Loading...
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