Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-06-06; City Council; 18588; Trails Endo m^^ CO ooCN O •H O 0} 0) O ID CO TD CO O O O C',•H u, o o _J O oo CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL AB# 18,588 MTG. 6/6/06 DEPT. PLN TITLE: TRAILS END ZC 04-10 DEPT. HD. Wl^ L^g? CITY ATTY. £&*-*- CITY MGR ^Wr^ RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council INTRODUCE Ordinance No. NS-803 APPROVING a Zone Change (ZC 04-10) to change the Zoning designation on a 2.79 acre site from Residential Agricultural (R-A 10,000) to Residential Density-Multiple Zone (RD-M) and ADOPT Resolution No. 2006-143 ADOPTING a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. ITEM EXPLANATION: Project application(s) Mitigated Negative Declaration Zone Change (ZC 04-10) Tentative Tract Map (CT 04-14) Hillside Development Permit (HDP 04-07) Planned Development Permit (PUD 04-10) Administrative Approvals Reviewed by and Final at Planning Commission X X X To be Reviewed - Final at Council X X On March 1, 2006, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and recommended to the City Council approval (5-0 - Commissioner Dominguez absent and Commissioner Heineman did not participate due to potential conflict of interest) of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a Zone Change to change the Zoning designation on a 2.79- acre property generally located on the west side of Donna Drive and north of Carlsbad Village Drive. At the same hearing the Planning Commission also approved (5-0) a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit, and a Planned Development Permit to grade and subdivide a 2.79- acre site into 14 residential lots and 3 open space/recreation/private driveway lots. The approval of the Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit, and Planned Development Permit were final at the Planning Commission. The proposed Zone Change would change the Zoning designation on the property from Residential Agricultural (R-A 10,000) to Residential Density-Multiple Zone (RD-M). The Zone Change is consistent and necessary to implement the existing General Plan Land Use designation of Residential Medium Density (RM). There were several public speakers and a thorough Planning Commission discussion on the project as documented in the Planning Commission minutes. A full disclosure of the Planning Commission's action on the project and a complete description and staff analysis of the project is included in the attached minutes and staff report to the Planning Commission. 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. The environmental impact assessment identified potentially significant impacts to PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. biological resources and noise and mitigation measures have been incorporated into the design of the project or have been placed as conditions of approval for the project such that all potentially significant impacts have now been mitigated to below a level of significance. Consequently, a Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was published in the newspaper and sent to the State Clearinghouse for public agency review. No comments were received during the 20 day public review period from November 18, 2005 to December 20,2005. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impacts have been identified. GROWTH MANAGEMENT STATUS: Facilities Zone Local Facilities Management Plan Growth Control Point Net Density Special Facility Fee 1 1 6 du/ac 5.88 du/ac N/A EXHIBITS: 1. City Council Ordinance No. NS-803 2. City Council Resolution No. 2006-143 3. Location Map 4. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6033 and 6034 5. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated March 1, 2006 6. Planning Commission Minutes, dated March 1, 2006. DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Jessica Galloway, (760) 602-4631, jgall@ci.carlsbad.ca.us 1 ORDINANCE NO. NS-803 2 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 21.05.030 OF 3 THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP TO GRANT A ZONE CHANGE FROM 4 RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL (R-A 10,000) TO RESIDENTIAL DENSITY-MULTIPLE ZONE (RD-M) ON A 2.79 ACRE SITE 5 GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE AND WEST OF DONNA DRIVE IN LOCAL 6 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: TRAILS END 7 CASE NO.: ZC 04-10 8 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does ordain as follows: 9 SECTION I: That the City's Zoning Map is amended as shown on the map 10 marked Exhibit "ZC 04-10" attached hereto and made a part hereof, pursuant to Section 11 21.05.030 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. 12 SECTION II: That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission as 13 set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 6034, constitute the findings and conditions of 14 the City Council. 15 EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its 16 adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be 17 published at least once in a publication of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within I Q10 fifteen days after its adoption. 19 INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City ?n Council on the 27th day of June 2006, and thereafter.21 ///22 ///23 /// 24 m 25 in 26 /// 27 /// 28 1 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of 2 Carlsbad on the day of 2006, by the following vote, to wit: 3 AYES: 4 NOES: 5 ABSENT: 6 ABSTAIN: 7 8 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY 9 10 RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney 11 12 CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor 14 ATTEST: 15 16 LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk 17 (SEAL) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2006-143 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED 3 NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR A ZONE CHANGE (ZC 04- 4 10), TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (CT 04-14), HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (HDP 04-07), AND PLANNED 5 DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (PUD 04-10) FOR THE TRAILS END PROJECT ON A 2.79 ACRE SITE GENERALLY LOCATED 6 NORTH OF CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE AND WEST OF DONNA DRIVE AND WITHIN LOCAL FACILITIES 7 MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: TRAILS END 8 CASE NO.: ZC 04-10/CT 04-14/HDP 04-07/PUD 04-10 9 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning 10 Commission did, on March 1, 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to 11 consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as 12 referenced in Planning Commission Resolution No. 6033 and at said public hearing the 1 ^J Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 6033 recommending adoption to the City Council; and 15 WHEREAS, the City Council did on the fit-h day of June , 2006 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; 18 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony 19 and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the City Council considered all 20 factors relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting 21 Program, 22 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City 23 of Carlsbad as follows: 24 1. That all recitations are true and correct. 25 2. That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission in Planning 26 Commission Resolution No. 6033 on file with the City Clerk and made a part hereof by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council. 27 28 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 City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 27th day of June, 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Hall, Kulchin, Packard, Sigafoose NOES: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: LORRAINEM- WOOD, City Clerk ZC 04-10 March 1.2006 Trails End S/7E RA-10,000 EXISTING PROPOSED Related Case File No(s): ZC 04-10 Zone Change Property A. 156-090-41-00 B. C. D. From: RA- 10,000 To: RD-M EXHIBIT 3 SITE MAP NOT TO SCALE Trails End ZC04-10 _EXHIBIT4 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6033 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4 AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR A ZONE CHANGE TO CHANGE THE CITYWIDE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM RESIDENTIAL 6 AGRICULTURAL (R-A 10,000) TO RESIDENTIAL DENSITY- MULTIPLE ZONE (RD-M), AND A TENTATIVE TRACT 7 MAP, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO GRADE AND SUBDIVIDE A 8 2.79 ACRE SITE INTO 14 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 3 OPEN 9 SPACE/RECREATION/PRIVATE DRIVEWAY LOTS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE 10 OF DONNA DRIVE AND NORTH OF CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. 11 CASE NAME: TRAILS END CASE NO.: ZC 04-10/CT 04-14/HDP Q4-07/PUD 04-10 13 WHEREAS, Dennis Cunningham, "Developer," has filed a verified application 14 with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Chris Coseo, "Owner," described as ^ Portion of lot 7 of Section 32, Township 11 South, Range 4 it West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to official 17 plat thereof 18 ("the Property"); and 19 WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with 20 said project; and 21 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 1st day of March 2006, hold a 22 » duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 24 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony 25 and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and 76 considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors 27 relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 28 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning 2 Commission as follows: 3 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 4 - B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative 6 Declaration, Exhibit "ND," according to Exhibits "NOI" dated November 28, 2005, and "PII" dated November 21, 2005, attached hereto and made a part 7 hereof, based on the following findings: 8 Findings: 9 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: 10 A. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration TRAILS END - ZC 04-10/CT 04-14/HDP 04-07/PUD 04-10, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to 12 RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the project; and 13 B. the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with 14 requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and15 C. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and 17 D. based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence 18 the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Conditions; 20 1. The applicant shall implement or cause the implementation of the Trails End Mitigation 21 Monitoring and Reporting Program. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PC RESO NO. 6033 -2- . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of March 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Cardosa, Dominguez, and Whitton Commissioner Baker ABSENT: Commissioner Heineman and Segall ABSTAIN: MARTELL B. MONHGOMER^^hairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION PEST: DON NEU Assistant Planning Director PC RESO NO. 6033 -3- City of Carlsbad Planning Department MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: CASE NO: PROJECT LOCATION: Trails End ZC 04-10. CT 04-14, PUD 04-12. HDP 04-07 APN: 156-090-41. West of Donna Drive and north of Carlsbad Village Drive PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Project consists of a Zone Change, Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development, and Hillside Development Permit to allow the development of fourteen (14) twin homes on a 2.79-acre site. DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: [X] Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. I I 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. (Mitigated Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be addressed). I I Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. ADOPTED: March I, 2006. pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 6033 ATTEST: DON NEU Assistant Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue « Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us City of Carlsbad Planning Department NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: CASE NO: PROJECT LOCATION: Trails End ZC 04-10. CT 04-14. PUD 04-12. HDP 04-07 APN: 156-090-41, West of Donna Drive "and north of Carlsbad Village Drive PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Project consists of a Zone Change, Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development, and Hillside Development Permit to allow the development of fourteen (14) twin homes on a 2.79-acre site. PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project "as revised" may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad City Council. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of the date of this notice. The proposed project and Mitigated Negative Declaration are subject to review and approval/adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. Additional public notices will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Jessica Galloway in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4631. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD November 28. 2005 -December 18, 2005 PUBLISH DATE November 28, 2005 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-460O • FAX (760) 602-8559 « www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: ZC 04-10 / CT 04-14 / PUD 04-12 / HDP 04-07 DATE: November 21.2005 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Trails End 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Jessica Galloway. 760-602-4631 4. PROJECT LOCATION: APN 156-090-41 - West of Donna Drive and north of Carlsbad Village Drive 5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: Dennis Cunningham. 6469 Camino del Parque Carlsbad, CA 92009 • ;- ' 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Medium CRM) 7. ZONING: Residential Agricultural Zone - (R-A 10.000) OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): N/A 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: The applicant is proposing a Zone Change. Tentative Tract Map. Planned Development Permit. and a Hillside Development Permit to develop fourteen (14) twin homes on a 2.79 acre site, located west of Donna Drive and north of Carlsbad Village Drive. The applicant is proposing a zone change from Residential Agricultural (R-A 10.000) to Residential Density-Multiple Zone (RD-M). which is' in accordance with the existing General Plan land use. designation of <**Residential Medium (RM). The proposed tentative map (CT 04-14) will divide the parcel into 17 lots. Lots 1-14 are residential twin home lots, and lots 15-17 include the private driveway, community area, and open space which will be maintained and owned by the Home Owners Association. Impacts to Diegan Coastal1 Sage Scrub include 1.10 acres for the proposed development. These impacts meet the terms set by the HMP regarding CSS. The impacts will be Rev. 07/03/02 I'f mitigated per the Carlsbad HMP. The project site is surrounded by residential and'Carlsbad Village Drive to the south. Rev. 07/03/02 IS 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. j Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Hazards/Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Mandatory Findings of Significance Noise Population and Housing I I Public Services I | Recreation Transportation/C irculation Utilities & Service Systems Rev. 07/03/02 If, DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. " Xj I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. D I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have "potentially significant 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, nothing further is required. Planner Signature Date Planning Director's Signature Date Rev. 07/03/02 n 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 human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited hi the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. • "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. • "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. • "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly adverse. • Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but all potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately hi 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 J. 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. __ Rev. 07/03/02 • An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant. Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). L AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. 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 Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? 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: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D D 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? Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant. No Impact Impact D D D D Rev. 07/03/02 3/ Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi- cance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi- cal resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) 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, of 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact j _. m D D D IE! D IS Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Signi|}cant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact D n Kl Kl c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? > g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 10 Rev. 07/03/02 ' Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Impacts to groundwater quality? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off- site? f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area'structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. 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)? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant .. No Impact Impact n E n n m n n n Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? o) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d)Iist? p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? XL 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? -V b) Exposure of persons to or generation of 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? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D n n n 12 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 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: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact D D n 13 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting 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: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 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? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in insufficient parking capacity? g) 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: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result hi the construction of new water or v/astewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could ' cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Less Than Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact D D 14 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant - No Impact Impact n n IEI 13 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 prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumula- tively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed hi 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? 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 150T63(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed hi an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 15 Rev. 07/03/02 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AESTHETICS No Impact. The project is subject to the site design, and architectural standards contained in City Council Policy 44 regarding neighborhood architectural design and City-Council Policy 66 regarding livable neighborhoods, which are designed to reduce visual impacts. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES No Impact. There will be no impacts on agricultural resources due to the proposed project as the site is not designated as or used as farmland. The subject site is zoned for single-family Residential (Rl-10,000) and is not subject to Williamson Act Contract. The project would not result in other changes to the environment that would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. The project would be characterized as infill development and has been surrounded by residential development for many years. 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 (O3), and a state non-attainment area for paniculate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM10). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Ah- Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied,in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state- mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non-attainment areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November 9th through 1 Oth 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 J. following:•v • Is a regional ah- 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? 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 16 ,. Rev. 07/03/02 Q 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 24-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 grading and construction. Such emissions would be minimized through 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. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 (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. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES—Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or .wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated (a, b and 0- The following table summarizes the impacts to vegetation types as documented in the Biological Resources Assessment prepared for the project (Planning Systems, 2005), 17 Rev. 07/03/02 POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO EXISTING HABITAT TYPES AND LAND COVERS (ACRES) HABITAT Non-Native Grassland Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (unoccupied) Eucalyptus Woodland Ornamental Disturbed TOTAL EXISTING ACREAGE* 0.64 1.10 , .69 .22 0.1 2.75 IMPACTS FROM PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (ACRES) 0.64 -'~ ••• 1.10 .69 .22 0.1 2.75 - * Acreage may not total exactly due to rounding. Sensitive Plants and Wildlife Species No sensitive plant or animal species were detected during site surveys. The only sensitive vegetation resource observed on site is the 1.10 acres of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (DCSS). No California gnatcatchers (Polioptila califomica califomica) (CAGN) were observed during the course of the general wildlife surveys and therefore no focused surveys were conducted. CAGN are not expected to occur on-site site because the site is surrounded by urban development, DCSS area size is well below the typical territory size of CAGN, and the subject edge effects and the presence of urban predators compromise the quality of the habitat. The wildlife surveys identified or observed signs of twenty avian species, two reptilian, and ten mammal specie's. None of the species observed are considered sensitive or listed as endangered or threatened by state or federal resource agencies. No records of endangered or threatened species on or immediately adjacent to the property are identified in the Carlsbad HMP. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION REQUIREMENT (ACRES) HABITAT Non-Native Grassland Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Eucalyptus Woodland Disturbed and ornamental EXISTING ACREAGE* 0.64 1.10 .69 0.32 IMPACTS FROM PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (ACRES) 0.64 1.10 .69 0.32 MITIGATION FEE RATIO 0.5:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 MITIGATION REQUIREMENT (ACRES) .32 1.10 .69 .32 Mitigation Measures or Requirements The project site is not located in an identified HMP preserve area. The project site is an infill site with no sensitive plant or wildlife species. Therefore, the project will be conditioned to pay habitat in-lieu mitigation fees according to the ratios^established by the HMP as mitigation for project impacts to non-native grassland, Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub, Eucalyptus woodland, and disturbed and ornamental habitats. The fee will be paid prior to recordation of a final map, or issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first. 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, with the incorporation of the mitigation measure, no potentially significant impacts to above identified biological resources will occur. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 18 Rev. 07/03/02 31 e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation ~ policy or ordinance? g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? No Impact (c, d, e, and g). The biological resource assessment provides a focused, current and detailed project level analysis of site-specific biological impacts and provides refined project level mitigation measures. Please see "Biological Resources Assessment for APN # 156-090-41 Carlsbad, California" prepared by Planning Systems, dated June 10, 2005 (Planning Systems, 2005). V. CULTURAL RESOURCES—Would the project: No Impact (a-d). The project site does not appear on the City of Carlsbad Cultural Resources Map and the list of archeological sites prepared by San Diego State University, 1987. The subject site is undeveloped, yet is disturbed and is an urbanized infill site, which is surrounded by residential development, and there will be no impacts on - cultural resources. There are no known historical, archeological, paleontological, or human remains on the project 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: 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. No Impact. The "Geotechnical Grading Plan review, Trails End Development, Northwest Corner of the Intersection of Donna Drive and Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California" (Geosoils, 2005) found that by following standard and accepted soil preparation techniques, the site is suitable for the project proposed, and would not expose people or structures to fault ruptures, liquefaction or landslides. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact - There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zones within the City of Carlsbad and there is no other evidence of active or potentially active faults within the City. However, there are several active faults throughout Southern California, and these potential earthquakes could affect Carlsbad. The project site is located in an area of generally stable soil conditions and the risk of seimic-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 Investigation was prepared by Geosoils Incorporated, dated August 29, 2005. The report states that strong seismic ground shaking is a potential that affects all construction in this region of California. It is understood that the same building code standards, which ensure the relative safety of all new residential construction, will be applied to the units constructed pursuant to the proposed tentative map. iii. v Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? No Impact. The above referenced geotechnical study found that by following standard and accepted soil preparation techniques, the site is suitable for the proposed project, and would not expose people or structures to fault ruptures, liquefaction or landslides. The site has natural stable slopes and according to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992, the project site is in an area of stable soil conditions that are not subject to landslides. All new slopes will not exceed a 2:1 steepness. Also, according to the soils report, the existing and proposed slopes will have a surficial safety factor of 1.5 or greater. Graded slopes will be properly landscaped and irrigated. Groundwater is not expected to be a major factor in the development of the site. However, seepage and/or perched groundwater conditions may develop throughout the site along boundaries of contrasting permeabilities and should be anticipated during and after development. Such occurances can be rectified as they appear with the advice and monitoring of a soils engineer. 19 • Rev. 07/03/02 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? — Less Than Significant Impact -The site is underlain by colluvium/top soil, and Quaternary-age Terrace Deposits: In addition, as described in the soil report, artificial fill was found in one of the test pits. This"fill, as well as topsoil/colluvium and Quartenary-age terrace deposits within planned grading limits should be removed and replaced as compacted fill prior to placing additional fill .and/or structural improvements. The project's compliance with standards in the City's Excavation and Grading Ordinance that prevent erosion through slope planting and installation of temporary erosion control means will avoid substantial soil erosion impacts. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? No Impact (c and d). Significant geologic hazards were not observed or are known to exist on the site that could adversely impact proposed development. The site has natural stable slopes and according to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992, the project site is in an area of stable soil conditions that are not subject to landslides. Expansive soils composed of clay and silt are found within the Quartenary-age terrace deposits. The soils report recommends removal of these soils where structures will be placed and replacing with suitable soil. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. The proposed project does not propose septic tanks and will utilize the public sewer system. Therefore, there will be no impacts involving soils that support the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Reference "Geotechnical Grading Plan review, Trails End Development, Northwest Corner of the Intersection of Donna Drive and Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California" prepared by Geosoils Incorporated, revised August 29, 2005. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS—Would the project: a-h) No Impact. The proposed residential development does not propose any transportation or storage of hazardous materials. The site is not listed as a hazardous materials site. The site is consistent with the McClellan Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. VII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY—Would the project: a-p) No Impact. The proposed project will include the water quality infrastructure as required by the City of Carlsbad. All drainage will be directed to an onsite precast concrete modular storm water detention system. Drainage currently sheet flows over natural slopes in a southwesterly direction. The proposed detention system will store drainage such that posF-development flows off-site do not exceed existing flows during a 10.year or 100 year j storm event. Stored water within the detention system that does not percolate into the ground will be released through an orifice, sized to control the flow to predevelopment levels, before entering the westerly open space property. Pollutants from street and roof runoff will be treated via grass swales or strips before entering the detention system. All onsite storm drains are designed to accept a 100-year storm event. As a result, there will be no impact to water quality, site erosion, pollutant discharge, or drainage from the site as it may affect adjacent ~ ~~ properties and existing stormwater infrastructure. Please reference the Drainage Study and the Stormwater Management Plan prepared by Tail Consulting, Inc., dated September 2005. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING—Would the project: a) No Impact. The project is a residential development consistent with the surrounding uses. The site does not physically divide an established community. 20 , Rev. 07/03/02 •D -3 b-c) No Impact. The proposed project does not conflict with any existing or proposed land use plans or policies" of the City of Carlsbad. The project is consistent with the City of Carlsbad General Plan. The General Plan land use designation is Residential Medium (RM), which anticipates medium density residential development ~ (4 to 8 du/ac). The project is providing 14 dwelling units that will yield 5.88 du/ac, within the anticipated range. The project includes a Zone Change from Residential Agriculture Zone (R-A 10,000) to Residential Density Multiple Zone (RD-M). A zone change is required to bring this project in compliance with the General Plan land use designation of RM. The project would not be able to develop consistent with the as a R-A-10,000 Zone and still achieve the minimum density required by the RM land use classification (4 du/ac). The project does not conflict with any applicable plans or policies. X. MINERAL RESOURCES—Would the project: a-b) No Impact. There is no indication that the subject property contains any known mineral resources that would be of future value to the region or the residents of the State. XL NOISE—Would the project: a) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The "Acoustical Analysis Report, Trails End Subdivision Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA, Project #A40326N2", by Eilar Associates Acoustical and Environmental Consulting (2005) reported that the traffic noise levels from Carlsbad Village Drive in the year 2020 will exceed the City's 60-dBA CNEL noise threshold for all units within the proposed development having a line of sight to Carlsbad Village Drive (Lots 2-6); therefore, these lots will require mitigation. The proposed ground level mitigation plan consists of a six-foot-high sound attenuation barrier along the southeastern property line fronting Carlsbad Village Drive. Prior to approval of building plans, Lots 2 -6 will require supplemental acoustical analysis of the exterior building design elements to ensure adequate noise attenuation to achieve noise levels below 45 CNEL in habitable residential space. b & d) Less than Significant Impact. The anticipated grading operation associated with the proposed tentative map would result in a temporary and minor increase in groundborne vibration and ambient noise levels. Following the conclusion of the grading, the ambient noise level and vibrations is expected to return to pre- existing levels. c) No Impact. The ambient noise levels on site were found to be consistent with the observed setting and intervening topography. e & 0 No Impact. The project is not within the 60 dBA CNEL influence area of McClellan-Palomar Airport. The above acoustical assessment states that no aircraft noise mitigation would be required for this project. Please reference the "Acoustical Analysis Report, Trails End Subdivision Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA, Project #A40326N2", prepared by Eilar Associates Acoustical and Environmental Consulting, dated June 29, 2005. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING—Would, the project: a) No Impact. The area surrounding the proposed development is designated for residential development and was analyzed in the City's Growth Management Plan accordingly. The proposed development's density by the tentative map is consistent with the City of Carlsbad General Plan. The GP land use designation is RM, j which anticipates medium density residential development (4 to 8 du/ac). The project is providing 14 dwelling units that will yield 5.88 du/ac, within the anticipated range. No major infrastructure facilities are proposed for extension to serve the project. b-c) No Impact. The project site is currently vacant therefore ho existing housing or people will require - ~— replacement housing elsewhere due to the development of the site. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES —Would the project: 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: 21 • Rev. 07/03/02 „ / a. Fire Protection? - b. Police Protection? c. Schools? d. Parks? e. Other public facilities? No Impact. The proposed project is in compliance with the City of Carlsbad's Growth Management Plan and is not exceeding the population projections anticipated for the site or the northwest quadrant. VFV. RECREATION—Would the project: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. The proposed project will not generate use that would substantially cause physical deterioration_to a regional or existing neighborhood park. In addition, the project is providing two common recreation areas. The central common recreation area is 3,794 square feet including a 1,000 square foot tot-lot. The second common area is 3,710 square foot passive recreation area. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The grading and construction of the proposed common recreation areas are developed within the scope of project grading and will not have an adverse effect on the environment. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC—Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? Less Than Significant Impact. The project will generate 112 Average Daily Trips (ADT) and 9 morning and 11 afternoon/evening peak hour trips. This traffic will utilize the following arterial roadway: Carlsbad Village Drive. Per the latest data, existing traffic on this arterial is 12,400 ADT (2002) and the 2002 peak hour level of service at the arterial intersection(s) impacted by the project is "A". The design capacities of the arterial roads effected by the proposed project is 20,000 to 40,000 vehicles per day. The project traffic would represent 0.9 % and 0.28 % of the existing traffic volume and the design capacity respectively. While the increase in traffic from the proposed project may be slightly noticeable, the street system has been designed and sized to accommodate traffic from the project and cumulative development in the City of Carlsbad. The proposed project would not, therefore, cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The impacts from the proposed project are, therefore, less than significant. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less Than Significant Impact. SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The Existing and Buildout average daily traffic (ADT) and Existing LOS on these designated roads and highways in Carlsbad is: Existing ADT* LOS Buildout ADT* Rancho Santa Fe Road 17-35 "A-D" 35-56 El Camino Real 27-49, "A-C" 33-62 Palomar Airport Road 10-57 "A-D" . 30-73 SR78 124-142 "F" 156-180 1-5 199-216 "D" 260-272 *The numbers are in thousands of daily trips. 22 Rev. 07/03/02 The Congestion Management Program's (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is "E", or LOS "F" if that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS "F" in 1990). Accordingly, all designated roads and highways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS. Note that the buildout ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region's general and community plans. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan and, therefore, its traffic was used in modeling the buildout projections. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS) "E" standard assumes implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on the design capacities of the designated roads and highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable levels 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 consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Airport. It would not, therefore, result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact assessed. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? No Impact. All 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. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. The proposed project is not requesting a parking 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 project has access to bus stops along Carlsbad Village Drive which can be accessed by pedestrians. The proposed project does not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS—Would the project: No Impact (a-g) - The proposed project development will be required to comply with all Regional Water Quality Control Board Requirements. In addition, the Zone 1 LFMP anticipated that the project site would be developed with residential uses thus wastewater treatment facilities were planned and designed to accommodate future development on the site. All public facilities, including water facilities, wastewater facilities, wastewater treatment facilities and drainage facilities, have been planned and designed to accommodate the growth projections for the City at build-out. The proposed project will increase the demand for these facilities. However, the proposed project would not result in an overall increase in the City's growth projection. Therefore, the project will not result in development that will result in a significant need to expand or construct new water facilities/supplies, wastewater - —— treatment or storm water drainage facilities. Existing waste disposal services are adequate to serve the proposed subdivision on site without exceeding landfill capacity. In addition, the proposed development will be required to comply with all federal, state, and local statues 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 fish or wildlife species, cause fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining 23 , Rev. 07/03/02 _^ ;5% levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range or rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California or prehistory? - •>'-' No Impact. The proposed project will not degrade the quality of the environment. The project site does not contain any sensitive fish or wildlife species. Therefore, the project will not reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species. The project site is currently undeveloped and 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. The project will not threaten the number of a plant or animal community. In addition, there are no.historic 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 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 standard, traffic standards, habitat and cultural resource protection regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that development within the City will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact. There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a cumulatively considerable impact on. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. As described above, the project would contribute to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the development is implemented. The County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The CMA had 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 impacts from the project to the regional circulation system are less than significant. With regard to any other potential impacts associated with the project, City standards and regulations will ensure that development of the site will not result in any significant cumulatively considerable impacts. 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, which will ensure the development of the site will not result in an adverse impact on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 24 Rev. 07/03/02 EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008. 1. Acoustical Analysis Report. Trails End Subdivision Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA, Project #A40326N2", prepared by Eilar Associates Acoustical and Environmental Consulting, dated June 29,2005. 2. Biological Resources Assessment for APN # 156-090-41 Carlsbad, California prepared by Planning Systems, dated June 10, 2005 (Planning Systems 2005). 3. City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study. November 1992. 4. City of Carlsbad Cultural Resources Map and the list of archeological sites prepared by San Diego State University, 1987. 5. Drainage Study and the Stormwater Management Plan prepared by Tait Consulting, Inc., dated September 2005. 6. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. 7. Geotechnical Grading Plan Review. Trails End Development, Northwest Corner of the Intersection of Donna Drive and Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California" prepared by Geosoils Incorporated, revised August 29, 2005. 25 Rev. 07/03/02 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -f- 1. Prior to recordation of a final map or issuance of grading permit, whichever occurs fist, the project shall pay habitat in-lieu mitigation fees according to the ratios and amounts established by the Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad. IN-LIEU MITIGATION REQUIREMENT (ACRES) HABITAT Non-Native Grassland Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (un- occupied) Eucalyptus Woodland Disturbed and ornamental EXISTING ACREAGE* 0.64 1.10 .69 0.32 IMPACTS FROM PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (ACRES) 0.64 1.10 .69 0.32 MITIGATION FEE RATIO 0.5:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 MITIGATION REQUIREMENT (ACRES) ' .32 1.10 .69 .32 NOISE 2. The proposed project shall construct, as shown on the grading plan, a six-foot-high solid, decorative masonry sound attenuation barrier along the southeastern property line fronting Carlsbad Village Drive. 3. Prior to the issuance of building permits Lots 2-6 will required to complete and submit a supplemental acoustical analysis of the exterior building design elements to ensure adequate noise attenuation to achieve noise levels below 45 CNEL in habitable residential space. 26 Rev. 07/03/02 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 1 of 1 c~o S CL S Q c3 o' T- I ON CO •*"• »w —~CO s: -QTO*" ES W CDE*lo o <.~ ^ oi_ r-- *-•<D •- *- 1280 3 0.,- W CO .E CO CD*i| .ss»!£-1 E o "m CO < .2 2 x- -^ 'CO O o uj v c w — ' i; CO — "- o TJisJ!i ni ir-1 13 UJ _co 1 r^ *—•- CD T! -o Q. £o> E ro 2 8"g"0 " ^2P-< c inoo CN i^.: Decembe0 gO nj CC S CD C Q.2 S E CD £ — SZ -g w .S5 co S^0) W •<- C -C f~3 •-.-•=: oo </) n_ > oCO 0 S T-CD _ -0 CN E 22J c c a> Q.-2 0 m E 0*= ro 0 0 rn ° ° WO) -*-• _. iflll_ co -Q o - §-J8 wc E re CD0) — -C 0 E JO CD 3 P S CO W UP! 11 122 < CD 0 E .0 < Q ro '5 c 5Z _j C C .0 3i- < 'i <" fs tO > o ~a D)0LU O = <D S § -5 Q: -2 te c -P O Q_ fl, c "o: a, JB § .2 =0. < (- S £ OQ ;iQ£i co 01:>E|•Bl-TBI CU D) Q) J ?s^-» [^'-^ - : _w r! ?;;; O) E"- :'» = 11 aQ. cuQ t>cu •— E ita. a>Q tJcu IIiaa. CDQ Q CU 1 .• • .'.-.••Prior to recordationgrading permit, whicpay habitat in-lieu mratios and amountsManagement Plan f<of Carlsbad. (See EThe proposed projecgrading plan, a six-fcsound attenuation b;property line frontihqPrior to issuance of 1required to completeacoustical analysis oelements to ensure £achieve noise levelsresidential space..*•ac0)a. QQ: ^3 (J'•e(0Q. TO O)c:•^ 0 'c 0E ficu .0"wcoQ.(/)0) sc<uOls< '•= OOJ-3 -^fIs Vc^c n0)X•s isracra QXLU igoing, cu: Departmmeasure.t, n —o . c IIIQ. .S E II 0 (D •'SQ. c 1=1 i c fc QO M £ w"craa. cO c ^sf(/> (O o> .3(ACO-IB- E~co ra .S> !*^•s ? "D5 13 " ra« cu 0) c-O-S•SSIp =E S •?•=.E W APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature 27 Rev. 07/03/02 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6034 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE TO CHANGE THE ZONING 4 DESIGNATION FROM RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL (R-A 10,000) TO RESIDENTIAL DENSITY-MULTIPLE ZONE (RD- M) ON A 2.79 ACRE SITE GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE 6 WEST SIDE OF DONNA DRIVE AND NORTH OF CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES 7 MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: TRAILS END 8 CASE NO: ZC 04-10 9 WHEREAS, Dennis Cunningham, "Developer," has filed a verified application 10 with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Chris Coseo, "Owner," described as 11 Portion of lot 7 of Section 32, Township 11 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, 13 County of San Diego, State of California, according to official plat thereof 14 ("the Property"); and ,,- WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Zone Change as shown on 17 Exhibit "ZC 04-10" dated March 1, 2006, attached hereto and on file in the Planning 18 Department, TRAILS END - ZC 04-10 as provided by Chapter 21.52 of the Carlsbad 1 Q Municipal Code; and 20 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 1st day of March, 2006, hold a 21 duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 22 ':' __ WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony 24 and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors 25 relating to the Zone Change. 26 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning 27 Commission as follows: 28 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing,- the Commission 2 RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of TRAILS END - ZC 04-10 based on the following findings: 3 Findings: 4 That the proposed Zone Change from Residential Agricultural (R-A 10,000) to Residential Density-Multiple Zone (RD-M) is consistent with the goals and policies of 5 the various elements of the General Plan, in that the proposed Zone Change is necessary to implement the Residential Medium Density (RM) General Plan Land 7 Use designation. o 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 Change from R-A 10,000 to RD-M, as shown on Exhibit 10 "ZC 04-10" attached hereto, implements the General Plan Land Use designation of RM. 11 3. That the Zone Change is consistent with the public convenience, necessity and general welfare, and is consistent with sound planning principles in that future residential uses 13 allowed by the proposed Zone Change are compatible with the existing surrounding residential uses. 14 Conditions:15 , fi 1. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and is subject to all conditions 17 contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 6033 incorporated herein by reference. 18" 19 20 21 22. 23 24 25 26 27 28 PC RESO NO. 6034 -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 "fees/exactions." You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 1st day of March 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Cardosa, Dominguez, and Whitton NOES: Commissioner Baker ABSENT: Commissioner Heineman and Segall ABSTAIN: MARTELL B. MONT£OMERYftphairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: 7X1 DON NEU Assistant Planning Director PC RESO NO. 6034 -3- 'me City of Carlsbad Planning Department ^EXHIBITS A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item No. P.C. AGENDA OF: March 1, 2006 Application complete date: August 10, 2005 Project Planner: Jessica Galloway Project Engineer: David Rick SUBJECT: ZC 04-10/CT 04-14/HDP 04-07/PUD 04-10 - TRAILS END - Request for a recommendation of approval to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a Zone Change to change the Zoning designation from Residential Agricultural (R-A 10,000) to Residential Density-Multiple Zone (RD-M), and approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit and Planned Development Permit to grade and subdivide a 2.79 acre site into 14 residential lots and 3 open space/recreation/private driveway lots on property generally located on the west side of Donna Drive and north of Carlsbad Village Drive within Local Facilities Management Zone 1. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 6033 RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 6034 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of Zone Change ZC 04- 10 and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6035, 6036 and 6037 APPROVING Tentative Tract Map CT 04-14, Hillside Development Permit HDP 04-07, and Planned Development Permit PUD 04-10, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. INTRODUCTION The applicant is proposing a Zone Change, Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development Permit, and a Hillside Development Permit to develop fourteen (14) twin homes on a 2.79-acre site, located west of Donna Drive and north of Carlsbad Village Drive. The applicant is proposing a Zone Change (ZC) from Residential Agricultural (R-A 10,000) to Residential Density-Multiple Zone (RD-M), which is consistent with the existing General Plan Land Use designation of Residential Medium (RM). The proposed Tentative Map (CT 04-14) will divide the parcel into 17 lots. Lots 1-14 are residential twin home lots, and lots 15-17 include the private driveway, community recreation area, and open space which will be maintained and owned by the Home Owners Association. The proposed development will impact 1.10 acres of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub and this impact will be mitigated consistent with the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP). III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The 2.79-acre project site is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 1. It is bordered to the north, south and west by existing single-family and multiple family residential neighborhoods and by a City of Carlsbad water tank to the east. Topographically, the site slopes o il-S ZC 04-10/CT 04-14/HDP 04-uT/PUD 04-10 - TRAILS END March 1,2006 Page 2 steeply from east to west and is covered primarily by Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub and Eucalyptus habitats. A Hillside Development Permit is required for development on steep slopes. The site was once part of the Eucalyptus tree farm that is now Hosp Grove but currently it is undeveloped and vacant. The only sensitive vegetation resource observed on site is the 1.10 acres of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (DCSS), and the project has been conditioned to pay habitat in-lieu mitigation fees. The proposed ZC is necessary to change the Residential Agricultural Zone (R-A 10,000) designation of the property to Residential Density-Multiple Zone (RD-M) to implement the Residential Medium Density (RM) General Plan Land Use designation. The project also requires approval of a Tentative Tract Map and a Planned Development Permit. The 14 proposed twin-home residential lots will all be greater than 3,750 square feet. Access to the project site is off Donna Drive from Carlsbad Village Drive. Grading for the project will require 7,010 cubic yards of cut, 26,410 cubic yards of fill, and an import of 19,400 cubic yards of material. Import of material is necessary to create the proposed pad elevations, to be sensitive to the existing residential neighborhoods to the south, and also to avoid excessive retaining walls on site. Overall, the project grading of the site is sensitive to the surrounding residential neighborhoods and the project is built as terraced pads. IV. ANALYSIS The project is subject to the following plans, ordinances and standards: A. General Plan Residential Medium Density (RM) Land Use designation; B. Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code); C. Residential Density Multiple Zone- (RD-M) (Chapter 21.24 of the Zoning Ordinance), and Planned Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.45 of the Zoning Ordinance); D. City Council Policy 44 (Neighborhood Architectural Guidelines) and Policy 66 (Principals for the Development of Livable Neighborhoods); E. Hillside Development Regulations (Chapter 21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) and Hillside Design Guidelines; F. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (Chapter 21.85 of the Zoning Ordinance); G. Growth Management Ordinance (Chapter 21.90 of the Zoning Ordinance) and Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan; and H. Habitat Management Plan (HMP). A. General Plan The General Plan Land Use designation for the project site is Residential Low-Medium (RM; 4-8 du/ac). The surrounding properties in Zone 1 have General Plan Land Use designations of Residential Low-Medium (RLM) and RM. The RM Land Use designation allows single-family and multiple residential development at a range of 4-8 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The RM range has a Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) of 6 du/ac. The density of the proposed subdivision is 5.88 du/ac. ZC 04-10/CT 04-14/HDP 04-u7/PUD 04-10 - TRAILS END March 1, 2006 Page 3 The proposed density of the project (5.88 du/ac) is slightly below the GMCP (6 du/ac) used for the purpose of calculating the City's compliance with Government Code Section 65584. The GMCP permits 14.33 residential lots on the 2.38 net acre site and the project proposes 14 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. The project complies with all elements of the General Plan as illustrated in Table A below: TABLE A: GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE ELEMENT Land Use Housing Public Safety Open Space & Conservation USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL, OBJECTIVE OR PROGRAM Site is designated for Residential Medium Density (RM; 4-8 du/ac) with a GMCP of 6 du/ac. Provision of affordable housing To require a minimum fire flow of water for fire protection Utilize Best Management Practices for control of storm water and to protect water quality PROPOSED USES & IMPROVEMENTS 14 twin home lots at 5.88 du/ac. The project will provide 2 onsite affordable housing units for sale. The project includes fire hydrants and all units will be sprinkled. Project will conform to all NPDES requirements. COMPLY? Yes Yes Yes Yes ZC 04-10/CT 04-14/HDP 04-u7/PUD 04-10 - TRAILS END March 1,2006 Page 4 TABLE A: GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE ELEMENT Noise Circulation USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL, OBJECTIVE OR PROGRAM Residential exterior noise standard of 60 dBA CNEL and interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL Require new development to construct roadway improvements needed to serve proposed development PROPOSED USES & IMPROVEMENTS The proposed project shall construct, as shown on the grading plan, a six-foot- high, solid, decorative masonry sound attenuation barrier along the southeastern property line fronting Carlsbad Village Drive. Prior to issuance of building permits Lots 2-6 will required to complete and submit a supplemental acoustical analysis of the exterior building design elements to ensure adequate noise attenuation to achieve noise levels below 45 CNEL in habitable residential space. Project will provide roadway improvements including Donna Drive and a new cul-de-sac to provide direct access to each lot on a private driveway. COMPLY? Yes Yes Yes B.Subdivision Ordinance The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed Tentative Tract Map and concludes that the subdivision complies with all applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20). The project is conditioned to install all infrastructure improvements concurrent with development. The proposed building setbacks will allow for adequate air circulation and the opportunity for passive heating and cooling. The applicant 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. Grading for the project will require 7,010 cubic yards of cut, 26,410 cubic yards of fill, and an import of 19,400 cubic yards of material. Import of material is necessary to create the proposed ZC 04-10/CT 04-14/HDP 04-u7/PUD 04-10 - TRAILS END March 1,2006 PageS pad elevations due to the existing slope conditions. Overall, the project will be sensitive to the adjacent residential neighborhoods, and the homes are terraced to limit the amount of grading. C. RDM Zone and Planned Development Regulations The site is currently zoned Residential Agriculture (R-A- 10,000). A Zone Change is proposed as part of the project to redesignate the site from R-A-10,000 to RD-M. This will result in the zoning for the site being consistent with the existing General Plan Land Use designation of RM. The proposed RD-M zone is also compatible with the existing adjacent residentially zoned properties. The project meets or exceeds all requirements of the RD-M (21.24) and Planned Development regulations (21.45.070) as outlined in the Table B below: TABLE B: RD-M AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE Standard Minimum lot/exclusive use area size Maximum lot coverage Lot width Building Height Setbacks RD-M Setbacks PUD Resident • Parking Guest Spaces Screening of Parking Area Required/Allowed 3,750 square feet -twin home (PUD) 60 % (RD-M) 60% on lots < 5,000 s/f (PUD) 25 foot minimum on cul-de-sac; twin home (PUD) 35 feet 3: 12 roof pitch 24 feet < 3: 12 roof pitch (PUD) Front: 20 feet Interior Yard: 5 feet Rear: 10 feet Front: 8 foot minimum from a driveway project Side yard (twin home); 25% of lot width; 1 0 foot minimum Building separation; Space 10 foot minimum 2 garage spaces per unit Six Spaces Screened from adjacent property Proposed 3,750 square feet 34% 25.5 foot minimum 35 feet with >3: 12 roof pitch 20 feet 10 feet 18 feet 20 foot minimum 10 foot minimum 22.4 foot minimum separation Each unit has a two- car garage Six guest parking bays provided Parking is provided adjacent to the central tot lot and will not be visible from adjacent properties or public streets. Comply? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ZC 04-10/CT 04-14/HDP 04-u7/PUD 04-10 - TRAILS END March 1,2006 Page 6 TABLE B: RD-M AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE Standard Recreation space Storage space Required/ Allowed 1 8 foot by 1 8 foot private yard area 200 square feet of common recreation area per unit; 2,800 s/f required 480 cubic feet or 392 cubic feet if in one location per unit Proposed 18 foot x 18 foot private rear yard area. 7,504 s/f of common recreation area provided Minimum of 480 cubic feet per unit provided in garages. Comply? Yes Yes Yes D. City Council Policy 44 (Neighborhood Architectural Design) and Policy 66 (Livable Neighborhoods) The proposed project complies with the applicable guidelines and principles of City Council Policy 44 and 66 regarding architectural design and livable neighborhoods as shown in Table C and D below, with the exception of one design principle of Policy 66. The project has been designed consistent with the natural topography of the site and therefore, not all of design principles were able to be met. The project design meets all of the Policy 44 and 66 guidelines, with the exception of Guideline # 2 of Policy 66. This guideline requires a "variety of garage configurations", due to the topography of the site, the project was unable to meet this design guideline. TABLE C: CITY COUNCIL POLICY 44 - NEIGHBORHOOD ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES Architectural Guideline 1 2 A minimum of 15% of the total number of homes shall be single-story structures. Single-story is defined as a maximum plate-line of 1 5 feet and a maximum building height of 20 feet. Lofts are permitted subject to CMC Section 21 .04.330. As an alternative to encourage homes with alley-loaded garages, a minimum of 20% of the homes shall be single-story for the front 20% of the home (overall depth of house times 20%). A maximum of 20% of the total number of homes are exempt from the requirement to have a single-story building edge. Compliance Comments 15% of 14 units requires 2.1 single story units. Unit type 3 is a single story unit with a basement and is provided two times within the project. No exemptions used. ZC 04-10/CT 04-14/HDP 04-u7/PUD 04-10 - TRAILS END March 1,2006 Page? TABLE C: CITY COUNCIL POLICY 44 - NEIGHBORHOOD ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES CONTINUED Architectural Guideline Compliance Comments The remaining 65% of the total number of homes shall comply with one of the following guidelines: • The home shall have a single-story building edge with a depth of not less than 8 feet and shall run the length of the building along one side except for tower elements. The roof covering the single-story element shall incorporate a separate roof plane and shall be substantially lower than the roof for the two-story element. Porches and porte-cochere elements shall qualify as a single-story edge. Houses with courtyards that are a minimum of 15 feet wide located along the side of the house and setback a minimum of 15 feet from the property line are not required to have a single-story building edge. • The home shall have a single-story building edge with a depth of not less than 5 feet and shall run the length of the building along one side. The roof of the single-story element shall be substantially lower than the roof for the two-story element of the building. . The home shall have a single-story building edge with a depth of not less than 3 feet for 40% of the perimeter of the building. 85% of the units, with the exception of unit type 3, comply by providing a single-story building edge with a depth of not less than 3 feet for 40% of the perimeter of the building. ZC 04-10/CT 04-14/HDP 04-u7/PUD 04-10 - TRAILS END March 1,2006 Page 8 TABLE C: CITY COUNCIL POLICY 44 - NEIGHBORHOOD ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES CONTINUED Architectural Guideline Compliance Comments For at least 66% of the homes in a project, there shall be at least three separate building planes on street side elevations of lots with 45 feet of street frontage or less and four separate building planes on street side elevations of lots with a street frontage greater than 45 feet. Balconies and covered porches qualify as a building plane. The minimum offset in planes shall be 18 inches and shall include, but not be limited to, building walls, windows, porches and roofs. The minimum depth between the faces of the forward-most plane and the rear plane on the front elevation shall be 10 feet. A plane must be a minimum of 30 sq. ft. to receive credit under this section. 85% of homes have at least three separate building planes on street side elevations. The minimum offset in building planes exceeds the minimum offset of 18 inches and the minimum depth between the faces of the forward-most plane and rear plane of 10 feet. Rear elevations shall adhere to the same criteria outlined in Number 4 above for front elevations except that the minimum depth between front and back planes on the rear elevation shall be 3 feet. Rear balconies qualify as a building plane. 71% of homes have at least three separate rear building planes. The minimum offset in building planes exceed the minimum of 18 inches and the 3-foot minimum depth between the faces of the forward-most plane and rear plane. For at least 66% of the homes in a project, one side elevation shall have sufficient offsets or cutouts so that the side yard setback averages a minimum of 8.5 feet. The project provides a minimum 10-foot side yard setback. At least 66% of exterior openings (door/windows) on every home in the project shall be recessed or projected a minimum of 2 inches and shall be constructed with wood, vinyl or colored aluminum window frames (no mill finishes). 100% of the windows are recessed or are projected and are vinyl framed. Fifty percent (50%) of the homes shall be designed with a covered front porch, open courtyard, or balcony (each with a minimum area of 60 square feet) located at the front of the dwelling. The front and sides of porches shall be open except for required and/or ornamental guardrails. A variety of roof elements shall be provided over porches. Porches may not be converted to living space. 71% of the homes have either an open courtyard or a second story balcony with a minimum area of 60 square feet. Floor plans in a project shall exhibit a variety of roof ridges and roof heights within a neighborhood. 100% of the homes exhibit a variety of roof ridges and roof heights. ZC 04-10/CT 04-14/HDP 04-u7/PUD 04-10 - TRAILS END March 1,2006 Page 9 TABLE C: CITY COUNCIL POLICY 44 - NEIGHBORHOOD ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES CONTINUED Architectural Guideline Compliance Comments 10 Seventy-five percent (75%) of the homes must have a front entry to the home that is clearly visible from the street. Walkways from the front door to the street are encouraged. 11 homes are required to have a visible entry from the street. All 14 units have minimal visibility due the site's topography and design. 11 For projects of 30 or more dwelling units, a minimum of 3 different floor plans shall be provided. Each floor plan should have at least 3 different front elevations and 3 different exterior color schemes. Not applicable to this project. 12 Chimneys and chimney caps shall be in scale with the size of the home. No more than 2 chimneys shall be allowed for homes on lots in planned developments having an area less than 7,500 square feet. Fireplaces are not part of the project design. 13 In addition to the previous requirements, a minimum of 4 of the design elements, such as those listed in Table "A" below, shall be incorporated into the front building fa9ade(s) of the home. All homes have varied window shapes, columns, lintels, dormers and wood accents. 14 If any elevation of the home is adjacent to and visible from a Circulation Element roadway, such elevation is also required to include 4 design elements such as those listed in Table "A" below. Table A DESIGN ELEMENTS All homes visible from a public street have varied window shapes, columns, lintels, dormers, and wood accents. Knee braces Exposed roof rafter tails Arched elements Window and door lintels Towers Varied window shapes Dormers Columns Exterior wood elements Accent materials such as brick, stone, shingles, wood or siding TABLE D: CITY COUNCIL POLICY 66 - LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS Principle Compliance Comments Building Facades, Front Entries, Porches Facades create interest and character and should be varied and articulated to provide visual interest to pedestrians. Clearly identifiable front doors and porches enhance the street scene and create opportunities for greater social interaction within the neighborhood. Building entries and windows should face the street. Front porches, bay windows, courtyards and balconies are encouraged. The dwelling units all have second floor balconies that front the street. ZC 04-10/CT 04-14/HDP 04-uT/PUD 04-10 - TRAILS END March 1,2006 Page 10 TABLE D: CITY COUNCIL POLICY 66 - LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS CONTINUED Principle Compliance Comments Garages Homes should be designed to feature the residence as the prominent part of the structure in relation to the street. A variety of garage configurations should be used to improve the street scene. This may include tandem garages, side-loaded garages, front-loaded garages, alley-loaded garages and recessed garages. Due to the topography of the project site and the required General Plan Land Use density the design of the development does not allow for a variety of garage configurations. Street Design An interconnected, modified (grid) street pattern should be incorporated into project designs when there are no topographic or environmental constraints. Interconnected streets provide pedestrians and automobiles many alternative routes to follow, disperse traffic and reduce the volume of cars on any one street in the neighborhood. Streets should be designed to provide both vehicular and pedestrian connectivity by minimizing the use of cul-de-sacs. The street network should also be designed to create a safer, more comfortable pedestrian and bicycling environment. Local residential streets should have travel and parking lanes, be sufficiently narrow to slow traffic, provide adequate access for emergency and service vehicles and emergency evacuation routes for residents and include parkways with trees to form a pleasing canopy over the street. Local residential streets are the public open space in which children often play and around which neighborhoods interact. Within this context, vehicular movement should be additionally influenced through the use of City-accepted designs for traffic calming measures. The project is proposed on a small infill lot with topography that does not allow for grid streets. Twelve of the 14 dwelling units front onto a private drive cul-del-sac. The other 2 dwellings units take access from Donna Drive, a public street. The private drive is adequate to serve the 