HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-10-05; City Council; 17822; Emerald Pointe EstatesAB# 17,822
MTG. 10/5/04
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the Council INTRODUCE Ordinance No. NS-723 , APPROVING Zoning Change
ZC 02-02, and ADOPT Resolution No. 2004-31 8 ADOPTING a Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Addendum, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and APPROVING
General Plan Amendment GPA 03-05 and Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 02-02.
TITLE:
EMERALD POINTE ESTATES
GPA 03-05RCPA 02-02RC 02-02
Project application(s)
Environmental Review
GPA 03-05
LCPA 02-02 zc 02-02
CT 02-07
HDP 02-02
CDP 02-07
To be Reviewed -
Final at Council
Administrative Reviewed by and
Approvals Final at Planning
Commission
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
On June 16, 2004, the Planning Commission approved (5-0 Dominguez absent) a residential
subdivision consisting of 14 single-family lots and 2 open space lots on a vacant parcel of land
located between Aviara Parkway and Cobblestone Drive. The project requires a General Plan
Amendment, Local Coastal Program Amendment and Zone Change to clarify, refine and adjust land
use designation boundaries and rezone the property from Limited Control (L-C) to One Family
Residential, 10,000 square foot minimum (R-1-10,000) and Open Space (04) to implement the
proposed Residential Low (RL) and Open Space (OS) General Plan Land Use designations. The
proposed Open Space is a 10.1-acre HMP habitat preserve that will provide connections to
surrounding preserve areas.
The project is located within the Airport Influence Area of the McClellan-Palomar Airport and,
according to State Public Utilities Code Section 21670, projects proposing land use changes must
be submitted to the Airport Land Use Commission for a determination of consistency with the City’s
Airport Land Use Plan (CLUP). On September 9, 2004, the ALUC reviewed the project and
determined that the project is consistent with the CLUP.
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 1 9) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Potentially
significant biological, paleontological, and noise impacts were identified. The developer agreed to
mitigation measures to reduce the identified impacts to below a level of significance in accordance
with CEQA. The Planning Director issued a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the project on March 28, 2003. Comments were received from the US Fish &
Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish & Game, and Carolyn Martus representing Preserve
Calavera and the California Native Plant Society (San Diego Chapter). Based on comments
received, the project was revised to avoid impacts to sensitive coastal sage scrub and chaparral
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 17,822
Facilities Zone
Local Facilities Management Plan
Growth Control Point
Net Density
SDecial Facilitv Fee
habitat. Staff responded in writing to comments from the wildlife agencies on April 5, 2004. No new
significant impacts requiring mitigation were identified; therefore, changes to the Mitigated Negative
Declaration are documented in the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
FISCAL IMPACT:
All public infrastructure required by this project would be funded by the developer.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STATUS:
20
20
1
1.2
None
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Ordinance No. NS-723
2. City Council Resolution No. 2OO4-318
3. Location Map
4.
5.
6.
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5643, 5644, 5645, and 5646
Planning Commission Staff Report, dated June 16, 2004
Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes, dated June 16, 2004.
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Anne H ysong , (760) 602-4622, ah yso @ ci .ca rlsbad.ca. us
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDINANCE NO. NS-723
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 L-C, R-
1 AND 0-S TO R-1-10,000 AND 0-S ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT
ROAD BETWEEN AVIARA PARKWAY AND COBBLESTONE
DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20.
CASE NAME: EMERALD POINTE ESTATES
CASE NO.: zc 02-02
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 02-02” 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 5646 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.)
Iff
I//
Ill
f/f
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City
Council on the 5th day Of October , 2004, and thereafter.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the day of
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
, 2004, by the following vote, to wit:
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
Project Name: Emerald Pointe Estates
Parcel 1: All that portion of that parcel of land
designated as “description No. 5, 103.54 acres as
shown and delineated on Record of Survey Map No.
5715, filed in the office of the County Recorder of
San Diego County, December 19, 1960.
Excepting therefrom portions of Parcel 1 of Parcel
Map 15661 as described in official records.
I Related Case File No@):
Legal Description(s): GPA 03-05/LCPA 02-02/CT 02-07/CDP 02-07/HDP
02-02
Parcel 2: Lot 115 of Carlsbad Tract No. 84-32(A),
Unit No. 1 (Cobblestone Sea Village) in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
According to map thereof No. 13428. filed in the
zc: 02-02
draft a final
)ffice of the County Recorder of San Diego County,
une 3,1997.
Zone Change
Property: From: To:
A. 212-190-53 R-1 /OS R-l-10,000
’arcel 3: Easement for roadway and utility purposes
mer those certain strips of land designated as “60
oot strip and 66 foot easement reserved for roadway
,d utility purposes”. As shown on said Rec’ord of
hrvey Map No. 5715.
Approvals
Council Approval Date:
Ordinance No:
Excepting from 60 foot strip, that portion which lies
vithin Parcel No. 1 above.
B. 21 2-040-50
C. 21 2-1 90-55
Parcel 4: A temporary easement for pedestrian and
vehicular access, ingress and egress as contained in
document recorded May , 1996 as File No. 1996-
021877 of official records being a portion of Parcel 1
of Pare1 Map 15661, that portion being a portion of
the easement for roadway and utility purposes over
those certain strips of land designated and as
described in official records.
L-c R-l-10,000 (7.7 ac) Effective Date:
L-c R-1 Signature:
0-S (10.3 ac)
b
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. 2004-318
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, ADDENDUM, AND MITIGATION
ING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
MAP AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM TO CLARIFY, REFINE,
AND ADJUST LAND USE DESIGNATION BOUNDARIES ON AN
PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD BETWEEN AVIARA PARKWAY
MENT ZONE 20.
CASE NAME: EMERALD POINTE ESTATES
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND APPROV-
18-ACRE PARCEL GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF
AND COBBLESTONE DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGE-
CASE NO.: GPA 03-05/LCPA 02-02/ZC 02-02
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as
follows:
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on June 16, 2004, hold a duly noticed
public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum,
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment 03-05 according
to Exhibit “GPA 03-05” attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 5644 and incorporated
herein by reference and Local Coastal Program Amendment 02-02 according to Exhibit “LCPA
02-02” attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 5645 and incorporated herein by
reference. The Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5643,
5644 and 5645 recommending to the City Council that they be approved; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did on the 5th dayof October , 2004
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Addendum, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan
Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the City Council considered all
factors relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum, and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does
9 hereby resolved as follows:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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. 5643, 5644 and 5645 for the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Addendum, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment and
Local Coastal Program Amendment 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 03-05 as shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5644 is
hereby accepted, approved in concept, and shall be formally approved with GPA Batch No. 2
comprised of GPA 02-05, GPA 03-08, GPA 03-13, GPA 04-01, GPA 04-04, GPA 04-07, GPA
04-08, GPA 04-1 1 and GPA 04-1 3.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 5th day of October , 2004, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Finnila, Kulchin, Hall and Packard.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST: /
. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
-2- 8
EXHIBIT 3
EMERALD POINTE ESTATES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT 4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5643
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
ADDENDUM, AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM TO SUBDIVIDE 18 ACRES INTO 14
SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD
BETWEEN AVIARA PARKWAY AND COBBLESTONE
DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20.
CASE NAME: EMERALD POINTE ESTATES
CASE NO.: GPA 03-05/LCPA 02-02/ZC 02-02/
CT 02-07/HDP 02-02/CDP 02-07
WHEREAS, BCS Natural Resources Corp., “Developer,” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by BCS Program L-2 LTD.,
“Owner,” described as:
Parcel 1: All that portion of that parcel of land designated as
“Description No. 5, 103.54 acres as shown and delineated on
Record of Survey Map No. 5715, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, December 19,1960.
Excepting therefrom portions of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No.
15662 as described in Official Records.
Parcel 2: Lot 115 of Carlsbad Tract No. 84-32(A), Unit No. 1
(Cobblestone Sea Village), in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No.
23428, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego
County, June 3,1997.
Parcel No. 3: Easement for roadway and utility purposes over
those certain strips of land designated as “60 foot strip and 66
foot easement reserved for roadway and utility purposes,” as
shown on said Record of Survey Map No. 5715.
Excepting from said 60 foot strip, that portion which lies
within Parcel No. 1 above.
Parcel 4: A temporary easement for pedestrian and vehicular
access, ingress and egress as contained in document recorded
May 1, 1996, as File No. 1996-0218757 of official records being
a portion of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 15661, that portion being a
portion of the easement for roadway and utility purposes over
LO
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
those certain strips of land designated and as described in
official records
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum were prepared in
conjunction with said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 16th day of June, 2004, hold a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, Exhibit “ND,” according to Exhibits “NOI” dated March 28,2003, and
“PII” dated November 18,2002, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on
the following findings:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Addendum, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any
comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the project; and
b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum 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
PC RES0 NO. 5643 -2- I\
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
c. it reflects the independent jud,gnent 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.
d.
Conditions:
1. Developer shall implement or cause the implementation of the Emerald Pointe Estates
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 16th day of June, 2004, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson White, Commissioners Baker,
Montgomery, and Segall
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Dominguez and Whitton
ABSTAIN: None
MELISSA WHITE, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER v
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5643 -3 -
Heineman,
1%
CASE NAME: Emerald Pointe Estates
CASE NO: GPA 03-05LCPA 02-02!ZC 02-02/CT 02-07KDP 02-07:
HDP 02-02
PROJECT LOCATION: South of Palomar Airport Road north of Cobblestone Road, and east of Aviara
Parkway in the southwest quadrant and Local Facilities Management Zone 20
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of a request for a General Plan Amendment and Local
Coastal Program Amendment to clarify, refine and adjust the generalized land use designation boundaries of
Residential Low (RL), Residential Low-Medium (RLM), and Open Space (OS) on the property, a Zone
Change to rezone the property from L-C, R-1 and 0-S to R-1-10,000 and 0-S, and a Tentative Subdivision
Map, Coastal Development Permit and Hillside Development Permit to grade and subdivide an 18 acre
parcel into 14 single family, 10,000 square foot (minimum), lots and two open space lots. The proposed
open space would be preserved as a habitat conservation area consistent with the City’s Habitat
Management Plan (HMP).
DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described
project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the
Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part
2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows:
Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been
added to the project.
The proposed project MAY have “potentially significant. impact(s)” on the 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 mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. (Mitigated Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained
to be addressed).
Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a
significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing 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:
ATTEST:
\3 @
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
ADDENDUM TO EMERALD POINTE ESTATES
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - GPA 03-
OSLCPA 02-02/ZC 02-02/CT 02-07/HDP 02-02/CDP 02-07
The project has been redesigned so that the only disturbance to CSS habitat will occur within the
final 20’ of the 60’ wide fire suppression zone as allowed by the City’s Habitat Management Plan
and Local Coastal Program. This area also provides the required 20’ wide buffer between
development and sensitive native vegetation in accordance with the City’s Local Coastal
Program and HMP. .245 acre of CSS habitat will be disturbed by fire suppression measures
within the buffer. The developer will revegetate at a 2:l ratio .5 acre of CSS habitat within the
previously disturbed area located to the west of the proposed development. Prior to issuance of a
grading permit, all necessary agency permits shall be issued and a revegetation plan shall be
approved by the USFWS and CDFG.
Mitigation measures shall be revised as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
The developer shall revegetate .5 acre previously disturbed by agricultural activity on the
property. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, all necessary agency permits shall be
issued and a revegetation plan shall be approved by the USFWS and CDFG.
Prior to commencement of grading activities, direct surveys to locate active gnatcatcher
nests shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. If nests are present, no grading shall
occur within 300 feet of active nests and noise attenuation measures shall be required to
ensure that noise levels within occupied gnatcatcher habitat do not exceed 60 cBA leq.
Construction shall be scheduled to occur outside the bird breeding season (February 15 -
August 31) or assure that construction activity will not result in noise levels above 60
dBA leq at any nest site.
Vegetation clearing and removal shall occur outside the bird breeding season (February
15 - August 31).
If construction occurs during raptor breeding season (February 1 to August 30) a qualified
biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey of the project site and surrounding
habitat to determine whether there are active raptor nests within the area. If an active
raptor nest is observed, a 500-foot buffer shall be established between the construction
activities and the nest that shall be in effect until the nest is no longer active.
Prior to issuance of building permits for future residences, the developer shall submit
proof that interior noise levels will not exceed 45 dBA for all units when openings to the
exterior are open or closed. If openings are required to be closed to meet the interior
noise standard, then mechanical ventilation shall be provided.
Prior to any grading of the project site:
a. A paleontologist shall be retained to perform a walkover survey of the site and to
review the grading plans to determine if the proposed grading will impact fossil
resources. A copy of the paleontologist’s report shall be provided to the Planning
Director prior to issuance of a grading permit.
A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of the
site and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils
present in the geologic strata, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for
laboratory processing through fine screens. The paleontologist shall make
periodic reports to the Planning Director during the grading process.
The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an
exposed fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts.
All fossils collected shall be donated to a public, nonprofit institution with a
research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum.
Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities of
the project shall be resolved by the Planning Director and City Engineer.
b.
c.
d.
e.
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 1 of 1
v) P)
Q
v) w
Q)
S
0
c.
c
c. .-
n E E E W
lii z a z
I- :: 3 [I
.. W I- a n
-I 5 0 [I a a a
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 2 of 2
3 cd d
al
v) c 0
v)
- 0
n
$?
v) .- 5
- City of Carlsbad
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME: Emerald Pointe Estates
CASE NO: GPA 03-05lLCPA 02-02/ZC 02-02/CT 02-07/CDP 02-07/
HDP 02-02
PROJECT LOCATION: South of Palomar Airport Road north of Cobblestone Road, and east
of Aviara Parkway in the southwest quadrant and Local Facilities
Management Zone 20.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of a request for a General Plan Amendment
and Local Coastal Program Amendment to clarify, refine and adjust the generalized land use
designation boundaries of Residential Low (RL), Residential Low-Medium (RLM), and Open
Space (OS) on the property, a Zone Change to rezone the property from L-C, R-1 and 0-S to R-
1-10,000 and 0-S, and a Tentative Subdivision Map, Coastal Development Permit and Hillside
Development Pennit to grade and subdivide an 18 acre parcel into 14 single family, 10,000
square foot (minimum), lots and two open space lots. The proposed open space would be
preserved as a habitat conservation area consistent with the City’s Habitat Management Plan
(HMP).
PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental
review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of
Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially
significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in.the project plans or proposals made
by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are
released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly
no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in
light of the whole record before the City that the project “as revised” may have a significant
effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be recommended
for adoption by the City of Carlsbad City Council.
A copy of the initial study (EM Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration are on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad,
California 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to
the Planning Department within 30 days of the date of this notice.
The proposed project and Mitigated Negative Declaration are subject to review and
approvaVadoption 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 MARCH 28,2003 TO APRIL 28,2003
PUBLISH DATE MARCH 28.2003 43 18 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760). 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us January 30,2003
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORlll- PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: GPA 03-05iZC 02-02LCPA 02-02/CT 02-07/CDP 02-07/HDP 02-02
DATE: November 18,2002 BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
CASE NAME: EMERALD POINTE ESTATES
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad - 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad,
CA 92008
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Anne Hysong. Associate Planner - (760) 602-
4622
PROJECT LOCATION: South of Palomar Airuort Road north of Cobblestone Road. and east of
Aviara Parkway in the southwest quadrant and Local Facilities Management Zone 20.
PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: BCS Promam L-2, Ltd.. % Anthony C.
