HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-08-10; City Council; 17755; Carlsbad Family HousingAB# 17,755 m,:
CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING
MTG. 8/10/04 GPA 02-05/ZC 02-06ISDP 02-13/SUP 02-09
DEPT. PLN#
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
DEPT. HD. @%
CITY ATTY.
CITY MGR
That the Council INTRODUCE Ordinance No. , APPROVING Zone Change ZC
02-06, and ADOPT Resolution No. 2004-271 ADOPTING a Negative Declaration, and
APPROVING General Plan Amendment GPA 02-05, Site Development Plan SDP 02-1 3, and Special
Use Permit SUP 02-09.
NS-715
Administrative Reviewed by and
Approvals Final at Planning
Commission
ptlvt: Declaration
To be Reviewed -
Final at Council
N ec - "- .- X
X I
On July 7, 2004, the Planning Commission recommended approval (5-0) of a combined 56-unit
inclusionary apartment project located on the southeast corner of El Camino Real and Cassia Road.
The combined project is not proposed to satisfy the inclusionary housing requirement of any pending
project. The proposed development requires a General Plan Amendment to change the land use
from Residential Low Medium (RLM) to Residential High (RH) density and a Zone Change to rezone
the property from Exclusive Agriculture (E-A) to Residential Density - Multiple (RD-M) to implement
the proposed RH General Plan land use designation. The applicant is requesting an 11% density
increase above the RH growth control point as an incentive to providing affordable housing units.
The proposed land use change and density increase require a total allocation of 51 units from the
City's excess dwelling unit bank. The applicant is also requesting two deviations to the El Camino
Real Corridor Standards, and the necessary findings to allow the deviations can be made.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
Staff 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. No potentially significant
environmental impacts were identified; therefore, the Planning Director issued a Notice of Intent to
adopt a Negative Declaration on June 21, 2004.
FISCAL IMPACT:
All public infrastucture required by the project would be funded by the developer. The applicant is
requesting financial assistance from the City; however, the amount of any approved subsidy is
unknown at this time. The fiscal impact resulting from the project will be addressed by a separate
agenda bill at a later date.
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 17,755
Facilities Zone
Local Facilities Management Plan
Growth Control Point
Net Density
Special Facility Fee
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STATUS:
10
10
19 du/acre
21 du/acre
None
EXHIBITS:
I. City Council Ordinance No. ' NS-715
3. Location Map
4.
5.
6.
2. City Council Resolution No. 2004-271
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5672, 5666, 5667, 5668, and 5669
Planning Commission Staff Report, dated July 7, 2004
Draft Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes, dated July 7, 2004.
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Anne Hysong, (760) 602-4622; ahyso@ci.carlsbad.ca.us
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
le
li
1E
1s
2c
21
2;
2:
2L
25
2t
2;
21
ORDINANCE NO. NS-715
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
EXCLUSIVE AGRICULTURE (E-A) TO RESIDENTIAL DENSITY - MULTIPLE (RD-M) ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL AND
CASSIA ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE
10.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING
CASE NO.: ZC 02-06
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 02-06” 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 5667 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 approved by the California Coastal Commission.)
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
.?
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
25
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City
Council on the 10th day of Aucrust 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)
-2-
PROPERTY ZONE CHANGE
Property: From:
A. 21 5-021 -06 E-A
ZC: 02-06
JULY 7,2004
draft final 0
To: Council Approval Date:
RD-M Ordinance No:
Effective Date:
Signature:
-
Project Name: Carlsbad Family Housing I Related Case File No(s):
Legal Description(s): GPA 02-05/SDP 02-13/SUP 02-09
All that portion of fractional northeast quarter of southwest
quarter of Section 23, Township 12 South, Range 4 West,
San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County
of San Diego, State of California, according to the official
plat thereof.
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. 2004-271
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP TO CHANGE THE LAND USE
DESIGNATION FROM RLM TO RH, ZONE CHANGE TO
DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO
CONSTRUCT 56 AFFORDABLE APARTMENT UNITS ON A 2.66
ACRE PARCEL GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL AND CASSIA ROAD IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE IO.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING
REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM E-A TO RD-M, AND SITE
CASE NO.: GPA 02-05/ZC 02-06/SDP 02-1 3/SUP 02-09
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as
follows:
A portion of fractional northeast quarter of southwest quarter of
Section 23, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino
Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on July 7, 2004, hold a duly noticed
public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the Negative Declaration, General Plan
Amendment 02-05 to change the land use designation from RLM to RH, according to Exhibit
“GPA 02-05” attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 5666 and incorporated herein by
reference, Zone Change 02-06 to rezone the property from E-A to RD-M, according to Exhibit
“ZC 02-06” attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 5667 and incorporated herein by
reference, Site Development Plan 02-13 and Special Use Permit 02-09 for a 56 unit affordable
apartment project. The Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolutions No.
5672, 5666, 5667, 5668, and 5669 recommending to the City Council that they be approved;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council did on the 10th day of August , 2004
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the Negative Declaration,
General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Plan, and Special Use Permit;
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
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
factors relating to the Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site
Development Plan, and Special Use Permit.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does
hereby resolved as follows:
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. 5672, 5666, 5667, 5668 and 5669 constitute the findings and
conditions of the City Council in this matter.
3. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval of
General Plan Amendment 02-05 as shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5666 is
hereby accepted, approved in concept, and shall be formally approved with GPA Batch No. 2
comprised of GPA 03-05, GPA 03-08, GPA 03-1 3, GPA 04-01, GPA 04-04, GPA 04-07, GPA
04-08, GPA 04-1 1 and GPA 04-1 3, and the Negative Declaration, Zone Change 02-06, Site
Development Plan 02-13, and Special Use Permit 02-09 are approved as shown in Planning
Commission Resolutions 5672, 5667, 5668, and 5669.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 10th day of Auaust 2004, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Finnila, Kulchin, Hall and Packard
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST: /
(SEAL) J
-2- 7
EXHIBIT 3
SITE
CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING
GPA 02-051ZC 02-06ISDP 02-1 3lSUP 02-09
8
1
3 -
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. 5672
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO APPROVE
A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, SITE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A
56 UNIT AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT LOCATED AT
THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL AND
CASSIA ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 10
CASE NO.: CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING
CASE NAME: GPA 02-05/ZC 02-06/SDP 02- 13/SUP 02-09
WHEREAS, Carlsbad Family Housing Partners, a California Limited
Liability Partnership, “Developer,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad
regarding property owned by Anthony and Dicky Bons, “Owner,” described as
A portion of fractional northeast quarter of southwest quarter
of Section 23, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San
Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of July 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 stafY, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the 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 Negative Declaration.
Exhibit “ND,” according to Exhibits “NOI” dated June 21, 2004, and “PII” dated
June 21, 2004 attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following
findings:
Fin dings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a.
b.
C.
d.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration GPA 02-
OYZC 02-06/SDP 02-13/SUP 02-09 - CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING, the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
the 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
it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PC RES0 NO. 5672 -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 7th day of July 2004, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez,
Heineman, and Montgomery
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Segall
ABSTAIN: None
H. WHITTON, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. H~ZM~~LER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5672 -3 -
- City of Carlsbad
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING
PROJECT LOCATION:
CASE NO: GPA 02-05/ZC 02-06/SDP 02-13/SUP 02-09
Southeast corner of El Camino Real and Cassia Road
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment to
change the land use designation of a 2.66 acre property from RLM to RH and a Zone Change
from the Exclusive Agriculture Zone (E-A) to the Residential Density-Multiple Zone (RD-M) to
allow multiple family units, and a Site Development Plan and Special Use Permit to allow a 56
unit apartment project that is affordable to low income families. The applicant is also requesting
incentives that include an 11% density increase above density permitted by the RH designation
growth control point and deviations to the El Camino Real Corridor, Area 5, front setback and
wall standards. The project complies with applicable City standards and guidelines and
justification for deviations can be made.
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) did not identify any potentially
significant impacts on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration will be
recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad City Council.
A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed 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 20 days of the date of this notice.
The proposed project and 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 Anne
Hysong in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4622.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD June 21,2004 to July 10,2004
PUBLISH DATE June 21,2004
/a
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us January 30,2003
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING
CASE NO: GPA 02-05/ZC 02-06/SDP 02- 13/SUP 02-09
PROJECT LOCATION: Southeast comer of El Camino Real and Cassia Road
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment to change the
land use designation of a 2.66 acre property from RLM to RH and a Zone Change from the Exclusive
Agriculture Zone (E-A) to the Residential Density-Multiple Zone (RD-M) to allow multiple family units,
and a Site Development Plan and Special Use Permit to allow a 56 unit apartment project that is affordable
to low income families. The applicant is also requesting incentives that include an 11% density increase
above density permitted by the RH designation growth control point and deviations to the El Camino Real
Corridor, Area 5, front setback and wall standards. The project complies with applicable City standards and
guidelines and justification for deviations can be made.
DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described
project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the
Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study
(EIA Part 2) did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the environment, and the City of
Carlsbad finds as follows:
IXI
0
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment.
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. (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 further is
required.
A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file
in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.
ADOPTED: , pursuant to Citv Council Resolution No.
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director ii 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
EN\rIRONMENTAL 131PA4CT ASSESS3lEST FOR\I - P.ART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNIXG DEPARTXIENT)
CASE NO: GPA 02-05 ZC 02-06 SDP 02-1 3 SLIP 02-09
DXTE: 06-2 1-04
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Anne Hvsonc. (760) 602-4622
PROJECT LOCATION: The southeast comer of El Camino Real and Cassia Road in Local
Facilities Management Zone 10.
PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: Carlsbad Family Housing Partners. a
California Limited Liability Partnership. 200 E. Washinpton Avenue. Suite 208. Escondido, CA
92026, (760) 738-8401.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Existing: FUM Proposed: RH
ZONING: Existing: E-A Proposed: RD-M
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (Le.. permits, financing
approval or participation agreements): None
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment to change the land use desimation
of a 2.66 acre property from Residential Low-Medium density (RLM) to Residential High
density (RH) and a Zone Change from the Exclusive Agriculture Zone (E-A) to the Residential
Density-Multiple Zone (RD-M) to allow multiple family units, and a Site Development Plan and
El Camino Real Special Use Permit to allow a 56 unit apartment proiect that is affordable to low
income families. The applicant is also requesting incentives that include an 11% density increase
above densitv permitted by the RH designation growth control point and deviations to the El
Camino Real Corridor, Area 5. front setback and wall standards. The relatively flat site is
currently occupied by meen houses and contains no sensitive vegetation. The property. which is
located at the southeast comer of El Camino Real (ECR) and Cassia Road, is bordered to the
north by future Cassia Road, to the west by ECR. to the east by open space that is part of the
Villages of La Costa Master Plan. and to the south by deed restricted open space. The existing
Villa Loma and future Manzanita Apartment proiects are located across ECR on the northwest
and southwest comers of Cassia Road.
1 /4 Rev. Q7lQ3l02
ENVIRONhlENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below Ivould be potentially affected b! this prqect.
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact." or "Potentiall\. Sipificant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the follo~ ing page5.
0 Aesthetics c] Geo1ogy:'Soils [? Noise
Agricultural Resources ' 0 Hazards/Hazardous Materials [7 Population and Housing
0 Air Quality [7 Hydrology!Water Quality 0 Public Srr\.ices
Biological Resources [7 Land Use and Planning [7 Recreation
0 Cultural Resources Mineral Resources 0 TransportationiCirculation
Mandatory Findings of 0 Utilities 6: Service Systems
Significance
2 Rev. 07/03/02
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the en\.ironnient. and a
NEGATI\'E DECLAR4TION nil1 be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environnient. there \\.ill not
be a significant effect in this case because the nutigation measures described on an attached sheet ha1.e been
added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLAIWTIOS \vi11 be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the rnvironnient. and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have "potentially significant inipact(s)" on the environnient. 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 nutigation 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 environnient. 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.
Planner Signature Date Planner Signature
r
Date
Planning Director'sB$pmd! Date 1
3 Rev. 07/03/02
EN\’IRONRIENTAL I3IPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES. Chapter 3. Article 5. Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an En\.ironmr.ntal
Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the en\,iroimient. The En\.ironniental
Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identities an\’ ph!.sical.
biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City \\.it11 intomiation
to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Segative Declamtioii. or
to rely on a previously approved EIR or Segative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except ”No Inipact“ ansivers that are adequatel!. supported by
an infomiation source cited in the parentheses follo\ving each question. A ”No Impact“ anwer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources sholv that the impact simply does not appl\- to
projects like the one imrolved. A “KO Inipact” ans\ver should be esplained \vhen 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 \vhere the incorporation of nlitigation
measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a ”Less Than Significant Inipact.”
