HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-03-22; City Council; 18039; Yamamoto SubdivisionAB# 18,039 TITLE:
MTG. 3/22/05 ZC 04-011LCPA 04-02
YAMAMOTO SUBDIVISION
DEPT. PLN I
DEPT. HD.
CITY ATTY. &E I CITY MGR
Project application(s) Administrative Reviewed by and
Approvals Final at Planning
Commission
Environmental Review
ZC 04-01
LCPA 04-02
CT 04-01 X
CDP 04-01 X
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
To be Reviewed -
Final at Council
X
X
X
That the City Council INTRODUCE Ordinance No. , APPROVING Zone Change 04-
01, and ADOPT Resolution No. 2005-085 , ADOPTING a Negative Declaration, and
APPROVING Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 04-02.
NS-748
On February 2, 2005, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and recommended to the
City Council approval (7-0) of a Negative Declaration, Zone Change and Local Coastal Program
Amendment to change the Citywide Zoning and Local Coastal Program zoning designations on a
5.09 acre property generally located on the east side of Black Rail Road, south of Songbird Avenue,
and north of Ocean Crest Avenue.
At that same hearing, the Planning Commission also approved (7-0) a Tentative Tract Map and
Coastal Development Permit to subdivide and grade the site into 16 single-family residential lots.
The approval of the Tentative Tract Map and Coastal Development Permit were final at the Planning
Commission.
The proposed Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment would change the Zoning and
Local Coastal Program zoning designations on the property from Limited Control (L-C) to One-Family
Residential (R-I). The proposed zone change is necessary to provide consistency between the
General Plan designation of the site and the citywide Zoning and Local Coastal Program zoning
designations of the site.
Except for a brief statement from the applicant's representative, no public testimony was offered at
the Planning Commission hearing. A full disclosure of the Planning Commission's actions and a
complete description and staff analysis of the proposed project are included in the attached minutes
and Planning Commission staff report. The Planning Commission and staff are recommending
approval of the proposed Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection
Ordinance (Title 19) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, staff has conducted an environmental impact
assessment to determine if the project could have any potentially significant impact on the
environment. All impacts were considered to be less than significant. Consequently, a Notice of
Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration was published in the newspaper and sent to the State
Clearinghouse for public agency review. No comments were received during the 30-day public
review period from December 6,2004 to January 5,2005.
I
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 18,039
Facilities Zone
Local Facilities Management Plan
Growth Control Point
Net Density
Special Facility Fee
FISCAL IMPACT:
20
20
3.2 du/ac
3.14 du/ac
None
All public infrastructure required for this project will be funded and/or constructed by the developer.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STATUS:
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Ordinance No. NS-748
2. City Council Resolution No. 2005-085
3. Location Map
4.
5.
6.
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5828, 5829, and 5830
Planning Commission Staff Report, dated February 2, 2005
Draft Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes, dated February 2, 2005.
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Saima Qureshy, (760) 602461 9, squre@ci.carlsbad.ca.us
a
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-748
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, ZC 04-01, FROM LIMITED CONTROL (L-C) TO
ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-I) ON A 5.09 ACRE SITE
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF BLACK
RAIL ROAD, SOUTH OF SONGBIRD AVENUE AND
NORTH OF OCEAN CREST AVENUE IN THE MELLO II
SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20.
CASE NAME: YAMAMOTO SUBDIVISION
CASE NO.: ZC 04-01
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does ordain as follows:
SECTION I: That Section 21.050.30 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, being the
zoning map, is amended as shown on the map marked Exhibit "ZC 04-01" dated February 2,
2005, 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 No. 5829 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 newspaper of general circulation within fifteen days after its
adoption. (Notwithstanding the preceding, this ordinance shall not be effective within the City's
Coastal Zone until approved by the California Coastal Commission.)
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City
Council held on the 22nd day of MARCH , 2005, and thereafter
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the
, 2005, by the following vote, to wit: day of
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAl N:
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY
RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
-2-
ZC 04-01 - YAMAMOTO SUBDIVISION
February 2.2005
Related Case File No(s): LCPA 04-02/CT04-01 /CDP 04-01
Property 1 From: I To:
Zoning Map Designation Change
A. 21 5-040-05 I L-c I R-1
B.
C.
D.
I Attach additional'pages if necessary I
3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-085
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM TO CHANGE THE ZONING
DESIGNATION FROM LIMITED CONTROL (L-C) TO ONE-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-I) ON A 5.09 ACRE SITE
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF BLACK RAIL
ROAD, SOUTH OF SONGBIRD AVENUE AND NORTH OF
OCEAN CREST AVENUE IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 20.
CASE NAME: YAMAMOTO SUBDIVISION
CASE NO.: ZC 04-01/LCPA 04-02
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as
follows:
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on February 2, 2005, hold a duly
noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the Negative Declaration, as referenced
in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5828 and Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA
04-02, according to Exhibit “LCPA 04-02” attached to Planning Commission Resolution No.
5830 and incorporated herein by reference, to change the Zoning and Local Coastal Program
Zoning designation from Limited Control (L-C) to One-Family Residential (R-I) and the
Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5828 and 5830
recommending to the City Council that they be approved; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did on the 22nd day of MARCH , 2005
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the Negative Declaration
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 Negative Declaration, and Local Coastal Program Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does
hereby resolve as follows:
1.
2.
That the above recitations are true and correct.
That the City Council adopts the Negative Declaration, approves the
Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment and incorporates the findings and
d
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
conditions of the Planning Commission in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5828 and
5830.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 22nd day of MARCH , 2005, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Hall, Kulchin, Packard, Sigafoose
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
-2-
EXHIBIT 3
SITEc
YAMAMOTO SU BD lVlS I ON
ZC 04-01 /LCPA 04-02
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT 4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5828
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO CHANGE
THE CITYWIDE ZONING AND LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM ZONING DESIGNATIONS FROM LIMITED
A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO GRADE AND SUBDIVIDE A
5.09 ACRE SITE INTO 16 RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON
PROPERTYGENERALLYLOCATEDONTHEEASTSIDEOF
BLACK RAIL ROAD, SOUTH OF SONGBIRD AVENUE AND
NORTH OF OCEAN CREST AVENUE IN THE MELLO 11
SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20.
CASE NAME: YAMAMOTO SUBDIVISION
CONTROL (L-C) TO ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R- 1) AND,
CASE NO.: ZC 04-0 1 /LCPA 04-02/CT 04-0 1/CDP 04-0 1
WHEREAS, William Gustafson, “Developer,” has filed a verified application
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
The south half of the northwest quarter of the northwest
quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 27, T12S, R4W,
SBBM, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 2nd day of February 2005,
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 Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A)
B)
Findings:
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit
“ND” dated December 6,2004, according to Exhibits “NOI” dated December 6,
2004, and “PII” dated November 30, 2004, attached hereto and made a part
hereof, based on the following findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration, YAMAMOTO
SUBDIVISION - ZC 04-01/LCPA 04-02/CT 04-01/CDP 04-01 the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
thereon prior to RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the project; and
b. the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
d. based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Conditions:
Note:
1.
...
...
...
Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to issuance of
grading permit or approval of a final map, whichever occurs first.
Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold
harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and
representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims
and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the City arising, directly
or indirectly, from (a) City’s approval and issuance of this Negative Declaration, and (b)
City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-
discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein. This obligation survives
until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City’s approval
is not validated.
PC RES0 NO. 5828 -2- lQ
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“feedexactions.”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these feedexactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified feedexactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any feedexactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day of February 2005, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez
Heineman, Montgomery and Whitton
NOES:
ABSENT:
JEFFRE N. SEGALLJ Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
DON NEU
Assistant Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5828 -3- /I
- City of Carlsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME: Yamamoto Subdivision
PROJECT LOCATION:
CASE NO: ZC 04-0 11 LCPA 04-021 CT 04-011CDP 04-0 1
The Southeast corner of Black Rail Rd and Songbird Avenue (AI” 215-
040-05)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The subject site is 5.04 acres in size and is located at the southeast comer
of Black Rail Road and Songbird Avenue. The proposed project includes a Zone Change (ZC 04-01) and a
Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 04-02) to rezone the subject site from Limited Control (L-C) to
One-Family Residential (R-1) zone. The application also includes a Tentative Tract Map (CT 04-01) and a
Coastal Development Permit (CDP 04-01) to subdivide and grade the subject site into 16 residential lots
with a minimum area of 7,500 square feet. The site is currently vacant and is surrounded by residential
development to the north, south and east and a vacant property to the west.
DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above
described project pursuant to the Guilaelines for Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said
review, the initial study (EM Part 2) did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the
environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows:
a
0
0
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment.
The proposed project MAY have “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment, but
at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. (Negative
Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be addressed).
Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a)
have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required.
A copy of the initial study (EM Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is
on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.
ADOPTED: , pursuant to
ATTEST:
DON NEU
Assistant Planning Director
/a
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME: Yamamoto Subdivision
PROJECT LOCATION:
CASE NO: ZC 04-01/ LCPA 04-021 CT 04-01/CDP 04-0 1
The Southeast comer of Black Rail Rd and Songbird Avenue (A€” 215-
040-05)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The subject site is 5.04 acres in size and is located at the southeast comer
of Black Rail Road and Songbird Avenue. The proposed project includes a Zone Change (ZC 04-01) and
a Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 04-02) to rezone the subject site fkom Limited Control (L-
C) to One-Family Residential (R-1) zone. The application also includes a Tentative Tract Map (CT 04-
01) and a Coastal Development Permit (CDP 04-01) to subdivide and grade the subject site into 16
residential lots with a minimum area of 7,500 square feet. The site is currently vacant and is surrounded
by residential development to the north,-south and east and a vacant prope6 to the west.
PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of
the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a
result of said review, the initial study (EL4 Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the
environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant
before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would
occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project
“as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration will
be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad City Council.
