Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-06-27; City Council; 18624; La Costa Village Center TownhomesCITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL /) AB# 18.624 MTG.6/27/06 DEPT. PLN TITLE: LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER TOWNHOMES GPA 04-10, LCPA 04-09, ZC 04-06, CT 04-08, SDP 04-05, HDP 04-04, CDP 04-17, and CP 04-03 DEPT. HD.^22 / ^' CITY ATTY. CjE CITY MGR o00 oocs co•H4-13rHOw 0) -o0)-pO.O CO 00O00 0) 4-1O C C OJco coa f> •H CO-aS-i C CD rHu 3 3 WT3O I M O o <u C 4-> 3 OO > O ^ _J oz oo NS-808 APPROVING Zone Change 04- RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council INTRODUCE Ordinance No. 06, and ADOPT Resolution No. 2006-180 ADOPTING a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and APPROVE General Plan Amendment GPA 04-10, Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 04-09, Tentative Tract Map CT 04-08, Hillside Development Permit HDP 04-04, Site Development Plan SDP 04-05, Coastal Development Permit CDP 04-17, and Condominium Permit CP 04-03. ITEM EXPLANATION: Project application(s) Mitigated Negative Declaration General Plan Amendment (GPA 04-10) Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 04-09) Zone Change (ZC 04-06) Tentative Tract Map (CT 04-1 8) Planned Development Permit (PUD 04-10) Hillside Development Permit (HDP 04-04) Site Development Plan (SDP 04-05) Coastal Development Permit (CDP 04-17) Special Use Permit (SUP 04-07) Administrative Approvals Reviewed by and Final at Planning Commission X To be Reviewed - Final at Council X X X X X X X X X On April 5, 2006, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and recommended to the City Council approval (7-0) of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and a General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program Amendment, and Zone Change to change the General Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use designations and the Citywide Zoning and Local Coastal Program Zoning designations, and a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit, Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit, and Condominium Permit to subdivide and grade a 14.4 acre site into 2 residential lots for 53 residential condominium units, 1 driveway lot, and 1 open space lot on property generally located on the west side of El Camino Real and north of Dove Lane. At the same hearing the Planning Commission also approved (7-0), a Special Use Permit, which is required whenever a site is located within a Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone. The proposed application is located within the El Camino Real Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. The approval of the Special Use Permit was final at Planning Commission. The proposed General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program Amendment, and Zone Change would change the General Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use designations on the property from Residential Medium Density (RM, 4-8 du/ac) to Residential Medium-High Density (RMH, 8-15 du/ac) and Open Space (OS) and change the Citywide Zoning and Local Coastal Program Zoning designations on the property from Limited Control (L-C) to Residential Density-Multiple with a Qualified Development Overlay (RD-M-Q) and Open Space (OS). The RMH Land Use designations and the RD-M-Q Zoning designations would apply to the 2 residential lots for 53 residential condominium units and 1 driveway lot and the OS Land Use and Zoning designations would apply to PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. the 1 open space lot. The proposed Land Use and Zoning amendments are necessary to provide consistency between the proposed development and the General Plan, Local Coastal Program, and Citywide Zoning. Except for a brief statement from the applicant's representative, no public testimony was offered at the Planning Commission hearing. A full disclosure of the Planning Commission's actions and a complete description and staff analysis of the project is included in the attached minutes and Planning Commission staff report. The Planning Commission and staff are recommending approval of the proposed project. 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 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. One public comment was received during the 30 day public review period from November 30, 2005 to December 30, 2005, and the MND was modified to include the recommendations. 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 21 21 11 du/ac 10.19du/ac N/A EXHIBITS: 1. City Council Ordinance No. NS-808 2. City Council Resolution No. 2006-180 3. Location Map 4. Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 6054,6055,6056,6057,6058,6059,6060,6062, and 6063 5. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated April 5, 2006 6. Planning Commission Minutes, dated April 5,2006. DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Jessica Galloway, (760) 602-4631, jgall@ci.carlsbad.ca.us 1 ORDINANCE NO. NS-808 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 LIMITED CONTROL (L-C) TO RESIDENTIAL DENSITY- MULTIPLE WITH A QUALIFIED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (RD- 5 M-Q) AND OPEN SPACE (OS) ON A 14.4 ACRE SITE GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF EL CAMINO 6 REAL AND NORTH OF DOVE LANE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 21. 7 CASE NAME: LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER TOWNHOMES CASE NO.: ZC 04-06 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 04-06" attached hereto and made a part hereof, pursuant to Section 21.05.030 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. 12 SECTION II: That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 6057, constitute the findings and conditions of14 the City Council. 16 "' 17 '" 18 '" 19 '"' 20 « 21 '" 22 '" 23 "' 24 "/ 25 "' 26 '" 27 '* 28 /* 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its adoption; and the city clerk shall certify the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within fifteen days after its adoption. INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council on the 27th day of June, 2006, and thereafter PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the day of , 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor ATTEST: LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk (Seal) 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2006-180 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, AND A GENERAL PLAN 4 AMENDMENT, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT, AND ZONE CHANGE TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN AND 5 LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FROM RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY (RM, 4-8 DU/AC) TO 6 RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY (RMH, 8-15 DU/AC) AND OPEN SPACE (OS), AND TO CHANGE THE CITYWIDE 7 ZONING AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM ZONING DESIGNATIONS FROM LIMITED CONTROL (L-C) TO 8 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY-MULTIPLE WITH A QUALIFIED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (RD-M-Q) AND OPEN SPACE (OS), 9 AND A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, COASTAL 10 DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, AND A CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO SUBDIVIDE AND GRADE A 14.4 ACRE SITE INTO 2 11 RESIDENTIAL LOTS FOR 53 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS, 1 DRIVEWAY LOT, AND 1 OPEN SPACE LOT ON 12 PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF EL CAMINO REAL AND NORTH OF DOVE LANE WITHIN THE 13 MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 21. 14 CASE NAME: LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER TOWNHOMES CASE NO.: GPA 04-10/LCPA 04-09/ZC 04-06/CT 04-087 15 SDP 04-05/HDP 04-04/CDP 04-17/CP 04-03 16 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as 17 follows: 18 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on April 5, 2006, hold a duly noticed 19 public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration and 20 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as referenced in Planning Commission 21 Resolution No. 6054, and General Plan Amendment GPA 04-10, according to Exhibit "GPA 04- 22 10" attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 6055 and incorporated herein by 23 reference, and Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 04-09, according to Exhibit "LCPA 24 04-09" attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 6056 and incorporated herein by 25 reference, to change the General Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use designations from **)£. Residential Medium Density (RM, 4-8 du/ac) to Residential Medium-High Density (RMH, 8-15 27 du/ac) and Open Space (OS) and to change the Local Coastal Program Zoning designation 28 from Limited Control (L-C) to Residential Density-Multiple with a Qualified Development Overlay v 1 (RD-M-Q) and Open Space (OS), and a Tentative Tract Map CT 04-08, Hillside Development 2 Permit HDP 04-04, Site Development Plan SDP 04-05, Coastal Development Permit CDP 04- 3 17, and Condominium Permit CP 04-03, according to Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4 6058, 6059, 6060, 6062, and 6063 and incorporated herein by reference, to subdivide and 5 grade a 14.4 acre site into 2 residential lots for 53 residential condominium units, 1 driveway lot, 6 and 1 open space lot and the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolutions 7 No. 6054, 6055, 6057, 6058, 6859, 6060, 6062, and 6063 recommending to the City Council 8 that they be approved; and 9 WHEREAS, the City Council did on the 27th day of June 2006 10 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the Mitigated Negative 11 Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment, and 12 Local Coastal Program Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit, Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit, and Condominium Permit, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the City Council considered all factors relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, 17' General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Hillside 1 80 Development Permit, Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit, and Condominium Permit. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does 21 hereby resolved as follows: 22 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does hereby resolve as follows: 24 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 25 2. That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6054, 6055, 6057, 6058, 6059, 6060, 6062, and 6063 for the 26 Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development 27 28 7 1 Permit, Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit, and Condominium Permit constitute the findings and conditions of the City Council in this matter. 2 3. That the Negative Declaration is adopted as shown in Planning 3 Commission Resolution No. 6054 on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference. 4 4. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval of 5 General Plan Amendment GPA 04-10 as shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 6055 is hereby accepted, approved in concept, and shall be formally approved with GPA Batch No. 2 6 of 2006. 5. That Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 04-09), Tentative Tract Map (CT 04-08), Hillside Development Permit (HDP 04-04), Site Development Plan (SDP 04- 05), Coastal Development Permit (CDP 04-17), and Condominium Permit (CP 04-03) are approved as shown in Planning commission Resolutions No. 6056, 6058, 6059, 6060, 6062, and 6063 and incorporated herein by reference. 1 6. That the approval of GPA 04-10, LCPA 04-09, CT 04-08, HDP 04-04, SDP 04-05, CDP 04-17, and CP 04-03 shall not become effective until Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 04-09) is approved by the California Coastal Commission and the California Coastal Commission's approval become effective. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, 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, Packard, Sigafoose NOES: None ABSENT: Council Member Kulchin ATTEST: LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Cle f rk ZC 04-06 LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER TOWNHOMES April 5. 2006 EXISTING PROPOSED Related Case File No(s): GPA 04-10 / LCPA 04-09 /CT 04-08 / SDP 04-05 / CDP 04-1 7 / SUP 04-07 / CP 04-03 / HDP 04-04 Zone Change Property From:To: A. 215-050-73-00 _B. C. D. L-C RD-M/Q / OS EXHIBIT 3 SITEMAP wwr ro SCALE LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER TOWNHOMES GPA 04-10/LCPA 04-09/ZC 04-06/CT 04-08/SDP 04-05/ HDP 04-04/CDP 04-17/CP 04-03 10 EXHIBIT 4 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO, 6054 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 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT, AND ZONE CHANGE 6 TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FROM 7 RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM (RM, 4-8 DU/AC) TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM-HIGH (RMH, 8-15 DU/AC) AND OPEN SPACE (OS), 8 AND TO CHANGE THE CITYWIDE ZONING AND LOCAL o COASTAL PROGRAM ZONING DESIGNATIONS FROM LIMITED CONTROL (L-C) TO RESIDENTIAL DENSITY- 10 MULTIPLE WITH A QUALIFIED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (RD-M-Q) AND OPEN SPACE (OS), AND A 11 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, COASTAL 12 DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, AND 13 SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO SUBDIVIDE AND GRADE A 14.4 ACRE SITE INTO 2 RESIDENTIAL LOTS FOR 53 14 CONDOMINIUM UNITS, 1 DRIVEWAY LOT, AND 1 OPEN SPACE LOT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON 15 THE WEST SIDE OF EL CAMINO REAL AND NORTH OF DOVE LANE WITHIN THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND LOCAL FACILITIES 17 MANAGEMENT ZONE 21. CASE NAME: LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER 18 TOWNHOMES CASE NO.: GPA 04-10/LCPA 04-09/ZC 04-06/CT 04-08/ 19 SDP 04-05/HDP 04-04/CDP 04-17/CP 04-037 20 SUP 04-07 21 WHEREAS, Marker La Costa LLC, "Developer," has filed a verified 22 application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Noreen Levatino, "Owner," described as 24 All that portion of the west half of the northeast Quarter of 25 Section 26, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, being more particularly described in certificate 27 of compliance record June 16,1989 as file No. 89-317343 28 ("the Property"); and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with 2 said project; and 3 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 5th day of April 2006, hold a 4 <- duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 5 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony 7 and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and ° considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors 9 relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 10 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning 11 Commission as follows: 13 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 14 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative 15 Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Exhibit "ND," 16 according to Exhibits "NOI" dated December 8, 2005, and "PII" dated November 30, 2005, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the 17 following findings: 18 Findings: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: 20 A. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and 21 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER TOWNHOMES -GPA 04-10, ZC 04-06, LCPA 04-09, CT 04-08, 22 SDP 04-05, HDP 04-04, CDP 04-17, CP 04-03 and SUP 04-07 the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the project; and 24 B. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting 25 Program has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental 2° Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and 27 C. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of 28 Carlsbad; and PC RESO NO. 6054 -2- D. based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence 2 the project will have a significant effect on the environment. 3 Conditions: 1. The applicant shall implement or cause the implementation of the La Costa Village , Center Townhomes Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 6 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning 7 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of April 2006, by the o0 following vote, to wit: 9 AYES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, 10 Dominguez, Heineman, Segall, and Whitton 11 NOES: 12 ABSENT: 13 ABSTAIN: 14" 15 16 MARTELL B. MONTG(^IERY, (Mrperson 17 CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 18 19 ATTES// / / 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PC RESO NO. 6054 -3- NEU stant Planning Director City of Carlsbad Planning Department NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: La Costa Village Center Townhomes CASE NO: GPA 04-10. ZC 04-06. LCPA 04-09. CT 04-08. SDP 04-05. HDP 04-04. SUP 04-07. CDP04-17. and CP 04-03 PROJECT LOCATION: APN: 215-050-73. West Of El Camino Real And North Of Dove Lane PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Project consists of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Local Coastal Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Permit, Hillside Development Permit, Special Use Permit, Coastal Development Permit, and Condominium Permit to approve fifty-three (53) air-space condominiums on a 14.4 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 30 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 December 8. 2005 though January 7. 2006 PUBLISH DATE December 8.2005 ' 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: GPA 04-10. ZC 04-06. LCPA 04-09. CT 04-08. SDP 04-05. HDP 04-04. SUP 04-07. CDP 04-17. and CP 04-03 DATE: November 30. 2005 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: La Costa Village Center Townhomes 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Jessica Galloway. 760-602-4631 4. PROJECT LOCATION: West of El Camino Real and north of Dove Lane 5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: Marker La Costa. LLC. 427 South Cedros Avenue. Suite 20L Solana Beach. CA 92075 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RM - Residential Medium Density (4-8 du/ac) 7. ZONING: L-C 8. 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: Fifty-three (53) condominium units, attached in clusters of 2. 3. 4, and 5-plex buildings, located in the southern most portion of the 14.4-acre parcel (APN 215-050-73). The proposed tentative map (CT 04-08) divides the parcel into 4 lots. Lots 1 and 2 are designated for the 53 dwelling units and Lot 3 is created for the driveways. Lot 4 consists 9-acres (75-percent of the project f area), that is proposed to be designated open space and will be held in a conservation easement. i The site requires 5.120 cubic yards per acre of earthwork to accommodate development pursuant to the standards outlined in the City's Habitat Management Plan (HMP). Policy 7-14.1 of the HMP permits a maximum of 25% development clustered on the southern portion of the subject property. The HMP also states that buffer widths may be reduced and /or additional impacts may be allowed to the extent necessary to obtain site access, and/or to accommodate Circulation Road 1 Rev. 07/03/02 improvements as identified in the certified Local Coastal Program (LCP). Impacts to Coastal Sage Scrub include 3 acres for the proposed development and 1.6 acres resulting from the site's access and the widening of El Camino Real. These impacts meet the terms set by the BMP regarding CSS. The proposed development preserves .7 of the 1.2 acres (58%) of Southern Maritime Chaparral and .02 of the .03 acres of Water of the US. The impacts will be mitigated per the Carlsbad HMP. Surrounding land uses include commercial development to the south, residential to the east and west, and major circulation element roads immediately east and north of the property. Rev. 07/03/02 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics | I Agricultural Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources I I Geology/Soils I | Hazards/Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources | | Mandatory Findings of Significance Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Circulation Utilities & Service Systems Rev. 07/03/02 ^. DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) D I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have "potentially significant 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 hi 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. 11- S- ^Planner Signature Date Planning Director's Signature Date Rev. 07/03/02 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. • "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. • "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. • "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly adverse. • Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but all potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required. • When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. • A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment. • If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. 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). 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? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D D D 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? n b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.) Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 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 Impact No Impact D D D Rev. 07/03/02 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, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result, in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D D IE IE 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 Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D 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? D n 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 Impact No Impact D D 11 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). IX. 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) list? p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? 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 otfier agencies? 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 Less Than Mitigation Significant - No Incorporated Impact Impact D D 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 Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact D El D D El El 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D 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 in the construction of new water or wastewater 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? D 14 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or 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 in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact D D D D XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant tp 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 I. AESTHETICS—Would the project: a-d) No Impact (a-d). Perimeter project landscaping, a landscaped 50' setback off of El Camino Real, the dedicated open space area and restricted building heights will adequately mitigate any potential visual project impacts to the El Camino Real scenic corridor. Since El Camino Real is a City designated Community Theme Corridor, the proposed project is designed to comply with the City's El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards. The proposed use is consistent with the adjacent uses and will be designed so that it does not contribute a significant amount of light or glare. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES—Would the project: a-c) 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 proposed project is consistent with the City of Carlsbad General Plan. The subject site is zoned Limited Control (L-C) and is not subject to a 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 General Plan land use designation is Residential Medium (RM), which anticipates medium density residential development (4 to 8 du/ac). The Habitat Management Plan (HMP) requires the development to be concentrated on 25% of the project site. Therefore, the project is prosing an amendment to the General Plan land use designations from RM to Residential Medium-High (RMH) and open space (OS). According to aerial photography, the site was used for agriculture between 1928 and 1953, cleared of vegetation in 1960, and appeared to be vacant with native vegetation from 1967 to 1998. Given the surrounding residential and commercial development and lack of existing agricultural infrastructure, it is unlikely that an agricultural operation would be viable at this location. III. 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 particulate 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 Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state- mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non-attainment areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November 9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996. The proposed project relates to the SIP and/or RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city's and the County's general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact. Section 15125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the following: • Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area? • Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan? 16 Rev. 07/03/02 ->* The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being implemented. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions of the City's General Plan and the RAQS. Therefore, the project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional plan. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is in the City of Oceanside. Data available for this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both 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. If there is grading associated with the project, 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. Other than the project air emissions associated with gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled, this 53 unit residential project will not generate any other air pollutants. No sensitive receptors (schools or hospitals) exist within the immediate vicinity of the project site, therefore potential exposure of sensitive receptors to project air emissions is not considered a significant impact. 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? 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? 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? 17 Rev. 07/03/02 -^ . Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The Carlsbad HMP, Section 7-14-1, page D-120, paragraph 1 identifies "specific habitat protection standards" for the "Levatino" property, which states: Maximum 25% development clustered on the southern portion of the property. Buffer -widths may be reduced and/or additional impacts may be allowed to the extent necessary to obtain site access, and/or to accommodate Circulation Road improvements as identified in the certified LCP. The proposed project is for a residential development and improvement of El Camino Real. The impacts have been designed to be consistent with the City of Carlsbad HMP and with a letter that was issued by the California Coastal Commission on December 16, 2003. The HMP and the letter indicate that the project may develop 25% of the site not including the improvements proposed for the Major City Circulation Element roadway, El Camino Real, or the access required to the site. The letter acknowledge the difficulties associated with gaining access to the site and the required buffer widths may be reduced and/or additional impacts may be allowed to the extent necessary to obtain site access, and to accommodate circulation road improvements. The HMP requires a 100-foot wetland buffer and a 20-foot buffer for all native habitats other than riparian and wetland habitats between preserved habitats and development. The project is providing a 20-foot buffer between the development and the preserve habitat. The proposed development would impact approximately 3.4 of 14.4 acres on the site, which represents approximately 23.6% of the site. The following table summarizes the impacts to vegetation types presented in the Dudek (2005) biological technical report. 18 Rev. 07/03/02 _3% POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO EXISTING HABITAT TYPES AND LAND COVERS (ACRES) HABITAT Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh Coastal Sage Scrub Disturbed Coastal Sage Scrub Coyote Brush Scrub Developed Disturbed Wetlands Disturbed Habitat Southern Maritime Chaparral Waters of the U.S. (unvegetated) TOTAL EXISTING ACREAGE* 0.01 7.0 2.7 2.8 0.4 0.01 0.3 1.2 0.03 14.4 IMPACTS FROM SITE ACCESS AND EL CAMINO REAL WIDENING 0.0 0.6 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.8 UPLAND BUFFER AREA** 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 IMPACTS FROM PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 0.0 1.9 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.01 3.4 PROPOSED OPEN SPACE 0.01 4.1 0.9 2.3 0.3 0.01 0.1 0.7 0.02 8.4 Acreage may not total exactly due to rounding. Upland buffer widths include a 20-foot zone around the edge of the development. This area is not considered an impact requiring mitigation but cannot be used for mitigation. Sensitive Plants Species The proposed project, including site access and El Camino Real widening, will result in impacts to approximately 295 individuals of Del Mar Mesa sand aster and approximately 20 individuals of Nuttall's scrub oak. Most of the impacts to these species result from either the site access road or the widening of El Camino Real. The Del Mar Mesa sand aster and the Nuttall's scrub oak are both listed as City of Carlsbad HMP narrow endemic species and require specific conservation. The City of Carlsbad HMP requires conservation of the Del Mar Mesa sand aster species at 100% within the conserved areas and at.80% for other populations found in the City. Due to the preservation within open space of 84% of the population, (1,539 individuals out of the total number of 1,834) impacts to Del Mar Mesa sand aster onsite are not considered significant. It is anticipated that all or almost all of the 20 individuals of Nuttall's scrub oak will be impacted by the proposed development or roads. The number of individuals located onsite is not especially large and the few scattered individuals would be considered a minor population that would be subject to the conservation requirement in the HMP. Off-site mitigation for the impacts to southern maritime chaparral will include 12 (20 x 60%) individuals of this species, thus the impacts to Nuttall's scrub oak are not considered significant. Salvage and relocation of the Nuttall's scrub oak is not required but may take place prior to grading activities to assist in meeting the overall goals of the City of Carlsbad HMP. Conservation of the 84% of the Del Mar Mesa sand aster will result in a less than significant impact to sensitive plant species. Sensitive Wildlife Species The impacts to the Levatino property result in an open space area that totals 8.4 acres. The federally-listed threatened California gnatcatcher likely uses the entire 14.4 acre site. Loss of approximately 5.2 acres of its preferred habitat (including the El Camino Real improvements and site access) may preclude the long term existence of the gnatcatcher onsite. Because the 25% development footprint is concentrated in the southern portion of the property near other development areas and the open space is near to additional open space, it is equally likely that the gnatcatcher may maintain its territory onsite and if additional acreage is needed it might use the offsite preserved areas. The remaining habitat onsite is very high quality, diverse, and includes more 19 Rev. 07/03/02 mesic areas which may be needed during drier and hotter periods of the year. In summary, the likelihood of the continued presence of this species onsite upon development of the site cannot be predicted. The project will be condition to mitigate for all impacted habitats, in compliance with the City of Carlsbad HMP prior to Final Map or grading permits or whichever occurs first. Upland habitat [Coastal Sage Scrub (including all sub-associations), and Southern Maritime Chaparral] mitigation requires a "no net loss standard" and will typically consist of creation of the habitat being impacted (or substantial restoration where allowed) at a ratio of at least 1:1 as provided in the HMP. Substantial restoration of the highly degraded areas (where effective functions of the habitat type have been lost) may be substituted for creation subject to the consultation and occurrence of USFWS, CDFG, and City of Carlsbad. The remaining mitigation requirement will be satisfied through the purchases of a mitigation bank. Impacts to the unvegetated Waters of the U.S. shall be satisfied through the purchase in a suitable mitigation bank due to lack of restoration opportunities onsite, and the project is not impacting vegetative wetlands. The impacts to the unvegetative Waters of the U.S. will require permits and coordination with U.S. Army Corps. Of Engineers, the CDFG, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION REQUIREMENT (ACRES) HABITAT Coastal Sage Scrub - including all sub-associations Southern Maritime Chaparral Waters of the U.S. (unvegetated) EXISTING ACREAGE 12.5 1.2 0.03 IMPACTS FROM SITE ACCESS AND EL CAMINO REAL WIDENING 1.5 0 0 IMPACTS FROM PROPOSED PROJECT 2.9 0.5 0.01 TOTAL IMPACTS 4.4 .5 .01 IMPACTS FROM PROPOSED PROJECT 2.9 0.5 0.01 MITIGATION RATIO 2:1* 3:1* 3:1 MITIGATION REQUIREMENT 8.8 1.5 0.03 * Creation or substantial restoration will account for at least 1:1 of the mitigation. Other Mitigation Measures or Requirements If any of the responsible resource agencies prohibit grading operations during the summer grading period in order to protect endangered or rare species or sensitive environmental resources, then grading activities may be allowed during the winter by a coastal development permit or permit amendment, provided that appropriate best management practices (BMPs) are incorporated to limit potential adverse impacts from winter grading activities. If grading is necessary than a breeding/nesting bird survey shall be conducted prior to construction activities if they are to occur during the nesting season (February 15-August 31). Nests that are detected within the proposed impact areas will be avoided until nesting is completed. A buffer zone will be established around any identified nests in coordination with the monitoring biologist. To assist in meeting the goals of the HMP for covered species, salvage of the Nuttall's scrub oak may be conducted prior to grading impacts in coordination with the monitoring biologist. The salvage roots/plants may be used as part of the mitigation as required and outlined above. If on-site salvage and relocation is not biologically viable or practicable, then off-site preservation of 12 individuals of Nuttall's scrub oak will occur within preserved off-site southern maritime chaparral. The open space area will need to be protected by a conservation easement and an endowment will need to be established for management monitoring and reporting of the area in perpetuity. Title to the open space parcel will need to be transferred to an appropriate land trust entity. The conditioned mitigation will result in a less than significant impact to biological resources. 