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 II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the
environment, but 4 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 nlitigation
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 Inipact” 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
An EIR nlust be prepared if "Potentially Significant Inipact" is checked. and including bur nor Iini~teJ 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 O\wriding
Considerations" for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR: (7)
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 deternline the level of significance for a potentiall!. ad\.erse eft'ecr.
or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentiall). significant effm to belo\\ a
level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the fomi under
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be gi\.en to discussing
mitigation for impacts. which would otherwise be determined significant.
5 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources. including but
not limited to. trees. rock outcroppings. and historic
buildings within a State scenic highway'?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings'?
d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare.
which would adversely affect day or nighttime vieus
in the area?
11. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In detemining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects. lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model- 1997 prepared by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would
the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland. or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
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?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation'!
Potentially Potentiall!. Less Than 10
Significant Significant Significanr ImpaLt
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a El
cl 0 0
0 cl 0 151
0 0 0
0 0 0 [XI
0 0 El
0 0 E3
0 3 0 IXI
0 0 [x1 0
6 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Infomntion Sources). Potentlall!
Significant
lnipact
Potentl&lll!
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for ahich the pr,oject region is
in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions ivhich exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations'?
El
0 14
lsl e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
I\'. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the
project:
a) Ha\re 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?
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'?
cl IXI
[XI 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?
0 0 0 IXI d) lnterfere 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
cl
0
cl
IXI e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance'?
0 IXI
IXI
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan:'
0 0 g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally
sensitive?
7 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources 1.
I\.. CULTUFtAL RESOURCES - IVould the project:
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a historical resource as defined in 4 15061.5?
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of an archeological resource pursuant to # 15064.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature'?
Disturb any human remains. including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
IV. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault'? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking'?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction'?
iv. Landslides?
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil'?
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'?
Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 -
1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use
of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
system where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
8
Potentiall!
Significanl
Inipact
0
0
cl
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potrntlall!
Significant
Lnlrss
Lllt12 "3tiOll
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Infomiation Sources) Potentiall! Potrnriall!
Significant Siynlficaiit
Impact C11lrss
Mltl, "a t 1011
Incorporated
I\-. HAZARDS AVD HAZARDOL'S RIATEFUALS -
Would the project:
0 a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport. use. or
disposal of hazardous materials'?
17 b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
0 0 c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials. substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and. as a result.
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
environment'?
0 0 0 [XI'
0 0 0 Ix1 e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area'?
0 0 f, For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area'?
0 0 g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan'.'
0 0 [XI 0 h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are internixed with
wildlands'?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the
project:
0 0 El [XI a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
Rev. 07/03/02 34 9
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with ground water recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local ground \yarer table
level (Le., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for lvhich pemits
have been granted)'?
c) Inipacts to groundxvater quality'?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site'?
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area. including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the flo~v rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in
a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-
site'?
f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality'?
h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation
map?
i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures,
which would impede or redirect flood flows'?
j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam'?
k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface
waters.
Potentiall!, Potentiall!. Lrss Than \O
Significant Significant Signiticanr Inip~~r
Impact Lnless InlpllJ
\litigation
lncoigorated
0 0 0
0 0 El
0 0 0 [XI
0 0 0 [XI
0 0 0 Ix1
0 0 0 IXI
0 0 0 IxI
0 tz
0 0 0 IXI
0
0
0
0
IXI
IXI
10 Rev. 07/03/02 a3
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentiall! Less Than Sa
IX.
X.
X.
Significant Significant Significant 1
lnipact Cnlrss Impact
lliti= l'ation
Incorporated
m) lncreased pollutant discharges (e.g.. hew.!. metals. 0 0 3 pathogens. petroleum derivatives. synthetic organics,
nutrients. oxygen-demanding substances and trash)
into receiving surface waters or other alteration of
receiving surface Lvater quality (e.g.. temperature.
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)'?
illpact
n) Changes to receivin? \vater quality (marine. fresh or 0 Kl
0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water 0 0 El
wetland ivaters) during or following construction'?
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?
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'?
cl 0 o [XI
0 0 0
0 0 [XI
[XI
0
17 0 0 5
MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 0 5 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 0 0 [XI
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? I
NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels 0 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 0 0 groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise
levels?
11
[XI
0
Rev. 07/03/02
[XI
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than So
Significant Significant Signiilcanr Imp.~-r
lmpac t Unless lnipxt
Xlitigation
Incorporated
c) .4 substantial permanent increase in ambient noise 0 0 0 iz: levels in the project vicinit). above levels existing
without the project?
d) .4 substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing nithout the project'?
G 0
e) For a project located Lvithin an airport land use plan
or, Lvhere 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'?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
0
f)
0 El
0 0 El
X. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly 0
(for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
17
0 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, 0
necessitating the construction of replacement. housing
elsewhere?
0 0 [XI c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered government facilities, a need for
new or physically altered government facilities, the
construction of 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:
o
17
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection'?
0 iii) Schools'?
0 iv) Parks'?
0 v) Other public facilities'?
12 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Infomution Sources)
XI\*. RECFEATIOK
Would the project increase the us,e of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated'!
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. TRAI\'SPORTATION/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
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farni equipment)?
Result in inadequate emergency access'?
Result in insufficient parking capacity?
Conflict with adopted policies, plans. or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.%., 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?
Potentiall!
Significant
Inipact
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
0
0
0
Potentiall!
Significant
Unless
m1= cution
liicorporatrd
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Infomution Sources)
c) Require or result in the construction of ne\$ storm
\\ ater drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities. the construction of \\ hich could cause
significant en\ ironniental effects''
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are ne\\' or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the kvastewater treatment
provider. which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
denland in addition to the provider's existing
comnitments'?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
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
conmunity. reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory'?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable'? ("Cumula-
tively considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past proj.ects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of
' probable future projects'?)
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Potentiall> Less Tlian \O
Sipuficant Significant Signiticm lmpxt
Impact Unless 1nip.m
Incorporated
hlltl, wion
0 0 0
0 0 0 151
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI
0
0
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.
14 Rev. 07/03/02
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify \vhich effects from the above chrckllst \\ er~‘ \\-lthln ri~
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal sta1iti.u A.
and state tvhether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier anal! SI>.
C) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant nith \firigation Incoqwratrd.”
describe the nitigation measures. tvhich \vert incorporated or refined from tht. earlier documenr
and the extent to \vhich they address site-specific conditioiis for the project
15 Rev. 07/03/02
DISCUSSION OF ENVIROSMENTAL E\'ALUATIOS
AESTHETICS - \Yould the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project is located on the east side frontage of El Canino Real (ECR)
and is subject to the regulations of the Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone. as iniplenieiited tliough the El Canuno
Real Corridor Development Standards. El Camino Real is identified as a Conmiunit\. Theme Corridor h!. the Cit!.'s
Scenic Corridor Guidelines. A continuous noise wall is'proposed along the ECR frontage to eiisure that residents arc
not exposed to exterior and interior noise levels exceeding the City's standards. The project deviates from ECR
Corridor Standards for right-of-way setback and wall location \vithin the setback. The reduced setback from 70 feet
to 22 feet and placement of a sound attenuation wall within the reduced setback \vi11 not reduce the scenic qualit!. of
the ECR corridor. Within the approximately 1.300' benveen Poinsettia Lane and Cassia Road. the proposed pIolecr
would occupy only 295'. The remaining 1000' to the south of the proposed development IS dedicated open space
that cannot be developed due to biological constraints. Therefore. the proposed de\.iations \vouid not elinunate
views to the east along the ECR corridor or result in continuous development too close to the right-of-\vay. The
proposed California Mission architectural style and meandering \Val1 design that consists of split face block ivith
pilasters and cap along \vith dense landscape screening will maintain and enhance the appearance of the El Canuno
Real roadway.
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
NO Impact. The project site is currently occupied by greenhouses that are utilized for floriculture. The property is
not identified as prime or non-prime agricultural land and is not restricted by a Willianlson Act contract. therefore no
impacts to such will occur.
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 (031, and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 nllcrons in diameter
(PMi0). 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 and/or 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. The proposed General Plan Amendment will
increase the density permitted on the site from 5 dwelling units to 56 dwelling units. however, the units are
anticipated by the applicable Zone 10 Local Facilities Management Plan and the reallocation of excess dwelling units
in Zone 10 to the project site would not have an adverse regional air quality impact.
Section 15 125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific reference
to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality management
plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The UQS 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:
16 Rev. 07/03/02 a9
e
e
Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area?
Is the project consistent \vith the growth assumptions in the regional air qualit\. plan'?
The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin. and as such. is located in an area \\.liere a RiQS 15 br'111g
implemented. The project is consistent \vith the gronth assumptions of the Cie's General Plan and the RiQS
Therefore. the project is consistent n.ith the regional air qualit\. plan and \vi11 in no \\a!. contlict 01- ahsrrust
implenientation of the regional plan.
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an esistiiig or projected air
quality violation?
Less Than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is in the City of
Oceanside. Data available for this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most recent air qualic.
violations recorded lvere for the state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both 2000 and 2001 ) and one. day 111
2001 for the federal %hour average for ozone and one day for the 21-hour state standard for suspended particulates
in 1996. So violations of any other air quality standards have been recorded recentl!-. The project \\mild in\.ol\e
minimal short-term emissions associated wit11 grading and construction. Such emissions \vould be nlininlized
though standard construction measures such as the use of properly tuned equipment and watering the site for dust
control. Long-term emissions associated tvith travel to and from the project \vi11 be nininial. Although air pollutant
emissions would be associated with the project, they would neither result in the violation of any air qualit\. 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.
b) 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 cuniulatively considerable potential net
increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the
proposed project would be mininlal. 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 niiiziinus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant.
c) 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.
d) 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.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect. either directly or through habitat modifications. on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive. or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
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?
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, tiling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
17 Rev. 07/03/02 30
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or uildlift.
species or with established native resident or nligratory wildlife corridors. or impede tlie ust' of
native wildlife nursery sites?
No Impact (a. b. c. &: d) - The project site is previously disrurbed and co\,ered \vith green houses. The site c'omiti.\
no sensitive species. riparian or \j.etland habitat or \vetlands as defined b!. Section 104 of the Clean U\'ateI .-ut. 2nd 15
not part of a n.ildlife corridor.
GEOLOGYBOILS
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects. including the risk of loss. injur!
or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault. as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning RIap issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of 3lines and Geology
Special Publication 32.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
Less than Significant Impact (a.i. to a.iv.): There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zones within the City of
Carlsbad and there is no other evidence of active or potentially active faults \vithin the City. However. there are
several active faults throughout Southern California, and these potential earthquakes could affect Carlsbad. The risk
from ground shaking is not significant when structures are built pursuant to the Uniform Building Code (earthquake
standards).
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
No Impact: The project's compliance with standards in the City's Excavation and Grading Ordinance that prevent
erosion through slope planting and installation of temporary erosion control means will avoid substantial soil erosion
impacts.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of
the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide. lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction. or collapse?
No Impact - The geotechnical analysis performed for the site by Vinje d Middleton Engineering, Inc. indicates that
the site contains no unstable soil conditions.
d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
No Impact - The site is contains no expansive soils and is favorable for the proposed development provided the
preliminary geotechnical report recommendations are followed.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No Impact - The project site is an undeveloped infill site abutting El Camino Real. Existing sewer facilities are
located near the site and are available and adequate to support future residential land use on the site.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
18 Rev. 07/03/02
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upsct and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials. substances. or
within one-quarter nlile of an existing or proposed school?
astt'
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and. as a result. would it create a significant hazard to the public
or environment?
Pio Impact (a. b, c SL d) - The project consists of a multiple family aparmient project: therefore. no hazardous
materials would be used or generated by the project. The site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sltes
e) For a project within an airport land use plan. or where such a plan has not been adopted. within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport. would the project result in a safety hazard !or people
residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact (e & f) - The project is located within the McClellan Paloniar Airport influence area. The Carlsbad
Airport Land Use Plan (CLUP) specifies the areas subject to safety hazards, Le., the flight activity zone and the crash
hazard zone. The development is not located within either of these zones; therefore a significant safety hazard would
not result from the development of apartment units.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact - The private residential development does not interfere with the City's emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan.