Hummel, General Partner, 201 Emerald Bav Drive. Laguna Beach, CA 9265 1
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Low (RL) densitv
ZONING: Limited Control (L-C)
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing
approval or participation agreements): California Coastal Commission (Local Coastal Promam
Amendment)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
The project consists of a request for a General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program
Amendment to clarify, refine and adjust the generalized boundaries of Residential Low (RL),
Residential Low-Medium (RLM), and Open Space (OS) designations on the property, a Zone
Change to rezone the property from L-C, R-1 and 0-S to R-1-10,000 and 0-S, and a Tentative
Subdivision Map, Coastal Development Permit and Hillside Development Permit to grade and
subdivide an 18 acre parcel into 14 single family, 10,000 square foot (minimum), lots and two
open space lots. The open space would be preserved as a habitat conservation area consistent
with the City’s Habitat Management Plan (HMP).
The project site consists of approximately 18 acres located south of Palomar Airport Road
between Aviara Parkway and Cobblestone Road in the southwest quadrant of the City. The infill
site is surrounded to the north by open space, to the south and east by small lot single family
development, and to the west by multi-family development. The property slopes moderately to
steeply down to the west and south from a gently sloping ridge top with elevations ranging from
140’ to 262’ MSL. The proposed development will occur on approximately 6 acres of the ridge
area that has been previously disturbed by agricultural activity. The remaining disturbed and
undisturbed portion of the property contains native and non-native grassland, coastal sage scrub,
southern mixed chaparral, and San Diego thorn-mint.
1 Rev. 07/03/02
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Aesthetics 0 Geology/Soils Noise
Agricultural Resources HazardsMazardous Materials 0 Population and Housing
0 Air Quality HydrologyNater Quality 0 Public Services
Biological Resources 0 Land Use and Planning 0 Recreation
[XI Cultural Resources Mineral Resources 0 TransportatiodCirculation
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Utilities ~r Service Systems
2 Rev. 07/03/02
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0
Ixl
0
0
0
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have "potentially significant irnpact(s)" on the
environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1 ) has been adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on
attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and
(b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required.
3-24- 03
Planner Signature Date
3/z5/0 3
Date '
3 Rev. 07/03/02
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct
an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on
the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the
form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that
might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the
basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to,
or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
“Less Than Significant Impact“ applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significantly adverse.
Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
adverse effect on the environment, but poten!ially significant adverse effects (a) have
been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant
to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that
are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a
supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required
by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no
additional environmental document is required.
When ”Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an
earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a
“Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence
that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the
environment.
If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the ,City may avoid
4 Rev. 07/03/02 aa
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.
e An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse
effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable
standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the
adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations"
for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3)
proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant;
or (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of
significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a
mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of
significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of
the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined
significant.
5 Rev. 07/03/02 a3
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less No
Significant Significant Than Impact
Impact Unless Signifi-
Mitigation cant
Incorporated Impact
1. AESTHETICS -Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a 0 !XI 0 scenic vista?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, o including but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a State scenic highway?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual 0 character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
d) Create a new source of substantial light 0 and glare, which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
II. AGRICULTRAL RESOURCES - (In
determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
Site Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the
California Department of Conservation as an
optional model to use in assessing impacts
on agriculture and farmland.) Would the
project:
0
0
0
0 [XI
0 Ixl
0 Ixl
6 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less No Significant Significant Than Impact
Impact Unless Signifi-
Mitigation cant
Incorporated Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique 0 0 0 El Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuan? to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for 0
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
c) Involve other changes in the existing CI environment, which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland
to non-agricultural use?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
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 0 applicable air quality plan?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute O substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
0
0
0
0
0 X
CI IXI
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
7 Rev. 07fQ3l02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is in non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the
project:
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?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
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?
Potentially Potentially Less No
Significant Significant Than Impact
Impact Unless Signifi-
Mitigation cant
Incorporated Impact
0
0
CI
0
0
0 [XI 0
0
0
€3
0
0 Ix1
[x1
0 0
0 IXI
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
8 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less No Significant Significant Than Impact
Impact Unless Signifi-
Mitigation cant
Incorporated Impact 0 0 0 [XI Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including but not
limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filing, hydrological
interruption, or other means,?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
0 Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
0 IXI cl
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
0 0 0 IXI Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
Ixl 0 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
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
a 0 0 IXI Impact tributary areas that are environmentally
sensitive?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the
project:
Cause a substantial adverse change in a the significance of a historical resource as
defined in 51 5064.5?
0 IXI
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
Rev. 07/03/02 27 9
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less No Significant Significant Than Impact
Impact Unless Signifi-
Mitigation cant
Incorporated Impact
Cause a substantial adverse change in 0 0 0 IXI the significance of an archeological
resource pursuant to §15064.5?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 0 paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
Disturb any human remains, including cl those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
IV. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the
project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, 0 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?
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 IXI
IXI 0
IXI 0
IXI
0 IXI
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
10 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less No
Significant Significant Than Impact
Impact Unless Signifi-
Mitigation cant
Incorporated Impact
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of o 0 0 IXI topsoil?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 0 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?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in 0 Table 18 - l-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation) 0
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers are
not available for the disposal of wastewater?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
IV. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS - Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public 0 or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
0
0
0
0
0 ISI
0 Ixf
0 Ixl
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
11 Rev. 07/03/02 A9
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less No
Significant Significant Than Impact
Impact Unless Signifi-
Mitigation cant
Incorporated Impact
b) Create a significant hazard to the public o 0 IXI or environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle 0 hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
d) Be located on a site 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
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
e) For a project within an airport land use 0 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?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
9 For a project within the vicinity of a private 0 airstrip, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
0
CI
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 IXI
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
12 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less No
Significant Significant Than Impact
Impact Unless Signifi-
Mitigation cant
Incorporated Impact
g) Impair implementation of or physically El 0 0 Ixi interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
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?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste 0 discharge requirements?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation) 0
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with ground water
recharge such that there would be a net deficit
in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
ground water table level (i.e., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted)?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
c) Impacts to groundwater quality?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
0
0
[XI 0
IXI
13 Rev. 07/03/02 3'
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less No Significant Significant Than Impact
Impact Unless Signifi-
Mitigation cant
Incorporated Impact
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern 0 17 0 El 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?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
e) Subtantially alter the existing drainage pattern 0 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?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would o exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 0
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
0
h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard o 0 area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood delineation map?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area 0. structures, which would impede or
redirect flood flows?
0
0 IXI
0 Ix1
0 IXI
IXI
0 IXI
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
14 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less No
Significant Significant Than Impact
Impact Unless Signifi-
Mitigation cant
Incorporated Impact
j) Expose people or structures to a 0 0 Ixl significant risk of loss injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or 0 mudflow?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
I) Increased erosion (sediment) into 0 receiving surface waters.
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., 0 heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum
derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients,
oxygen-demanding substances and trash)
into receiving surface waters or other
alteration of receiving surface water
quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Eva I ua tion) 0
Changes to receiving water quality
(marine, fresh or wetland waters) during
or following construction?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
Increase in any pollutant to an already 0 impaired water body as listed on the
Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list?
0
0
0
0
0 Ixl
0 Ixl
0 Ixi
0 Ix1
0 IXI
(See Discussion of Environmental
Eva I ua tion)
15 Rev. 07/03/02 33
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less No Significant Significant Than Impact
Impact Unless Signifi-
Mitigation cant
Incorporated Impact
p) The exceedance of applicable surface or 0 0 [x1 groundwater receiving water quality
objectives or degradation of beneficial
uses?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the
project:
a) Physically divide an established 0 corn m u n i ty?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, O 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?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat 0 conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the
project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a 0 known mineral resource that would be of
future value to the region and the
residents of the State?
0
0
IXI 0
0 IXI
(See Discussion of Environmental ,
Evaluation)
16 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less No Significant Significant Than Impact
Impact Unless Signifi-
Mitigation cant
Incorporated Impact
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally 0 0 0 w important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan, or other land use plan?
X.
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
NOISE - Would the project result in:
Exposure of persons to or generation of 0 noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance or applicable standards
of other agencies?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
Exposure of persons to or generation of 0 excessive groundbourne vibration or
groundbourne noise levels?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
A substantial permanent increase in 0 ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
A substantial temporary or periodic 0 increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
IXI
0
0
0
0 IXI
0 IXI
IXI 0
17 Rev. 07/03/02 35
.-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less No
Significant Significant Than Impact
Impact Unless Signifi-
Mitigation cant
Incorporated Impact (See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation) 0
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within 2 miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
X. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the
project:
a) Induce substantial growth in an area 0 either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly
(for example, through extension of roads
or other infrastructure)?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
, replacement housing elsewhere?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, 0 necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
0 1xI 0
0
0
0
Ix1
0 IXI
18 Rev. 07/03/02 310
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less No
Significant Significant Than Impact
Impact Unless Signifi-
Mitigation cant
Incorporated Impact
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered government
facilities, a need for new or physically altered
government facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times, or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
0 0 i) Fire protection?
0 0 ii) Police protection?
0 0 iii) Schools?
0 0 iv) Parks?
0 0 v) Other public facilities?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Eva1 uation)
XIV. RECREATION
Would the project increase the use of 0 existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
0 0 Ix1
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation) 0 0
Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities, which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
XV. TRANSPORTATlON/TRAFFIC - Would the
project:
Rev. 07/03/02 33 19
'Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less No Significant Significant Than Impact
Impact Unless Signifi-
Mitigation cant
IncorDorated ImDact
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is 0 substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system
(i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
b) Exceed, either individually or a cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated
roads or highways?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic
levels or a change in location that results
in substantial safety risks?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
b
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a 0 0 design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
f) Result in insufficient parking capacity? 0
0
IE3
0 Ix1
0 IXI
CI IXI
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
20 Rev. 07/03/02 38
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less No
Significant Significant Than Impact
Impact Unless Signifi-
Mitigation cant
Incorporated Impact
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or 0 0 [XI programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turn-outs, bicycle
racks)?
(See Discussion .of Environmental
Evaluation)
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS -
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of 0 the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Eva I u a t ion)
b) Require or result in the construction of new o water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction
of which would cause significant environmental
effects?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
c) Require or result in the construction of new 0 storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve 0 the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
0
0
0
0
0 IXI
0 [XI
0 IXI
21 Rev. 07/03/02 3’1
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less No
Significant Significant Than Impact
Impact Unless Signifi-
Mitigation cant
Incorporated Impact
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation) 0
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?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted 0 capacity to accommodate the project’s solid
waste disposal needs?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes 0 and regulations related to solid waste?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to 0 degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
0 0 ISI
0 0 [xi
[xi 0
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
22 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less
Significant Significant Than
Impact Unless Signifi-
Mitigation cant
Incorporated Impact
b) Does the project have impacts that are 0 0 [XI 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?)
(See Discussion of Environmental
Eva1 uation)
c) Does the project have environmental 0 effects, which will cause the substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
No
Impact
0
IXI 0 0
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on
attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined
from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions
for the project.
23 Rev. 07/03/02 4,
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less than Significant Impact - The project site is located above a scenic corridor (Palomar Airport
Minimal visual impacts will result fiom future development of 14 homes, the majority of Road).
which will not be visible from the roadway.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
No Impact (b & c)- The project site is undeveloped and partially disturbed by past agricultural activity.
There are no scenic resources on the site. The proposed land subdivision and grading will occur
within this previously disturbed area and will not degrade the visual character or quality of the site.
There are no significant trees or vegetation that could be damaged fiom future development of the
site. Future single family homes will be required to comply with the City’s development standards
that ensure high quality design and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, the
project will not damage scenic resources or degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings.
d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
No Impact - The proposed 14 single family lots will not create any new significant source of light and
glare. The majority of the site will remain undeveloped and lighting produced by 14 future single family
homes and a single cul-de-sac street will be minimal.
AGRICULTRAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact - The project site is not considered Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of
Statewide Importance. Therefore, the proposed land use and zone change will not convert farmland to a
non-agcultural use.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact - The site is designated by the Mello II LCP as non-prime agricultural land that is subject to
requirements for the conversion of non-prime agricultural land. The project will be conditioned to pay an
agricultural mitigation fee established by City Council. The project site is currently zoned Limited
Control (L-C), and a zone change to R-1-10,000 that is consistent with the Residential Low (RL) density
General Plan designation is proposed. The L-C zone permits agricultural use only, however, the zoning
anticipates future development by requiring L-C zoned properties to be rezoned when development is
proposed. There is no Williamson Act contract existing for the property; Therefore, the project does not
conflict with any agncultural zoning or contracts.
24 Rev. 07/03/02
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?
KO Impact: The project consists of the subdivision of residentially designated land into residential lots.
AIR QUALITY-Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
No Impact - The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non-
attainment area for ozone (03), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to
10 microns in diameter (PM,,). 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.
Section 15125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains
specific reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the
applicable air quality management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS.
The RAQS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal
ambient air quality standards. The California Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining
whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the following:
Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area?
Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regonal air quality plan?
The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS
is being implemented. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions of the City’s General Plan
and the RAQS. Therefore, the project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no way
conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional plan.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected
air quality violation?
Less Than Significant Impact - The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is in the
City of Oceanside. Data available for this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most
recent air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both
25 Rev. 07/03/02 4.3
'2000 and 2001) and one day in 2001 for the federal %hour average for ozone and one day for the 24-hour
state standard for suspended particulates in 1996. No violations of any other air quality standards ha\.e
been recorded recently. Long-term emissions associated with travel generated from future residential
development of the site will be minimal. Although air pollutant emissions would be associated with a
future residential development, they would neither result in the violation of any air quality standard
(comprising only an incremental contribution to overall air bzsjn quality readings), nor contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Any potential impact is assessed as less
than significant.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard?
Less Than Significant Impact - The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and
suspended fine particulates. The project 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. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15 130 (a)(4), the project's contribution to the
cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
No Impact - As noted above, the proposed 14 lot subdivision will result in future residential development, which would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or concentrations. In addition,
there are no sensitive receptors (e.g., schools or hospitals) located in the vicinity of the project site. No
impact is assessed.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
No Impact - The residential subdivision will not result in any activity that could create objectionable
odors. Construction 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?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated: According to the biology report prepared for
the project, disturbed vegetation and/or sensitive vegetationhabitats existing on the property consists of
10.5 acres of disturbed habitat (previous agricultural conditions), .33 acre of developed area (access
road), 4.86 acres of coastal sage scrub (CSS) habitat, .79 acre of chaparral, .88 acre of non-native
grassland, .61 acre of native grassland, and .03 acre of San Diego thorn mint. The project would not
encroach into sensitive vegetation and/or habitats except for disturbance to a total of .24 acre of CSS (.OS
acre would be removed by grading and .16 acre would be disturbed by fire suppression techniques
including removal, thinning and pruning of high fuel vegetation). The proposed mitigation for the
removal/disturbance of CSS consists of the preservation onsite of 4.62 acres of CSS and revegetation at a
2:1 ratio of .5 acre within the area previously disturbed by agricultural activities. The undisturbed and
26 Rev. 07/03/02
revegetated coastal sage scrub along with 100 percent of the native and non-native grasslands, chaparral.
and San Diego thorn mint will be preserved within a 10.3 acre open space easement. No gnatcatcher
surveys have been conducted within the limited area of coastal sage scrub proposed for disturbance,
however, to mitigate potential disturbances to the California gnatcatcher resulting from grading activities.
prior to the commencement of grading activities, direct surveys to locate active gnatcatcher nests shall be
conducted by a qualified biologist. If nests are present, no grading or removal of habitat may take place
within 200 feet of active nesting sites during the nestinghreeding season (mid-February through mid-
July).
