be conditioned to offset the front and backyard setbacks. Mr. Wojcik stated that is a Planning issue and not an Engineering condition, however there doesn’t appear to be any Engineering concerns that would prohibit a shift in the setbacks. Mr. Lynch stated that the project can be conditioned as such. Chairperson White asked for each Commissioner to express their feeling about the projects and then the applicant can respond. Commissioner Segall stated he cannot support the project as it is, due to the rear elevations. He suggested the applicant return at a later time with new rear elevations at which point he would then take a look at it. He suggested that the project be continued. Commissioner Montgomery expressed his concern with the street scene and that the elevations should be varied more as stated previously. He would support the project. Commissioner Baker expressed the need to be consistent with the rear elevations on the projects brought forward to the Planning Commission. She does not feel the project needs to be continued tonight and that some sort of agreement can be reached tonight, or maybe condition the project so that it is approved subject to the Planning Director’s approval. Commissioner Dominguez agreed with Commissioner Baker in regards to the rear elevation enhancements. He hopes the applicant would accommodate some of the Commission’s concerns. Commissioner Heineman agreed with the other Commissioners. He feels some changes can be made tonight that would make the project acceptable without having to continue the project. Commissioner Whitton felt there is no choice but to insist that the rear elevations are changed. He felt some changes can be made as to how the houses are situated on some lots or what houses are on which lots. Since this is a small project he feels this can be accommodated rather easily. He stated it could be resolved with the approval subject to the Planning Director. Chairperson White stated she would rather not continue the project and asked the applicant what he is willing to do. Mr. Shaves stated he is in agreement with the proposed changes and having the project approved with the condition of obtaining the Planning Director’s approval. Chairperson White stated that is not specific enough; that the applicant needs to be more specific on what they are willing to do. Mr. Shaves stated he is willing to add another Plan B within Lots 1, 2, 4 and 5 so that are two Plan Bs. Commissioner Montgomery expressed his concerns with Lots 4 and 5 which have similar setbacks. Lot 4 would be easier to shift the setbacks according to the Engineering Department. Lots 6 and 7 and Lots 10 and 11 are also similar as far as setbacks. Lots 4 and 5 need to have another Plan B as well as somewhere between Lots 6 and 7 and Lots 10 and 1 1. Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 2004 Page 17 Commissioner Segall stated that even though those changes could be made, the rear elevations are still the same. He still cannot support the project if only those changes are made. Mr. Shaves stated the problem with adding more enhancements to the rear elevations is because of the style of architecture of the homes. Commissioner Heineman commented on the lack of planes in the project and that it has a very flat rear elevation. Commissioner Segall again expressed his frustration with the project and the rear elevations. Chairperson White asked the Commissioners to state his or her opinion as to whether or not the project should be continued. Commissioner Segall responded by asking for a continuance until the project meets the Commissions satisfaction as opposed to the Planning Director’s approval. Commissioner Montgomery expressed that he wanted the project to continue and have the Planning Director allow any additional changes to Plans A or C. Commissioner Baker stated she would like to resolve the issues at the meeting. Commissioner Dominguez requested the Commission ask for the modifications and leave it to the discretion of the Planning Director. Commissioner Heineman agreed with Commissioner Dominguez. Commissioner Whitton expressed the biggest problem with the project was rear elevations. If the rear elevations can be modified, the project can be approved by the Commission instead of by the Planning Director. Chairperson White stated she would like to come to some sort of agreement during the meeting. She would like to see the project conditioned with some of the items discussed. She further stated she would like one of the conditions to address the rear elevations by adding some minor cosmetic changes and be subject to the Planning Director’s approval. Dennis Cunnigham stated he would work with staff and with Mr. Holzmiller to address the issues brought up during the discussion. Mr. Lynch summarized the proposed modifications to the project. He stated the rear planes of the homes would be varied by a 5-foot offset for Lots and 4 and 6; Lot 5 would be a Plan 6; and, the noise wall would be a stucco masonry unit including pilasters and subject to the Planning Director’s approval. He further stated the conditions regarding rear elevations used on previous applications. MOTION ACTION : Motion by Commissioner Whitton, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 5602, recommending adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5603, 5604,5605 and 5606 recommending approval of Zone Change (ZC 03-08), Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 03-09), Tentative Tract Map (CT 03-13) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP 03-37), based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein as amended and contained in the errata sheet. Chairperson White, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, and Whitton VOTE: 6- 1 AYES: NOES: Commissioner Segall 97 Black Rail RidgeZC 03-08/LCPA 03-09/CT 03-13CDP 03-37 Location MapPOINSETTIALNBLACK RAIL RD ORCHIDIACORTESITEMARITIMEDRMARTINGALECTREGATTA RDB R IG A N T IN E DRFISHERMANDR Location Project Description11 unit residential subdivisionOne open space lotExtension of Triton WayPedestrian trail Project FeaturesR-1 standards for lot area and lot widthMinimum lot size is 8,000 square feetTwo panhandle lots exceed the minimum lot area of 8,000 sq. ft.Average lot area of residential lots is 9,086 sq. ft. Subdivision DesignAccess via Triton Way from Black Rail Road60’ R.O.W. street width (40’ curb to curb) with parkwayLots meet minimum lot width and depth ZoningProposed change from Limited Control to R-1-7,500Consistent with General Plan RLM designationProject density is 3.0 du/ac, where 3.2 du/ac is the growth control pointOpen space easement will be placed on the open space lot Local Coastal ProgramAmendment to bring coastal zoning and land use maps into compliance Zone 20 Specific PlanCompliant with Zone 20 Specific Plan and Local Coastal ProgramRLM land use designationConditioned to pay Agricultural Mitigation fees Inclusionary HousingPurchase of 2 units within the Villa Loma project Mitigated Negative DeclarationSoil conditionsNoise assessmentsNotice regarding aircraft impacts RecommendationThat the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and approve ZC 03-08, LCPA 03-13, CT 03-13, and CDP 03-37.