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
Less than Significant Impact - The project, which is surrounded on three sides by native vegetation. is required to
comply with City standards requiring fire suppression zones that create buffers behveen high fuel native species and
residential structures. Sixty-foot wide fire suppression zones are proposed between proposed structures and the
property line on three sides in accordance with City standards to avoid significant risks involvinz wildland fires.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water
recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
ground water table level (Le., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
c) Impacts to groundwater quality?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount
(volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
19 Rev. 07/03/02
f) Create or contribute runoff water. which would exceed the capacity of existing or planncd
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff!
g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
No Impact (a. b, E. d. e, f & g) - The infill project will rely on an existing public storm drain s!wm and is sub~ect
to City standards regarding \vater quality, drainage and erosion control. including storm u'ater pemlit (SPDES)
requirements and best management practices. The project is conditioned to require a Stomi \f.ater .\lanagement Plan
(SWMP) that will ensure that it is designed and constructed in compliance uith the Cit\.'s SPDES General Pemut
for Stomi \Vater Discharzes Associated Lvith Construction Activity issued by the State \Vmr Resources Control
Board and the San Diego NPDES ,Municipal Storm Water Permit issued to San Diego Come and Cities by the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board.
In addition. according to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study. No\.eniber 1992.
the project site is located in an area nhere development \vi11 not have a significant impact to ground\\.ater.
Therefore, the project \vi11 not violate any Lvater quality standards. deplete groundivater supplies or qualit\..
substantially alter existing drainage patterns, cause substantial erosion or flooding. or significantly impact the
capacity of stormwater drainage systems.
h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map?
i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect tlood flows?
No Impact (h 8: i) - The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to the Flood
Insurance Rate Map. Therefore, the proposed development will not result in housing or structures within a 100-year
flood hazard area.
j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death inyolving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No Impact (j 8: k) - According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study,
November 1992, the project site is not located within any dam failure inundation area, or area subject to inundation
by seiche or tsunami. Therefore, the project will not result in exposing people or structures to significant risk from
flooding as a result of a dam failure, or from inundation by seiche, tsuna& or mudflow.
I) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters.
m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic
organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or
other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)?
n) . Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following
construction?
0)
P)
Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act
Section 303(d) list?
The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or
degradation of beneficial uses?
No Impact (I, m, n, o & p) - The project site is not located adjacent to any body of water. Drainage from the site is
subject to the City's drainage and storm water pollution control standards (NPDES and best management
practices), which ensure that sediment and pollutants from any development of the site will not discharge into
any downstream receiving surface waters. Also, the City's drainage and storm water pollution control standards
ensure that development does not reduce water quality of any marine, fresh or wetland waters or groundwater.
The project is designed to drain into an existing storm drain, and the project will be conditioned to prepare a
Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) to ensure that City standards are met.
20 Rev. 07/03/02 33
LAND USE .4KD PLAlVNIKG - IF’ould the project:
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan. policy. or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction
over the project (including but not linuted to the general plan. specific plan. local coastal
program. or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Less than Significant Impact: The project includes a request for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Chanye to
redesignate the property to Residential High (RH) densiy from its current Residential Lon lledlum (RLll) denslr!.
designation and to change the zoning from the Exclusive Agriculture (E-A) Zone to the Residential Densit!, llultiple
(RD-M) Zone to allow multiple family units. The maximum density allo\ved on the 2.6 acre site under the existing
RLM designation growth control point (3.2 dw’acre) is 5 dwelling units, and the masiniuni density under the
proposed RH growth control point ( 19 dwacre) is 50 dwelling units. The General Plan Amendment to allou. 50 units
would require the allocation of 45 units from the City‘s escess dwelling unit bank. The applicant is requesting 56
units on the property: therefore an 1 loib density increase to allow 6 units above the 50 units pernutted by the RH
growth control point is required. The proposed General Plan Amendment to the RH designation and the requested
11% density increase above the RH growth control point require a total allocation of 51 divelling units from the
City’s excess dwelling unit bank. The General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from RLM to RH
is in compliance with General PlanlGro\\Th Management policies that establish locational criteria for higher density
multiple fanlily uses and conditions necessary to exceed the grom-th control point. Furthermore. the 100% affordable
housing project is in conformance with General Plan policy to allow density increases above the grobvth control point
to enable development of lower-income affordable housing that is compatible with adjacent development, where
public facilities are adequate, and in proximity to major roadways, public parks and open space. conunercial centers,
employment centers, and transit centers. The proposed 56-unit apartment project is conipatible with surrounding
developments, including the adjacent 157 unit Manzanita Apartments and 325 unit Villa Loma Apartments. Bus
service is available on El Camino Real, and the site is located in proximity to existing and hture employment
centers, hture Alga Norte and Zone 19 community parks, and the existing Westbluff Plaza and Plaza Paseo Real
commercial shopping centers. Excess units are available in the City’s excess dwelling unit bank. and public facilities
are adequate as required by the Growth Management Ordinance to exceed the growth control point. The project also
qualifies for the allocation of excess dwelling units in accordance with Council Policy 43. which establishes policy
for the allocation of excess dwelling units, in that it is a 100% affordable apartment project where a density increase
is requested as an incentive to providing affordable housing units.
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, specitic plan, or other land use plan?
No Impact (a & b) - According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study,
November 1992, the project site does not contain any mineral resources; therefore, the project will not result in the
loss of availability of a know mineral resource or mineral resource recovery site.
NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less than Significant Impact: The project is located within 500 feet of El Camino Real (ECR), a General Plan
circulation arterial roadway. The required noise analysis prepared by URS indicates that existing and future noise
levels along the ECR roadway would exceed the City‘s 60 dBA CNEL noise standard without mitigation. Exterior
noise levels along the El Camino Real and Cassia Road frontages will range between 64 - 70 dBA CNEL. The
apartment project has no requirement for private passive or common active exterior recreational space; therefore, the
City’s noise standard is not applied to these areas. In an effort to reduce exterior noise levels to the greatest extent
possible at locations that would be subject to higher noise levels, the project includes a 6’ high noise wall and 44”
high plexiglass noise screens that will be affixed to patioideck railings on the northern exterior patiosidecks of
21 Rev. 07/03/02 3+
Buildings 1. 2. and 3. and the southern and western exterior patios;decks of Building 1. This \\-ill reduce tioijc It.\ i.~.
on patiosidecks to below 65 dBA CNEL. The project IS subject to the City‘s 45 dB.4 interior nom standard. 2nd 111
accordance with UBC requirements. interior noise levels will not exceed IS dBA. Thls \\.ill be aszon1pllshed
through mechanical ventilation and possible building and ivindo\v acoustical treamients.
POPCLATIOK AND HOUSING - \Vould 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)?
No Impact - The project is located on an infill site that is surrounded by existing and or approved development and
served by existing 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?
NO Impact (b & c)- The entire project site is currently occupied by greenhouses: therefore. no displacement of
houses or people will occur.
PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
1. Fire protection?
II. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?
..
No Impact (ai to a.v.) -The project site is located within Local Facilities Management Zone (LFMZ) 10. The
provision of public facilities within LFMZ 10, including fire protection, parks, libraries and other public facilities,
has been planned to accommodate the projected growth of that area. The 56-unit development will exceed the 5
dwelling units projected by the RLM General Plan designation, however, there are adequate excess dwelling units
projected by the City’s Zone 10 Local Facilities Management Plan and adequate facility capacity to accommodate
the additional dwelling units proposed for the site. Because the project will not exceed the total growth projections
anticipated within LFMZ 10, all public facilities will be adequate to serve residential development on the site.
Therefore, the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts to or result in the need for additional government
facilities.
RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No Impact (a & b) - As part of the City’s Growth Management Program (GMP), a performance standard for parks
was adopted. The park performance standard requires that 3 acres of Community Park and Special Use Area per
1,000 population within a park district (quadrant) must be provided.
22 Rev. 07/03/02
The project site is located within Park District W (Southeast Quadrant) The necessar! pari, acreage tl] ~hlt.\ L~ tilt
GMP standard (3 acres 1.000 population) for Park District 4 was based upon the GMP d\\elliiis unit Iiniitatiui~ IOI
the Southeast Quadrant
Although the proposed land use change ail1 result in additional residential units in the SE Quadrant. the GllP
dwelling unit limit will not be exceeded. In addition. the Parks and Recreation Element states that the park acreagr
demand for the SE Quadrant. based on the GMP daelling unit linlit. is 1 1 S.8 1 acres. and the anticipated park acreage
to be provided at build-out nil1 be 138.14 acres. Therefore, there ivill be adequate parkland u,ithin the SE Quadrant.
and the proposed land use change will not cause additional demand for parkland or expansion of recreational
facilities. Because park facilities ivill be adequate to sene residential development 011 the site. an!. increase in use of
park facilities generated from future development of the site will not result in substantial physical deterioration of
any park facility.
TRANSPORTATIOK/TRAFFIC-M’ould the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the esisting traffic load and capacity
of the street system?
Less Than Significant Impact: The project will generate 360 Average Daily Trips (ADT) and 32 peak hour trips.
This traffic will utilize the following roadways: El Canlino Real. Cassia Road. Canlino Vida Roble. and Palomar
Airport Road. Existing traffic on these arterials are 29,600 El Camino Real, 4.300 Cassia Road, 8.520 Canlino Vida
Roble, and 51,200 Palomar Airport Road (ADT 2002). The design capacities of the arterial roads effected by the
proposed project are: 40,000 or more El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road. 1200 - 10.000 Cassia Rd.. 20.000
Camino Vida Roble in vehicles per day. The project traffic would represent less than 1% of the existing traffic
volume and the design capacity. 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:
Existing ADT* rn Buildout ADT*
Rancho Santa Fe Road 15-32 “A-C“ 28-43
El Camino Real 2 1-50 “A-C” 32-65
Palomar Airport Road 10-52 “A-B” 29-77
SR 78 120 “F” 144
1-5 183-198 “D” 2 19-249 ’
*The numbers are in thousands of daily trips.
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 stiategies. Based on the design capacity(ies1 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.
23 Rev. 07/03/02 36
a) Result in a change in air traffic patterns. including either an increase in traffic levels or a cl~angt~
in location that results in substantial safety risks?
No Impact. The proposed project does not include any a\iation components The project 1s cons~steni \\it11 tilt.
Comprehensne Land Use Pian for the McClellan-Palomar Airport It \\auld not. therefore. result 111 a Change ot JII
traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks No impact assessed
b) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or. inconipatible uses:'
NO Impact. All project circulation improvements \vi11 be designed and constructed to Cit!. standards: and. tht.rt.fbre.
would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent uith the Cit\-'s senera1 plan and zonins.
Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an inconipatible use. KO impact assessed.
c) 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.
d) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
No Impact. The proposed project is not requesting a parking variance. Additionally. the project aould coniply \vith
the City's parking requirements to ensure an adequate parking supply. No impact assessed.
e) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)?
No Impact. (Note whether the project is near public transportation. If not, then state that the project is not served
by or not located in an area conducive to public transportation.) (Note bike racks are not necessary for a single-
family residential project. Otherwise, condition the project to install bike racks and note here that the project has
been so conditioned.)
UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental
effects?
No Impact (a & b) - The project site is located within Local Facilities Management Zone (LFMZ) 10 which is
served by the Encina wastewater treatment facility. Wastewater treatment capacity has been planned to
accommodate the projected growth of Zone 10. Because the project will not exceed the total growth projections
anticipated within LFMZ 10, wastewater treatment capacity will be adequate to serve residential development on the
site. Therefore, the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts to or result in the need for additional
wastewater treatment facilities.
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
No Impact (c, d & e) - All public facilities, including water facilities and drainage facilities, have been planned and
designed to accommodate the growth projections for the City at build-out. The proposed residential land use will not
result in growth that exceeds the City's growth projections. Therefore, the proposed land use and zone change will
24 Rev. 07/03/02
not result in a significant need to expand or construct new \vater facilities,supplies. \vasten.ater treatment 01 S[O~III
water drainage facilities.
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to acconiniodate the project’s solid
waste disposal needs?
8) Comply with federal. state. and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste‘!
No Impact (f & g) - Existing waste disposal services contracted by the City of Carlsbad are adequate to sene the
proposed 56 unit aparmient project without exceeding landfill capacities. Future residential de\ elopnienr result in^
from the proposed iand subdivision \vi11 be required to comply with all federal. state. and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste
MAiVDATORY 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 esaniples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
No Impact - The project will not degrade the quality of the biological or cultural environment in that no disturbance
to biological or cultural resources will occur.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited. but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects?)
Less than Significant Impact - San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects regional growth for
the greater San Diego area, and local general plan land use policies are incorporated into SANDAG projections.
Based upon those projections, region-wide standards, including storm water quality control, air quality standards,
habitat conservation, congestion management standards, etc, are established to reduce the cumulative impacts of
development in the region. All of the City’s development standards and regulations are consistent with the region-
wide standards. The City’s standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality and drainage
standards, traffic standards, habitat and cultural resource protection regulations, and public facility standards, ensure
that development within the City will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact.
