Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-02-09; City Council; 15042; LOHF SUBDIVISION - ZC 97-06|LCPA 97-08|CT 97-15|HDP 97-16|CDP 97-39. . 4 CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENoA BILL AB# J$;oqa m: LOHF SUBDIVISION MTG. 2/g/99 ZC 97-06fLCPA 97-08lCT 97-15tHDP 97-1 GICDP 97-39 DEPT. HD. CITY ATTY. DEPT. PLN $‘+ 1 CITY MGR* ~ RECOMMENDED ACTION: ~ That Council INTRODUCE Ordinance No. r/S-462 amending the Zoning Map, and ADOPT Resolution No. 99 - Yb APPROVING the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Progkam, Zone Change, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit for the Lohf Subdivision. ITEM EXPLANATION: On December 2, 1998, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and recommended approval with a 6-O vote (Monroy absent) of the various legislative and development permits associated with the Lohf Subdivision. The proposal involves three components: 1) changing the zoning and LCP designation from Limited Control (L-C) to One Family Residential with a Qualified Development Overlay (R-1-7,500-Q); 2) allowing the subdivision and grading of coastal, hillside lands for 73 single family lots and three open space lots; and 3) approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration requiring on-site open space preservation, coastal oak tree replacement, and grading restrictions such as paleontological monitoring, fugitive dust control and gnatcatchers breeding season constraints. The project also includes several access links to adjacent parcels, namely: connections to Mimosa Drive and Dove Lane, driveways for two occupied lots to the north (Saska and Steiner), and future access points to the western undeveloped properties (Sudduth and Kevane). Prior to buildout of the project, the developer will construct over 1,400 feet of Poinsettia Lane from El Camino Real to the project’s western boundary. This would leave less than 2,200 feet to connect to the existing terminus in Aviara Phase Ill. Access to th,e neighboring properties, most notably the Mimosa Drive connection, dominated the public testimony at the December 2, 1998 Planning Commission meeting. The Pavoreal neighborhood had a large attendance and consolidated their public testimony into four speakers, as reflected in the excerpts of the Planning Commission Minutes. They requested that the connection to Mimosa Drive not be included or, at least, be blocked by an emergency access gate. Staff recommended the full connection at Mimosa Drive for several reasons. Mimosa Drive and the lots within Pavoreal were created by the Viewpoint subdivision (CT 85-34) and Mimosa Drive currently serves as a single point of access for the neighborhood. The Viewpoint subdivision map clearly shows that Mimosa Drive was designed to continue beyond the subdivision boundary. The street was constructed to the subdivision boundary line with the eventual intent of being a connection and secondary access to Dove Lane and Poinsettia Lane to the north. These connections would facilitate circulation in the area by dispersing traffic over three streets rather than two. The connection would ultimately provide the supplemental route eastbound and westbound on Poinsettia Lane for traffic from Mimosa Drive. In response to the public testimony, the Planning Commission made a separate motion to require an emergency access gate across Mimosa Drive. The vote on the motion was 3-3 (Welshons, Savary and Nielsen). Should the Council desire to support the gating of Mimosa Drive, the project should be returned to staff to modify some of the conditions in the attached resolutions and to determine if additional environmental review is necessary. The proposed Zone Change, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit are consistent with the General Plan, the / PAGE 2 OF AGEND~:dll.l. NO, ‘5; 0’4 1, h Local Coastal Program and all other applicable ordinances, regulations and policies. Therefore, Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Lohf Subdivision proposal. The project has been conditioned to mitigate impacts to schools to the extent allowed by State Law as recently amended by Proposition IA and SB 50. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The potential environmental impacts of the Lohf Subdivision proposal were reviewed and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was issued on October 26, 1998. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was necessary to mitigate potential impacts to biological resources, air quality, and cultural resources. These impacts were mitigated to a level of insignificance by the preservation of over 90 percent of the on-site open space, replacement of coastal live oaks, gnatcatcher breeding season grading restrictions, fugitive dust control, and paleontological monitoring. The proposed alignment of Poinsettia Lane has been reviewed through the certified EIR for the Zone 20 Specific Plan. With regard to all other areas of environmental concern, the project has no additional impacts not previously analyzed in the Master Environmental Impact Report for the 1994 General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01) and no additional review or mitigation measures are necessary with regard to these areas of concern. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impacts to the City are negligible since all development fees will be collected at time of final map and building permit issuance. All public facilities necessary to serve the development will be in place prior to, or concurrent with, development. The developer’s cost for the infrastructure improvements for Poinsettia Lane may be partially or completely reimbursed out of the Aviara Parkway/Poinsettia Lane Bridge and Thoroughfare District. A reimbursement agreement submitted by the developer is currently under review. EXHIBITS: 1. City Council Ordinance No. n/S- r@ 2. City Council Resolution No. 99 - 4 6 3. Location Map 4. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4424,4425,4426,4427,4428, and 4429 5. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated December 2, 1998 6. Excerpts of the Planning Commission Minutes, dated December 2, 1998. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. ~-469 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 21 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP TO GRANT A ZONE CHANGE, ZC 97-06, FROM LIMITED CONTROL (L-C) TO ONE FAMILY RESI- DENTIAL WITH A QUALIFIED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (R-1-7,500-Q) FOR 36.7 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL, BETWEEN CASSIA ROAD AND DOVE LANE IN THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT. CASE NAME: LOHF SUBDIVISION CASE NO.: ZC 97-06 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does ordain as follows: SECTION I: That Section 21.05.030 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the amendment of the zoning map as shown on the map attached hereto, Exhibit ZC 97-06, and made a part hereof. SECTION II: That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 4425 constitute the findings and conditions of the City Council. SECTION III: The Council further finds that this action is consistent with the General Plan and the Housing Element of the General Plan in that it is consistent with residential land use and affordable housing goals and objectives. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at least once in a publication of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within fifteen days after its adoption. (Not withstanding the preceding, this ordinance shall not be effective within the City’s Coastal Zone until approved by the California Coastal Commission.) INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council on the 9th day of February 1999, and thereafter. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the day of 1999, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor ATTEST: ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk (SEW -2- PROPERTY ZONE CHANGE ZC: 97-06 / SITE draft (XI final 0 Project Name: Lohf Subdivision 1 Related Case File No(s): ZC 97-061LCPA 97-08 Legal Description(s): Parcel 2 of Map No. 2244, filed in ~ the office of the County Recorder on January 10.1974 and the southern half of the northeast quarter of Section 26, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, ail in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. Zone Change Property: From: To: A. 215050-18,59 L-C R-l -7,500-Q B. C. D. Attach additional paqes if necessarv Approvals Council Approval Date: Ordinance No: Effective Date: Signature: 6 a 15 1 16 1 17 1 ia 1 19 232 242 - RESOLUTION NO. gg-46 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A ZONE CHANGE, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE LOHF SUBDIVISION LOCATED WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL, BETWEEN CASSIA ROAD AND DOVE LANE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 21, IN THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT. CASE NAME: LOHF SUBDIVISION CASE NO.: ZC 97-06/LCPA 97-08/CT 97-l 5/HDP 97 161 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning Commission did, on December 2, 1998, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider a Zone Change, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit, and Coastal Development Permit and related environmental documentation; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 9th day of February , 1999, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider said matters and at that time received recommendations, objections, protests, comments of all persons interested in or opposed to ZC 97-06/LCPA 97-08/CT 97-l S/HDP 97-l G/CDP 97-39; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That the City Council APPROVES Planning Commission recommendations on ZC 97-06/LCPA 97-081CT 97-15/HDP 97-16/GDP 97-39 and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission as set forth in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4424,4425,4426,4427,4428, and 4429, on file with the City Clerk and made a part hereof by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council with the following amended condition: a. Condition No. 54 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 4427 is amended to read as follows: “Prior to approval of a Site Development Plan or Final Map for this project, the developer shall determine an appropriate alignment of a third access using the proposed Poinsettia Lane, in accordance with the certified EIR for the Zone 20 Specific Plan and as modified by updated environmental review. Poinsettia Lane shall be constructed and completed no later than one year following the recordation of the final map.” 3. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council. The provisions of Chapter 1 .I6 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, ‘Time Limits for Judicial Review” shall apply: “NOTICE TO APPLICANT’ II “The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court not later than the nineteenth day following the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost or preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008.” PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 9th day of February 1999, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Hall, Finnila, and Nygaard NOES: Council Member Kulchin (SEAL) -2- EXHIBIT 3 LOHF PROPERTY ZC 97-061LCPA 97~08lCT 97-151 HDP 97461CDP 97-39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EXHIBIT 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4424 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO ALLOW A ZONE CHANGE FROM LIMITED CONTROL TO ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITH A QUALIFIED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY OVER 36.7 ACRES AND THE SUBDIVISION OF, AND GRADING FOR, 73 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH THREE OPEN SPACE LOTS OVER THE SAME 36.7 ACRES ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL, BETWEEN CASSIA ROAD AND DOVE LANE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 21. CASE NAME: LOHF SUBDIVISION CASE NO.: ZC 97-06/LCPA 97-08/CT 97-l S/HDP 97-16 CDP 97-39 WHEREAS, LAMCO Housing, Inc., “Developer”, has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Lohf Trust and Alice M. Lamplugh Trust, “Owner”, described as Parcel 2 of Map No. 2244, filed in the Office of the County Recorder on January 10, 1974 and the southern half of the northeast quarter of Section 26, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, all in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 2nd day of December, 1998, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4) B) Finding: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and considered Mitigated Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and said comments thereon, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached hereto and on tile in the Planning Department, prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project. Based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment and hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. 3. 4. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to this Subsequent Project have been incorporated into this Subsequent Project unless it can be shown through field reconnaissance by a certified biologist that no gnatcatchers are present on the property for two months prior to the start of grading. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, according to Exhibit “ND” dated October 26,1998, and “PII” dated October 3,1998, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: . . itions . . 1. To mitigate fugitive dust and other construction-related air quality impacts, the developer shall do the following: l Control fugitive dust by regular watering, or other dust prevention measures; l Maintain equipment engines in proper tune; l Seed and water until vegetation is grown; l Spread soil binders l Wet the area down, sufficient enough to form a crust on the surface with repeated soakings, as necessary, to maintain crust and prevent dust pick-up by the wind; l Street sweeping, should silt be carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares; PC RESO NO. 4424 -2- /o 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 - l Use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas where vehicles move damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving site; l Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day; l Use of low sulfur fuel (0.5% by weight) for construction equipment. l Limit hours of grading operations to before sunset on any day, after seven (7) am on Monday through Friday, after eight (8) am on Saturdays, and not on Sundays or selected Holidays, as detailed in Section 8.48.010 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. 2. To mitigate the loss of southern maritime chaparral and southern mixed chaparral, the proposed development shall demonstrate conformance with the recommendations of “A Biological Resources Report and Impact Analysis for the Dove Lane Property, City of Carlsbad”, prepared by Anita M. Hayworth and dated May 5, 1998, including, but not limited to, preservation and maintenance of the existing coastal maritime chaparral habitat. 3. To mitigate the loss of a mature coast live oak, the developer shall either transplant the mature coast live oak tree, or plant replacement coast live oak trees at a ratio of 1O:l at a location to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. A landscaping plan showing all oak tree transplanting or replanting shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Director prior to issuance of grading permit. 4. To mitigate potential disturbances to the California gnatcatcher, the grading operations within 300 feet of the proposed open space area will be restricted during the gnatcatcher breeding season, or from February 15 to August 30 each year unless it can be shown through field reconnaissance by a certified biologist that no gnatcatchers are present on the property for two months prior to the start of grading. 5. To mitigate potential paleontological impacts, the developer shall accomplish the following prior to final map approval or issuance of grading permit: l A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform a walkover survey of the site and to review the grading plans to determine if the proposed grading will impact fossil resources A copy of the paleontologist’s report shall be provided to the Planning Director prior to issuance of a grading permit. l A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of the site and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils present in geologic strata, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for laboratory processing through fine screens. The paleontologist shall make periodic reports to the Planning Director during the grading process. l The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an exposed fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts. l All fossils collected shall be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. PC RESO NO. 4424 -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 l Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities shall be resolved by the Planning Director. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day of December, 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners Compas, Heineman, Nielsen, Savary, and Welshons NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Monroy ABSTAIN: CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: Planning Director PC RESO NO. 4424 -4- CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Address/Location: West of El Camino Real, between Cassia Road and Dove Lane in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego. Project Description: Request for a Zone Change and Local Coastal Program to change the zoning designation from Limited Control (L-C) to One Family Residential (R-l) for two parcels covering 36.7 acres; and a Tentative Tract Map, Coastal Development Permit and Hillside Development Permit to allow the subdivision and grading for, and construction of, 73 single family dwellings, with three open space lots, on the same 36.7 acres. 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 0rdinanc.e of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Michael Grim in the Planning Department at (760) 438-l 161, extension.4499. DATED: OCTOBER 26,1998 CASE NO: ZC 97-06/LCPA 97-08/CT 97- 1 S/I-IDP 97- 16KDP 97-39 CASE NAME: LOHF SUBDIVISION PUBLISH DATE: OCTOBER 26,1998 Planning Director 2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 l (760) 438-1161 l FAX (760) 438-0894 /3 @ - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: ZC 97-06/LCPA 97-OS/CT 97- 1 S/CDP 97-39/HDP 97- 16 DATE: October 3. 1998 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Lohf Subdivision 2. APPLICANT: Western Pacific Housing for LAMCO Housing. Inc. 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2385 Camino Vida Roble, Suite 107, Carlsbad CA 92009 (760) 929-1600 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Seutember 18.1997 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for a Zone Change and Local Coastal Program to change the zoning designation from Limited Control (L-C) to One Family Residential (R-l) for two parcels covering 36.7 acres, and a Tentative Tract Map, Coastal Development Permit and Hillside Development Permit to allow the subdivision and grading for, and construction of, 73 single family dwellings, with three open space lots, all on property generally located west of El Camino Real, between Cassia Road and Dove Lane, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 0 Land Use and Planning 0 Population and Housing q Geological Problems lxl Water [XI Air Quality &l Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services q Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics cl Hazards cl Cultural Resources cl Noise cl Recreation 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03l28196 P DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) cl cl cl lz cl 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 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 significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. J - fl.- @ Date Date IO loci h3 2 Rev. 03/28/96 /3- 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 adversely significant, 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 significant. Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but & potentially significant 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 (Prior Compliance). When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant 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 effect on the environment. 3 Rev. 03/28/96 16 C a If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce 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. 0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant 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 impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the 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. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source H(s): b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (#I, pgs 5.6- 1 - 5.6- 18) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (# 1, pgs 5.6- 1 - 5.6- 18) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (#I, pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (#I, pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (#I, pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6) Potentially Significant impact cl q q q cl cl q q Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated q q q q q cl q q Less Than No Significant Impact Impact cl Ix1 0 q cl IXI cl lxl q [XI q El cl (x1 q q 4 Rev. 03/28/96 17 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a> b) cl d) e) 0 f.3 h) 0 Fault rupture? (#I, pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15; #2) Seismic ground shaking? (#I, pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15; w Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#1, pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15: #2) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#I, pgs 5.1- 1 - 5.1-15; #2) Landslides or mudflows? (#I, pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15; w Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l, pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15; #2) Subsidence of the land? (#I, pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15; fw Expansive soils? (#I, pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15; #2 Unique geologic or physical features? (#l, pgs 5. l- 1 - 5.1-15; #2) IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) b) cl 4 e> 0 8) h) 9 Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff! (#l, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-l 1; #3) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (#I, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-l