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, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact (b & c) - The project site contains no riparian or wetland habitat or wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
Less than Significant Impact - The proposed development will occur on 6.26 acres, the majority of
which has been previously disturbed by agricultural activity. Except for .24 acre of disturbance to CSS
habitat, the remaining native and non-native habitats will remain undisturbed thereby avoiding
significant impacts to the movement of any established native resident or migratory wildlife species.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact - The project is consistent with the preservation and mitigation requirements of the City’s
Draft Habitat Management Plan which is used as a standard of review for biological impacts.
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?
Less than Significant Impact - The 18 acre site is identified as a standards area within Linkage Area F
of the Carlsbad Draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP). Linkage Area F is intended to provide for
continued animal movement between core areas, particularly for gnatcatchers and other birds. The
project is consistent with the HMP standards area requirements in that it provides the minimum 500’
wide corridor, preserves 95% of coastal sage scrub habitat and 100% of the other sensitive plant species
and habitats existing on the site. The project deviates slightly from the newly adopted Policy 3-8-9
which provides specific guidelines for the BCS property. Policy 3-8-9 indicates that no impact to native
habitat is allowed. A total of .24 acre of CSS habitat located outside of steep slopes will be disturbed by
grading (.08 acre) and fire suppression requirements for thinning and/or removal of high fuel species (.16
acre). This area of disturbance will be mitigated at a 2:l ratio (.5 acre) through onsite revegetation of
land previously disturbed by agricultural activity that is contiguous with native vegetation to the west and
a part of the proposed wildlife comdor. This slight deviation will create an HMP hardline preserve area
that is consistent with the HMP in that the revegetated area will improve the biological quality and
quantity of the habitat corridor and result in the preservation of 10.3 acres of native and non-native
habitat that aligns with hardline HMP habitat preserve areas to the north and south.
27 Rev. 07/03/02 45
g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive?
No Impact - The site does not contain any environmentally sensitive tributary area. The Encina Creek is
located off site to the north, however, the project is separated from the creek by 400’ of native and non-
native habitat and designed to drain away from the creek into a detention basin before it flows into an
existing public storm drain system.
CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
No Impact (a, b, & d) - The project site is an undeveloped infill site that has been previously disturbed
by agricultural operations. There are no known historical or archeological resources or human
remains on the project site.
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated (c) - According to the Zone 20 Program EIR,
the geologic formations present within the Zone 20 Specific Plan Area located directly south of the
project have the potential to contain significant fossils. Due to this high potential for the discovery of
fossils during future grading and construction activities, the following mitigation measures shall be
implemented during fbture grading of the site to reduce potentially significant impacts on the region’s
paleontological resources to an acceptable level:
a. Prior to any grading of the project site, a paleontologist shall be retained to perform a
walkover survey of the site and to review the grading plans to determine if the proposed
grading will impact fossil resources. A copy of the paleontologist’s report shall be
provided to the Planning Director prior to issuance of a grading permit;
b. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of the site
and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils present in
the geologic strata, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for laboratory
processing through fine screens. The paleontologist shall make periodic reports to the
Planning Director during the grading process;
C. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an exposed
fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts;
d. All fossils collected shall be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a research
interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum;
e. Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities of the
project shall be resolved by the Planning Director and City Engineer.
28 Rev. 07/03/02
GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,-including the risk of
loss, injury or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less than Significant Impact (a.i. to a.iii.) - There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zones within
the City of Carlsbad and there is no other evidence of active of potentially active faults within the City.
However, there are several active faults throughout Southern California, and these potential earthquakes
could affect Carlsbad. The project site is located in an area of stable soil conditions and the risk of
seismic-related ground failure or liquefaction is very minimal (according to City of Carlsbad
Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992). In addition, the Geotechnical
Hazards Analysis identifies the project site to be in an area of low to moderate risk from ground shaking.
The risk from ground shaking is not significant when structures are built pursuant to the Uniform
Building Code (earthquake standards). Because the site is located in an area of stable soil conditions,
and any future dwelling constructed on the site must comply with the UBC earthquake construction
standards, the proposed land use and zone change will not expose people or structures to substantial
adverse effects from the risks associated with earthquakes.
iv. Landslides?
No Impact - According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study,
November 1992, the project site is in an area of stable soil conditions that are not subject to landslides.
There are no unique geologic or physical features present on the site. The geotechnical analysis
performed for the site by Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. revealed that no significant geotechnical
problems exist that could result in exposure to unsafe conditions, and that the site is favorable for the
proposed development provided the recommendations summarized in the preliminary geotechnical report
are followed.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
No Impact -According to the US Department of Agriculture, Soil Survey - San Diego Area, December
1973, the project site contains soils that have high erosion limitations, as do most soil types in Carlsbad.
The project’s compliance with standards in the City’s Excavation and Grading Ordinance that prevent
erosion through slope planting and installation of desiltation basins or other temporary 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 Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. revealed
that no significant geotechnical problems exist that could result in exposure to unsafe conditions, and that
the site is favorable for the proposed development provided the recommendations summarized in the
preliminary geotechnical report are followed.
29 Rev. 07/03/02 47
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 geotechnical analysis performed for the site by Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. revealed
that no significant geotechnical problems exist that could result in exposure to unsafe conditions, and that
the site is favorable for the proposed development provided the recommendations summarized in the
preliminary geotechnical report 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 surrounded by urban development. Existing
sewer facilities are located near the site and are available and adequate to support a 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?
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?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or environment?
No Impact (a, b, c & d) - The project consists of a single family residential subdivision; therefore, no
hazardous materials would be used or generated by the project. The site is not included on a list of
hazardous materials sites
e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would' the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact (e & f) - The project is located within the McClellan Palomar Airport influence area. The
Carlsbad Airport Land Use Plan (CLUP) specifies the areas subject to safety hazards, i.e., 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 single family homes.
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.
30 Rev. 07/03/02
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 is surrounded by native vegetation, cleared agncultural
land, and existing residential development. The project is required to comply with City standards
requiring fire suppression zones that create buffers between high fuel native species and residential
structures. The project will comply with these standards with the exception of 6 lots on which structures
must comply with alternative architectural standards acceptable to the Carlsbad Fire Department due to
reduced fire suppression zones. The reduced fire suppression zones are necessary to avoid impacts to
sensitive CSS habitat.
HM)ROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project:
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground
water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells
would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
Impacts to groundwater quality?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate
or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on-
or off-site?
Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
No Impact (a, b, c, d, e, f & g) - The infill project will rely on an existing public storm drain system
and is subject to City standards regarding water quality, drainage and erosion control, including storm
water permit (NFDES) requirements and best management practices. The project is conditioned to
require a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) that will ensure that it is designed and constructed in
compliance with the City’s NFDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with
Construction Activity issued by the State Water Resources Control Board and the San Diego NPDES
Municipal Storm Water Permit issued to San Diego County and Cities by the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board.
In addition, according to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study,
November 1992, the project site is located in an area where development will not have a significant
impact to groundwater. Therefore, the project will not violate any water quality standards, deplete
groundwater supplies or quality, substantially alter existing drainage patterns, cause substantial erosion
or flooding, or significantly impact the capacity of stormwater drainage systems.
31 Rev. 07/03/02
h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map?
i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
No Impact (h & i) - The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to the
Flood Insurance Rate Map. Therefore, the proposed land use and zone change will not result in housing
or structures within a 100-year flood hazard area.
j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No Impact (j & k) - According to the City of Carlsbad 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,
tsunami, or mudflow.
1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters.
m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives,
synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving
surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or
following construction?
0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean
Water Act Section 303(d) list?
p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives
or degradation of beneficial uses?
No Impact (I, m, n, o & p) - The project site is not located adjacent to any body of water. Drainage
from the site is subject to the City's drainage and storm water pollution control standards ("DES
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 design includes a detention basin
that will receive runoff from the project prior to entering the public storm drain, and the project will
be conditioned to prepare a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) to ensure that City standards
are met.
LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact - The project site is an infill site that is surrounded by high density apartments to the west,
and small lot single family residential development to the south and east. Future residential development
32 Rev. 07/03/02
of the site on minimum 10,000 square foot lots will be compatible with and integrate into the existing
community. Therefore, the project will not physically divide an established community.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, 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 General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal
Program Amendment to clarify, refine, and adjust the generalized land use designation boundaries of
Open Space (OS), Residential Low (RL), and Residential Low-Medium (RLM) designations on the
property. The proposed OS boundary is adjusted to the constrained area preserved as open space and
included as a hardline preserve area in the City’s Habitat Management Plan (HMP). The area shown as
OS on the General Plan encompasses a disturbed blufftop area formerly used for agriculture that is the
only developable area of the site, and the area proposed as Open Space is located within an area of steep
slopes covered with sensitive vegetation. This adjustment is consistent with the General Plan Open
Space Element in that it is greater in area, superior in environmental quality, and located contiguous to
the designated open space.
The proposed 1.2 ddacre density for the 14 lot residential project is within the Residential Low (RL)
density range (0 - 1.5 ddacre) permitted by the General Plan for the majority of the site, however, the
proposed density exceeds the Growth Management Growth Control Point (GCP) of 1 ddacre that allows
9 lotshnits. The GCP was established to avoid exceeding dwelling unit caps in each quadrant of the
City. The General Plan allows projects to exceed the GCP where adequate public facilities are provided
and excess units are available, and City Council Policy 43 provides for the allocation of excess units to
projects that satisfL specified qualifications. The project qualifies for the use of excess units in that the
proposed base zone (R-1-10,000) of the infill single family subdivision allows a slightly higher yield of
units than would be allowed by the 1 ddacre growth management control point, and the proposed 1.2
ddacre density does not exceed the maximum density of 1.5 ddacre permitted by the RL designation.
The majority of the site is currently zoned Limited Control (L-C) with a very small .335 acre area zoned
R-1 and 0-S. The L-C zone is a holding zone that requires the property to be rezoned at the time
development is proposed. Although the General Plan envisions one-half acre lots on RL designated
properties, the proposed R-1-10,000 zoning allowing minimum 10,000 square foot lots enables the
development to be clustered within the unconstrained developable area of the site thereby allowing for
the preservation of a wildlife habitat corridor through the property that is consistent with the City’s
Habitat Management Plan. The R-1-10,000 zone is also more consistent with the surrounding high and
low-medium density residential land uses. The undeveloped portion of the site will be preserved as an
HMP habitat preserve area and rezoned to the Open Space (04) zone classification.
The project as proposed and conditioned is consistent with the applicable policies and implementation
standards for land use consistency, preservation of steep slopes and vegetation, drainage, stormwater
runoff and erosion control of the Mello II segment of Carlsbad’s Local Coasta1,Program (LCP). The
proposed General Plan amendment and zone change require Coastal Commission approval of a Local
Coastal Program Amendment to ensure consistency between the City’s General Plan and Zoning Maps
and the LCP land use and zone maps. The project is consistent with the dual criterion provisions
prohibiting removal of sensitive CSS and chaparral habitats from steep slopes. However, the project
deviates slightly from the newly adopted Policy 3-8-9 which provides specific guidelines for the BCS
property. Policy 3-8-9 indicates that no impact to native habitat is allowed. A total of .24 acre of CSS
habitat located outside of steep slopes will be disturbed by grading (.08 acre) and fire suppression
requirements for thinning and/or removal of high fuel species (. 16 acre). (The proposed fire suppression
zone will also satisfy the LCP requirement for a 20 foot wide buffer between development and native
habitat.) This area of disturbance will be mitigated at a 2: 1 ratio (.5 acre) through onsite revegetation of
land previously disturbed by agricultural activity that is contiguous with native vegetation to the west and
33 Rev. 07/03/02 51
a part of the proposed wildlife corridor. This slight deviation will create an HMP hardline presen-e area
that is consistent with the HMP in that the revegetated area will improve the biological quality and
quantity of the habitat corridor and result in the preservation of 10.3 acres of native and non-native
habitat that aligns with hardline HMP habitat preserve areas to the north and south.
The project site is also designated by the Mello II LCP as non-prime agncultural land subject to
mitigation requirements for the conversion of non-prime agncultural land. Implementing zone standards
require mitigation for this conversion through the payment of an agricultural mitigation fee established
by City Council for agricuitural acreage prior to the approval of a final map.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
Less than Significant Impact - The project site is identified by the City’s Draft Habitat Management
Plan (HMP) as a standards area located within Linkage Area F. The project is consistent with the HMP
standards area requirements in that it would preserve 95% of coastal sage scrub habitat and preserve
100% of the other sensitive plant species and habitats existing on the site; however, the project deviates
slightly from the newly adopted Policy 3-8-9 which provides specific guidelines for the BCS property.
Policy 3-8-9 indicates that no impact to native habitat is allowed. A total of .24 acre of CSS habitat
located outside of steep slopes will be disturbed by grading (.08 acre) and fire suppression requirements
for thinning and/or removal of high fuel species (.16 acre). This area of disturbance will be mitigated at
a 2:l ratio (.5 acre) through onsite revegetation of land previously disturbed by agricultural activity that
is contiguous with native vegetation to the west. This slight deviation will create an HMP hardline
preserve area that is consistent with the HMP in that the revegetated area will improve the biological
quality and quantity of the habitat corridor and result in the preservation of 10.3 acres of native and non-
native habitat that aligns with hardline HMP habitat preserve areas to the north and south.
.
MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future
value to the region and the residents of the State?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
No Impact (a & b) - According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping
Study, November 1992, the project site does not contain any mineral resources; therefore, the project will
not result in the loss of availability of a how mineral resource or mineral resource recovery site.
NOISE -Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in
the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - The Noise Element of the General Plan
specifies that sixty (60) dB CNEL is the exterior noise level to which all residential units should be
mitigated, and that interior noise levels should be mitigated to 45 dB CNEL. In accordance with the
Acoustical Analysis performed for the project, some of the units at the second story level would be
exposed to noise levels from Palomar Airport Road exceeding 60 dBA CNEL and requiring mitigation to
reduce interior noise levels to 45 dBA. Additionally, the majority of the property falls within the 60 to
65 dBA CNEL airport noise contours. The City’s General Plan Noise Element sets a maximum 65 dBA
CNEL standard for residential units subject tu noise from McClellan-Palomar Airport. In accordance
34 Rev. 07/03/02
with General Plan noise standards, the project will be conditioned to require an avigation easement over
the entire property. Required mitigation to reduce interior noise levels consists of a Phase I1 acoustical
study to be submitted with final building plans verifying that the 45 dBA interior sGndard is satisfied.
POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial growth in ,an area either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
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 project site is undeveloped. Therefore, the project will not displace any
existing housing or people.
PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or
physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?
No Impact (a.i to a.v.) -The project site is located within Local Facilities Management Zone (LFMZ)
20. The provision of public facilities within LFMZ 20, including fire protection, parks, libraries and
other public facilities, has been planned to accommodate the projected growth of that area. Because the
project will not exceed the total growth projections anticipated within LFMZ 20, 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?
35 55 Rev. 07/03/02
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.
The project site is located within Park District #3 (Southwest Quadrant). The necessary park acreage to
achieve the GMP standard (3 acres/1,000 population) for Park District #3 was based upon the GMP
dwelling unit limitation for the Southwest Quadrant, which is 12,859 units.
Although the proposed land use change will result in additional residential units in the SW Quadrant, the
GMP dwelling unit limit will not be exceeded. In addition, the Parks and Recreation Element states that
the park acreage demand for the SW Quadrant, based on the GMP dwelling unit limit, is 89.41 acres, and
the anticipated park acreage to be provided at build-out will be 96.25 acres. Therefore, there will be
adequate parkland within the SW Quadrant, and the proposed land use change will not cause additional
demand for parkland or expansion of recreational facilities. Because park facilities will be adequate to
serve residential development on the site, any increase in use of park facilities generated from firture
development of the site will not result in substantial physical deterioration of any park facility.