There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a cumulatively
considerable impact on. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. As discussed above, the proposed
land use and zone change will result in future residential development, which would represent a contribution to a
cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above,
however, emissions associated with a future residential development would be minimal. Given the limited emissions
potentially associated with a residential development of the site, air quality would be essentially the same whether or
not the residential development is implemented. Therefore, the impact is assessed as less than significant.
Also, as discussed above, the County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) has designated three roads (Rancho
Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the
regional circulation system. The CMA has determined, based on the City’s growth projections in the General Plan.
that these designated roadways will function at acceptable levels of service in the short-terni and at build-out. The
project is consistent with the City’s growth projections, and therefore, the cumulative impact from the project to the
regional circulation system is less than significant.
With regard to any other potential impact associated with the project, City standards and regulations will ensure that
hture residential development on the site will not result in a significant cumulative considerable impact.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
25 Rev. 07/03/02 36
Less Than Significant Impact - Development of the site will comply nith Cin. development standurds iicsignrli to
avoid substantial adverse environmental effects to residents. The project site is located in an areu \\here Ilun1211
beings could be exposed to 61 - 70 dBA CNEL noise levels generated by the roadivay. .4s discussed abo\.:. c-lt!
standards apply to required recreational space. The apartment project has no requirenient for prn’atc pussn.e or
common active exterior recreational space: therefore. the Cit\.’s noise standard is not applied to these 31~3s Iu 311
effort to reduce exterior noise levels to the greatest extent possible at locations that u.ould be subject to lyher noise
levels. the project includes a noise udl and 44” high plexiglass noise screens that \vi11 be aftised to patio deck
railings on the northern exterior patiostdecks of Buildings 1. 2, and 3. and the southern and \wstern exterior
patiosjdecks of Building 1. This !vi11 reduce noise levels on patios decks to belolv 65 dBA CSEL. The project is
subject to the City‘s 45 dBA interior noise standard. and in accordance ivith UBC requirements. interior noise Ie\.els
will not exceed 45 dBA. This will be accomplished through mechanical ventilation and possible building and
window acoustical treatments.
EARLIER ANALYSIS VSED AND SUPPORTING INFORRIATION SOL‘RCES
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the CiQ, of Carlsbad Planning
Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue. Carlsbad, California. 9200s.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Final Master Environmental Imuact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01 ).
City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994.
Draft Phase I1 Environmental Site Assessment prepared by P 6 D Environmental Services dated October
22,2002.
“Biological Reconnaissance of the Bons Property, Carlsbad, California” prepared by P 6 D Environmental
Services, dated January 15, 2003.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Vinje 6 Middleton Engineering, Inc., dated August 14,
2003.
“Noise Analysis - Carlsbad Family Housing“ prepared by URS, dated November 5. 2002.
“Stormwater Management Plan - Affirmed Housing Group” prepared by Masson 6 Associates. Inc.. dated
October 14. 2002.
“Prelimnary Drainage Study for Affirmed Housing Group” prepared by Masson & Associates. Inc., dated
December 16,2002.
Traffic Analysis prepared by Urban Systems Associates, Inc., dated February 3, 2003
26 Rev. 07/03/02 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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5666
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE MAP
OF THE GENERAL PLAN ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF EL CAMINO
REAL AND CASSIA ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 10.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING
CASE NO: GPA 02-05
WHEREAS, Carlsbad Family Housing Partners, a California Limited
Liability Partnership, “Developer,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad
regarding property owned by Anthony and Dicky Bons, “Owner,” described as:
A portion of fractional northeast quarter of southwest quarter
of Section 23, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San
Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a General Plan Amendment
as shown on Exhibit “GPA 02-05” dated July 7, 2004, attached hereto and on file in the
Planning Department, CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING - GPA 02-05, as provided in
Government Code Section 65350 et. seq. and Section 21.52.160 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 7th day of July 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 General Plan Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
40
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 above recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
02-05, based on the following findings and condition:
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING - GPA
Findinps :
1. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in
conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the facts set forth in
the staff report dated July 7,2004, including, but not limited to the following:
a. Land Use: The proposed amendment to the land use designation from RLM
to RH is consistent with General Plan policies limiting medium and high
density residential developments as documented in the Staff Report dated
July 7, 2004. The high density use is compatible with adjacent multi-family
land uses, and is or will be served by adequate and convenient commercial
services and public support systems such as employment centers, El Camino
Real, public transportation, parks, schools, and public utilities.
The project density of 21 du/acre exceeds the GCP of 19 du/ac; however,
excess units are available and public facilities are adequate as required by
the Growth Management Ordinance and General Plan.
b. Housing: The General Plan Amendment is consistent with policies allowing for
increased densities on properties to enable the development of affordable
housing served by adequate public facilities and conforms to Council Policy
43 which permits the allocation of excess dwelling units to projects that are
low income.
2. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration and the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
thereon prior to RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the project; and
b. the 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 EL4 Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment
PC RES0 NO. 5666 -2- cfl
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1;
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Conditions:
1. This approval is granted subject to the approval o ZC 02-06, SDP 02-13, and SUP 02-
09, and is subject to all conditions contained in Resolutions No. 5667,5668, and 5669.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of July 2004, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez,
Heineman, and Montgomery
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Segall
ABSTAIN: None
RANK H. WHITTON, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOSMILLYR
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5666 -3-
GENERAL PLAN MAP CHANGE
G.P. Map Designation Change
Property From: To:
A. 21 5-021 -06 RLM RH
GPA: 02-05
Approvals
Council Approval Date:
Resolution No:
Effective Date:
draft [XI final 0
JULY 7,2004
Project Name: Carlsbad Family Housing
All that portion of fractional northeast quarter of southwest
quarter of Section 23, Township 12 South, Range 4 West,
San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County
of San Diego, State of California, according to the official
plat thereof.
I Related Case File No@):
Property/Legal Description(s): ZC 02-0WSDP 02-13/ SUP 02-09
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5667
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL AND CASSIA ROAD IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 10.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING
APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE FROM E-A TO RD-M ON
CASE NO: ZC 02-06
WHEREAS, Carlsbad Family Housing Partners, a California Limited
Liability Partnership, “Developer,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad
regarding property owned by Anthony and Dicky Bons, “Owner,” described as
A portion of fractional northeast quarter of southwest quarter
of Section 23, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San
Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Zone Change as shown on
Exhibit “X” dated July 7, 2004, attached hereto and on file in the Planning Department,
CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING - ZC 02-06, as provided by Chapter 21.52 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of July 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
1
7
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 CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING - ZC
02-06, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
That the proposed Zone Change from E-A to RD-M is consistent with the goals and
policies of the various elements of the General Plan, in that the proposed zoning will
implement the RH General Plan land use designation.
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 RD-M zone is intended to implement the RH General Plan land
use designation.
That the Zone Change is consistent with the public convenience, necessity and general
welfare, and is consistent with sound planning principles in that the 2.66 acre site
satisfies all of the locational criteria specified by the General Plan for placement of
high density development.
The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration, the environmental
impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the project; and
b. the 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. This approval is granted subject to the approval of GPA 02-05, SDP 02-13, and SUP 02-
09, and is subject to all conditions contained in Resolutions No. 5666,5668, and 5669.
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
“feeslexactions.”
PC RES0 NO. 5667 -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
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the' specified feedexactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any 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 7th day of July 2004, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez,
Heineman, and Montgomery
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Segall
ABSTAIN: None
H. WHITTON, ChaipAon
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLYMILQR
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5667 -3 -
1
7 -
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. 5668
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ALLOW A 56 UNIT AFFORDABLE APARTMENT PROJECT
EAST CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL AND CASSIA ROAD
IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 10.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING
APPROVAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, SDP 02-13, TO
ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTH-
CASE NO.: SDP 02- 13
WHEREAS, Carlsbad Family Housing Partners, a California Limited Liability
Partnership, “Developer,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding
property owned by Anthony and Dicky Bons, “Owner,” described as
A portion of fractional northeast quarter of southwest quarter
of Section 23, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San
Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Site Development
Plan as shown on Exhibits “A” - “U” dated July 7, 2004, on file in the Planning Department,
CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING - SDP 02-13 as provided by Chapter 21.06/Section
21.53.120 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 7th day of July 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 Site Development Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
it-? A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Plannins
Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of CARLSBAD FARIILY
HOUSING - SDP 02-13, based on the following findings and subject to the
following conditions:
Findings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
That the requested use is properly related to the site, surroundings and environniental
settings, is consistent with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, will
not be detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the area in which
the proposed use is to be located, and will not adversely impact the site, surroundings or
traffic circulation, in that the proposed high density low income apartment project is
consistent with the General Plan and not detrimental to existing uses in the area
because the site is located in proximity to other multiple family projects of similar
density and design, and commercial services and public support systems such as
public transportation, two community parks and commercial shopping centers are
or will be located in proximity to the site; and the proposed site design ensures that
no direct public access off of El Camino Real (prime arterial) is proposed and fire
hazards are avoided thereby ensuring that the use is properly related to the site and
surroundings and no adverse impacts will result from the project. The project
exceeds the density permitted by the RH General Plan designation by 6 units;
however, excess units are available and public facilities are adequate as required by
the General Plan and the low-income project qualifies for excess dwelling units in
accordance with Council Policy 43.
That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in
that the proposed lot coverage of 27.4% is less than half that permitted by the RD-M
zone, and the project conforms to all zoning and applicable City standards with the
exception of permitted deviations to the‘ El Camino Real Corridor Development
Standards.
That all yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to adjust
the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be
provided and maintained, in that all required minimum setbacks are exceeded with the
exception of the El Camino Real Corridor setback from right-of-way and placement
of wall standards, and split face block fencing, landscape screening and enhanced
architecture is provided.
That the street systems serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic
generated by the proposed use, in that the additional ADT generated by the project
will not reduce road segment or intersection levels of service to below the City’s
threshold level of “D” or better.
The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration, the environmental
impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the project; and
PC RES0 NO. 5668 -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
b. the 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
6. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 10 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.
b. Park-in-lieu fees are required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 20.44, and
will be collected prior to issuance of building permit.
c. The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and will be
collected prior to the issuance of building permit.
7. That the project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual (Carlsbad Municipal
Code Section 14.28.020 and Landscape Manual Section I B).
8. The Planning Commission hereby finds that all development in Carlsbad benefits from
the Habitat Management Plan, which is a comprehensive conservation plan and
implementation program that will facilitate the preservation of biological diversity and
provide for effective protection and conservation of wildlife and plant species while
continuing to allow compatible development in accordance with Carlsbad’s Growth
Management Plan. Preservation of wildlife habitats and sensitive species is required by
the Open Space and Conservation Element of the City’s General Plan which provides for
the realization of the social, economic, aesthetic and environmental benefits from the
preservation of open space within an increasingly urban environment. Moreover, each
new development will contribute to the need for additional regional infrastructure that, in
turn, will adversely impact species and habitats. The In-Lieu Mitigation Fee imposed on
all new development within the City is essential to fund implementation of the City’s
Habitat Management Plan.
9. 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
PC RES0 NO. 5668 -3- 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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 issuance of a
grading or building permit, whichever occurs first.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all
future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy
issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to
compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No
vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of
this Site Development Plan.
Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Site Development Plan documents, as necessary to make them
internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development
shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development
different 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 Site Development Plan, (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.
PC RES0 NO. 5668 -4- 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
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Developer shall submit to the Planning Department a reproducible 24” x 36” mylar
copy of the Site Plan reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making
body.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the
Director from the Carlsbad Unified School District that this project has satisfied its
obligation to provide school facilities.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
as part of the Zone 10 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to
that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
This approval is granted subject to the approval of GPA 02-05, ZC 02-06, and SUP 02-
09, and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No.
5666,5667, and 5669 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference.
This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this
project within 2 years from the date of project approval.
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.
This project has been found to result in impacts to wildlife habitat or other lands, such as
agricultural land, which provide some benefits to wildlife, as documented in the City’s
Habitat Management Plan and the environmental analysis for this project. Developer is
aware that the City has adopted an In-lieu Mitigation Fee consistent with Section E.6 of
the Habitat Management Plan and City Council Resolution No. 2000-223 to fund
mitigation for impacts to certain categories of vegetation and animal species. The
Developer is further aware that the City has determined that all projects will be required
to pay the fee in order to be found consistent with the Habitat Management Plan and the
Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan. The fee becomes effective
following final approval of the Habitat Management Plan. The City is currently updating
the fee study, which is expected to result in an increase in the amount of the fee. If the
Habitat Management Plan is approved, then the Developer or Developer’s successor(s) in
interest shall pay the adjusted amount of the fee. The fee shall be paid prior to
recordation of a final map, or issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever
occurs first. If the In-lieu Mitigation Fee for this project is not paid, this project will not
be consistent with the Habitat Management Plan and the General Plan and any an all
approvals for this project shall become null and void.