I ; #3) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (#1, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-l I; #3) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (#1, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-l I; #3) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (#I, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-l 1; #3) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (#l, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-l I; #3) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (#I, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-11; #3) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#I, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-l 1; #3) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (#I, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-l 1; #3) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? Potentially Significant Impact q cl cl 0, q q cl cl q El q q q q q q q q [xi IXI Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated q q q q q q Cl q q q q q q q q q q q q q Less Than Significant impact cl q q q q 0 q cl q q q q q q q cl q 0 q cl No impact Ix1 IXI IXI lz El 1xI lx Ix1 Ix] IXI Ix1 lzl Ix1 Ix1 lxl lxl El IXI q q 5 Rev. 03/28/96 0 - Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (#l, pgs 5.3.1 - 5.3- 12) d) Create objectionable odors? (#l, pgs 5.3.1 - 5.3- 12) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a> b) c) 4 e> f) 8) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#l, pgs 5.7-l - 5.7- 22) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (#I, pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-22) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#I, pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-22) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (#I, pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-22) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#l, pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-22) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l, pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-22) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a> b) cl d) e) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#I, pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24) VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (#I, pgs 5.12.1 - 5.12.1-5) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (#l, pgs 5.12.1 - 5.12.1-5) c) 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? (#I, pgs 5.12.1 - 5.12.1-5) Potentially Significant Impact q q Ix1 q q q q q q q q q q q q q q Potentially Unless Mitigation Incorporated Cl q q q cl q q q q lx Ix1 lxl lxl q q q q Less Than Significant Impact q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q NO Impact lxl lxl q IXI Ix1 Ix) IXI lxl IXI q q q q Ix1 IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: 6 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). X. Xl. XII. XIII. a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (# 1, pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-3) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#l, pgs 5.10.1-I - 5.10.1-3) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (#I, pgs 5.10.1-I - 5.10.1-3) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (#l, pgs 5.10.1-I - 5.10.1-3) e) Increase fre hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, ortrees? (#l, pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-3) NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l, pgs 5.9-I - 5.9-15) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l, pgs 5.9-l - 5.9-15) PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (#I, pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.1-5) b) Police protection? (#l, pgs 5.12.1-I - 5.12.1-5) c) Schools? (#I, pgs 5.12.7-l - 5.12.7-5) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (#l, pgs 5.12.1-I - 5.12.8-7) e) Other governmental services? (#I, pgs 5.12. l-l - 5.12.8-7) UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a> b) cl d) e) f-l g) Power or natural gas? (#l, pgs 5.12.1-I - 5.12.1-5) Communications systems? (#l, pgs 5.12.2-l - 5.12.8-7) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (#l, pgs 5.12.2-l - 5.12.3-7) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l, pgs 5.12.2-l - 5.12.3-7) Storm water drainage? (#l, pgs 5.12.2-I - 5.12.3- 7) Solid waste disposal? (#l, pgs 5.12.4-l - 5.12.4-3) Local or regional water supplies? (#I, pgs 5.12.2-I - 5.12.3-7) AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l, pgs 5.1 l-l - 5.1 l-5) Potentially Significant Impact Cl Cl 0 Cl Cl cl 0 Cl cl 0 cl cl Cl q cl q q 0 cl cl Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated cl 0 q q Cl Cl cl Cl Cl q q 0 Cl Cl 0 Cl Cl 0 q Cl Less Than No Significant Impact impact Cl Ix cl cl 0 q cl cl Cl Cl 0 0 0 Ix] lxl lxl lxl IXJ Cl IXI 0 lxl q IXI 0 lx Cl Ix1 cl ix1 q IXI cl IXJ Rev. 03l28f96 a2 7 - - Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#I, pgs 5.1 l-l - 5.11-5) c) Create light or glare? (#I, pgs 5.10.3-I - 5.10.3-2) XIV. xv. XVI. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#I, pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l, pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10) c) Affect historical resources? (#l, pgs 5.8-l - 5.8- 10) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#I, pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (#I, pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10) RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#l, pgs 5.12.8-l - 5.12.8-7) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l , pgs 5.12.8-l - 5.12.8-7) MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 4 b) cl 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 prehistoty? 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)? Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 Cl cl cl Cl q q q Cl Cl q Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 cl El Ix] cl 0 Cl Cl 0 Cl cl 0 Less Than Significant Impact cl q cl cl q 0 Cl q q 0 Cl q There are three sources of earlier analysis referenced above. Source #l is the Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR 93-01) for the 1994 General Plan Update. This analysis reviews the potential impacts of developing the City in conformance with the General Plan in the No impact lxl lzl cl Cl IXI Ix] El IXI Ix] lxl IXI El 8 Rev. 03/28/96 d/ - - areas of land use and planning, population and housing, geologic problems, water, air quality, transportation and circulation, biological resources, energy and mineral resources, hazards, noise, public service, utilities and service systems, aesthetics, cultural resources and recreation. Source #2 is the “Preliminary Geotechnical Study - Lohf Property”, dated June 25, 1998 and prepared by Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc. of San Diego, California. Source #3 is the “Hydrology Study for Lohf Property”, dated July 3 1, 1998 and prepared by Hunsaker and Associates. The proposed Lohf Subdivision project involves the subdivision and grading for, and the construction of, 73 single family homes over 36.7 acres, with three open space lots. The site is mostly cleared of native vegetation from previous agricultural operations, with the exception of some habitat in the southwest comer of the project site. The proposed development would encroach into approximately 1.6 acres of native habitat, including the relocation or removal of a mature oak tree. The proposed habitat removal is proposed to be mitigated by preservation of the remaining areas of native habitat and by relocating or replacing the mature oak tree. The site may also contain paleontological and archeological resources and appropriate mitigation measures have been included. With the exception of land use and planning, biological resources and cultural resources, the proposed action, as designed, has no additional impacts not previously analyzed. in the earlier environmental review and no additional review or mitigation measures are necessary with regard to population and housing, geologic problems, water, energy and mineral resources, hazards, noise, public service, utilities and service systems, aesthetics, and recreation. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The proposed project has two components: a Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment to change the zoning designation from Limited Control (L-C) to One Family Residential (R-1-7500) for two parcels totaling 36.7 acres; and a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit to allow the subdivision and grading for, and construction of, a 73 unit single family residential development over 29.6 acres, with 7.1 acres remaining in three open space lots. The property is designated Residential Low Medium Density (RLM), which allows for residential uses at densities from 0.0 to 3.2 dwellings per developable acre (du/ac) by the City’s General Plan and Growth Management Ordinance, The subject properties also located within the City’s Coastal Zone. The project site is generally located west of El Camino Real, between Cassia Road and Dove Lane, within the City’s Coastal Zone. The site is surrounded to the west, north and east by virtually undeveloped property, with the exception of two single family homes on the adjacent lots to the north. These properties are also designated for residential development in the density range of 0.0 to 3.2 du/ac by the City’s General Plan and Growth Management Ordinance. South of the project site is Pavoreal, a 90 unit, single family subdivision at a density of 3.1 du/ac. The project site also borders the South Carlsbad Library parcel along a small portion of the eastern side, just south of the entry point for Dove Lane onto the subject property. The project site is mostly cleared from previous agricultural operations and contains three single family homes. The homes are currently accessed via a dirt road leading from El Camino Real, which lies approximately 200 feet to the west. Future access of the subdivision would be taken from Dove Lane, Mimosa Drive, and future Poinsettia Lane, which will traverse the northern portion of the site in an east-west direction. The water, sewer, and storm drain facility 9 Rev. 03f28i96 JJ requirements would be met through existing and proposed infrastructure and would be in place prior to occupancy of any structure. The Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment would bring the zoning designations of the property into conformance with the City’s General Plan and Local Coastal Program and the proposed development would conform to all applicable regulations and policies. As discussed below, all potential impacts, except for Air Quality and Circulation, will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. LAND USE AND PLANNING As mentioned above, the existing General Plan designation of the subject property is Residential Low Medium (RLM), which, after adjusted in accordance with the City’s Growth Management Ordinance, allows a density of 0.0 to 3.2 dwelling units per developable acre. The existing zoning is Limited Control (L-C), which is a temporary designation given to annexed lands. The appropriate zoning designation to implement the RLM General Plan designation is One Family Residential (R-l). Therefore the proposed Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment to change the zoning of the subject property to R-l is appropriate and consistent with all applicable land use documents. Since the property is within the