12 dwelling units and includes full improvements that will allow safe pedestrian movement throughout the site. The 2 dwelling units that take access from Donna Drive have rear yard access to the community tot lot. Parkways Street trees should be planted in the parkways along all streets. Tree species should be selected to create a unified image for the street, provide an effective canopy, avoid sidewalk damage and minimize water consumption. The project provides a fully landscaped parkway between the sidewalk and private drive. O ZC 04-10/CT 04-14/HDP 04-u7/PUD 04-10 - TRAILS END March 1,2006 Page 11 TABLE D: CITY COUNCIL POLICY 66 - LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS CONTINUED Principle Compliance Comments Pedestrian Walkways Pedestrian walkways should be located along or visible from all streets. Walkways (sidewalks or trails) should provide clear, comfortable and direct access to neighborhood schools, parks/plazas and transit stops. Primary pedestrian routes should be bordered by residential fronts, parks or plazas. Where street connections are not feasible (at the end of cul-de-sacs), pedestrian paths should also be provided. The project provides a sidewalk along the private driveway and improvements to Donna Drive, which includes a sidewalk. Centralized Community Recreation Areas Park or plazas, which serve as neighborhood meeting places and as recreational activity centers should be incorporated into all planned unit developments. As frequently as possible, these parks/plazas should be designed for both active and passive uses for residents of all ages and should be centrally located within the project. Parks and plazas should be not be sited on residual parcels, used as buffers from surrounding developments or to separate buildings from streets. The project is providing 7,504 square feet of common recreation area which includes a central tot lot with picnic tables and benches, and a passive recreation area with tables and benches. E. Hillside Development Regulations The project site is characterized as a hillside site and is required to process a Hillside Development Permit. The site qualifies as a hillside slope in that the project slope is over 15 feet in height and has slopes greater than 15 percent. The site is an older manufactured slope created by previous grading and agricultural tree farming activity. The project is proposing 7,010 cubic yards of cut, 26,410 cubic yards of fill, and an import of 19,400 cubic yards of material. This will result in a volume of grading equaling 9,500 cubic yards per acre which is considered "potentially acceptable" under the Hillside Development Regulations of the Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.95. The applicant was required to submit findings justifying the reasons for the amount of grading subject to the approval of the Planning Director and City Engineer. Import of material is necessary to create the proposed stepped pad elevations due to the existing slope conditions. Overall, the project will be sensitive to the adjacent residential neighborhoods and the homes are terraced to limit the amount of grading. Additional grading to create the building pads and road way will result in variable height retaining walls up to a maximum height of 6 feet. The project is down slope from the adjacent developments and will be hidden from public view with the exception of the two units fronting onto Donna Drive. The project is in compliance with the Hillside Development Regulations of Chapter 21.95 as outlined in Table E below. ZC 04-10/CT 04-14/HDP 04-u7/PUD 04-10 - TRAILS END March 1,2006 Page 12 TABLE E - HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Standard Volume of Grading Acceptable = 0 - 7,999 cubic yards per acre Potentially acceptable = 8,000 - 10,000 cubic yards per acre Unacceptable = > 10,000 cubic yards per acre Slope Height Not to exceed 40 feet in height Contour Grading Screening of slopes Hillside/Hilltop architecture Slope edge setback Roadway design Hillside Drainage - drainage benches Proposed Plan 9,500 cu yds/acre; potentially acceptable 30 feet in height is the approximate maximum slope height. The applicant has proposed contour grading the maximum extent possible Site is thoroughly screened by existing landscaping and open space to the west and north. The remainder of the site sits below public views from public streets. The buildings are designed with split pads and stepped footings to limit the amount of the grading and to terrace with the slopes. The roofs are oriented in the same direction as the slopes. No structures proposed on the slope edge or hilltop pad. No grading related impacts to roadways or to roadway design No drainage benches required Complies? Yes; with the findings listed in the resolution for the Hillside Development Permit which adequately justify the amount of grading Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ZC 04-10/CT 04-14/HDP 04-u7/PUD 04-10 - TRAILS END March 1,2006 Page 13 F. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance The proposed project involves the creation of residential units through a subdivision and, therefore, must provide two dwelling units of affordable housing to lower-income households as specified in the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (Chapter 21.85 of the Zoning Ordinance). Given that the project involves fourteen (14) dwelling units, the applicant is proposing to meet the inclusionary housing requirement for lower-income households by entering into an Affordable Housing Agreement to restrict 2 of the 14 proposed units as affordable units, subject to City Council approval. By entering into the agreement prior to building permit issuance, the development is providing its fair share of housing affordable to lower income households and, therefore, is consistent with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. G. Growth Management Regulations The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 1 in the northwest 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 F below. TABLE F: GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE STANDARD City Administration Library Waste Water Treatment Parks Drainage Circulation Fire Open Space Schools Sewer Collection System Water IMPACTS 48.67 sq. ft. 25.96 sq. ft. 14EDU . 1 0 acre 3.2 CFS Basin A 140ADT(14/unit) Station No. 1 0 acres Carlsbad Unified (E=3.27/M=1.639/HS = 2.0188) 14EDU 7,700 GPD COMPLIANCE Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes The proposed project is .22 units below the Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) for RM properties. The unit yield of the 2.38 net acre property at the GMCP (6 du/ac) is 14.22 units and 14 units are proposed. H. 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 (tree farming) and then abandoned for many years. The project site is not located within an existing or proposed HMP hardline preserve area or standards area. Pursuant to the HMP the project is conditioned to pay non-native grassland, Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (unoccupied), eucalyptus woodland, and disturbed and ornamental habitat in-lieu mitigation fees to mitigate the loss of the various habitat resources. ZC 04-10/CT 04-14/HDP 04-u 7/PUD 04-10- TRAILS END March 1,2006 Page 14 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. The environmental impact assessment identified potentially significant impacts to biological resources and noise and mitigation measures have been incorporated into the design of the project or have been placed as conditions of approval for the project such that all potentially significant impacts have now been mitigated to below a level of significance. Consequently, a Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was published in the newspaper and sent to the State Clearinghouse for public agency review. No comments were received during the 20 day public review period from November 18, 2005 to December 20, 2005. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6033 (Mit. Neg. Dec.) 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6034 (ZC) 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6035 (CT) 4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6036 (HDP) 5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6037 (PUD) 6. Location Map 7. Background Data Sheet 8. Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form 9. Disclosure Form 10. Reduced Exhibits 11. Full Size Exhibits "A" - "P" dated March 1, 2006 .J BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: ZC 04-10/CT Q4-14/HDP 04-07/PUD 04-10 CASE NAME: TRAILS END APPLICANT: Dennis Cunningham REQUEST AND LOCATION: Request for a recommendation of approval to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a Zone Change to change the Zoning designation from Residential Agricultural (RA - 10.000) to Residential Density- Multiple Zone (RD-M). and approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit and Planned Development Permit to grade and subdivide a 2.79 acre site into 14 residential lots and 3 open space/recreation/private driveway lots on property generally located on the west side of Donna Drive and north of Carlsbad Village Drive within Local Facilities Management Zone 1. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Portion of lot 7 of Section 32. Township 11 South. Range 4 West. San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to official plat thereof. APN: 156-090-41-00 Acres: 2/79 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 17 Lots / 14 Units GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation: Residential Medium (RM) Density Allowed: 4-8 du/ac Density Proposed: 5.88 du/ac Existing Zone: Residential Agriculture (RA-10.000) Proposed Zone: RD-M Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use: General Plan Current Land Use Site RA- 10,000 RM Vacant North RA-10,000 Residential Low-Medium Single family Residential (RLM) Subdivision South Planned Community (P-C) RM Multiple-family East RA-10,000 RLM Water tank West P-C Open Space (OS) Open Space PUBLIC FACILITIES School District: Carlsbad Unified Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 14 EDUs ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Mitigated Negative Declaration, issued November 21. 2005 Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated_ Other, CITY OF CARLSBAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM (To be Submitted with Development Application) PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT: FILE NAME AND NO: ZC 04-10/CT 04-14/HDP 04-07/PUD 04-10 - Trails End LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: I GENERAL PLAN: Residential Medium (RM) ZONING: Residential Density - Multiple (HD-M) DEVELOPER'S NAME: Dennis Cunningham ADDRESS: 5835 Avenida Encinas. Ste. 112 Carlsbad. CA 92008 PHONE NO.: 760-931-6619 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 156-090-41-00 QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 2.79 acres ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: As soon as possible A. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 48.67 B. Library: Demand in Square Footage = 25.96 C. Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) 14 EDUs D. Park: Demand in Acreage = .10 E. Drainage: Demand in CFS = 3.2 CFS Identify Drainage Basin = A (Identify master plan facilities on site plan) F. Circulation: Demand in ADT = 140 (Identify Trip Distribution on site plan) G. Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 1 H. Open Space: Acreage Provided = N/A I. Schools: Carlsbad Unified fE=3.27/M=1.639/HS = 2.0188) (Demands to be determined by staff) J. Sewer: Demands in EDU 14 EDUs Identify Sub Basin = JJ3 (Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan) K. Water: Demand in GPD = 7.700 GPP L. The project is .22 units below the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance. City of Carlsbad Planning Department DISCLOSURE STATEMENT : Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership ir.ieresrs or. a!! appi:c2:ior.5 wr.-.rr. : discretionary action or. the pan of the Cir>- Council or any appointed Board. Com~:55ior. o* C The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application subnr.ruL Your pros; be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print. Note: Person is defined as "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, associanon. social dub. rratcmai organization, corporation, estate, mist, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other counry. cir\ and county ^ir> municipality, dismct or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a uni:." 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 ALL persons having a financial interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals ownme more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE ULAN 10% OF THE SHARES. PLEASE INDICATE NON- APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW If a publicly-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) f | ^|/V^_ Corp/Pan^ Title Address.Address OWNER (Not the owner's agent) Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e. partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10%:OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv- owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person. Title Corp/Part Title JJLC Address 3 t4.(o £)o(gT t4 Liis"jE>g. Address. (,1 NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST If any person identified pursuant to ( I } or (2) above is a nonprofit organ :f2:io.-'-rr : — _;; names and addresses of ANY person sernnc as an cfYicer cr director of :::•: .-.-: -r: organization or as trustee or benailciar. o::r.z Nor; ProfiiTnJS! _ Nor. Pron:Tn:i: __ Title _ TrJe _ : _ : _ Address Address. Have vou had more/man S251S250 worth of business transacted with any member of Cir> s:n: Boards. Commissions. Committees and or Council within the past nveive (12) mon:,i>" fives No If yes, please mdicaterperson(s):_ NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. 'certify\that all the above information is true and correc^wq thej>cst of my knowledge. K<£ -o/Lf\ Sgnature oower/date v u? d)6cc af applicant/date r~])&}1/Tt^ i^^^ Pnntpi^ype name of owner Pnm or type name of applicant Signature of owner/applicant's agent if applicabie/date Pnm or type name of owner/applicant's agent c\ g—al T ifr °T 'AT^rii-<.-''-•* ••U.-JT,^ w "i •_. i. ' j- vv.-ataginfi^ataaia 0001 » 0001 l 'Wd 61-Ot-Zl 9002/9 1/EO '3*P'WWl-SlIVHJ.\dVW-NHI\3«a\P"3-s[n!Jj.vi SSIfi li - 1 3" 0001 ^£:c[ 9002/9 t'/tb '3 \m JLr QN3 S1IVU1 III •Oil -JL- "\r~ 0 I m ocoo 8! OCoo u. o DC Oo 111OL z _JQu U. OOoc LJL z ^o Q LU J !Wd013A3Q QN3 SllVdl lWdO13A3Q QN3 SllVdl Hu. t ^sI ccoo_lu. o (Ol l u.OOcc Xa. CM UJ ft! Planning Commission Minutes March 1,2006 Page 10 EXHIBITS 6. ZC 04-10/CT 04-14/HDP 04-07/PUD 04-10 - TRAILS END - Request for a recommendation of approval to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a Zone Change to change the Zoning designation from Residential Agricultural (R-A 10,000) to Residential Density-Multiple Zone (RD-M), and approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit and Planned Development Permit to grade and subdivide a 2.79-acre site into 14 residential lots and 3 open space/recreation/private driveway lots on property generally located on the west side of Donna Drive and north of Carlsbad Village Drive within Local Facilities Management Zone 1. Mr. Neu introduced Item 6 and stated Associate Planner Jessica Galloway would make the Staff presentation. Chairperson Montgomery asked the applicant if he wanted to proceed with the hearing with only five Commissioners present. The applicant stated yes. Chairperson Montgomery opened the public hearing on Item 6. Ms. Galloway gave a detailed presentation on the project and stated she would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any questions of Staff. Commissioner Baker asked for clarification of language in the Staff Report, which says the grading onsite will be "potentially acceptable under the Hillside Ordinance." Ms. Galloway stated that "potentially acceptable" is a range and it is approved by the Planning Director and the City Engineer. Commissioner Baker asked what the threshold number is and where this project falls in that range. Ms. Galloway stated the potentially acceptable range is 8,000 to 10,000 cubic yards. This project has 9,500 cubic yards per acre. Commissioner Baker inquired where the 26,000 cubic yards of fill will be on the project. David Rick, Assistant Engineer, stated that almost the entire project will have fill and also indicated the area of cut on an exhibit. Commissioner Baker asked if there will be retaining walls on the property. Ms. Galloway stated that there are retaining walls located between each of the units and the homes themselves will act as retaining walls. Commissioner Baker asked what types of new techniques are available to help areas with potential drainage issues. Mr. Rick stated that the biggest concern with drainage on the site is where it flows from the subject property westerly to the open space lot to the west. The onsite drainage is being taken care of by routing through the streets and various inlets and surface drainage around the homes. Once the drainage reaches the west end of the property, the drainage sheet flows across that property and the applicant is trying to mimic that sheet flow with the new development and also reduce the quantities so that it is compatible with the amount of flow that is occurring presently. That is being done by replacing a swale that will have outlets at various points that will let the water flow out at dispersed locations. There will also be an underground storage vault that will collect another portion of the property drainage that will store the water before outletting it through a 6-inch pipe that will surface flow across the property. The idea is to limit the quantity and the velocity of the water so that it does not cause erosion or slope damage. Commissioner Cardosa asked how the maintenance for the drainage vault is set up. Mr. Rick stated a Stormwater Management Plan is required to be submitted with the