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 provide and
deed restrict 56 dwelling units as affordable to lower-income households for 55 years, in
accordance with the requirements and process set forth in Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad
PC RES0 NO. 5668 -5- 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
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Municipal Code. The recorded Affordable Housing Ageenlent 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. Final landscape plans shall provide a
dimensioned fencing plan showing all perimeter masonry block and open iron rail
fencing at a height not to exceed 6 feet.
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.
Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy
#17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section
5.09.030, and CFD #1 special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable
Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 10, pursuant to Chapter 2 1.90. All such
taxedfees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxes/fees are not paid, this
approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void.
All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and
concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in
substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the
Directors of Community Development and Planning.
Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, 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 Site Development Plan by Resolution No. 5668 on the
property. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property description, location of the
file containing complete project details and all conditions of approval as well as any
conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The
Planning Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice
which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer
or successor in interest.
Developer shall construct trash receptacle and recycling areas enclosed by a six-foot high
masonry wall with gates pursuant to City Engineering Standards and Carlsbad Municipal
Code Chapter 21.105. Location of said receptacles shall be as shown on Exhibit “A.”
Enclosure shall be of similar colors and/or materials to the project to the satisfaction of
the Planning Director.
Developer shall construct, install and stripe not less than 123 standard parking spaces, as
shown on Exhibit “A.”
PC RES0 NO. 5668 -6- 5a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1.6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
21.
22.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice
that this property may be subject to noise impacts from the existing El Camino Real
Transportation Comdor, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City
Attorney (see Noise Form #1 on file in the Planning Department).
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice
that this property is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from
McClellan-Palomar Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and
the City Attorney (see Noise Form #2 on file in the Planning Department).
Enpineering:
23. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the 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.
24. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site
within this project, the developer shall submit to and receive approval from the City
Engineer for the proposed haul route. The developer shall comply with all conditions and
requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the hauling operation.
25. The developer shall provide for sight distance corridors at all street intersections in
accordance with Engineering Standards.
"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 a sight distance corridor in accordance with City Standard Public Street-Design
Criteria, Section 8.B.3."
FeedAPreemen ts
26. The developer shall pay all current fees and deposits required.
27. The owner of the subject property shall execute an agreement holding the City harmless
regarding drainage across the adjacent property.
28. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, Developer shall
cause Owner to give written consent to the City Engineer to the annexation of the area
shown within the boundaries of the subdivision into the existing City of Carlsbad Street
Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1 and/or to the formation or annexation into an
additional Street Lighting and Landscaping District. Said written consent shall be
on a form provided by the City Engineer.
Grading
29. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the site
plan, a grading permit for this project is required. (The developer must submit and receive
approval for grading plans in accordance with city codes and standards prior to issuance
-7- 53 PC RES0 NO. 5668
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
30.
31.
of a building permit for the project.)
Prior to the issuance of a grading pemiit or bui ling permit, whichever occurs first, the
developer shall submit proof that a Notice of Intention has been submitted to the State
Water Resources Control Board.
No grading for private improvements shall occur outside the limits of the project unless a
grading or slope easement or agreement is obtained from the owners of the affected
properties and recorded. If the developer is unable to obtain the grading or slope
easement, or agreement, no grading permit will be issued. In that case the developer must
either amend the site plan or modify the plans so grading will not occur outside the
project site in a manner which substantially conforms to the approved site plan as
determined by the City Engineer and Planning Director.
Dedications/Improvements
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
Additional drainage easements may be required. Drainage structures shall be provided or
installed prior to or concurrent with any grading or building permit as may be required by
the City Engineer.
The owner shall make an offer of dedication to the City for all public streets and
easements required by these conditions or shown on the site plan. The offer shall be
made prior to the issuance of any building permit for this project. All land so offered
shall be granted to the City free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost
to the City. Streets that are already public are not required to be rededicated.
El Camino Real shall be dedicated by the owner along the project frontage based on a
centerline to right-of-way width of 63 feet and in conforniance with City of Carlsbad
Standards.
Cassia Road shall be dedicated by the owner along the northern project boundary
based on a centerline to right-of-way width of 30 feet and in conformance with City of
Carlsbad Standards. The total dedication required for Cassia Street is ?4 width plus
12’ for a total width of 42’.
Additional right of way may be required to accommodate the frontage
improvements and offsite transitions to northbound E! Camino Rea! in conformance
with City of Carlsbad Standards.
Some improvements shown on the site development plan and/or required by these
conditions are located offsite on property which neither the City nor the owner has
sufficient title or interest to permit the improvements to be made without acquisition of
title or interest.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall underground all existing
overhead utilities along the project boundary.
PC RES0 NO. 5668 -8- 54
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
39.
40.
41.
Direct access rights for the project frontage with El Camino Real shall be waived by
separate deed or document prior to building permit issuance.
The developer shall comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The developer shall provide best
management practices as referenced in the "California Storm Water Best Management
Practices Handbook" to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge
to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer.
Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of
the following:
A. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with
established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic'and
hazardous waste products.
B. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil,
antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other
such fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into
storm drain or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of
pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such
chemical treatments shall meet Federal, State, County and City
requirements as prescribed in their respective containers.
C. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface
pollutants when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface
improvements.
Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all public improvements shall be
prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In accordance with City Standards, the
developer shall install, or agree to install and secure with appropriate security as provided
by law, improvements shown on the site plan and the following improvements:
a) Half street improvements to El Camino Real including transitions as
approved by the City Engineer. Improvements to include but not be
limited to grading, landscape, irrigation and drainage, curb, gutter &
sidewalk, Fully improved median, and traffic signals or traffic signal
relocation.
b) Half plus 12' street improvements to Cassia Rd. from El Camino Real
east to the cul de sac of this project including but not limited to grading,
landscape, irrigation and drainage, curb, gutter & sidewalk and
transitions as required.
c) Extension of public utilities to serve adjacent development north of this
project as required. A utility plan to show alternate routes and service
connections can be submitted to resolve future connection and service
issues.
PC RES0 NO. 5668 -9- Tid
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
d) Downstream drainage improvements or maintenance of existing drainage
desiltation / detention basins may be required. Increased runoff from this
project or diversion of runoff shall be designed to not impact existing
facilities beyond the acceptable capacity.
Improvements listed above shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the
secured improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement.
42. The structural section for the access aisles must be designed with a traffic index of 5.0 in
accordance with City Standards to accommodate truck access through the parking area
and/or aisles. The structural pavement design of the aisle ways shall be submitted
together with required R-value soil test information and approved by the City as part of
the grading plan review.
Code Reminders
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
Developer shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of the final map as
required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the
Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building
permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
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.
The 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 the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the City Engineer.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these 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
PC RES0 NO. 5668 -10- 56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified feedexactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of July 2004, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez,
Heineman, and Montgomery
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Segall
ABSTAIN: None
RANK H. WHITTON, Chairperson
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOBMILBR
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5668 -1 1-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5669
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TI E
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A 56
UNIT AFFORDABLE APARTMENT PROJECT ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL AND CASSIA ROAD IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 10.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING
CASE NO: SUP 02-09
WHEREAS, Carlsbad Family Housing Partners, a California Limited
Liability Partnership, “Developer,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad
regarding property owned by Anthony and Dicky Bons, “Owner,” described as
A portion of fractional northeast quarter of southwest quarter
of Section 23, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San
Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California
(‘the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Special Use
Permit as shown on Exhibits “A” - “U” dated July 7, 2004, on file in the Planning Department
CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING - SUP 02-09, as provided by Chapter 21.40 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of July 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 Special Use Permit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
5Y
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
02-09, based on the following findings and subject to the following condition:
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING - SUP
Findings:
1. That the project conforms to the intent of the Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone
through compliance with applicable El Camino Real Corridor Development
Standards for Area 5 except for necessary deviations to setback and wall location
standards.
2. That the deviation to the setback standard is necessary because it is infeasible for
the proposed project. Due to high fuel species that occupy permanent open space
surrounding the project, 60’ wide fire suppression zones are required between
structures and rear and side property lines, which results in side and rear setbacks
that are six times greater than the 5’ - 10’ required by the RD-M zone. These
additional setback widths significantly reduce the developable area of the property;
therefore, the 8’ reduction in the front setback is necessary to enable a site design
that incorporates recreational amenities and conforms to City development and
design standards.
3. That the deviation to the wall location standard is necessary within the reduced
front setback because the noise attenuation wall is proposed to ensure that at-grade
noise levels are reduced to the greatest extent possible. Placement of a sound
attenuation wall within the reduced setback will not reduce the scenic quality of the
ECR corridor in that within the approximately 1,300’ between Poinsettia Lane and
Cassia Road, the proposed project would occupy only 295’. The remaining 1000’ of
ECR frontage to the south of the proposed development is encumbered by a
conservation easement due to biological constraints. Therefore, the proposed
deviations would not eliminate views to the east along the ECR corridor or result in
continuous development too close to the right-of-way. The wall does not interfere
with required sight distance and will not have an adverse impact on traffic safety.
The meandering wall design that consists of split face block with pilasters and cap
along with dense landscape screening will maintain and enhance the appearance of
the El Camino Real roadway.
4. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration, the environmental
impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the project; and
b. the 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
PC RES0 NO. 5669 -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
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. This approval is granted subject to the approval of GPA 02-05, ZC 02-06, and SDP 02-
13 and is subject to all conditions contained in Resolutions No. 5666,5667, and 5668.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these feedexactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any feedexactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
...
...
...
...
...
PC RES0 NO. 5669 -3-
1
1
t
1
t
5
1(
11
1;
12
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 7th day of July 2004 by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez,
Heineman, and Montgomery
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Segall
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
t
MICHAEL J. HOLZ~ILL~~
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5669 -4-
EXHIBIT 5
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
P.C. AGENDA OF: July 7.2004
ItemNo. @
Application complete date, April 27, 7001
Project Planner. Anne Hqsong
Project Engineer: Clyde M'ickhani
SUBJECT: GPA 02-05/ZC 02-061SDP 02-1 3/SUP 02-09 - CARLSBAD FAMILY
HOUSING - Request for a recommendation of adoption of a Negative
Declaration, and recommendation of approval of a General Plan Amendment,
Zone Change, Site Development Plan, and El Camino Real Special Use Permit for
a 56 unit affordable apartment project located at the southeast comer of El
Camino Real and Cassia Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 10.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5672
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration and ADOPT Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 5666, 5667, 5668, and 5669 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
of a GPA 02-05, ZC 02-06, SDP 02-13, and SUP 02-09 based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein.
11. INTRODUCTION
The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation
of a 2.66 acre property from RLM to RH and a Zone Change from the Exclusive Agriculture
Zone (E-A) to the Residential Density-Multiple Zone (RD-M) to allow multiple family units, and
a Site Development Plan and Special Use Permit to allow a 56 unit apartment project that is
affordable to low income families. The applicant is also requesting incentives that include an
11% density increase above density permitted by the RH designation growth control point and
deviations to the El Camino Real Corridor, Area 5, front setback and wall standards. The project
complies with applicable City standards and guidelines and justification for deviations can be
made.
111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The project site is a previously disturbed 2.66-acre parcel that is currently occupied by green
houses. The property, which is located at the southeast comer of El Camino Real (ECR) and
Cassia Road, is bordered to the north by future Cassia Road, to the west by ECR, to the east by
open space that is part of the Villages of L2 Costa Master Plan, and to the south by deed
restricted open space. The existing Villa Loma and future Manzanita Apartment projects are
located across ECR on the northwest and southwest comers of Cassia Road. Topographically,
the entire site is relatively flat and contains no sensitive vegetation. The property to the east is
part of an HMP habitat preserve that contains sensitive vegetation. The property to the south
GPA 02-05/ZC 02-06/SDP 02-13/SUP 02-09 - CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING
July 7,2004
contains sensitive vegetation and is encumbered by a consewation easement. The eastern
extension of Poinsettia Lane is currently under construction to the south of the adjacent property.
The project includes a request for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to redesignate
the property to Residential High (RH) density from its current Residential Low Medium (RLM)
density designation and to change the zoning from the Exclusive Agriculture (E-A) Zone to the
Residential Density Multiple (RD-M) Zone to allow multiple family units. The maximum
density allowed on the 2.6 acre site under the existing RLM designation growth control point (3.2
du/acre) is 5 dwelling units, and the maximum density under the proposed RH growth control
point (19 du/acre) is 50 dwelling units. The General Plan Amendment to allow 50 units would
require the allocation of 45 units from the City’s excess dwelling unit bank. The applicant is
requesting 56 units on the property; therefore an 11% density increase to allow 6 units above the
50 units permitted by the RH growth control point is required.