A copy of the initial study (EL4 Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed 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 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 Saima Qureshy in the Planning
Department at (760) 602-461 9.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD DECEMBER 6,2004 TO JANUARY 5,2005
PUBLISH DATE DECEMBER 6,2004
13
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 0 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us @
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
CASE NO: ZC 04-01/ LCPA 04-021 CT 04-01/CDP 04-01
DATE: November 30,2004
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
CASE NAME: YAMAMOTO SUBDIVISION
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: Citv of Carlsbad
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Saima Oureshv (760) 602-4619
PROJECT LOCATION: The Southeast comer of Black Rail Rd and Songbird Avenue (A€":
PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: William Gustafson, 1465 E. Mountain Dnve,
Santa Barbara, CA 93 108
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Low-Medium (0-4 du/ac)
ZONING: Limited Control (L-C)
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (Le., permits, financing
approval or participation agreements): California Coastal Commission (For LCPA)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
The subiect site is 5.04 acres in size and is located at the southeast comer of Black Rail Road and
Songbird Avenue. The prouosed proiect includes a Zone Chanve (ZC 04-01) and a Local Coastal
Proaam Amendment (LCPA 04-02) to rezone the subject site from Limited Control n-0 to
One-Family Residential (R-1) zone. The apulication also includes a Tentative Tract Mau (CT 04-
0 1 ) and a Coastal Development Permit (CDP 04-0 1) to subdivide and made the subject site into
16 residential lots with a minimum area of 7,500 square feet. The site is currentlv vacant and is
surrounded by residential development to the north, south and east and a vacant property to the
west.
1 Id 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
0 Agncultural Resources
0 Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Public Services
Biological Resources Land Use and Planning 0 Recreation
HazardsRIazardous Materials [7 Popu1ation and Housing
0 Cultural Resources Mineral Resources 0 TransportatiodCirculation
0 Utilities & Service Systems u Mandatory Findings of
Significance
2 Rev. 07/03/02
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
E4
0
17
CI
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 hs 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 sigrdicant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have “potentially significant impact(s)”, on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nohng further is required.
Planner Signature Date
3 Rev. 07/03/02
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental
Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental
Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical,
biological and hunian 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 qact simply does not apply to
projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there 1s 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 potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a
supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental
document is required.
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR
if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable
standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made
pursuant to that earlier EIR.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or
any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment.
If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there
are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation
measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially
Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration
may be prepared.
4 Rev. 07/03/02
0 An EIR
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 nlitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the
EM-Part I1 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect,
or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a
level of significance.
be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not hted to
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, whch would otherwise be determined significant.
5 Rev. 07lQ3102
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and hstoric
buildings wikn a State scenic hghway?
C) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
11. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model- 1997 prepared --by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would
the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Fadand of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment,
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
III. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied
upon to make the following determinations.) Would the
project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
Potentially Significant
Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporated
0
17 17
0
0 0
Less Than Significant No Impact Impact
ow
0 0 om
0 OM
0 OH
0
6 Rev. 07103IQ2
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (includmg releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL, RESOURCES - Would the project:
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modsfications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian,
aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations or by California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filing, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
Conflict with any local policies or orhances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
Impact tributary areas that are environmentally
sensitive?
Potentially Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
cl
Less Than
Significant Impact
IXI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No Impact
0
El
IXI
IE3
!XI
IXI
El
IXI
Ixl
7 Rev. 07/03/02 do
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
0 0 ow
ow
Cause a Substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
Cause a Substantial adverse change in the signifi-
cance of an archeological resource pursuant to 6 15064.5?
0 0 0Ixl
0 om
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi-
cal resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
Substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b) Result in Substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
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?
d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating
Substantial risks to life or property?
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
mu
Ixl 0-
wo
0 IX10
8 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated
Less Than Significant No Impact Impact
ow 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?
0 0
VIIS HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -
Would the project:
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
ow Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
0 Create a significant hazard to the public or
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
ow 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?
17 For a project wib an airport land use plan, or
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or worlung in the project area?
cl clw
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
17 nw
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?
cl
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? 0
9 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with ground water recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local ground water table
level (Le., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
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 @e alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in
a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
Create or contribute runoff water, which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation
map?
Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures,
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface
waters.
Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals,
pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics,
nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash)
into receiving surface waters or other alteration of
receiving surface water quality (e.g.. temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
Potentially
Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
0
0
17
0
cl
0
El
Less Than
Significant Impact
0
ci
Ixi
IXI
IXI
IXI
Ll
17 lxl
IXI
No Impact
IXI
IXI
Ll
0
IXI
Ixi
IXI
!XI
17
cl
10 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact No Impact
n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or
wetland waters) during or following construction? 0 0
0 0 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already unpaired
water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section
303(d) list?
0 0 p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of
beneficial uses?
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? CI
0
0
0 0
IXI
IXI b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan? 0 lxl
X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
0
0
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?
(7
0
IXI
lxl b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan?
XI. NOISE - Would the project result in:
0 0 IXI 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?
13
0
0
cl 0 b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise
levels?
0 IXI c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
11 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
0 0 IXI e) For a project located within an alrport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing or worlung in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
0 0 f) For a project with the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or worlung
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
[XI
XI. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectIy (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
0 0 IXI
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of r.placement housing
elsewhere?
0 0 0 Ix1
IXI c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 17 0
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered government facilities, a
need for new or physically altered government
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public
services :
0
0
0
0
0
17 i) Fire protection?
17
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
0 v) Other public facilities?
XIV. RECREATION
0 0 IXI a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deteiioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
12 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and SuTporting Information Sources).
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehcle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
Exceed, either indwidually or cumulatively, a level
of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads
or hghways?
Result in a change in air traffic-patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Result in inadequate emergency access?
Result in insufficient parking capacity?
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn-
outs, bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the
project:
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which would
cause significant environmental effects?
Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of whch could cause
significant environmental effects?
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Potentially Significant Impact
0
CI
El
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
0
0
0
'0
cl
0
0
0
El
Less Than Significant Impact
0
lxl
lxl
0
cl
0
0
0
17
0
0
13 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
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 prehstory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumula-
tively considerable” means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects?)
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially
Significant Impact
0
0
0
Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Significant No Impact Impact
ow
o[xl
ow
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:
4 Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects fiom the above checklist were withm 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, whch were incorporated or refined from the earlier document
and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
14 Rev. 07/03/02
The project site is located in an area which is subject to the requirements of the Zone 20 Specific Plan approved by
the City Council in 1994. A program EIR (PEIR) (EIR 90-03) was certified for the Zone 20 Specific Plan. The
Zone 20 PEIR identified, analyzed, and recommended mitigation to reduce potential sigmficant impacts to
insignificant levels. The Zone 20 Program EIR analyzed potential impacts to agriculture, air quality, biology,
circulation, land use, noise, pesticide residue, paleontology, public facilities financing, soildgeology, and visual
aesthetics that could result from the development of the Specific Plan area. The PEIR is intended to be used in the
review of subsequent projects within Zone 20. The project incorporates the required Zone 20 PEIR mitigation
measures, and through the project specific analysis a determination has been made that no adchtional significant
impacts beyond those identified and mitigated by the PEIR will result from this project. The following
environmental evaluation briefly explains the basis for hs determination along with identifylng the source
documents that support the environmental determination. The Zone 20 PEIR and additional technical studies are
cited as source documents for hs environmental evaluation.
15 Rev. 07/03/02 a8
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
AESTHETICS
Less than significant. The project is subject to the site design, archrtectural, and landscaping standards contained
in the Zone 20 Specific Plan and the City of Carlsbad Policy 66 regarding livable neighborhoods, which are
designed to reduce visual impacts.
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
No Impact. The project site is shown as an area of non-prime agricultural land in the Coastal Agricultural Overlay
Zone of the Local Coastal Program (LCP). The subject site has not been used for agriculture for most of the last
fifty years, with some sporadic agricultural use. The project site has been designated for residential development.
The site is currently vacant and there are no impacts assessed to agncultural resources. The project would not result
in other changes to the environment that would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agncultural uses. The
project would be characterized as idill development and is surrounded by residential development on three sides.
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,o). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin
(SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothdl 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 regional air quality plan?
The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being
implemented. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions of the City’s General Plan and the RAQS.
Therefore, the project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict or obstruct
implementation of the regional plan.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
16 Rev. 07103102 a9
Less Than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is in the City of
Oceanside. Data available for this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most recent air quality
violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both 2000 and 2001) and one day in
2001 for the federal 8-hour average for ozone and one day for the %-hour state standard for suspended particulates
in 1996. No violations of any other air quality standards have been recorded recently. The project would involve
minimal short-term emissions associated with gading and construction. Such emissions would be minimized
though standard construction measures such as the use of properly tuned equipment and watering the site for dust
control. Long-term emissions associated with travel to and from the project will be minimal. Although air pollutant
emissions would be associated with the project, they would neither result in the violation of any air quality standard
(comprising only an incremental contribution to overall air basin quality readings), nor contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation. Any impact is assessed as less than significant.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine
particulates. The proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net
increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the
proposed project would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the proposed project,
air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. Accordmg to the
CEQA Guidelines Section 15 130 (a)(4), the proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considered
de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? .
No Impact. As noted above, the proposed project would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or
concentrations. In addition, there are no sensitive receptors (e.g., schools or hospitals) located in the vicinity of the project. No impact is assessed.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
No Impact. The construction of the proposed project could generate fumes from the operation of construction
equipment, which may be considered objectionable by some people. Such exposure would be short-term or
transient. In addition, the number of people exposed to such transient impacts is not considered substantial.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
No Impact. The project site is currently a vacant and previously graded area whch was used for agriculture in the
past. The site is surrounded by residential development on three sides. No native vegetation or habitats exist on or
near the property. In addition, no sensitive or endangered species reside or use the property. The City’s Habitat
Management Plan does not identify the site for preservation and no local policies or ordinances exist regarding the
removal of mature non-native trees. Therefore, no adverse impacts to biological resources will occur.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
No Impact. A Cultural. Resource Test Report for the subject site was prepared by Gallegos & Associates in July
2004. The report provides the results of a cultural resource test program to determine site significance for cultural
resource SDM-W-2046. Testing included excavation of 11 shovel test pits and one 1x1-m unit, artifact analysis and
determination of site significance. Cultural material recovered as a result of the testing program included 7 debitage,
3 ceramic fragments, 5 grams of shell and 0.1 grams of bone. Disturbance at SDM-W-2046 included previous
grading, agriculture and modem trash. Given the low amount and narrow range of cultural material, the absence of
features and disturbance, site SDM-W-2046 is identified as not significant under CEQA criteria. No further
archaeological investigations are recommended for thls site.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury
or death involving:
17 Rev. 07/03/02
1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by
substantial evidence of a known fault?