project. The plan is required to address how that vault will be maintained. Commissioner Cardosa inquired about the crossflow versus sheeting. Mr. Rick stated along the brow ditch there is a 25-foot spacing between the outlets. Commissioner Cardosa asked if Staff feels the landscaping will adequately screen the project. Ms. Galloway stated Staff feels the landscaping is adequate. There will also be a required 6-foot sound wall along Carlsbad Village Drive, which will further screen the property. Chairperson Montgomery asked if there are additional 5-foot retaining walls along the back end of some of the properties. Ms. Galloway stated that was correct and also indicated on an exhibit where the retaining walls will be located. Planning Commission Minutes March 1,2006 Page 11 Commissioner Dominguez asked about the composite that will be used for a walkway within the project. Ms. Galloway stated the composite is "grasscrete" which is similar to cement blocks where grass can grow in between. Chairperson Montgomery asked if Staff researched what the impacts would be to the site if the amount of fill was drastically reduced. Mr. Rick stated that it would be difficult to determine the number of units that could be constructed based on a given reduction in fill. There are too many variables to adequately define the impacts. Chairperson Montgomery asked if the majority of the fill for this project is to establish the grade and base elevation needed for the street. Mr. Rick stated that is correct. There may be ways to reduce the height of the fill and still get less units but he would not be able to estimate how many less units there would be. Commissioner Dominguez asked if the majority of the slopes on and near the site were originally manufactured slopes. Ms. Galloway stated yes. Chairperson Montgomery asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Dennis Cunningham, PO Box 130522, Carlsbad, representing the applicant, made a presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Baker asked how long the current owners have owned this property. Mr. Cunningham stated that it would be about three years this April. Chairperson Montgomery opened public testimony on Item 6. Diana Cook, 3002 Wintergreen Dr., Carlsbad, commented that the Pacific View Estates HOA had submitted a letter to the Commission and stated that there are three main concerns that the HOA would like to have addressed: density of the project, traffic and safety regarding access from Donna Drive; and irrigation and landscaping along Donna Drive. Lori Smith, 2092 Avenue of the Trees, Carlsbad, representing the Buena Woods II HOA, stated the common area behind Lots 7, 8, 9, and 10 designated as passive recreation/open area is a huge concern because of past documented loitering and crimes occurring in that area. Also, there will not be any Police Department access because Avenue of the Trees is a private street and has a private security company to patrol the area. The proposed recreation area including the picnic tables is likely to increase the amount of loitering and crime in the area. Ms. Smith asked if the area could be designated as open space. Ms. Smith also feels that the proposed density for this area is too high for the area. She further commented that the amount of habitat to be removed from the site is too much. David Johnson, 2076 Avenue of the Trees, Carlsbad, stated his concerns regarding the Environmental Impact Assessment. He further stated that the project should not be approved as proposed. Susan Gardner, 2902 Austin Terrace, Carlsbad, asked if the project is consistent with the General Plan. She further stated her concerns regarding traffic and safety issues, specifically the width of the roads. Robert Haverkamp, 2048 Avenue of the Trees, Carlsbad, stated that the drainage is too close to Ms. Smith's house at about 10 feet. He also stated that Ms. Smith would be looking at a massive wall of development. In addition, a gate should be added around the recreation area by Ms. Smith's house to keep nonresidents from loitering at the park. Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any other members of the audience to speak on the item. Seeing none, he closed public testimony on the item. Chairperson Montgomery asked the applicant to respond to the questions raised by the speakers. Chris Coseo, 3146 Quiet Hills Drive, Escondido, stated he would like to remedy the consternation with the neighbors of the project. He stated that he would take care of the irrigation and landscaping in front of the project. He stated that the access cannot get any closer to Carlsbad Village Drive because it would be a Planning Commission Minutes March 1,2006 Page 12 traffic hazard. Mr. Coseo further stated that once homes are built there it would greatly reduce the number of transients that currently walk across the property. He also stated that when building permits are pulled for the project, a landscape plan will be submitted which can be scrutinized and, if needed, more trees can be added to the site. The sidewalk at the bottom of the site can be removed if needed. Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Dominguez asked if Mr. Coseo would be willing to substantially modify the area between the proposed project and the existing adjacent homes. Mr. Coseo stated he would definitely be willing to modify the plan as necessary. He added that a condition can be added that the perimeter needs to be screened with trees. Commissioner Whitton asked what type of material "grasscrete" is. Mr. Coseo stated the sidewalk can be changed to the interlocking blocks that allows grass to grow between them. Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any further questions of Staff. Seeing none, he asked Staff to respond to the other issues raised by the speakers. Ms. Galloway clarified the issue regarding the zoning and allowed density. She commented the proposed recreation area is not a required area and the applicant has proposed to address that. She also addressed the issues regarding esthetics of the project and habitat. The project meets the height requirements. Mr. Rick addressed the issues regarding the proposed access and site distance. Mr. Rick stated that because of the street being a private street and is part of a PUD, it does not have to comply with the Livable Street Standards. Therefore, the street width of 28 feet is adequate per the ordinance. Mr. Rick further stated that it appears the drainage vault can be moved further east so that will address the issue regarding the draining being too close to Ms. Smith's house. A gated entrance to the project can be added as long as it has the correct type of lock box installed. Mr. Rick commented that changing some of the concrete to "grasscrete" is of concern to Staff due to the 13 percent slopes in the area. The concern is with using the "grasscrete" and the stability for vehicle load in those particular areas. Mr. Rick stated there may be another alternative that can be used instead. Ms. Galloway proposed using a crib wall or landscape wall instead of the retaining wall located at the western property line on the project. Commissioner Baker asked about the irrigation and landscaping of about 30 trees along Donna Drive. Ms. Galloway stated that Donna Drive currently is not fully improved at this time. Once this project is approved, it will be fully improved and all of the required maintenance will fall to the new development. Chairperson Montgomery asked what the new width of Donna Drive will be once it is fully improved. Mr. Rick stated it will be 40 feet curb to curb and it is currently 32 feet. Ms. Galloway commented that it will include curb, gutter and sidewalk, driveway, and landscaping which creates a sort of green beltway. Chairperson Montgomery asked Staff to address the issue of the large retaining wall with the homes above it which appears to give the look of a "tower." Ms. Galloway stated that the maximum height for a retaining wall is 6 feet. The majority of the retaining walls that are proposed with this project are 5 feet with a 2:1 slope. The units are all terraced. The homes seem higher, but the peaks of the roofs are farther away from the rear. Commissioner Dominguez stated that he was concerned about the availability of the type of material for the accessway. He asked what the grade will be at the point where the vault will be. Mr. Rick stated that it will be 13.5 percent. Commissioner Dominguez asked if the concern is that the grasscrete would provide enough traction for a heavier vehicle. Mr. Rick stated that at that percentage it could be a problem but he wanted to have the option of looking into other choices that might be able to handle both concerns. Commissioner Cardosa asked if a washed aggregate could be an option in those areas where the slopes might be too steep. Mr. Rick stated that a washed aggregate or stamped concrete would work. Commissioner Cardosa asked about Ms. Smith's comment about being 7 feet from the property line of Planning Commission Minutes March 1,2006 Page 13 the proposed house and if that complies with City code. Ms. Galloway stated that the property line from the proposed project and the existing home is 7 feet; however, the property line to the next adjacent residence is a considerable distance and there is buffer included in there which will be landscaped. Commissioner Cardosa asked what the differential is in elevations between rooftop to rooftop from Ms. Smith's home to the closest proposed home. Mr. Rick stated that Ms. Smith's rooftop would be at roughly the same elevation as the garage floor of Lot 7 and 8. The rooftop of that house on Lot 7 and 8 will be about 12 to 15 feet tall. DISCUSSION Chairperson Montgomery stated that the developer has indicated his willingness to accommodate the neighbors as best as he can. Commissioner Whitton stated his support of the project. Commissioner Dominguez commented that this is an extremely difficult piece of property to develop and the proposed project is extremely viable. He further commented that the applicant is willing to deal with and to accommodate the neighbors. Commissioner Cardosa stated that he concurred and that it would be beneficial that all the proposed changes be written so that it can be followed through with the Planning Director and he can support the project. Commissioner Baker stated her fellow Commissioners have stated it accurately. She does not feel a gate should be added to that open space area. Chairperson Montgomery asked about the plantings along the western edge of the open space area and if there are any issues with plantings or landscape screening in that area. Mr. Rick stated there is a sewer easement that runs along that area. Low lying shrubs or ground cover would be the extent of the plantings, but trees would not be allowed. Chairperson Montgomery asked if the easement is proposed. Mr. Rick stated it would be a proposed easement by the developer on the property. Ms. Mobaldi asked for clarification regarding the added or modified conditions. She stated there was consensus for an additional landscape buffer in the southeast corner of the project to separate the proposed and existing projects. She further stated that there did not seem to be any consensus regarding the removal of the benches and sidewalks. Commissioner Whitton stated that he feels it is up to the developer and Staff because there needs to be some sort of access for vehicles to get to that area. Commissioner Dominguez stated because that area was an extra by the developer, perhaps it could be moved to another location on the property and it could be a landscaped area, not a recreational area. Commissioner Cardosa commented that in his opinion the benches would not make that much of a difference. People will loiter regardless. He feels the best use for the area could be determined between the Planning Director, Staff, and the developer with input from the community. Mr. Neu asked for clear direction from the Commission as to what they would like to see in the area. Chairperson Montgomery stated that there is consensus for a substantial increase in landscaping along the south and southwest corner of the property which could force the move of the drainage vault if it is needed. Removing the sidewalk all the way down and replacing it with either grasscrete, washed aggregate, stamped concrete, or some other alternative if required in the sloped areas of access. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Cardosa, and duly seconded, that Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 6033 recommending adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 6034 recommending approval of Zone Change ZC 04-10 and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6035, 6036, and 6037 approving Planning Commission Minutes March 1,2006 Page 14 Tentative Tract Map CT 04-14, Hillside Development Permit HDP 04-07, and Planned Development Permit PUD 04-10, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein including a condition stating "The landscape buffer in south, southwest corner of the property be enhanced to the satisfaction of the Planning Director to provide additional separation between this project and the project to the west. Some type of surfacing be added to the access land in order to discourage skateboarding." VOTE: 4-1-2 AYES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Cardosa, Dominguez, and Whitton NOES: Commissioners Baker ABSENT: Commissioner Segall ABSTAIN: Commissioner Heineman Chairperson Montgomery closed the public hearing on the item and thanked Staff for their presentations. June 26, 2006 Carlsbad City Council Carlsbad, California Mayor City CouncU City Manager City Attorney City Clerk Re: Trail's End The Pacific View HOA would like to, again, voice our objections to the current plans for the Trails End Development at Donna and Carlsbad Village Drive. They are, as stated in previous correspondence: 1) Traffic safety at the egress on Donna Drive Donna does not have a great deal of traffic. A current reading showed approximately 300 cars in a 24 hour period. (This was the last week of school and many seniors were not driving their usual trips.) However, it does not change the danger at the corner in question. Even a rate of 300/day is approximately one car every 3 minutes during a normal 15 hour driving day. 2) Multiple unit housing When the homeowners we represent purchased their homes, the site in question was listed as low density on the General Plan and by zone. Surrounding home values may not be considered when rezoning, but is, in fact, a reality. When realtors consider LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION in determining value, the neighboring homes are considered. Having the only duplex on Donna at the entrance to Pacific View Estates is poor planning. It changes the feeling that our CC&R's strives to create. It is unfortunate that the Trails End developer has incurred costs, but they do not compare to the investment each Pacific View homeowner has in his home. Since the Trails End group purchased the land 5 years ago, as stated in the last council meeting, it was low density then and they could not depend upon this change in zoning. 3) Lack of due process It seems that the Trails End plan was well through the process before the surrounding homeowners were made aware. This leads us to question why the Carlsbad General Plan was modified without notification. Were hearings held before the change in General Plan that made this site high density? Isn't it normal to send notification by mail to those effected by changes? What is the process? No homeowner was aware of the amended General Plan until we attended the Planning Commission meeting. Had we been heard at the time that the Plan was changed, we could not be objecting and the Trails End developer would not be incurring additional costs. Thank You, Pacific View HOA JUN 2 7 2006 CITY OF CARLSBADCITY CLERK'S OFFICE June 22, 2006 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AGENDA ITEM #. Mayor 1 c: City Council City Manager City Attorney City Clerk Bud Lewis, Mayor and City Council Members City of Carlsbad, CA Subject: Reasons why the proposed Trails End development should be modified Dear Mayor Lewis and Council Members: This letter concerns the proposed Trails End development located at the northwest corner of Donna Drive and Carlsbad Village Drive, which is coming up for City Council consideration on June 27. We have several strong objections to the project as currently planned. The development will have 14 living units, in 7 duplex buildings. Only one of these buildings will face directly onto Donna Drive. The other six buildings will face a new road within the development. That road will connect to Donna Drive via a steep access road adjacent to the two driveways for the one building that will face directly onto Donna Drive. Thus the only access to the development will be from Donna Drive. Our main objections are the access from Donna Drive, and the high density of the housing units relative to the existing neighborhood from which that access will occur. 1. The access road and the two adjacent driveways will enter Donna Drive in a blind area just around the curve where Austin Terrace turns into Donna Drive. Cars exiting the new development will not be able to see cars approaching the curve from Austin Terrace, nor be seen by them (see figure below). This curve already has a fair amount of traffic at certain times of the day, and some cars go around this curve at excessive speeds, creating a risk for any access points that are not visible to cars approaching this curve. 2. The density of the proposed project exceeds that of the surrounding area on Donna Drive/Austin Terrace, which is where the proposed access point is. Furthermore there would be just one new duplex building facing this street. It will look very strange to see one duplex building on a street where every other home is a single family building. 