The applicant, El Camino Family Housing Partners, L.P., is also requesting an ECR Special Use
Permit (SUP) and Site Development Plan (SDP) and to allow the proposed 56 unit apartment
project. The site has frontage on El Camino Real requiring compliance with the El Camino Real
Corridor Development Standards. A SDP is required pursuant to Section 21.53.120 of the
Zoning Ordinance for apartment projects with more than 4 units and for multi-family affordable
projects of any size. Therefore, the SDP for the proposed 56-unit affordable housing apartment
project involves both the overall apartment project and the combined affordable housing project.
The project requires an easterly extension of Cassia Road for the purpose of providing access to
both the subject site and the property to the north and frontage improvements to El Camino Real.
The site design for the 56 unit apartment project requires minimal grading to create a building
pad for 4 separate two-story apartment buildings with a partial subterranean garage below
Building 1 (see Exhibits “A” and “L”). Proposed amenities include a pool area, a 1,648 square
foot office and recreation building, and tot lot. Due to highly flammable sensitive native
vegetation that surrounds the site on three sides, the site design is driven by the required 60 foot
wide fire suppression zones between property lines and buildings. As a result, the proposed
apartment buildings are centrally located on the site with perimeter parking and Cassia Road
located within the fire suppression zones. One, two, and three bedroom units are proposed that
range in size from 646 square feet to 1,019 square feet. Unit A is one bedroom, Unit B is two
bedrooms, and Units C and D are three bedroom units. Building 1, which faces El Camino Real,
is the largest building with 24 units, Building 2 has 8 units, and Buildings 3 and 4 each have 12
units, Each unit is provided with a patio or balcony deck and storage closet. Building 1 patios
and balcony decks facing El Camino Real have been sound attenuated to the greatest extent
possible by an at grade 6’ high split face block sound attenuation wall and 44” high transparent
panels affixed to second story balcony railings. The California Spanish architectural style
includes mission tile roofs, arched recesses and windows, and metal trim elements on all
elevations.
The proposed project is subject to the following plans, ordinances, standards and policies:
A. General Plan;
13
GPA 02-05/ZC 02-06ISDP 02-13/SUP 02-09 - CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING
July 7,2004
B. Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Chapter 2 1.24 - RD-M Zone
Chapter 2 1.44 - Parking Ordinance
Chapter 21.85 - Inclusionary Housing
Chapter 21.53 - Multiple Family/Affordable Housing
Chapter 21.40 - Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone/El Camino Real Corridor
Standards; and
C. Growth Management.
IV. ANALYSIS
The recommendation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project’s
consistency with the applicable regulations and policies. The project’s compliance with each of
the above regulations is discussed in detail in the sections below.
A. General Plan
The project is consistent with applicable Elements of the General Plan as indicated by the
following table. The project includes a General Plan Amendment to change the land use
designation from Residential Low Medium density that is characterized by single-family
development to Residential High density characterized by multiple family development. The site
location, topography, and characteristics are consistent with the following General Plan Element
implementing policies regarding the location of high density developments.
ELEMENT
Land Use
TABLE 1: GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL
OBJECTIVE OR PROGRAM
Existing: Residential Low-Medium
(RLM) Density (0 - 4 dwelling
unitdacre)
Implementing Policies C.4K.8:
Limit medium and high density
residential developments to those
areas where they are compatible with
adjacent land uses, and where
adequate and convenient commercial
services and public support systems
such as streets, parking, parks,
schools, and public utilities are, or
will be, adequate to serve them.
PROPOSED USES &
IMPROVEMENTS
Proposed: Residential High
(RH) Density
(1 5 -23 dwelling units/acre)
The proposed 56-unit
apartment project is
compatible with surrounding
developments, including the
157 unit Manzanita
Apartments and 325 unit
Villa Loma Apartments. Bus
service is available on El
Camino Real, and future
Alga Norte and Zone 19
COMPLY
Yes
Yes
GPA 02-05/ZC 02-06/SDP 02-13/SUP 02-09 - CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING
July 7,2004
Implementing Policy C.5:
Locate multi-family uses near
commercial centers, employment
centers, and major transportation
corridors.
Implementing Policy C.7:
Locate higher density residential uses
in close proximity to open space,
community facilities, and other
amenities.
Growth Control Point: 19 dwelling
unit/acre.
Implementing Policy C.2
Allow density increases above growth
control point to enable development
of lower-income affordable housing
that is compatible with adjacent
development, where public facilities
are adequate, and in proximity to
major roadways, public parks and
open space, commercial centers,
employment centers, and transit
community parks and the
Westbluff Plaza and Plaza
Paseo Real commercial
shopping centers are located
within one mile of the site.
El Camino Real is currently
being widened and other
public facilities are adequate
to serve the development.
The project has direct access
to ECR and is within one
mile of existing and future
employment centers to the
north and commercial
centers.
The project is located in
proximity to the future Alga
Norte and Zone 19
community parks and is
bounded to the south and east
by permanent open space.
The project density of 21
du/acre exceeds the GCP of
19 du/ac; however, excess
units are available and public
facilities are adequate as
required by the Growth
Management Ordinance and
the General Plan.
The 56 unit apartment
project is compatible with
the 325 unit Villa Loma and
157 unit Manzanita
apartment projects to the
northwest and southwest,
public facilities are adequate,
and the project is in
proximity to ECR, two future
public parks and dedicated
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
GPA 02-05/ZC 02-06/SDP 02-1 3/SUP 02-09 - CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING
July 7,2004
Page 5
Housing
Public
Safety
Noise
centers.
Existing Zone: Exclusive Agriculture
(E-A) - The E-A Zone does not
implement residential land use
designations.
Implementing Policy 3.7M3.7.i. -
Accommodate General Plan
Amendments to increase densities on
properties to enable development of
affordable housing with adequate
public facilities.
Policy 3.8 -
Implement Council Policy 43 for
allocation of excess dwelling units
Provide project review that allows
consideration of seismic and geologic
hazards.
Reduce fire hazards to an acceptable
risk level.
Noise attenuation for properties
within 500 feet of circulation arterial
roadways.
Residential interior noise standard of
45 dBA CNEL.
open space, commercial
centers and public transit
service.
Proposed Zone: Residential
Density-Multiple (RD-M) -
RD-M zoning allows
multiple family development
that is consistent with the RH
General Plan desknation.
Project is 100% affordable
housing that is within the RH
General Plan density range
but requires an 11% density
increase above the growth
control point.
The affordable housing
project satisfies the criteria
established by Council for
allocating excess dwelling
units.
Project improvements will
not significantly impact or be
impacted by geologic or
seismic conditions.
Project provides 60' fire
sumression zones.
The project is conditioned to
require a 6' tall masonry
noise wall to attenuate noise.
The project is conditioned to
require future units to
comply with the interior
noise standard.
Yes
Yes
Yes*
Yes
Yes
Yes
GPA 02-05/ZC 02-06ISDP 02-13/SUP 02-09 - CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING
July 7,2004
Page 6
Circulation Requires new development to
construct improvements needed to
serve proposed development.
Minimize the number of access
points to major and prime arterials to
enhance the functioning of these
streets and thoroughfares.
* The proposed General Plan Amendment to the RH de
All public infrastructure will
be constructed in accordance
with City standards.
The project design takes
access off Cassia Road
which is a local street. No
direct public access off of El
Camino Real (prime arterial)
is proposed.
ignation and the requested 11
Yes
Yes
I density
increase above the RH growth control point require a total allocation of 51 dwelling units from
the City’s excess dwelling unit bank. Consistency findings for approval of the General Plan
Amendment to change the land use designation from RLM to RH and compliance with the
Growth Management Ordinance and General Plan policies for allowing projects to exceed the
growth control point are stated above. The project qualifies for the allocation of excess dwelling
units in accordance with Council Policy 43, which establishes policy for the allocation of excess
dwelling units, in that it is a 100% affordable apartment project where a density increase is
requested as an incentive to providing affordable housing units.
B1/2. RD-M Zone/Parking Ordinance
As shown on the following table, the proposed multi-family development meets or exceeds the
RD-M Zone and Parking Ordinance standards:
GPA 02-05/ZC 02-06/SDP 02-13/SUP 02-09 - CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING
July 7,2004
Standard
Use
-
TABLE 2: RD-M ZONE/PARKING ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE
Required
Multi-family and Single
Familv Units
Building Height
Parking Required:
12 - 1 Bedroom Units
44 - 2/3 Bedrooms Units
Guest Parking
10 Units @ .5 Spaces/Unit
46 Units @ .25 SpaceskJnit
Lot Size I Minimum 10.000 Sa. Feet
35 Feet
1.5 Spacemnit = 18 Spaces
2 SpacesAJnit = 88 Spaces
= 5 Spaces
= 12 Spaces
Total Required = 123 Spaces
Lot Width I Interior Lots: 60 Feet .
Lot Coverage 1 60%
S ebac ks :
Front Yard
Side Yard
Rear Yard
10 Feet
5 Feet
10 Feet
Proposed
56 Multi-family Units
2.659 Acres
295.2 Feet
27.41%
22 Feet
40 - 60 Feet
60 Feet
Maximum 33’6”
18 Spaces
88 Spaces
5 Spaces
12 Spaces
Total Provided = 123 Suaces
B3/B4. Inclusionary Housing/Multiple FamilylAffordable Housing
Section 2 1.85.080 of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance anticipates that combined projects are
proposed to satisfy a particular project or project’s inclusionary housing requirement. The
proposed 56-unit project would not satisfy a specific project currently under review; however, the
units could be used to satisfy the inclusionary housing requirements of future projects meeting
the necessary criteria. The City Council has the sole discretion to authorize a proposed combined
affordable housing site through their approval of an Affordable Housing Agreement. The project
location, which is in proximity to public transportation, employment, commercial services and
recreational opportunities, and buffered from existing development by open space and El Camino
Real meets the locational criteria specified for a combined inclusionary housing project.
Section 21.53.120 of the Zoning Ordinance requires approval of a site development plan for
multi-family apartment projects exceeding 4 units, and affordable housing projects of any size,
based on findings that the project is consistent with the underlying zoning and in conformance
with the General Plan policies and goals, and in accordance with the Qualified Overlay Zone.
Findings required by the Qualified Overlay Zone ensure that the use is consistent with the
General Plan, will not adversely impact the site or surrounding uses, and that the site and street
system are adequate to accommodate the use. Incentives such as density increases to enable the
reservation of affordable units are permitted.
68
GPA 02-05/ZC 02-06/SDP 02-1 3/SUP 02-09 - CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING
July 7,2004
As specified in Table 1 above, the project is compatible with existing and future multi-family
apartment projects located across ECR on the northwest and southwest comers of Cassia Road.
No adverse impacts to adjacent projects will occur because the project is surrounded by
undeveloped open space to the east and south, and roadways and/or undeveloped property to the
west and north. The proposed extension of Cassia Road will provide access to the undeveloped
property to the north. The property to the north is also currently designated. for RLM density
development; however, it is anticipated that due to biological constraints, future developnient
will also require a General Plan Amendment to redesignate the property to enable multi-family
development. The site and street system are adequate to accommodate the proposed project. The
proposed site design complies with all RD-M zone development standards, and the street system
serving the project would operate at acceptable levels of service with the additional demand
generated by the project.
Based on an analysis performed by staff, the proposed 11% density increase to enable the low
income units is a necessary incentive to offset the subsidy necessary to reserve 56 affordable
units. The affordable housing project complies with General Plan Policy C.2 applicable to
projects requesting density increases above the growth control point as stated in Table 1. The
project is compatible with surrounding development and public facilities, roadways, and public
services are in proximity to the development. Additionally, the low-income project qualifies for
the allocation of excess dwelling units in accordance with criteria established by Council Policy
43.
B5. Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone/El Camino Real Corridor Standards
The proposed project is located on the east side frontage of El Camino Real and is subject to the
regulations of the Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone, as implemented through the El Camino
Real Corridor Development Standards. Pursuant to 21.40..040, a special use permit is required.
Deviations to the ECR Corridor Standards are permitted if specific findings that compliance for a
particular project is infeasible, the scenic quality of the corridor is maintained, no adverse impact
on traffic would result, and the intent of the Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone is met.