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? 20 Rev. 07/03/02 No Impact. The above biological study provides a focused, current and detailed project level analysis of site- - specific biological impacts and provides refined project level mitigation measures. g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? No Impact. The above biological study 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 Technical Report and Impact Analysis for the Levatino Property, City of Carlsbad, California" prepared by Dudek & Associates, Inc., dated February 2004 and Revised May 2005 (Dudek 2005). V. CULTURAL RESOURCES—Would the project: Please see "RECON Report Results for La Costa Village Townhomes (RECON Number 3906A)" prepared by RECON, dated October 16, 2003. a-d) No Impact. The "RECON Report Results for La Costa Village Townhomes (RECON Number 3906A)" report concludes that even though a small amount of cultural materials were identified on site, those items are not considered significant; therefore, no further work is necessary for the property. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS—Would the project: Reference "Update Geotechnical Investigation, La Costa Village Center Townhomes, Levatino Property, Carlsbad, CA" prepared by Geocon Incorporated, revised March 9,2004. 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 "Update Geotechnical Investigation, La Costa Village Center Townhomes, Levatino Property, Carlsbad, CA" 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 Geocon Incorporated, dated March 9, 2004. 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. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ,- iv. Landslides? No Impact. The 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. Those slopes will be properly landscaped and irrigated. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 21 Rev. 07/03/02 No Impact. The site is underlain by shallow topsoil, alluvium/colluvium, and Terrace Deposits over Tertiary-age Santiago Formation. Topsoil and alluvium/colluvium 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. 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, or expansive soils. 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. VI. 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. This project does not require fire suppression zones for protection from wildland fires. However, multiple family dwelling units are required to be fully sprinkled. The site is consistent with the McClellan Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. VII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY—Would the project: Please reference the Drainage Study and the Stormwater Management Plan prepared by Hunsaker & Associates, dated September 29, 2004. 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 offsite detention basin. Drainage currently flows to this basin. The amount of runoff entering the 30" drainpipe that collects flows from the basin will actually decrease. This decrease, which will occur for 100 and 10-year storm events, is due to proposed modifications to the 36 inch riser within the basin. All onsite storm drains are designed to accept a 100-year storm event. Since all runoff will either flow through grass swales or enter the detention basin before discharging off-site, pollutants within the runoff will be adequately treated. The detention basin provides a means for settling suspended solids,before entering the public storm drain. Soil infiltration within the basin aids in pollutant removal. Also, lawn areas and vegetation within the basin absorb pollutants through their roots. 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 storm water infrastructure. VIII. 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. 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 Habitat Management Plan (HMP) requires the development to be concentrated on the southern 25% of the project site. Therefore, the project is proposing an amendment to the General Plan land use designations from RM to Residential Medium-High (RMH) and open space (OS). The project is 22 Rev. 07/03/02 ^ j providing 53 dwelling units. If the project were to be developed over the entire 13.6 developable acres the project would yield 4 du/ac, within the anticipated range of the RM land use designation. The project is included within the City of Carlsbad's HMP as a standards area. Through negotiations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, California Department of Fish and Game, and the City of Carlsbad, the proposed project is within the predetermined maximum allowable impacts for this particular property. The project does not conflict with any applicable plans or policies. IX. 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. X. NOISE—Would the project: Please reference the "Acoustical Site Assessment, La Costa Village Townhomes-Carlsbad, CA, ISE Report #00-042", prepared by Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc., dated April 15, 2004. a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The traffic noise levels from El Camino Real 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 El Camino Real; therefore, these units will require mitigation. The proposed ground level mitigation plan consists of a combination often-foot-high berm and six-foot-high clear sound barriers around the southern and eastern portion of the project site. The second floor balcony areas of Buildings 8 through 12 will require eight-foot- high wall/glass barriers to properly mitigate for the future El Camino Real noise levels. With incorporation of the mitigation measurers the potential noise impacts are reduces to below a level of significance. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? 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) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less than Significant Impact. Other than traffic generated noise, typical grading/ subdivision/ residential land uses do not generate a substantial amount of noise. With regard to temporary or periodic increase in noise levels, the only potential increase in noise would be from construction activity associated with the development of the project. The City incorporates standard regulations on all project construction activity to ensure that noise and other potential impacts to surrounding properties are not significant. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in a substantial permanent or temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project is not within the 60 dBA CNEL influence area of McClellan-Palomar Airport and associated industrial uses. The above acoustical assessment states that no aircraft noise mitigation would be required for this project. 23 Rev. 07/03/02 XL POPULATION AND HOUSING—Would the project: a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact. The 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 is consistent with the City of Carlsbad General Plan. The GP land use designation is RM, which anticipates medium density residential development (4 to 8 du/ac). The Habitat Management Plan (BMP) requires the development to be concentrated on the southern 25% of the project site. Therefore, the project is proposing an amendment to the General Plan land use designation from RM to Residential Medium-High (RMH) and Open Space (OS). The project is providing 53 dwelling units. If 53 units were to be developed over the entire 13.6 developable acres the project would yield 4 du/ac, which is within the anticipated range of the RM General Plan land use designation. No major infrastructure facilities are proposed for extension to serve the project. a) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? b) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The project site is currently vacant therefore no existing housing or people will be displaced. XII. PUBLIC SERVICES—Would the project: a) No Impact. Redesignating the subject property's zoning from Limited Control to Residential Density Multiple and Open Space to provide for 53 single-family, attached townhomes will not effect the provision and availability of public facilities (fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, libraries, etc.). The proposed project shall be subject to the conditions and facility service level requirements within the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 21, therefore no significant public service impacts will occur. XIII. RECREATION—Would the project: a-b) No Impact. The project's size of 53 dwelling units will not result in the deterioration of existing neighborhood or regional parks or cause such parks to be expanded, so no adverse physical effect on the environment will occur. On-site recreational opportunities are available in the form of a 6,400 square foot recreation area that includes a swimming pool, spa, pool deck and barbeque areas. Other recreational options include an overlook seating area, patio areas, interior courtyards between the buildings and a walking trail that meanders around the perimeter of the project. These recreational facilities will not have an adverse physical effect on the environment. XIV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC—Would the project: Please reference the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan, 2004. 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 424 Average Daily Trips (ADT), which is not substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. This traffic will utilize the following roadways Dove Lane.and El Camino Real. Existing traffic on El Camino Real is 27,000 - 49,000 ADT (2003). 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 and is consistent with the General Plan. 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. 24 Rev. 07/03/02 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 Palotnar 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. 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 capacity(ies) of the designated roads and highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the short- term and at buildout. All corridors and intersections in the vicinity of the proposed project would operate at acceptable levels of service and no significant circulation or traffic impacts would be caused by the additional ADT. Anticipating growth in the area, the Zone 21 LFMP identified the major improvements necessary to deal with such growth. 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. Adequate emergency access from the project site shall be provided with an entry point on Dove Lane and one emergency-only access point at El Camino Real located in the southeastern portion of the development. 1) Result in inadequate parking capacity? / No Impact. 122 parking spaces are required. The project is proposing 106-garaged spaces for residents and 16 open spaces for visitors. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)? No Impact. The proposed project complies with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. The project will be located proximate to a major roadway (El Camino Real), employment opportunities (nearby business parks and commercial centers), and alternative transportation (bus transit and bicycle and pedestrian access). 25 Rev. 07/03/02 39 Traffic Impact Analysis- La Costa Village Center Townhomes. Carlsbad. California. Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers, February 26, 2004. XV. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS—Would the project: a-g) No Impact. The proposed residential development will be required to comply with all Regional Water Quality Control Board Requirements. In addition, the Zone 21 LFMP anticipated that the project site would be developed with a residential use and wastewater treatment facilities were planned and designed to accommodate future residential uses on the site. All public facilities, including water 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 development on the site will increase the demand for these facilities. However, the proposed density would not result in an overall increase in the City's growth projection in the SE quadrant. 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. XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE—Would the project: 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 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? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation is Incorporated -The proposed project's required mitigation, as outlined in the Biological Resources section of this report, will preclude any possible degrading of the environment or substantial reductions of habitat and wildlife species. Cumulative impacts to sensitive plant and wildlife species within the MHCP Subarea would occur through the proposed project, in absence of the implementation of the HMP, and specifically the adjacent preserve system. However, the implementation of the HMP provides mitigation for these cumulative impacts because the plan has anticipated region-wide impacts and has adopted a preserve system that mitigates for these impacts. The Project is consistent with the MCHP guidelines and the regional planning efforts in the City of Carlsbad. Therefore, there will be no cumulative impacts to sensitive uplands, and plant and wildlife species. 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. The proposed project does not eliminate important examples of major periods of California history. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) Less Than Significant Impact. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects regional growth for the greater San Diego area, and local general plan land use policies are incorporated into SANDAG projections. Based upon those projections, region-wide standards, including storm water quality control, air quality standards, habitat conservation, congestion management standards, etc., are established to reduce the cumulative impacts of development in the region. All of the City's development standards and regulations are consistent with the region wide standards. The City's standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality and drainage standards, traffic standards, habitat and cultural resource protection regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that development within the City will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact. There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a cumulatively considerable impact on. 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 26 Rev. 07/03/02 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 that future development of the site will comply with City standards, the project will not result in any direct or indirect substantial adverse environmental effects on human beings. 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. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. 2. City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad. December 1999. 3. Comprehensive Land Use Plan McClellan-Palomar Airport Carlsbad. California. SANDAG, April 1994. 4. Biological Resources Technical Report and Impact Analysis for the Levatino Property. Dudek & Associates, Inc. February 2004 (Revised May 2005). 5. City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study. November 1992. 6. RECON Report Results for La Costa Village Townhomes (RECON #3906A). RECON, October 16, 2003. 7. Traffic Impact Analysis- La Costa Village Center Townhomes. Carlsbad. California. Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers, February 26, 2004. 8. Update Geotechnical Investigation. La Costa Village Center Townhomes. Levatino Property. Carlsbad. CA. GEOCON Incorporated, revised March 9, 2004. 9. Acoustical Site Assessment. La Costa Village Townhomes - Carlsbad. CA. ISE Report #00-042. Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc., revised April 15, 2004. 27 Rev. 07/03/02 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The project approval shall be conditioned as follows: 1. Temporary habitat protection fencing shall be installed to protect the habitat during grading and construction. A City-approved biologist shall establish the limits of the sensitive habitat in the field prior to grading and the biologist shall verify in writing that the habitat protection fence has been appropriately placed and is adequately functioning during site grading 2. Once grading and construction is completed, the temporary fence shall be removed and a permanent fence to prevent access to conserved areas by domesticated animals (specifically cats), to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, shall be placed in an approved location. 3. Prior to final map recordation or issuance of grading permit, whichever occurs first, all necessary agency permits shall be issued and a revegetation plan shall be approved by the USFWS, CDFG, and City of Carlsbad. The California Coastal Commission, in the HMP requires that there be no net loss of these plant species within the coastal zone. Thus, substantial restoration enhancement or creation must account for at least l:lof the mitigation. The remaining mitigation requirement must be satisfied through the purchase of credits within a suitable mitigation bank. HABITAT Coastal Sage Scrub - including all sub- associations Southern Maritime Chaparral EXISTING ACREAGE* 12.5 1.2 IMPACTS FROM SITE ACCESS AND EL CAMEVO REAL WIDENING 1.5 0 IMPACTS FROM PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (ACRES) 2.9 0.5 MITIGATION RATIO 2:1 3:1 MITIGATION REQUIREMENT (ACRES) 8.8 1.5 4. Prior to final map recordation or issuance of grading permit, whichever occurs first, mitigation for the impacts to the unvegetated Waters of the U.S. shall be satisfied through the purchase of .03 acres within a suitable mitigation bank. HABITAT Waters of the U.S. (Unvegetative) EXISTING ACREAGE* 0.03 IMPACTS FROM SITE ACCESS AND EL CAMINO REAL WIDENING 0 IMPACTS FROM PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (ACRES) 0.01 MITIGATION RATIO 3:1 MITIGATION REQUIREMENT (ACRES) 0.03 4. Construction noise that could affect migratory songbirds and other species associated with the sensitive habitat area shall be avoided. In order to ensure compliance, grading shall be avoided during the bird nesting season (February 15-August 31). If a grading permit is required, this restriction can be waivgd by the City of Carlsbad, with concurrence from the Wildlife Agencies (USF&W, CDF&G), upon completion of a breeding/nesting bird survey in accordance to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. If nests are present, no grading or removal of habitat may take place within 200 feet of active nesting sites during the nesting/breeding season (mid-February through mid-July). A buffer zone will be established around any identified nests in coordination with the monitoring biologist. / 5. If a grading permit is required, all grading activities are prohibited from (February 1st for gnatcatcher or March 1st for vireo) to (September 15th for gnatcatcher or October 1st for vireo). Grading activities are therefore, allowed during a portion of the "rainy season". All erosion control and revegetation measures must be fully implemented prior to the grading prohibition period. Any extensions must receive written approval of the City Engineer and the responsible wildlife agencies (California Department of Fish and Game/United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 28 Rev. 07/03/02 6. Prior to grading activities and in coordination with a monitoring biologist salvage of the Nuttall's scrub oak may be implemented according to the "Biological Resources Technical Report and Impact analysis for the Levatino Property, City of Carlsbad" (Dudek, 2005), conducted prior to grading impacts. 7. Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first, the Developer shall take the following actions to the satisfaction of the Planning Director in relation to the open space lot(s) which are being conserved for natural habitat in conformance with the city's Habitat Management Plan: a. Select a conservation entity, subject to approval by the City, that possesses qualifications to manage the open space lot(s) for conservation purposes. b. Prepare a Property Analysis Record (PAR) or other method acceptable to the City for estimating the costs of management and monitoring of the open space lot(s) in perpetuity. c. Based on the results of the PAR, provide a non-wasting endowment or other financial mechanism acceptable to the Planning Director and conservation entity, if any, in an amount sufficient for management and monitoring of the open space lot(s) in perpetuity. The Conservation Easement shall provide that the non-wasting endowment shall transfer to the City if the City accepts the Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate fee title to the open space lot(s). d. Record a Conservation Easement over the open space lot(s) which includes an Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate fee title to the open space lot(s) in favor of the City. e. Prepare a permanent preserve management plan for the City's approval that will ensure adequate management, including preparation of the PAR and provision of the endowment, of the open space lot(s) in perpetuity. 8. The landscape plan shall utilize only indigenous, native species adjacent to the sensitive habitat area in order to prevent invasive/noxious species from invading the sensitive habitat. No invasive/noxious species shall be allowed within the project's plant palette. The landscape plan plant palette shall be reviewed by the project biologist and the project biologist shall certify in writing, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, that the plant palette is appropriate and meets this standard prior to approval of the landscape plan by the city of Carlsbad. 9. All project lighting shall be directed away from and shall be shielded from the sensitive habitat to prevent light pollution on the sensitive habitat. 10. Surface drainage from development-related hardscape surfaces shall be processed onsite, and no discharge of materials (other the clean water) shall be directed in the sensitive habitat area. NOISE The project approval shall be conditioned as follows: 1. The proposed ground level noise mitigation plan consists of a combination of ten-foot-high and six-foot-high barriers around the southern and eastern portion of the project site. The second floor balcony areas of Buildings 8 through 12 will require eight-foot-high wall/glass barriers to properly mitigate for the future El Camino Real noise levels. This will reduce the noise levels to below the City's<60 dBA threshold. 2. The project shall complete an interior noise analysis, compliant with the CCR, Title 24, Noise Insulation Standards, prior to the issuance of building permits for future homes to demonstrate that the proposed architectural design would limit interior noise to 45 dBA CNEL or less. 3. Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, the developer shall prepare and record a notice that this property may be subject to noise impacts from El Camino Real, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney. 4. Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, the developer shall prepare and record a notice that this property is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan-Palomar Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney. 29 Rev. 07/03/02 43. J J 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 Signajrfre ^ 31 Rev. 07/03/02 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 1 of 4 COos O cri 0 § CL O CD 0 o 0N 0 1 o < CD coo S CL O cro r--" ^o CLQ O r--'o S Q. CO S§ CO CLfy* fi UJ X SriIs^ o LU CL=1 QLL co 0•*- »ro .O) 1 tl0 o c 00 "8"a. co jz "^ "ro o Q. Q. •s coco ^oO 0£ o•*-* CO0Eo.cc 5O 1—0 -*— 'c0O 0crro •^to o O ro i_ TJ "ro Q.i_ 8 E0 CO0 ro0 E in §O -jzo roCN D)•~ ^ 10 _-Q ro 0 0 (i) E*** r™Q p lii H c^ < 0 < Q D)Z _j cH <: >O > oLU O =5^ a: -2O CL a.CC CL ^CL < \- 15£ CO 1O T3 1 ro0E co toD) 1»— * E oro0i_ «^••-» 0 .co 0 ro cro T30 "0a. E0o < 8cro0 'cD) 'coc X—O (D (D ro 0 tsroa. £ 2"c0 ^2 c0 0 "c0 !2 Assembly2 "o0Q.CO0) .c 'i j2 "c0 0 '5 CT roc't_ 'co E -^•+-•b0-*-» CO := "5*^— T3 Cro -Q0"£0 0a. E -a ro £ § •^^0 "5. Eoo cz00.Q COro 0 :5 CO 0 E co ro.ro E CO £ *-i. 00o CN Co 0CO 0T3oo CO 2 0 CO0a: o 1513CL, o00 CO= CQ ro E0CC o "§! £ COfc I "5. E c 0 COc c OE CO OJC C CO •8 ~c o Q- ^Q O)c "o 0 ~ >< o Mitigation Measure"c O) Q) •- E§| CL COQ CO'e*Q. •o ^ COO «=Temporary habitat protection fencing shall be installed to proteithe habitat during grading and construction. A City-approvedbiologist shall establish the limits of the sensitive habitat in theprior to grading and the biologist shall verify in writing that thehabitat protection fence has been appropriately placed and isadequately functioning during site grading*- O) 0).£ E = 1 CL coQ •*-» '1CL 8i Once grading and construction is completed, the temporary fershall be removed and a permanent fence, to the satisfaction ofPlanning Director, shall be placed in an approved location._"£D) COC p 'c -§JaCL Q) Q .*_• 0CO"o" CL co" c"-» n Prior to final map recordation or issuance of grading permit,whichever occurs first, all necessary agency permits shall beissued and a revegetation plan shall be approved by the USFVCDFG, and City of Carlsbad. The California Coastal Commissiiin the HMP requires that there be no net loss of these plantspecies within the coastal zone. Thus, substantial restorationenhancement or creation must account for at least 1 :1of themitigation. The remaining mitigation requirement must besatisfied through the purchase of credits within a suitablemitigation bank (See El A part II for acreages)• _ ^O) 0 - E §=£« aCL COQ o 'g* CL <Prior to final map recordation or issuance of grading permit,whichever occurs first, mitigation for the impacts to theunvegetated Waters of the U.S. shall be satisfied through thepurchase of .03 acres within a suitable mitigation bank. (See Epart II for acreages)a) I <uf £ o £ a, =ra raJ: en § 1 « 0) a c c ofc -C3 °> §1 §•TT TO n_CJ T3 0.9>T3 ».« C 3E "faHI5 isg5i:j3 = -Qi'* s li»1 § £ II-•g5*.9> TO ^ Ea> a>> or CL X 1Q. Qor particulaionitoringible fopoI1 c _3 8 <A JO II Ma I0) coI JSQ X UJ ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 2 of 4 COE0)D; .g S co 1 «"a E c0 wC C 5 COOQ. CO o>"c.C 0) 0 S•*-• L_'c °J ^~ OQ O)_c O Q. 'c ^o l~Mitigation Measure-4— • 0) 0 •— tr r~ ^m a Q. 0)Q "oCD '£"0-Construction noise that could affect migratory songbirds and otherspecies associated with the sensitive habitat area shall beavoided. In order to ensure compliance, grading shall be avoidedduring the bird nesting season (February t5-August 31). If agrading permit is required, this restriction can be waived by theCity of Carlsbad, with concurrence from the Wildlife Agencies(USF&W, CDF&G), upon completion of a breeding/nesting birdsurvey in accordance to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. If nests arepresent, no grading or removal of habitat may take place within200 feet of active nesting sites during the nesting/breeding season(mid-February through mid-July). A buffer zone will be establishedaround any identified nests in coordination with the monitoringbiologist._ "c O> Q) •il1 aD. <0Q •S0) '2"Q.If a grading permit is required, all grading activities are prohibitedfrom (February 1st for gnatcatcher or March 1st for vireo) to(September 1 5th for gnatcatcher or October 1 st for vireo).Grading activities are therefore, allowed during a portion of the"rainy season". All erosion control and revegetation measuresmust be fully implemented prior to the grading prohibition period.Any extensions must receive written approval of the City Engineerand the responsible wildlife agencies (California Department ofFish and Game/United States Fish and Wildlife Service)._"£o) a) •| E ro a Q_ Q) Q "oCD'sT Q.Prior to grading activities and in coordination with a monitoringbiologist salvage of the Nuttall's scrub oak may be implementedaccording to the "Biological Resources Technical Report andImpact analysis for the Levatino Property, City of Carlsbad"(Dudek, 2005), conducted prior to grading impacts.c<u & Q. % §to '^=ra rac. o>'S9> O) 'o 15-3-5 E ™ ra ffiIn S £ ra If! § s $.&%O r-p.'+Za.E E a.a•a I ra"5o'•crao.ra O)c o.« ^OE 5 £ 'a>coQ.tn<u 0)J3 1c1 1 to!c**.(0cJSa. co $ ^V) _c/> •B§1ra .- o oS £2 £ V) ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 3 of 4 jg ro E0) 0»= T3 JS QJ C f=- 0) 1 §"5. E c 0 wc c5 roOE w •4-JCO CC 0) 3-1§a2 d) COc P Q. ''c ^o *~Mitigation Measure' „,"£0) 0) 'E £ *£Q. 0) Q •G Q^o" CL cordation of the final map or prior to issuance of amit, whichever occurs first, the Developer shall take thections to the satisfaction of the Planning Director ino> <5 ro 0 en c* C '•> •§'! =the open space lot(s) which are being conserved foritat in conformance with the city's Habitat Management_ jas« c —g 55 — "K ™Select a conservation entity, subject to approval by theCity, that possesses qualifications to manage the openspace lot(s) for conservation purposes.ro Prepare a Property Analysis Record (PAR) or othermethod acceptable to the City for estimating the costsof management and monitoring of the open spacelot(s) in perpetuity.J3 Based on the results of the PAR, provide a non-wasting endowment or other financial mechanismacceptable to the Planning Director and conservation<J entity, if any, in an amount sufficient for managementand monitoring of the open space lot(s) in perpetuity.The Conservation Easement shall provide that thenon-wasting endowment shall transfer to the City if theCity accepts the Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate fee titleto the open space lot(s).Record a Conservation Easement over the openspace lot(s) which includes an Irrevocable Offer to-d !*_. O o 1 c 22 8roCL (UQ.o 0) a Q) 0) 0} • ^ 03 Q £Prepare a permanent preserve management plan forthe City's approval that will ensure adequatemanagement, ^including preparation of the PAR andprovision of the endowment, of the open space lot(s)oi in perpetuity..s•oc(DQ. Qre .23O' o a 03 oQ.01 incSQ. Co c i §? II C U)C T3ro <D II ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 4 of 4 roE rr cO "S? S.9> <=rt: o> o> E> 0)"5. E c0 wi c |£ •i * -*3 "C f* ci^ CD Q D) C O'- Q •— ; >• o *~llMitigation Measure™ cO) (D •i Ei -c S&Q. 0)Q .92,o' QL The landscape plan shall utilize only indigenous, native speciesadjacent to the sensitive habitat area in order to preventinvasive/noxious species from invading the sensitive habitat. Noinvasive/noxious species shall be allowed within the project's plantpalette. The landscape plan plant palette shall be reviewed by theproject biologist and the project biologist shall certify in writing, tothe satisfaction of the Planning Director, that the plant palette isappropriate and meets this standard prior to approval of thelandscape plan by the city of Carlsbad.0) &•— £c •£- rag. Q. 0) Q 0) '£? Q.IAII project lighting shall be directed away from and shall beshielded from the sensitive habitat to prevent light pollution on thesensitive habitat.O) (1) •— E"t ro 2. Q_ 0)Q Q) "2" CL 1Surface drainage from development-related hardscape surfacesshall be processed onsite, and no discharge of materials (other theclean water) shall be directed in the sensitive habitat area.O) m i Ec ^ CL (UQ Ip Q.The proposed ground level noise mitigation plan consists of acombination often-foot-high and six-foot-high barriers around thesouthern and eastern portion of the project site. The second floorbalcony areas of Buildings 8 through 12 will require eight-foot-highwall/glass barriers to properly mitigate for the future El CaminoReal noise levels. This will reduce the noise levels to below theCity's 60 dBA threshold.ra =•|E c ^ E <uQ K g^o Q.The project shall complete an interior noise analysis, compliantwith the CCR, Title 24, Noise Insulation Standards, prior to theissuance of building permits for future homes to demonstrate thatthe proposed architectural design would limit interior noise to 45dBACNELorless.D) Q) •— E"C ra Q. Q. <UQ .92,o D.Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, the developer shallprepare and record a notice that this property may be subject tonoise impacts from El Camino Real, in a form meeting theapproval of the Planning Director and City Attorney.• O) Q) •— E"C ro g.rx 0Q .0,o 0.Prior to the recordation of fhe' Final Map, the developer shallprepare and record a notice that this property is subject tooverflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan-Palomar Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the PlanningDirector and City Attorney.(I)I •" oin '.=ra ra 1inra s '£ ™ ra Fa!" |lg> 1 *£Sis I CC Q DC g a particmonisibleiscma.co os:intn 0) :5v>S .115 J2ra I13 > T3 •S§1 .