3. The development will only have 6 common use parking spaces for 14 families. Any extra cars that cannot find parking in the driveways or the common parking spots will probably end up parking on Donna Drive/Austin Terrace, further reducing the visibility near this blind curve. We recommend that the access road for this development should come off Hosp Way, where there is already a 3-way intersection with a stop sign. That would eliminate the access road off Donna Drive, but what about the single building in the development that faces onto Donna Drive? The two driveways for that building would still have the same safety issues near the blind curve. We believe that the building that would face Donna Drive should be eliminated, or relocated so that it faces the new road interior to the development. This makes sense for safety reasons as well as aesthetics (referring to our previous comment about the strange appearance of just one duplex building on a street where every other home is a single family unit). Also, the existing homes along Hosp Way are already higher density than those along Donna Drive/Austin Terrace, so if this new development is going to be higher density, it makes more sense for it to have access off Hosp Way where the existing homes have a similar density. The Hosp Way access road would also not have to be as steep as the proposed access road off Donna Drive. We hope that the City will require the development to move its access road from Donna Drive to Hosp Way, eliminate or relocate the single building that would face Donna Drive, and consider reducing the density of this development. We have heard that the City has a need or requirement to provide a certain number of higher density housing units over the next several years, but this is the wrong location for that, and the numbers are too small to be significant to the City's overall requirements anyway. Sincerely, Ronald and Mary Sea 2918 Austin Terrace Carlsbad, CA 92008 Attached figure is a photo from Google Earth, where I have superimposed a rough outline of the proposed development (in blue) and the proposed access roads and driveways (in yellow) off Donna drive, based on diagrams from the Planning commission Report. This illustrates, more clearly, the location of the access roads relative to the existing streets and buildings. AGENDA ITEMS. Mayor 7 c: City Council City Manager City Attorney City ClerkThe Office of the City Clerk June 16,2006 City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008 PUBLIC HEARING for PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE TRAILS END - ZC 04 - 10 This letter is a follow up letter to our Associations letter dated February 27, 2006. The primary purpose of this letter is to request that the City incorporate specific items in the Development Agreement with the Applicant to ensure the least possible disruption to the existing residents during the street widening, grading & construction process. If there is any reason these items cannot be incorporated, please let us know before the Development Agreement is finalized. TRAFFIC CONFLICTS & SAFETY Present Situation Habitual speeding & drivers cutting the corner where Donna Drive meets Austin Terrace occur many times per day We would like to see solid yellow traffic lane lines installed at the corner. This would at least provide drivers some guidance as to where the center of the street is actually located. Fact: there has already been one roll-over accident at this corner. Situation with development of Trails End All of the present dangerous circumstances would be exacerbated. To-ft JUN 27 2006 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY CLERK'S OFFICE ov> Continued: Proposed Zoning Change-Trails End Page 2 of 4 The additional volume of traffic into Trails End & the new left hand turning movement into Trails End will surely increase accident potential. All of the above concerns could be properly addressed by moving the ingress/egress point to Hosp Way. Perhaps the City's good offices could be used to work out reasonable compensation for either "Avenue of the Trees" HOA or "Carlsbad-Woodridge" HOA for an easement across their property. If not the City's power of Eminent Domain for the greater public good can be used. PRECAUTIONS during the CONSTRUCTION PERIOD There are several items we believe need to be incorporated in the Development Agreement for the safety of existing surrounding residents: On Site Construction Parking There needs to be a provision requiring the developer/contractor to not park any construction equipment, materials, or contractor's employee's vehicles on or around PVE streets. Instead a temporary on site parking lot should be constructed to accommodate all such vehicles. During the construction phase, additional no parking signs should be installed to prevent PVE subdivision parking. Post Construction Parking We continue to believe there is insufficient onsite parking for the TE development. Please consider substituting the small green space area In Trails End with more parking spaces. Continued: Proposed Zoning Change-Trails End Page 3 of 4 Noise, dust & vibration During the grading & construction phase, there should be specific provisions to protect the neighborhood. Work hours We would request that developer's employees and subcontractors work hours related to avoiding noise be restricted to 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM Monday thru Friday, and 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM on Saturday. Current Habitat We would request that the developer hire a trapper for several weeks prior to bulldozing the land, to catch/relocate or destroy the 200 plus rabbits which currently make the area their home. The animals losing their habitat will scatter to the surrounding homeowner properties and cause damage to cultivated landscaping. EXISTING PVE LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION SYSTEMS As part of the City's approvals for the Pacific View Estates subdivision (PVE), it required the developer to install irrigation systems and landscaping on the West side of Donna Drive. This property is not owned by PVE and is now a part of the Trails End proposal. In the Development Agreement with Trails End, we wish to see a provision that makes Trails End responsible for taking over responsibility for the irrigating and maintenance of this area. Also, there needs to be a provision holding the Applicant responsible for any damage to PVE's irrigation systems & landscaping along Donna Drive frontage and along the northerly boundary with PVE Once a revised Development Agreement covering these provisions is executed with the Applicant, PVE will no longer be responsible for any irrigation or any landscaping on property to be owned and developed by the Applicant. A COMMERCIAL INVESTMENT & DEVELOPMENT COMPANY P.O. Box 2198, Carlsbad, California 92018 Facsimile: (760) 720-9785 Telephone: (760) 720-9785 June 13, c: Mayor City Council Mayor Bud Lewis and City Council Members City Manager City Of Carlsbad City Attorney 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive C!ty Qerk Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 27, 2006, "TRAILS END" PROJECT, TIME: 6:00 PM., LOCATION: 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA CASE: PUD 04-10, 2.79 ACRE SUBDIVISION - 14 RESIDENCIAL LOTS AVERAGE +3,800 square feet. DONNA DR. AT CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR. Dear Mayor Lewis and City Council Members, This letter will express our deepest concerns and opposition to the proposed zone change, high density, and traffic access of the "TRAILS END'7 development. My wife and I are homeowners located within the abutting property, i.e., the "Pacific View Estates", Carlsbad Tract #96-03. Further, our company, Pacific View Estates, Ltd., was the original developers of the same Tract #96-03. We, along with our neighbors within Pacific View Estates, have a huge capital investment in our homes. Yet it appears that our large lot community could now be comprised. Please let me explain. The Pacific View Estates development consists of 26 large residential lots located on 8.52 acres. To simplify a comparison, this equates to an average "Land-to-Lot Ratio" of approximate 14,270 square feet per lot, (i.e. 8.52 acres x 43,560' per acre / 26 lots). When our company, Pacific View Estates, Ltd., ("PVE Ltd.") initially submitted our Tract Map #96-03 applications to the City, our tract was designed with 42 lots on 8.52 acres. This is a Land-to-Lot Ratio of 8,800 square feet per lot. We felt 42 lots reasonable because this Land-to-Lot Ratio was substantially lower density than the abutting neighbors on the north, i.e., the "Hillcrest Estates". The Hillcrest Estates have a much smaller average lot size at only 3-4,000 square feet. Yet our 42 lot proposal was rejected by the City stating that the density was too high which over impacted the land and the City's Hillside development requirements. Consequently, our Pacific View Estates development was allowed no more than the Land-to-Lot ratio of 14,270 square feet per lot. For many years, the subject 2.79 acres of the TRAILS Mayor Bud Lewis and City Council Members City of Carlsbad June 13, 2006, Page 2 of 2. END project was planned and slated for zoning at the identical Land-to-Lot ratio of 14,270 square feet per lot, i.e. RA-10,000. Rightfully, TRAILS END should stay at its present zoning. Now, the TRAILS END project is proposing 14 homes on 2.79 acres. We believe this will over impact the land and neighborhood. It is noteworthy that at the time of processing our Pacific View Estates development, the City would allow no more than 8 lots on the this same exact 2.79 acres. In fact, many of the Pacific View homeowners did their research though the City before purchasing their Pacific View home. They relied upon knowing that there would be no more than 8 homes built on the subject property as per zoning regulations and hillside density requirements. If in fact, the City Council now approves the access and high density of the TRAILS END project, it will sandwich the expensive homes and large lots of the Pacific View Estates development between two (2) small lot, high- density subdivisions of lesser values. Such will invariably reduce the desirability of the Pacific View Estate homes and thereby lower property values within our community. We feel this inequitable and unfair. It would damage our neighborhood and produce substantially more traffic on an already overburdened street which recently suffered a serious auto roll-over at this same sharp turn. We greatly object to the higher density and the dangerous traffic conditions the TRAILS END project will cause. The TRAILS END property was planned for RA-10,000 zoning. As indicated, this RA-10,000 is the same identical zoning that the City strictly mandated Pacific View Estates to follow. TRAILS END should not be given preferential treatment. We are not suggesting that the subject property remain undeveloped. That would be unreasonable. We are simply requesting that the density be modified in line and equal with that of the adjacent Pacific View Estates. This would be reasonable. Pacific View Estate homeowners relied upon these facts before making this there new home. Should you have any questions or if I may be of any assistance, please don't hesitate to call me at (760) 720-9785. Thanking you in advance for your consideration in this matter, I am, R EOEQWE JUN 2 1 2006 CITY OF CARLSBADCITY CLERK'S OFFICE n\ y To Respectfully, Proi Mr. and Mrs. D. Jack 2922 Austin Terrace, Carlsbad, 92008 PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2010 & 2011 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above- entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of North County Times Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, for the City of Oceanside and the City of Escondido, Court Decree number 171349, for the County of San Diego, that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpariel), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: May 26th, 2006 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at SAN MARCOS California This 26th Day of May, 2006 This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp Signature Jane Allshouse NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising Proof of Publication of NOTICE OF PUBUCHEAHNQ NOTICE IS HEREBY QtVEN to you, be- CIIIU IIUIUI Ul IsCUiak/au VIIICTUO I^IIVQ muuii i_w«i I acilities Management Zone 1 and more particularly ge 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in theI, County of San Diego, State of nia, a rtion of lot 7 of Section 32, Township 11 SoSan Bernardino Meridian, ii .... _ounty of San Diego, S' 'ding to official plat thereof. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal (760) 602-4631 If you challenge the Mitiand Mitigation Monitqrii and/or Zone Change, if tbe limited to raising onlyone else raised af the fthis notice or in written ccthe City of Carlsbad, Attn: i.Village Drive, Carlsbad CA public hearing. CASE FILE: ZC 04-10 CASE NAME: TRAILS END .SBAD and Reporting Programiroved, in court,. NCT 1938101 •05/26/06 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interested may be affected, that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 6, 2006, to consider approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a Zone Change to change the Zoning designation from Residential Agricultural (R-A 10,000) to Residential Density-Multiple Zone (RD-M), on property generally located on the west side of Donna Drive and north of Carlsbad Village Drive within Local Facilities Management Zone 1 and more particularly described as: Portion of lot 7 of Section 32, Township 11 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to official plat thereof. 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 or after June 2, 2006. If you have any questions, please call Jessica Galloway in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4631. If you challenge the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and/or Zone Change, if approved, 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 04-10 CASE NAME: TRAILS END PUBLISH: May 26, 2006 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL SITEMAP NOT TO SCALE Trails End ZC04-10 Impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide Utilisez le gabarit 5160® www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® 6241MC BUENA WOODS UNIT NO II HOMEOV PO BOX 1621 CARLSBAD, CA 92018-1621 FARWEST AMERICAN BUSINESS PO BOX 2198 CARLSBAD, CA 92018-2198 JAMES R WATLING PO BOX 2240 CARLSBAD, CA 92018-2240 SYLVERTER MARRON PO BOX 2258 CARLSBAD, CA 92018-2258 REGINALD & JEANENE MARRON PO BOX 2258 CARLSBAD, CA 92018-2258 LUKE DEVELOPMENT LLC 3146 QUIET HILLS DR ESCONDIDO, CA 92029-7304 CARLSBAD-WOODRIDGE HOMEOWNER! 2124 S EL CAMINO REAL 204 OCEANSIDE, CA 92054-6284 HILLGATE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS 2131 S EL CAMINO REAL 101 OCEANSIDE, CA 92054-6217 WILLIAM R & ELIZABETH SROUFE 1466 HUNSAKER ST OCEANSIDE, CA 92054-5654 SHARON SEAY 505 PACIFIC AVE SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075-1121 CARLSBAD WOODBRIDGE HOMEOWNEI 411 IVY ST SAN DIEGO, CA 92101-2108 CLINTON L PETERSON 42181 OMAR PL PALM DESERT, CA 92211-7681 DONALD & JUDY PALLIA 1022 CALLE DE ACACIA REDLANDS, CA 92373-6509 AMBROSE 27641 PACHEA TRL HEMET, CA 92544-8180 CHARLES MCCONAHAY 2511 POINT DEL MAR CORONA DEL MA, CA 92625-1550 TOMKINSON 14761 HOLT AVE TUSTIN, CA 92780-2707 NORMAN S & AMY TOLSTAD 2501 ANACAPA ST SANTA BARBARA, CA 93105-3511 MIN-CHUNG WU 4736 STRAWBERRY LN SAN JOSE, CA 95129-1945 *** 168 Printed *** AU3AV-O9-008-1 aBpnuis pue uier Impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide Utilisez le gabarit 5160® www.avety.com 1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® 6241 " PAUL D BROWN 2046 AVENUE OF THE TREES CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1104 ROBERT & KATHLEEN HAVERKAMP 2048 AVENUE OF THE TREES CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1104 JUDITH E EBERHART 2050 AVENUE OF THE TREES CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1104 KEITH KENNEDY 2052 AVENUE OF THE TREES CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1104 SUSETTE BOHL 2054 AVENUE OF THE TREES CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1104 DANIELSEN 2060 AVENUE OF THE TREES CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1104 ANN H CARROLL 2062 AVENUE OF THE TREES CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1104 CHERYL E HERRMANN 2064 AVENUE OF THE TREES CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1104 JEFF FELDBAUM 2066 AVENUE OF THE TREES CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1104 STONE 2068 AVENUE OF THE TREES CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1104 DAVID JOHNSON 2076 AVENUE OF THE TREES CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1104 JENISON 2078 AVENUE OF THE TREES CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1104 LAWRENCE J MCCARTHY 2080 AVENUE OF THE TREES CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1104 WILLIAM W BAHR 2084 AVENUE OF THE TREES CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1104 MARY A JOHNSON 2086 AVENUE OF THE TREES CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1104 RICHARD D HADDAD 2088 AVENUE OF THE TREES CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1104 LYNN M SOULE 2090 AVENUE OF THE TREES CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1104 LORA S SMITH 2092 AVENUE OF THE TREES CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1104 ANDREW P JOHNSON 2051 AVENUE OF THE TREES CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1105 WITTNER 2049 AVENUE OF THE TREES CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1105 MICHAEL R & LISA BASISTA 2047 AVENUE OF THE TREES CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1105 JOHN A & KAREN BONOSORO 2045 AVENUE OF THE TREES CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1105 CHERYL CALUYA-WILBER 2043 AVENUE OF THE TREES CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1105 GEORGE & MARY GLADIR 2039 AVENUE OF THE TREES CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1105 JEANNE V WORTH 2037 AVENUE OF THE TREES CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1105 BRIETTE ENTS 6583 