TRANSPORTATIONA’RAFFIC-Would the project :
a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system?
Less Than Significant Impact - The project will generate 140 Average Daily Trips (ADT) and
approximately 15 p.m. peak hour trips. This traffic will primarily utilize the following roadways:
Cobblestone Drive to Aviara Parkway. Existing traffic on Aviara Parkway north of Cobblestone is 8,398
ADT (2001) and south of Cobblestone is 7,529 ADT (2001). The design capacity of the Aviara Parkway
is 10,000 vehicles per day. The project traffic would represent 2% and 1.5% of the existing traffic
volume and the design capacity respectively. 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* - LOS Buildout ADT*
Rancho Santa Fe Road 15-32 “A-C” 28-43 El Camino Real 2 1-50 ‘‘A-C” 32-65
Palomar Airport Road 10-52 “A-B” 29-77
SR 78 120 “F” 144
1-5 183-198 “D 2 19-249
*The numbers are in thousands of daily 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).
36 Rev. 07103102 Pf
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 project is consistent with the growth projections of the general plan and,
therefore, its traffic was used in modeling the buildout projections. Achievement of the CMP acceptable
Level of Service (LOS) “E” standard assumes implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on
the design capacity(ies) of the designated roads and highways and implementation of the CMP strateges,
they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the short-tern and at buildout.
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or
a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
No Impact - The proposed residential project does not include any aviation components. The project
site is located within the McClellan-Palomar Airport influence area, however, it does not conflict with
any provision of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Airport. It would not,
therefore, result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact
assessed.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses?
No Impact - All circulation improvements associated with residential development of the site will be
designed and constructed to City standards; and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. The
residential subdivision is consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses. Therefore, it would not
increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No impact assessed.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No Impact -
Departments,
The project is designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
No Impact - Future residential single family structures constructed on the proposed single family lots
will be required to comply with the City’s parking requirements to ensure an adequate parking supply.
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)?
No Impact - The residential project will be designed with sidewalks, and it will be served by an existing
street system that currently has sidewalks and bus service. Therefore, the project does not conflict with
adopted policies or programs supporting alternative transportation.
UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water QuaIity
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) 20
which is served by the Encina wastewater treatment facility. Wastewater treatment capacity has been
37 Rev. 07/03/02 $3-f
planned to accommodate the projected growth of Zone 20. Because the project will not exceed the total
growth projections anticipated within LFMZ 20, wastewater treament 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 not result in a significant need to expand or construct new water
facilitieshpplies, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage facilities.
0 Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s
solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact (f & g) - Existing waste disposal services contracted by the City of Carlsbad are adequate to
serve the proposed 14 lot residential subdivision without exceeding landfill capacities. Future residential
development resulting from the proposed land subdivision will be required to comply with all federal,
state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - The project will not degrade the quality of the physical
environment in that although it will disturb .24 acre of sensitive CSS habitat which is listed as a
threatened species under the Federal Endangered Species Act, mitigation will be required. Mitigation
consists of revegetating .5 acre of CSS onsite within a previously disturbed area adjacent to native
habitat, and prior to any grading activity, direct surveys to locate active gnatcatcher nests must be
conducted by a qualified biologist. Should nests be present, no grading or removal of habitat may take
place within 200 feet of active nesting sites during the nestinghreeding season from mid February
through mid July. A Federal diminimis “take” permit issued by the USFWS is required for this very
minor area prior to grading.
There are no historic structures on the site and there are no known cultural resources on the site. A
paleontological monitor is required to monitor the grading operation in accordance with CEQA
38 Rev. 07/03/02
Guidelines. Therefore, the project will not result in the elimination of any important examples of
California prehistory.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?)
Less than Significant Impact - San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects regional
growth for the greater San Diego area, and local general plan land use policies are incorporated into
SANDAG projections. Based upon those projections, region-wide standards, including storm water
quality control, air quality standards, habitat conservation, congestion management standards, etc, are
established to reduce the cumulative impacts of development in the region. All of the City’s
development standards and regulations are consistent with the region-wide standards. The City’s
standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality and drainage standards, traffic
standards, habitat and cultural resource protection regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that
development within the City will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact.
There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a
cumulatively considerable impact on. 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.
Those issues are air quality and regional circulation.
Also, as discussed above, the County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) has designated three
roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in
Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The CMA has determined, based on the City’s
growth projections in the General Plan, that these designated roadways will function at acceptable levels
of service in the short-term and at build-out. The project is consistent with the City’s growth projections,
and therefore, the cumulative impact from the project to the regional circulation system is less than
significant.
With regard to any other potential impact associated with the project, City standards and regulations will
ensure that future 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?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - Development of the site will comply with
City development standards designed to avoid substantial adverse environmental effects to residents.
The project site is located in an area where human beings could be exposed to 60 - 65 &A CNEL noise
levels generated by the airport. As discussed above, City standards require: 1) the recordation of
avigation easements and notification to future residents who may be exposed to noise levels in the 60 -
65 dBA CNEL range; and 2) interior noise levels to be mitigated to the 45 dBA CNEL standard. The
project will be conditioned to require an avigation easement and notices, and mitigation measures to
reduce interior noise levels will be incorporated into future residential units. Any future residential
development on the site will be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, regional and City
regulations, which will ensure the development of the site will not result in an adverse impact on human
beings, either directly or indirectly.
39 Rev. 07103102 57
EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORhIATION SOURCES
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad
Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
LO.
Final Master Environmental ImDact ReDort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MER
93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994.
Carlsbad General Plan, September 6, 1994.
Citv of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Maming Study, November 1992.“
“BCS Property Field Survey and Noise Assessment, Carlsbad, CA” dated May 5, 2000, prepared
by Investigative Science and Engineering, and “Acoustical Evaluation Study - BCS Emerald
Point Estates” dated April 24, 1998, Ogden Environmental and Energy Services.
“Biological Impact Assessment of the BCS Property, Carlsbad, CA, dated December 22, 1999,
prepared by Anita M. Hayworth, Biological Consultant and updated by Letter dated October 30,
2002.
“Update Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation - Proposed Emerald Pointe Estates
BCS Property” dated April 30,2002, Geotechnical Exploration, Inc.
“Emerald Pointe Estates - BCS Site (Preliminary Hydrology Report)” dated April 17, 2002,
prepared by Hunsaker & Associates.
Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan”.
“Draft Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad” dated
Apri1,1999.
“Cultural Resource Survey for the Emerald Pointe Estates Project, Carlsbad, California” dated
July 1998, prepared by Kyle Consulting.
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES
The developer shall revegetate with coastal sage scrub habitat .5 acre previously disturbed by
agriculture on the BCS parcel within the proposed habitat comdor. Prior to the issuance of a grading
permit, all necessary agency permits shall be issued and a revegetation plan shall be approved by the
USFWS, CDFG, and City of Carlsbad.
To mitigate potential disturbances to the California gnatcatcher resulting from grading activities,
prior to the commencement of grading activities, direct surveys to locate active gnatcatcher nests
shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. If nests are present, no grading or removal of habitat may
take place within 200 feet of active nesting sites during the nestinghreeding season (mid-February
through mid-July).
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall submit proof that interior noise levels
will not exceed 45 &A CNEL for all units when openings to the exterior are open or closed. If
openings are required to be closed to meet the interior noise standard, then mechanical ventilation
shall be provided.
Prior to any grading of the project site:
40 Rev. 07/03/02
a. A paleontologist shall be retained to perform a walkover survey of the site and to reiiew
the grading plans to determine if the proposed grading will impact fossil resources. A
copy of the paleontologist's report shall be provided to the Planning Director prior to
issuance of a grading permit;
b. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of the site
and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils present in
the geologic strata, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for laboratory
processing through fine screens. The paleontologist shall make periodic reports to the
Planning Director during the grading process;
C. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area'of an exposed
fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts;
d. All fossils collected shall be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a research
interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum;
e. Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities of the
project shall be resolved by the Planning Director and City Engineer.
41 Rev. 07/03/02
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
42 Rev. 07/03/02
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
1
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5644
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALLFORNLA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE MAP
OF THE GENERAL PLAN ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD
BETWEEN AVIARA PARKWAY AND COBBLESTONE
DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20.
CASE NAME: EMERALD POINTE ESTATES
CASE NO: GPA 03-05
WHEREAS, BCS Natural Resources Corp., “Developer,” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by BCS Program L-2 LTD.,
“Owner,” described as:
Parcel 1: All that portion of that parcel of land designated as
“Description No. 5, 103.54 acres as shown and delineated on
Record of Survey Map No. 5715, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, December 19,1960.
Excepting therefrom portions of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No.
15662 as described in Official Records.
Parcel 2: Lot 115 of Carlsbad Tract No. 84-32(A), Unit No. 1
(Cobblestone Sea Village), in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No.
23428, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego
County, June 3,1997.
Parcel No. 3: Easement for roadway and utility,purposes over
those certain strips of land designated as “60 foot strip and 66
foot easement reserved for roadway and utility purposes,” as
shown on said Record of Survey Map No. 5715.
Excepting from said 60 foot strip, that portion which lies
within Parcel No. 1 above.
Parcel 4: A temporary easement for pedestrian and vehicular
access, ingress and egress as contained in document recorded
May 1, 1996, as File No. 1996-0218757 of official records being
a portion of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 15661, that portion being a
portion of the easement for roadway and utility purposes over
those certain strips of land designated and as described in
official records
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(“the Property”); and
WHERE. S, said verified application constitutes a request for a GenerE Plan
Amendment as shown on Exhibit “GPA 03-05” dated June 16,2004, attached hereto and on file
in the Carlsbad Planning Department EMERALD POINTE ESTATES - GPA 03-05, 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 16th day of June 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:
A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
03-05, based on the following findings and subject to the following condition:
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL ’of EMERALD POINTE ESTATES - GPA
Findings:
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 June 16,2004 including, but not limited to the following:
a. Land Use: Generalized residential and open space land use boundaries
currently shown on the General Plan Map including the RL, RLM and OS
designations require clarification and refinement to accurately reflect the
allowed RL land use on the property. Areas within the property boundary
that are designated as RLM and OS on the General Plan Map are mapping
errors. The proposed amendment corrects and adjusts land use designations
on the General Plan Map so that the area proposed for residential
development is designated RL and the area proposed for open space is
designated (OS).
PC RES0 NO. 5644 -2- La
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.
C.
Conditions:
Open Space: The adjustment to open space boundaries is consistent with the
Open Space Element in that the proposed 10.1 acres of open space is greater
in area than the existing 2.5 acres of open space; the 10.1 acres of HMP
habitat preserve area contain sensitive CSS and chaparral habitats that far
exceed the disturbed agricultural land currently designated as open space;
and the proposed OS is contiguous with existing open space.
Circulation: The proposed partial street vacation of the existing Sapphire Drive
right-of-way is necessary to realign the local street so that it provides access to
lots within the subdivision. The realignment will not impact the adjacent property
in that access would still be provided from the proposed Sapphire Drive
alignment. The realigned right-of-way satisfies all City design standards for local
cul-de-sac streets.
1. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Addendum, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, ZC 02-02 and
LCPA 02-02, and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission
Resolution No. 5643 for the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 16th day of June 2004, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson White, Commissioners Baker, Heineman,
Montgomery and Segall
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Dominguez and Whitton
ABSTAIN: None
MELkSA WHITE, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLEfQ
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5644 -3- 63
GENERAL PLAN MAP CHANGE GPA: 03-05
draft final
Project Name: Emerald Pointe Estates
Parcel 1: All that portion of that parcel of land
designated as “description No. 5, 103.54 acres as
shown and delineated on Record of Survey Map No.
5715, filed in the office of the County Recorder of
San Diego County, December 19, 1960.
Excepting therefrom portions of Parcel 1 of Parcel
Map 15661 as described in official records.
Parcel 2: Lot 115 of Carlsbad Tract No. 84-32(A),
Unit No. 1 (Cobblestone Sea Village) in the Citv of
I Related Case File No(s):
Property/Legal Description(s): LCPA 02-02/ZC 02-02/CT 02-07KDP 02-07/HDP 02-
02
13
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
According to map thereof No. 13428, filed in the
office of the County Recorder of San Diego County,
June 3,1997.
G.P. Map Designation Change
Property From: To:
A. 21 2-1 90-53 RLM RL
B. 21 2-040-50 RURLM/OS RUOS
Parcel 3: Easement for roadway and utility purposes
over those certain strips of land designated as “60
foot strip and 66 foot easement reserved for roadway
ad utility purposes”. As shown on said Record of
Survey Map No. 5715.
~ ~~~~~ Approvals
Council Approval Date:
Resolution No:
Effective Date:
Excepting from 60 foot strip, that portion which lies
within Parcel No. 1 above.
Parcel 4: A temporary easement for pedestrian and
vehicular access, ingress and egress as contained in
document recorded May, 1996 as File No. 1996-
021 877 of official records being a portion of Parcel 1
of Parcel Map 15661, that portion being a portion of
the easement for roadway and utility purposes over
those certain strips of land designated and as
described in official records.
Signature:
I I
Attach additional Daaes if necessarv I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5645
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CARLSBAD
TIONS ON THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, GENERAL
PLAN, AND ZONING MAP INTO CONFORMANCE ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF PALOMAR
AIRPORT ROAD BETWEEN AVIARA PARKWAY AND
MENT ZONE 20.
CASE NAME: EMERALD POINTE ESTATES
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM TO BRING THE DESIGNA-
COBBLESTONE DFUVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGE-
CASE NO: LCPA 02-02
WHEREAS, California State law requires that the Local Coastal Program,
General Plan, and Zoning designations for properties in the Coastal Zone be in conformance; and
WHEREAS, BCS Natural Resources Corp., “Developer,” has filed a verified
application for an amendment to the Local Coastal Program designations regarding property
owned by BCS Program L-2 LTD., “Owner,” described as
Parcel 1: All that portion of that parcel of land designated as
“Description No. 5, 103.54 acres as shown and delineated on
Record of Survey Map No. 5715, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, December 19,1960.
Excepting therefrom portions of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No.
15662 as described in Official Records.
Parcel 2: Lot 115 of Carlsbad Tract No. 84-32(A), Unit No. 1
(Cobblestone Sea Village), in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No.
23428, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego
County, June 3,1997.
Parcel No. 3: Easement for roadway and utility purposes over
those certain strips of land designated as “60 foot strip and 66
foot easement reserved for roadway and utility purposes,” as
shown on said Record of Survey Map No. 5715.
Excepting from said 60 foot strip, that portion which lies
within Parcel No. 1 above.
Parcel 4: A temporary easement for pedestrian and vehicular
access, ingress and egress as contained in document recorded
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
May 1, 1996, as File No. 1996-0218757 of official records being
a portion of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 15661, that portion being a
portion of the easement for roadway and utility purposes over
those certain strips of land designated and as described in
official records
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Local Coastal
Program Amendment as shown on Exhibits LCPA 02-02 (land use and zoning) dated June 16,
2004, attached hereto, as provided in Public Resources Code Section 30574 and Article 15 of
Subchapter 8, Chapter 2, Division 5.5 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations of the
California Coastal Commission Administrative Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 16th day of June, 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 Local Coastal Program Amendment; and
WHEREAS, State Coastal Guidelines requires a six week public review period
for any amendment to the Local Coastal Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) At the end of the State mandated six week review period, starting on May 6.
2004, and ending on June 16, 2004, staff shall present to the City Council a
summary of the comments received.
C) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
02-02, based on the following findings, and subject to the following conditions:
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of EMERALD POINTE ESTATES - LCPA
PC RES0 NO. 5645 -2- c7
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
FindinPs:
1. That th posed Local Coas 31 Program Amendment meets the requirements of, and is
in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act and all applicable policies
of the Mello I1 segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program not being amended by
this amendment, in that the project is consistent with applicable policies requiring the
preservation of steep slopes and coastal sage scrub and chaparral habitats and the
reduction of storm water runoff to existing levels.
2. That the proposed amendment to the Mello I1 segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal
Program is required to bring the City’s General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map
(as amended) and the LCP Land Use Plan into conformance.
Conditions:
1. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Addendum, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, GPA 03-05 and ZC
02-02, and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution
5643 for the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting to the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 16th day of June 2004, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: Chairperson White, Commissioners Baker, Heineman,
Montgomery and Segall
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Dominguez and Whitton
ABSTAIN: None
MELISSA WHITE, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
n
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER v
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5645 -3-
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LCPA: 02-02
draft final J-J
LAND USE PLAN
Project Name: Emerald Pointe Estates
Parcel 1: All that portion of that parcel of land
designated as “description No. 5, 103.54 acres as
shown and delineated on Record of Survey Map No.
5715, filed in the office of the County Recorder of
San Diego County, December 19, 1960.
I Related Case File No(s):
Property/Legal Description@): GPA 03-05EC 02-0WCT 02-07/CDP 02-071HDP 02-
02
Excepting therefrom portions of Parcel 1 of Parcel
Map 15661 as described in official records.
Parcel 2: Lot 115 of Carlsbad Tract No. 84-32(A),
Unit No. 1 1Cobblestone Sea Village) in the Citv of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
According to map thereof No. 13428, filed in the
office of the County Recorder of San Diego County,
June 3, 1997.
Parcel 3: Easement for roadway and utility purposes
over those certain strips of land designated as “60
foot strip and 66 foot easement reserved for roadway
ad utility purposes”. As shown on said Record of
Survey Map No. 5715.
Excepting from 60 foot strip, that portion which lies
within Parcel No. 1 above.
Parcel 4: A temporary easement for pedestrian and
vehicular access, ingress and egress as contained in
document recorded May, 1996 as File No. 1996-
021877 of official records being a portion of Parcel 1
of Parcel Map 15661, that portion being a portion of
the easement for roadway and utility purposes over
those certain strips of land designated and as
described in official records.
I LCPA Map Designation Change I Approvals
I I I I
LCPA Map Designation Change
Property From: To:
A. 21 2-1 90-53 RLM RL
B. 21 2-040-50 RL RUOS
Approvals
Council Approval Date:
Resolution No:
Effective Date:
Signature:
k I WpGI Ly
A. 21 2-1 90-53 RLM RL B. 21 2-040-50 RL RUOS
I I I Attach Additional pages if necessary I
~ppiuvai uaic.
Resolution No:
Effective Date:
Sinnature.
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LCPA: 02-02
draft final 0
ZONING
Project Name: Emerald Pointe Estates
Parcel 1: All that portion of that parcel of land
designated as “description No. 5, 103.54 acres as
shown and delineated on Record of Survey Map No.
5715, filed in the office of the County Recorder of
San Diego County, December 19, 1960.
I Related Case File No(s):
Property/Legal Description(s): GPA 03-05EC 02-02/CT 02-07/CDP 02-07/HDP 02-
02
Excepting therefrom portions of Parcel 1 of Parcel
Map 15661 as described in official records.
Parcel 2: Lot 115 of Carlsbad Tract No. 84-32(A),
Unit No. 1 (Cobblestone Sea Village) in the Citv of
~~~~ ~ Carlsbad, County of San Diego, Stateof California,
According to map thereof No. 13428, filed in the
office of the County Recorder of San Diego County,
June 3, 1997.
Parcel 3: Easement for roadway and utility purposes
over those certain strips of land designated as “60 foot
strip and 66 foot easement reserved for roadway ad
utility purposes”. As shown on said Record of Survey
Map No. 5715.
Excepting from 60 foot strip, that portion which lies
within Parcel No. 1 above.
LCPA Map Designation Change
Property From: To:
A. 212-190-53 R-l/OS R-l-10,000
B. 21 2-040-50 L-c R-l-10,000 (7.7 ac)
C. 21 2-1 90-55 L-C R-1 0-S (1 0.3 ac)
Attach additional Daaes if necessarv
Approvals
Council Approval Date:
Resolution No:
Effective Date:
Signature:
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. 5646
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE FROM L-C, R-1 AND 0-S
TO R-1-10,OOO AND 0-S ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD
BETWEEN AVIARA PARKWAY AND COBBLESTONE
DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20.
CASE NAME: EMERALD POINTE ESTATES
CASE NO: zc 02-02
WHEREAS, BCS Natural Resources Corp., “Developer,” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by BCS Program L-2 LTD.,
“Owner,” described as:
Parcel 1: All that portion of that parcel of land designated as
“Description No. 5, 103.54 acres as shown and delineated on
Record of Survey Map No. 5715, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, December 19,1960.
Excepting therefrom portions of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No.
15662 as described in Official Records.
Parcel 2: Lot 115 of Carlsbad Tract No. 84-32(A), Unit No. 1
(Cobblestone Sea Village), in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No.
23428, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego
County, June 3,1997.
Parcel No. 3: Easement for roadway and utility purposes over
those certain strips of land designated as “60 foot strip and 66
foot easement reserved for roadway and utility purposes,” as
shown on said Record of Survey Map No. 5715.
Excepting from said 60 foot strip, that portion which lies
within Parcel No. 1 above.
Parcel 4: A temporary easement for pedestrian and vehicular
access, ingress and egress as contained in document recorded
May 1,1996, as File No. 1996-0218757 of official records being
a portion of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 15661, that portion being a
portion of the easement for roadway and utility purposes over
those certain strips of land designated and as described in
official records
(“the Property”); and 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Zone Change as shown on
Exhibit "X" dated June 16, 2004, attached hereto and on file in the Planning Department,
EMERALD POINTE ESTATES - ZC 02-02, as provided by Chapter 21.52 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 16th day of June, 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)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
02, based on the following findings and subject to the following condition:
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of EMERALD POINTE ESTATES - ZC 02-
Findings:
1. That the proposed Zone Change from L-C, R-1, and 0-S to R-1-10,000 and 0-S is
consistent with the goals and policies of the various elements of the General Plan, in that
the proposed zoning will implement the RL and OS General Plan land use
designations.
2. That the Zone Change will provide consistency between the General Plan and Zoning as
mandated by California State law and the City of Carlsbad General Plan Land Use
Element, in that the R-1-10,000 and 0-S zones are intended to implement the RL and
OS General Plan land use designations.
3. That the Zone Change is consistent with the public convenience, necessity and general
welfare, and is consistent with sound planning principles in that while the RL
designation is intended to be characterized by one-half acre lots. However, the
General Plan definition for RL does not require that the residential lots be a
minimum of one half acre in area. Because over 55% of the 18 acre site will be
maintained in open space, the actual character of this development will appear as a
low-density residential development consistent with the intent of the RL land use
designation. Compatibility with adjacent uses is assured because the site is
PC RES0 NO. 5646 -2- Yq
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
somewhat unique due to its location. The project is surrounded by HMP habitat
preserve areas that will provide very wide open space buffers. In addition to the
open space buffers, the existing multi-family development to the west and small lot
single-family developments to the south and east are much higher density
developments than the proposed large lot single-family development.
Conditions:
1. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Addendum, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, GPA 03-05 and
LCPA 02-02, and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission
Resolution 5643 for the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified 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 fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
...
...
...
...
...
...
PC RES0 NO. 5646 -3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
15
1E
15
2c
21
2;
2:
21
2:
2f
2;
22
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 16th day of June 2004, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: Chairperson White, Commissioners Baker, Heineman,
Montgomery and Segall
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Dominguez and Whitton
ABSTAIN: None
MELISSA WHITE, Chairperson
CAIUSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLEW
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5646 -4-
EXHIBIT 5
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
P.C. AGENDA OF: June 16,2004
~
Application coniplete date: October 10. 2002
Project Planner: Anne Hysong
Project Engineer: John Maashoff
SUBJECT: GPA 03-05/LCPA 02-021ZC 02-02/CT 02-07/HDP 02-02/CDP 02-07 -
EMERALD POINTE ESTATES - Request for a recommendation of adoption
of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum, and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program; a recommendation of approval for a General Plan Aniend-
ment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to clarify, refine, and adjust land
use designation boundaries, and a Zone Change to rezone the property consistent
with the land use designations; and approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside
Development Permit, and Coastal Development Permit to subdivide and grade 14
single-family lots and two open space lots on an 18 acre parcel located north of
Laurel Tree Road between Aviara Parkway and Cobblestone Drive in Local
Facilities Management Zone 20.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5643
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions
No. 5644, 5645, 5646 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of General Plan Amendment GPA
03-05, Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 02-02 and Zone Change ZC 02-02 and
ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5647, 5648, and 5649 APPROVING Tentative
Tract Map CT 02-07, Hillside Development Permit HDP 02-02, and Coastal Development
Permit CDP 02-07 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
11. INTRODUCTION
The project consists of a request for a General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program
Amendment to clarify, refine and adjust the generalized boundaries of Residential Low (RL),
Residential Low-Medium (RLM), and Open Space (OS) designations on the property, and a Zone
Change to rezone the property from L-C, R-1 and 0-S to R-1-10,000 and 0-S. The project also
requires a Tentative Tract Map, Coastal Development Permit, and Hillside Development Permit
to grade and subdivide an 18-acre parcel into 14 single-family, 10,000 square foot (minimum)
lots, and two open space lots. The open space would be preserved as a habitat preserve area
consistent with the City’s Habitat Management Plan (HMP) and Mello I1 Local Coastal Program.
As designed and conditioned, the project is consistent with all applicable standards and policies
and the necessary findings to approve the project can be made.
GPA 03-05/LCPA 02-02/ZC 02-02ICT 02-07/HDP 02-02/CDP 02-07 - EMERALD POINTE
ESTATES
June 16,2004
111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The project site consists of approximately 18 acres of partially cultivated land located south of
Laurel Tree Road between Aviara Parkway and Cobblestone Road in the sout.hwest quadrant of
the City. The infill site is surrounded to the north by open space, to the south and east by small
lot, single-family development, and to the west by multi-family development. The property
slopes moderately to steeply down to the west and south from a gently sloping ridge top located
along the northern boundary. Elevations across the property range from 100’ to 262’ Mean Sea
Level (MSL). The property is constrained by steep slopes, sensitive native habitat, and a 150’
wide SDG&E easement located along the western property boundary.
Generalized residential and open space land use boundaries currently shown on the General Plan
Map, including the RL, RLM and OS designations, require clarification and refinement to
accurately reflect the allowed RL land use on the property. Staff has determined that areas within
the property boundary that are designated as RLM and OS on the General Plan Map are mapping
errors. The proposed General Plan Amendment specifies the RL designation for the area
proposed for residential development and the OS designation for the remainder of the property.
The majority of the property is currently zoned Limited Control (L-C) with very small areas
zoned R-1 and 0-S. These small R-1 and 0-S zones were added to the project through previous
lot line adjustments and are now within the boundaries of the proposed Emerald Pointe project.
The proposed zone change to R-1-10,000 and 0-S is required to ensure consistency between the
proposed General Plan land use designations and zoning. (Please refer to the attached GPA and
ZC maps showing existing and proposed changes.) In addition, a Local Coastal Program
Amendment to revise the Local Coastal Land Use Plan is proposed to provide consistency
between the City of Carlsbad’s General Plan Land Use and Zoning Maps and the Local Coastal
Program Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Map.
The applicable RL General Plan designation allows 0 - 1.5 dwelling units per developable acre
with a Growth Management Growth Control Point (GCP) of 1 dwelling unit per acre. The 18
acre site consists of 11.5 developable acres and the proposed project density resulting from the
development of 14 standard single-family lots (10,000 square foot minimum) is 1.2 dwelling
units per acre; therefore, approval of a 22% density increase above the density permitted by the
GCP is required.
The site is identified as a standards area in the City’s draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP). The
HMP limits development to the disturbed and non-native grassland areas of the site. The site is
also located within and regulated by the Mello I1 segment of the Local Coastal Program, which
incorporates the same standards for development of the site.
The project is proposed on approximately 6.1 acres located on a ridge top that has been
previously disturbed by agricultural activity except for a .245-acre segment occupied by coastal
sage scrub. The remaining disturbed and undisturbed portion of the property containing native,
non-native, and disturbed habitat will be preserved in open space. Vehicular access to the
proposed subdivision is provided from Sapphire Drive via Cobblestone Drive. As shown on
GPA 03-05/LCPA 02-02IZC 02-02/CT 02-07/HDP 02-02/CDP 02-07 - EMERALD POI”
ESTATES
June 16,2004
Page 3
Exhibit “B,” the subdivision design consists of a single cul-de-sac extending west from the
existing terminus of Sapphire Drive. The proposed lots range in size from 10,080 square feet to
16,027 square feet.
The project is subject to the following plans, ordinances, standards and policies:
A. General Plan;
B.
C. Draft Habitat Management Plan;
D.
E.
Mello I1 Segment of the Local Coastal Program;
Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 20 (Subdivision Ordinance);
Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 2 1 (Zoning Ordinance) including:
1. Chapter 2 1.10 - One Family Residential Zone
2. Chapter 21.33 - Open Space Zone
3. Chapter 21.85 - Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
4. Chapter 21.95 - Hillside Development Regulations
5. Chapters 2 1.203 - Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone
Council Policy 66 - Livable Neighborhoods; and F.
G. Growth Management.
IV. ANALYSIS
The recommendation of approval for this project was developed by analyzing the project’s
consistency with the applicable regulations and policies listed above. The following analysis
section discusses compliance with each of the regulations/policies utilizing both text and tables.
A. General Plan
The proposed project is consistent with the policies and programs of the General Plan. In
accordance with Section 65402(a) of the California Planning and Zoning Law, the purpose and
extent of the proposed partial Sapphire Drive street vacation is explained below. The following
table indicates how the project, including the partial street vacation, complies with the relevant
elements of the General Plan:
GPA 03-05/LCPA 02-02IZC 02-02/CT 02-071HDP 02-02/CDP 02-07 - EMERALD POINTE
ESTATES
June 16,2004
ELEMENT
Land Use
Housing
Public Safety
TABLE 1: GENERAL PLAN C
USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL
OBJECTIVE OR PROGRAM
OS - Open Space
RL - Residential Low Density
(0 - 1.5 dwelling units/acre)
Growth Control Point: 1 dwelling
unitlacre
Zoning consistency with General Plan
15% inclusionary housing requirement
per Objective 3.6
Provide project review that allows
:onsideration of seismic and geologic
hazards.
Reduce fire hazards to an acceptable
risk level.
bMPLIANCE
PROPOSED USES &
IMPROVEMENTS
Designate 10.1 Acres
as open space and
preserve and maintain
as an HMP habitat
preserve area.
Single-family
residential lots
Project density = 1.2
du/ac .
The project exceeds
the GCP of 1 du/ac;
however, the findings
required by Growth
Management
Ordinance and General
Plan can be made to
exceed the GCP.
Proposed R- 1 - 10,000
and 0-S Zones are
consistent with the RL
and OS General Plan
designations.
Project conditioned to
purchase 2 credits in
combined affordable
project.
Project improvements
will not significantly
impact or be impacted
by geologic or seismic
conditions.
Project provides 60’
fire sunmession zones.