£ V) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife 6010 Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad, California 92011 (760)431-9440 FAX (760) 431-5902+ 9618 California Department of Fish & Game Office South Coast Region 4949 Viewridge Avenue San Diego, California 92123 (858) 467-4201 FAX (858) 467-4299 In Reply Refer To: FWS/CDFG-SDG-4706.1 Ms. Jessica Galloway City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 ft JAN 1 0 2006 Re: Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the La Costa Village Center Townhomes Project (SCH# 2005121062) Dear Ms. Galloway: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the Department of Fish and Game (Department), collectively the "Wildlife Agencies," have reviewed the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and supporting documentation for the La Costa Village Center Townhomes Project, which we received on December 12, 2005. The comments provided herein are based on the information provided in the MND; information provided during our November 7, 2004, meeting with the City of Carlsbad (City) and project applicant; our project files; the Wildlife Agencies' knowledge of sensitive and declining vegetation communities in San Diego County; and our participation in regional conservation planning efforts. The primary concern and mandate of the Service is the protection of public fish and wildlife resources and their habitats. The Service has legal responsibility for the welfare of migratory birds, anadromous fish, and endangered animals and plants occurring in the United States. The Service is also responsible for administering the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The Service issued an Incidental Take Permit pursuant to the Act for the City's Habitat Management Plan (December 1999, as amended; HMP). The Department is a Trustee Agency and a Responsible Agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, sections 15386 and 15381, respectively. The Department is responsible for the conservation, protection, and management of the state's biological resources, including rare, threatened, and endangered plant and animal species, pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act and other sections of the Fish and Game Code. The Department also administers the Natural Community Conservation Planning program (NCCP) in which the City is a participant through the implementation of its HMP. The Department Inds that the project would not be de minimis in its effects on fish and wildlife per section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. The 14.4-acre project site (aka the Levatino property in the City's HMP) is located adjacent to the northwest corner of the intersection of El Camino Real and Dove Lane in the Poinsettia / TAKE PRIDEDIN^M ERICA Ms. Jessica Galloway (FWS/CDFG-SDG-4706.1) 2 of 4 Aviara Management Unit of the Open Space Management Plan for the HMP, within the Coastal Zone. In the context of the HMP and the City's Growth Management Plan, the property is located in the Local Facilities Management Zone 21 in the south-central portion of Focal Planning Core Area 6,and is designated as a Standards Area (i.e., subject to specific standards articulated in Addendum 2 to the HMP). The project site supports 7.0 acres of coastal sage scrub (CSS), 2.7 acres of disturbed CSS, 2.8 acres coyote brush scrub (CBS), 1.2 acres of southern maritime chaparral (SMaC), 0.1 acre of coastal freshwater marsh, 0.03 acre of waters of the U.S., 0.01 acre of disturbed wetland, 0.4 acre of developed area (roads), and 0.3 acre of disturbed habitat (denuded area). The site also supports the following: coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica, gnatcatcher), Del Mar sand aster (Corethrogyne filaginifolia var. linifolia, 1,834 individuals), a narrow endemic species, and Nuttall's scrub oak (Quercus dumosa, 20 individuals). These are covered species under the HMP; however, the coverage of Del Mar sand aster is contingent upon funding for the management of conserved areas. The project would result in the following losses: 2.9 acres of CSS; 1.8 acres of disturbed CSS; 0.5 acres of CBS; 0.5 acre of SMaC; 0.01 acre of waters of the U.S.; 0.1 acre of developed area; 0.2 acre of disturbed habitat; 295 individuals of Del Mar sand aster (i.e., 16 percent of the total number on site); and all or almost all of the Nuttall's scrub oak. The proposed construction footprint of the 53 condominiums would occupy 3.4 acres, which is less than the 25 percent (i.e., 3.6 acres) developable area of the project site per the HMP. The proposed impacts from site access and widening of El Camino Real would be 1.6 acres which would extend the total impacts beyond the 25 percent developable area; however, the HMP allows additional impacts to obtain site access and/or to accommodate circulation road improvements as identified in the City's Local Coastal Plan. Impacts resulting from the widening of El Camino Real will be mitigated by the project applicant pursuant to the requirements of the HMP. Also consistent with the standards outlined in the HMP, the proposed development would occur within the southern portion of the project site in order to retain a connection at the northern tip of the property to off-site habitat that is part of a linkage within the HMP. The Wildlife Agencies offer our following recommendations and comments to assist the City in minimizing and mitigating project impacts to biological resources, and to assure that the project is consistent with ongoing regional habitat conservation planning efforts. 1. We are concerned that impacts to Nuttall's scrub oak, a species covered by the HMP, -are not mitigated. The HMP requires the conservation of 100 percent of the major populations and approximately 60 percent of small populations of Nuttall's scrub oak within the City; the population on site qualifies as the latter. While we recognize 60 percent avoidance would place significant constraints on this project, we do not believe that fact eliminates the need to mitigate impacts to Nuttall's scrub oak. The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) accompanying the MND states, "it is anticipated that mitigation for the impacts to [SMaC] will include locations of this species, thus the impacts to Nuttall's scrub oak are not considered significant." Since the proposed project would remove all or almost all of the Nuttall's scrub oak on the project site, we recommend specifically that the final MND require that the SMaC off-site mitigation support at least 12 (i.e., 20 x .60) Ms. Jessica Galloway (FWS/CDFG-SDG-4706.1) 3 of 4 individual plants of NuttalFs scrub oak. 2. Based on our review of the site plans, it appears that all the project-related fuel modification zones, landscaping, and land to be occupied by best management practices are included in the calculation of acreage losses. If they are not, the final MND should add them to the acreage of impact and modify the mitigation requirements accordingly. 3. The EIA (page 28) states, "substantial restoration enhancement or creation must account for at least 1:1 of the mitigation. The remaining mitigation requirement may be satisfied through the purchase of credits within a suitable mitigation bank" (underline added). The HMP prohibits on-site preservation as mitigation for impacts within the Coastal Zone. Therefore, the final MND should require the "remaining mitigation requirement" to be satisfied through the purchase of credits within a suitable mitigation bank (i.e., change the "may" to "must"). 4. The developer is required to a) record a conservation easement over the 8.4 acres of proposed open space, select a conservation entity, b) prepare a Property Analysis Record (PAR) or similar analysis to estimate the costs of in-perpetuity management and monitoring of the open space, c) provide a non-wasting endowment or other financial mechanism based on the PAR sufficient to cover the costs of in-perpetuity management and monitoring of the open space, and d) prepare an interim management plan to be implemented "until such time as a permanent preserve management plan is prepared and approved by the City" (underline added). We recommend that the final MND clarify who will prepare the permanent preserve management plan (i.e., not the City) and stipulate that the permanent plan be prepared and approved prior to issuance of the grading permit, and that its implementation will begin upon its approval. 5. The project includes the installation of permanent five-foot tall tubular steel fencing between the development and the open space. We recommend that the spaces between the tubes by sufficiently narrow to prevent domestic cats from getting through them. 6. Consistent with the HMP, the proposed mitigation prohibits the use of invasive species in the project landscaping and requires that the project biologist certify in writing that the plant palette is appropriate. The plant palette we reviewed contains at least one invasive species (Schinus molle) listed in Table 12 - Invasive Exotic Plants -'hi the HMP. The HMP specifically prohibits the use of species listed in Table 12. There are two other species in the plant palette (Myoporum pacificum and M. parvifolium) that are non-native and invasive although only their close relative (M. laetum) is specifically called out in Table 12 of the HMP. Please ensure that all such plants are removed from the plant palette. ' 7. The mitigation measures in the EIA prohibit grading or removal of habitat within 200 feet of active avian nests. We recommend that the buffer for active gnatcatcher nests be at least 300 feet, or 200 feet from the edge of occupied habitat. Ms. Jessica Galloway (FWS/CDFO-SDG-4706.1)4 of 4 8. The HMP (page D-80) prohibits a net loss of more than 10 percent of the CSS and SMaC within Zone 21. The final MND should demonstrate that the proposed project would meet this standard. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this MND. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Ben Prater (Service) at (760) 431-9440 ext 310 or Libby Lucas (Department) at (858) 467^230. Sincerely, Thefeie O'RourRe Assistant Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service vMichael Mulligan Deputy Regional Manager California Department of Fish and Game cc: Ellen Lirley, California Coastal Commission State Clearinghouse 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6055 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE AND 4 OPEN SPACE ELEMENTS OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY (RM, 4-8 DU/AC) 6 TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY (RMH 8-15 DU/AC) AND OPEN SPACE (OS) ON A 14.4 ACRE 7 PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF EL CAMINO REAL AND NORTH OF DOVE LANE 8 WITHIN THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL 9 COASTAL PROGRAM AND LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 21. 10 CASE NAME: LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER TOWNHOMES 11 CASE NO: GPA04-10 12 WHEREAS, Marker La Costa LLC, "Developer," has filed a verified 13 application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Noreen Levatino, "Owner," 14 described as 15 , r All that portion of the west half of the northeast Quarter of Section 26, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino 17 Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, being more particularly described in certificate 18 of compliance record June 16,1989 as file No. 89-317343 19 ("the Property"); and 20 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a General Plan 21 Amendment as shown on Exhibit "GPA 04-10" dated April 5, 2006, attached hereto and on file 22 in 'the Carlsbad Planning Department LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER TOWNHOMES -23 i 24 GPA 04-10 as provided in Government Code Section 65350 et. seq. and Section 21.52.160 of 25 the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and ^)f\WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors 28 relating to the General Plan Amendment. 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning 2 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows: 3 A) That the above recitations are true and correct. 4 " - B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER 6 TOWNHOMES - GPA 04-10, based on the following findings: 7 Findings: 1. The Planning Commission finds that the project is in conformance with the elements of the City's General Plan based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated April 5, 2006 including but not limited to the following: that the proposed Residential Medium High 10 and Open Space Land Use designations are compatible with the surrounding land uses in that the adjacent land uses are designated Residential Low-Medium (RLM), 11 Local Shopping Center (CL), Residential Medium-High (RM-H), and Residential Medium (RM); that the land use change is based on the environmental constraints 12 of the property and are environmentally and topographically appropriate for the site in that the habitat buffer and habitat areas are proposed to be designated as Open Space; that the proposed Open Space areas are consistent with the Habitat 14 Management Plan for Natural Communities and that the project will yield a similar dwelling unit yields as the original RM Land Use designation. 15 Conditions:16 This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, LCPA 04-09, and ZC 04-06 and lg is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6054, 6056, and 6057 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PCRESONO. 6055 -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 5th day of April 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES:Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman, Segall, and Whitton NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MARTELL B. MONT(JUMbKY,|^airperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST ;NEU Assistant Planning Director PCRESONO. 6055 GPA 04-10 LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER TOWNHOMES April 5. 2006 EXISTING PROPOSED Related Case File No(s): ZC 04-06 / LCPA 04-09 /CT 04-08 / / SDP 04-05 / CDP 04-17 / SUP 04-07 / CP 04-03 / HDP 04-04 Zone Change Property From:To: A. 215-050-73-00 B. C, D. RM RMH / OS 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6056 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CARLSBAD 4 LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM (RM, 4-8 DU/AC) TO 5 RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM-HIGH (RMH, 8-15 DU/AC) AND 6 OPEN SPACE (OS), AND THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM ZONING DESIGNATION FROM LIMITED CONTROL (L-C) 7 TO RESIDENTIAL DENSITY-MULTIPLE WITH QUALIFIED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (RD-M-Q) AND OPEN SPACE 8 (OS) ON A 14.4 ACRE SITE ON PROPERTY LOCATED GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF EL y CAMINO REAL AND NORTH OF DOVE LANE WITHIN THE 10 MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 21. 11 CASE NAME: LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER TOWNHOMES 12 CASE NO: LCPA 04-09 WHEREAS, California State law requires that the Local Coastal Program, 14 General Plan, and Zoning designations for properties in the Coastal Zone be in conformance; and 15 WHEREAS, Marker La Costa LLC, "Developer," has filed a verified16 17 application for an amendment to the Local Coastal Program designations regarding property 18 owned by Noreen Levatino, "Owner," described as 19 All that portion of the west half of the northeast Quarter of ~0 Section 26, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State 21 of California, being more particularly described in certificate of compliance record June 16,1989 as file No. 89-317343 22 ("the Property"); and f £*3 24 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Local Coastal X 25 Program Amendment as shown on Exhibits "LCPA 04-09" dated April 5,2006, attached hereto, 26 as provided in Public Resources Code Section 30574 and Article 15 of Subchapter 8, Chapter 2, 27 Division 5.5 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations of the California Coastal 28 Commission Administrative Regulations; and 1 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 5th day of April 2006, hold a 2 duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 3 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony 4 and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors 5 relating to the Local Coastal Program Amendment; and 7 WHEREAS, State Coastal Guidelines requires a six week public review period o for any amendment to the Local Coastal Program. 9 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning 10 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows: 11 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 13 B) At the end of the State mandated six week review period, starting on March 15, 2006 and March 17,2006 and ending on April 28, 2006, staff shall present to the 14 City Council a summary of the comments received. 15 C) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER TOWNHOMES - LCPA 04-09 based on the following findings, and subject to 17 the following conditions: 18 Findings: 19 1. That the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment meets the requirements of, and is _„ in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act and all applicable policies of the Mello II segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program not being amended by 21 this amendment, in that the Local Coastal Program (RMH) and (OS) Land Use designations anjl (RD-M-Q) and (OS) zoning designations are consistent with the 22 Residential Medium-High Density (RMH, 8-15 du/ac) and Open Space General Plan Land Use designations, the Residential Density-Multiple with Qualified 23 Development Overlay (RD-M-Q) and Open Space (OS) Zoning designations, and 24 the project is required to provide drainage and erosion control measures. t 25 2. That the proposed amendment to the Mello II segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program is required to bring it into consistency with the property's Local Coastal 26 Program Land Use and Zoning designations into consistency with the General Plan Land Use designations, and Zoning designations. 28 PC RESO NO. 6056 -2- 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24/ 25 26 27 28 Conditions: Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to final recordation or issuance of grading permit, whichever occurs first. - map 1. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, GPA 04-10, and ZC 04-06 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6055 and 6057 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference. 6054, PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting to the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 5th day of April 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman, Segall, and Whitton NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: • _ <*/& /kJ"7~CT**5J ^ ^f* MARTELL B. MONTGOMERY, Mirperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION / x^~ ATTEST// 1 \ J S /?. // // 1 ./ / i/ jil// // J/ / ^f / •rf' / 7/V j / / ™ Assistant Planning Director PC RESO NO. 6056 -3-^ LCPA 04-09 LAND USE LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER TOWNHOMES April 5. 2006 EXISTING PROPOSED Related Case File No(s): GPA 04-10/ZC 04-06 /CT 04-08 / SDP 04-05 / CDP 04-17/SUP 04-07 / CP 04-03 / HDP 04-04 Zone Change Property From:To: A. 215-050-73-00 JB. ^D. RM RMH / OS LCPA 04-09 ZONE CHANGE LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER TOWNHOMES April 5. 2006 EXISTING ^H PROPOSED Related Case File No(s): GPA 04-1 0/ ZC 04-06 /CT 04-08 / SDP 04-05 / CDP 04-1 7 /SUP 04-07 / CP 04-03 / HDP 04-04 Zone Change Property From:To: A. 215-050-73-00 B. C. D. L-C RD-M/Q / OS 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6057 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF 3 THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE 4 FROM LIMITED CONTROL (L-C) TO RESIDENTIAL DENSITY-MULTIPLE WITH QUALIFIED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (RD-M-Q) AND OPEN SPACE (O-S), ON A 14.4 6 ACRE SITE LOCATED ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF EL CAMINO REAL 7 AND NORTH OF DOVE LANE WITHIN THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND 8 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 21. CASE NAME: LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER TOWNHOMES 10 CASE NO: ZC 04-06 WHEREAS, Marker La Costa LLC, "Developer," has filed a verified 12 application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Noreen Levatino, "Owner," 13 described as 14 All that portion of the west half of the northeast Quarter of Section 26, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino .,- Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, being more particularly described in certificate 17 of compliance record June 16,1989 as file No. 89-317343 18 ("the Property"); and WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Zone Change as shown on 20 Exhibits "ZC 04-06" dated April 5, 2006, attached hereto and on file in the Planning 21 Department, LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER TOWNHOMES - ZC 04-06 as provided by 22 Chapter 21.52 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and 24 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 5th day of April, 2006, hold a f 25 duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony 27 and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors 28 relating to the Zone Change. 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 Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER 6 TOWNHOMES - ZC 04-06 based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: 7 Findings: o That the proposed Zone Change from Limited Control (L-C) to Residential Density Medium with Qualified Development Overlay (RD-M-Q) and Open Space (OS) is 10 consistent with the goals and policies of the various elements of the General Plan, in that that the proposed zones replace the (L-C) zone which is intended to be an 11 interim zone designation. The proposed (RD-M-Q) and (OS) land uses are consistent with the Residential Medium-High (RMH, 4-8 du/ac) and Open Space (OS) General Plan Land Use designations which were earlier found to be consistent 13 with the General Plan. 14 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 zoning designations shown on Exhibit "ZC 04-06" attached , r hereto, implements the General Plan Land Use Designations of RMH and OS. 17 3. That the Zone Change is consistent with the public convenience, necessity and general welfare, and is consistent with sound planning principles in that residential and open 18 space uses allowed by the proposed zone change are compatible with the adjacent and future residential and open space uses. 2Q Conditions: 21 1. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, GPA 04-10, and LCPA 04-09 22 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6054, 6055, and 6056 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference. 24 25 26 27 28 PC RESO NO. 6057 -2- 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 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 5th day of April 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman, Segall, and Whitton MARTELL B. MONTGOM, Rrperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATT )N NEU sistant Planning Director PC RESO NO. 6057 7 -3- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6058 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 2 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CARLSBAD TRACT TO GRADE AND 3 SUBDIVIDE A 14.4 ACRE SITE INTO 2 RESIDENTIAL LOTS FOR 53 DWELLING UNITS, 1 DRIVEWAY LOT, AND 1 OPEN 4 SPACE LOT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON <. THE WEST SIDE OF EL CAMINO REAL AND NORTH OF DOVE LANE WITHIN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT 6 ZONE 21. CASE NAME: LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER 7 TOWNHOMES CASE NO.: CT 04-08 9 WHEREAS, Marker La Costa LLC, "Developer," has filed a verified 10 application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Noreen Levatino, "Owner," * described as 12 All that portion of the west half of the northeast Quarter of 13 Section 26, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State 14 of California, being more particularly described in certificate of compliance record June 16,1989 as file No. 89-317343 16 ("the Property"); and 17 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Tentative Tract 18 Map as shown on Exhibits "A" - "HHH" dated April 5, 2006, on file in the Planning Department LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER TOWNHOMES - CT 04-08, as provided by 20 Chapter 20.12 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and 21 22 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 5th day of April 2006, hold a 23 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, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors 26 relating to the Tentative Tract Map. 27 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning 28 Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 2 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission 3 RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER TOWNHOMES - CT 04-08, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings; 6 1. That the proposed map and the proposed design and improvement of the subdivision as 7 conditioned, is consistent with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan, any applicable specific plans, Titles 20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and the State ° Subdivision Map Act, and will not cause serious public health problems, in that the n project is consistent with all requirements of the General Plan and Titles 20 and 21 governing subdivisions and the design of planned developments. 10 2. That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since 11 surrounding properties are designated for residential and open space development on the General Plan, in that the proposed project consists of open space and 53 airspace condominium units at densities similar and compatible with the surrounding residential land uses. 14 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the density 15 proposed, in that all required development standards and design criteria required by the applicable zoning standards are incorporated into the project without the need for variances from development standards. 17 4. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with 18 easements of record or easements established by court judgment, or acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, in 19 that the project has been designed and conditioned such that there are no conflicts with established easements.20 5. That the property is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act). 22 6. That the design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or 23 natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, in that structures are oriented in a manner that allows for solar exposure and will take advantage of shade and 24 receive prevailing breezes. 25 7. That the Planning Commission has considered, in connection with the housing proposed by this subdivision, the housing needs of the region, and balanced those housing needs against the public service needs of the City and available fiscal and environmental 27 resources. 28 8. That the design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their PC RESO NO. 6058 -2- habitat, in that the proposed development will impact 4.4 acres of Coastal Sage 2 Scrub, 0.5 acres of Southern Maritime Chaparral and 0.03 acres of Waters of the U.S. The project will mitigate for all impacted habitats, in compliance with the City 3 of Carlsbad HMP. Upland habitat [Coastal Sage Scrub (including all sub- associations), and Southern Maritime Chaparral] mitigation requires a "no net loss standard" and will typically consist of creation of the habitat being impacted (or ,- substantial restoration where allowed) at a ratio of at least 1:1 as provided in the HMP. Substantial restoration of the highly degraded areas (where effective 6 functions of the habitat type have been lost) may be substituted for creation subject to the consultation and concurrence of USFWS, CDFG, and the City of Carlsbad. 7 The remaining mitigation requirement will be satisfied through the purchases in a mitigation bank. Impacts to the unvegetated Waters of the U.S. shall be satisfied through the purchase in a suitable mitigation bank due to lack of restoration 9 opportunities on site, and the project is not impacting vegetative wetlands. 10 9. That the discharge of waste from the subdivision will not result in violation of existing California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, in that the project has been designed in accordance with the Best Management Practices for water quality protection in accordance with the City's sewer and drainage standards and the project is conditioned to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 13 System (NPDES) requirements. 14 10. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in conformance with the Elements of the City's General Plan, based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated April 5,2006, including, but not limited to the following: 16 a. Land Use - The RM and GMCP (6 du/ac), permits 81 residential units, and the project proposes 53 residential units. However, consistent with Program 3.8 of the City's certified Housing Element, all of the dwelling units, which 18 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 21 Housing Element allowing residential development with a unit capacity, including second dwelling units, adequate to satisfy the City's share of the 22 regional housing need. Projects are still considered to be consistent with the General Plan if they are approved at densities below the minimum of the 24 This project proposes 53 condominium units, which is below the density 25 range for the RM General Plan Land Use designation. However, the project application was on file, deemed complete, and considered "in the pipeline 26 before October 27, 2004, and is exempt from the recently adopted General Plan language which requires any subdivision of land or construction of more than one dwelling to be subject to the minimum density range and 28 intent of the underlying residential land use designation. PC RESO NO. 6058 -3- b. Circulation - The project will take access off of Dove Lane and the applicant 2 is proposing full street improvements to El Camino Real. On-site circulation consists of a private driveway which will be designed in accordance with City 3 standards. 4 c. Noise - The project is required to construct a combination of 10-foot-high and 6-foot-high barriers around the southern and eastern portion of the project site. The second floor balcony areas of Buildings 8 through 12 will 5 require 8-foot-high wall/glass barriers to properly mitigate for the future El Camino Real noise levels, and an acoustical analysis to ensure adequate 7 interior noise attenuation to below 45 dBA CNEL will be achieved is required prior to issuance of building permit. 8 d. Housing - The project is consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan and the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance as the applicant is proposing 10 to enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement to purchase 9 off site affordable housing credits in the Villa Loma Project. 11 11. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 21 and all City public facility policies and ,o ordinances. The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or provide funding to ensure that all facilities and improvements regarding sewer collection 14 and treatment; water; drainage; circulation; fire; schools; parks and other recreational facilities; libraries; government administrative facilities; and open space, related to the 15 project will be installed to serve new development prior to or concurrent with need. ,, Specifically,lo 17 a. The project has been conditioned to provide proof from the Carlsbad Unified School District that the project has satisfied its obligation for school facilities. 18 b. Park-in-lieu fees are required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 20.44, and will be collected prior to issuance of building permit. 20 c. The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and will be 21 collected prior to the issuance of building permit. 22 12. The project has been conditioned to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to 24 Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project. 25 13. This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the 26 Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 21. 27 14. That all necessary public facilities required by the Growth Management Ordinance will -R be constructed or are guaranteed to be constructed concurrently with the need for them created by this project and in compliance with adopted City standards. PC RESO NO. 6058 -4- / <? 15. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer 2 contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the 3 degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project. 4 Conditions; Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to final map recordation or issuance of grading permit, whichever occurs first. 7 1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so ° implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke, or further condition all certificates of occupancy 10 issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of violation on the property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said 11 conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this Tentative Tract Map. 13 2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Tentative Tract Map documents, as necessary to make them 14 internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. 16 3. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and 17 regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 4. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 20 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with 21 all requirements of law. 22 5. Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnr^y, protect, defend, and hold 23 harmless-the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, trom and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims 24 and costs, including court costs and attorney's fees incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this Tentative Tract Map, (b) City's approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non- discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator's installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby, 27 including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation 28 survives until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City's approval is not validated. PC RESO NO. 6058 -5- 6. Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the La Costa Village Center 2 Townhomes Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 3 7. Developer shall submit to Planning Department a reproducible 24" x 36" mylar copy of the Tentative Map reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making body. 4 5 8. Approval is granted for CT 04-08 as shown on Exhibits "A" - "HHH" dated April 5, 2006, on file in the Planning Department and incorporated herein by reference. 6 Development shall occur substantially as shown, unless otherwise noted in these conditions. 7 9. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the Director from the Carlsbad Unified School District that this project has satisfied its 9 obligation to provide school facilities. 10 10. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required as part of the Zone 21 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits. 12 11. Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing 13 water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the 14 time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and 1 - facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy. A note to this effect shall be placed on the Final Map. 16 12. As a condition of this approval, applicant must comply with the requirements of all 17 regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the project and any mitigation requirements of the environmental documents for the project. Pursuant to Government Code section 65871 and Carlsbad Municipal Code Title 20, Chapter 20.04, section 20.04.140 applicant 19 shall grant a conservation easement for the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and the habitat necessary for biologically sustainable 20 populations of certain species thereof, in accordance with the City's adopted Habitat Management Plan. 21 22 13. Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first, the Developer shall take the following actiojiS to the satisfaction of the 23 Planning Director in relation to the open space lot(s) which are being conserved for natural habitat in conformance with the city's Habitat Management Plan: 24 a. Select a conservation entity, subject to approval by the City, that possesses qualifications to manage the open space lot(s) for conservation purposes. 26 b. Prepare a Property Analysis Record (PAR) or other method acceptable to the City for estimating the costs of management and monitoring of the open space lot(s) in 27 perpetuity. c. Based on the results of the PAR, provide a non-wasting endowment or other financial mechanism acceptable to the Planning Director and conservation entity, if any, in an amount sufficient for management and monitoring of the open space PC RESO NO. 6058 -6- - lot(s) in perpetuity. The Conservation Easement shall provide that the non- 2 wasting endowment shall transfer to the City if the City accepts the Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate fee title to the open space lot(s). 3 d. Record a Conservation Easement over the open space lot(s) which includes an Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate fee title to the open space lot(s) in favor of the City, e. Prepare an Interim Management Plan which will ensure adequate management of the open space lot(s) until such time as a permanent preserve management plan is prepared and approved by the City. 6 14. Prior to the approval of the final map for any phase of this project, or where a map is not 7 being processed, prior to the issuance of building permits for any lots or units, the Developer shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City to purchase 9 housing credits in the Villa Loma housing project to satisfy the project's affordable housing requirement, in accordance with the requirements and process set forth in Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The draft Affordable Housing 10 Agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Director no later than 60 days prior to the request to final the map. The recorded Affordable Housing Agreement shall be binding 11 on all future owners and successors in interest. 15. Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of a Final Landscape and 1 o Irrigation Plan showing conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City's Landscape Manual. Developer shall construct and install all landscaping as 14 shown on the approved Final Plans, and maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris. 15 16. The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to the landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Department and accompanied by the project's building, improvement, and grading plans. 17. This approval shall be null and void if the project site subject to this approval is not annexed to City of Carlsbad CFD No. 1 within 60 days of the approval. The City shall 19 not issue any grading, building, or other permit, until the annexation is completed. The City Manager is authorized to extend the 60 days, for a period not to exceed 180 days, upon a showing of good cause. 21 18. Developer shall establish a homeowner's association and corresponding covenants, 22 conditions, and restrictions. Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to final map approval. Prior to issuance of a building permit the 23 Developer shall provide the Planning Department with a recorded copy of the official CC&Rs that have been approved by the Department of Real Estate and the Planning Director. At a minimum, the CC&Rs shall contain the following provisions: 25 a. General Enforcement by the City. The City shall have the right, but not the 2° obligation, to enforce those Protective Covenants set forth in this Declaration in favor 27 of, or in which the City has an interest. 28 b. Notice and Amendment. A copy of any proposed amendment shall be provided to the City in advance. If the proposed amendment affects the City, City shall have the right PC RESO NO. 6058 -7- rt to disapprove. A copy of the final approved amendment shall be transmitted to City 2 within 30 days for the official record. 3 c. Failure of Association to Maintain Common Area Lots and Easements. In the event that the Association fails to maintain the "Common Area Lots and/or the Association's Easements" as provided in Article , Section the City shall have the right, but not the duty, to perform the necessary maintenance. If the City elects to perform such maintenance, the City shall give written notice to the 6 Association, with a copy thereof to the Owners in the Project, setting forth with particularity the maintenance which the City finds to be required and requesting the 7 same be carried out by the Association within a period of thirty (30) days from the giving of such notice. In the event that the Association fails to carry out such maintenance of the Common Area Lois and/or Association's Easements within the period specified by the City's notice, the City shall be entitled to cause such work to be completed and shall be entitled to reimbursement with respect thereto from the 10 Owners as provided herein. d. Special Assessments Levied by the City. In the event the City has performed the necessary maintenance to either Common Area Lots and/or Association's Easements, the City shall submit a written invoice to the Association for all costs incurred by the 13 City to perform such maintenance of the Common Area Lots and or Association's Easements. The City shall provide a copy of such invoice to each Owner in the 14 Project, together with a statement that if the Association fails to pay such invoice in full within the time specified, the City will pursue collection against the Owners in the Project pursuant to the provisions of this Section. Said invoice shall be due and payable by the Association within twenty (20) days of receipt by the Association. If the Association shall fail to pay such invoice in full within the period specified, 17 payment shall be deemed delinquent and shall be subject to a late charge in an amount equal to six percent (6%) of the amount of the invoice. Thereafter the City may pursue collection from the Association by means of any remedies available at law or in equity. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, in addition to all other rights and remedies available to the City, the City may levy a special assessment 20 against the Owners of each Lot in the Project for an equal prorata share of the invoice, plus the late charge. Such special assessment shall constitute a charge on the land and 21 shall be a continuing lien upon each Lot against which the special assessment is levied. Each Owner in the Project hereby vests the City with the right and power to levy such special assessment, to impose a lien upon their respective Lot and to bring 23 all legal actions and/or to pursue lien foreclosure procedures against any Owner and his/her respective Lot for purposes of collecting such special assessment in 24 accordance with the procedures set forth in Article of this Declaration. e. Landscape Maintenance Responsibilities. The HO As and individual lot or unit owner landscape maintenance responsibilities shall be as set forth in Exhibit . 27 f- Balconies, trellis, and decks. The individual lot or unit owner allowances and prohibitions regarding balconies, trellis and decks shall be as set forth in Exhibit 28 PC RESO NO. 6058 -8- ^. 19. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration 2 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, GPA 04-10, LCPA 04-09, ZC 04-06, SDP 04-05, HDP 04-04, CDP 04-17, CP 04-03, and SUP 04-07 and is subject to 3 all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6054, 6055, 6056, 6057, 6059, 6060, 6062, 6063, and 6061 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference. 5 20. Prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit, the Developer shall provide all required " active recreational areas per the approved plans, including landscaping and recreational facilities, and construct passive recreation areas consistent with the construction of the project per the approved plans. 8 o 21. Prior to the issuance of the Final Map, Developer shall submit to the City a Notice of Restriction to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction of 10 the Planning Director, notifying all interested parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program 11 Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Plan, Special Use Permit, Coastal Development Permit, Hillside Development Plan, and Condominium Permit by Resolutions No. 6054, 6055, 6056, 6057, 6058, 6059, 6060, 6062, 6063, and 6061 on the 13 property. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property description, location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of approval as well as any 14 conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The Planning Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer or successor in interest. 17 22. Developer shall submit a street name list consistent with the City's street name policy subject to the Planning Director's approval prior to final map approval.18 23. Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy #17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 20 5.09.030, and CFD #1 special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 21, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such taxes/fees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxes/fees are not paid, this approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void. 23 24. If satisfaction of the school facility requirement involves a Mello-Roos Community 24 Facilities District or other financing mechanism which is inconsistent with City Council Policy No. 38, by allowing a pass-through of the taxes or fees to individual home buyers, then in addition to any other disclosure required by law or Council policy, the Developer shall disclose to future owners in the project, to the maximum extent possible, the existence of the tax or fee, and that the school district is the taxing agency responsible for 27 the financing mechanism. The form of notice is subject to the approval of the Planning Director and shall at least include a handout and a sign inside the sales facility stating the fact of a potential pass-through of fees or taxes exists and where complete information regarding those fees or taxes can be obtained. PC RESO NO. 6058 -9- <oj> 1 2 25. Developer shall display a current Zoning and Land Use Map, or an alternative, suitable to the Planning Director, in the sales office at all times. All sales maps that are distributed 3 or made available to the public shall include but not be limited to trails, future and existing schools, parks and streets. 4 26. Developer shall post a sign in the sales office in a prominent location that discloses which special districts and school district provide service to the project. Said sign shall remain 6 posted until ALL of the units are sold. 7 27. Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property may be subject to noise impacts from the proposed or existing Transportation Corridor 9 (El Camino Real), in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney (see Noise Form #1 on file in the Planning Department). 10 28. Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map or the issuance of building permits, 1 1 whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan-Palomar Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and the City Attorney 13 (see Noise Form #2 on file in the Planning Department). 14 29. Developer shall post aircraft noise notification signs in all sales and/or rental offices associated with the new development. The number and locations of said signs shall be approved by the Planning Director (see Noise Form #3 on file in the Planning Department). 17 30. Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of an exterior lighting plan including parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property. 19 31. Developer shall provide bus stops to service this development at locations and with 20 reasonable facilities to the satisfaction of the North County Transit District and the Planning Director. Said facilities, if required, shall be free from advertising and shall include at a minimum include a bench and a pole for the bus stop sign. The facilities shall be designed to enhance or be consistent with basic architectural theme of the project. 23 32. The project shall incorporate all mitigation measures identified in the Biological Resources Survey Report (Dudek and Associates, May 2005). 24 33. Developer shall dedicate on the final map, an open space easement for those portions of lot 4 which are (in slopes, wetlands, coastal sage scrub or other constrained land plus all other lands set aside as part of the Citywide Open Space System) to prohibit any encroachment or development, including but not limited to fences, walls, decks, storage 27 buildings, pools, spas, stairways, and landscaping, as shown on Exhibit A. 34. Removal of native vegetation and development of Open Space Lot 4, including but not limited to fences, walls, decks, storage buildings, pools, spas, stairways and landscaping, PC RESO NO. 6058 -10- other than that approved as part of (the grading plan, improvement plans, biological 2 revegetation program, landscape plan, etc.) as shown on Exhibit A, is specifically prohibited, except upon written order of the Carlsbad Fire Department for fire prevention 3 purposes, or upon written approval of the Planning Director, and (California Coastal Commission if in Coastal Zone), based upon a request from the Homeowners Association accompanied by a report from a qualified arborist/botanist indicating the need to remove - specified trees and/or plants because of disease or impending danger to adjacent habitable dwelling units. For areas containing native vegetation the report required to accompany 6 the request shall be prepared by a qualified biologist. Engineering o NOTE: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following conditions, upon the 9 approval of this proposed tentative map, must be met prior to approval of a final map, building or grading permit whichever occurs first. 10 General 11 ,2 35. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site within this project, Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the City Engineer 13 for the proposed haul route. 14 36. Developer shall provide to the City Engineer, an acceptable means, CC&Rs and/or other recorded document, for maintaining the private easements within the subdivision and all the private improvements: streets, sidewalks, street lights, and storm drain facilities located therein and to distribute the costs of such maintenance in an equitable manner among the owners of the properties within the subdivision. 17 37. There shall be one Final Map recorded for this project.18 38. Developer shall install sight distance corridors at all street intersections in accordance with Engineering Standards. 20 39. Developer shall install sight distance corridors at all street intersections in accordance 21 with Engineering Standards and shall record the following statement on the Final Map (and in the CC&Rs). 23 "No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object may be placed or permitted to encroach within the area identified as a sight 24 distance corridor in accordance with Section 8.B of City Engineering Standard Chapter 3 Public Street and Traffic Standard. The underlying property owner shall maintain this condition." 26 The limits of these sight distance corridors shall be reflected on any improvement, 27 grading, or landscape plan prepared in association with this development. 28 PC RESO NO. 6058 -11- Fees/Agreements 2 40. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for 3 recordation the City's standard form Drainage Hold Harmless Agreement regarding drainage across the adjacent property. 4 41. Developer shall cause property owner to execute, record and submit a recorded copy to the City Engineer, a deed restriction on the property which relates to the proposed sight 6 distance corridors as shown on the tentative map over lots 1 to 4. The deed restriction document shall be in a form acceptable to the City Engineer and shall: 7 a. Clearly delineate the limits of the sight distance corridors on a plat to be attached to the deed restriction; 9 b. State that the sight distance corridor is to be maintained in perpetuity by the 10 underlying property owner; and c. State that objects along the sight distance corridor will not restrict or impede the j2 ability of motorist at the intersection to identify approaching vehicles pursuant to CalTrans sight distance and City sight distance corridor 13 standards. 14 42. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, Developer shall _ cause Owner to give written consent to the City Engineer to the annexation of the area shown within the boundaries of the subdivision into the existing City of Carlsbad Street 16 Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1 and/or to the formation or annexation into an additional Street Lighting and Landscaping District. Said written consent shall be 17 on a form provided by the City Engineer. 18 Grading 19 43. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, 20 Developer shall submit to the City Engineer proof that a Notice of Intention for the start of work has been submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board. 21 22 44. This project requires off site grading. No grading for private improvements shall occur outside the limits of this approval unless Developer obtains, records, and submits a 23 recorded copy to the City Engineer a grading or slope easement or agreement from the owners of the affected properties. If Developer is unable to obtain the grading or slope 24 easement, or agreement, no grading permit will be issued, hi that case, Developer must either apply for and obtain an amendment of this approval or modify the plans so grading will not occur outside the project and apply for and obtain a finding of substantial 26 conformance from both the City Engineer and Planning Director. 27 45. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the tentative map, a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall apply for and obtain a grading permit from the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for the project. PC RESO NO. 6058 -12- Dedications/Improvements 2 46. All on-site stormdrains shall be privately owned and maintained by the property owner. 3 The property owner shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City for those portions of the private stormdrain that are encroaching within public easements. Said 4 agreement is subject to the City Engineer's approval. 47. Developer shall cause Owner to make an offer of dedication to the City and/or other 6 appropriate entities for all public utility and access easements and other easements shown on the tentative map. The offer shall be made by a certificate on the final map 7 and/or separate recorded document. All land so offered shall be offered free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost. Streets that are already public are not required to be rededicated. 9 48. Additional drainage easements may be required. Developer shall dedicate and provide or 10 install drainage structures, as may be required by the City Engineer, prior to or concurrent with any grading or building permit. ,2 49. Developer shall provide the design of all private streets and drainage systems to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The structural section of all private streets shall conform 13 to City of Carlsbad Standards based on R-value tests. All private streets and drainage systems shall be inspected by the City. Developer shall pay the standard improvement 14 plancheck and inspection fees. 50. Developer shall execute and record a City standard Subdivision Improvement Agreement 16 to install and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, public improvements shown on the tentative map and the following improvements including, but not limited to 17 paving, base, signing and striping, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, medians, grading, clearing and grubbing, sewer, water, fire hydrants, and street lights to city standards to the *° satisfaction of the City Engineer. The improvements are: 19 a. Install curb, gutter, sidewalk, streetlights, pavement and base, storm drain 20 and curb inlet, and striping along El Camino Real property frontage. b. Install pedestrian ramp and relocate traffic signal as needed at corner of 21 Poinsettia Lane and El Camino Real. c. Install curb, gutter and sidewalk on Poinsettia Lane property frontage. d. Remove curb, gutter and sidewalk for Private Driveway "A" connection with 23 Dove Lane and install driveway approach, including pedestrian ramps and cross gutter. 24 e. Install water mains and appurtenances, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants, f. Install sewer mains and appurtenances. 26 A list of the above shall be placed on an additional map sheet on the Final Map per the 27 provisions of Section 66434.2 of the Subdivision Map Act. Improvements listed above shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the subdivision or development 28 improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement. PC RESO NO. 6058 -13- 51. Developer shall cause Owner to waive direct access rights on the final map for all lots 2 abutting El Camino Real. 3 52. El Camino Real shall be dedicated by Owner along the project frontage based on a center line to right-of-way width of 126 feet and in conformance with City of Carlsbad 4 Standards. 53. Developer shall have the entire drainage system designed, submitted to and approved by 6 the City Engineer, to ensure that runoff resulting from 10-year frequency storms of 6 hours and 24 hours duration under developed conditions, are equal to or less than the 7 runoff from a storm of the same frequency and duration under existing developed conditions. Both 6 hour and 24 hour storm durations shall be analyzed to determine the detention basin capacities necessary to accomplish the desired results. 9 54. Prior to the issuance of grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, 10 Developer shall submit for City approval a "Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)." The SWPPP shall be in compliance with current requirements and provisions 11 established by the San Diego Region of the California Regional Water Quality Control j2 Board and City of Carlsbad Requirements. The SWPPP shall address measures to reduce to the maximum extent practicable storm water pollutant runoff during construction of 13 the project. At a minimum, the SWPPP shall: 14 a. include all content as established by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements; b. include the receipt of "Notice of Intent" issued by the California Regional Water 15 Quality Control Board; c. recommend source control and treatment control Best Management Practices 17 (BMPs) that will be implemented with this project to avoid contact or filter said pollutants from storm water to the maximum extent practicable before discharging to City right-of-way or natural drainage course; and jo d. establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine cleanup. Special considerations and effort shall be applied to employee education on the proper 20 procedures for handling cleanup and disposal of pollutants. 21 55. Prior to the issuance of grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, Developer shall submit for City approval a "Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP)." The SWMP shall demonstrate compliance with the City of Carlsbad Standard Urban 23 Stormwater Mitigation-Pkn (SUS-MP), GrdeF-2001-G14ssued by fee-San Diego-Region of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and City of Carlsbad Municipal 24 Code. The SWMP shall address measures to avoid contact or filter said pollutants from storm water, to the maximum extent practicable, for the post-construction stage of the project. At a minimum, fee SWMP shall: 26 a. identify existing and post-development on-site pollutants-of-concern; 27 b. identify fee hydrologic unit this project contributes to and impaired water bodies feat could be impacted by this project; 28 PC RESO NO. 6058 -14- c. recommend source controls and treatment controls that will be implemented with 2 this project to avoid contact or filter said pollutants from storm water to the maximum extent practicable before discharging to City right-of-way; 3 d. establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine cleanup. Special considerations and effort shall be applied to resident and employee education on the proper procedures for handling cleanup and disposal of pollutants; - e. ensure long-term maintenance of all post construct BMPs in perpetuity; and f. identify how post-development runoff rates and velocities from the site will not 6 exceed the pre-development runoff rates and velocities to the maximum extent practicable. 7 56. Prior to occupancy, Developer shall install streetlights along all public and private street frontages abutting and/or within the subdivision boundary in conformance with City of 9 Carlsbad Standards. 10 57. Prior to occupancy, developer shall install sidewalks along all public streets abutting the subdivision in conformance with City of Carlsbad standards. 11 58. Prior to occupancy, developer shall install wheelchair ramps at the public street corners abutting the subdivision in conformance with City of Carlsbad standards. 13 59. Prior to building permit or grading permit issuance, whichever occurs first, Developer 14 shall have design, apply for and obtain approval of the City Engineer, for the structural section for the access aisles with a traffic index of 5.0 in accordance with City Standards due to truck access through the parking area and/or aisles with an ADT greater than 500. The structural pavement design of the aisle ways shall be submitted together with required R-value soil test information and approved by the City Engineer as part of the 17 building or grading plan review, whichever occurs first. 60. Developer shall incorporate into the grading/improvement plans the design for the project drainage outfall end treatments for any drainage outlets where a direct access road for maintenance purposes is not practical. These end treatments shall be designed so as to 20 prevent vegetation growth from obstructing the pipe outfall. Designs could consist of a modified outlet headwall consisting of an extended concrete spillway section with 21 longitudinal curbing and/or radially designed riprap, or other means deemed appropriate, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 23 61. If feasible, at the discretion of the City Building Official, in light of ADA restrictions and without requiring mechanical devices or extension retaining walls and 24 switchbacks, the applicant will provide additional access at the northeast and southwest areas of the project. Final Map Notes 27 62. Developer shall show on Final Map the net developable acres for each parcel. 28 63. Note(s) to the following effect(s) shall be placed on the map as non-mapping data: PC RESO NO. 6058 -15- a. All improvements are privately owned and are to be privately maintained with the 2 exception of the following: i. Curb, gutter, sidewalk, streetlights, pavement and base, 400 feet of 3 median improvements for left-turn lane to Poinsettia Lane, storm drain and curb inlet, and striping within El Camino Real right-of-way. U. Pedestrian ramp at corner of Poinsettia Lane and El Camino Real. ~ iii. Curb, gutter, and sidewalk within Poinsettia Lane right-of-way. iv. Water mains and appurtenances, including, but not limited to, fire 6 hydrants within public easements and right-of-way. v. Sewer mains and appurtenances within public easement and right-of- 7 way. o b. Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the appropriate agency determines that sewer and water facilities are available. 10 c. No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object may be placed or permitted to encroach within the area identified as sight distance corridors. Water~^~^~~~ 64. Prior to approval of improvement plans or final map, Developer shall meet with the Fire Marshal to determine if fire protection measures (fire flows, fire hydrant locations, 14 building sprinklers) are required to serve the project. Pure hydrants, if proposed, shall be considered public improvements and shall be served by public water mains to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. 65. The Developer shall design and construct public facilities within public right-of-way or 17 within minimum 20-foot-wide easements granted to the District or the City of Carlsbad. At the discretion of the District Engineer, wider easements may be required for adequate 18 maintenance, access and/or joint utility purposes. 19 66. Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall pay all fees, deposits, and charges 20 for connection to public facilities. Developer shall pay the San Diego County Water Authority capacity charge(s) prior to issuance of Building Permits. 21 67. The Developer shall prepare a colored recycled water use map and submit this map to the 22 Planning Department for processing and approval by the District Engineer. " "^ ~ ~ —•*-— »—«—-«_ -— — ~ - - •-:-- ,..——„»», -...J-VU --- — -«..--«-«- -. . T^ * ' _-.,-„ 68. J3ie Developer jshall designJandscape and.irrigation plans .utilizing, recycled water as a 24 source. Said plans shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. 25 69. The Developer shall install potable water and/or recycled water services and meters at a location approved by the District Engineer. The locations of said services shall be reflected on public improvement plans. 27 70. The Developer shall install sewer laterals and clean-outs at a location approved by the 28 District Engineer. The locations of sewer laterals shall be reflected on public improvement plans. PC RESO NO. 6058 -16- 1 2 71. The Developer shall design and construct public water, sewer, and recycled water facilities substantially as shown on the Tentative Map to the satisfaction of the District 3 Engineer. Proposed public facilities shall be reflected on public improvement plans. 72. The Developer shall provide separate potable water meters for each separately owned unit. 73. This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be 6 issued for the development of the subject property, unless the District Engineer has determined that adequate water and sewer facilities are available at the time of 7 occupancy. A note to this effect shall be placed on the Final Map, as non-mapping data. o 74. Prior to Final Map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever is first, the entire 9 potable water, recycled water, and sewer system shall be evaluated in detail to ensure that adequate capacity, pressure, and flow demands can be met to the satisfaction of the 10 District Engineer. 75. A fire flow system shall be required for this residential development and it shall be 1 _ constructed as a looped system. The Developer shall complete the looped water system by tying into the existing waterline system on El Camino Real to the satisfaction of the 13 District Engineer. 14 76. The Developer shall coordinate with the District Engineer regarding the looped system and easements. 77. The Developer shall submit a detailed sewer study, prepared by a Registered Engineer, that identifies the peak flows of the project, required pipe sizes, depth of flow in pipe, 17 velocity in the main lines, and the capacity of the existing infrastructure. Said study shall be submitted concurrently with the improvement plans for the project and the study shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. 19 78. The Developer shall submit a detailed potable water study, prepared by a 20 Registered Engineer that identifies the peak demands of the project (including fire flow demands). The study shall identify velocity in the main lines, pressure zones, 21 and the required pipe sizes. Said study shall be submitted concurrently with the improvement plans for the project and the study shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. 23 Code Reminders 24 The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to the following code requirements: 26 79. The tentative map shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date this tentative map 27 approval becomes final. 28 PC RESO NO. 6058 -17- 80. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the 2 Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein. 3 81. Premise identification (addresses) shall be provided consistent with Carlsbad Municipal 4 Code Section 18.04.320. 82. The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements 6 pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code. 7 83. Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance with the City's Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval of the Planning Director prior to installation of such signs. 9 84. Developer shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of the final map as 10 required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. 85. Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. 13 86. Developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance 14 with Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. A +s 16 NOTICE 17 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." 19 You have 90 days from date of 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 22 follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. 23 OT arfe"HeTeT>y 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 26 NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. 