Coastal Zone, the Local Coastal Program Amendment is necessary to maintain consistency between the City’s Zoning Ordinance and the implementing ordinances of the City’s Local Coastal Program. AIR QUALITY: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively ‘significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent 10 Rev. 03/28/96 23 projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore. no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. In addition to the impacts discussed above, there are a number of occupied single family homes on the southern and northern borders of the project area. To preclude local air quality impacts to these residences during grading, a mitigation measure designed to reduce construction-related dust and emissions is included. CIRCULATION: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent tiith and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include 1) measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need, 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The project site has been reviewed for sensitive biological resources by the project applicant’s biologist, Anita Hayworth, Ph.D., the findings of which are contained in “Biological Resources Report and Impact Analysis for the Dove Lane Property”, dated May 5, 1998. According to that study, 28.6 acres of the project site is disturbed or developed due to previous agricultural activities and the existing residential uses. There is one large area of native vegetation remaining in the southwestern portion of the site. This area totals approximately 5.5 acres, has greatly sloping topography, and contains southern maritime chaparral and a coastal live oak riparian forest. A California gnatcatcher female with juvenile(s) (Polioptila califomica) was also 11 Rev. 03128196 observed in this habitat area, however this was during the late summer and the birds were likely dispersing or roaming the vicinity, according to the biological study . With the exception of the northernmost 0.4 acres of native vegetation, the southwestern portion of the site will remain in natural open space and be maintained by the future homeowners association. There is also a small area of southern maritime chaparral in the northwestern comer of the site, which will remain intact as well. Mitigation for the removal of 0.4 acres of southern maritime chaparral, as well as other, non- sensitive plant communities (i.e. 1.2 acres of southern mixed chaparral and 0.5 acres of eucalyptus woodland) would be accomplished through preservation of the remaining 5.5 acres of southern maritime chaparral. Since a California gnatcatcher was observed on site, the grading operations are being restricted during the gnatcatcher’s breeding season, from February 1 to August 3 1 each year. The site also contains a mature coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), located in the middle of the disturbed/developed area. Since the project cannot be designed around the tree, the applicant must mitigate the loss by planting ten (10) coast live oaks within the project open space areas to be preserved. Based upon the information in the biological study, the proposed mitigation measures, as generally described above and detailed below, will reduce the project’s impacts to biological resources to a level of insignificance. CULTURAL RESOURCES While the Lohf Subdivision project site does not contain any structures of historical significance, there is a prehistoric site located in the area, identified as CA-SDi-8195. There have been two previous archeological reconnaissances conducted on site: the “Draft Historical/Archeological Survey for the Dove Lane Property”, conducted by Gallegos and Kyle in 1997; and “interim Letter Report of Significance Testing at CA-SDi-8195, Dove LaneILohf Property.. .“, written by Dayle Cheever and dated September 8, 1997. According to both of these studies, the existing archeological artifacts and ecofacts, have been heavily disturbed due to agricultural and residential uses on the project site. In August of 1997, the site was surveyed and determined to be significantly altered by recent historic land use practices with the result of limited research value. The artifacts collected from the site are being analyzed to glean what general information is available, the results are expected in the near future. No additional archeological work was recommended on the site. There are potentially significant fossil areas of Tertiary and Quatemary Ages within the project site, therefore, the grading operations of the project are conditioned to be monitored by a qualified paleontologist in case of fossil discovery. These mitigation measures allow the paleontologist to direct or divert grading operations to facilitate paleontological investigations. 12 Rev. 03/28/96 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. To mitigate fugitive dust and other construction-related air quality impacts, the developer shall do the following: l Control fugitive dust by regular watering, or other dust prevention measures; l Maintain equipment engines in proper tune; l Seed and water until vegetation is grown; l Spread soil binders l Wet the area down, sufficient enough to form a crust on the surface with repeated soakings, as necessary, to maintain crust and prevent dust pick-up by the wind; l Street sweeping, should silt be carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares; l Use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas where vehicles move damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving site; l Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day; l Use of low sulfur fuel (0.5% by weight) for construction equipment. To mitigate the loss of southern maritime chaparral and southern mixed chaparral, the proposed development shall demonstrate conformance with the recommendations of “A Biological Resources Report and Impact Analysis for the Dove Lane Property, City of Carlsbad”, prepared by Anita M. Hayworth and dated May 5, 1998, including, but not limited to, preservation and maintenance of the existing coastal maritime chaparral habitat. To mitigate the loss of a mature coast live oak, the developer shall either transplant the mature coast live oak tree, or plant replacement coast live oak trees at a ratio of 10: 1 at a location to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. A landscaping plan showing all oak tree transplanting or replanting shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Director prior to issuance of grading permit. To mitigate potential disturbances to the California gnatcatcher, the grading operations within 100 feet of the proposed open space area will be restricted during the gnatcatcher breeding season, or from February 15 to August 30 each year, unless it can be shown through field reconnaissance by a certified biologist that no gnatchatchers are present on the property for two months prior to the start of grading. To mitigate potential paleontological impacts, the developer shall accomplish the following prior to final map approval or issuance of grading permit: l A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform a walkover survey of the site and to review the grading plans to determine if the proposed grading will impact fossil resources A copy of the paleontologist’s report shall be provided to the Planning Director prior to issuance of a grading permit. l A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of the site and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils present in geologic strata, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for 13 Rev. 03f28196 076 - laboratory processing through fine screens. The paleontologist shall make periodic reports to the Planning Director during the grading process. l The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an exposed fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts. l All fossils collected shall be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. l Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities shall be resolved by the Planning Director. ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE’2 See attached. 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. T!P Date 14 Rev. 03128196 27 ENVIRONMENTAL MI .:SATION MONITORING CHECKLIS: Page 1 of 1 5 ;f !h i E 3 ‘C 0 iii z P .- % b’ 5 3 i?i 5 E 2 g : ‘i; k% = .- g .= 2 E F z :g gB5 .- m c x-00 238 cc+. fE,Zo. 1 g, x Qa mB E m ‘J fi 5 -222 2 UI 6% & .t < ‘c E ’ 3 d 9 E 2 3 .- I 3 r E 5 m P 3 ‘C .M 0 .E 5 E- z m 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4425 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE FROM LIMITED CONTROL (L-C) TO ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITH A QUALIFIED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (R-1-7,500-Q) ON A 36.7 ACRE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF EL CAMINO REAL, BETWEEN CASSIA ROAD AND DOVE LANE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 21. CASE NAME: LOHF SUBDIVISION CASE NO: ZC 97-06 WHEREAS, LAMCO Housing, Inc., “Developer”, has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Lohf Trust and Alice M. Lamplugh Trust, “Owner”, described as Parcel 2 of Map No. 2244, filed in the Office of the County Recorder on January 10, 1974 and the southern half of the northeast quarter of Section 26, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, all in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Zone Change as shown on Exhibit “X“ dated December 2, 1998, attached hereto and on tile in the Planning Department, LOHF SUBDIVISION - ZC 97-06 as provided by Chapter 21.52 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 2nd day of December, 1998, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Zone Change; and a4 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 as follows: 4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission COMMENDS APPROVAJ, of LOHF SUBDIVISION - ZC 97-06 based on the following findings: Findings: 1. That the proposed Zone Change from Limited Control (L-C) to One Family Residential with a Qualified Development Overlay (R-1-7,500-Q) is consistent with the goals and policies of the various elements of the General Plan, in that the proposed single-family residential zoning designation adequately implements the existing RLM - Residential Low Medium and RM - Residential Medium Density General Plan designations for the property and no other elements are affected by the proposed Zone Change. 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 existing L-C designation does not implement the RLM General Plan designation, whereas the proposed R-1-7,500-Q implements the RLM General Plan designation. Conditions: 1. Approval of ZC 97-06 is granted subject to the approval of LCPA 97-08. ZC 97-06 is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 4426. . Code Remmder . . 2. As required by Section 21.52.150 of the Zoning Ordinance, this Zone Change shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission one year after reclassification has been granted. In those cases where the new zoning has not been utilized within the one-year period, the Planning Commission shall consider whether the property should revert back to its original zone, remain as currently zoned, or be changed to a more appropriate zone. . . . PC RESO NO. 4425 -2- PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 2nd day of December, 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners Compas, Heineman, Nielsen, Savary, and Welshons NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Mom-oy ABSTAIN: k?