COMPLY
Yes
Yes*
Yes*
Yes**
Yes
Yes
GPA 03-05/LCPA 02-02/ZC 02-021CT 02-07IHDP 02-02/CDP 02-07 - EMERALD PONTE
ESTATES
June 16,2004
Pa5e 5
T
ELEMENT
Open Space
&
Conservation
BLE 1: GENERAL PLAN COMPLIr
USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL
OBJECTIVE OR PROGRAM
Minimize environmental impacts to
sensitive resources within the City.
Preserve open space consistent with the
habitat preserve and linkage areas
identified in the HMP.
Require( fini ings for adjusting the
Equal to or greater in area
boundaries of open space:
0
Equal to or greater
environmental quality
Contiguous or in proximity to
existing open space
ncorporate structural and non-
itructural BMPs; use small collection
itrategies to minimize transport of
unoff and pollutants offsite and into
nunicipal storm system.
4CE CONTINUED
PROPOSED USES &
IMPROVEMENTS
Project will dedicate
and rezone to open
space 10.1 acres
containing sensitive
biological habitat. The
open space will be
preserved and
maintained as an HMP
habitat preserve area.
The proposed 10.1
acres of open space is
greater in area than the
existing 2.5 acres of
open space.
The 10.1 acres of
HMP habitat preserve
area contain sensitive
Coastal Sage Scrub
(CSS) and chaparral
habitats that far exceed
the disturbed
agricultural land
currently designated as
open space.
The proposed OS is
:ontiguous with
zxisting open space.
Project provides a
jetention basin
:hrough which all
unoff will flow prior
:o entering the public
storm drain svstem.
COMPLY
Yes
GPA 03-05/LCPA 02-02IZC 02-02/CT 02-07/HDP 02-02iCDP 02-07 - EMERALD POINTE
ESTATES
June 16,2004
Paqe 6
I I ELEMENT
Noise
USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL
OBJECTIVE OR PROGRAM
Avigation Easement for properties in
the 60 to 65 dBA CNEL airport noise
contour.
Residential interior noise standard of
45 dBA CNEL.
Requires new development to dedicate
and improve all public rights-of-way
for circulation facilities needed to serve
development.
PROPOSED USES &
IMPROVEMENTS
The project is
conditioned to require
recordation of an
avigation easement.
The project is
conditioned to require
future units to comply
with interior noise
standard.
All public
infrastructure will be
constructed in
accordance with City
standards.
Partial street vacation
of existing Sapphire
Drive is necessary to
realign the street to
serve the proposed
development.
c OM PLY
Yes
***Yes
'compliance with the RL land use designation is contingent upon approval of I * Afinding(
the requested 22% density increase above the growth control point. The project is
consistent with the Growth Management Ordinance and the General Plan provisions for
allowing projects to exceed the growth control point. The project is a single-family infill
project where the base zone of the property allows a slightly higher yield of units than
would be allowed by the growth control point. The necessary findings to exceed the
growth control point are that excess units are available in the southwest quadrant, the
project is compatible with surrounding residential development in that a 10.1 acre habitat
preserve surrounds and buffers the residential subdivision on three sides, the necessary
infrastructure is in place to support the project and adequate public facilities are provided,
and the proposed density does not exceed the maximum density allowed at the top of the
RL density range. Furthermore, the project is consistent with Council Policy 43, which
establishes policy for the allocation of excess dwelling units. The project qualifies for the
allocation of 2.5 units from the excess unit bank in that it is a single-family infill project
as stated above.
** The proposed R-1-10,000 zone is consistent with the RL General Plan designation and
the proposed 0-S zone implements the OS designation. The RL designation is intended
to be characterized by one-half acre lots. However, the General Plan definition for RL
does not require that the residential lots be a minimum of one half acre in area. Because
over 55% of the 18 acre site will be maintained in open space, the actual character of this
GPA 03-05/LCPA 02-02IZC OL-02ICT 02-07/HDP 02-02/CDP 02-07 - EMERALD POINTE
ESTATES
June 16,2004
Page 7
development will appear as a low-density residential development consistent with the
intent of the RL land use designation. Compatibility with adjacent uses is assured
because the project is surrounded’ by HMP habitat preserve areas that will provide very
wide open space buffers. In addition to the open space buffers, the existing multi-family
development to the west and small lot single-family developments to the south and east
are much higher density developments than the proposed larse lot single-family
development.
***
B./E5.
The proposed partial street vacation of the existing Sapphire Drive right-of-way (see
Exhibit “C”) is necessary to realign the local street so that it provides access to the
proposed lots within the Emerald Pointe Subdivision. A portion of the current right-of-
way is aligned from 5’ to 30’ north of the proposed alignment. The realignment will not
impact the adjacent property in that access would still be provided from the proposed
Sapphire Drive alignment. The proposed realigned right-of-way satisfies all City design
standards for local cul-de-sac streets; therefore, it is consistent with the General Plan.
Mello I1 Segment of the Local Coastal ProgradCoastal Resource Protection
Overlay Zone
The project as proposed and conditioned is consistent with the applicable policies and
implementation standards for land use consistency, preservation of steep slopes and vegetation,
development restrictions, sensitive habitat buffers, stormwater runoff and erosion control of the
Mello I1 segment of Carlsbad’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) and the Coastal Resource
Protection Overlay Zone. The proposed General Plan amendment and zone change to adjust
existing land use designation boundaries require Coastal Commission approval of a Local
Coastal Program Amendment to ensure consistency between the City’s General Plan and Zoning
Maps and the LCP land use and zone maps.
The subdivision design limits development to the flatter, previously disturbed portions of the site,
which is consistent with LCP dual criterion provisions prohibiting development of steep slopes
occupied by sensitive CSS and chaparral habitats. The project is also consistent with LCP Policy
3-8-9 which provides specific habitat protection standards for the BCS property. Policy 3-8-9
indicates that no impact to native habitat is allowed except impacts resulting from fire
suppression activity within a required 20-foot wide habitat buffer. The required 20 foot wide
buffer between development and native habitat is proposed within the final 20 feet of the 60-foot
wide fire suppression zone. A total of .245 acre of CSS habitat will be disturbed within the
buffer due to thinning and/or removal of high fuel species. This area of disturbance will be
mitigated at a 2:l ratio (.5 acre) through onsite revegetation of land previously disturbed by
agricultural activity that is contiguous to native vegetation to the west and a part of the proposed
habitat preserve.
Drainage from the site is subject to the City’s drainage and storm water pollution control
standards (NPDES and BMPs). The project is designed to avoid increased urban runoff and to
ensure that sediment and pollutants from development of the site will not discharge into any
downstream receiving surface waters. The project design includes a detention basin that will
83
GPA 03-05/LCPA 02-021’ZC 02-02/CT 02-07/HDP 02-02/CDP 02-07 - EMERALD POINTE
ESTATES
June 16,2004
Page 8
receive runoff from the project prior to entering the existing public storm drain, and the project
will be conditioned to prepare a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) to ensure that City
standards are met.
The project site is also designated by the Mello I1 LCP as non-prime agricultural land subject to
mitigation requirements for the conversion of non-prime agricultural land. Implementing zone
standards require mitigation for this conversion through the payment of an agricultural mitigation
fee established by City Council for agricultural acreage prior to the approval of a final map.
C. Draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP)
The City’s Draft HMP identifies the project site as a standards area for the purpose of
establishing, enhancing and maintaining a habitat linkage (Linkage F) from Core Areas 4, 6, and
8. In addition, the HMP limits development of the Emerald Pointe property to areas previously
disturbed by agricultural activity with no impacts to native habitat allowed except for a 20 foot
wide habitat buffer discussed in Section B above. The proposed project restricts development to
the area previously disturbed by agricultural activity, and the proposed revegetation of .5 acre of
CSS habitat within the remaining disturbed portion of the site is consistent with HMP provisions
allowing disturbance of CSS habitat resulting from fire suppression activities within the 20 foot
wide habitat buffer.
D. Subdivision Ordinance
The proposed tentative map complies with the requirements of the City’s Subdivision Ordinance,
Title 20, of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and City of Carlsbad Standards for public
improvements. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements required of the
project will not conflict with easements of record or easements established by court judgment, or
acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed
subdivision. The project is designed to take advantage of heating and cooling opportunities in
that lots are oriented in an east-west alignment maximizing southern exposure and benefit of
prevailing breezes. Primary access would be provided by Cobblestone Drive via Aviara Parkway,
a circulation arterial roadway. The proposed cul-de-sac serves fewer than 20 units and satisfies
the 36’ wide curb-to-curb width standard. The drainage study submitted by the applicant
indicates that all runoff can be controlled on-site and conveyed through an onsite detention basin
into the existing public storm drain. The proposed sewer, water, and public storm drain
necessary to serve the project would be connected to existing lines in Sapphire Drive. No
standards variances are needed to approve the project.
El. Chapter 21.10 - One Family Residential Zone
As shown on the following table, the single-family subdivision meets or exceeds the R-1 zone
standards:
GPA 03-05/LCPA 02-02/ZC 02-021CT 02-07/HDP 02-02/CDP 02-07 - EMERALD POINTE
ESTATES
June 16,2004
Standard
Use
Lot Size
Required Proposed
10.080 to 16.027 Sa. Ft.
Single-family Lots 14 Single-family Lots
Minimum 10.000 Sa. Ft.
Lot Width
E2. Chapter 21.33 - Open Space Zone
Interior Lots: 75 Ft. Minimum 80 Ft.
Cul-de-sac Lots: 33 Ft. Minimum 54 Ft.
As shown on the following table, the proposed open space is consistent with the 0-S zone
standards:
Standard Required
Use
Lot Size N/A
Open Space Easements, et a1
Proposed
Open Space Easement/Conservation Easement
10.1 Acre
E3. Chapter 21.85 - Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
The project requires compliance with the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requiring that
15% of the total number of units are made affordable to low income households. The
inclusionary housing requirement for the 14-lot subdivision is 2 units. When feasible, the
affordable units are required to be constructed onsite, however, the purchase of housing credits in
an offsite combined inclusionary housing project within the same quadrant may be approved by
the City Council. Since it would not be feasible to construct inclusionary housing onsite due to
the limited number of lots proposed, the project is proposing to purchase 2 affordable housing
credits in the Villa Loma Affordable Apartment project located in the southwest quadrant.
E4. Chapter 21.95 - Hillside Development Regulations
The proposed project is consistent with the applicable Hillside Development Ordinance
restrictions for development of steep slopes, slope height, grading volumes, and slope screening.
The project will not disturb natural slopes exceeding 40%, the proposed grading volume of 8,620
cubic yards per acre is within the potentially acceptable range and manufactured slopes are well
below the 40’ maximum allowed. Grading quantities are slightly higher due to the restricted area
of development, and manufactured slopes will be screened by low fuel native species. Future
structures will be required to provide the necessary top of slope setback.
E5. Coastal Resource Overlay Zone
See Section B/E5 on page 7 above.
F. Council Policy 66 - Livable Neighborhoods
The Livable Neighborhood Street Design policy is applicable to the proposed subdivision design.
Due to topographic and environmental constraints, a grid pattern rather than a cul-de-sac street is
not possible. The proposed cul-de-sac street is designed with 36 feet of width, and it connects to
GPA 03-05/LCPA O2-02/ZC 02-02/CT 02-07/HDP 02-02/CDP 02-07 - EMERALD POINTE
ESTATES
June 16,2004
STANDARD
City Administration
Librarv
and extends existing Sapphire Drive. This connection provides a second point of access through
the Mar Brisa project to the west thereby ensuring adequate access for emergency service
vehicles and emergency evacuation routes for residents.
IMPACTS COMPLIANCE
21 sf Yes
11.2 sf Yes
G. Growth Management
Parks
Drainage
Circulation
The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 20 in the southwest
quadrant of the City. The impacts created by this development on public facilities and
compliance with the adopted perfonnance standards are summarized as follows:
.042 ac Yes
Basin C Yes
140 ADT Yes
TABLE 3: GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE
Fire
Open Space
Schools
Sewer Collection System
Water
Station No. 4 Yes
10.3 ac Yes
CUSD Yes
14 EDU Yes
3.080 GPD Yes
I Waste Water Treatment 114EDU I Yes I
The project is 2.5 dwelling units above the Growth Management Dwelling Unit allowance of
11.5 dwelling units for the subject property.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff has conducted an environmental impact assessment to determine if the project could have a
potentially significant effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Ordinance (Title 19) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Potentially
significant biological, paleontological and noise impacts were identified. The developer has
agreed to mitigation measures to reduce the identified impacts to below a level of significance in
accordance with CEQA. The environmental documents were sent to the State Clearinghouse for
circulation in addition to being sent directly to the area offices of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and California Coastal Commission. In
consideration of the foregoing, the Planning Director issued a Notice of Intent to Adopt a
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project on March 28, 2003. Comments were received
from the US Fish & Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish & Game, and Carolyn
Martus representing Preserve Calavera and the California Native Plant Society (San Diego
Chapter). Based on comments received, the project was revised to avoid impacts to sensitive
CSS and chaparral habitat. Staff responded in writing to comments from the wildlife agencies on
April 5, 2004. No new significant impacts requiring mitigation were identified; therefore,
GPA 03-05/LCPA 02-02/ZC 02-02/CT 02-07/HDP 02-0YCDP 02-07 - EMERALD POINTE
ESTATES
June 16,2004
changes to the Mitigated Negative Declaration are documented in the Addendum to the Mitigated
Negative Declaration.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
AH:mh
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5643 (Mitigated Neg. Dec.)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5644 (GPA)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5645 (LCPA)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5646 (ZC)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5647 (CT)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5648 (HDP)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5649 (CDP)
Location Map
Background Data Sheet
Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
Disclosure Statement
GPA 03-05 and ZC 02-02 maps
Reduced Exhibits
Exhibits “A” - “M” dated June 16, 2004
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: GPA 03-05/LCPA 02-02/ZC 02-02/CT 02-07ICDP 02-07/HDP 02-02
CASE NAME: Emerald Pointe Estates
APPLICANT: BCS Natural Resources Corp.
REQUEST AND LOCATION: The proiect consists of a request for a General Plan
Amendment, and Local Coastal Pro,aam Amendment to clarify, refine, and adiust the
generalized land use desination boundaries of Residential Low (RL), Residential Low-Medium
(RLM), and Open Space (OS) on the property, a Zone Change to rezone the property from L-C,
R-1 and 0-S to R-1-10,000 and 0-S, and a Tentative Subdivision Map, Coastal Development
Permit and Hillside Development Permit to aade and subdivide an 18 acre parcel into 13 single
family, 10,000 square foot (minimum), lots and two open space lots. The open space would be
preserved as a habitat conservation area consistent with the City’s Habitat Management Plan
JHMP).
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel 1: All that portion of that parcel of land desinated as
“Description No. 5, 103.54 acres as shown and delineated on Record of Survey Map No. 5715,
filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, December 19, 1960.
Excepting therefrom portions of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 15662 as described in Official
Parcel 2: Lot 115 of Carlsbad Tract No. 84-32(A), Unit No. 1 (Cobblestone Sea Village), in the
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego. State of California, according to Map thereof No. 23428,
filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, June 3, 1997.
Parcel No. 3: Easement for roadway and utility purposes over those certain strips of land
designated as “60 foot strip and 66 foot easement reserved for roadway and utility purposes,” as
shown on said Record of Survey Map No. 571 5.
Excepting from said 60 foot strip, that portion which lies within Parcel No. 1 above.
Parcel 4: A temporary easement for pedestrian and vehicular access, in,gress and egress as
contained in document recorded May 1, 1996, as File No. 1996-02 18757 of official records being
a portion of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 15661, that portion being a portion of the easement for
roadway and utility purposes over those certain strips of land desi.mated and as described in
official records.