27 28 PC RESO NO. 6058 -18- 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 5th day of April 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman, Segall, and Whitton MARTELL B. MONTGOMER^Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION NEU Assistant Planning Director PC RESO NO. 6058 -19- 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6059 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO 4 GRADE AND SUBDIVIDE A 14.4 ACRE SITE INTO 2 RESIDENTIAL LOTS FOR 53 DWELLING UNITS, 1 DRIVEWAY LOT, AND 1 OPEN SPACE LOT ON PROPERTY 6 GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF EL CAMINO REAL AND NORTH OF DOVE LANE WITHIN THE 7 MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 21. 8 CASE NAME: LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER TOWNHOMES CASE NO: HDP 04-04 10 WHEREAS, Marker La Costa LLC, "Developer," has filed a verified 11 application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Noreen Levatino, "Owner," 13 described as 14 All that portion of the west half of the northeast Quarter of Section 26, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State ,,- of California, being more particularly described in certificate of compliance record June 16,1989 as file No. 89-317343 17 ("the Property"); and 18 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Hillside 20 Development Permitas shown on Exhibits "A" - "HHH"" dated April 5, 2006, on file in the 21 Carlsbad Planning Department, LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER TOWNHOMES - HDP 22 04-04, as provided by Chapter 21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and 23 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 5th day of April 2006, consider 24 said request; and 25 WHEREAS, at said hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and26 27 arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors 28 relating to the Hillside Development Permit. 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 Commission 5 RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER 5 TOWNHOMES - HDP 04-04 based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: 7 Findings:8 o 1. That hillside conditions have been properly identified on the constraints map which show existing and proposed conditions and slope percentages. 10 2. That undevelopable areas of the project, i.e. slopes over 40%, have been properly 11 identified on the constraints map. 12 3. That the development proposal is consistent with the intent, purpose, and requirements of 13 the Hillside Ordinance, Chapter 21.95, in that the project will be a balanced site with a total grading quantity of 5,120 cubic yards per acre, the project is down slope and 14 will be screened from adjacent developments and El Camino Real, and the western slope will be screened by a terracing water and landscaping feature. ,, 4. That the proposed development or grading will not occur in the undevelopable portions of the site pursuant to provisions of Section 21.53.230 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, 17 in that no residential development occurs on any natural slopes with an inclination of greater than forty percent, an elevation differential of greater than fifteen feet, and 18 an area of greater than 10,000 square feet. 19 5. That the project design substantially conforms to the intent of the concepts illustrated in 20 the Hillside Development Guidelines Manual, in that the grading design minimizes the amount of grading, respects the natural terrain, preserves sensitive habitat, and 21 incorporates contour grading and variable slope grades into the northern slope bank which will be landscaped with non-invasive, fire-resistant, native-type 22 vegetation. 23 6. That the project design and lot configuration minimizes disturbance of hillside lands, in 24 that the proposed residential project and it's associated grading is limited to the southern 25% of the property. , 25 Conditions;26 27 Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to final map recordation or issuance of grading permit, whichever occurs first. 28 1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so PC RESO NO. 6059 -2- o x- implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City, shall have the right to 2 revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy 3 issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of violation on the property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer <• or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this Hillside Development Permit. 5 2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Hillside Development Permit documents, as necessary to make 7 them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. 9 3. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and 10 regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 11 4. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code 13 Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies 14 with all requirements of law. 5. Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold , f harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims 17 and costs, including court costs and attorney's fees incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this Hillside Development 18 Permit, (b) City's approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator's installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby, 2Q including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation 21 survives until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City's approval is not validated. 22 VV 6. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, GPA 04-io, LCPA 04-09, ZC 24 04-06, CT 04-08, SDP 04-05, CDP 04-17, CP 04-03, and SUP 04-07 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resokations No. 6054, 6055, 6056, 25 6057, 6058, 6060, 6062, 6063 and 6061 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference.26 27 28 PC RESO NO. 6059 -3- 1 NOTICE 2 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." 5 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 6 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 12 expired. 13 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of April 2006, by the 15 .„ .following vote, to wit: 16 AYES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman, Segall, and Whitton 18 NOES: 19 ABSENT: 20 ABSTAIN: 21 22 23 24 MARTELL B. MONTGOMERY, Maiiperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION25 ATTE 27 " 28 "NEU distant Planning Director PC RESO NO. 6059 -4- O n 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6060 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO GRADE 4 AND SUBDIVIDE A 14.4 ACRE SITE INTO 2 RESIDENTIAL , LOTS FOR 53 DWELLING UNITS, 1 DRIVEWAY LOT, AND 1 OPEN SPACE LOT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED 6 ON THE WEST SIDE OF EL CAMINO REAL AND NORTH OF DOVE LANE WITHIN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT 7 ZONE 21. CASE NAME: LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER 8 TOWNHOMES 9 CASE NO.: SDP 04-05 10 WHEREAS, Marker La Costa LLC, "Developer," has filed a verified * application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Noreen Levatino, "Owner," 12 described as 13 All that portion of the west half of the northeast Quarter of 14 Section 26, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, being more particularly described in certificate 1 g of compliance record June 16,1989 as file No. 89-317343 17 ("the Property"); and 1X WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Site Development 19 Plan as shown on Exhibits "A" - "HHH" dated April 5, 2006, on file in the Planning 20 Department, LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER TOWNHOMES - HDP 04-04 as provided by 21 22 Chapter 21.06/Section 21.53.120 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and i 23 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 5th day of April, 2006, hold a 24 duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 25 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony 26 and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors 27 relating to the Site Development Plan.28 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning 2 Commission of the City of Carlsbad 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 RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of LA COSTA VILLAGE 6 CENTER TOWNHOMES -SDP 04-07 based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: 7 Findings: o n 1. That the requested use is properly related to the site, surroundings and environmental settings, is consistent with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, will 10 not be detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the area in which the proposed use is to be located, and will not adversely impact the site, surroundings or traffic circulation, in that the proposed project is a multiple-family residential project at 10.19 du/ac, which is similar to surrounding residential land uses and consistent with the Residential Medium-High Density (RMH; 8-15 du/ac) General Plan Land 13 Use designation. 14 2. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in that the project complies with all development standards of the Residential Density- Multiple with a Qualified Overlay Zone (RD-M-Q) and Planned Development , ordinance, including setbacks, lot coverage, parking, and height restrictions without requiring any variances 17 That all yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to adjust 18 the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be provided and maintained, in that the project complies with all required yards, setbacks, wall and fence heights, and will not adversely impact permitted future ,_„ uses in the neighborhood. 21 4. That the street systems serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use, in that the existing street system will be adequate to 22 handle the 424 ADT generated by the proposed fifty-three-unit condominium project. 23 Conditions:24 25 Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to final map recordation or issuance of grading permit, whichever occurs first. 26 If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so ~o implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all PC RESO NO. 6060 -2- future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy 2 issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of violation on the property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said 3 conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this Site Development Plan. 4 , 2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Site Development Plan documents, as necessary to make them 6 internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development 7 different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. o 3. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and 9 regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 10 4. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section , ~ 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with 13 all requirements of law. 14 5. Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney's fees incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this Site Development Plan, (b) 17 City's approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non- discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) ° Developer/Operator's installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation survives until 20 all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City's approval is not validated. 21 6. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, GPA 04-10, LCPA 04-09, ZC 23 04-06, CT 04-08, HDP 04-04, CDP 04-17, CP 04-03, and SUP 04-07 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6054, 6055, 6056, 24 6057, 6058, 6059, 6062, 6063 and 6061 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference. 26 27 28 PC RESO NO. 6060 -3- 1 NOTICE 2 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 4 "fees/exactions." You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If 5 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 6 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. 8 You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions 9 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 11 NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. 12 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning 13 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of April 2006, by the following vote, to wit: 16 AYES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman, Segall, and Whitton 17 18 NOES: 19 ABSENT: 20 ABSTAIN: 21 22 23 MARTELL B. MONTGOMERY, <§£irperson 24 CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 25 26 27 Assistant Planning Director PC RESO NO. 6060 -4- 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6062 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO 4 GRADE AND SUBDIVIDE A 14.4 ACRE SITE INTO 2 5 RESIDENTIAL LOTS FOR 53 DWELLING UNITS, 1 DRIVEWAY LOT, AND 1 OPEN SPACE LOT ON PROPERTY 6 GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF EL CAMINO REAL AND NORTH OF DOVE LANE WITHIN THE 7 MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 21. 8 CASE NAME: LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER 9 TOWNHOMES CASE NO.: CDP 04-17 10 WHEREAS, Marker La Costa LLC, "Developer," has filed a verified * 2 application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Noreen Levatino, "Owner," 13 described as 14 All that portion of the west half of the northeast Quarter of r Section 26, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State 16 of California, being more particularly described in certificate of compliance record June 16,1989 as file No. 89-317343 17 ("the Property"); and 1 o 19 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Coastal 20 Development Permit as shown on Exhibits "A" - "HHH" dated April 5, 2006, on file in the 21 Planning Department, LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER TOWNHOMES - CDP 04-17 as 22 provided by Chapter 21.201.040 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and ' 23 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 5th day of April 2006, hold a 24 duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 26 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony 27 and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors 28 relating to the CDP. 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER TOWNHOMES - CDP 04-17 based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings: 1. That the proposed development is in conformance with the Mello II Segment of the Certified Local Coastal Program and all applicable policies in that the proposed development does not obstruct public views of the coastline as seen from public lands or rights-of-way; erosion will be controlled by grading in conformance with the City's Standards; no sensitive resources, public access or shoreline access, or water-oriented recreation activities are impacted. 2. The proposal is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act in that the project site is not located adjacent to the shore. Therefore, the project will not interfere with the public's right to physical access to the sea and the site is not suited for water-oriented recreational activities. 3. The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.03 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that the project will adhere to the City's Master Drainage Plan, Grading Ordinance, Storm Water Ordinance, Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) and Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program (JURMP) to avoid increased urban run off, pollutants and soil erosion. No steep slopes or native vegetation is located on the subject property and the site is not located in an area prone to landslides, or susceptible to accelerated erosion, floods or liquefaction. Conditions: Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to final map recordation or issuance of grading permit, whichever occurs first. 1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of violation on the property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this Coastal Development Permit. PC RESO NO. 6062 -2- 2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer .to make, all corrections 2 and modifications to the Coastal Development Permit documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. 3 Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. 4 ^ 3. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 6 4. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment 7 of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid 9 unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with all requirements of law. 10 5. Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold * 1 harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and 12 representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney's fees incurred by the City arising, directly 13 or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this Coastal Development Permit, (b) City's approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non- 14 discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator's installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of 16 electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation survives until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City's approval is not 17 validated. 1 8 6. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration 19 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, GPA 04-10, LCPA 04-09, ZC 04-06, CT 04-08, SDP 04-05, HDP 04-04, CP 04-03, and SUP 04-07 and is subject to 20 all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6054, 6055, 6056, 6057, 6058, 6060, 6059, 6063 and 6061 for those other approvals incorporated herein by 21 reference. 22 7. The applicant shall apply for and be issued building permits for this project within two 23 (2) years of approval or this coastal development permit will expire unless extended per Section 21.201.210 of the Zoning Ordinance. 24 8. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall apply for and obtain a grading permit issued by the City Engineer. 26 27 28 PC RESO NO. 6062 -3- 1 NOTICE 2 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 4 "fees/exactions." 5 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 g annul their imposition. 9 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 11 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 12 expired. 13 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of April 2006, by the following vote, to wit: 16 AYES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman, Segall, and Whitton 18 NOES: 19 ABSENT: 20" 21 22 23 MARTELL B. MONTGOMERY, Wfairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 24 /T / 25 ATTEST: 26 DON/faEU 27 ^''Assistant Planning Director 28 PC RESO NO. 6062 -4- 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6063 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL A CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO GRADE AND 4 SUBDIVIDE A 14.4 ACRE SITE INTO 2 RESIDENTIAL LOTS FOR 53 CONDOMINIUM UNITS, 1 DRIVEWAY LOT, AND 1 OPEN SPACE LOT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED 6 ON THE WEST SIDE OF EL CAMINO REAL AND NORTH OF DOVE LANE WITHIN THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE 7 LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 21. 8 CASE NAME: LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER 9 TOWNHOMES CASE NO.: CP 04-03 10 WHEREAS, Marker La Costa LLC, "Developer," has filed a verified 12 application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Noreen Levatino, "Owner," 13 described as 14 AH that portion of the west half of the northeast Quarter of Section 26, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State 15 of California, being more particularly described in certificate of compliance record June 16,1989 as file No. 89-317343 17 ("the Property"); and18 jo WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Condominium 20 Permit as shown on Exhibits "A" - "HHH" dated April 5, 2006, on file in the Planning 21 Department, LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER TOWNHOMES - CP 04-03 as provided by 22 Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and , 23 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 5th day of April, 2006, hold a 24 duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and £J 26 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony 27 and arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors 2° relating to the Condominium Permit. 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning 2 Commission of the City of Carlsbad 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 Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER 6 TOWNHOMES - CP 04-03, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: 7 Findings:o n 1. That the proposed project complies with all applicable development standards included within Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, in that the proposed project is 10 consistent with Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. 11 2. That the proposed project's density, site design and architecture are compatible with surrounding development, in that the site is surrounded by single-family residential, commercial, and multi-family residential uses at similar densities. 14 Conditions: 15 Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to final map ... recordation or issuance of grading permit, whichever occurs first. 17 1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so 18 implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy 20 issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of violation on the property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said 21 conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this Condominium Permit. 22 2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Condominium Permit documents, as necessary to make them 24 internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development 25 different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. 3. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and 27 regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 28 4. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are PC RESO NO. 6063 -2- challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 2 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with 3 all requirements of law. 4 5. Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold <- harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims 6 and costs, including court costs and attorney's fees incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this Condominium Permit, (b) 7 City's approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non- discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator's installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including 9 without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation survives until 10 all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City's approval is not validated. 11 12 6. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, GPA 04-10, LCPA 04-09, ZC 13 04-06, CT 04-08, SDP 04-05, HDP 04-04, CDP 04-17, and SUP 04-07 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6054, 6056, 6055, 14 6057, 6058, 6060, 6059, 6062, and 6061 for those other approvals incorporated herein by 1, reference. 16 NOTICE 17 Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "imposition" of fees, dedications, 18 reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as "fees/exactions." 19 You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If 20 you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 21 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 22 follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. ; 23 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, 25 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 26 NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired.27 28 PC RESO NO. 6063 -3- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17ft 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 5th day of April 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman, Segall, and Whitton MARTELL B. MONTGOMERY, iHirperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: NEU sistant Planning Director PC RESO NO. 6063 -4- 'i~d City of Carlsbad Planning Department EXHIBIT 5 A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ©Item No. P.C. AGENDA OF: April 5,2006 Application complete date: August 9, 2004 Project Planner: Jessica Galloway Project Engineer: David Rick SUBJECT: GPA 04-10/LCPA 04-09/ZC 04-06/CT 04-08/SDP 04-05/HDP 04-04/CDP 04- 17/CP 04-03/SUP 04^07 - LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER TOWNHOMES - Request for a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program Amendment, and Zone Change to change the General Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use designations from Residential Medium (RM, 4-8 du/ac) to Residential Medium-High (RMH, 8-15 du/ac) and Open Space (OS), and to change the Citywide Zoning and Local Coastal Program Zoning designations from Limited Control (L-C) to Residential Density-Multiple with a Qualified Development Overlay (RD-M-Q) and Open Space (OS), and a Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan, Hillside Development Permit, Coastal Development Permit, Condominium Permit, and Special Use Permit to subdivide and grade a 14.4 acre site into 2 residential lots for 53 condominium units, 1 driveway lot, and 1 open space lot on property generally located on the west side of El Camino Real and north of Dove Lane within the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and Local Facilities Management Zone 21. I.RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 6054 RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6055, 6056, 6057, 6058, 6059, 6060, 6062, and 6063 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of General Plan Amendment (GPA 04-10), Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 04-09), Zone Change (ZC 04-06), Tentative Tract Map (CT 04- 08), Site Development Plan (SDP 04-05), Hillside Development Permit (HDP 04-04), Coastal Development Permit (CDP 04-17), and Condominium Permit (CP 04-03) and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 6061 APPROVING Special Use Permit (SUP 04-07) based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II.INTRODUCTION The applicant is proposing a General Plan Amendment (GPA), Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA), Zone Change (ZC), Tentative Tract Map (CT), Site Development Plan (SDP), Hillside Development Permit (HDP), Coastal Development Permit (CDP), Condominium Permit (CP), and Special Use Permit (SUP), to develop fifty-three (53) condominium units on a 14.4-acre site, located west of El Camino Real and north of Dove Lane. The applicant is proposing a GPA to change the General Plan Land Use designation from Residential Medium (RM) to Residential Medium-High (RMH) and Open Space (OS), a LCPA to change the Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use designation from RM to RMH and OS and to change the LCP /oo GPA 04-10/ZC 04-06/LCPA 0^-09/CT 04-08/SDP 04-05/HDP 04-04/CuP 04-17/CP 04-03/SUP 04-07 - LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER TOWNHOMES April 5, 2006 Page 2 Zoning designation from Limited Control (L-C) to Residential Density-Multiple (RD-M-Q) and Open Space (OS), and a ZC to change the Citywide Zoning designation from L-C to RD-M-Q and OS. The proposed Tentative Map (CT 04-10) will divide the parcel into 4 lots. Lots 1 and 2 are residential lots for 53 condominium units, lot 3 includes the private driveway, and lot 4 is a natural open space lot to be protected by a conservation easement and an endowment which will be established for the biological management and maintenance of the habitat in perpetuity. The proposed development will impact 4.4 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub, .5 acres of Southern Maritime Chaparral and .03 acres of Waters of the US, which will be mitigated consistent with the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP). All of the applications, with the exception of the SUP, require City Council action as the project contains legislative actions and more than 50 residential dwelling units. HI. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The 14.4-acre project site is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 21. The project site is surrounded by single-family residential, commercial, and multiple-family residential projects. To the north is single family residential, to the south is the Dove Library and a commercial shopping center, directly to the east is El Camino Real and a multiple family residential project, and to the west is a single family residential project. Topographically, the site slopes steeply from north to south and is covered primarily by Coastal Sage Scrub and Southern Maritime Chaparral habitats. A Hillside Development Permit is required for development on steep slopes. The sensitive habitat resources occurring on site include 12.5 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS), 1.2 acres of Southern Maritime Chaparral, and .03 acres of Waters of the US. The project will impact 4.4 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub, .5 acres of Southern Maritime Chaparral and .03 acres of Waters of the U.S. The project will mitigate for all impacted habitats consistent with the City of Carlsbad HMP. Upland habitat (Coastal Sage Scrub including all sub- associations, and Southern Maritime Chaparral) mitigation must meet a "no net loss standard" and that will typically consist of creation of the habitat being impacted (or substantial restoration where allowed) at a ratio of at least 1:1 as provided in the HMP. Substantial restoration of the highly degraded areas (where effective functions of the habitat type have been lost) may be substituted for creation subject to the consultation and occurrence of USFWS, CDFG, and the City of Carlsbad. The remaining mitigation requirement will be satisfied through purchases in a mitigation bank. Impacts to the unvegetated Waters of the U.S. shall be satisfied through a purchase in a suitable mitigation bank due to lack of restoration opportunities onsite and the fact that the project is not impacting;vegetative wetlands. The impacts to the unvegetative Waters of the U.S. will require permits and coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the CDFG, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. t The property has an existing General Plan Land Use designation of RM, which anticipates medium density residential development at 4 to 8 du/ac, with a Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) of 6 du/ac used for the purposes of calculating the City's compliance with Government Code Section 65584. At the GMCP the project could yield 81 dwelling units. Policy 7-14.1 of the HMP limits development of the site to a maximum of 25% to be clustered on the southern portion of the subject property. Therefore, the project is proposing an amendment to the General Plan Land Use designation from RM to RMH and OS, a LCPA to change the Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use designation from RM to RMH and OS and to 101 GPA 04-10/ZC 04-06/LCPA 0«-09/CT 04-08/SDP 04-05/HDP 04-04/CuP 04-17/CP 04-03/SUP 04-07 - LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER TOWNHOMES April 5,2006 Page 3 change the LCP Zoning designation from L-C to RD-M-Q and OS, and a ZC to change the L-C designation of the property to RD-M-Q and OS to implement the RMH and OS General Plan Land Use designations. The project also requires approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan, Hillside Development Permit, Coastal Development Permit, Condominium Permit, and Special Use Permit, to develop the 53 proposed residential condominium units. The proposed development would consist of a series of three-story structures with two-car attached garages. The buildings will consist of 2-5 dwelling units each. The garages are accessed off of a shared driveway and residents will directly access their unit through the garage. The exterior pedestrian entrance is either located on the side of the building or the front of the building. Guest parking is located throughout the project to adequately serve all units. The units range in size from 1,438 - 1,529 square feet, each with 2 to 3 bedrooms and 2.5 to 3.5 bathrooms. The buildings have an Old California architectural style with stucco coated walls, varied shaped windows, arch elements, exposed wood detailing and rafters, wrought iron and lighting details, and trellises over the balcony areas. The project is providing 10,099 square feet of common active recreation area which includes a swimming pool, children's pool, and Jacuzzi. The project also provides 6,056 square feet of passive recreation which include flat turf areas, gathering areas, benches, and grill areas. The project will take access off of Dove Lane, and an emergency access only drive is located off of El Camino Real. Grading for the project will require 23,953 cubic yards of cut, 28,097 cubic yards of fill, and an import of 4,144 cubic yards of material. Import of material is necessary to create the proposed pad elevations and access driveways. Overall, the grading of the project site is sensitive to the adjacent sensitive habitat. Runoff from the site would be treated with a retention basin before draining into the existing public storm drain system, in compliance with the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit. IV. ANALYSIS The project is subject to the following plans, ordinances and standards: A. General Plan Residential Medium High Density (RMH) Land Use designation; B. Residential Density Multiple Zone with a Qualified Development Overlay Zone- (RD-M-Q) (Chapter 21.24 and 21.06 of the Zoning Ordinance), and Planned Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.45 of the Zoning Ordinance); •C. Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code); D. Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program, and the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.203 of the Zoning Ordinance); E. City Council Policy 66 (Principles for the Development of Livable Neighborhoods); F. Hillside Development Regulations (Chapter 21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) and Hillside Design Guidelines; G. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (Chapter 21.85 of the Zoning Ordinance); H. Special Use Permit/El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards. I. Growth Management Ordinance (Chapter 21.90 of the Zoning Ordinance) and Zone 21 Local Facilities Management Plan; and J. Habitat Management Plan (HMP). GPA 04-10/ZC 04-06/LCPA 0^-09/CT 04-08/SDP 04-05/HDP 04-04/CiJP 04-17/CP 04-03/SUP 04-07 - LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER TOWNHOMES April 5, 2006 Page 4 A. General Plan The General Plan Land Use designation for the project site is Residential Medium (RM; 4-8 du/ac). The surrounding properties in Zone 21 have General Plan Land Use designations of Residential Low-Medium (RLM), RM, RMH, and Local Shopping Center (L). The RM General Plan Land Use designation anticipates medium density residential development at 4 to 8 du/ac, with a Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) of 6 du/ac used for the purposes of calculating the City's compliance with Government Code Section 65584. The Habitat Management Plan (HMP) requires the development to be concentrated on the southern 25% of the project site. Therefore, the project is proposing an amendment to the General Plan Land Use designation from RM to RMH and OS. The density of the proposed 53 dwelling units located on 5.2 acres in the southern 25% of the project site is 10.19 du/ac, within the RMH range of 8-15 du/ac and below the RMH GMCP of 11 du/ac. If the project were to be developed over the entire 13.6 net developable acre site, the project would yield a project density of 3.9 du/ac, just under the anticipated range of the existing RM Land Use designation. However, the project application was on file, deemed complete, and considered "in the pipeline" before October 27, 2004, and is exempt from the recently adopted General Plan Land Use Element language which requires any subdivision of land or construction of more than one dwelling to be subject to the minimum density range and intent of the underlying residential land use designation. The RM GMCP of 6 du/ac on 13.6 net developable acres permits 81 residential units and the project proposes 53 residential units. 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 proposed project does not conflict with any existing or proposed land use plans or policies of the City of Carlsbad. The project is included within the City of Carlsbad's HMP as a standards area. Through negotiations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the City of Carlsbad, the proposed project is within the predetermined maximum allowable impacts for this particular property. The project complies with all elements of the General Plan as illustrated in Table A below: GPA 04-10/ZC 04-06/LCPA 04-09/CT 04-08/SDP 04-05/HDP 04-04/CDP 04-17/CP 04-03/SUP 04-07 - LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER TOWNHOMES April 5,2006 PaeeS TABLE A: GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE ELEMENT USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL, OBJECTIVE OR PROGRAM PROPOSED USES & IMPROVEMENTS COMPLY? Land Use Site is designated for Residential Medium-High Density (RMH; 8-15 du/ac with a GMCP of 11 du/ac) 53 condominium units at 10.19 du/ac. Yes Housing Provision of affordable housing The project is proposing to purchase 9 offsite affordable housing credits in the Villa Loma project. Yes Public Safety To require a minimum fire flow of water for fire protection The project includes fire hydrants. Yes Open Space & Conservation Utilize Best Management Practices for control of storm water and to protect water quality Project will conform to all NPDES requirements. Yes Noise Residential exterior noise standard of 60 dBA CNEL and interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL The proposed ground level noise mitigation plan consists of a combination often-foot- high berms and wall barrier and six-foot-high walls around the southern and eastern portion of the project site. The second floor balcony areas of Buildings 8 through 12 will require eight-foot-high wall/glass barriers to properly mitigate for the future El Camino Real noise levels. This will reduce the noise levels to below the 60 dBA CNEL threshold. The project shall complete an interior noise analysis, compliant with the CCR, Title 24, Noise Insulation Standards, prior to the issuance of building permits for future homes to demonstrate that the proposed architectural design would limit interior noise to 45 dBA CNEL or less. Yes Yes GPA 04-10/ZC 04-06/LCPA 04-09/CT 04-08/SDP 04-05/HDP 04-04/CuP 04-17/CP 04-03/SUP 04-07 - LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER TOWNHOMES April 5, 2006 Page 6 TABLE A: GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE CONTINUED ELEMENT Circulation USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL, OBJECTIVE OR PROGRAM Require new development to construct roadway improvements needed to serve proposed development PROPOSED USES & IMPROVEMENTS Project will provide roadway improvements including El Camino Real and a new private driveway to provide direct access to each unit. COMPLY? Yes B. RD-M and Q Overlay Zone, Open Space and Planned Development Regulations The site is currently zoned Limited Control (L-C). A Zone Change is proposed as part of the project to redesignate the site from L-C to RD-M-Q and OS. This will result in the zoning for the site being consistent with the proposed General Plan Land Use designations of RMH and OS. The proposed RD-M-Q zone is also compatible with the existing nearby commercial and residentially zoned properties. The project meets or exceeds all requirements of the RD-M (21.24), Q Overlay (21.06) and Planned Development regulations (21.45.070) as outlined in the Table B below: TABLE B: RD-M-Q AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE Standard Minimum lot size Maximum lot coverage Lot width Building Height Setbacks (RD-M) Setbacks (PUD) Req uired/ Allow ed 7,500 square feet 60 % (RD-M) 60% (PUD) 60 foot minimum (RD-M) 3 5 feet > 3: 12 roof pitch 24 feet < 3:12 roof pitch (RD-M and PUD) Front: 20 feet Street Side Yard: 10 feet Rear: 10 feet Arterial road - 50 feet Front: 5 foot minimum from a driveway project (Garage) Building separation: 10 foot minimum / 20 foot average Proposed All lots exceed 7,500 square feet 16.8% of the 5.2 acre development site. 370 foot minimum 3 5 feet with >3: 12 roof pitch 20 feet 10 feet + 10 feet + 50 feet 5 foot minimum ' 1 2 foot minimum separation / 20 foot average Comply? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes GPA 04-10/ZC 04-06/LCPA 04-09/CT 04-08/SDP 04-05/HDP 04-04/CUP 04-17/CP 04-03/SUP 04-07 - LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER TOWNHOMES April 5, 2006 Page? TABLE B: RD-M-Q AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE CONTINUED Standard Resident Parking Guest Spaces RV Parking Screening of Parking Area Recreation space Storage space Required/ Allowed 2 garage spaces per unit 16 Spaces 20 square feet per unit; 53 units = 1,060 square feet ' Screened from adjacent property Private: 10 foot by 10 foot private patio or 6 foot by 10 foot balcony area. Common: 200 square feet of common recreation area per unit; 1 0,600 s/f required 480 cubic feet or 392 cubic feet if in one location per unit Proposed Each unit has a two- car garage 16 guest parking bays provided 1 ,200 square feet = 4 RV spaces Parking is provided adjacent to the central tot lot and will not be visible from adjacent properties or public streets. 13'-6"xlO'patio. 12'-4"x6' minimum balcony. The project is providing 10,099 square feet of common active recreation area which includes a swimming pool, children's pool, and Jacuzzi. The project also provides 6,056 square feet of common passive recreation which includes flat turf areas, gathering areas, benches, and grill areas. Minimum of 480 cubic feet per unif provided in garages. Comply? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes t • Yes C. 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 GPA 04-10/ZC 04-06/LCPA 04-09/CT 04-08/SDP 04-05/HDP 04-04/CDP 04-17/CP 04-03/SUP 04-07 - LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER TOWNHOMES April 5, 2006 PageS 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 23,953 cubic yards of cut, 28,097 cubic yards of fill, and an import of 4,144 cubic yards of material. Import of material is necessary to create the proposed pad elevations due to the existing slope conditions. Overall, the project will be sensitive to the on site native vegetation and nearby commercial and residential neighborhoods. D. Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program, and the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone The proposed project is consistent with the Mello II Segment of the LCP which contains land use policies for development and conservation of coastal land and water areas within its boundaries. The policies of the Mello II Segment emphasize topics such as preservation of agriculture and scenic resources, protection of environmentally sensitive resources, provision of shoreline access and prevention of geologic instability and erosion. The project is consistent with the following Coastal Act policies: A) no agricultural lands exist on the project site currently (historical reference to previous agriculture did occur), therefore no impacts to such will occur; B) the site is geologically stable and the proposed grading for the site has been limited to the area necessary to develop the site; C) the project has been designed to reduce the amount of off-site runoff by surface drains and has been conditioned to implement the NPDES standards to ensure the quality of the water leaving the site; D) the project meets the parking requirements of the zoning ordinance; E) the project does not preclude any recreational opportunities or shoreline access as the property is not a shorefront property; and F) the development does not obstruct views of the coastline as seen from public lands or public rights- of-way. Topographically, the site slopes steeply from north to south and is covered primarily by Coastal Sage Scrub and Southern Maritime Chaparral habitats. A Hillside Development Permit is required for development on steep slopes. The sensitive habitat resources occurring on site include 12.5 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS), 1.2 acres of Southern Maritime Chaparral, and .03 acres of Waters of the US. As Designed, the project will impact 4.4 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub, .5 acres of Southern Maritime Chaparral, and .03 acres of Waters of the U.S. The project will mitigate, as stated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, for all impacted habitats consistent with the City of Carlsbad HMP. The parcel has been designed to minimize the encroachment into dual criteria slopes. However, the project impacts approximately 11% of the total dual criteria slopes on site. Chapter 21.203 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code allows for uses of slope over 25% in order to provide access to flatter areas if there is no less environmentally damaging alternative. In addition, the HMP restricts development of the project site to a maximum of 25%, to be clustered on the southern portion of the subject property. GPA 04-10/ZC 04-06/LCPA 04-09/CT 04-08/SDP 04-05/HDP 04-04/CDP 04-17/CP 04-03/SUP 04-07 - LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER TOWNHOMES April 5, 2006 Page 9 Subsection 7-14(1) of Section D in the City's HMP permits 25% of the parcel to be developed in the southern portion of the property to minimize impacts to environmentally sensitive land. Given the above, the project is consistent with the Mello II Segment Land Use policies. The proposed LCPA is required to change the LCP Land Use and Zoning designations for the property from RM and L-C to RMH and OS and RD-M-Q and OS respectively. The proposed Local Coastal Program Land Use and Zoning designations are consistent with the project's proposed General Plan and proposed Citywide Zoning designations. E. City Council Policy 66 (Livable Neighborhoods) The proposed project complies with the applicable guidelines and principles of City Council Policy 66 regarding livable neighborhoods as shown in Table C below. TABLE C: 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 project is designed as "alley- loaded." All dwelling units have entrances that front either the side or the courtyard between the buildings. All units either have a balcony or porch that fronts the courtyard. 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. The project is an alley-loaded design. GPA 04-10/ZC 04-06/LCPA 04-09/CT 04-08/SDP 04-05/HDP 04-04/CDP 04-17/CP 04-03/SUP 04-07 - LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER TOWNHOMES April 5,2006 Page 10 TABLE D: CITY COUNCIL POLICY 66 - LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS CONTINUED Principle Compliance Comments 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 takes access off of Dove Lane via a private drive. The condominium units are designed in a grid pattern. The private drive is adequate to serve the 53 dwelling units and includes full improvements that will allow safe pedestrian movement throughout the site. There is also a perimeter sidewalk surrounding the residential development. Jrf S-' 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. 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 El Camino Real, which includes a sidewalk. GPA 04-10/ZC 04-06/LCPA 04-09/CT 04-08/SDP 04-05/HDP 04-04/CUP 04-17/CP 04-03/SUP 04-07 - LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER TOWNHOMES April 5,2006 Page 11 TABLE D: CITY COUNCIL POLICY 66 - LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS CONTINUED Principle Compliance Comments 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 10,099 square feet of common active recreation area which includes a swimming pool, children's pool, and Jacuzzi. The project also provides 6,056 square feet of common passive recreation which includes flat turf areas, gathering areas, benches, and grill areas. F. 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 site in that the project slope is over 15 feet in height and has slopes greater than 15 percent. The site contains an older manufactured slope created by previous grading and historic agricultural farming activity. The project is proposing 23,895 cubic yards of cut, 24,271 cubic yards of fill, and an import of 376 cubic yards of material. This will result in a volume of grading equaling 5,120 cubic yards per acre which is considered "acceptable" under the Hillside Development Regulations of the Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.95. Overall, the project will be sensitive to the adjacent residential neighborhoods and the project is designed to limit the amount of grading. Additional grading to create the building pads and roadway will result in variable height retaining walls up to a maximum height of 6 feet. The project is downslope from the adjacent developments and El Camino Real, the western side of the slope will be screened by a terracing water and landscaping feature. Hillside conditions have been properly identified on the constraints map which show existing and proposed conditions and slope percentages. The parcel has been designed to minimize the encroachment into dual criteria slopes. However, the project does impact 11 % of the total dual criteria slopes on site. Chapter 21.203 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code allows for uses of slope over 25%'in order to provide access to flatter areas if there is no less environmentally damaging alternative. Subsection 7-14(1) of Section D in the City's HMP limits development of the project site to 25% of the parcel, to be clustered in the southern portion of the property to minimize impacts to environmentally sensitive land. Given the above, the project is consistent with the Mello II Segment Land Use policies. / The project is in compliance with the Hillside Development Regulations of Chapter 21.95 as outlined in Table E below. /It GPA 04-10/ZC 04-06/LCPA 04-09/CT 04-08/SDP 04-05/HDP 04-04/CUP 04-17/CP 04-03/SUP 04-07 - LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER TOWNHOMES April 5, 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 Dual Criteria slopes over 25% grade Slope Height Not to exceed 40 feet in height Contour Grading Screening of slopes Hillside/Hilltop architecture Slope edge setback Roadway design f Proposed Plan 5,120 cu yds/acre; acceptable The project will impact 11% of the dual criteria slopes on site. The project's development envelope is limited to the 25% of the project site, clustered in the southern portion of the site for preservation of environmentally sensitive lands. 23 feet in height is the approximate maximum slope height. The applicant has proposed contour grading to the maximum extent possible. The project site sits below El Camino Real and a landscape berm will also be added to further screen the slopes. From Dove Lane the retaining wall will also be a water feature, with lush landscaping surrounding the area. The buildings comply with the slope edge building setbacks. No structures are proposed on the slope edge or hilltop pad. Grading is required for the widening of El Camino Real which complies with the Hillside Ordinance. Complies? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes G. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance f The City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (Chapter 21.85) requires that a minimum of 15% of all approved units in any qualified residential subdivision be made affordable to lower income households. The inclusionary housing requirement for this project would be 9.0 dwelling units. The applicant is requesting to purchase 9.0 affordable housing credits in the Villa Loma housing project to satisfy the project's affordable housing requirements which will require City Council approval pursuant to Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. GPA 04-10/ZC 04-06/LCPA 04-09/CT 04-08/SDP 04-05/HDP 04-04/CuP 04-17/CP 04-03/SUP 04-07 - LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER TOWNHOMES April 5, 2006 Page 13 H. Special Use Permit and El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards (ECRCDS) Special Use Permits are required whenever a site is located within a Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone. The proposed application is located within the El Camino Real Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. The El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards are intended to maintain and enhance the appearance of the roadway by setting standards for setbacks, signs, building height, grading, and design theme. The document is also intended to further the goals of the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan and the objective of preserving unique city resources as they relate to scenic highways. To meet these objectives, the corridor development standards include design guidelines as well as specific standards. The project's compliance with specific standards is depicted in Table F below. Since residential development is proposed the only standards that apply to the application request are design theme, building height, front yard setback from ECR, grading standard and landscape standards. TABLE F - El CAMINO REAL CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS STANDARD Design Theme Building Height Front Yard Setback/ECR Grading standard Landscape Standards REQUIRED/ALLOWED Old California 35' (35' in the RD-M Zone) 45 '(50' in the PD Zone) 10' max cut or fill London Plane Tree PROPOSED Old California 35' 50' 23' proposed fill London Plane Tree The project complies with the design theme since the proposal is for residential development in an Old California style and complies with the 35-foot maximum height limit. The ECRCDS require a landscaped setback of 45 feet from El Camino Real. This project provides a 50-foot landscape setback. The ECRCDS, maximum grading standard for cut and fill may not exceed 10-feet from the original grade. The project is proposing 23 feet of fill. The ECRCDS allow for various deviations from the development standards if the project meets the following findings, in Table G below. TABLE G - DEVIATIONS TO ECRCD STANDARDS FINDINGS Compliance with a particular standard is infeasible for a particular project. That the scenic qualities of the corridor will continue to be maintained if the standard is not fulfilled. That the project will not have an adverse impact on traffic safety. PROPOSED Development of the project is limited to the southern 25% of the property by the City's HMP. The 23 feet of fill will not 'be visible from El Camino Real and the project is down slope from El Camino Real. The fill will not impact the scenic qualities of the corridor. The project site is accessed from Dove Lane and will not interfere with traffic patterns on El Camino Real. /A GPA 04-10/ZC 04-06/LCPA 04-09/CT 04-08/SDP 04-05/HDP 04-04/CuP 04-17/CP 04-03/SUP 04-07 - LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER TOWNHOMES April 5,2006 Page 14 TABLE G - DEVIATIONS TO ECRCD STANDARDS CONTINUED FINDINGS That the project is designed so as to meet the intent of the scenic preservation overlay zone. PROPOSED The project meets all other standards and is constructed to meet the design theme of the scenic overlay. I. Growth Management Regulations The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 21 in the southwest quadrant of the City. The impacts on public facilities created by the project, and its compliance with the adopted performance standards, are summarized in Table H below. TABLE H: GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE STANDARD City Administration Library Waste Water Treatment Parks Drainage Circulation Fire Open Space Schools Sewer Collection System Water IMPACTS 184.27 sq.ft. 98.27 sq. ft. 53 EDU .37 acres 54 CFS Basin D 424 ADT (53/unit) Station No. 2 9.2 acres Carlsbad Unified (E= 12.39/M=6.20/HS = 7.6426) 53 EDU 21.2GPM COMPLIANCE Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes The proposed project is 28 units below the Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) for RM properties. The unit yield of the 13.6 net acre property at the RM GMCP (6 du/ac) is 81 units and 53 units are proposed. J. Habitat Management Plan The proposed project is consistent with the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for Natural Communities. The project site is located within an existing HMP standards area and gnatcatcher surveys were conducted and the site was found to be occupied. The HMP requires that there be no net loss of habitat within the coastal zone. Thus, habitat creation or substantial restoration (subject to consultation and concurrence of the wildlife agencies and the California Coastal Commission) must account for at least 1:1 of the required mitigation. The remaining mitigation requirement may be satisfied through the purchase of credits within a suitable mitigation bank. Pursuant to the HMP the project is conditioned to mitigate for the following impacts in the Table I below. 113 GPA 04-10/ZC 04-06/LCPA 04-09/CT 04-08/SDP 04-05/HDP 04-04/CuP 04-17/CP 04-03/SUP 04-07 - LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER TOWNHOMES April 5, 2006 Page 15 TABLE I: HABITAT MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS HABITAT Coastal Sage Scrub - including all sub- associations Southern Maritime Chaparral Waters of the U.S. (unvegetative) EXISTING ACREAGE* 12.5 1.2 .03 IMPACTS FROM SITE ACCESS AND EL CAMINO REAL WIDENING 1.5 0 IMPACTS FROM PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (ACRES) 2.9 0.5 .01 MITIGATION RATIO 2:1 3:1 3:1 MITIGATION REQUIREMENT (ACRES) 8.8 1.5 .03 Mitigation for the .03 acre impact to the unvegetated Waters of the U.S. shall be satisfied through the purchase of .03 acres within a suitable mitigation bank. All habitat preserved on-site will be placed in a separate open space lot. The open space lot will be protected by a conservation easement and an endowment will be established for the management, monitoring and reporting of the habitat in perpetuity. Title to the open space parcel will need to be transferred to an appropriate land trust (biological) entity. 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 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was published in the newspaper and sent to the State Clearinghouse for public agency review. One public comment was received during the 30 day public review period from November 18, 2005 to December 20, 2005. A copy of the letter received, dated January 10, 2006, is attached all issues of the letter has been addressed. The MND has been modified to include the recommendations listed in the attached letter dated January 10, 2006. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6054 (Mit. Neg. Dec.) 2. Planning Commission Resolution No.6055 (GPA) 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6057 (LCPA) ' 4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6056 (ZC) 5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6058 (CT) 6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6059 (SDP) 7. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6060 (HDP) 8. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6062 (CDP) 9. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6063 (CP) 10. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6061 (SUP) 11. Location Map GPA 04-10/ZC 04-06/LCPA 04-09/CT 04-08/SDP 04-05/HDP 04-04/CuP 04-17/CP 04-03/SUP 04-07 - LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER TOWNHOMES April 5,2006 Page 16 12. Background Data Sheet 13. Local Facilities-Impact Assessment Form 14. Disclosure Statement 15. Reduced Exhibits 16. Full Size Exhibits "A" - "HHH" dated April 5, 2006 IIS BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: GPA 04-10/ZC 04-06/LCPA Q4-09/CT 04-08/SDP 04-05/HDP 04-04/SUP 04- 07/CDP 04-17/CP 04-03 CASE NAME: LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER TOWNHOMES APPLICANT: MARKER LA COSTA LLC. REQUEST AND LOCATION: Request for a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program Amendment, and Zone Change to change the General Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use designations from Residential Medium (RM, 4-8 du/ac) to Residential Medium-High (RMH, 8- 15 du/ac) and Open Space (OS), and to change the Citywide Zoning and Local Coastal Program Zoning designations from Limited Control (L-C) to Residential Density-Multiple with a Qualified Development Overlay (RD-M-0) and Open Space (OS), Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan, Hillside Development Permit, Coastal Development Permit, Condominium Permit, and Special Use Permit, to subdivide and grade a 14.4 acre site into 2 residential lots for 53 condominium units, 1 driveway lot, and 1 open space lot on property generally located on the west side of El Camino Real and north of Dove Lane within the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and Local Facilities Management Zone 21. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: All that portion of the west half of the northeast Quarter of Section 26, Township 12 South, Range 4 West. San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego. State of California, being more particularly described in certificate of compliance record June 16. 1989 as file No. 89-317343. APN: 215-050-73-00 Acres: 14.4 acres Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 53 units GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Existing Land Use Designation: Residential Medium (RM) Proposed Land Use Designation: Residential Medium High/Open Space (RMH/OS) Density Allowed: 9-14 du/ac Density Proposed: 10.19 du/ac Existing Zone: Limited- Control (L-C) Proposed Zone: Residential Density-Multiple, Qualified Development Overlay, and Open Space (RD-M-Q/OS) Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use: Zoning General Plan . Current Land Use Site L-C RM Vacant North Rl-Q/RDM-Q Residential Low Medium Single Family (RLM) / Residential Medium (RM) South Residential Local Shopping Center Library and shopping Professional-Q Overlay (L) center East RD-M-Q RMH Multiple Family West Rl-Q/RDM-Q RLM/RM Single Family HCRevised 01/06 LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM Coastal Zone: 1X1 Yes I I No Local Coastal Program Segment: Mello II Within Appeal Jurisdiction: I I Yes IXI No Coastal Development Permit: 1X1 Yes I I No Local Coastal Program Amendment: IXI Yes I I No Existing LCP Land Use Designation: RM Proposed LCP Land Use Designation: RMH/OS Existing LCP Zone: L-C Proposed LCP Zone: RD-M-O/OS PUBLIC FACILITIES School District: Carlsbad Unified Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 53 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Categorical Exemption, X] Mitigated Negative Declaration, issued December 8, 2005 Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated_ Other, Revised 01/06 in 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: GPA 04-IO/ZC 04-06/LCPA 04-09/CT 04-08/SDP 04-Q5/HDP 04- 04/SUP 04-Q7/CDP 04-17/CP 04-03 - LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER TOWNHOMES LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 21 GENERAL PLAN: RMH/OS ZONING: RD-M-O/OS DEVELOPER'S NAME: Marker La Costa LLC ADDRESS: 427 South Cedros Avenue. Suite 201. Solana Beach, CA 92075 PHONE NO.: 858-755-3350 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 215-050-73-00 QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 14.4 acres ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: as soon as possible A. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 184.27 sq. ft. B. Library: Demand in Square Footage = 98.27 sq. ft. C. Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) 53 EDUs D. Park: Demand in Acreage = .37 acres E. Drainage: Demand in CFS = 54 CFS Identify Drainage Basin = D (Identify master plan facilities on site plan) F. Circulation: Demand in ADT= 424 APT (Identify Trip Distribution on site plan) G. Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 2 H. Open Space: Acreage Provided = 9.2 acres I. Schools: E-12.39/M-6.20/HS-7.64 (Demands to be determined by staff) J. Sewer: . Demands in EDU 53 EDUs Identify Sub Basin = D (Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan) / K. Water: Demand in GPD = 21.2 L. The project is 28 units under the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance. Citv of Carlsbad Plannina Department DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee. The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print. Note: Person is defined as "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and an other county, city and county, city municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit" Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be provided below. 1. 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 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 publicly-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person Corp/Part Marker La Costa. LLC Title ; Title Address Address 427 South Cedros Avenue. Ste. 201 Solana Beach, CA 92075 2. 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, titles, 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 publicly-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) / Person Noreen Levatino Corp/Part Title Owner Title Address 22121 MalibuLane Address. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (760) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-0894 3. NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonprofit organization or a trust, list the names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit organization or as a trustee or beneficiary of the. Non Profit/Trust Non Profit/Trust Title Title ' Address Address 4. Have you had more than $20 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months? Yes PS! No If yes, please indicate person(s):. NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. I certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Signature of owner/date / ' Signature or appHpant/i Noreen Levatino Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant Signature of owner/applicant's agent if applicable/date Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98 Page 2 of 2 IlloLL1 Q. 8 Q.Q Q.o s 13 o I a I CO CC LLJ Q. O CC Q_ ccUJ Q. 1°O °gLLJ >§?! C3&S Z3* 9^2 LUCD OJC33 CO lU ^ CD Q-Q Z)OlU Q- Scj Ms* i N ** ^iSfftnTTj vI i; I28 5l 5j| i il^sl^g la 1s 11*1 83:|!g if scj I **~ s OL 9s 0. a.8 Q.ax S & Ssd oI I I H CD S CD Is!ooc a. t5co if -- UJa. a. "• O• Q UJ <« Q UJOLUo: to C3 Ce: Q 0 LL 0 I(=< cc fcw«£Q_!^ -0 Olor? £Q_1 £r^z O sLLJ _— U i2^3Pg^!< UJ O*Q >01 I I IQ LLJ1-1 x ^lillil ii 1 111 III T- S CD IMI LI_ 0-Q.UJ gpsi0-!llil a m Ii I i** Aw« Su: *:: s: 2 1 Ilf IO 5ax%{Ss<j2 II i !i 5 Q.ao 3 Q- 3a. a.QX & is & ?3 I I ^ I I i s. COzo UJ C/5 LU CO 5UJ O CCQ_ I CM S COw cc CC s CLO.IU § ^Iz i g8b g 53 >: °^ ijj g LULU CO ELao Sa. a.ar 8 S 5 COUJ $3!2'fc Ssi CO XUJ O CO S (O 11 Sn_UJ h-<Q_ :^ & J- I • /a? /BO s§ 131 I viNsojnv? •ovasTsv? ONIXVA31 mi a! < I !i !hit!*nh i*l£iill.IP pi b i§ §5 Jsiii . ^ iiiiriiiiiyiiyiii iih^PiNi IP i M IP! ^ ii'! Pijii i PI I §i •$! $ i'iiiiiiiiiliiiiiiii^i j sts i ^ f ,!![ !i !!!!ii!ihi![i!y i X33H8 338; W» «« «W XVJ LLM «S ««laoa vnaarvs vnor vi 0« Jim 3MAV 1 ONIJ.VA31 is hi PI I i M i MIl»!!h111 1 i!!!ihifaitin\wl *lI IE -^T(^%i.\yr:\VA\\\\\MO\V \ \ V, \ \ \ \\ /5V «43 UM 355tsoo ¥ita«Jjn¥5 vnor viOH live anaAV maoo HM ONI1VA31 S1IV-L3G TTYM ONV 37N3J'CTQ931 SNULWU ONU.VA31 Ill ! « vI I liif HIoUJ_1 I!E3 Q- mm I a J O Jgj * ONI1VA31 ! iiii i titt hi il iis i HiiilH lilHISh jiilliii! ,!i H'I Ihin ii1,1i -'in sis! i!iI ; «s s!mh! ! !,' !,! ii!i!!Hi!!!! !i Li! i! ?H! •! is. ! Iii •!?• t!£3 ttt 2 ICO ttt tttass ass IIII ttt t t;ttsss si sss i S ttt t tfr "*'inns s !i CtC > I ctt tttt| „ S?SSSSsi Tf 32 h i ib r •! Ml<5rfl:*! s o ^ 8 ill ttt 1* i £s&2=ja11 mi\ 143 &a g s titt 2 8 <* n13 Ull s * s 00 iutt s s ^ SH llIUIL e>z | s z>|S uStt I §o -Ji ctt t tt't 11 ill ctt t ct S 13u ssa W E-I02<[rj 2 s^§?fi$w<£j|pw^Sl^W co a! **^ ffiOH HU2 ^ ^2 sit4 1 r ml g § ttt t ttSSS a ss g S •-**— - , i iilif: tit t ttt n,"""' 'is o;« 2 i !£ K tttctt SSSSSS S^Si:iilii; I i iliil; cr•^ O H §O UH O IIV- o O p«*•-is tf Hh-IOI—I HH js>>^w^§ M 00 pi S8 3 o U s iuU s" S s o o §o C: u.O C/l la 13 n 111(0 g u « •S 13 i f',I I! 5 s „ sas s sssP ? <SO|r j> SBp tttt titass a sss s i ta 851 IP i £ iac ,K •- i-Sn 3! •5 iliU' tttSSassas ii tt£ t ttt B,saaaaaa o8£i5ss* a ill , I sasssia i iilii! OZ s H H rj H f- <=a H I H -T1 f- i111 £ 4 Pill •« S w r PI ffil V*3 'S 33 ffl iS -<*I ?w rod) so WHO^FOUR-PLEX12UIQ ui5) t f i I \COSTA VILLA<<J RKER DEVELOPME]SCALE: 1/4* -1MT1 ^ lap,,f S58iii sslg; a1 i I 'Mi*?JE ^ -flSS £ a5 5£!R^I: > I ttt t ttt I I cct t etc 9 ills! C'tEt __ SSS s sis ! Hi!