Publication 42.
as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
the State Geologist for the area or based on'other
Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv. . Landslides?
Less than Significant Impact (a.i. to a.iii.). There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zones withn the City of
Carlsbad and there is no other evidence of active or potentially active faults wih the City. However, there are
several active faults throughout Southern California, and these potential earthquakes could affect Carlsbad. The
project site is located in an area of stable soil conditions and the risk of seismic-related ground failure or liquefaction
is very minimal (according to City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November
1992). In addition, a project specific Geotechnical Evaluation was prepared by GeoSoils, Inc. dated January 8,
2004. The report states that the potential for liquefaction, earthquake induced settlement and lateral spread are
considered to be low for the site because of the low susceptibility to liquefaction. There are no landslides identified
as having the potential to affect the subject site. As a result, the project would not expose people or structures to
potential adverse effects involving landslides.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion of the loss of topsoil?
Less than Significant Impact. Onsite analysis of soils on the subject site by GeoSoils, Inc., dated January 8,2004
concludes that the earth materials have a moderate to high erosion potential. Cut and fill slopes resulting from the
grading will be subject to erosion during and after the excavation period. During this grading, the exposure of soils
would lead to an increased chance for the erosion of soils from the site. A significant impact resulting from erosion
could result if the grading does not follow best management practices for the control of erosion, such as straw bale
or sandbag barriers, silt fences, slope roughening, and outlet protection in exposed areas. Per the project description
identified in the Storm Water Management Plan, by MLB Engineering dated January 2004, finished grades will be
hydroseeded or otherwise protected as required per the adopted City Grading Ordinance. If necessary, temporary
slope cover such as jute matting or mulch will be applied to newly graded slopes to reduce the impact of soil erosion
or the loss of topsoil to a level of less than significant. Temporary sediment control basins will also be provided as
necessary in order to control the loss of topsoil.
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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site consists of relatively dense sandstone earth materials, which have a
low potential for liquefaction. As a result, a significant impact is not anticipated, and no mitigation will be
necessary.
d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - l-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Geotechnical Evaluation prepared by GeoSoils, Inc., January 8,
2004, the project site's potential for soil expansion ranges from low to very low. The potential for medium
expansive soils exposed at finish grade cannot be precluded.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wasterwater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No Impact. The project site will utilize existing sewer systems that provide wastewater service in the area.
18 Rev. 07/03/02
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
No Impact. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for the project site (Planning Systems, January
2004). The report states that the subject site was briefly used for agriculture during the past 50 years and it is
currently fallow agricultural land. There are no overt indicators of agricultural chemical usage onsite such as patchy
vegetation that might suggest high levels of fertilizers in the soil. The report recommends no h-ther measures since
no environmental concerns were discovered during the course of the report. However, the project is required to
implement the mitigation measures identified in the Zone 20 EIR.
VIII.
a)
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY-Would the project:
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Less than Significant Impact. The project is required to comply with Order 2001-02 issued by the Regional Water
Quality Control Board. The proposed project will comply with state and local regulations for water quality. The
project will adhere to applicable City of Carlsbad regulations for control of sedimentation and erosion, including the
installation of temporary desiltation basins or other means of stabilization as required by the State Water Resources
Control Board. All exposed graded areas shall be treated with erosion control pursuant to City of Carlsbad erosion
control standards, including hydroseed, berms, desiltation basins, jute matting, sandbags, bladed ditches, or other
appropriate methods. Any subsequent environmental impact on water quality will be considered less than
significant due to adherence to water quality standards and waste discharge requirements.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of. the local ground water table
level (Le., the production rate of-pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
No Impact. The proposed project is not proposing to use any ground water; therefore there will be no impacts to
depletion of any existing aquifer or ground water table level.
c) Impacts to groundwater quality?
No Impact. Implementation of the project will not result in impacts to groundwater quality.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site?
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of
surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
0 Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm
water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Less than Significant Impact. A Preliminary Drainage Study was prepared by MLB Engineering, dated January
2004. The report identifies pre and post development runoff quantities and downstream conditions. The report also
identifies measures to reduce the potential of an increase in erosion or siltation downstream.
g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Less than Significant Impact. A Storm Water Management Plan was prepared by MLB Engineering, dated
January 2004. lks report identifies potential pollutants of concern and methods to treat runoff prior to leaving the
site such that the potential to impact downstream water quality is minimized to the maximum extent probable.
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. There are no FEMA 100-year flood hazard areas identified on the project site.
19 Rev. 07/03/02
j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding, inchding
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No Impact. The project is not located within any significant drainage area, is not located downstream of any dam,
and thus will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding.
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?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project and grading will follow best mkagement practices for erosion
control. The Best Management Practices for the project have been identified in the Storm Water Management Plan
prepared by MLB Engineering dated January 6, 2004. Th~s SMWP indicates that finished grades will be promptly
hydroseeded or otherwise protected as required per the adopted City Grading Ordinance. If necessary, temporary
slope cover such as jute matting or mulch will be applied to newly graded slopes to reduce the impact to soil erosion
or the loss of topsoil to a level of less than significant. Discharge points will not be changed and gravel check dams
will be placed to attenuate the flow velocities. Additionally, hay bales and silt fences will be utilized during
construction for the temporary control of surface water and the subsequent loss of topsoil.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING
No Impact. The subject site is a previously graded, infill site which is surrounded by single-family residential
development to the east, north and south and a vacant property to the west. Proposed grading and subdivision to
create 16 single family residential lots will be compatible with and will integrate into the existing community.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES
No Impact. There are no known mineral resources, of local importance or otherwise, on the project site. Therefore,
the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of such resources.
XI. NOISE
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise
levels?
No Impact - Based upon the nature of the proposed residential use, the project will not result in any activity that
would generate excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels. In addition, the project site is not
located adjacent to any use that generates excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels.
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
20 Rev. 07/03/02 33
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
Less than Significant Impact (c & d) - Other than traffic generated noise, typical grading/ subdivision/ residential
land uses do not generate a substantial amount of noise. With regard to temporary or periodic increase in noise
levels, the only potential increase in noise would be from construction activity associated with the development of
the project. The City incorporates standard regulations on all project construction activity to ensure that noise and
other potential impacts to surrounding properties are not significant. Therefore, the proposed project will not result
in a substantial permanent or temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact (e & f) - The project site is not located within an area covered by an airport land use plan or an area
where such a plan has not been adopted. The project site is located approximately 5,000 feet south of the
McClellan-Palomar Airport (public general aviation airport). The project site is not located withm any flight, crash,
or safety hazard zones associated with the airport. Therefore, the project will not result in a safety hazard for people
residing on the project site.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -I
No Impact. The project would result in the gradmg and subdivision of the subject site into 16 single family
residential lots. The subject site is an infill site surrounded by existing residential development that is served by
existing roads and utilities and therefore, the project would not induce substantial growth either directly or
indirectly. The project is proposed on vacant land and would not displace any existing housing or individuals.
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC-Wo uld 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 160 Average Daily Trips (ADT). 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 substantia1 in relation to the existing traffx 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:
Rancho Santa Fe Road
El Camino Real
Palomar Airport Road
SR 78
1-5
Existing: ADT* - LOS Buildout ADT*
17-35 “A-D” 35-56
27-49 “A-C” 33-62 10-57 “A-D” 30-73 124-142 “F” 156-180 199-2 16 “D” 260-272
*The numbers are in thousands of daily trips.
21 Rev. Q7IQ3lQ2 34
The Congestion Management Program’s (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is “E”, or LOS “F” if
that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS “F” in 1990). Accordingly, all designated
roads and highways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS.
Note that the buildout ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region’s general and community
plans. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan and, therefore, its traffic was used in modeling the
buildout projections. Achevement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS) “E standard assumes
implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on the design capacity(ies) of the designated roads and
highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the short-
term and at buildout.
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change
in location that results in substantial safety risks?
No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. The project is not located within the
boundaries 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.
4 Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses?
No Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City standards; and, therefore,
would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City’s general plan and zoning.
Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No impact assessed.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police
Departments. No impact assessed.
0 Result in inadequate parking capacity?
No Impact. The proposed project is not requesting a parlung variance. Additionally, the project would comply
with the City’s parking requirements to ensure an adequate parking supply. No impact assessed.
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)?
No Impact. The proposed project does not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
No Impact. The proposed project will not degrade the quality of the environment. The project site does not contain
any fish or wildlife species. Therefore, the project will not reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species.
The project site is a vacant, previously graded, dill site whch is surrounded by existing residential development.
The site is not identified by any habitat conservation plan as containing a protected, rare or endangered plant or
animal community. Therefore, the project will not threaten a plant or animal community.
In addition, there are no hstoric structures on the site and there are no known cultural resources on the site. The
project will not result in the elimination of any important examples of California History or prehistory.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
22 Rev. 07/03/02
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 witlun the City will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact.
There are two regional issues that development withm the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a cumulatively
considerable impact on. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. As discussed above, the project
would contribute to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As
described above, however, emissions associated with the residential development would be minimal. Given the
limited emissions potentially associated with the residential development of the site, air quality would be essentially
the same whether or not the residential development is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section
15130 (a)(4), the project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed
as less than significant.
The County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino
Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two hghway 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
the proposed development of the site will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
No Impact. Based upon the residential nature of the project and the fact that future development of the site will
comply with all City standards, the project will not result in any direct or indirect substantial adverse environmental
effects on human beings. Any future residential development on the site will be required to comply with all
applicable federal, state, regional and City regulations, whch will ensure the development of the site will not result
in an adverse impact on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
The following documents were used in the analysis of ths project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning
Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008.
1.
2.
7 5.
4.
5.
6.
“ I.
Final Proeram Environmental Impact Report for the Zone 20 Specific Plan proiect, Carlsbad. California,
(EIR 90-03), City of Carlsbad, CA, June 1992 (SCH 90010134).