*ne Bm &&h&-p&son CARLSBti PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. H&ZMII@R Planning Director PC RESO NO. 4425 -3- a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4426 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF 36.7 ACRES FROM LIMITED CONTROL (L-C) TO ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITH A QUALIFIED DEVELOP- MENT OVERLAY (R-1-7,500-Q) TO BRING THE DESIGNA- TIONS ON THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, GENERAL PLAN, AND ZONING MAP INTO CONFORMANCE ON PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL, BETWEEN CASSIA ROAD AND DOVE LANE CASE NAME: LOHF SUBDIVISION CASE NO: LCPA 97-08 WHEREAS, California State law requires that the Local Coastal Program, General Plan, and Zoning designations for properties in the Coastal Zone be in conformance; and WHEREAS, LAMCO Housing Inc., “Developer”, has filed a verified application for an amendment to the Local Coastal Program designations regarding property owned by Lohf Trust and Alice M. Lamplugh Trust, “Owner”, described as Parcel 2 of Map No. 2244, filed in the Offke of the County Recorder on January 10, 1974 and the southern half of the northeast quarter of Section 26, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, all in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Local Coastal Program Amendment as shown on Exhibit “X” dated December 2, 1998, attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 4425, and on file in the Planning Department, as provided in Public Resources Code Section 30574 and Article 15 of Subchapter 8, Chapter 2, Division 5.5 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (The California Coastal Commission Administrative Regulations); and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C A ~ WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 2nd day of December, 1998, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Local Coastal Program Amendment. WHEREAS, State Coastal Guidelines requires a six week public review period for any amendment to the Local Coastal Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. W At the end of the State mandated six week review period, starting on October 9, 1998, and ending on November 20,1998, staff shall present to the City Council a summary of the comments received. C) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission COMMENDS APPROVAL of LOHF SUBDIVISION - LCPA 97-08 based on the following findings: Findings: 1. That the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment is consistent with all applicable policies of the Mello II segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, in that it allows for consistency between the residential land use designation and the implementing ordinance and does not reduce the requirements for slope preservation, habitat preservation and erosion control. 2. That the proposed amendment to the Mello II segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program is required to bring the land use designations in the Zoning Ordinance and Implementing Ordinances of the Local Coastal Program into conformance with the City’s General Plan designation for Residential uses at a low-medium density (from 0.0 to 4.0 dwelling per acre). . . Condrtrons . . 1. Prior to certification of the Local Coastal Program Amendment, the proposed amendment shall receive approval by the California Coastal Commission that substantially conforms to this approval. PC PESO NO. 4426 -2- 3-? - 2. Approval of LCPA 97-08 is granted subject to the approval of ZC 97-06. LCPA 97-08 is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 4425 for ZC 97-06. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting to the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 2nd day of December, 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners Compaq Heineman, Nielsen, Savary, and Welshons NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Monroy ABSTAIN: BAILEY NOfiE, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J.MLZwLER Planning Director . PC RESO NO. 4426 -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 C PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4427 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CARLSBAD TRACT NUMBER CT 97-15 TO SUBDIVIDE 36.7 ACRES INTO 73 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND THREE OPEN SPACE LOTS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 2 1. CASE NAME: LOHF SUBDIVISION CASE NO.: CT 97-15 WHEREAS, LAMCO Housing Inc, “Developer”, has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Lohf Trust and Alice M. Lamplugh Trust, “Owner”, described as Parcel 2 of Map No. 2244, filed in the Office of the County Recorder on January 10, 1974 and the southern half of the northeast quarter of Section 26, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, all in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Tentative Tract Map as shown on Exhibits “A” - “K”, dated December 2, 1998, on file in the Planning Department LOHF SUBDIVISION - CT 97-15, as provided by Chapter 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 2nd day of December, 1998, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Tentative Tract Map. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A) W That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of LOHF SUBDIVISION - CT 97-15, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. That the proposed map and the proposed design and improvement of the subdivision as conditioned, are consistent with and satisfy 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 subdivision design is consistent with the R-1-7,500 zone regulations . That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding existing and future land uses since surrounding properties are also designated for residential development on the General Plan and the adjacent, existing single-family residential development is at a similar density to the proposed subdivision . 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 proposed, in that the proposed density of the single-family subdivision is within the RLM density range and the proposed lots comply with all City standards and policies without the need for variances from development standards. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements of record or easements established by court judgment, or acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, in that the proposal provides for dedicated and improved public access to all properties within and adjacent to the subdivision without conflicting with any existing easements. That the property is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act). That the design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, in that the proposed subdivision provides a variety of lot orientations and configurations, allowing future homes to be designed to maximize their passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities. 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 resources; 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. 4427 -2- 3b 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 - - habitat, in that no sensitive species are impacted by the development, which preserves 93 percent of the on-site native habitat. 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 design gathers runoff into a storm drain system and the project is required to provide Best Management Practices in accordance with the NPDES requirements. 10. The Planning Commission finds that the project is in conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the following: a. b. C. d. e. f. Land Use - The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan since the proposed density of 2.2 du/acre is within the density range of 0.0 - 4.0 du/acre specified for the site as indicated on the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and is at or below the growth control point of 3.2 du/ac. Circulation - The project is consistent with the Circulation Element in that it is conditioned to provide public streets to serve the development and provide access to developed and undeveloped adjacent parcels. Noise - The project is consistent with the Noise Element in that a noise study has been conducted and noise reduction measures will be incorporated into the project design and building construction. Housing - The project is consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan and the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance as the Developer has been conditioned to enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement to provide and deed restrict 11 dwelling units as affordable to lower-income households. Qpen Space and Conservation - The project is consistent with the Open Space and Conservation Element in that 93 percent of sensitive native habitat is being preserved and Best Management Practices will ensure compliance with NPDES requirements. Public Safety - The project is consistent with the Public Safety Element in that all-weather access roads will be maintained throughout construction. 1 1. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the applicable local facilities management plan, and all City public facility policies and ordinances since: a. The project has been conditioned to ensure that the final map will not be approved unless the City Council finds that sewer service is available to serve the project. In addition, the project is conditioned such that a note shall be placed on the final map that building permits may not be issued for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer service is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service remains available, and the District Engineer is satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project. ‘C RESO NO. 4427 -3- 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 b. Statutory School fees will be paid to ensure the availability of school facilities in the Carlsbad Unified School District. The Carlsbad Unified School District has written a letter, dated September 10, 1997, stating that school facilities will be available to this project. C. d. \ Park-in-lieu fees are required as a condition of approval. All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as conditions of approval. e. The developer has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be available concurrent with need as required by the General Plan. 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 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. 13. This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 21. . . Condlt lonS; 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Tentative Tract Map document(s) necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance. The Developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar copy of the Tentative Map as approved by the final decision making body. The Tentative Map shall reflect the conditions of approval by the City. The Map copy shall be submitted to the City Engineer and approved prior to building, grading, final map, or improvement plan submittal, whichever occurs first. The final map shall not be approved unless the City Council finds as of the time of such approval that sewer service is available to serve the subdivision. Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the District Engineer determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of application for such sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of occupancy. A note to this effect shall be placed on the final map. PC PESO NO. 4427 -4- 38 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 6. The Developer shall pay the public facilities fee adopted by the City Council on July 28, 1987, (amended July 2, 1991) and as amended from time to time, and any development fees established by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code or other ordinance adopted to implement a growth management system or Facilities and Improvement Plan and to firhill the developer’s/subdivider’s agreement to pay the public facilities fee dated September 11, 1997, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk and is incorporated by this reference. If the fees are not paid, this application will not be consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project will be void. 7. The Developer shall provide proof of payment of statutory school fees to mitigate conditions of overcrowding as part of the building permit application. The amount of these fees shall be determined by the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit application. 8. 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. .9. 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 residential housing 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 all requirements of law. 10. Approval of CT 97-15 is granted subject to the approval of ZC 97-06, LCPA 97-08, HDP 97-16 and CDP 97-39. CT 97-15 is subject to all conditions contained in Planqing Commission Resolutions No. 4425, 4426, 4428 and 4429 for ZC 97-06, LCPA 97-08, HDP 97-16 and CDP 97-39, respectively 11. The Developer shall establish a homeowner’s association and corresponding covenants, 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 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&&s shall contain the following provisions: a. General Enforcement bv the City. The City shall have the right, but not the obligation, to enforce those Protective Covenants set forth in this Declaration in favor of, or in which the City has an interest. b. Failure of Association to Maintain Common Area J,ots and Easm. 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 Association, with a copy thereof to the Owners in the Project, PC RESO NO. 4427 -5- 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 setting forth with particularity the maintenance which the City finds to be required and requesting the 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 Lots 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 Owners as provided herein. C. Snecial Assessments J,evied bv the Cttv . _ 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 accordance with the procedures set forth in Article of this Declaration. 12. 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 the Planning Director, notifying all interested parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Tentative Tract Map by Resolution No. 4427 on the real property owned by the Developer. 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 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. 13. 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 not issue any grading, building, or other permit, until the annexation is completed. The PC RESO NO. 4427 -6- #Q 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 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. City Manager is authorized to extend the 60 days, for a period not to exceed 60 days, upon a showing of good cause. The Developer shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan in conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City’s Landscape Manual. The plans shall be submitted to and approval obtained from the Planning Director prior to the approval of the final map, grading permit, or building permit, whichever occurs first. The Developer shall construct and install all landscaping as shown on the approved plans, and maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris. The first submittal of detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be accompanied by the project’s building, improvement, and grading plans. Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings so as to be plainly visible Tom the street or access road; color of identification and/or addresses shall contrast to their background color. The Developer shall provide bus stops to service this development at locations and with reasonable facilities to the satisfaction of the North County Transit District and the Planning Director. Said facilities, if required, shall at a minimum include a bench, free from advertising, and a pole for the bus stop sign. The bench and pole shall be designed to enhance or consistent with basic architectural theme of the project. The Developer shall display a current Zoning and Land Use Map in the sales office at all times, or suitable alternative to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. All sales maps that are distributed or made available to the public shall include but not be limited to trails, future and existing schools, parks and streets. Prior to approval of the final map, the Developer shall be required: 1) to consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding the impact of the project on the Coastal California Gnatcatcher; and, 2) obtain any permits required by the USWFS. The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 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, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney (see Noise Form #1 on file in the Planning Department). 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 is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan-Palomar PC RESO NO. 4427 -7- 1/l 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 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and the City Attorney (see Noise Form #2 on file in the Planning Department). The 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). Prior to the approval of the final map for any phase of this project, or where a map is not 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 provide 11 units affordable to lower-income households for the useful life of the dwelling units, in accordance with the requirements and process set forth in Chapter 2 1.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The recorded Affordable Housing Agreement shall be binding on all future owners and successors in interest. The Developer shall construct the required inclusionary units concurrent with the project’s market rate units, unless both the final decision making authority of the City and the Developer agree within an Affordable Housing Agreement to an alternate schedule for development. The Developer shall dedicate on the final map, an open space easement for those portions of lots 1, 17-19, 24-32, 44, 63-72 which are in slopes in their entirety to prohibit any encroachment or development, including but not limited to fences, walls, decks, storage buildings, pools, spas, stairways and landscaping other than that approved as part of the grading plan, improvement plans, biological revegetation program and landscape plan as shown on Exhibits “A” - “K”, dated December 2,1998. Removal of native vegetation and development of Open Space Lots 74, 75 and 76, including but not limited to fences, walls, decks, storage buildings, pools, spas, stairways and landscaping, other than that approved as part of the grading plan, improvement plans, biological revegetation program, and landscape plan as shown on Exhibits “A” - “K”, dated December 2, 1998, is specifically prohibited, except upon written order of the Carlsbad Fire Department for fire prevention purposes, or upon written approval of the Planning Director, and California Coastal Commission, based upon a request from the Homeowners Association accompanied by a report from a qualified arbor&/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 the request shall be prepared by a qualified biologist. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required as part of the approved Mitigated Negative Declaration, as contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 4424. Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that PC RESO NO. 4427 -8- .: % 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy. . neering: NOTE: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following engineering conditions upon the approval of this proposed major subdivision must be met prior to approval of a final map. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the developer shall comply with the requirements of the City’s anti-graffiti program for wall treatments if and when such a program is formerly established by the City. There shall be one final subdivision map recorded for this project. The developer shall provide an acceptable means for maintaining the private easements within the subdivision and all the private: streets, sidewalks, street lights, storm drain facilities and sewer facilities located therein and to distribute the costs of such maintenance in an equitable manner among the owners of the properties within the subdivision. Adequate provision for such maintenance shall be included with the CC&& subject to the approval of the City Engineer. All concrete terrace drains shall be maintained by the homeowner’s association (if on commonly owned property) or the individual property owner (if on an individually owned lot). An appropriately worded statement clearly identifying the responsibility shall be placed in the CC&Rs (if maintained by the Association) and on the Final Map. The developer shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void or null an approval of the City, the Planning Commission or City Engineer which has been brought against the City within the time period provided for by Section 66499.37 of the Subdivision Map Act. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site within this project, the developer shall submit to and receive approval from the City Engineer for the proposed haul route. The developer shall comply with all conditions and requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the hauling operation. The developer shall install sight distance corridors at all street intersections in accordance with Engineering Standards and shall record the following statement on the non - mapping sheet of the Final Map (and in the CC&Rs). Lots 12, 33, 34, 56 & 57 shall record specific sight distance deed restrictions to maintain and keep clear the sight distance corridors shown on the tentative map and also identified on the final map for this project: PC RESO NO. 4427 -9- 9.3 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 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. “No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object over 30 inches above the street level may be placed or permitted to encroach within the area identified as a sight distance corridor in accordance with City Standard Public Street-Design Criteria, Section 8.B.3. The underlying property owner shall maintain this condition.” The developer shall pay all current fees and deposits required. The owner of the subject property shall execute an agreement holding the City harmless regarding drainage across the adjacent property. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, the owner shall give written consent to the annexation of the area shown within the boundaries of the subdivision plan into the existing City of Carlsbad Street Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1 on a form provided by the City. 