The project is located within Area 5 of the El Camino Real Corridor (Sunfresh Rose to
Olivenhain Road). As shown on the following table, the project is consistent with all applicable
development standards except for setback and wall location:
GPA 02-05/ZC 02-06/SDP 02-1 3/SUP 02-09 - CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING
July 7, 2004
Page 9
Standard Adopted Criteria Proposed Project
Design Old CalifomidHispanic Hispanic (tile roof, stucco
Theme materials, arches)
Median Intersections and median Access at planned intersection
Breaks breaks
Compliance
Yes
Yes
Sidewalks
Signs
Building
Height
Grading
Setback
Walls in
Setback
Street
Furniture
Street light
spacing
*The project proposes to reduce the 30' building setback to 22' from the right-of-way and to
locate a noise attenuation wall within the 22' setback that meanders between a distance of 5' to
18' from the right-of-way. The necessary findings for approving these deviations are that:
Determined by Staff Per City standard Yes
Freestanding monument sign Freestanding monument sign Yes
stucco and wood 7' ta11/12'
long
35' from grade maximum 33'6" from grade maximum Yes
No cut or fill exceeding 10' Yes
from original grade
At grade: 30' minimum. 22' minimum proposed; No*
Some screening to be
incorporated into setback.
Minimum of 25' of right-of- 5' - 18' No*
way
Wrought iron or wood None proposed Yes
City standard City standard Yes
stucco and wood 3' ta11/7' long
Cut/fill not to exceed 5 feet
landscape screening provided
-
1.
Roof Not visible Not visible
Equipment
Land Uses Land use changes should be
addressed at time of request.
Land use change proposed.
The building setback and wall location standards are infeasible for the proposed
project, and the proposed deviations are consistent with the intent of the ECR
Corridor Standards. Due to high fuel species that occupy permanent open space
surrounding the project, 60' wide fire suppression zones are required between
structures and rear and side property lines. This results in side and rear setbacks
that are up to six times greater than the 5' and 10' required by the RD-M zone.
These additional setback widths significantly reduce the developable area of the
property; therefore, the 8' reduction in the front setback is necessary to enable a
site design that incorporates recreational amenities and conforms to City
development and design standards.
Yes
Yes
GPA 02-05/ZC 02-06/SDP 02-1 3/SUP 02-09 - CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING
July 7,2004
2. The reduced setback and placement of a sound attenuation wall within the reduced
setback will not reduce the scenic quality of the ECR corridor. The noise
attenuation wall is proposed to ensure that at-grade noise levels are reduced to the
greatest extent possible. Within the approximately 1,300’ between Poinsettia
Lane and Cassia Road, the proposed project would occupy only 295’. The
remaining 1000’ to the south of the proposed development is dedicated open
space that cannot be developed due to biological constraints. Therefore, the
proposed deviations would not eliminate views to the east along the ECR corridor
or result in continuous development too close to the right-of-way. The wall does
not interfere with required sight distance and will not have an adverse impact on
traffic safety. The meandering wall design that consists of split face block with
pilasters and cap along with dense landscape screening will maintain and enhance
the appearance of the El Camino Real roadway.
C. Growth Management
Table 4 below details the project’s conformance with the requirements of the Growth
Management Program and Zone 10 Local Facilities Management Plan.
*The project is 6 dwelling units above the Growth Management Dwelling Unit allowance.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff 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. No potentially
significant environmental impacts were identified; therefore, the Planning Director issued a
Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration on June 2 1,2004.
GPA 02-05/ZC 02-06/SDP 02-1 3/SW 02-09 - CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING
July 7,2004
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
AHmh
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5672 (ND)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5666 (GPA)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5667 (ZC)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5668 (SDP)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5669 (SUP)
Location Map
Local Facilities Impact Assessment
Background Data Sheet
Disclosure Statement
Reduced Exhibits
Exhibits “A” - “U” dated July 7,2004
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
(To be Submitted with Development Application)
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: Carlsbad Family Housing - GPA 02-05/ZC 02-06/SDP 02-13/SUP 02-
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 10 GENERAL PLAN: RLM TO RH
ZONING: E-A TO RD-M
DEVELOPER’S NAME: Carlsbad Family Housing Partners, a California Limited Liability
Partners hip
ADDRESS: 200 E. WashinPton Avenue, Suite 208, Escondido, CA 92026
PHONE NO.: /760) 738-8401 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 215-021-06
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 2.66 Acres156 Units
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: Unknown
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 195
Library: Demand in Square Footage = 104
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) 56 EDU
Park: Demand in Acreage = .39
Drainage: Demand in CFS = 5.67
Identify Drainage Basin = D
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: Demand in ADT = 336
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 2
Open Space: Acreage Provided = N/A
Schools: Elementary: 5.03
Middle School: 2.22
High School: 2.76
Sewer: Demands in EDU 56
Identify Sub Basin = H
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
Water: Demand in GPD = 12,230
The project is 6 units above the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.
73
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: GPA 02-05/ZC 02-06/SDP 02-1 3/SW 02-09
CASE NAME: Carlsbad Family Housing
APPLICANT: Carlsbad Family Housing Partners, a California Limited Liabilitv Partnership
REQUEST AND LOCATION: General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development
Plan, and El Camino Real Special Use Permit for a 56 unit affordable apartment proiect located
at the southeast comer of El Camino Real and Cassia Road.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A portion of fractional northeast quarter of southwest quarter of
Section 23, Township 12 South, Rang;e 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California.
APN: 2 15-02 1-06 Acres: 2.66 Proposed No. of LotsRJnits: 56 Units
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: RLM to RH
Density Allowed: 0-4 du/acre (5 units)
Existing Zone: E-A
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use:
Density Proposed: 15-23 du/acre (50 units)
Proposed Zone: RD-M
Zoning General Plan
Site E-A RLM
North L-c RLM
South RD-M-Q RLM
East P-c os
West RD-M-Q RM
Current Land Use
Green Houses
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Manzanita Apts.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Carlsbad Unified Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 56
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Negative Declaration, issued June 2 1,2004
0
c] Other,
Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
- City of
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 defrned as “Any individual, fm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal
organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and county, city
municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit.”
Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be
provided below.
1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant’s agent)
Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of persons having a financial
interest in the application. If the applicant includes a comoration or uartnership, include the
names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO
APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW If a publiclv-owned comoration, include the
names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if
necessary.)
Person See Attached CorpPart
INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-
Title Title
Address Address
2. OWNER (Not the owner’s agent)
Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of persons having any ownership
interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (ie,
partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a
comoration or DartnershiD, 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 @/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publicly-
owned comoration, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate
page may be attached if necessary.)
Person Anthony Bons
Title Husband/Trus tee
Address 2570 H illcrest Ave. Address 2570 Hillcrest Ave.
wm Dicky Bons
Title W i f e / Trus tee
Escondido, CA 92025 Escondido, CA 92025
75-
1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 - (760) 602-4600 - FAX (760) 602-8559 @
3. NON-PROFIT L .ZANIZATION OR TRUST
If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonmofit oreanrzation 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 Profiflrust Non Profiflrust
Title Title
Address Address
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees andor Council within the past twelve (1 2) months? 0 Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s):
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary.
I certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Nov. 5, 2002
ofhm&pplicant’stagex&& ‘ ate Housing Partw.P.
Its: General Partner
Print or type name of dapplicantkxgeatx
By: James Silverwood
Its: President
H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98 Page 2 of 2 76
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
(attachment)
APPLICANT
El Camino Family Housing Partners, L.P., a California limited partnership
I
GENERAL PARTNER
Affirmed Housing Group, a California
corporation
99.0% ownership interest in
El Camino Family Housing Partners, L.P.
James Silverwood,
an Individual
I LIMITED PARTNER
James Silverwood,
an Individual
1 .O% ownership interest in
El Camino Family Housing Partners, L.P.
100.0% ownership interest in
Affirmed Housing Group
77
4
E
78
NOU3tlUSN03 UOj ION
5
LL 6
1-- _-
I
bl
I --.
\
\
80
NOLL3fM.LSN03 UOj ION
NOLL3nUSN03 MOA ION
E , I;! ;I-
,;# !
I I 5
--* &r I
I I
, I, :’ / ’/ ’ .’
\
dl .....
: ?8 K bf f
: ;. P " .. . 2 it ; .. -, .
1
c
....
86
C C
c C
c I
-4 I I C" Ull
z
/--- E P
rg P $6
93
I3
...... - . _.._ ........ R -. . . .- .... 1 I .......... il
.- 4 ‘j
.... - .’
\ \
r
e
n* .I m .:-,
29 1
I 4
96
Planning Commission Minutes EXHIBIT 6 DRAFT Page3 July 7, 2004
2. GPA 02-05/ZC 02-06/SDP 02-13/SUP 02-09 - CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING -
Request for a recommendation of adoption of a Negative Declaration, and
recommendation of approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site
Development Plan, and El Camino Real Special Use Permit for a 56-unit affordable
apartment project located at the southeast corner of El Camino Real and Cassia Road in
Local Facilities Management Zone 10.
Mr. Neu introduced Item 2 and stated Associate Planner Anne Hysong would make the staff presentation.
Chairperson Whitton asked the applicant if he wanted to continue with the Public Hearing with only five
Commissioners present. The applicant stated he would like to continue.
Chairperson Whitton opened the Public Hearing on Item 2.
Associate Planner Hysong stated this project is a request for the recommendation of approval of a
Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Plan and El Camino
Real Special Use Permit to development a parcel located at the southeast corner of El Camino Real and
Cassia Road in the southeast quadrant. The site is a 2.6-acre parcel currently occupied by greenhouses.
The 56-unit combined affordable project consists of 4 two-story apartment buildings. Building 1 has a
partially subterranean 40-space parking garage, and the project includes a recreation building with laundry facilities, a pool and a tot lot. The project also includes a meandering six-foot high noise
attenuation wall within the setback along El Camino Real. The project requires a General Plan
Amendment to redesignate the property from Residential Low-Medium density to Residential High density
to be consistent with the General Plan policies regarding the placement of high-density residential
projects, particularly multi-family projects. The proposed density of 21 dwelling units per acre exceeds
the RH General Plan growth control point. The project requires an 11% density increase above the units
that are allowed by the RH General Plan designation which equates to about 6 units over the 50 units that
are allowed. The project is consistent with General Plan policy for exceeding the growth control point
because excess dwelling units are available, public facilities are adequate, and it is a 100% affordable
housing project located in proximity to El Camino Real, the future Alga Norte and Zone 19 parks, the
West Bluff Plaza and Plaza Paseo Real commercial shopping centers, and also existing and future
employment centers. Because the project is 100% affordable and is requesting a density increase as an
incentive, it qualifies for the allocation of excess dwelling units in accordance with Council Policy 43.
The project also requires a Zone Change from exclusive agriculture to the RDM zone. The RDM zone
implements the RH General Plan designation by allowing multiple family uses. The project is consistent
with the RDM zone development standards. Setback standards are exceeded and structures are below
the maximum building height and coverage limitations. The project also provides 123 resident and guest
parking spaces in accordance with the City's parking standard.
The proposed combined affordable housing project is not proposed to satisfy any particular project's
inclusionary housing requirement. The inclusionary housing ordinance establishes locational criteria for
combined projects that require the site to be in proximity to the amenities previously mentioned. Sites are
required to be buffered from existing development by open space, and this site satisfies all of those
criteria.
The findings required by the Qualified Overlay Zone for any apartment project over 4-units can also be
made. The project would not result in adverse impacts, the site is adequate to accommodate the
apartment development, and the street system serving the project will operate at acceptable levels with
the additional demand.
The project, which has frontage on El Camino Real, is consistent with the applicable El Camino Real
Corridor standards with two exceptions. The project is consistent with the Corridor standards because a
General Plan Amendment is proposed to change the land use consistent with the project. The
architectural style is California Spanish as required. The grading design, building height and signage
proposed all conform to the El Camino Real Corridor Standards. The proposed deviations would reduce
the required 30-foot building setback from the El Camino Real right of way to 22 feet and allow a noise
attenuation wall within the setback. These deviations are justified because providing the full setback and
97
Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 2004 Page 4
eliminating the wall is infeasible for this project due to site constraints. The site is surrounded on three
sides by high-fueled native vegetation within the open space which requires a 60-foot fire suppression
zone on those three sides between the property lines and structures. This results in side and rear
setbacks that are up to 6 times greater than what is normally required by the RDM zone. The noise
attenuation wall, which meanders from 5 feet to 18 feet behind the right-of-way, is necessary to reduce
traffic noise generated by El Camino Real. These deviations will not reduce the scenic quality of the
corridor or have an adverse impact on traffic safety. Permanent open space located between Poinsettia
Lane to the south and the project will maintain views to the east along the corridor. The proposed
meandering wall design, which consists of split face block with pilasters and cap, and dense landscaping
in front of the wall, will maintain or enhance the appearance of the El Camino Real corridor.