Preliminam Geotechnical Evaluation, Yamamoto Property, APN 2 15-040-05, City of Carlsbad, San Diego
County, Geosoils, Inc, January 8, 2004.
Storm Water Management Plan for Yamamoto Propertv Tentative Map, Michael L. Benesh, RCE 37893,
January 6,2004.
Drainage Studv, Tentative Map CT 04- , Yamamoto Property, Michael L. Benesh, RCE 37893, January 6,
2004.
Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, Yamamoto Propem, Black Rail Road. Carlsbad, CA 92009, APN
2 15-040-05, Planning Systems, January 2004.
Cultural Resources Test Report for the Yamamoto Prouertv: Site SDM-W-2046 Carlsbad. California,
Gallegos & Associates, July 2004.
Citv of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analvsis and Mapping Studv, November 1992.
23 Rev. 07/03/02 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5829
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLA”G COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE FROM LIMITED
5.09 ACRE SITE GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST
SIDE OF BLACK RAIL ROAD, SOUTH OF SONGBIRD
AVENUE AND NORTH OF OCEAN CREST AVENUE IN THE
MELLO 11 SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
AND LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20.
CASE NAME: YAMAMOTO SUBDIVISION
CONTROL (LC) TO ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) ON A
CASE NO.: ZC 04-01
WHEREAS, William Gustafson, “Developer,” has filed a verified application
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
The south half of the northwest quarter of the northwest
quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 27, T12S, R4W,
SBBM, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Zone Change as shown on
Exhibit “ZC 04-01” dated February 2, 2005, attached hereto and on file in the Planning
Department, YAMAMOTO SUBDIVISION - ZC 04-01 as provided by Chapter 21.52 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 2nd day of February 2005,
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 &d
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 of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1s
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL ZC 04-01 - YAMAMOTO SUBDIVISION
Findin ~s :
1. That the proposed Zone Change fkom Limited Control (L-C) to One-Family
Residential (R-1) is consistent with the goals and policies of the various elements of the
General Plan, in that the proposed zone replaces the L-C zone which is intended to be
an interim zone designation. The proposed R-1 zone is consistent with the
Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM, 0-4 du/ac) General Plan designation and
the Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 203) which was earlier found to be consistent with the
General Plan.
2. That the Zone Change will provide consistency between the General Plan and Zoning as
mandated by California State law and the City of Carlsbad General Plan Land Use
Element, in that the zone designation shown on Exhibit “ZC 04-01” attached hereto,
implements the General Plan Land Use designation of RLM.
That the Zone Change is consistent with the public convenience, necessity and general
welfare, and is consistent with sound planning principles in that residential uses allowed
by the proposed zone change are compatible with the adjacent and future
residential uses.
3.
Conditions:
1. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Negative Declaration and LCPA
04-02 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No.
5828 and 5830 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
PC RES0 NO. 5829 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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
“feedexac tions .”
You have 90 days fi-om date of final approval to protest imposition of these feedexactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any feedexactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day of February 2005, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez,
Heineman, Montgomery and Whitton
NOES:
ABSENT:
JEFFRE N. SEGALL, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
h
DON NEU
Assistant Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5829 -3- 39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5830
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CARLSBAD
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM TO CHANGE THE LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM ZONING DESIGNATION FROM
LIMITED CONTROL (L-C) TO ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
(R-1) ON A 5.09 ACRE SITE GENERALLY LOCATED ON
THE EAST SIDE OF BLACK RAIL ROAD, SOUTH OF
SONGBIRD AVENUE AND NORTH OF OCEAN CREST
AVENUE IN THE MELLO 11 SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM AND LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 20.
CASE NAME: YAMAMOTO SUBDIVISION
CASE NO.: LCPA 04-02
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, William Gustafson, “Developer,” has filed a verified application
for an amendment to the Local Coastal Program designations regarding property described as
The south half of the northwest quarter of the northwest
quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 27, TES, R4W,
SBBM, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Local Coastal Program
Amendment as shown on Exhibit “LCPA 04-02” dated February 2, 2005, 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 2nd day of February 2005,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, at
arguments, if any, of a
said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
1 persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Local Coastal Program Amendment; and
WHEREAS, State Coastal Guidelines requires a six week public review period for any
amendment to the Local Coastal Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) At the end of the State mandated six week review period, starting on December
23, 2004 and ending on February 3,2005, 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
SUBDIVISION based on the following findings and subject to the following
conditions:
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of LCPA 04-02 - YAMAMOTO
Findings:
1. That the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment meets the requirements of, and is
in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act and all applicable policies
of the Mello I1 segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program not being amended by
this amendment, in that the proposed Local Coastal Program R-1 zoning designation
is consistent with the Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM, 0-4 du/ac) General
Plan and Local Coastal Program land use designations and the Zone 20 Specific
Plan (SP 203), and the project is required to provide drainage and erosion control
measures.
2. That the proposed amendment to the Mello I1 segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal
Program is required to bring the property’s Local Coastal Program Zoning
designation into consistency with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program land
use designations and the Zone 20 Specific Plan.
Conditions:
1. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Negative Declaration and ZC 04-
01 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No.
5828 and 5829 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference.
...
PC RES0 NO. 5830 -2- 41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day of February 2005, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez,
Heineman, Montgomery and Whitton
NOES:
ABSENT:
JEFFRE N. SEGALL, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
DON NEU
Assistant Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5830 -3 -
LCPA 04-02 - YAMAMOTO SUBDIVISION
ZONING
Property From:
A. 21 5-040-05 L-c
B.
C.
0.
FEBRUARY 2,2005
To:
R- 1
43
I
P.C. AGENDA OF: February 2,2005
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department
Application complete date: November 3,2004
Project Planner: Saima Qureshy
Project Engineer: John Maashoff
EXHIBIT 5
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No. 0
SUBJECT: ZC 04-01LCPA 04-02/CT 04-01/CDP 04-01 - YAMAMOTO SUBDIVISION
- Request for approval of a Negative Declaration, Zone Change and Local Coastal
Program Amendment to change the Citywide Zoning and Local Coastal Program
Zoning designation fi-om Limited Control (L-C) to One-family Residential (R-1),
and a Tentative Tract Map and Coastal Development Permit to grade and
subdivide a 5.09 acre site into 16 residential lots on property generally located on
the east side of Black Rail Road, south of Songbird Avenue and north of Ocean
Crest Avenue in the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal .Program and Local
Facilities Management Zone 20.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5828
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration and ADOPT Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 5829 and 5830 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of Zone
Change ZC 04-01 and Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 04-02 and ADOPT Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 5831 and 5832 APPROVING Tentative Tract Map CT 04-01 and
Coastal Development Permit CDP 04-01, based on the findings and subject to the conditions
contained therein.
11. INTRODUCTION
The proposed project is to grade and subdivide the subject 5.09 acre site into 16 single-family
residential lots on property generally located on the east side of Black Rail Road, south of
Songbird Avenue and north of Ocean Crest Avenue. The 16 single-family lots range in size fi-om
7,509 square feet to 15,913 square feet. The density of the proposed single-family subdivision is
3.14 du/ac. The applicant is requesting approval to purchase 3.0 affordable housing credits in
the Villa Lorna housing project to satisfy the affordable housing requirements of the City’s
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The project requires a Zone Change (ZC) and Local Coastal
Program Amendment (LCPA) to change the citywide zoning and Local Coastal Program Zoning
designations from L-C to R-1. In addition, a Tentative Tract Map (CT) and Coastal
Development Permit (CDP) are required. The ZC and the LCPA require the approval of the City
Council and the California Coastal Commission. The approval of the CT and CDP are final at
the Planning Commission. The project is not located within the Appeal Jurisdiction of the Local
Coastal Zone, and the Planning Commission’s decision on the CDP is not appealable to the
California Coastal Commission. The project is located in the Zone 20 Specific Plan area (SP
203) and the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program. The project complies with all City
standards and all necessary findings can be made for the approvals being requested.
ZC 04-01/LCPA 04-02/CT 04-01/CDP 04-01 - YAMAMOTO SUBDIVISION
February 2,2005
Page 2
111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The 5.09-acre project site is located within the Zone 20 Specific Plan area and Local Facilities
Management Zone 20. It is bordered to the north, south and east by existing single-family
residential neighborhoods and by a vacant property to the west. Topographically, the site gently
slopes down to the west. A manufactured slope is located along the northern property line which
was constructed as part of Songbird Avenue. The highest elevation on-site is 382 feet located in
the middle of the site. The site slopes down in both the east and west directions, reaching 342
feet along Black Rail Road and 374 feet along the eastern property line. The site was used for
agriculture in the past but currently it is undeveloped and unused. The property does not have
any sensitive vegetation or steep slope constraints; the entire site is considered developable.
The proposed ZC and LCPA are necessary to change the Limited Control (L-C) designation of
the property to One-family Residential (R- 1) to implement the Residential Low-Mehum Density
(RLM) General Plan and Local Coastal Program land use designations. As shown on Exhibits
“A” through “G,” all the proposed 16 residential lots will be greater than 7,500 square feet.
Access to the project site is either from Songbird Avenue which is off Black Rail Road, south of
Poinsettia Lane, or from Surf Crest Street.
Grading for the project will require 33,000 cubic yards of cut, 8,000 cubic yards of fill, and an
export of 25,000 cubic yards of material. Export of material is necessary to lower the proposed
pad elevations to be sensitive to the existing residential neighborhood to the south and also to
avoid retaining walls along Black Rail Road. Overall, the project grading follows the slope of
the site, is sensitive to adjacent residential neighborhoods, and incorporates the existing
elevations of Songbird Avenue and Surf Crest Street.
IV. ANALYSIS
The project is subject to the following plans, ordinances and standards:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
Residential Low-Medium Density
One Family Residential (R- 1) Zone;
Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 203);
Mello 11 Segment of the Local Coastal Program, the Coastal Agriculture Overlay Zone,
and the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone;
Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code);
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.85);
Growth Management Regulations (Local Facilities Management Zone 20); and
Habitat Management Plan (MHP).
General Plan Land Use Designation;
The recommendation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project’s
consistency with the applicable regulations and policies. The project’s compliance with each of
the above regulations is discussed in detail in the sections below.