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. (the developer must submit and receive approval for grading plans in accordance with city codes and standards prior to issuance of a building permit for the project.) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs -first, the developer shall submit proof that a Notice of Intention has been submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading for private improvements shall occur outside the limits of the subdivision unless a grading or slope easement or agreement is obtained from the owners of the affected properties and recorded. If the developer is unable to obtain the grading or slope easement, or agreement, no grading permit will be issued. In that case the developer must either amend the tentative map or modify the plans so grading will not occur outside the project site in a manner which substantially conforms to the approved tentative map as determined by the City Engineer and Planning Director. Additional drainage easements may be required. Drainage structures shall be provided or installed prior to or concurrent with any grading or building permit as may be required by the City Engineer. The owner shall make an offer of dedication to the City for all public streets and easements required by these conditions or shown on the tentative map. The offer shall be made by a certificate on the final map for this project. All land so offered shall be granted to the City free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost to the City. Streets that are already public are not required to be rededicated. This project is within the proposed boundary of the Aviara Parkway - Poinsettia Lane Bridge and Thoroughfare Fee District. This project is required to pay a fair share contribution towards the construction of Poinsettia Lane in accordance with the proposed fee program. PC RESO NO. 4427 -lO- 49 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 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. C Poinsettia Lane shall be dedicated by the owner along the project frontage based on a center line to right-of-way width of 51 feet as shown on the tentative map and in conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards. The developer may enter into a reimbursement agreement for right of way dedication as identified in the Aviara Parkway - Poinsettia Lane Bridge and Thoroughfare District. If the agreement is entered into, it must be done prior to construction. The future 60’ wide access (including construction and slope rights) across lot 76 shall be irrevocably offered for dedication as shown on the tentative map. The specific location shall be approved by the City Engineer. The future 60’ wide access (including construction and slope rights) across lot 75 shall be irrevocably offered for dedication as shown on the tentative map. The specific location shall be approved by the City Engineer. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall underground all existing overhead utilities within the subdivision boundary. Direct access rights for all lots abutting Poinsettia Lane shall be waived on the final map. Access rights for all lots that have frontage on two streets shall waive access as required and shown on the tentative map. The developer shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The developer shall provide best management practices as referenced in the “California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook” to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer. Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of the following: A. B. C. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and hazardous waste products. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil, antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective containers. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements. Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all public improvements shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In accordance with City Standards, the developer shall install, or agree to install and secure with appropriate security as provided PC RESO NO. 4427 -ll- +fs-@ 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 by law, improvements shown on the tentative map and the following improvements: ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS A. B. C. D. E. F. Poinsettia Lane full width (102’ major arterial) within the boundary of this subdivision. Improvements to include, but not be limited to, grading and drainage improvements, A.C. paving and base, curb, gutter and sidewalk, public utilities, median hardscape, irrigation, and landscaping within this arterial roadway. Dove Lane (as a 60’ collector street) from its existing terminus west of the shopping center to the intersection of “D” Street. Improvements include, but are not limited to, grading, curb, gutter and sidewalk, A.C. paving and base, irrigation, landscaping and public utilities within this roadway. Mimosa Drive (as a 60’ local street) from its existing terminus to the intersection of “B” Street. Improvements include, but are not limited to, grading, curb, gutter and sidewalk, A.C. paving and base, irrigation, landscaping and public utilities within this roadway. Sewer, Water and Storm Drains onsite and offsite to serve this subdivision and stubbed to serve the adjacent properties as required and as shown on the tentative map. Design and construct the two points of “Future Access” as 60 feet wide local streets across lot 75 and across lot 76 as shown on the tentative map. Improvements include, but are not limited to, grading, curb, gutter and sidewalk, A.C. paving and base, irrigation, landscaping and public utilities within this roadway. The construction of “Future Access” across lot 75 may be limited to grading and drainage, depending on adjacent land use. Check Dams downstream of drainage outlets across lot 76 and/or off site (2 areas) as shown on the tentative map and as required downstream to control erosive velocity of drainage. Location and design of these check dams to be determined in final design of this project, subject to approval of the City Engineer. OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS A. The center portion of Poinsettia Lane, a 102’ wide major arterial being two 18 foot wide lanes east of the boundary of this subdivision to El Camino Real. The offsite improvement of Poinsettia Lane shall include but not be limited to full width grading, transitions, AC berms, drainage facilities, and median curbs as identified in the Aviara Parkway - Poinsettia Lane Bridge and Thoroughfare District Number 2. PC RESO NO. 4427 -12- 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B. C. D. Temporary transition and driveway access from Poinsettia Lane to the adjacent property (APN 215-050-57, Saska) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Transition and driveway access from street “A” to the adjacent property (APN 215-050-58, Steiner) as shown on the tentative map and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Offsite transitions and/or reconstruction may be required for Dove Lane, Mimosa Drive, and Poinsettia Lane at El Camino Real to provide a smooth transition to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENTS: The developer may enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City for right-of- way dedication and for required improvements to Poinsettia Lane as identified in the Aviara Parkway - Poinsettia Lane Bridge And Thoroughfare District Number 2. If the agreement is entered into, it must be approved prior to dedication of right-of- way and prior to the beginning of construction. A list of the above improvements shall be placed on an additional map sheet on the final map per the provisions of Sections 66434.2 of the Subdivision Map Act. Improvements listed above shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the secured improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement. The construction and grading of Poinsettia Lane may follow a timeline separate from the remainder of the project. The timeline is dependent on off-site right-of-way acquisition and environmental mitigation as required by the affected agencies and the City. An advanced grading permit may be permitted if it includes grading for Poinsettia Lane per condition number 56. 54. Prior to approval of a Site Development Plan or Final Map for this project, the developer shall determine an appropriate alignment of a third access using the proposed Poinsettia Lane, in accordance with the certified EIR for the Zone 20 Specific Plan and as modified by updated environmental review. 55. Drainage outfall end treatments for any drainage outlets where a direct access road for maintenance purposes is not provided, shall be designed and incorporated into the grading/improvement plans for the project. These end treatments shall be designed so as to prevent vegetation growth from obstructing the pipe outfall. Designs could consist of a modified outlet headwall consisting of an extended concrete spillway section with longitudinal curbing and/or radially designed rip-rap, or other means deemed appropriate, as a method of preventing vegetation growth directly in front of the pipe outlet, to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director and the City Engineer. 56. Note(s) to the following effect(s) shall be placed on the final map as non-mapping data: A. No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object over 30 inches above the PC RESO NO. 4427 -13- 4@+? 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 street level may be placed or permitted to encroach within the area identified as a sight distance corridor in accordance with City Standard Public Street-Design Criteria, Section 8.B.3. The underlying property owner shall maintain this condition. B. Construction traffk shall be prohibited from using Mimosa Drive. Water District Conditions; 57. The Developer shall be responsible for all fees, deposits and charges which will be collected before and/or at the time of issuance of the building permit. The San Diego County Water Authority capacity charge will be collected at issuance of application for any meter installation. 58. The Developer shall provide detailed information to the District Engineer regarding water demand, irrigation demand, fire flow demand in gallons per minute, and project sewer flow in million gallons per day. 59. The entire potable water system, recycled water system and sewer system shall be evaluated in detail by Developer and District Engineer to insure that adequate capacity, pressure and flow demands can be met. 60. All District pipelines, pump stations, pressure reducing stations and appurtenances required for this project by the District shall be within public right-of-way or within easements granted to the District or the City of Carlsbad. 61. Sequentially, the Developer’s Engineer shall do the following: A. Meet with the City Fire Marshal and establish the fire protection requirements. B. Prepare and submit a colored recycled water use area map and submit this map to the Planning Department for processing and approval by the District Engineer. C. Prior to the preparation of sewer, water and recycled water improvement plans, the Developer shall submit preliminary system layouts to the District Engineer for review, comment and approval. 