PETUNIA PL CARLSBAD, CA 92009-2517 JAMES L & TEMPE MASON 1005 DAISY AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92011-4818 PACIFIC VIEW ESTATES OF CARLS 7130 AVENIDA ENCINAS 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92011-4657 RUTH K WILLIAMS PO BOX 54 CARLSBAD, CA 92018 DABBS PO BOX 619 CARLSBAD, CA 92018-0619 AM3AV-O9-008-1 Continued: Proposed Zoning Change-Trails End Page 4 of 4 We will appreciate you taking all of the above into account when making your decision. As this is our Homeowners Association's input for the Public Hearing, please ensure that the contents of this letter are read into the Public Hearing minutes for this agenda item Thanks for your assistance. Yours truly, Diana Cook, President for Pacific View Estates Homeowners Association 3002 Wintergreen Drive Carlsbad 92008 Phone: 760 729 8559 CC: The Honorable Bud Lewis, Mayor Matt Hall, Mayor Pro Tern Ann J. Kulchin, Council Member Mark Packard, Council Member Norine Sigaffoose, Council Member Martell B Montgomery Chairman, Carlsbad Planning Commission Jessica Galloway, Carlsbad City Planner Impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide Utilisez le gabarit 5160® www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® 6241MC ROBERT J & DEBORAH COWDEN 1682 BRADY CIR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2574 MARTHA A MITCHELL 2038 AVENUE OF THE TREES CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1104 RACHAEL J HOLLOWAY 2895 WINTERGREEN DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6881 KURT R MIHALCO 2934 DORSET WAY CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6880 SYLVESTER MARRON 2220 DAVID PL CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6884 JOSEPH & M WILLIS 2205 DAVID PL CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6884 THOMAS & NANCY REILLY 2213 DAVID PL CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6884 CUDMORE 2217 DAVID PL CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6884 WOOLLARD 2221 DAVID PL CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6884 PAUL A & MARGARET ROBBINS 2225 DAVID PL CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6884 GARY A & JACQUELYN THOMPSON 2930 AUSTIN TER CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6885 GREGORY D & AMY PRICE 2926 AUSTIN TER CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6885 TERRENCE & PATTI BRENNAN 2938 AUSTIN TER CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6885 TIMOTHY L & BEATRICE MARTIN 3010 WINTERGREEN DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6883 KAM 2939 AUSTIN TER CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6886 RUSSELL W PONG 2935 AUSTIN TER CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6886 HASKELL 2919 AUSTIN TER CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6886 JOHN A & SUSAN GARDNER 2902 AUSTIN TER CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6885 CLASSEN 2906 AUSTIN TER CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6885 MARILYN K LANDBLOM 2910 AUSTIN TER CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6885 EDMOND SHEHAB 2914 AUSTIN TER CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6885 SEA 2918 AUSTIN TER CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6885 DABBS 2920 AUSTIN TER CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6885 PACIFIC VIEW ESTATES OF CARLi 1903 WRIGHT PL 120 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6584 PATRICK E & SOO HUFFER 2032 AVENUE OF THE TREES CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1104 HOSMER 2034 AVENUE OF THE TREES CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1104 PAUL S & KAREN PETER 2036 AVENUE OF THE TREES CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1104 RICHARD L DOTY 2040 AVENUE OF THE TREES CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1104 ROBERT M & MARY LARSON 2042 AVENUE OF THE TREES CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1104 MILLS 2044 AVENUE OF THE TREES CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1104 ©AU3AV AH3AV-O9-008-1 ®091S 31VldlAJ3JL ® a6pnws pue uier Impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide Utilisez le gabarit 5160® www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® 6241MC ERIC & ELEANOR PAGE 2833 FOREST VIEW WAY CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6845 MARK V & JOVITA DILLARD 2829 FOREST VIEW WAY CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6845 TED GARDNER 2813 FOREST VIEW WAY CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6845 CRARY VERBAL 2005 2809 FOREST VIEW WAY CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6845 DAVID MANDELMAN 2805 FOREST VIEW WAY CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6845 RICHARD E UTECHT 2818 FOREST VIEW WAY CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6844 GLENES D STAPLETON 2822 FOREST VIEW WAY CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6844 FARID & BLANCA SANIE 2826 FOREST VIEW WAY CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6844 REISSAH LEIGH 2830 FOREST VIEW WAY CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6844 CARLSBAD-WOODRIDGE HOMEOWNERS 2879 WOODRIDGE CIR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1162 ANTHONY HALTON 2821 FOREST VIEW WAY CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6845 JED SMITH 2817 FOREST VIEW WAY CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6845 STEPHEN J & SUSAN BROACH 2724 FOREST PARK LN CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6843 RANDY MILLS 2728 FOREST PARK LN CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6843 JAMES E & SHELLI HALLIDY 2732 FOREST PARK LN CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6843 HOWARD W & LINDA BLISS 2736 FOREST PARK LN CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6843 GABLE 2110 PINE CREST WAY CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6848 JULIEN L & JILL VANLANCKER 2114 PINE CREST WAY CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6848 ELMER & LORRINE REICH 2118 PINE CREST WAY CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6848 KERRI A HODDE 2122 PINE CREST WAY CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6848 DONALD P & SUSAN-HARUMI BENTI 2126 PINE CREST WAY CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6848 STREICHER 2130 PINE CREST WAY CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6848 RICHARD A CROMIE 2179 TIMBERLINE RD CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6850 JANET R MATZ 2183 TIMBERLINE RD CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6850 J TOLLESON 2187 TIMBERLINE RD CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6850 JOHN CHERRINGTON 2191 TIMBERLINE RD CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6850 THERESE M OROURKE 2739 CYPRESS HILL RD CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6849 HANA V MORRISON 2735 CYPRESS HILL RD CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6849 JULIANNE W DEEN 2731 CYPRESS HILL RD CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6849 POLLOCK 2727 CYPRESS HILL RD CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6849 AH3AV-O9-008-1 ®09is a6pnius pue uier Impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide Utilisez le gabarit 5160® www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® 6241* THEODORE & MARY STEARNS 3230 DONNA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1124 SWEENEY 3220 DONNA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1124 CHARLES G & PATRICIA STRANGE 3215 DONNA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1125 DARLENE M BURKE 3225 DONNA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1125 ROSWELL B & LEONA WILLARD 3235 DONNA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1125 GARY R & JANET WHEAT 3245 DONNA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1125 GAYLE J CHAVEZ 3255 DONNA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1125 JOHN H & KAY KOOPSEN 3265 DONNA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1125 RICHARD M & CLAUDIA FOLEY 3270 WESTWOOD DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1144 STEPHEN E & KIMBERLY SHAW 3260 WESTWOOD DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1144 D M & M JOHNSON 3250 WESTWOOD DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1144 STEVEN STUART 3240 WESTWOOD DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1144 JAMES A PEET 3230 WESTWOOD DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1144 JAMES A VITTITOE 3210 WESTWOOD DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1144 JEFFERY C & SARAH WARNER 3015 BLENKARNE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1117 LILLIAN M NELSON 3025 BLENKARNE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1117 LACHOWICZ 3035 BLENKARNE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1117 NO VIS 3045 BLENKARNE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1117 LAURA TARMAN 3040 BLENKARNE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1116 WILLIAM E & LISA CLARK 3030 BLENKARNE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1116 GREGORY S WATTS 2896 BRENTWOOD CT CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1163 ALBERT T & EVELYN SANELLI 2898 BRENTWOOD CT CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1163 KATHLEEN BERISTAIN 2835 CEDARWOOD WAY CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6842 ERIC L REYNER 2831 CEDARWOOD WAY CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6842 MICHAEL J SCHALL 2823 CEDARWOOD WAY CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6842 MCDOUGALL 2819 CEDARWOOD WAY CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6842 PAUL H HASKINS 2820 CEDARWOOD WAY CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6842 JOSEPH A & FRANCINE ARKEDER 2824 CEDARWOOD WAY CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6842 CLIFFORD W & SARAH CROWE 2828 CEDARWOOD WAY CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6842 LOUCAS 2832 CEDARWOOD WAY CARLSBAD, CA 92008-6842 AU3AV AH3AV-OD-008-1.6uj}uud aajj aBpnuis pue uier Impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide Utilisez le gabarit 5160® www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® 6241MC BARRY F & PAULA SCHWOERER 10343 BEAR CREEK DR MANASSAS, VA 20111-4371 JOSEPH & PATRICIA RIGATUSO 2135 LOWER SAINT DENNIS RD ST PAUL, MN 55116-2804 K & N ASSET MANAGEMENT L P 5926 E ANDERSON DR SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85254-5963 D & M COLICH 5876 OCEAN TERRACE DR PALOS VERDEPE, CA 90275-5759 ANAHID MORADIAN 1401 VALLEY VIEW RD 115 GLENDALE, CA 91202-1725 LILLY S NAKAIYE 1447 DEL MONTE DR GLENDALE, CA 91207 MARILYN HOUSTON 5514 GOSS CANYON AVE LA CRESCENTA, CA 91214-1523 ZIARATI 17818 OAKROCK CT GRANADA HILLS, CA 91344-1082 AVAKIAN 4516 DENSMORE AVE ENCINO, CA 91436-2908 CAROL J OCONNOR 4744 BRYCE CIR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4289 NED PATERSON 3275 DONNA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1125 KEITH W & CARLEEN PROCTOR 3170 FALCON DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1128 MCDONALD 1993 3161 FALCON DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1129 COLLING 3171 FALCON DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1129 MARK J & MARY KING 3195 FALCON DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1129 GERALD M BOWERS 3199 FALCON DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1129 CARRANZA 2215 NOB HILL DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1138 JOURDAN 2225 NOB HILL DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1138 FRIEDLANDER 2245 NOB HILL DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1138 JOHN A & PATRICIA BLAKE 2255 NOB HILL DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1138 ANTHONY C HUEBNER 2270 NOB HILL DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1137 JANICE A ROBERTS 2260 NOB HILL DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1137 JAMES E & BARBARA REILLY 2250 NOB HILL DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1137 CATHERINE M BOYLE 2240 NOB HILL DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1137 FLETCHER 2220 NOB HILL DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1137 TIMOTHY J & TERRY RILEY 3159 FALCON DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1129 EDMUND & EDITH SMITH 3271 WESTWOOD DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1146 DONALD W & BARBARA LYNCH 3260 DONNA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1124 SWEARINGEN 3250 DONNA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1124 BETZ 3240 DONNA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1124 A«3AV-OD-008-l LUOD'AjaAB'MMM ®091S 31V1dl/\l31 a6pnius pue uief Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST 6225 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA 92011 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DIST 1 CIVIC CENTER DR SAN MARCOS CA 92069 AVERY® 5160® CITY OF VISTA 600 EUCALYPTUS AVE VISTA CA 92084 CITY OF ENCINITAS 505 S VULCAN AVE ENCINITAS CA 92024 CITY OF SAN MARCOS 1 CIVIC CENTER DR SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949 CITY OF OCEANSIDE 300 NORTH COAST HWY OCEANSIDE CA 92054 CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME 4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE SAN DIEGO CA 92123 U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE 6010 HIDDEN VALLEY RD CARLSBAD CA 92011 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY STE 100 9174 SKY PARK CT SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340 CA COASTAL COMMISSION STE 103 7575 METROPOLITAN DR SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402 SD COUNTY PLANNING STEB 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 LAFCO 1600 PACIFIC HWY SAN DIEGO CA 92101 SCOTT MALLOY - BIASD STE 110 9201 SPECTRUM CENTER BLVD SAN DIEGO CA 92123-1407 AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST 9150 CHESAPEAKE DR SAN DIEGO CA 92123 ATTN TEDANASIS SAN DIEGO COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY PO BOX 82776 SAN DIEGO CA 92138-2776 SANDAG STE 800 401 B STREET SAN DIEGO CA 92101 CITY OF CARLSBAD RECREATION DENNIS CUNNINGHAM STE 112 5835 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING DEPT- PROJECT ENGINEER DAVID RICK CITY OF CARLSBAD PROJECT PLANNER JESSICA GALLOWAY 04/27/2006 ®09is AU1AV-09-008-L ®09I.S»ueqe6a|zasi|iin 1 Trails EndTrails End ZC 04ZC 04--1010 Council Actions RequestedCouncil Actions Requested Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation and Reporting ProgramMitigation and Reporting Program Zone ChangeZone Change ––RARA--10,000 to RD10,000 to RD--MM Location MapLocation Map HO SP WY DONNA DRCARLSBAD VILLAG E DRSITE AUSTIN TR FALCON DRHOSP WY CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRNOB HILL DR BLENKARNE DRDAVID PLDOREET WY WESTWOOD DRAVENUE OF T HE TREESDONNA DR0200100Feet ZC 04-10/CT 04-14/HDP 04-07/PUD 04-10 Trails End Trails End Proposed ProjectProposed Project 14 twin homes on a 2.79 acre site14 twin homes on a 2.79 acre site ––1,300 to 2,600 1,300 to 2,600 s/fs/f ––2 affordable on site2 affordable on site Centralized open space and guest parkingCentralized open space and guest parking Mitigated Negative DeclarationMitigated Negative Declaration ––Habitat impactsHabitat impacts 1.10 acres of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub1.10 acres of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Impact feesImpact fees ––Noise impactsNoise impacts Site PlanSite Plan 2 Planning Commission ActionPlanning Commission Action On March 6, 2006 the Planning On March 6, 2006 the Planning Commission approved, with a 4Commission approved, with a 4--1 (with 2 1 (with 2 Commissioner absent) vote to:Commissioner absent) vote to: ApprovedApproved CT 04CT 04--14 (Final)14 (Final) HDP 04HDP 04--07 (Final)07 (Final) PUD 04PUD 04--10 (Final)10 (Final) Planning Commission Planning Commission RecommendationsRecommendations Recommended adoption of a MNDRecommended adoption of a MND Recommended approval of ZC 04Recommended approval of ZC 04--1010 Council Action RequestedCouncil Action Requested Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation and Reporting ProgramMitigation and Reporting Program Zone Change from RZone Change from R--A 10,000 to RDA 10,000 to RD--MM ––Underlying GPA is RM 4Underlying GPA is RM 4--8 du/ac8 du/ac ––Project is proposing 5.88 du/acProject is proposing 5.88 du/ac General PlanGeneral Plan C REST DR AUST IN TR WINTERGREEN DR CELI NDA DRWEST WOOD DRBLENKARNE D RNOB HILL DR SE AC REST DRDAVID PLBUEN A VIS TA WY DONNA DRMONROE STRIDGECR ES T DRHOSP WYOS RMH RLM RM OS RLM RM OS RM RM OS L O RLM SITE Existing ZoningExisting Zoning C RES T DR AUSTIN TR WINTERGREEN DR CELI ND A DRWEST WOOD DRBLENK ARNE DRNOB HILL DR SE AC RES T DRDAVID PLEL CA MINO REAL BASSWOOD AVDONNA DRMONROE STRIDGECR E ST D RHOSP WYOS R-1-10000R-1-9000 OSR-A-10000-Q R-1-10000 R-A-10000 R-1-9500 RD-M-Q OS R-A-10000 RD-M-Q R-P-Q R-1 P-C C-2-Q SITE P-C Recommended ActionRecommended Action That City Council Introduce Ordinance No. That City Council Introduce Ordinance No. NSNS--803 Approving a Zone Change, ZC 04803 Approving a Zone Change, ZC 04-- 10, and Adopt Resolution No. 200610, and Adopt Resolution No. 2006--143 143 Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation and Reporting Program as and Mitigation and Reporting Program as recommended for approval by the recommended for approval by the Planning Commission.Planning Commission. 3 View to Left of Donna Dr/Austin Terrace Intersection From View to Left of Donna Dr/Austin Terrace Intersection From Project DrivewayProject Driveway Horizontal VisibilityHorizontal Visibility Vertical VisibilityVertical Visibility Northerly View of Donna Drive and Austin Terrace Before Northerly View of Donna Drive and Austin Terrace Before Turning into Project Driveway Turning into Project Driveway Horizontal VisibilityHorizontal Visibility 4 Looking Right on Hosp Way Across From Forest View WayLooking Right on Hosp Way Across From Forest View Way Forest View Way at Hosp WayForest View Way at Hosp Way Looking left at Hosp Way Across from Forest View WayLooking left at Hosp Way Across from Forest View Way