ZC 04-0 1 LCPA 04-02/CT 04-0 1 /CDP 04-0 1 - YAMAMOTO SUBDfVISION
February 2,2005
Land Use
A. General Plan
GOAL, OBJECTJYJZ OR IMPROVEMENTS
PROGRAM
Site is designated for
Residential Low-Medium ddac.
Density (RLM; 0-4 ddac) with
a Growth Control Point of 3.2
16 Single-family lots at 3.14
The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Residential Low-Medium (RLM; 0-4
ddac). The surrounding properties in Zone 20‘also have General Plan land use designations of
RLM. This designation allows single-family residential development at a range of 0-4 dwelling
units per acre (ddac). The RLM range has a Growth Control Point of 3.2 ddac. The density of
the proposed single-family subdivision is 3.14 ddac.
Housing
The proposed density of the project (3.14 ddac) is slightly below the Growth Management
Control Point (3.2 ddac) used for the purpose of calculating the City’s compliance with
Government Code Section 65584. The Growth Management Control Point of 3.2 ddac permits
16.3 residential lots on the 5.09 net acre site, and the project proposes 16 residential lots.
However, consistent with Program 3.8 of the City’s certified Housing Element, all of the
dwelling units, which were anticipated toward achieving the City’s share of the regional housing
need that are not utilized by developers in approved projects, are deposited into the City’s Excess
Dwelling Unit Bank. These excess dwelling units are available for allocation to other projects.
Accordingly, there is no net loss of residential unit capacity and there are adequate properties
identified in the Housing Element allowing residential development with a unit capacity,
including second dwelling units, adequate to satisfy the City’s share of the regional housing need.
ddac.
Provision of affordable housing The purchase of 3.0 Yes
affordable housing credits in
The project complies with all elements of the General Plan as illustrated in Table A below:
Public Safety
Table A - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
ELEMENT I USE, CLASSIFICATION, I PROPOSED USES &
Villa Loma.
The project includes fire To require a minimum fire flow Yes
Open Space &
Conservation
Noise
COMPLY?
of water for fire protection
Utilize Best Management Project will conform to all Yes
Practices for control of storm
water and to protect water
quality
Residential exterior noise Project is not located in Yes
standard of 60 CNEL and
interior noise standard of 45
CNEL
hydrants.
NPDES requirements.
close proximity to any noise
generators. The project site
is outside the noise contours
of McClellan-Palomar
Yes
ZC 04-0 l/LCPA 04-02/CT 04-0 1 /CDP 04-0 1 - YAMAMOTO SUBDIVISION
February 2,2005
Page - 4
Table A - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE CONTINUED
Min. Lot Size: 7,500 sq. ft.
Min. Lot Width: 60 Feet
ELEMENT
Circulation
Lots 1-16 - 7,509 sq. ft. min. to 15,913 sq. ft. max. Yes
60 foot minimum Yes
USE, CLASSIFICATION,
GOAL, OBJECTIVE OR
PROGRAM
Require new development to
construct roadway
improvements needed to serve
proposed development
STANDARD REQUIRED
Required Zoning R- 1
Local Coastal Plan Grading
Reauirements
Grading prohibited between
Oct. 1 and Auril 1
PROPOSED USES &
IMPROVEMENTS
PROPOSED
Grading limitation included as
CDP condition
R- 1
Project will provide
roadway improvements
including Black Rail Road,
Surf Crest Street and a new
cul-de-sac to provide direct
access to each lot on a
uublic street.
LCP Agricultural Conversion Three conversion options 1 Dermitted
COMPLY?
Payment of Agricultural
Conversion Mitigation Fee
Yes
B. One-Family Residential (R-1) Zone
The project site was part of a County island annexed in 1987. The site is currently zoned Limited
Control (L-C). The L-C zone designation is given to annexed properties and is an interim zone
for areas where planning for future land uses has not been completed nor have plans for
development been formalized. A zone change is proposed as part of the project, from L-C to R-
1. This will result in the zoning for the site being consistent with the General Plan land use
designation of RLM. The proposed zone is also compatible with the existing adjacent
residentially zoned properties and probable future residential zone of the site located to the west
of the subject site.
The proposed project meets or exceeds all applicable requirements of the R-1 Zone as
demonstrated in Table B below.
Table B - R-1 ZONE COMPLIANCE
C. Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 203)
The project is within an area subject to the Zone 20 Specific Plan. The Zone 20 Specific Plan
provides a framework for the development of the vacant properties within Zone 20 to ensure the
logical and efficient provision of public facilities and community amenities for the future
residents of Zone 20. The project complies with the following requirements of the Specific Plan
as demonstrated in Table C below.
47
ZC 04-01LCPA 04-02/CT 0%01/CDP 04-01 - YAMAMOTO SUBDIVISION
February 2,2005
Page 5
STANDARD
Dedications
Affordable Housing
RV parking
REQUIRED PROPOSED
All required land or easements
shall be dedicated to the City
15% of the units must be
provided as affordable units
25% of lots with adequate side
yards to accommodate RV
parking
Street right-of-way and
easement dedications
proposed
Project will purchase 3 .O
affordable housing credits in
Villa Loma Project.
All 16 residential lots could
accommodate RV parking in
the side yard (to be determined
with subsequent approval of
single-family homes).
D. Mello I1 Segment of the Local Coastal Program, the Coastal Agricultural Overlay
Zone, and the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone
The project site is located within Site III of the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program.
Development of the project site is also subject to, and consistent with, the requirements of the
Coastal Agriculture Overlay Zone and the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone. Approval
of a Coastal Development Permit is required for the project. One of the primary requirements of
the applicable coastal regulations pertains to the conversion of agricultural land to urban use.
The project has been conditioned to ensure the payment of an agricultural conversion mitigation
fee, which will mitigate the loss of agricultural resources by preserving or enhancing other
important coastal resources.
All applicable coastal zone grading restrictions have been designed into the project or are
proposed as conditions of approval for the project, and include adherence to the City’s Master
Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan and Grading Ordinance and restricting
grading between October 1 and April 1 of each year. The project site does not have any sensitive
coastal resources in the form of slopes over 25% or native vegetation. The development does not
obstruct views of the coastline as seen from public lands or from the public right-of-way. NO
part of the project site is located within the 100-year floodplain.
The proposed LCPA is required to change the LCP zoning designation for the property from L-C
to R-1. The proposed Local Coastal Program zone change is consistent with the project’s
General Plan and LCP land use designations and the proposed citywide zoning designation.
E. Subdivision Ordinance
The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed project and has concluded that the
subdivision complies with all applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and the City’s
Subdivision Ordinance. All major subdivision design criteria have been complied with including
the minimum lot depth of 90 feet, provision of public access, required street frontage, and
minimum lot area.
ZC 04-01LCPA 04-02/CT 04-01/CDP 04-01 - YAMAMOTO SUBDIVISION
February 2,2005
STANDARD
Citv Administration
Page 6
IMPACTS COMPLIANCE
55.6 sa. ft. Yes
The project is consistent with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan and Title 21. It is
also compatible with surrounding land uses. The proposed R-1 zone requires a minimum 7,500
square foot lot size. Each of the proposed lots exceeds the minimum requirement. The lots back
up to Black Rail Road and no access would be allowed to the lots from that roadway.
Library
Waste Water Treatment
Parks
Drainage
The developer will be required to offer various dedications (e.g., drainage easements, street right-
of-way) and will be required to install street and utility improvements, including but not limited
to, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, sewer facilities, drainage facilities, fire hydrants, and street lights.
29.7 sq. ft. Yes
16 EDU Yes
0.1 1 acre Yes
Basin D Yes
Grading for the project will require 33,000 cubic yards of cut, 8,000 cubic yards of fill, and an
export of 25,000 cubic yards of material. Export of material is necessary to lower the proposed
pad elevations to be sensitive to the existing residential neighborhood to the south and also to
avoid retaining walls along Black Rail Road. Overall, the project grading follows the slope of
the site, is sensitive to adjacent residential neighborhoods, and incorporates the existing
elevations of Songbird Avenue and Surf Crest Street.
Circulation
Fire
ODen Sr>ace
F. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
160 ADT Yes
Station No. 4 Yes
0.6 acres Yes
The City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (Chapter 21.85) requires that a minimum of 15% of
all approved units in any qualified residential subdivision be made affordable to lower income
households. The inclusionary housing requirement for this project would be 3.0 dwelling units.
The applicant is requesting to purchase 3.0 affordable housing credits in the Villa Loma housing
project to satisfy the project’s affordable housing requirements which will require City Council
approval pursuant to Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
G. Growth Management
The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 20 in the southwest
quadrant of the City. The impacts on public facilities created by the project, and its compliance
with the adopted performance standards, are summarized in Table D below.
I Schools I Carlsbad Unified I Yes I
4 elementary students
2 junior high students
3 high school students
ZC 04-01LCPA 04-02/CT 04-01/CDP 04-01 - YAMAMOTO SUBDIVISION
February 2,2005
STANDARD IMPACTS
Sewer Collection System 16 EDU
Water 3520 GPD
Page 7
COMPLIANCE
Yes
Yes
The project is 0.3 dwelling units below the Growth Management Control Point dwelling unit
allowance of 16.3 dwelling units for the subject property.
G. Habitat Management Plan
The proposed project is consistent with the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for
Natural Communities. The entire site was previously used for agriculture and the project is
conditioned to pay agricultural conversion mitigation fees to mitigate the loss of agricultural
resources. There are no sensitive resources either on-site or adjacent to the site and the project
does not require any mitigation or habitat impact fees pursuant to the HMP.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection
Ordinance (Title 19) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, staff has conducted an environmental
impact assessment to determine if the project could have any potentially significant impact on the
environment. All impacts were considered to be less than significant. Consequently, a Notice of
Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration was published in the newspaper and sent to the State
Clearinghouse for public agency review. No comments were received during the 30 day public
review period from December 6,2004 to January 5,2005.