Mrs. Hysong concluded her presentation and stated she would be available to answer any questions.
Commissioner Dominguez inquired about the detail, building material and height variation on the noise
attenuation wall. Mrs. Hysong responded that the wall will not be mounded however the wall is
consistently 6-foot along the entire frontage and will meander from 5 feet near the right-of-way to 18 feet
with project signage incorporated into the wall about midpoint. Dense landscaping in front of the wall is
also included so that it will be aesthetically appealing and will serve to screen the wall from El Camino
Real. The fence will be made of split face block with cap and pilasters, and contrasting colors.
Commissioner Montgomery stated that when looking at the site on its own, it seems to have an urban feel
to it with a significant amount of hardscape and very light landscaping. He asked for an explanation or
reason for staffs support of the project based on the landscaping in its current condition. Mrs. Hysong
responded that the 60-foot suppression zone which pushed the buildings into the middle of the site drove
the design of the project. Staff also felt that in lieu of landscaping, the amenities such as a pool and
recreation room were desirable for the project, which creates more hardscaping in the center of the
project. Commissioner Montgomery also inquired if the developer was required to completely improve
Cassia Road, and if so, what are the plans, if any, for development north of Cassia Road, what are the
impacts, and if everything is planned and sufficient in nature in order to have that development occur.
Deputy City Engineer, Bob Wojcik responded that the project is conditioned such that the developer will
construct half plus twelve feet in width (32 feet) of pavement, curb, gutter and sidewalk on their side, and
the standard parkway. The other portion of the street would be built in the future including another 8 feet
of pavement; the sidewalk and parkway will be done by the project to the north when it is developed. Ms.
Hysong stated that the project was developed with a cul-de-sac street which would provide access to
both properties. Cassia Road would provide access to the developable portion of the site to the north.
Mrs. Hysong further stated there will be no further extension of Cassia Road.
Commissioner Baker asked if the project was conditioned to determine the size and type of landscaping
or if it's just to be heavily landscaped. Mrs. Hysong stated the landscape plans, which are part of the
conceptual landscape plan being reviewed, show 24 inch box trees and 36 inch box palm trees.
Chairperson Whitton asked if there would be a bus pickup location in close proximity to this project either
on El Camino Real or Cassia Road. Mr. Wojcik stated he spoke with the planner from the North County
Transit District (NCTD) who commented that NCTD would want a location on El Camino Real
approximately 400 feet north of Cassia Road which would be required with the future development to the
north.
Chairperson Whitton asked if there were any further questions of staff. Seeing none, he asked if the
applicant wished to make a presentation.
Jim Silverwood, President of Affirmed Housing Group, commented the project would provide quality
affordable housing for the local workforce, it complies with the strict Carlsbad development standards with
the exception of the one requested waiver and it would bring significant improvements to the Cassia
Road/El Camino Real intersection. He concluded his presentation and stated he would be available to
answer any questions.
Commissioner Baker commented the staff report states this is a stand alone project but there is the
possibility that small, future projects can buy housing credits within this project. She asked if the
applicant was aware of the agreement and if he could explain the agreement. Mr. Silverwood stated that
Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 2004 Page 5
there is no agreement in place but the project is subject to a future meeting with the Housing Commission
and then City Council would later ratify that. Commissioner Baker inquired if there would be an onsite
manager for the project. Mr. Silverwood stated there would be. Commissioner Baker further inquired if
the design of the project was something the applicant submitted or if it was based on what the City
requested. Mr. Silverwood stated that the style the applicant agreed to proceed with was initially brought
about by the standards for the El Camino Real corridor. He stated they tried to adhere to those standards
first which led to the current design.
Commissioner Montgomery asked if the laundry facilities are sufficient for an apartment grouping of this
size and what calculations were used to determine the size. Mr. Silverwood stated that based on his
company’s experience the size is adequate and there is an actual calculation of numbers of washers and
dryers per every ten apartment units and a certain ratio used. This calculation is something used
internally in his company. This figure was given to the architect very early in the process so that the
facilities are adequately sized. Commissioner Montgomery asked if that seems to work well within the
working atmosphere of an apartment complex. Mr. Silverwood responded that he believed it did.
Chairperson Whitton asked if there were any further questions of the applicant or of staff. Seeing none,
he closed Public Testimony on the item.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Baker, and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 5672 recommending
adoption of the Negative Declaration and adopt Planning Commission
Resolutions No. 5666, 5667, 5668, and 5669 recommending approval of GPA
02-05, ZC 02-06, SDP 02-13, and SUP 02-09 based on the findings and subject
to the conditions contained therein.
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Montgomery stated his support for the project. He stated that the current zoning
designation would allow for 5 houses on the site which he feels is an inappropriate use given the El
Camino Real corridor. He stated this is an example of what was talked about at the previous meeting
with giving the property owners flexibility in uses of their property and being able to control the density of
their projects. He feels that with this type of project it shows when there is flexibility in planning without
restrictions placed on it, the city can actually come up with projects that fit the correct site. He applauded
the applicant and staff for coming up with this project.
Commissioner Dominguez also feels fortunate that the development corporation submitted this type of
project and for the City to utilize it in an area which seemed tough to develop. He commended the
applicant and feels it will be a great project.
Commissioner Heineman stated his support of the project.
VOTE: 5-0
AYES:
NOES: None
Whitton, Baker, Dominguez, Heineman and Montgomery
Chairperson Whitton closed the Public Hearing and asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item.
99
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public
hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO
p.m. on Tuesday, August IO, 2004, to consider a request for approval of a General Plan
Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Plan, Negative Declaration, and El Camino Real
Corridor Special Use Permit for a 56 unit affordable apartment project located at the southeast
corner of El Camino Real and Cassia Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 10 and more
particularly described as:
A portion of fractional northeast quarter of southwest quarter of
Section 23, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino
Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on and after August 6, 2004. If you have
any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4622.
If you challenge the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Plan, Negative
Declaration, and/or Special Use Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues
you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive,
Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: GPA 02-05/ZC 02-06/SDP 02-1 3/SUP 02-09
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING
PUBLISH: July 30, 2004
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
SITE
CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING
GPA 02-05/ZC 02=06/SDP 02-1 3/SUP 02-09
CARLSBAD UNlF SCHOOL DlST
6225 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92009 ENClNlTAS CA 92024
CITY OF ENClNlTAS
505 S VULCAN AVE
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NORTH COAST HWY
OCEANSIDE CA 92054 VISTA CA 92085
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE STE 100
SAN DIEGO CA 92123 9174 SKY PARK CT
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DlST
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
U.S. FISH &WILDLIFE
6010 HIDDEN VALLEY RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009 7575 METROPOLITAN DR
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
STE 103
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402
CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING
PARTNERS
STE 208
200 E WASHINGTON AVE
ESCONDIDO CA 92026
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COMMUNITY SERVICES PUBLIC WORKSlENGlWEERlNG
CITY OF CARLSBAD
DEPT- PROJECT ENGINEER
CLYDE WICKHAM
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT PLANNER
ANNE HYSONG
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
SD COUNTY PLANNING
STE B
5201 RUFFIN RD
SANDIEGO CA 92123
SANDAG
STE 800
401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
I .P.U.A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
URBAN STUDIES
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
ATTN TED ANASIS
SAN DIEGO COUNTY AIRPORT
AUTHORITY
PO BOX 82776
SAN DIEGO CA 92138-2776
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
BONS CHARITABLE TRUST
25709 HILLCREST AVE
ESCONDIDO CA 92026
MANZANITA PARTNERS LLC
1764 SAN DIEGO AVE
SAN DIEGO CA 921 10
BRESSI DAUGHTERS TRUST
SUITE 302
10409 RIVERSIDE DR
TOLUCA LAKE CA 91602
REAL ESTATE COLLATERAL
MANAGEMENT
SUITE 180
1903 WRIGHT PL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MANZANITA PARTNERS LLC
1155 CUCHARA DR
DEL MAR CA 92014
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public
hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO
p.m. on Tuesday, {DATE}, to consider a request for approval of a General Plan Amendment,
Zone Change, Site Development Plan, and El Camino Real Corridor Special Use Permit for a
56 unit affordable apartment project located at the southeast corner of El Camino Real and
Cassia Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 10 and more particularly described as:
A portion of fractional northeast quarter of southwest quarter of
Section 23, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino
Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on and after {DATE}. If you have any
questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4622.
If you challenge the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Plan, and
Special Use Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone
else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered
to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: GPA 02-05/ZC 02-06/SDP 02-1 3/SUP 02-09
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING
PUBLISH: {DATE}
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
SITE
CARLSBAD FAM I LY H 0 US I NG
GPA 02-05EC O2-O6/SDP 02-1 31SUP 02-09
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the above-
entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the
printer of
North County Times
Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by
the Superior Court of the County of San Diego,
State of California, for the City of Oceanside and
the City of Escondido, Court Decree number
171349, for the County of San Diego, that the
notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set
in type not smaller than nonpariel), has been
published in each regular and entire issue of said
newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on
the following dates, to-wit:
A
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at SAN MARCOS, California
This r '3 Day of July, 2004
This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
Proof of Publication of
A portion of fractional northeast quarter of southwest auarter of Section 23. TownshiD 12 South. Aanae 41 West San Bernardino Me- ' .I
ridian in the Ci bad, kouny of $n Diego:~~~~I I State of Ca ifornia
of Carls
Those persons wishing to speak on this pro osal are cordial1 invited Po ttend the ubfc hearing. Eo ies of tfe agenda bill wilfbe available on and after Au- gust 6 2004: If you have any qiestions please call Anne Hysong 'in the Plan- nin De artment at (760) 608462l
If ou challen e the General PYan Arnenyment Zone Chan e Site Develbpment Plan abgative Declaration andhr Special Use Permit in court you ma be limited to raisilig only tLse issues you or someone else raised at the p,ublic hearing de- scribed in this notice or in written correspondence de- livered to the City of Carls- bad Attn: Cit Clerk 1200 Carlsbad Vlllage Drive, Carlbbad, CA &008, ai or prior to the public hearing. I CASE FILE: GPA 02-05/ZC 02-WSDP 02-13SUP 02-09 1 CASE NAME: CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING
ITY OF CARLSBAD ITY COUNCIL NCT 1671506 Julv 30,2004 I . . - -. . -
Signature
Legal Advertising
1 // NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Carlsbad Family HousingCarlsbad Family HousingGPA 02-05/ZC 02-06/SDP 02-13/SUP 02-09
Approval For:Approval For:•Negative Declaration•General Plan Amendment•Zone Change•Site Development Plan•El Camino Real Special Use Permit•Received recommendation of approval by Planning Commission on July 7, 2004
Location MapLocation MapE L C A M IN O R E A L
POINSETTIALNCARRILLOWYCASSIA RDSITELAS PALMAS DRCAMINOVIDAROBLE
Site CharacteristicsSite Characteristics•2.66 acre parcel occupied by greenhouses•El Camino Real frontage•Relatively flat•No sensitive vegetation•Surrounded on two sides by permanent open space
Project FeaturesProject Features•56 unit combined 100% affordable housing project•Four two-story apartment buildings•Partially subterranean 40 space parking garage•Recreation building, office, laundry room & pool•60 foot fire suppression zones around property perimeter•6 foot noise attenuation wall within reduced ECR setback
General Plan ConsistencyGeneral Plan Consistency•Re-designate from RLM to RH–Compatible with surrounding high density development–Adequate commercial services–Adequate parks, employment centers, transportation corridors–Buffered by permanent open space
General Plan Consistency (Cont.)General Plan Consistency (Cont.)•Density allowed: 19 du/acre•Density proposed: 21 du/acre•11% density increase–100% affordable–Adequate public facilities–Employment centers–Adequate public services•Allocation of excess units consistent with Policy 43
Zoning ConsistencyZoning Consistency•Re-zone to RD-M–Implements RH General Plan designations•Multiple family use•Adequate site area•Exceeds setback requirements•33’ 6’’ maximum building height•123 parking spaces
InclusionaryHousing/Qualified Overlay ZoneInclusionaryHousing/Qualified Overlay Zone•Combined affordable project•Satisfies location criteria•Consistent with General Plan•No adverse impacts•Adequate site and street system
El Camino Real Corridor StandardsEl Camino Real Corridor Standards•Land use change proposed with project•Access from Cassia Road extension•California Spanish architectural style•Freestanding monument sign•Building height below standard•No significant grade change•Deviations required–22’ minimum right of way setback–Noise wall within reduced setback
Environmental ReviewEnvironmental Review•Negative Declaration published June 21, 2004•No public comment