Loading...
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 Project„„Subdivision Subdivision ––16 single family lots16 single family lots„„Zone 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 Amendment„„Planning Commission ActionPlanning Commission Action„„Approved 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 AnalysisAnalysis„„General Plan: RLMGeneral Plan: RLM„„Zoning: LZoning: L--C (proposed zoning: RC (proposed zoning: R--1)1)„„Zone 20 Specific PlanZone 20 Specific Plan„„Local Coastal Program Local Coastal Program ––Mello II segmentMello II segment„„Subdivision OrdinanceSubdivision Ordinance„„Inclusionary Housing OrdinanceInclusionary Housing Ordinance„„Habitat Management PlanHabitat Management Plan„„CEQA CEQA ––Negative DeclarationNegative Declaration RecommendationRecommendation„„Adoption of the Negative DeclarationAdoption of the Negative Declaration„„Approval of ZC 04Approval of ZC 04--01 and LCPA 0401 and LCPA 04--0202