ATTACHMENTS :
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5828 (Negative Declaration)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5829 (ZC)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5830 (LCPA)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 583 1 (CT)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5832 (CDP)
Location Map
Background Data Sheet
Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
Disclosure Statement
Reduced Exhibits
Full Size Exhibits “A” - “G” dated February 2,2005
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: ZC 04-0 1 /LCPA 04-02/CT 04-0 1 /CDP 04-0 1
CASE NAME: YAMAMOTO SUBDIVISION
APPLICANT: William Gustafson
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Request for approval of a Zone Change, Local Coastal Program
Amendment, Tentative Tract Map and Coastal Development Permit to subdivide and grade a
5.09 acre site into 16 residential lots on property generally located on the east side of Black Rail
Road, south of Songbird Avenue and north of Ocean Crest Avenue.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The south half of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of
the northeast quarter of Section 27, T12S, R4W, SBBM. in the Citv of Carlsbad. County of San
Diego, State of California.
A€": 215-040-05 Acres: 5.09 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 16 residential lots
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: Residential Lciw-Medium Density (RLM, 0-4 ddac)
Density Allowed: 0-4 ddac; GMCP 3.2 du/ac Density Proposed: 3.14 du/ac
Existing Zone: Limited Control (L-C)
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use:
Proposed Zone: One-Family Residential (R- 1)
Zoning General Plan
Site L-c RLM
North R-1-Q RLM
South R-1-Q RLM
East P-c RLM
West L-C RLM
Current Land Use
Vacant
Single-family homes
Single-family homes
Single-family homes
Vacant
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Carlsbad Unified Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 16
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Negative Declaration, issued
0
Other,
Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL, FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
4 Elementary students 2 Junior High students
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: YAMAMOTO SUBDIVISION - ZC
Ol/CDP 04-01
04-01/LCPA 04-02/CT 04-
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 20 GENERAL PLAN: RLM
ZONING: Limited Control (L-C); DroDosed as R-1
DEVELOPER’S NAME: William Gustafson
ADDRESS: 1465 E. Mountain Drive, Santa Barbara, CA 93108
PHONE NO.: J805) 969-7510 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 215-040-05
QUANTITY OF LAND USEDEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 5.09 acres
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE:
3 High School students
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
City Administrative Facilities:
Library:
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer)
Park: Demand in Acreage =
Drainage :
Demand in Square Footage =
Demand in Square Footage =
Demand in CFS =
Identify Drainage Basin =
Circulation: Demand in ADT =
Fire:
Open Space: Acreage Provided =
Schools:
Served by Fire Station No. =
55.6
29.7
16 EDU
0.11
10.5
Basin D
160
4
0.6 acres
Carlsbad
Sewer: Demands in EDU 16
Identify Sub Basin = 20B (BuenaNallecitos)
Water: Demand in GPD = 3520 GPD
The project is 0.3 dwelling units below the Growth Management Control Point dwelling
unit allowance. (3.2 ddac x 5.09 acres net = 16.3 dwelling units allowed)
- City of CarIsbad.-
Applicant's statement or disclosure of certam ownership interests on all applicanons which will require
Note:
Person is aefined as "Any individual, finn, co-pmership, joint venture, association, social club. fraternal organization, corparation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and county; city municlpdity, &strict or otki political subdivision or my other group or combination acting as a unit."
Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be provided below.
1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent) Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of persons having a financial
interest in the application. If the applicant includes a comoration or uartnershiu, 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 publicly-owned coruoration, include the
names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if
necessary.)
Title SuqeF- Title
Address E. ouhfA& %I-. Address
INDIVIDUALS OWN M0RE.T" 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-
Person LI 1 I\ 'fib GbgBe50 COrpPart
SGmfQ B01Lljcjj24 ,cp'q310B
2. OWNER (Not the owner's agent) I
Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of persons having any ownership
interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (Le,
partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownershp includes a
comoration or uartnershiu, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more
than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES,
PLEASE INDICATENON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-
owned coruoration, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate
page may be attached if necessary.) qe-- 6m.17 Que-
p~~&l%\~ L. w,arr\@mofo
Title %\\e% \ Title %\\&-
pjmLF\\yw c- yp VMf76'"
Address Sfit \ A~Q-LU~D Address \20' b 14 Ta\\&
1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008-731 4 - (760) 602-4600 - FAX (760) 602-8559 6
1 f I, I
3. NON-PROFIT ORCANIZATIOE OR TRUST
If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonurofit orpanization or a trust. list the' -
names and addresses of person sewing as an oficer or director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the.
Non ProfiVTrust Non ProfiVTrust
Title Title
Address Address
4. Have you worth of business transacted with any member of City staff.
andor Council within the past twelve (12) months?
indicate person(s):
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary.
I certify that all the above information is true and comct to the
Signature of ownerhiate
mb b-. Yq n-43 m&o
Print or type name of owner
w A\ ,Am Gr,XAF,O6
Print or type name of applicant
t Print or type name of owner- .?
H:ADMJN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98 Page 2 of 2 54
3 E h 2
57
1
5-?
.. nlrovlv ,
t
I
I
I
z * P
a e z
0
a z 5
I
In
L
h
0
0
Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT 6 February 2,2005
3. ZC 04-011LCPA 04-021CT 04-011CDP 04-01 - YAMAMOTO SUBDIVISION - Request
for approval of a Negative Declaration, Zone Change and Local Coastal Program
Amendment to change the Citywide Zoning and Local Coastal Program Zoning
designation from Limited Control (L-C) to One-family Residential (R-1), and a Tentative
Tract Map and Coastal Development Permit to grade and subdivide a 5.09 acre site into 16 residential lots on property generally located on the east side of Black Rail Road,
south of Songbird Avenue and north of Ocean Crest Avenue in the Mello II Segment of
the Local Coastal Program and Local Facilities Management Zone 20.
Mr. Neu introduced Item 3 and stated Associate Planner Saima Qureshy would make the staff presentation.
Chairperson Segall opened the public hearing on Item 3.
Ms. Qureshy stated the project is a request for the approval of a 16-lot subdivision. The subject site is located in Zone 20 Specific Plan on the east side of Black Rail Road, south of Songbird Avenue and north
of Ocean Crest Avenue. The site is about 5 acres in area and is bordered by existing SFR to the north, south and east and a vacant lot to the west. The site slopes down to the west and the highest elevation
onsite is 382 feet, located in the middle of the site. The site is currently vacant. It was used for agriculture in the past.
The applicant is proposing to subdivide the site into 16 single-family residential lots each with a minimum
area of 7500 sq. ft. Access to the site is either from Songbird Avenue off Black Rail Road, or from Surf
Crest Street. The grading design of the project was constrained due to existing elevations of Songbird
Avenue and Surf Crest Street. However the project is designed in such a manner that there are no
retaining walls along Black Rail Road and where lots are adjacent to existing residences to the south.
Due to lowering of existing grade, the project will require the export of 25,000 cubic yards of material.
The project is consistent with its General Plan designation of RLM. Its proposed density is 3.14 dwelling units per acre. The existing Zoning of the subject site is L-C, or limited control, which is proposed to be
changed to R-I designation. A Zone Change is also being processed with this project. The project is consistent with the Zone 20 Specific Plan as well as the Mello II segment of the Local Coastal Program.
A Local Coastal Program Amendment is also proposed with this project to change the zoning from LC to
R-1 .
Ms. Qureshy stated that for compliance with the inclusionary housing ordinance, the project is proposing to purchase credits in the Villa Loma project to meet its affordable housing requirement. For compliance
with CEQA, a negative declaration is proposed to be adopted for the project.
Ms. Qureshy concluded her presentation and stated she would be available to answer any questions.
Chairperson Segall asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Baker asked what the street name is for the project. Ms. Qureshy stated that currently the
street to the north of proposed project is Elegant Tern Place and the street to the south is Surf Crest
Street. Ms. Qureshy stated that the street will most likely be Surf Crest Street because it is extending
from south to north. She further stated that Songbird Avenue is between those two streets. Once the project is approved, the applicant will apply for street names from the City. Commissioner Baker asked if
the current documents which show the street name as Elegant Tern Place should be corrected now so there will not be any confusion later. Ms. Qureshy stated that on the proposed Tentative Map the street is
actually named Surf Crest Avenue. She stated that when the applicant applies for a Final Map, staff will
ensure that the street name is consistent with the Tentative Map. Ms. Qureshy commented that the street is currently unnamed and the documents should reflect that. Commissioner Baker commented that the
Commission has been concerned that the small developments in the area match up to each other and there could be confusion later about the street names.
Commissioner Montgomery asked John Maashoff, Associate Engineer, to discuss the reasons why the
grading of the project merits the need to export so much soil from the site? Mr. Maashoff stated, as
previously described, Surf Crest Road to the south of the project is completed and Songbird Avenue to la
Planning Commission Minutes February 2,2005 Page 5
the north of the project is completed. In order to continue Surf Crest through the site and design the road
so it meets the Engineering Department‘s vertical curve criteria, a lot of grading needs to occur. This
constraint, along with the desire to have the proposed development remain compatible with the grades of the existing adjacent developments and Black Rail Road without the use of retaining walls, results in a
significant amount of export.
Commissioner Whitton asked that because the land was previously agricultural if the soil was tested for
any residual chemicals and contamination. Ms. Qureshy stated that an EIA was conducted for the project which found no further action was required for the document.
Commissioner Dominguez inquired if any buried plastics, etc., had been found on the site. Ms. Qureshy
stated nothing of that sort was found.
Chairperson Segall asked if there were any further questions of staff. Seeing none, he asked if the
applicant wished to make a presentation.
Paul Klukas, Planning Systems, 1530 Faraday Avenue Suite 100, Carlsbad, stated he did not have
anything to add to staff’s presentation. He did ask for a modification to Condition No. 13 of Planning
Commission Resolution No. 5831. This is the standard HOA condition requires CC&Rs and HOA
maintenance of common areas. Typically this condition is placed on Planned Development projects. Mr.
Klukas stated this project is not a Planned Development. This is a standard R-I single-family 7,500
square foot lot subdivision. Normally there would not be any common maintenance but early on there was an agreement with staff that the perimeter slopes and brow ditches and the small monument sign in
front would all be maintained in common maintenance due to the high visibility of the site. Mr. Klukas
stated that this would be costly for such a small area of maintenance and proposed if they can demonstrate to the Planning Director sufficient assurances through a maintenance agreement or some
other legal instrument would suffice that would be recorded against all the properties onsite, the applicant would like to have option in lieu of an HOA program. This would be at the sole discretion of the Planning
Director. Mr. Klukas proposed that Condition No. 13 be amended to add the wording, “Developer shall establish an HOA and corresponding CC&Rs or other equivalent alternative instrument approved by
the Planning Director.” He further stated this wording would be added in a few other places within that
same condition.