APN: 212-040-50; 212-190-53; 212-190-55 Acres: 18 Proposed No. of Lots/Wnits: 14 Lots
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: RL
Density Allowed: 0 - 1.5 du/ac GCP: 1 du/ac
Existing Zone: L-C/R- 1 /0-S Proposed Zone: R- 1 - 1 O/O-S
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use:
Density Proposed: 1.2 ddac
Zoning General Plan Current Land Use
Site
North
South
East
West
L-C/R- 1/0-S RWRLM/OS Vacant
P-M-Q
R- 1
R- 1 /OS
RD-M-Q
os
RLM
RLM
RH
Vacant
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Carlsbad Unified Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 14
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Mitigated Negative Declaration, issued March 28,2003
Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated 0
0 Other,
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: Emerald Pointe Estates, GPA 03-05/ LCPA 02-02/ ZC 02-02/CT 02-
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 3 GENERAL PLAN: RL
07/CDP 02-07/HDP 02-02
ZONING: R-l-lO,OOO/OS
DEVELOPER’S NAME: BCS Natural Resources Corn,
ADDRESS: c/o Anthony C. Hummel, General Partner, 201 Emerald Bay Drive, Laguna Beach,
PHONE NO.: 1760) 438-4090 (Consultant) ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 212-040-50: 212-
QUANTITY OF LAND USELDEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 18 ac/10,000 sq ft lotdl4
du.
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: Unknown
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 21
Library : Demand in Square Footage = 11
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer)
Park: Demand in Acreage = .042
Drainage: Demand in CFS =
14 EDU
Identify Drainage Basin = C
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: Demand in ADT = 140
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 4
Open Space: Acreage Provided = 10.3
Schools: Elementary: 3.35 Students
Middle School: 1.64 Students
High School: 2 Students
Sewer: Demands in EDU 14
Identify Sub Basin = 20B
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
Water: Demand in GPD = 3,080
The project is 2.5 units above the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Applicant’s statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require
discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee.
The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project.cannot
be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print.
Note:
Person is defined as “Any individual, firm, co-partucrship, joint venture, association, social club, fiaternal 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.
2.
APPLICANT (Not the applicant’s agent)
Provide the COMPLETE. LEG& names and addresses of persons having a financial
interest in the application. If the applicant includes a comration or Dartn ership, 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-own ed comorab ’0% include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if
necessary.)
INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-
Penon See Attached COrpPart
Title Title
Address Address
OWNER (Not the owner’s agent)
Provide the COMPLEWEGAC names and addresses of && persons having any ownership
interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e,
partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a
comoration or uartnershiri, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more
than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES,
PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-
owned comoration, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate
page may be attached if necessary.)
Person See Attached COrpPart
Title Title
Address Address
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-731 4 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 @
3. NON-PROFIT Or*GANIZATION OR TRUST
If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonmofit oreanization 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 Profinrust
Title Title
Address Address
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months? 0 Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s):
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary.
I certify that all the above infoFation is ime and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Signature of applicantldate
Anthony C. Hummel
Print or type name of owner/Applicant Print or type name of applicant
Signature of ownedapplicant’s agent if applicable/date
Print or type name of owner/applicant’s agent
H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98
BCS PROGRAM 2, LTD, A CALIFORNIA LIMITE' 'ARTNERSHIP
General Partners:
. Anthony C. Hummel
201 Emerald Bay Drive
Laguna Beach, CA 9265 1
Lloyd Sellinger
BCS Natural Resources Corporation
P.O. Box 7716
Newport Beach, CA.92658
Limited Partners:
Ivan D. & Deborah A. Baronofsky
TTEES, T/D 1 /2 1/82
4060 Fourth Ave., Ste 450
San Diego, CA 92 103
Norman W. Gordon
16443 Wimbledon Lane
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
Tamblin C. Smith
C/o Robert P. Turnley
City National Bank
120 S. Spalding Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90213
Hummel Children's Trust dtd 4/14/75
Anthony C. Hummel, Trustee
201 Emerald Bay Drive
Laguna Beach, CA 9265 1
Brandy Trust I
Patricia A Hummel, Trustee
201 Emerald Bay Drive
Laguna Beach, CA 9265 1
Brandy Trust I1
Patricia A Hummel, Trustee
201 Emerald Bay Drive
Laguna Beach, CA 9265 1
ATTACHMENT 12
EXISTING
EMERALD POINTE ESTATES
GPA 03-05
PROPOSED
EMERALD POINTE ESTATES
GPA 03-05
EXISTING
EMERALD POINTE ESTATES
zc 02-02
PROPOSED
EMERALD POINTE ESTATES
zc 02-02
i'
U W
I 63, i
E U3HS 33s 3Nll H31VW 99
I- -
C
c
c
C
C r
!
C
c L L
c
C
c I
r
C
t
!
,
8S8 mcuCU
I I I
\I
h -2----- -
0 0 0
I
00 mo cum
I I
I
I I I
888 ocvcu
0
om 05:
I I
, T
I
8
, I/
I.
I.
I I I
00800 mcucu
I I I
103
.
/
". Y t tY
i
i
I
i-
Planning Commission Minutes June 16,2004 VHIBIT 6 Page
8. GPA 03-05/LCPA 02-02/ZC 02-021CT 02-07/HDP 02-02/CDP 02-07 - EMERALD
POINTE ESTATES - Request for a recommendation of adoption of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Addendum, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; a
recommendation of approval for a General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to clarify, refine, and adjust land use designation boundaries, and a Zone
Change to rezone the property consistent with the land use designations; and approval of
a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit, and Coastal Development Permit to
subdivide and grade 14 single-family lots and two open space lots on an 18-acre parcel
located east of Laurel Tree Road between Aviara Parkway and Cobblestone Drive in
Local Facilities Management Zone 20.
Mr. Neu introduced Item 8 and stated Associate Planner Anne Hysong would make the staff presentation.
Chairperson White asked the applicant if he wished to proceed with only 5 Commissioners present. The
applicant stated he would like to proceed.
RECESS
Chairperson White called for a seven-minute recess at 7:05 p.m.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER:
Chairperson White called the meeting back to order at 7:15 p.m. with all Commissioners present and
asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item.
Chairperson White opened the Public Hearing on Item 8.
Mrs. Hysong stated this item is a request for a recommendation of approval of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Addendum, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; a recommendation of
approval for a General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to clarify, refine, and
adjust land use designation boundaries, and a Zone Change to rezone the property consistent with the
land use designations; and approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit, and Coastal
Development Permit to subdivide and grade 14 single-family lots and two open space lots on an 18 acre
parcel located north of Laurel Tree Road between Aviara Parkway and Cobblestone Drive in Local
Facilities Management Zone 20. The project will be accessed off the extension of Sapphire Drive. A
required conservation easement will preserve 10.1 acres of open space as a Habitat Management Plan
preserve area. Ms. Hysong reviewed the project's consistency with the applicable land use policies and
implementing ordinances.
Mrs. Hysong stated there is an errata sheet for the project which the Planning Commission has received.
This errata sheet states that the project's approval is contingent upon consideration of the Airport Land
Use Commission's consistency determination prior to final decision on the legislative actions by the City
Council. She concluded her presentation and stated she would be available to answer any questions.
Chairperson White stated the Commission has received the errata sheet concerning the Airport Land Use
Commission and asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Segall asked what avigation means. Mrs. Hysong stated that an avigation easement is
done so that future owners are aware that planes could potentially be flying over their property and the
impacts the airport could have on the property. Commissioner Segall also asked for an explanation on
the errata sheet. Mrs. Hysong stated that last year the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) established requirements for their review of anything with a General Plan Amendment or Zone Change. The ALUC
has requested that the condition be imposed so that they have enough time to make their consistency
determination before City Council reviews the legislative actions.
City Attorney Ron Ball suggested that rather than put everything on the Airport Land Use Commission's
timetable, that the Planning Commission request their action be within a reasonable amount of time.
Planning Commission Minutes June 16,2004 Page 7
Commissioner Segall asked who makes up the Airport Land Use Commission. Attorney Ball responded
that it previously used to be SANDAG; however, now there is new statutory commission made up of staff and commissioners independent from SANDAG.
Chairperson White asked if there were any further questions of staff. Seeing none, she asked if the
applicant wished to make a presentation.
Jack Henthorn, 5365 Avenida Encinas Suite A, Carlsbad, gave his presentation, stating that the project is
a 16 lot residential subdivision with two of those lots remaining in open space. The project meets all of
the various requirements associated with lot size and depth, and also the technical requirements. He
stated that over 12 acres of the 18-acre site will be reserved for open space purposes with 100% of the
Coastal Sage Scrub and Chapparal communities as well as 100% of native San Diego thornmint. He
stated a wildlife corridor will also be completed on the site linking the properties from Poinsettia Lane on
the south to Encinas Creek on the north side of the property. He further asked that the Planning
Commission accept staffs recommendation of approval. Mr. Henthorn concluded his presentation and
stated he would be available to answer any questions.
Commissioner Montgomery stated that the habitat on this project will connect with a major portion of
habitat on Poinsettia. He asked if there is any more requirements on this project to create more
connectivity across Cobblestone which separates the project from the other portion of habitat. Mr.
Henthorn explained that negotiations have been made with the Wildlife Agencies regarding the design of
the corridor such that with adequate native habitat planning and proper treatment of the slopes, that the
roadways would not be a significant impediment to the wildlife.
Chairperson White asked if there were any further questions of the applicant. Seeing none, she opened
Public Testimony on the item. She asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak on
the item. Seeing none, she closed Public Testimony on the item. Chairperson White asked if there were
any more questions of staff.
Commissioner Montgomery inquired if the road had to be designed the way it appears on the map due to
habitat constraints. Mrs. Hysong responded that because of the severe restrictions placed on the
property about a year ago with the amendments to the Habitat Management Plan and to the Local
Coastal Program prohibiting any disturbance to sensitive habitat, the project was designed as it is.
MOTION
ACT1 0 N : Motion by Commissioner Heineman, and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 5643 recommending
adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions
No. 5644, 5645, 5646 recommending approval of General Plan Amendment GPA
03-05, Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 02-02 and Zone Change ZC
02-02 and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5647, 5648, and 5649
approving Tentative Tract Map CT 02-07, Hillside Development Permit HDP 02-
02, and Coastal Development Permit CDP 02-07 based on the findings and
subject to the conditions contained therein, including the errata sheet.
White, Baker, Montgomery, Heineman, and Segall
VOTE: 5-0
AYES:
NOES: None
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200
Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO p.m. on Tuesday, October 5, 2004, to
consider a request for adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum, and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approval of a General Plan Amendment and Local
Coastal Program Amendment to clarify, refine, and adjust land use designation boundaries, and
approve a Zone Change to rezone the property consistent with the land use designations on
property generally located north of Laurel Tree Road between Aviara Parkway and Cobblestone
Drive in Local Facilities Management Zone 20, and more particularly described as:
Parcel 1: All that portion of that parcel of land designated as
“Description No. 5, 103.54 acres as shown and delineated on
Record of Survey Map No. 5715, filed in the Ofice of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, December 19,1960.
Excepting therefrom portions of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 15662
as described in Official Records.
Parcel 2: Lot 115 of Carlsbad Tract No. 84-32(A), Unit No. 1
(Cobblestone Sea Village), in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 23428,
filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County,
June 3,1997.
Parcel No. 3: Easement for roadway and utility purposes over
those certain strips of land designated as “60 foot strip and 66 foot
easement reserved for roadway and utility purposes,” as shown on
said Record of Survey Map No. 5715.
Excepting from said 60-foot strip, that portion which lies within
Parcel No. 1 above.
Parcel 4: A temporary easement for pedestrian and vehicular
access, ingress and egress as contained in document recorded May
1, 1996, as File No. 1996-0218757 of official records being a
portion of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 15661, that portion being a
portion of the easement for roadway and utility purposes over
those certain strips of land designated and as described in official
records
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 October 1, 2004. If you have
any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4622.
If you challenge the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program Amendment and/or Zone
Change 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 03-O5/LCPA 02-02/ZC 02-02
CASE NAME: EMERALD POINTE ESTATES
PUBLISH: September 24,2004
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
EMERALD POINTE ESTATES
GPA 03-0WLCPA 02-02/ZC 02-02
Emerald Pointe EstatesEmerald Pointe EstatesGPA 03GPA 03--05/LCPA 0205/LCPA 02--02/ZC 0202/ZC 02--0202
Approval For:Approval For:••Mitigated Neg. Dec., Addendum and Mitigated Neg. Dec., Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting ProgramProgram••GPA 03GPA 03--05 General Plan Amendment05 General Plan Amendment••ZC 02ZC 02--02 Zone Change02 Zone Change••LCPA 02LCPA 02--02 Amendment to LCP Land 02 Amendment to LCP Land Use and Zoning mapsUse and Zoning maps
Location MapLocation MapSITEPALOMARAIRPORTRDA V IA R A
P K W YCOBBLESTONEDR
COBBLESTONERDSAPPHIR ED R
TURQUOISE DRMARIPOSARD
Site CharacteristicsSite Characteristics••18 acre vacant parcel18 acre vacant parcel••Approx. 6.1 acres previously cultivatedApprox. 6.1 acres previously cultivated••Steep slopes with Coastal Sage Scrub and Steep slopes with Coastal Sage Scrub and Southern Maritime ChaparralSouthern Maritime Chaparral••HMP standards areaHMP standards area––Restricts development to previously disturbed Restricts development to previously disturbed areaarea••Bisected by 65dBA CNEL Airport Noise Bisected by 65dBA CNEL Airport Noise ContourContour
General Plan Land General Plan Land Use/ZoningUse/Zoning••ReRe--designate from RL/RLM/OS to RL designate from RL/RLM/OS to RL and OSand OS••Amend Mello II LCP land use and Amend Mello II LCP land use and zoning mapszoning maps
General Plan Land General Plan Land Use/Zoning (Cont.)Use/Zoning (Cont.)••ReRe--zone to Rzone to R--11--10,000 and OS10,000 and OS––Implements RL and OS General Plan Implements RL and OS General Plan designationsdesignations––Compatible with surrounding small lot Compatible with surrounding small lot and high density developmentand high density development––Buffered by open spaceBuffered by open space
Received P. C. Approval Of:Received P. C. Approval Of:••CT 02CT 02--07 Tentative Tract Map07 Tentative Tract Map••HDP 02HDP 02--02 Hillside Development 02 Hillside Development PermitPermit••CDP 02CDP 02--07 Coastal Development 07 Coastal Development PermitPermit
Project FeaturesProject Features••14 single family lots & 2 open space 14 single family lots & 2 open space lotslots••Accessed by extension of Sapphire Accessed by extension of Sapphire DriveDrive••Located within the 60 Located within the 60 --65 65 dBAdBACNEL CNEL Airport Noise ContourAirport Noise Contour••10.1 acre HMP habitat preserve10.1 acre HMP habitat preserve
Environmental ReviewEnvironmental Review••Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigated Negative Declaration issued on March 28, 2003issued on March 28, 2003––Mitigation measures required for Mitigation measures required for biological and noise impactsbiological and noise impacts
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:
September 24‘” ,2004
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at SAN MARCOS California
This 24‘h Day of September, 2004
/ Signature
Jane Olson
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
I’ ”-
This space is for the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp
Proof of Publication of
1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to ou because our inter- est may be affected that the Civy douncil of &e City of Carlsbad will hold a ’ ublic hearing at the Council Cham- bers, 1200 CarlsbaBVilla e Drive, Carlsbad. Californla. at 6 00 p-m. on Tuesday 8ctober 5. 2004 to consider a request for adoption of a’Miti ated Negative Declaration. Addendum. and Mitigatton%onttorin and Reportin Pro ram and ap roval of a General #Ian Amendmen? andgocal CoastaPPro ram Amendment to clarify. refine and adjust land use 3esignation boundartes. and ap- prove a Zone Change to rezone the property conststent with the land use desi nations on property enerall lo cated norih of Laurel Qree Road between Wviara Jaark: way and Cobblestone Drive in Local Facilities Manage- ment Zone 20. and more particularly described as
Exce tin therefrom portions of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map io. 75662 as described in Official Records.