*;a i saSg; > 1 t'ft t s S 11 | si* 1s il i i s sis s Sss c> C2 I /73 o•^- O i 4 g^PO. s ZIUSri i £ « >!3UIE i oo CO W LH O23« rrl '^Tj C^ xHlW -»vEkrai S r. C^} Pi gE8^ ^s / f \\ i o < is * ^« « u.O | -EC ^V 1 lil 2l& FFFR \mm 3Q <0 WHOZ < 5xHl s s"f IU<0 Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2006 Page 15 EXHIBIT 6 6. GPA 04-10/LCPA 04-09/ZC 04-06/CT 04-08/SDP 04-05/HDP 04-04/CDP 04-17/CP 04- 03/SUP 04-07 - LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER TOWNHOMES - Request for a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program Amendment, and Zone Change to change the General Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use designations from Residential Medium (RM, 4-8 du/ac) to Residential Medium-High (RMH, 8-15 du/ac) and Open Space (OS), and to change the Citywide Zoning and Local Coastal Program Zoning designations from Limited Control (L-C) to Residential Density-Multiple with a Qualified Development Overlay (RD-M-Q) and Open Space (OS), and a Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan, Hillside Development Permit, Coastal Development Permit, Condominium Permit, and Special Use Permit to subdivide and grade a 14.4-acre site into 2 residential lots for 53 condominium units, 1 driveway lot, and 1 open space lot on property generally located on the west side of El Camino Real and north of Dove Lane within the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and Local Facilities Management Zone 21. Mr. Neu introduced Item 6 and stated Associate Planner Jessica Galloway would make the Staff presentation. Chairperson Montgomery opened the public hearing on Item 6. Ms. Galloway gave a detailed presentation and stated she would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any questions of Staff. Commissioner Dominguez asked for elaboration of the 10-foot wall and berm and how it will be integrated into the scenic corridor of El Camino Real. Ms. Galloway stated there is a high amount of vegetation along the wall. She stated it is 10 feet with a berm at the highest point and then drops to almost nothing at one end. Ms. Galloway stated it will be a decorative wall. Chairperson Montgomery asked for the elevations where the landscaping would be screening the wall. Commissioner Dominguez commented that some of the terminology used is generalized and the El Camino Real Corridor has been one of the more sensitive areas that have been sporadically spoiled. He stated he would like more attention paid to the area. Commissioner Dominguez asked for the details on the proposed construction materials. Ms. Galloway explained it is masonry. Commissioner Baker asked if the wall is only in front of the project and what would happen with the open space that will be permanently preserved. Ms. Galloway stated there is a fence with some areas that will have a crib-type wall to protect habitat species. The area will be surrounded with a slotted fence so that it is viewable and will keep out domestic types of animals. Commissioner Baker asked if they were only protecting biological habitat and not animal habitat. Ms. Galloway stated the animal habitat protected would be the gnatcatcher bird species. Commissioner Whitton asked if the open space to the north will also be fenced. Ms. Galloway stated this is part of the mitigation requirements. Commissioner Whitton asked for an explanation of the fencing type. Ms. Galloway stated it was a slotted-type fence as discussed. Commissioner Whitton asked if this meant a chain link fence and Ms. Galloway stated no. Commissioner Whitton asked about the color and Ms. Galloway stated the color would possibly be black, steel, or wrought iron. Commissioner Whitton asked why the area is being fenced when it is open space and for public enjoyment. Ms. Galloway stated it is for preservation of the biological habitat. Commissioner Whitton asked if it was for the birds and Ms. Galloway stated yes and includes the plants. Commissioner Dominguez asked if the area that is not the 10-foot berm and wall will be a slotted fence. Ms. Galloway stated it will be a tubular steel fence for the habitat area. Ms. Galloway stated in front of the project will be the berm and wall with appealing landscaping. Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2006 Page 16 Ms. Galloway asked if Commissioner Dominguez was more concerned with the wall. Commissioner Dominguez stated concerns about the visual impacts of both the berm and wall. He stated it may be his personal vision of what the El Camino Real Scenic Preservation Corridor should look like in 25 to 30 years. He stated his concerns that there will only be a 10-foot wall and berm along the development when approximately 70% of the frontage on El Camino Real will be left as is with a tubular fence and asked Staff if this is correct. Ms. Galloway stated this is correct when the area is adjacent to a habitat area. She stated the berm is landscaped to make it appear more natural. Ms. Galloway suggested that Assistant Engineer David Rick might be able to provide the Commission with more detail. Mr. Rick stated the Applicant informed Staff it will be a stucco masonry wall. Chairperson Montgomery asked the wall height and Mr. Rick stated 6 feet. Chairperson Montgomery asked if this was the height all the way or does it depend on the elevation of the site below. Ms. Galloway stated it varies. Mr. Neu added the noise study states to mitigate the noise to an acceptable level, a 10-foot barrier is needed between El Camino Real and the residential units. He stated the City's Noise Guideline Manual describes different ways in which you can provide the barrier and stresses avoidance of walls over 6 feet in height, even though this is the preferred method to attain the noise mitigation with a combination of berming, landscaping, and height. Mr. Neu stated it would be appropriate to look at the materials and design of the wall as a primary feature along the roadway. He asked the Planning Commission to consider how the 10-foot wall is needed to achieve required mitigation measure. Commissioner Baker commented there is a 20-foot grade difference between the pads of the units along El Camino Real and asked if it is needed to have a sound wall that completely screens the units where there will be no visibility or line of sight. She clarified by asking if the wall really needs to be 10 feet. Ms. Galloway stated the acoustical analysis conducted on the project site concluded it needed to be a 10-foot combination wall and berm. Ms. Galloway stated it does taper out to be a 6-foot masonry wall on the one end and is sitting more below the grade. Ms. Galloway stated as you get closer to the plane it is more at grade where the berm combination comes into play more. Ms. Galloway stated it is more a line of sight for the acoustics concerns and based off the acoustical analysis for the mitigation requirements. Commissioner Dominguez asked if the fact the remainder of the property that is habitat could possibly be landscaped to mitigate some impacts on the corridor. Mr. Neu asked if he was referring to the outside of the development area and to the north, and Commissioner Dominguez stated yes. Mr. Neu stated it probably could not be landscaped as it would further impact habitat that is not being disturbed. Mr. Neu stated there may be an area within the road right-of-way such as the parkway that would have some landscape potential; however, the wildlife agencies would strongly suggest it be a native landscape material so it would not invade the preserve area. Commissioner Whitton asked if El Camino Real will be widened and Ms. Galloway stated yes. Commissioner Whitton asked what width and Mr. Rick stated it will be widened from two to three lanes. Commissioner Whitton asked if there would be an opportunity to add landscaping as suggested by Commissioner Dominguez since this area will already be disturbed and Mr. Rick stated yes. Chairperson Montgomery asked if there would be a landscape median between the sidewalk and the biology along El Camino Real. Ms. Galloway stated yes, there is landscaping along the area and is shown on Landscape Plan 2. She stated it shows trees and landscaping extending along El Camino Real. Chairperson Montgomery asked if this is a 5-foot strip and Mr. Rick stated 4.5-foot wide strip on the right-of-way. Chairperson Montgomery asked if the wrought iron fence of the habitat continuing south rolls into the berm and wall which is set back farther away from the street. Ms. Galloway stated the habitat fencing and wall will not touch. Commissioner Dominguez asked if there will be landscaping with the widening of El Camino Real and will it continue to Poinsettia Lane and Ms. Galloway stated yes. Commissioner Dominguez asked if there will be some preservation of the corridor and Ms. Galloway stated yes. Commissioner Dominguez stated the reasons for his concerns is he thought it would all be habitat and tubular fencing. Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2006 Page 17 Commissioner Segall asked why the elevations on the property show different paint colors on the same plan. He stated when separating elevations to look like different buildings there are articulations and changes in roof pitch or lines. He stated it is not clear and without any articulation or demarcations that something has changed. Ms. Galloway stated the applicant may be able to answer with his detailed presentation. Commissioner Baker asked when calculating the 25% that is developable from the Habitat Management Plan, she calculated a number that is 3.6 acres and the Staff Report states it is 5.2 acres and asked for clarification on the difference of the 1.6 acres. Ms. Galloway stated the 1.6 acres include the driveway coming into the project site. Commissioner Baker asked when calculating the 25% if it is only the land having actual dwelling units and not including the accessory structure such as roads or recreational areas and Ms. Galloway stated yes. Commissioner Baker asked why, since they destroy habitat as well. Ms. Galloway stated it is identified in the HMP as excluded from the calculation. Commissioner Baker asked if the Growth Management Figure is determined on the 3.6 acres. Ms. Galloway stated she would need to review the project summary and possibly recalculate the math and incorrect items may have been included in the 5.2 acres. Commissioner Baker asked if the open space is taken into consideration in the calculations. Ms. Galloway stated the open space is not considered and was excluded when calculating for unit developable. Ms. Galloway stated this left the 5.2 acres. Commissioner Baker asked if there is some limit on the amount of acreage that roads and recreational areas can consume and why more cannot be taken. Ms. Galloway stated recreational is included in the 25%. Commissioner Baker asked if there is a limit on roads and other kinds of areas not considered in the 25% calculation. Chairperson Montgomery asked what can prevent a developer from placing roads all over since it is not calculated. Commissioner Baker added passive open space, picnic/barbeque areas and such areas. Ms. Galloway stated the site was a standard area in the HMP and there were actual specifics for this particular site that said the development can take place on 25% of the site, plus whatever area necessary to gain access to create the development of the site. Commissioner Baker asked about pedestrian access to the site. Sha CORRECTION put creating a situation where people will be inclined to use a vehicle to make a trip wnere iney migm nave been able to travel on foot. She commented that in briefings she suggested a pedestrian access to the northeast corner and also a trail to go around the waterfall area. Commissioner Baker also inquired about ADA requirements. Mr. Rick stated that after reviewing ADA requirements, the Building Official stated those access ways would have to be designed within ADA requirements to provide access to disabled persons. Commissioner Baker stated her concerns regarding this answer. Commissioner Baker stated her reason is there are other access points for disabled people and how this is creating an environment of people traveling in vehicles instead of on foot. She stated she does not want to see this situation created with the few remaining properties left in the City and would like an attempt to think about pedestrian connections such as trails or sidewalks. Chairperson Montgomery stated not every access has to be within ADA requirements and it is only required to have like or comparable access. He stated ADA access has to be provided sufficiently for equal access to the site, but not necessarily every access. He concurred with Commissioner Baker on creating more nodes of connection. Mr. Rick stated that he is not an expert in Building Code, but will relay the Planning Commission's concurs to the Building Official. Mr. Rick stated there was a change to the Building Code in May 2005 which states that when certain multi-family developments met a certain definition, the developer had to provide disabled accessibility throughout the project. Mr. Rick stated the definition, as explained to him, is that if it has more than a four condominium units and the first floor has livable space, then every access point within the community, including to and from, has to meet ADA requirements and effectively limits the slope of walkways to a maximum of 8%. Commissioner Cardosa asked if the existing water basin directly to the south of the project for native water runoff was put in place with benefit to the mall. Mr. Rick stated it was built with the shopping Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2006 Page 18 center. Commissioner Cardosa asked if the basin will be adequate to handle the additional runoff when adding 25% of the site into a fluid runoff area covered with structures and roadways instead of percentage of absorption and Mr. Rick stated yes. Mr. Rick stated with site modification and additional stand pipes that when the water reaches a certain level it will flow through the pipe. Mr. Rick stated with this modification they will be able to mitigate the increases. Commissioner Cardosa asked if a permit will be required before completion of grading. Mr. Rick stated yes and will be part of the grading operation. Chairperson Montgomery commented about pedestrian connectivity across Dove Lane and how the Planning Commission is well aware of pedestrian accessibility that a City can use to effectively slow cars allowing pedestrians ease to cross without worry. He stated this high-density development across from the library is another project where this can be applied. He asked Mr. Rick's comments if the Commission proposed a reduction in width to allow a calming effect for a stamped concrete crossway. Mr. Rick stated there are various measures that can be used and have been applied to the residential local streets. Mr. Rick stated Dove Lane is a collector street and Engineering has not ventured into adding those types of traffic calming devices mainly because a collector is designed to allow traffic to flow out of residential streets to the major arterials. Mr. Rick stated this would slow down traffic, and the other component with the stamp concrete is generally difficult and expensive to maintain. Commissioner Whitton asked if there will be a stop light at Dove Lane and the road at the development. Mr. Rick stated no and a traffic report submitted did not call for the signal light installation. Commissioner Segall asked if there were any other questions of Staff. Seeing none, he asked the applicant if he would like to make a presentation. Applicant Jack Henthorn, Jack Henthorn & Associates, 5365 Avenida Encinas, Suite A, Carlsbad, gave a detailed presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Montgomery asked Mr. Henthorn to answer the questions that were previously mentioned by fellow Commissioners. Mr. Henthorn answered Commissioner Dominguez's question about the treatment on the frontage of El Camino Real by stating that at the north sides of the emergency entry, the combination and wall berm treatment is at its highest point at that location. He stated this is because they are closest to grade and the noise study required the maximum height to mitigate the noise. He further stated that part of the mitigation goes beyond mitigating to the units but also to the outdoor recreation areas due to the noise standards to 165 db. He explained in order to meet the noise standards it requires the combination wall and berm. He stated care has been taken in designing the berms for landscaping and the wall is masonry with a stucco troud exterior, and in front of that is additional landscaping with shrubs and trees. Along north of the project, before the habitat area, the berm is gone and the wall is down to 6-foot maximum height. This allows the 4-foot berm transitions along the frontage of the project and landscape treatment does not transition so there is a screening effect along the wall with landscaping on the parkway. He stated as you get north of the actual development into the habitat area, there are restrictions as to what can be done adjacent to the habitat and rely more on the parkway landscaping to provide a corridor effect. He explained the boundary between the right-of-way and the habitat is the tubular steel fence. He stated the wildlife agencies require the fence to be narrowly spaced to deter domestic animals from entering and the major concern is protecting the birds and lizards. Mr. Henthorn answered Commissioner Baker's connectivity issues and wished the explanation of ADA requirements by Staff was different; however, due to the type of development, this is a defined multi- family project and all of the access points need to be ADA compliant. He further explained how one cannot force a disabled person to take a circuitous route to get to a location that an able-bodied person could. Mr. Henthorn stated when initially evaluating the project and all connectivity opportunities were looked at to get to El Camino Real and then to Dove Lane, it was found that by the time the development was completely built, the new legislation would be in effect. He stated the analysis indicated the area where the treatment is located at the entry off Dove Lane showed there would be six switchbacks, five landings, wall heights from 5-13 feet, and the recreation center would be lost which would create approximately 200 more feet than the total distance would be from the pedestrian connection on the main driveway on the north of the site down to Dove Lane. He stated by the time the ADA requirements are Planning Commission Minutes Aprils, 2006 Page 19 met, the switchbacks would increase the distance by more than 200 feet beyond the distance you would walk down the sidewalk. He stated that on the other side of El Camino Real, connectivity was evaluated to get to the bus stop from the emergency pedestrian access gate. In order to traverse the distance to the bus stop, a pedestrian would walk a longer distance than with the ramp which reduces the distance by 150 feet, with three switchbacks and 6-foot high walls. Commissioner Baker stated her concerns on the explanation of ADA compliance and asked if research had been completed. Mr. Henthorn stated he wished the ADA requirements were not true, but he is being sincere with the Planning Commission on what developers must do to be compliant. Commissioner Baker again stated her concerns and how she would understand if there were no other ways out of the property; however, there are other ways out. Mr. Henthorn stated changes in the law in the past couple of years have become onerous. He stated he is familiar with how litigious it can become when you have strict compliance and referenced 69 lawsuits filed in the area where he lives for not being ADA compliant. Mr. Henthorn stated they need to request an ADA exemption for the driveway on Dove Lane because of topographic reasons and the need for a slope. Commissioner Baker asked if they could request another exemption for the waterfall area to include the trail. Mr. Henthorn stated the exemptions are limited and it has to be proved there is no other way for an access. Mr. Henthorn stated he confirmed this with Mike Peterson and with this compliance there is little to be gained for the property. Commissioner Baker stated she understands the compliance requirements and would not require the restriction on the project. Chairperson Montgomery asked if a trail could be placed on the southern edge of the property adjacent to the picnic area gradually coming near the Dove Lane entrance. Mr. Henthorn stated there are double retaining walls in the area with large elevation differences. Chairperson Montgomery asked if a trail could be placed in the area between the pool area and the bend of the roadway to Dove Lane. Mr. Henthorn stated the area is constrained with walls and because of the habitat the property has the worst site to develop on. Commissioner Whitton asked if there any mechanical devices in the market that can be utilized instead of switchbacks to accommodate the ADA requirements. Mr. Henthorn stated there are lifts and elevator mechanisms, but he is not sure of the feasibility or how high they can lift and if they would accomplish what was desired. Commissioner Segall asked about the paint color on the elevations. Mr. Henthorn stated there is a metal screed that goes in because the units break and which serves as the delineating component. Commissioner Segall stated he did not understand why there was no articulation between one wall and the other to offset the colors. Mr. Henthorn stated the screed element needs to be there because of the delineation of the units and is a good break to achieve. Commissioner Segall asked about the horseshoe-shaped recesses into a wall. Mr. Henthorn stated they are architectural elements. Commissioner Segall stated it appears it should be a window or garage door. Mr. Henthorn stated they are architectural elements, but a window or some other feature could be incorporated without interfering with the sheer. Commissioner Dominguez concurred with fellow Commissioner Segall that the recesses need to be addressed recommending some type of large medallion to fit the architecture or windows to be more utilitarian. Mr. Henthorn stated since there is not a sheer wall that will be affected, they will be happy to work with Staff to meet the Planning Commission recommendations. Chairperson Montgomery asked if any members of the public wished to speak on this item. Seeing none, he opened and closed Public Testimony. Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any other questions of Staff. Chairperson Montgomery commented it is difficult for the Planning Commission to see implementation problems on connectivity within the City, when they visited other communities and saw how they have created wonderful crossings and trails. Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2006 Page 20 Commissioner Dominguez stated this would have been a perfect project to make trails and walkways with all the surrounding services available, and expressed his disappointment that vehicles would still be needed. Commissioner Baker asked how the Planning Commission could impose these requirements on this project if it is found after further research that it is possible to create connections without ADA requirements. Chairperson Montgomery concurred with fellow Commissioner Baker. Commissioner Baker stated she would like to see more research on ADA compliance from Staff. Chairperson Montgomery stated he would like to see a condition that would state inclusion of accessibility in certain areas, unless precluded by an ADA requirement. He stated this would be onerous to the developer and Staff, but could be removed if there is an ADA requirement. Ms. Galloway stated she would like to see flexibility added in the condition. She stated Staff, Mr. Rick, and the applicant researched the ADA requirements, but they will do further research and provide that information to the Planning Commission. She would like to see language of "not feasible" due to current ADA laws that it is not required. Commissioner Baker stated it is not the Planning Commission's intention to see retaining walls, switchbacks, and landings, but the Commission would like to see connectivity if possible. Mr. Wojcik stated it will be difficult to place specific wording in the condition. He explained how it becomes difficult when, as the applicant indicated, the connectivity can be created, but only with numerous switchbacks and retaining walls. Mr. Wojcik stated he understands this is not what the Planning Commission would like. He stated Staff understands the intentions and desire, but asked for assistance in the specific wording of the condition Commissioner Baker asked Ms. Mobaldi if she had suggestions on specific wording for the condition. Ms. Mobaldi stated if the switchbacks are not desired and do not require a lift to be considered, then it could be left to the discretion of the City Engineer or Planning Director. She stated it should be clear a mechanical device is not required, nor switchbacks, and that the provision is looking at exemptions and areas that would not be required ADA compliant. Commissioner Segall stated he would like the connectivity if there is something simple that could be created. He stated it is a nice project with wonderful landscaping and is a walkable community with sidewalks. He stated they have created a nice landscaped community to walk through to get to the street and sidewalk. He added, however, that there may be something that can be included to make it aesthetically different, but he would not want to belabor the project. Chairperson Montgomery stated he would feel comfortable if language could be added that is exempt from ADA compliance and not requiring a mechanical lift that connectivity can be created. Chairperson Montgomery asked if, in the future, additional traffic calming standards could be established in the collector streets to assist pedestrians crossing the road. Mr. Wojcik stated the standards were adopted by the City Council who could direct Staff to incorporate additional traffic calming measures to be used on streets other than residential. He stated the Traffic Engineer would need to complete studies or research to provide the best options, and would include coordination with Public Works when increasing the maintenance of streets and maintenance crews. Chairperson Montgomery asked the consensus of the Planning Commission in recommending additional traffic calming measure throughout the city to City Council. Commissioner Whitton stated it would be appropriate to consider these options in certain areas, such as arterial roads. He stated there is a potential for a traffic circle in the area that would create stops. He stated it would be a helpful tool. Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2006 Page 21 Commissioner Heineman stated that while serving on the Traffic Calming Committee they researched and found numerous options, but acknowledged it is difficult to incorporate them on existing streets and can be expensive. Commissioner Heineman recommended City Engineer Bob Johnson to be involved if the interest of the Planning Commission is in this direction. Commissioner Dominguez would like the tool available. He stated his concerns on selecting the wrong project to attempt to work out the issues. He suggested placing this on a workshop and provide well thought out recommendations to City Council. Commissioner Baker stated she does not see a reason why the Planning Commission cannot insist on a crosswalk at Dove Lane. She feels the Planning Commission is continually requesting these options and they are never completed or built. She would like to insist on the items the Planning Commission would like to see within the city and the developments. Chairperson Montgomery asked Commissioner Baker what language she recommends for the two connectivity points. Commissioner Baker recommended language as follows: "To include additional access points that do not need to be ADA accessible; that is, switchbacks, retaining walls, mechanical means, or extraordinary means to the satisfaction of the Planning Director." Chairperson Montgomery added "if allowable." Commissioner Whitton also stated concurred with Chairperson Montgomery and added "be allowed at the discretion of the Planning Director." Chairperson Montgomery asked Ms. Mobaldi if language could be added that states "if allowed by Code." Ms. Mobaldi recommended wording of the condition as follows: "If feasible, at the discretion of the City Building Official, in light of ADA restrictions and without requiring mechanical devices or extensive retaining walls and switchbacks, applicant will provide additional access at the northeast and southwest areas of the project." Planning Commissioners Baker, Segall, and Whitton agreed with the language. Chairperson Montgomery asked if Staff concurred with the language and Ms. Galloway stated yes. Chairperson Montgomery stated the traffic calming issues are a larger issue and feels there are other projects which will be better to include the crossings. He stated the idea of calming effects is not the use of speed bumps; the whole concept is for a pedestrian to feel secure crossing the street and for traffic to slow down without difficulty. Ms. Mobaldi stated the Planning Commission is not able to impose a condition for a crosswalk and is not relative to the approval of the project. She further stated it could be imposed if it were an internal street. Commissioner Segall asked if there is a plan for a standard crosswalk. Mr. Wojcik stated nothing has been planned. Commissioner Segall asked how this can be included and if it is something City Engineer Bob Johnson decides. Mr. Wojcik stated yes and would prefer not to have crosswalks due to maintenance costs and that crosswalks could give the pedestrian a false sense of security without taking caution walking in front of cars and assuming they will stop. Chairperson Montgomery stated his concerns that there could not be a crosswalk added but understood the reasoning. However, if something was properly set up, then both vehicles and pedestrians could work together. Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2006 Page 22 MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Baker, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 6054 recommending adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6055, 6056, 6057, 6058, 6059, 6060, 6062, and 6063 recommending approval of General Plan Amendment (GPA 04-10), Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 04-09), Zone Change (ZC 04-06), Tentative Tract Map (CT 04-08), Site Development Plan (SDP 04-05), Hillside Development Permit (HDP 04-04), Coastal Development Permit (CDP 04-17), and Condominium Permit (CP 04-03) and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 6061 approving Special Use Permit (SUP 04-07) based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, including the access provision as read by Counsel. DISCUSSION Commissioner Whitton commended the developer on the project, stating it is a very nice project. He stated they did extraordinary work in fitting it in the small of property that could be utilized. He supports the project. Commissioner Segall concurred with fellow Commissioner Whitton. He stated it is a wonderful project that was developed on a small portion of property where habitat exists. He commented on the design and said he liked the walkable nature of the community. He stated his concerns about having no discussion on the recess element becoming windows and asked if they should leave this decision to the developer. He stated his support of the project. Commissioner Heineman felt the residents should enjoy the project. He stated considering the enormous difficult circumstances, the developer had done a remarkable job. He also supported the project. Commissioner Dominguez and Cardosa concurred with fellow Commissioners and supported the project. Commissioner Baker stated it was a fine project and the developer had done a fine job with the pedestrian circulation internally, but would like to see internal trails. She stated her concerns that fencing of the habitat made it feel like a zoo, hindering people from walking or looking at the area. She understood protecting habitat, but did not feel this was what was intended. She supported the project. Chairperson Montgomery stated he approved of the project and hoped the applicant understood the Planning Commission's desire to see the best in a development. He stated Planning Commission in general loves the pedestrian nature of the community and the surrounding area activities. He stated the Planning Commission thought highly of the project. He wondered if, sometimes, protecting an area could actually have negative results. He supported the project. VOTE: 7-0 AYES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman, Segall, and Whitton NOES: None ABSENT: None Chairperson Montgomery closed the public hearing on Item 6 and thanked Staff for their presentations. PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2010 & 2011 C.C.P.) This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp 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: June 17th, 2006 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at SAN MARCOS California This 19th Day of June, 2006 Signature Jane Allshouse NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising Proof of Publication of NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING I NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, be-' cause your interest may be affected, that theCity Council of the City of Carlsbad will holda public hearingat the Council Chambers, 1200Carlsbad Village Llrive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00p.m. on Tuesday, June 27, 2006, to consider a re-quest for the following: CASE NAME: GPA 04-10/LCPA 04-09/ZC 04-06/CTP 04-05/HDP 04-04/CDP 04-17/CP 04-03 -'A VILLAGE CENTER TOWNHOMES PUBLISH DATE: June 17, 2006 DESCRIPTION: Request for a Mitigated NegativeDeclaration and Mitigation Monitoring and ReportingProgram, General Plan Amendment, Local CoastalProgram Amendment, and Zone Change to changethe General Plan and Local Coastal Program LandUse designations from Residential Medium (RM 4-8du/ac) to Residential Medium-High (RMH, 8-15du/ac) and Open Space (OS), and to change theCitywide Zoning and Local Coastal Program Zoningdesignations from Limited Control (L-C) to Residen-tial Density-Multiple with a Qualified DevelopmentOverlay. (RD-M-Q) and Open Space (OS), and a Ten-tative Tract Map, Site Development Plan, HillsideDevelopment Permit, Coastal Development Permit,and Condominium Permit to subdivide and grade a14.4 acre site into 2 residential lots for 53 condomin-ium units, 1 driveway lot, and 1 open space lot onproperty generally located on the wesFside of ElCamino Real and north of Dove Lane within the MelloII Segment of the Local Coastal Program and LocalFacilities Management Zone 21. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal arecordially invited to attend the public hearing and pro-vide the decision makers with any oral or writtencomments they may have regarding the project.Copies of the agenda bill will be available on or after June 23, 2006. If you have any questions, or would like to be notifiedofthe decision, please contact Jessica Galloway inthe Planning Department at (760) 602-4631, Monday' ly 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Friday 8:00through Th .. ..,a.m. TO 5:00 p.m. at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad,California 9&08. The time within which you may judicially challengethese projects, if approved, is established by Stalelaw and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If youchallenge this project in court, you may be limited toraising only those issues you or someone else raisedat the public hearing described in this notice or inwritten correspondence delivered to the City of Carls-bad, Attn: City Clerk. 