Chairperson Segall asked if there were any questions of the applicant.
Commissioner Cardosa asked the applicant to point out the areas Mr. Klukas is requesting to be
maintained outside of an HOA and the amount of square footage of the area. Mr. Klukas stated he did
not know the amount of square footage. He continued to point out on the exhibit the areas he is
requesting to be maintained outside of an HOA. Commissioner Cardosa commented that the area was almost the entire perimeter of the project. He further asked if the slopes between Lots 9, 10, 11 and 12
fall into the yards of any of the residences or if there is a fence on either side. Mr. Klukas stated that as he recalled the slopes are part of the lots. Ms. Qureshy stated the slopes are actually part of Lots 6, 7
and 8, there is a retaining wall on Lots 6 and 7, and Lot 5 has an upslope with Lots IO, 11 and 12. Commissioner Cardosa stated that those areas would be within the specific boundaries of those specific
lots. Ms. Qureshy stated that the areas would be individually maintained by the property owners.
Commissioner Montgomery stated the applicant mentioned the areas along Black Rail Road and
possibility along the backside of the property as the areas to be maintained outside of an HOA. Commissioner Montgomery asked if the areas along Songbird Avenue. Ms. Qureshy stated that all the
areas proposed to be maintained by an HOA are all the slopes located along Black Rail Road, the area
fronting Songbird Avenue, and the backslopes of Lot 16 through 13.
Commissioner Dominguez asked if there are any other situations in which alternative programs are set up
to maintain similar landscaped slope areas. Ms. Qureshy stated she was not aware of any. Commissioner Dominguez stated that the future maintenance of these slopes and quasi-common areas will be vitally important to the future value of these properties. Ms. Qureshy stated that typically if there is
a downslope on a property and it is visible from the street, the City does require that it be uniformly maintained and uniformly landscaped even if it is part of a parcel so there is typically an HOA that
is responsible for the maintenance. Commissioner Dorninguez asked if all these projected, landscaped sloped areas are all part and parcel of legal lots as its project to be. Ms. Qureshy stated that was correct. k3
Planning Commission Minutes February 2,2005 Page 6
Commissioner Montgomery asked if the areas also include the City right-of-way areas. Mr. Maashoff
stated that the right-of-way between the sidewalk and the property line is proposed to be landscaped.
Commissioner Montgomery asked if these maintenance lines issued in some sort of an easement or if it is
strictly a described location. Mr. Maashoff stated that typically in the CC&Rs there is a visual depiction of
the area to be maintained by the association and easement rights given to the association on the individual properties to go into the lots and maintain the landscaping on the slopes if necessary.
Chairperson Segall asked if there were any members of the public who wished to speak on the item.
Seeing none, he opened and closed public testimony on the item.
Chairperson Segall asked staff to respond to the proposed amendment by the applicant.
Commissioner Baker asked the City Attorney what other types of alternatives are available for such an
amendment that an HOA would have to ensure that the maintenance would be available. Jane Mobaldi
stated that the City of Carlsbad has not used any in the past; however, she did ask the developer to give
the City a sample agreement. The developer provided the City with a maintenance agreement used by
the City of Poway. It is similar to an HOA arrangement in that each of the individual homeowners contributes a proportionate share to the cost of maintenance. An agent is hired who then is responsible
for making sure the maintenance is done. If the City is not happy with the way the property is being maintained, the City has the right but not the obligation to either do the work itself or theoretically hire
someone else to do it. The City would then require that not only can the City assess the property owners
for the cost to the city, but in addition a notice of violation could be filed on title if there is a violation of the
maintenance agreement. The maintenance agreement would be filed on the recorded title to make sure
this is enforceable and that every successive owner gets noticed. In addition, the City could lien the
property the for the amount of the cost that the City would need to be reimbursed. The City would make
sure those types of protections would be included as part of the maintenance agreement. Ms. Mobaldi
stated that she intends on talking to the City of Poway's attorney and other cities to see what experience
they have with this type of agreement. Commissioner Baker asked if Ms. Mobaldi was comfortable with
the proposed wording to the condition. Ms. Mobaldi stated she is comfortable with it because the City is not locked into changing the way the City has historically if the City does not find the alternative is equally
as workable and protects the City and the City's interests.
MOTION
ACT1 0 N : Motion by Commissioner Montgomery, and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 5828 recommending
adoption of a Negative Declaration and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions
No. 5829 and 5830 recommending approval of Zone Change ZC 04-01 and Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 04-02 and adopt Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 5831 and 5832 approving Tentative Tract Map CT
04-01 and Coastal Development Permit CDP 04-01, based on the findings and
subject to the conditions contained therein.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION
ACT1 ON : Motion by Commissioner Montgomery, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission amend the motion to include modification of Condition No. 13 in
Resolution No. 5831 as distributed and received by the Planning Commission be
included.
DISCUSSION ON THE AMENDMENT
Commissioner Dominguez commented that his concern is on the long-term viability and enforcement with something as critical as this landscape in this slope area would be to the future of this kind of
development. He stated that he would like any alternative amendment be subject to the approval of the
City Attorney because ultimately the enforcement will fall under their purview and not the Planning
Director.
Planning Commission Minutes February 2,2005 Page 7
Chairperson Segall polled the Commission to see if there was a consensus on that modification. All
Commissioners stated they agreed with that modification.
Chairperson Segall asked if that would be agreeable to the City Attorney. Ms. Mobaldi stated she agreed
with it. Chairperson Segall asked if the applicant agreed. The applicant agreed.
2nd AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION
ACTION : Motion by Commissioner Montgomery, and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission amend the motion to include modification of Condition No. 13 in
Resolution No. 5831 to add the following wording, “Developer shall establish an
HOA and corresponding CC&Rs or an equivalent alternative instrument
approved by the City Attorney. Said CC&Rs or other acceptable alternative
instrument shall be submitted to ... at a minimum, the CC&Rs or other acceptable
alternative instrument shall contain the following provisions.. .I’
Commissioner Baker asked if the agreement should be subject to both the Planning Director and the City Attorney. Ms. Mobaldi stated she was comfortable with both the Planning Director and City Attorney
approving the document. Chairperson Segall polled the Commission to see if there was consensus on the modification. All Commissioners agreed to the modification.
3rd AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Montgomery, and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission amend the motion to include modification of Condition No. 13 in
Resolution No. 5831 to add the following wording, “Developer shall establish an
HOA and corresponding CC&Rs or an equivalent alternative instrument
approved by both the Planning Director and the City Attorney. Said CC&Rs or other acceptable alternative instrument shall be submitted to ... at a minimum, the
CC&Rs or other acceptable alternative instrument shall contain the following
provisions.. .”
Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman,
Montgomery and Whitton
VOTE: 7-0
AYES:
NOES: None
VOTE ON MAIN MOTION
VOTE: 7-0
AYES:
NOES: None
Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery and Whitton
Jam Free Printing . Use Avery@ TEMPLATE 5160@
CARLSBAD UNlF SCHOOL DlST
6225 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NORTH COAST HWY
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
U.S. FISH &WILDLIFE
6010 HIDDEN VALLEY RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
WILLIAM GUSTAFSON
1465 E MOUNTAIN DR
SANTA BARBARA CA 931 08
CITY OF CARLSBAD
RECREATION
- www.avery.com
1-800-GO-AVERY -
CITY OF ENCINITAS
505 S VULCAN AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
VISTA CA 92085
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STE I00
9174 SKY PARK CT
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DlST
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SANDIEGO CA 92123
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
STE 103
7575 METROPOLITAN DR
SAN DIEGO CA 921 08-4402
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
I CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
I SANDAG
STE 800
401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
SD COUNTY PLANNING
STE B
5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
I.P.U.A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
URBAN STUDIES
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
ATTN TED ANASIS
SAN DIEGO COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY
PO BOX 82776
SAN DIEGO CA 92138-2776
DORIS K YAMAMOTO
5961 AUTUMNWOOD DR
UNIT 1A SAN MARCOS CA 92069
WALNUT CREEK CA 94595
VALLECITOS WATER DlST
201 VALLECITOS DE OR0
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC W 0 RKS/E NG I N EERl NG
DEPT- PROJECT ENGINEER SAIMA QURESHY
JOHN MAASHOFF
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT PLANNER
BROOKS
CA 9201 8-1 041
EANSIDE CA 92054
ANTHONY & DICKY BONS
25709 HILLCREST AV
ESCONDIDO CA 92026-8650
AFE CA 92067
CA 92018-1186
CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
TED OWEN
5934 PRIESTLY DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CALTRANS DISTRICT I1
BILL FlGGE
MAIL ST 50
P 0 BOX 85406
SAN DIEGO CA 92186-5406
REG WATER QUALITY CONTROL BD
STE 100
9174 SKY PARK CT
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMIN WESTERN REG
PO BOX 92007
LOSANGELES CA 90009
BARRY BRAYER, AWP-8
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
BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION & HSG AGENCY
PATRICIA W NEAL DEPUTY SEC HOUSING SUPERINTENDENT
STE 2450 1901 SPINNAKER DR
980 NINTH ST SAN BUENAVENTURA CA 93001
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK
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 ENERGY
STE 400
611 RYAN PLAZA DR
ARLINGTON TX 7601 1-4005
DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIV
P 0 BOX 944246
SACRAMENTO CA 94244-2460