Parcel 2: Lot 115 of Carlsbad Tract No. 84-32(A Unii No. 1 Cobblestone Sea Villa e) in the Cit of Lark bad Aount of San Die o he of Cadornia ac .ordin to da thereof 80.’23428, filed in the Okice
Df the eounty hecorder of San Diego County, June 3, 1997.
ixcepting from said 60-foot strip, that portion which ies within Parcel No. 1 above.
you challen e the Miti ated legattve Dec?aration Aiden um and Mitigation Pdonitoring nd Reporting Program Gen- ral Plan Amendment Local oastal Program Amendment ndlor Zone Chan e in court ou may be Iimite! to raising nly those issues you or some- ne else raised at the public eartng described in thts notice r in written correspondence eltvered to the Cit of Carls- ad Attn arlsbad Vtlla e Drive Carls- ad CA 92083 at or prior io te public hearing
City CYerk 1200 *
CASE FILE GPA 03-05lLCPA 02-02/ZC 02-02
CASE NAME EMERALD POINTE ESTATES
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL NCT 1698971 September 24, 2004
CARLSBAD UNlF SCHOOL DlST
6225 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92009 ENClNlTAS CA 92024
CITY OF ENClNlTAS
505 S VULCAN AVE
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
VISTA CA 92085
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NORTH COAST HWY
OCEANSIDE CA 92054 5201 RUFFIN RD
SD COUNTY PLANNING
STE B
SANDIEGO CA 92123
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME REGIONAL WATER QUALITY SANDAG
4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE STE 100 STE 800
SANDIEGO CA 92123 9174 SKY PARK CT 401 BSTREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340 SAN DIEGO CA 92101
I. P.U.A.
LAFCO AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DlST SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
1600 PACIFIC HWY 9150 CHESAPEAKE DR URBAN STUDIES SAN DIEGO CA 92101 SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
ATTN TED ANASIS
SAN DIEGO COUNTY AIRPORT
AUTHORITY
PO BOX 82776
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
t
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
STE 103
U.S. FISH &WILDLIFE
6010 HIDDEN VALLEY RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009 7575 METROPOLITAN DR SAN DIEGO CA 92138-2776 SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402
JACK HENTHORN & ASSOC
5365 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92008 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92658
ANTHONY HUMMEL
PO BOX 7716 STE A BCS PROGRAM L-2 LTD
CITY OF CARLSBAD
RECREATION ADMlN
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/ENG I NEERl NG
DEPT- PROJECT ENGINEER ANNE HYSONG
JOHN MAASHOFF
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT PLANNER
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
GREYSTONE HOMES INC
5780 FLEET ST
SUITE 300
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MARBRISA MAINTENANCE CORP
5083 AVENIDA ENCINAS
SUITE 101
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CARLSBAD SHOREPOINTE HOME
3088 PI0 PIC0 DR
SUITE 200
CARLSBAD CA 92008
NORDAHL CENTER PARTNERS
12780 HIGH BLUFF DR
SUITE 160
SAN DIEGO CA 92130
PERRY ESQUER
6446 WILLOW PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JAMES S UKEGAWA
4218 SKYLINE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CARLSBAD LAUREL TREE
APARTMENTS
22 W 35TH ST
SUITE 100
NATIONAL CITY CA 91950
KELLY/JRM-PALOMAR AIRPORT
1040 S ANDREASEN DR
SUITE 200
ESCONDIDO CA 92029
SIM USA INC
1400 FLAME TREE L
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CARLSBAD SHOREPOINTE HOME
PO BOX 1186
CARLSBAD CA 92018
MARK DAVIS
1400 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
NOLE B SHORT
1404 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
VINCENT HOPE NELSON
1416 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ANNA D ROBINSON
1408 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MICHAEL & MAW1 LANE
1412 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOHN A TAN
4473 SHOREPOINTE WAY
SAN DIEGO CA 92009
SEROP & SILVA ISAGOLIAN
1424 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BRIAN K RODGERS
1428 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HOYT FAMILY TR
1432 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CHARLES D KURTZ
1436 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MICHAEL & CAROLYN BECK
6400 RUBY WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DANIEL JR PRlJlC
6403 RUBY WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
RICHARD J RlVOlRA
6407 RUBY WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KENNETH P WONG
6411 RUBY WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MICHAEL KEEFE
6415 RUBY WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JORDAN D MILUSHEV
1438 TURQUOISE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GARY A BATT
1434 TURQUOISE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
NANCY A KIVLEN
1430 TURQUOISE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DIN0 & SUSAN ClARMOLl
1426 TURQUOISE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
RUBEN S ARREOLA
1422 TURQUOISE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
JOSEPH A DIPIETRO
1418 TURQUOISE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GILBERT J & CHING HO
1415 TURQUOISE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BRODERICK J ALBERT1
1419 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SETH RAFKIN
1423 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JIM & CHRISTINE SERBIA
1439 TURQUOISE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DAVID STRICKO
1435 TURQUOISE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ANDREW & COLLEN BOUD
1415 CORAL WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
RAYMOND T BOJANOWSKI
1411 CORAL WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
FRANCISCO J NICHOLAS
1407 CORAL WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BUSWELL FAMILY TR
1403 CORAL WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CHRISTINE SAROIAN
1402 CORAL WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
RONALD H BUSCH
1406 CORAL WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KIA & SARA AFSAHI
141 0 CORAL WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
VINOD SHARMA
6843 CHILLINGSWORTH CIRCLE
CANTON OH 4471 8
KENNETH J SMOCZYNSKI
141 4 CORAL WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
NICOLE M NASH
1405 TURQUOISE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ANGELA & GUY HART
1401 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
AARON J & LINDA SAGER
6419 RUBY WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DIRK & ROSANNA JENSEN
1450 TURQUOISE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KEITH B AGUILERA
1446 TURQUOISE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MICHAEL L SEGAL
1442 TURQUOISE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
EFREN G LAPUZ
141 7 TOPAZ WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JAMES 0 BAKER
1413 TOPAZ WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LJ & LYNDA PUHEK
1409 TOPAZ WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
TUZO & KRISTEN JERGER
1405 TOPAZ WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOHN D NORMAN
1404 TOPAZ WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
RONN & BELINDA SlMONlNl
1408 TOPAZ WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JEFF & STEFANIE CHAPMAN
1412 TOPAZ WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DOUGLAS R FROST
6450 WILLOW PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HOLT FAMILY TR
1309 SHOREBIRD LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
SHARON L DOLAN
6458 WILLOW PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
DAVID J CADY
6462 WILLOW PL
JOSH & STORMY MESIROW 6470 WILLOW PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
CAROL S HANNAY
6474 WILLOW PL
MARK E RISSMAN
6482 WILLOW PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
DAWN M FAUSNER
1298 MARIPOSA RD
JOEL E JOVES
6466 WILLOW PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HOWARD B HELLEN
6478 WILLOW PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SEAN & MICHELLE HAGGARD
1294 MARIPOSA RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MICHAEL T NGUYEN DOUGLAS WACHTER
1290 MARIPOSA RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
6446 TORREYANNA CIR
PATRICK G KLOPCHIN DEWEI LI LUIS & LINDA LOPEZ
1175 HONEYSUCKLE WAY 6437 GOLDENBUSH DR 6433 GOLDENBUSH DR
ESCONDIDO CA 92026 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
MICHELE & SHANE HYSON STEWART FAMILY TR PACIFIC VISTA LASFLORES
6448 GOLDENBUSH DR 6452 GOLDENBUSH DR 2130 qTH AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 SAN DIEGO CA 92101
B C S PROGRAM L-2 LTD
PO BOX 7716 1303 AVOCADO AVE 6450 TORREYANNA CIR
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92658 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 CARLSBAD CA 92009
PROGRAM L BCS REX FAMILY TR
OCCUPANT
1323 LAUREL TREE LANE
CARLSBAD CA CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1323 LAUREL TREE LANE
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CA 92009
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
BROOKS
P 0 BOX 1041
CARLSBAD CA 9201 8-1 041
JOHN BURHAM & CO
RETAIL COMM
STE 1
1901 CAMINO VlDA ROBLE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MAR BRISAS HOA
GRG MGMT INC
P 0 BOX 1186
CARLSBAD CA 9201 8-1 186
CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
TED OWEN
5934 PRIESTLY DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CALTRANS DISTRICT 11
BILL FIGGE
MAIL ST 50
P 0 BOX 85406
SAN DIEGO CA 92186-5406
STANDARD PAC1 FI C
GREGG LINOFF
9335 CHESAPEAKE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-101
BLUE LAGOON HOA
TRANSCONTINENTAL MGMT
STE 111
3355 MISSION AV
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
RANCHO CARLSBAD HOA
RUSS KOHL
5200 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ANTHONY & DICKY BONS
25709 HILLCREST AV
ESCONDIDO CA 92026-8650
REG WATER QUALITY CONTROL BD
STE I00
9174 SKY PARK CT
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
U S FISH &WILDLIFE SERVICE
LEE ANN CARRANZA
6010 HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD
CARLSBAD CA 92009-
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
RONALD M JAEGER
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK
SUPERINTENDENT
1901 SPINNAKER DR
SAN BUENA VENTURA CA 93001
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
STE 400
61 1 RYAN PLAZA DR
ARLINGTON TX 7601 1-4005
DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIV
P 0 BOX 944246
SACRAMENTO CA 94244-2460
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMIN WESTERN REG
PO BOX 92007
LOSANGELES CA 90009
BARRY BRAYER, AWP-8
BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION & HSG AGENCY
PATRICIA W NEAL DEPUTY SEC HOUSING
STE 2450
980 NINTH ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
LOS ANGELES DlST ENGINEER
PO BOX 271 1
LOSANGELES CA 90053
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
CLIFFORD EMMERLING, DIR
STE 350
901 MARKETST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD &AGRICULTURE
STEVE SHAFFER, AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
RM 100
1220 N ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for §I@
DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
DOUG WICKIZER, ENVIR COORD
P 0 BOX 944246
SACRAMENTO CA 94244-2460
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
RM 700
IIOWESTAST
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
MARINE RESOURCES REGION, DR & G
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, SPR
STE J
4665 LAMPSON AVE
LOS ALAMITOS CA 90720-51 39
SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION &
DEVMT COMMISSION
BILL TRAVIS
STE 2600
50 CALIFORNIA ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 941 11-4704
U S BUREAU OF LAND MGMT
STE RM W 1834
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVE
DUNCAN LENT HOWARD, REG ADMlN
450 GOLDEN GATE AV
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RM 5504
1120 N ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
b
OFFICE OF PLANNING & RESEARCH
OFFICE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
PO BOX 3044
SACRAMENTO CA 95812-3044
STATE LANDS COMMISSION
DWIGHT SANDERS
STE 1005
100 HOWE AV
SACRAMENTO CA 95825-8202
U S BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
MID-PACIFIC REGION
U S FISH &WILDLIFE SERVICE
2800 COTTAGE WAY
STE W-2605
SACRAMENTO CA 95825-1 888
USDA - RURAL DEVELOPMENT
DEPT 41 69
430 "G" ST
DAVIS CA 95616
CITY OF ENClNlTAS
COMDEV DEPT
505 S VULCAN AV
ENCINITAS CA 92024
SANDAG-EXEC DIRECTOR
GARY GALLEGOS
STE 800
1ST INT'L PLAZA 401 "B" ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
CYRIUMARY GIBSON
12142 ARGYLE DR
LOSALAMITOS CA 90702
Use template for 51630
U S ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
LILY ALY EA
STE 702
333 MARKET ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 941 05-21 97
WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BD
PO BOX 100
SACRAMENTO CA 95801
TABATA FARMS
PO BOX 1338
CARLSBAD CA 9201 8-1 338
LESLIE ESPOSITO
1893 AMELFI DR
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
LAKESHORE GARDENS
TOM BENSON
7201 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Srnsoth Feed SheetsTM
LANIKAI LANE PARK
SHARP SPACE3
6550 PONTO DRIVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC
BEVERLY BLESSANT
831 5 CENTURY PARK CT
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-
COUNTY OF SD SUPERVISOR BILL HORN
ART DANELL
RM 335
1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
S D CO PLANNING & LAND USE DEPT
JAON VOKAC
5201 RUFFIN ROAD
SANDIEGO CA 92123
STE B-5
FLOYD ASHBY
P 0 BOX 232580
ENClNlTAS CA 92023-2580
JOHN LAMB
1446 DEVLIN DR
LOSANGELES CA 90069
STATE LANDS COMMISSION
MARY GRIGGS
STE 100 S
100 HOW E AV
SACRAMENTO CA 95825-8202
PERRY A LAMB
890 MERE POINT RD
BRUNSWICK ME 04011
COASTAL CONSERVANCY
RICHARD RETECKI
STE 11 00
1330 BROADWAY
OAKLAND CA 94612
DALE/DO N N A SC H RE I B ER
7163 ARGONAUTA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
GEORGE BOLTON
6583 BLACKRAIL RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SANDAG-LAND USE COMMISS
NAN VALERlO
STE 800
401 “B” STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
CALIFORNIA RESOURCES AGENCIES
STE 1311
1416 9TH ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
LENNAR HOMES
CLEMENS LARRY
STE 300
1525 FARADAY AV
CARLSBAD CA 92008-7319
BAT1 QU ITOS LAGOON FOUNDATION
JOHN BURNS
P 0 BOX I30491
CARLSBAD CA 92009-
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200
Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO p.m. on Tuesday, October 5, 2004, to
consider a request for adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum, and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approval of a General Plan Amendment and Local
Coastal Program Amendment to clarify, refine, and adjust land use designation boundaries, and
approve a Zone Change to rezone the property consistent with the land use designations on
property generally located north of Laurel Tree Road between Aviara Parkway and Cobblestone
Drive in Local Facilities Management Zone 20, and more particularly described as:
Parcel 1: All that portion of that parcel of land designated as
“Description No. 5, 103.54 acres as shown and delineated on
Record of Survey Map No. 5715, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, December 19,1960.
Excepting therefrom portions of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No.
15662 as described in Official Records.
Parcel 2: Lot 115 of Carlsbad Tract No. 84-32(A), Unit No. 1
(Cobblestone Sea Village), in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No.
23428, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego
County, June 3,1997.
Parcel No. 3: Easement for roadway and utility purposes over
those certain strips of land designated as “60 foot strip and 66
foot easement reserved for roadway and utility purposes,’’ as
shown on said Record of Survey Map No. 5715.
Excepting from said 60-foot strip, that portion which lies
within Parcel No. 1 above.
Parcel 4: A temporary easement for pedestrian and vehicular
access, ingress and egress as contained in document recorded
May 1,1996, as File No. 1996-0218757 of official records being
a portion of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 15661, that portion being a
portion of the easement for roadway and utility purposes over
those certain strips of land designated and as described in
official records
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 October 1, 2004. If you have
any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4622.
If you challenge the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program Amendment and/or Zone
Change 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 03-05LCPA 02-02lZC 02-02
CASE NAME: EMERALD POINTE ESTATES
PUBLISH: September 24,2004
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
EMERALD POINTE ESTATES
GPA 03=05/LCPA 02=02/ZC 02-02