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive,Carlsbad, CA 92008 at, or prior to, the public hearing. «Appeals to the City Council: Where the decision isappealaDletoTneCity council, appeals must be filedin writing within ten (10) calendar.days after a deci-sion by me Planning Commission. roject:within the Coastal Zone• Coastal CommissionX This site is not locAppealable Area. Where the decision is appealable to the CoastalCommission, appeals must be filed with the CoastalCommission within ten (10) working days after theCoastal Commission has received a Notice of FinalAction from the City of Carlsbad. Applicants will benotified by the Coastal Commission of the date thattheir appeal period will conclude. The San Diego of-fice of the Coastal Commission is located at T575Metropolitan Drive, Suite 103, San Diego, California92108-4402. RLSBAD NCT 1949134-06/17/06 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 AVERV® 5160® ENCINITAS SCHOOL DIST 101 RANCHO SANTA FE RD ENCINITAS CA 92024 SAN DIEGUITO SCHOOL DIST 701 ENCINITAS BLVD ENCINITAS CA 92024 LEUCADIA WASTE WATER DIST TIM JOCHEN 1960 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 OLIVENHAIN WATER DIST 1966OLIVENHAINRD ENCINITAS CA 92024 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 CITY OF VISTA 600 EUCALYPTUS AVE VISTA CA 92084 VALLECITOS WATER DIST 201 VALLECITOS DE ORO SAN MARCOS CA 92069 I.P.U.A. SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND URBAN STUDIES SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505 CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME 4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE SAN DIEGO CA 92123 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY STE 100 9174 SKY PARK CT SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340 SD COUNTY PLANNING STEB 5201 RUFFIN RD SAN DIEGO CA 92123 LAFCO 1600 PACIFIC HWY SAN DIEGO CA 92101 U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE 6010 HIDDEN VALLEY RD CARLSBAD CA 92011 SCOTT MALLOY - BIASD STE 110 9201 SPECTRUM CENTER BLVD SAN DIEGO CA 92123-1407 CITY OF CARLSBAD PROJECT PLANNER JESSICA GALLOWAY AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST 9150 CHESAPEAKE DR SAN DIEGO CA 92123 CA COASTAL COMMISSION STE 103 7575 METROPOLITAN DR SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402 CITY OF CARLSBAD RECREATION MARKER LA COSTA LLC STE 201 427 SO CEDROS AVE SOLANA BEACH CA 92075 SANDAG STE 800 401 B STREET SAN DIEGO CA 92101 ATTN TEDANASIS SAN DIEGO COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY PO BOX 82776 SAN DIEGO CA 92138-2776 CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING DEPT- PROJECT ENGINEER DAVID RICK 05/25/2006 AH3AV-OD-008-1 AOQLS lueaeB ai zasimn Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 2800 COTTAGE WAY SACRAMENTO CA 95825 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY BUSINESS, TRANS & HSG AGENCY STE2450 980 NINTH ST SACRAMENTO CA 95814 AVERY® 5160® CA COASTAL COMMISSION STE103 7575 METROPOLITAN DR SAN DIEGO CA 921084402 CANNEL ISLANDS NATL PARK SUPERINTENDENTS OFFICE 1901 SPINNAKER DR SAN GUENA VENTURA CA 93001 CITYOFENCINITAS 505 S VULCAN AVE ENCINITAS CA 92024 COASTAL CONSERVANCY STE 1100 1330 BROADWAY OAKLAND CA 94612 COUNJTYOFSD SUPERVISOR RM335 1600 PACIFIC SAN DIEGO ca 92101 DEPT OF DEFENSE LOS ANGELES DISTENG PO BOX 2711 LOS ANGELES CA 90053 DEPT OF ENERGY STE 350 901 MARKET ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103 DEPT OF ENERGY STE 400 611 RYAN PLZDR ARLINGTON TX 760114005 DEPT OF FISH & GAME ENV SERV DIV PO BOX 944246 SACRAMENTO CA 942442460 DEPT OF FOOD & AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL RESOURSES RM100 1220NST SACRAMENTO CA 95814 DEPT OF FORESTRY ENVCOORD PO BOX 944246 SACRAMENTO CA 942442460 DEPT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEV REG ADMIN 450 GOLDEN GATE AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102 DEPT OF JUSTICE DEPTOFATTYGEN RM700 110 WEST AST SAN DIEGO CA 92101 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION RM5504 1120NST SACRAMENTO CA 95814 FED AVIATION ADMIN WESTERN REG PO BOX 92007 LOS ANGELES CA MARINE RESOURCES REG DR & G ENV SERVICES SPR STEJ 4665 LAMPSON AVE LOSALAMITOSCA 907205139 OFF OF PLANNING & RESEARCH OFF OF LOCAL GOV ARRAIRS PO BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO CA 958123044 SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERV & DEV COM STE 2600 50 CALIFORNIA ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 941114704 SANDAG EXEC DIRECTOR STE 800 1STINTLPLZ401BST SAN DIEGO CA 92101 SD COUNTY PLANNING & LAND USE PEPT STEB-5 5201 RUFFIN RD SAN DIEGO CA 92123 SDGE 8315 CENTURY PARK CT SAN DIEGO CA 92123 STATE LANDS COMMISSION STE 1005 100 HOWE AVE SACRAMENTO CA 958258202 STATE LANDS COMMISSION STE 100 S 100 HOWE AVE SAN DIEGO CA 92123 US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEER STE 702 333 MARKET ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 941052197 US BUREAU OF LAND MGMT STE RM W 2800 COTTAGE WY SACRAMENTO CA 95825 US BUREAU OF RECLAMATION MID PACIFIC REG 2800 COTTAGE WY SACRAMENTO CA 95825 US FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICES 2800 COTTAGE WAY STEW-2605 SACRAMENTO CA 958251888 USDA RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT 4169 430 GST DAVIS CA 95616 AU3AV-OD-008-L <*09LS WieqeB a\ zasnnn Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® 5160® WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD PO BOX 100 SACRAMENTO CA 95801 AN1AV-O9-008-L o09lS lueqeB a\ zssi|!)n Impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide Utilisez le gabarit 5160® www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® 5160® PLAZA PASEO REAL ASSCS L L C 801 GRAND AVE DESMOINES IA 50309-8000 RICCARDO & JACQUELINE FERRARI 6912 MIMOSA DR CARLSBAD CA 92011-5151 WILLIAM D & ELIZABETH DENTON 6906 MIMOSA DR CARLSBAD CA 92011-5151 FLECK FAMILY TRUST 6902 MIMOSA DR CARLSBAD CA 92011-5151 ANTONIO R & JANET COLUCCI 6903 BLUE ORCHID LN CARLSBAD CA 92011-5158 SHAHEEN GHAZNAVI 6898 MIMOSA DR CARLSBAD CA 92011-4057 HENSCHE FAMILY TRUST 6869 MIMOSA DR CARLSBAD CA 92011-4056 DAVID KIRVEN 6865 MIMOSA DR CARLSBAD CA 92011-4056 PETERSON TRUST 6847 MOORHEN PL CARLSBAD CA 92011-4051 GIRISH CHANDRAN PO BOX 277 OLD GREENWICH CT 06870-0277 THOMAS M & MARIBEL REDDICK 6839 MOORHEN PL CARLSBAD CA 92011-4049 JILL V EASTON 6882 MIMOSA DR CARLSBAD CA 92011-4057 MARK H & KAREN JOHNSTON 6851 MOORHEN PL CARLSBAD CA 92011-4051 GEORGE L & HELEN SIMMONS 6878 MIMOSA DR CARLSBAD CA 92011-4057 JON & JULIE ROZANSKY 1772 DOVE LN CARLSBAD CA 92011-4047 MEYERS FAMILY TRUST 6886 MIMOSA DR CARLSBAD CA 92011-4057 SHEN TRUST 6822 MOORHEN PL CARLSBAD CA 92011-4049 GREGORY W & GINA LAMPE 6835 MOORHEN PL CARLSBAD C A 92011-4049 RONALD RADCLIFF 6838 MOORHEN PL CARLSBAD C A 92011-4049 WILLIAM RICE 6834 MOORHEN PL CARLSBAD CA 92011-4049 ALAN ROTH TRUST/ GERALDINE KURTZTRUST PO BOX 131240 CARLSBAD CA 92013-1240 YUAN FAMILY TRUST 17579BOCAGEPT SAN DIEGO CA 92128-2080 PORATH TRUST 6855 MOORHEN PL CARLSBAD CA 92011-4051 JERRY K & LINDA HSU UNITW 5604 DRAKE HOLLOW DR WEST BLOOMFIELD Ml 48322-1274 LORINJ&TERRI BEGUN UNITE 119NELCAMINOREAL ENCINITAS CA 92024-5397 JENSEN TRUST 6844 MOORHEN PL CARLSBAD CA 92011-4050 SOMMERS FAMILY TRUST 6890 MIMOSA DR CARLSBAD CA 92011-4057 MATTHEW G & MARIA SEDLOCK 6870 MIMOSA DR CARLSBAD C A 92011-4057 DAINES FAMILY TRUST UNITB 1905 DIAMOND ST SAN MARCOS CA 92078-5185 KIRKPATRICK FAMILY TRUST 6877 MIMOSA DR CARLSBAD C A 92011-4056 AH3AV-09-008-1 ®091S 31V1dlM31 ®AJSAV esn Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® www.avery.com 1-800-GO- AVERY AVERY® 5160® ROBERT M & MAUREEN GOERLITZ 6885 MIMOSA OR CARLSBAD CA 92011-4056 EDWARD & FREDA JOHNSON 6881 MIMOSA DR CARLSBAD CA 92011-4056 WILLIAM WOOD & WHITNEY HAUCK-WOOD 6830 MOORHEN PL CARLSBAD CA 92011-4049 LAWRENCE A & LAUREN MAY 6873 MIMOSA DR CARLSBAD C A 92011-4056 ROBERT L & SUSAN JONES 1747 ORIOLE CT CARLSBAD CA 92011-4053 STEVE FRANCIS & LISA TUOMI 6814 MOORHEN PL CARLSBAD CA 92011-4049 CHANG TAI KIM 316 MISSION AVE OCEANSIDE CA 92054-2553 PATRICK T & LEE BOYLE UNITC 7720 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA 92009-8509 GUILLERMO & DONNA GONI 1763 ORIOLE CT CARLSBAD CA 92011-4054 DUANE & SANDRA VARNUM 6826 MOORHEN PL CARLSBAD C A 92011-4049 DAVID M MOSQUERA 6831 MOORHEN PL CARLSBAD CA 92011-4049 BRANDENBURG LIVING TRUST 1770 ORIOLE CT CARLSBAD CA 92011-4054 TAI T NUSSBAUM 6823 MOORHEN PL CARLSBAD CA 92011-4049 JOHN P GREELIS 1755 ORIOLE CT CARLSBAD CA 92011-4054 KEVIN M GORDON 1758 ORIOLE CT CARLSBAD C A 92011-4054 ROBERT & MICHELLIE DAMUTH 1751 ORIOLE CT CARLSBAD CA 92011-4054 JOHN A & MARCIA JACKSON 6827 MOORHEN PL CARLSBAD CA 92011-4049 KERILWILL 1760 SKIMMER CT CARLSBAD CA 92011-3609 ELIZABETH W HULL 1767 ORIOLE CT CARLSBAD C A 92011-4054 RICHARD A & JO BODNAR 1762 ORIOLE CT CARLSBAD CA 92011-4054 BRETT C MILLER 1764 SKIMMER CT CARLSBAD CA 92011-3609 STEPHEN J & GINA MCCONNELL 1766 ORIOLE CT CARLSBAD CA 92011-4054 LONG FEI &TOMMIE CHANG 4751 TOW PATH LN SYLVANIA OH 43560-2248 YOUNG FAMILY TRUST 1759 ORIOLE CT CARLSBAD CA 92011 DON J& JULIE KNOX 1754 ORIOLE CT CARLSBAD CA 92011-4054 KAYMER BELHAGI & MAHNOOSH ARSANJAHI 1769 SKIMMER CT CARLSBAD CA 92011-3609 VONS COMPANIES INC LF PLAZA PASEO R 801 GRAND AVE DESMOINES IA 50309-8000 HWA MING & CHERRY ZIEN 1756 SKIMMER CT CARLSBAD C A 92011-3609 WALTON TRUST 1773 SKIMMER CT CARLSBAD CA 92011-3609 CITY OF CARLSBAD DOVE LIBRARY 1775 DOVE LN CARLSBAD CA 92011 AM3AV-O9-008-L Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® 5160® MARK & DEBBIE TANNER 1777 SKIMMER CT CARLSBAD CA 92011-3609 WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING LLC CIO PRESCOTT CO 534 ENCINITAS BLVD ENCINITAS CA 92024 HIRSCH FAMILY TRUST 6894 MIMO.SA DR CARLSBAD CA 92011 JIM & HIROMI YAMAMOTO 6926 MIMOSA DR CARLSBAD CA 92011 LEV ATINO TRUST 22121 MALIBULN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-8335 NADINE KACUSIS-BROWN 6474 ALEXANDRIA CIR CARLSBAD CA 92011 GARY SPICER 6957 SANPIPER PL CARLSBAD CA 92011 MITCHELL TRUST 3302 VENADO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 DONNA M STEIN-KUBIN 6973 SANDPIPER PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4136 DOVE FAMILY HOUSING ASSCS UNIT 101 1820 S ESCONDIDO BLVD ESCONDIDO CA 92025-6535 REAL ESTATE COLLATERAL MANAGEMENT CO UNIT 180 1903 WRIGHT PL CARLSBAD CA 92008-6584 SCOTT H STOABS UNIT 125 155LASFLORESDR SAN MARCOS CA 92069-6013 SASKA TRUST 1781 SKIMMER CT CARLSBAD CA 92011-3609 RUSSO FAMILY TRUST 6922 MIMOSA CT CARLSBAD CA 92011 LINDA F SEIDLER 6959 SANDPIPER PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4134 JOYCE WINTERTRUST 6971 SANDPIPER PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4136 DUARTE LIVING TRUST 6963 SANDPIPER PL CARLSBAD C A 92009-4136 JAMES J GASCOYNE 6961 SANDPIPER PL CARLSBAD C A 92009-4134 LAURA P EMERZIAN 6969 SANDPIPER PL CARLSBAD C A 92009-4136 DAVID JRUF 6965 SANDPIPER PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4136 TYLER J HOLSCHLAG UNIT6L 804 REGAL RD ENCINITAS CA 92024-4630 TREVOR ISAACS 6951 SANDPIPER PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4134 LISA HUANG 1579DAWSONDR VISTA CA 92081-8824 JODYLAGEE 6945 SANDPIPER PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4132 TERRY OSBORN & BARBARA MAIN 31841 VIA PATITO TRABUCO CANYON CA 92679-4141 SUSAN SHORT 15RICHARDSONST LANCASTER NH 03584-3524 JANICE ISRAEL 6933 SANDPIPER PL CARLSBAD C A 92009-4132 RICHARD & LOUISE WINDERS TRUST 6943 SANDPIPER PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4132 D W F LTD PO BOX 1475 WINDERMERE FL 34786-1475 JOSHUA L & RACHEL GARCIA 6918 SANDPIPER PL CARLSBAD C A 92009-4131 AM3AV-OD-008-1 ,5,09 IS iueqe6 a\ Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® 5160® ANTHONY C & TERESA FABIANO 6931 SANDPIPER PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4132 WILL A & KATHERINE DENDY 6923 SANDPIPER PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4132 SKOGERSON FAMILY TRUST 6934 SANDPIPER PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4131 MICHAEL & DONIELLE ANDERSON 6941 SANDPIPER PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4132 HONG T M FREEBERG 6937 SANDPIPER PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4132 JAMES K SIMS 6928 SANDPIPER PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4131 ROBERT F SPROWLS 6929 SANDPIPER PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4132 MALCOLM N NAPIER UNIT 2 2252 FELSPAR ST SAN DIEGO CA 92109-3700 LISA A GIACOMINI 6950 SANDPIPER PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4133 STEWART TRUST 588 BUENA CREEK RD SAN MARCOS CA 92069-9675 CHRISTOPHER D & TERESA EILERTSON 6930 SANDPIPER PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4131 TIMOTHY R JAKUBOWSKI 6952 SANDPIPER PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4133 KRISTA J HAZELETT 6920 SANDPIPER PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4131 KHORRAM-CHAGNON FAMILY TRUST 3364 AVENIDA NIEVE CARLSBAD CA 92009-9338 MUDDTRUST 217 CHESTNUT ST PACIFIC GROVE CA 93950-3105 DONNA SLATER 6932 SANDPIPER PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4131 JENNIFER STRYD & SEAN DONAHUE 6936 SANDPIPER PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4131 GINA CLEMENT 6966 SANPIPER PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 THIELEFAMIL TRUST 6942 SANDPIPER PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4133 FUENTES FAMILY TRUST 6938 SANDPIPER PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4133 FARRIS-MARTINEZ TRUST 999 CAPISTRANO DR OCEANSIDE CA 92054-1107 PETERS TRUST 6948 SANDPIPER PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4133 TAYLLOR TRUST 6753 TEA TREE ST CARLSBAD CA 92011-3430 YELENA S DASKAL 6970 SANDPIPER PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4137 MICHAEL & LISA WALSH 2254 VISTA LANISA CARLSBAD CA 92009 SUSANNE STEVENS 7103 COLUMBINE DR CARLSBAD C A 92011-5111 BRIAN M MATZINGER 6976 SANDPIPER PL CARLSBAD C A 92009-4137 JEFFREY W & TRACY BALOS 6964 SANDPIPER PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4135 JOSEPHINE E YEARSLEY 6968 SANDPIPER PL CARLSBAD C A 92009-4135 FELIX GARBER & BONNIE BOOTH UNIT1 504 MATHESON ST HEALDSBURG CA 95448-4264 AM3AV-OD-008-1 Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® 5160® JOHN C MERRILL 2912 AVENITA PRIMENTERA CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARDELLI TRUST 6974 SANDPIPER PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4137 ZICCARELLI TRUST 1910 SWALLOW LN CARLSBAD CA 92009-4138 JOLENE M PARISH 6984 SANDPIPER PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4137 HOLMESTRUST 1285 EMERALD SEA WAY SAN MARCOS CA 92078-5476 ALI & BAHAR DAHI 1920 SWALLOW LN CARLSBAD CA 92009-4138 MIGDAL TRUST 6972 SANDPIPER PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4137 ELLIOTT TRUST 901 INA DR ALAMO CA 94507-1317 BURNAND TRUST 4407 MANCHESTER AVE UNIT 202 ENCINITAS CA 92024-7901 ROBERT MATTIS 1918 SWALLOW LN CARLSBAD C A 92009-4138 RUTHERFORD TRUST 1914 SWALLOW LN CARLSBAD C A 92009-4138 YVETTE CISNEROS 1948 SWALLOW LN CARLSBAD C A 92009-4142 LAWRENCE GALARZA 1928 SWALLOW LN CARLSBAD CA 92009-4138 ELIZABETH G MALUBAY 1924 SWALLOW LN CARLSBAD CA 92009-4138 ARTHUR X RAMIREZ 1946 SWALLOW LN CARLSBAD CA 92009-4142 D&LEDIC TRUST 1916 SWALLOW LN CARLSBAD CA 92009-4138 D&LEDIC TRUST 1912 SWALLOW LN CARLSBAD CA 92009-4138 LORRAINE P THOMPSON 1960 SWALLOW LN CARLSBAD CA 92009-4143 ELLABLANCHE K SALMI 1940 SWALLOW LN CARLSBAD CA 92009-4142 ELLIOTT R & CARYN ROSEN 2390 BOTELLA PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-8011 SERRIN FAMILY TRUST 4423 SALISBURY DR CARLSBAD CA 92010-2867 D MICHELE PARMAN 1952 SWALLOW LN CARLSBAD CA 92009-4142 MARK D GAUTHIER 1938 SWALLOW LN CARLSBAD CA 92009-4142 CAROL SURPRISE 1974 SWALLOW LN CARLSBAD CA 92009-4143 GARRETT G & TRACEY SALBATO 1950 SWALLOW LN CARLSBAD CA 92009-4142 STANLEY R SOPCZYK/ SHARLENE BERGART 1954 SWALLOW LN CARLSBAD CA 92009-4142 ROBERT JFOREMAN 1937 SWALLOW LN CARLSBAD C A 92009-4139 J&EINC 1717 TIMOTHY PL VISTA CA 92083-5545 KENNETH T MAR/ MAGGIE LEE 1972 SWALLOW LN CARLSBAD CA 92009-4143 CARTER P KATZ 1943 SWALLOW LN CARLSBAD CA 92009-4139 AU3AV-O9-008-L Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® 5160® DEANNE M CLARK 210 DRAYTON ISLAND RD GEORGETOWN FL 32139-3112 ERIC S FAGAN/ PAGAN FAMILY TRUST 1970 SWALLOW LN CARLSBAD CA 92009-4143 JOSEPH BENDIK 2018GINN.YLN ESCONDIDO CA 92025-6603 SPENCER HERMANN 1978 SWALLOW LN CARLSBAD CA 92009-4143 CATHERINE BEDFORD 2461 CROOKED TRAIL RD CHULA VISTA CA 91914 STEPHEN CRAIG UNITF 6901 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4120 DANNY & KATHY JONES PO BOX 500585 RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067 ROBERT C & KARLEEN REINHART 1949 SWALLOW LN CARLSBAD CA 92009-4139 PRISCILLA LO 3133HATACARD CARLSBAD CA 92009-7518 ELAINE KLAS FAMILY TRUST 1021 WILLOW DR HEMET CA 92543-5811 ANNE E DISTEL 1947 SWALLOW LN CARLSBAD CA 92009-4139 CATHERINE M LANGNER 413CALLEROBLES SANCLEMENTE CA 92672-2127 JENNIFER WONG 121 N SIERRA AVE SOLANA BEACH CA 92075-1149 RAYMOND TASKER UNITD 6901 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4120 STUART C MASKELL UNITH 6903 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4122 ANTHONY T PIRO UNITE 6901 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4120 SANDRA M COMORRE UNITG 6901 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4120 JUNE WOOD PO BOX 232134 ENCINITAS CA 92023-2134 ARLENE M STEPHENSON 320 SANTA FE DR UNIT 303 ENCINITAS CA 92024-5140 TAMARA THOMPSON 6400 CALMERIA PL CARLSBAD CA 92011-4201 JAMES M LONG UNITE 6905 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4123 JOSEPH P PIRO UNITD 930 BOARDWALK SAN MARCOS CA 92078-2634 DONALD G FAY UNITD 6903 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4122 CARLOS CARTAGENA UNITC 6909 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4125 KENNETHEJOHNSON 3831 N51STST PHOENIX AZ 85018-6118 LEON B HOPPE UNITG 6903 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4122 CORINNE N SCHEIBE UNITG 6909 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4125 CORINNE N SCHEIBE UNITE 6909 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4125 ARLENE STEPHENSON 112 NEPTUNE AVE ENCINITAS CA 92024-3240 JAMES K WARD 6911 QUAIL PL UNIT A CARLSBAD CA 92009-4126 AM3AV-OD-008-1 Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® 5160® NICHOLAS GIKAS 300 CANTLE LN ENCINITAS CA 92024-7269 LOWELL L CAMPBELL UNITF 905 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4123 JEREMIAH D JUSTUS UNITD 6911 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4126 ANDREW BBOBB PO BOX 927724 SAN DIEGO CA 92192-7724 CALIGIURI FAMILY TRUST 2151 AVENIDATORONJA CARLSBAD CA 92009-8707 STEPHANIE & MIKA PERSICHETTI UNITG 6911 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4126 DEBORAH A BLACKBURN UNITG 6909 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4125 THOMAS & LISA KAIFESH 6960 SANDPIPER PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 ZIEGLER FAMILY TRUST 1505 LAUREL RD OCEANSIDE CA 92054-5731 CORNWELL FAMILY TRUST 7035 ELFIN OAKS RD ESCONDIDO CA 92029-5906 DEBRA M DEMARTINO UNITH 6909 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4125 BRIAN GROVE UNITG 6913 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4127 SCOTT G MILLS UNITE 6911 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4126 CHERWIN LIVING TRUST 7610 PRIMAVERA WAY CARLSBAD CA 92009-8236 GEORGE A MILNE UNITD 6915 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4128 DARIO J & CYNTHIA MIRANDA UNITH 6911 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4126 KIRK RENFRO UNITF 6911 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4126 CHRISTOPHER T & CHRIS ADAMS UNIT A 6915 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD C A 92009-4128 JUDY L SAYER UNIT A 6913 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4127 BARBARA A TRUMPIS UNITD 6913 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4127 LOWER JOHN M JR & LORI A 7 SHASTA CT OCEANSIDE CA 92057-6009 TRACY BRIMNER UNITF 6913 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4127 JAMES A BAYER UNITD 2111 MANCHESTER AVE CARDIFF BY THE SEA CA 92007-1826 CORBIN FAMILY TRUST 745 OCEAN CREST RD CARDIFF CA 92007-1336 ANDREW W HOFMANN UNITC 6915 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4128 BRIAN & JOELLE GROVE UNITE 6913 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4127 LINDA AMADOR 4813 RISING GLEN DR OCEANSIDE CA 92056-3013 RONALD L DELEGGE UNITH 6915 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD C A 92009-4128 GABRIEL B HUNT UNITB 6915 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4128 WALKER LIVING TRUST 5200 MECKEL WAY SACRAMENTO CA 95841-3029 AU3AV-OD-008-1 Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® www.avery.com 1-800-GO- AVERY AVERY® 5160® GREGORY JOHNSON UNIT A 6919 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4129 SONG JIN UNITG 6915 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4128 JEFFREY THOVERSON 6816XANAWAY CARLSBAD CA 92009-6028 CHARLENEALESSI UNITD 6919 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4129 RAPHAEL A & ANGELA AULET UNITB 6919 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4129 WILLIAM LICKHALTER UNITF 6921 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4130 CYNTHIA F COLLINS UNITG 6919 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4129 NORBERTO PARRA UNITE 6919 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4129 PAUL RUDEWICK UNITB 6907 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4124 SCOTT J GRAHAM UNITC 6921 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4130 STEPHEN J IRMER UNITH 6919 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4129 QUYEN VAN PHAM UNITG 6907 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD C A 92009-4124 MICHAEL JCOVIELLO UNITH 6921 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4130 CHRISTOPHER J BYRNE UNITB 6921 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4130 LASLEY TRUST 6967 SANDPIPER PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4136 DAVID & ANN KULCHIN 3014GARBOSOST CARLSBAD CA 92009-8326 MIRA KO UNITG 6921 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4130 ANNE SPACIE 904 SALEM PL LAFAYETTE IN 47904-2783 JAMES MCGOWAN & CAROL NEVILLE UNITD 6907 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4124 ROBERT & CLAY LASTUCK UNIT A 6907 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4124 GABRIEL W WEST UNIT A 6901 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4120 RAY FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHIP 419AVENIDACRESPI SAN CLEMENTE CA 92672-3331 STEPHEN M KUEHL 697 CYPRESS HILLS DR ENCINITAS CA 92024-2394 MICHAEL FRY UNIT 22 2041 E GRAND AVE ESCONDIDO CA 92027-3459 KIMANA TRUST 1357 CAMINITO SEPTIMO CARDIFF CA 92007-1007 PATRICK S & CHRISTOPHER PHILLIPS 6927 SANDPIPER PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4132 RONALD LEZAK 793 PORTSWOOD CIR SAN JOSE CA 95120 KRISAROSINSKI 1968 SWALLOW LN CARLSBAD CA 92009-4143 KEVIN LUU 1304126THAVEN SEATTLE WA98109 DANIEL & JOYCE DUCOMMUN 6936 MIMOSA DR CARLSBAD CA 92011 AH3AV-OD-008-1 »091S i Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® 5160® DIANE C CRONK UNITC 6913 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4127 KWOUN S YOUN 1962 SWALLOW LN CARLSBAD C A 92009-4143 MURIEL & COLLEEN INNIS 1941 SWALLOW LN CARLSBAD CA 92009 KANTOWITZ TRUST 6913 BLUE ORCHID LN CARLSBAD CA 92011 MANZANITA PARTNERS LLC 1764 SAN DIEGO AVE SAN DIEGO CA 92110 SHERRY OLINGER UNITC 6907 QUAIL PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 FRACETRUST 2996 SANDY LN DEL MAR CA 92014 SOON HYUN HWANG 6917 BLUE ORCHID LN CARLSBAD CA 92011 DOROTHIE BLETH 3141 AVENIDA TOPANGA CARLSBAD CA 92009 DANIEL REID/ YAN WANG 7137TANAGERDR CARLSBAD CA 92011 DAVID & JILL RENKE 6910 BLUE ORCHID LN CARLSBAD CA 92011 ERIK CONKLIN PO BOX 131221 CARLSBAD CA 92013 JOHN ROSS 1006ARDENDR ENCINITAS CA 92024 JEANETTE LEWIS 1945 SWALLOW LN CARLSBAD CA 92009 AM3AV-OD-008-1 ®091S lueqeB a\ Impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide "^^^ www.avery.com f^Ji AVERY® 5160® Utilisez le gabarit 5160® —"• 1-800-GO-AVERY \^* STEVE FRANCIS & LISA TUOMI CURRENT RESIDENT rURRFNT RESIDENT 6814 MOORHEN PL 6818 MOORHEN PL < RSOO MOORHFN PL CARLSBAD CA 92011 CARLSBAD CA 92011 CARLSBAD CA 92011 WILLIAM WOOD & WHITNEY HAUCK- QUANE & SANDRA VARNUM JQN & JUL|E ROZANSKY RH,O winnRHFN PI 6826 MOORHEN PL 1772 DOVE LN CARLSBAScA 92011 CARLSBAD CA 92011 CARLSBAD CA 92011 wn i IAIUI RirF SOMMERS FAMILY TRUST OR HIRSCH FAMILY TRUST OR fifi£ MnnRHFM PI CURRENT RESIDET CURRENT RESIDENT CARLSBAD CA 92011 689° MIMOSA DR 6894 MIMOSA DRUAKLbBAU UA y,Jim CARLSBAD CA 92011 CARLSBAD CA 92011 rfiRRF I? Rll.nFNT CARLSBAD PUBLIC LIBRARYCURRENT RESIDENT A-IIC. r\r\\ic. \ M17R1 QIIINNFRPT 1775 DOVE LN1/81 bJUNNtKOI rARI «JRAr»PA Q9n-HCARLSBAD CA 92011 CARLSBAD CA 92011 ?SSRREN?R£mENT fJf^SSS.T/8"0 UBRARY 1781 <5 IUNNFR CT 1775 DOVE LN C7ARLSSJBADNCA 92^11 CARLSBAD CA 92011 AU3AV-O9-008-I. ^_ ®091S NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, {DATE}, to consider a request for the following: CASE NAME: GPA 04-10/LCPA 04-09/ZC 04-06/CT 04-08/SDP 04-05/HDP 04-04/CDP 04- 17/CP 04-03 - LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER TOWNHOMES PUBLISH DATE: {DATE} DESCRIPTION: Request for a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program Amendment, and Zone Change to change the General Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use designations from Residential Medium (RM, 4-8 du/ac) to Residential Medium-High (RMH, 8-15 du/ac) and Open Space (OS), and to change the Citywide Zoning and Local Coastal Program Zoning designations from Limited Control (L-C) to Residential Density-Multiple with a Qualified Development Overlay (RD-M-Q) and Open Space (OS), and a Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan, Hillside Development Permit, Coastal Development Permit, and Condominium Permit to subdivide and grade a 14.4 acre site into 2 residential lots for 53 condominium units, 1 driveway lot, and 1 open space lot on property generally located on the west side of El Camino Real and north of Dove Lane within the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and Local Facilities Management Zone 21. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing and provide the decision makers with any oral or written comments they may have regarding the project. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on or after {DATE}. If you have any questions, or would like to be notified of the decision, please contact Jessica Galloway in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4631, Monday through Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. APPEALS The time within which you may judicially challenge these projects, if approved, is established by State law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge this project 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. a Appeals to the City Council: Where the decision is appealable to the City Council, appeals must be filed in writing within ten (10) calendar days after a decision by the Planning Commission. a Coastal Commission Appealable Project: I I This site is located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area. |/<J This site is not located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area. Where the decision is appealable to the Coastal Commission, appeals must be filed with the Coastal Commission within ten (10) working days after the Coastal Commission has received a Notice of Final Action from the City of Carlsbad. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission of the date that their appeal period will conclude. The San Diego office of the Coastal Commission is located at 7575 Metropolitan Drive, Suite 103, San Diego, California 92108-4402. CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT SITE imp NUT TO SCALE LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER TOWNHOMES GPA 04-10/LCPA 04-09/ZC 04-06/CT 04-08/SDP 04-05/ HDP 04-04/CDP 04-17/CP 04-03 1 La Costa Village Center La Costa Village Center TownhomesTownhomes GPA 04GPA 04--10/LCPA 0410/LCPA 04--09/ZC 0409/ZC 04--06/06/ CT 04CT 04--08/SDP 0408/SDP 04--05/HDP 0405/HDP 04--04/04/ CDP 04CDP 04--17/CP 0417/CP 04--03/SUP 0403/SUP 04--0707 Council Actions RequestedCouncil Actions Requested „„Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation and Reporting Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation and Reporting ProgramProgram „„General Plan AmendmentGeneral Plan Amendment „„Local Coast Program AmendmentLocal Coast Program Amendment „„Zone ChangeZone Change „„Tentative Tract MapTentative Tract Map „„Planned Development PermitPlanned Development Permit „„Hillside Development PermitHillside Development Permit „„Site Development PermitSite Development Permit „„Coastal Development PermitCoastal Development Permit Location MapLocation Map DOVE LN EL CA MIN O RE AL POINSETTIA LN LOBELIA CT DOVE LN POI NSE TT IA LN E L C AMIN O R EA L MI MOSA DRQUAIL PLORIOLE CT SKIMMER CT LIMONITE CT DUSTY ROSE PL04008001,200200Feet GPA 04-10 / LCPA 04-09 / ZC 04-06 / CT 04-08 / SDP 04-05 / CDP 04-17 / SUP 04-07 / CP 04-03 / HDP 04-04 LA COSTA VILLAGE CENTER TOWNHOMES General Plan AmendmentGeneral Plan Amendment ••General Plan AmendmentGeneral Plan Amendment ––Existing: Residential Medium (4Existing: Residential Medium (4--8 du/ac)8 du/ac) ––Proposed: Residential Medium High (8Proposed: Residential Medium High (8--15 du/ac) and 15 du/ac) and Open SpaceOpen Space ••Proposed density at 53 dwelling units:Proposed density at 53 dwelling units: ––10.19 du/ac10.19 du/ac ••Dwelling units permitted at the existing GMCP:Dwelling units permitted at the existing GMCP: ––81 dwelling units (13.6 net developable acres)81 dwelling units (13.6 net developable acres) ••28 units below the GMCP of 6 du/ac28 units below the GMCP of 6 du/ac GPAGPA 2 Zone ChangeZone Change „„Existing zoning: Limited Control (LExisting zoning: Limited Control (L--C)C) „„Proposed zoning: Residential DensityProposed zoning: Residential Density-- Multiple with a Qualified Development Multiple with a Qualified Development Overlay (RDOverlay (RD--MM--Q) and Open Space (OS) Q) and Open Space (OS) „„Zone change will be consistent with the GPAZone change will be consistent with the GPA ZoningZoning Local Coastal Program AmendmentLocal Coastal Program Amendment „„Land Use designationLand Use designation ••Existing: Residential MediumExisting: Residential Medium ••Proposed: Residential Medium High and Open Proposed: Residential Medium High and Open SpaceSpace „„Zoning designationZoning designation ••Existing: Limited ControlExisting: Limited Control ••Proposed: Residential Density Medium with Proposed: Residential Density Medium with Qualified Development Overlay and Open SpaceQualified Development Overlay and Open Space LCPA Land Use and ZoningLCPA Land Use and Zoning Project DescriptionProject Description „„4 lots4 lots ••2 residential lots for 53 condominium units2 residential lots for 53 condominium units ••1 driveway lot1 driveway lot ••1 open space lot1 open space lot „„Primary access from Dove LanePrimary access from Dove Lane „„Emergency access off of El Camino RealEmergency access off of El Camino Real „„GradingGrading ••23,895 cu/yd cut23,895 cu/yd cut ••24,271 cu/yd of fill24,271 cu/yd of fill ••5,120 cu/yd of import5,120 cu/yd of import Project Description ContinuedProject Description Continued „„Dwelling unitsDwelling units ••Residential buildings will consist of 2Residential buildings will consist of 2--5 dwelling units5 dwelling units ••3 floor plans ranging from 1,438 3 floor plans ranging from 1,438 ––1,529 square feet1,529 square feet ••22--3 bedrooms with 2.53 bedrooms with 2.5--3.5 bathrooms3.5 bathrooms ••3535’’in heightin height ••Alley loaded with 2Alley loaded with 2--car garages per unitcar garages per unit „„16 guest parking bays16 guest parking bays „„12,000sq.ft = 4 RV Parking spaces12,000sq.ft = 4 RV Parking spaces 3 Project Description ContinuedProject Description Continued „„Active recreation includesActive recreation includes ••Swimming poolSwimming pool ••Children's poolChildren's pool ••JacuzziJacuzzi „„Passive RecreationPassive Recreation ••6,056 square feet6,056 square feet ••Benches, grills, and gathering spacesBenches, grills, and gathering spaces „„Inclusionary housing Inclusionary housing ••9 dwelling units to be purchased in the Villa Loma 9 dwelling units to be purchased in the Villa Loma housing projecthousing project Site PlanSite Plan Recreation AreasRecreation Areas Project Driveways andProject Driveways and Pedestrian WalkwaysPedestrian Walkways Environmental ReviewEnvironmental Review „„Biological impacts to Coastal Sage Scrub, Southern Biological impacts to Coastal Sage Scrub, Southern Maritime Chaparral, and Waters of the USMaritime Chaparral, and Waters of the US ••Biological mitigation is consistent with the Carlsbad HMPBiological mitigation is consistent with the Carlsbad HMP „„Noise impacts from El Camino Real Noise impacts from El Camino Real ••10 foot 10 foot bermberm and wall combinations along ECRand wall combinations along ECR ––Walls not to exceed 6 feet and heightWalls not to exceed 6 feet and height ••Wall and glass patio barriersWall and glass patio barriers ••Interior noise analysis compliant with Title 24 at the time Interior noise analysis compliant with Title 24 at the time of building permitof building permit Planning Commission ActionPlanning Commission Action „„On April 5, 2006 the Planning Commission On April 5, 2006 the Planning Commission approved, with a 7approved, with a 7--0 vote to:0 vote to: „„ApprovedApproved ––SUP 04SUP 04--0707 „„Recommendations to City CouncilRecommendations to City Council ••Recommended adoption of a MNDRecommended adoption of a MND ••Recommended approval of ZC 04Recommended approval of ZC 04--06, 06, GPA GPA 0404--10, LCPA 0410, LCPA 04--09, CT 0409, CT 04--08, HDP 0408, HDP 04--04, 04, SDP 04SDP 04--05, CDP 0405, CDP 04--17, and CP 0417, and CP 04--0303 4 RecommendationRecommendation „„That City Council approve ZC 04That City Council approve ZC 04--06, adopt a 06, adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation and Reporting Program, and approve GPA and Reporting Program, and approve GPA 0404--10, LCPA 0410, LCPA 04--09, CT 0409, CT 04--08, HDP 0408, HDP 04--04, 04, SDP 04SDP 04--05, CDP 0405, CDP 04--17, and CP 0417, and CP 04--03 as 03 as recommended for approval by the Planning recommended for approval by the Planning Commission.Commission.