d ~ -.. . . I ,
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD &AGRICULTURE
STEVE SHAFFER, AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
RM 100
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
DOUG WICKIZER, ENVIR COORD
P 0 BOX 944246
1220 N ST SACRAMENTO CA 94244-2460
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVE
DUNCAN LENT HOWARD, REG ADMIN
450 GOLDEN GATE AV
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102 1 10 WEST A ST
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
RM 700
SANDIEGO CA 92101
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RM 5504
1120 N ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
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
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
U S BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
MI D-PAC I FI C REG I ON
U S ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
LILY ALYEA
STE 702
333 MARKET ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105-2197
WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BD
PO BOX 100
SACRAMENTO CA 95801
TABATA FARMS
PO BOX 1338
CARLSBAD CA 92018-1338
LESLIE ESPOSITO
1893 AMELFI DR
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
U S FISH &WILDLIFE SERVICE
2800 COTTAGE WAY
STE W-2605
SACRAMENTO CA 95825-1888
USDA - RURAL DEVELOPMENT
DEPT 41 69
430 "G" ST
DAVIS CA 95616
CITY OF ENClNlTAS
COMDEV DEPT
505 S VULCAN AV
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
SANDAG-EXEC DIRECTOR
GARY GALLEGOS
STE 800
1 ST INT'L PLAZA 401 "B" ST
SANDIEGO CA 92101
CY RIUMARY GIBSON
12142 ARGYLE DR
LOS ALAMITOS CA 90702
LAKESHORE GARDENS
TOM BENSON
7201 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOHN LAMB
1446 DEVLIN DR
LOSANGELES CA 90069
STATE LANDS COMMISSION
MARY GRIGGS
STE 100 S
100 HOWE AV
SACRAMENTO CA 95825-8202
PERRY A LAMB
890 MERE POINT RD
BRUNSWICK ME 04011
COASTAL CONSERVANCY
RICHARD RETECKI
STE 1100
1330 BROADWAY
OAKLAND CA 94612
6550 PONTO DRIVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC
BEVERLY BLESSANT
8315 CENTURY PARK CT
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-
COUNTY OF SD SUPERVISOR BILL HORN
ART DANELL
RM 335
1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY
SANDIEGO CA 92101
S D CO PLANNING & LAND USE DEPT
JAON VOKAC
5201 RUFFIN ROAD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
STE B-5
FLOYD ASHBY
P 0 BOX 232580
ENClNlTAS CA 92023-2580
DALE/DONNA SCHREIBER
7163 ARGONAUTA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CALIFORNIA RESOURCES AGENCIES
STE 1311
1416 9TH ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
GEORGE BOLTON
6583 BLACKRAIL RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SANDAG-LAND USE COMMISS
NAN VALERIO
STE 800
401 “B” STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
BATIQUITOS LAGOON FOUNDATION
JOHN BURNS
P 0 BOX 130491
CARLSBAD CA 92009-
MAROYA FAMILY TRUST 5-18-98
PO BOX 131 06 CARLSBAD CA 92013
NOBEL HOMES
C/O TOM ODONNELL
SUITE A
961 CALLE AMANECER
SAN CLEMENTE CA 92673
BLACK RAIL DEVELOP PARTNERS LLC NAKADA TRUST 10-2-01
1465 E MOUNTAIN DRIVE I MAHOGANY RUN
SANTA BARBARA CA 931 08 COT0 DE CAZA CA 92679
LMD CARLSBAD 25 LLC C/O FON FONTANA
SUITE 203
630 ALTA VISTA DR
VISTA CA 92084
LMD CANTERINA LLC
C/O BREHM COMPANIES
SUITE 200
1935 CAMINO VlDA ROBLE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
T STANLEY LIVING TRUST 11-27-02
W ELLIE LIVING TRUST 11-27-02
6624 SlTlO CEDRELA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
S KELLY VODVARKA A J 111 &
CATHERINE
1577 CORTE ORCHlDlA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
COLLINS DENNIS G & CONYERS LOIS M 1581 CORTE ORCHlDlA 1585 CORTE ORCHlDlA 1589 CORTE ORCHlDlA
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
FORD REVOCABLE TRUST 6-16-03 RHEE THOMAS & CYNTHIA Y
TUCKER CRAIG W PROPERTY TRUST
1593 CORTE ORCHlDlA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KROELLIAN FRANZ
PO BOX 9991 1
SAN DIEGO CA 92169
WELLS PATRICK T & PATIENCE N
I608 CORTE ORCHlDlA CARLSBAD CA 92009
SHlKlYA JAMES T & CHRISTY K 161 2 CORTE ORCHlDlA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KAO CHARNG-KENG & YUEH-ME1
1620 CORTE ORCHlDlA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ANDREWS JEFFREY C & DANA R
1624 CORTE ORCHlDlA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SUNDSTROM RAYMOND L & KELLY L
1632 CORTE ORCHlDlA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
POST JOSEPH A & CURRY E
1636 CORTE ORCHlDlA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
RONS STEVE C & YVONNE
I644 CORTE ORCHlDlA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HSIA SONG LING & LlNA
1656 CORTE ORCHlDlA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LEWIS WILLIAM B &ANNABELLE A
1648 CORTE ORCHlDlA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
RICHARDEZ R & MARCIA V
1663 CORTE ORCHlDlA CARLSBAD CA 92009
FINK FAMILY TRUST 11-11-02
1604 CORTE ORCHlDlA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GOLDMAN MARTIN R & MARCIA L
1616 CORTE ORCHlDlA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
AXE EDWARD W & LALAINE T
1628 CORTE ORCHlDlA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DEMORO DOUGLAS W
1640 CORTE ORCHlDlA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CASTILLO JOHN H & ESTHER P
1652 CORTE ORCHlDlA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GANADEN FRANK A & DENISE D
1659 CORTE ORCHlDlA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
I acnr r; i An@
ABERNATHY MR & LAMPONE MARIA A HOWARD & LAURA JONES CATHERINEM
1643 CORTE ORCHlDlA
CARLSBAD CA 92009 1651 CORTE ORCHlDlA 1655 CORTE ORCHlDlA
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
CALDWELL GRANT L
1639 CORTE ORCHlDlA CARLSBAD CA 92009
HOLSTEN TIMOTHY & ANDREA
I627 CORTE ORCHlDlA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BAI JUNCAI & ZHU FANGHUA
1635 CORTE ORCHlDlA
CARLSBAR CA 92009
ERICKSON LAWRENCE D & LEE T
1631 CORTE ORCHlDlA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LYNN JOHN E & CATHY S
1623 CORTE ORCHlDlA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MARTINEZ FAMILY TRUST 10-1 5-02
161 5 CORTE ORCHlDlA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GIRARD MICHAEL &TRACY F
1611 CORTE ORCHlDlA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
STOCK JOSEPH B & ELENA M TRUST
1619 CORTE ORCHlDlA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DRESSLER DM & ASBURY DARLA H
1607 CORTE ORCHlDlA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
AMEEL JIM P
1603 CORTE ORCHlDlA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6697 BLACK RAIL RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
1408 OCEAN CREST AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6639 SURF CREST ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6670 CABELA PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6647 THRASHER PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6650 ELEGANT TERN PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Occ4p4n f
OCCUPANT
1400 OCEAN CREST AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
1412 OCEAN CREST AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6635 SURF CREST ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6686 CABELA PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6648 THRASHER PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6674 CABELA PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT 1404 OCEAN CREST AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6636 SURF CREST ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6640 SURF CREST ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6690 CABELA PL CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6649 ELEGANT TERN PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6674 CABELA PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will
hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad,
California, at 6:OO p.m. on Tuesday, March 22, 2005, to consider the adoption of a
Negative Declaration, approval of a Zone Change and Local Coastal Program
Amendment to change the citywide zoning designation from Limited Control (L-C) to
One-Family Residential (R-I) generally located at the east side of Black Rail Road,
south of Songbird Avenue and north of Ocean Crest Avenue in the Mello II Segment of
the Local Coastal Program and Local Facilities Management Zone 20 and more
particularly described as:
The south half of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of
the northeast quarter of Section 27, T12S, R4W, SBBM, in the City
of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the
public hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on and after Friday, March
18, 2005. If you have any questions, please call Saima Qureshy in the Planning
Department at (760) 602-4619.
If you challenge the Negative Declaration, Zone Change and/or Local Coastal Program
Amendment 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: ZC 04-01/LCPA 04-02
CASE NAME: YAMAMOTO S U BD lVlS ION
PUBLISH: March 11,2005
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
SITE
YAMAMOTO SU BD lVlS ION
ZC 04=01/LCPA 04-02
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 6% 2011 C.C.P.)
This space is for the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I ani 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 Proof of Publication 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
171:349, 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
publlished in each regular and entire issue of said
newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on
the lfollowing dates, to-wit:
March llfh, 2005
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at SAN MARCOS California
This, 1 1 th Day of March, 2005
The south half of the northwest quarter of the northwest prter of the northeast quarter of Section 27 T12S 4W, SBBM, in the Ciw of Carlsbad, County’of Sad Diego. State of Califomla.
Signature
Jane Olson
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
Yamamoto SubdivisionYamamoto SubdivisionZC 04ZC 04--01/LCPA 0401/LCPA 04--0202
Location MapLocation MapBLACK RAIL RDSONGBIRD AVEAVIARA PKWYOCEAN CREST AVESURF CREST STCORTEORCHIDIASITIO CEDRELASITIO SAGOTHRASHER PL
ELEGANT
TERN PL
CABELA PL
AVENACTTOWHEE LNNIGHTSHADE RDSITE
AerialAerial
Proposed ProjectProposed ProjectSubdivision Subdivision ––16 single family lots16 single family lotsZone Change Zone Change From LFrom L--C (Limited Control) to RC (Limited Control) to R--1 (One Family 1 (One Family Residential)Residential)Local Coastal Program AmendmentLocal Coastal Program AmendmentPlanning Commission ActionPlanning Commission ActionApproved CT 04Approved CT 04--01 and CDP 0401 and CDP 04--01 01 Recommended approval of ZC 04Recommended approval of ZC 04--01 and LCPA 0401 and LCPA 04--0202
AnalysisAnalysisGeneral Plan: RLMGeneral Plan: RLMZoning: LZoning: L--C (proposed zoning: RC (proposed zoning: R--1)1)Zone 20 Specific PlanZone 20 Specific PlanLocal Coastal Program Local Coastal Program ––Mello II segmentMello II segmentSubdivision OrdinanceSubdivision OrdinanceInclusionary Housing OrdinanceInclusionary Housing OrdinanceHabitat Management PlanHabitat Management PlanCEQA CEQA ––Negative DeclarationNegative Declaration
RecommendationRecommendationAdoption of the Negative DeclarationAdoption of the Negative DeclarationApproval of ZC 04Approval of ZC 04--01 and LCPA 0401 and LCPA 04--0202