62. The following note shall be placed on the final map. “This project is approved upon the expressed condition that building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the District serving the development has adequate water and sewer capacity available at the time development is to occur, and that such water and sewer capacity will continue to be available until time of occupancy. 63. All potable water and recycled water meters shall be placed within public right of way. PC BESO NO. 4427 -14- 48 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 64. m!z 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. . . . . - No more than 19 homes shall be served on a single potable water distribution pipeline. For those locations with more than 19 homes, a looped potable water pipeline system shall be designed. Provide additional public fire hydrants at intervals of 500 feet along public streets and private driveways. Hydrants should be located at street intersections when possible, but should be positioned no closer than 100 feet from terminus of a street or driveway. Applicant shall submit a site plan to the Fire Department for approval, which depicts location of required, proposed and existing public water mains and fire hydrants. The plan should include off-site fire hydrants within 200 feet of the project. Applicant shall submit a site plan depicting emergency access routes, driveways and traffic circulation for Fire Department approval. An all weather, unobstructed access road suitable for emergency service vehicles shall be provided and maintained during construction, When in the opinion of the Fire Chief, the access road has become unserviceable due to inclement weather or other reasons, he may, in the interest of public safety, require the construction operations to cease until the condition is corrected. All required water mains, fire hydrants and appurtenances shall be operational before combustible building materials are located on the construction site. Prior to inspection, all security gate systems controlling vehicular access shall be equipped with a “Knox”, key operated emergency device. Applicant shall contact the Fire Prevention Bureau for specifications and approvals prior to installation. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain fire department approval of a wildland fuel management plan. The plan shall clearly indicate the methods proposed to mitigate and manage tire risk associated with native vegetation growing within 60 feet of structures. The plan shall reflect the standards presented in the fire suppression element of the City of Carlsbad Landscape Guidelines Manual. Prior to occupancy of buildings, all wildland fuel mitigation activities must be complete, and the condition of all vegetation within 60 feet of structures found to be in conformance with an approved wildland fuel management plan. The applicant shall provide a street map which conforms with the following requirements: A 400 scale photo-reduction mylar, depicting proposed improvements and at least two existing intersections or streets. The map shall also clearly depict street centerlines, hydrant locations and street names. PC TES0 NO. 4427 -15- 49 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 h General: 74. If any of the foregoing 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; 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 Tentative Tract Map. . Code w . . 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. The Developer shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of the final map as required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The following note shall be placed on the Final Map: “Prior to issuance of a building permit for any buildable lot within the subdivision, the Developer shall pay a one-time special development tax in accordance with the City Council Resolution No. 91-39.” Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein. The 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. All landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared to conform with the Landscape Manual and submitted per the landscape plan check procedures on file in the Planning Department. 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. The 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 with the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the City Engineer. Some improvements shown on the tentative map and/or required by these conditions are located offsite on property which neither the City nor the owner has sufficient title or interest to permit the improvements to be made without acquisition of title or interest. The developer shall conform to Section 20.16.095 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. PC RESO NO. 4427 -16- 45-D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 84. The tentative map approval shall expire thirty - six (36) months from the date of the resolution containing the final decision for tentative map approval 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 the date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. PC RESO NO. 4427 -17- 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 1 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day of December, 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners Compas, Heineman, Nielsen, Savary, and Welshons NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Monroy ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Planning Director PC RESO NO. 4427 -18- a-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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4428 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW GRADING FOR A 73 UNIT SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION OVER 36.7 ACRES ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL, BETWEEN CASSIA ROAD AND DOVE LANE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 2 1. CASE NAME: LOHF SUBDIVISION CASE WHEREAS, LAMCO Housing Inc, “Developer”, has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Lohf Trust and Alice M. Lamplugh Trust, “Owner”, described as Parcel 2 of Map No. 2244, filed in the Offtce of the County Recorder on January 10, 1974 and the southern half of the northeast quarter of Section 26, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, all in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Hillside Development Permit as shown on Exhibits “A” - “K” dated December 2, 1998, on file in the Carlsbad Planning Department, LOHF SUBDIVISION - HDP 97-16, as provided by Chapter 21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 2nd day of December, 1998, consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Hillside Development Permit; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: 53 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 - 4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission COMMENDS APPROVAL of LOHF SUBDIVISION - HDP 97-16, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findim: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 9. That hillside conditions have been properly identified on the constraints map, as shown on Exhibits “E” - “G”, dated December 2, 1998, which show existing and proposed conditions and slope percentages; That tmdevelopable areas of the project, i.e. slopes over 40%, have been properly identified on the constraints map, as shown on Exhibits “E” - “G”, dated December 2, 1998; That the development proposal is consistent with the intent, purpose, and requirements of the Hillside Ordinance, Chapter 21.95, in that, with the exception of grading associated with Poinsettia Lane, all steep slopes are preserved, all manufactured slopes heights are 30 feet or less, and the grading volumes of 9,586 cubic yards per acre are in the acceptable range as stated in Section 21.95.060(j)(4) of the Hillside Development Ordinance. 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, in that, with the exception of grading associated with Poinsettia Lane, all undevelopable portions are remaining in open space . That the project design substantially conforms to the intent of the concepts illustrated in the Hillside Development Guidelines Manual, in that the project includes contour grading on the perimeter slopes and the proposed site plan follows the existing terrain as much as possible, while still meeting grade at two adjacent local streets and the future Poinsettia Lane. That the project design and lot configuration minimizes disturbance of hillside lands, in that it follows the natural grade and elevation of adjacent developed lands and preserves the majority of the sloping topography covered with native habitat. That the site requires extensive grading to accommodate a circulation-element roadway, in that Poinsettia Lane traverses the subject property along the northern portion of the site, which requires additional grading volumes, a maximum slope height of 39 feet and minor native habitat encroachment. That the proposed modification will result in significantly more open space or undisturbed area than would a strict adherence to the requirements of the ordinance, in that there are areas within the proposed open space that are not precluded from PC RESO NO. 4428 -2- 54 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 development which could be developed and accessed through local streets if Poinsettia Lane did not set the elevation of the subdivision. Conditions: 1. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Hillside Development Permit document(s) necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. 2. Approval of HDP 97-16 is granted subject to the approval of ZC 97-06, LCPA 97-08, CT 97-15 and CDP 97-39. HDP 97-16 is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4425, 4426, 4427 and 4429 for ZC 97-06, LCPA 97-08, CT 97-15 and CDP 97-39, respectively 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 the date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. . . . PC RESO NO. 4428 -3- d-25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day of December, 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners Compas, Heineman, Nielsen, Savary, and Welshons ABSENT: Commissioner Monroy ABSTAIN: dt!!ii! CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOMMILfiR Planning Director PC RESO NO. 4428 -4- 56 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - PLANNING COMMISSION RESOIJJTION NO. 4429 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER CDP 97-39 TO ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION OF, AND GRADING FOR, 73 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH THREE OPEN SPACE LOTS OVER 36.7 ACRES ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL, BETWEEN CASSIA ROAD AND DOVE LANE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 21. CASE NAME: LOHF SUBDIVISION CASE NO.: CDP 97-39 WHEREAS, LAMCO Housing Inc, “Developer”, has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Lohf Trust and Alice M. Lamplugh Trust, “Owner”, described as Parcel 2 of Map No. 2244, filed in the Offke of the County Recorder on January 10, 1974 and the southern half of the northeast quarter of Section 26, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, all in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Coastal Development Permit as shown on Exhibits “A” - “K”, dated December 2, 1998 , on file in the Planning Department, LOHF SUBDIVISION - CDP 97-39 as provided by Chapter 21.201.040 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 2nd day of December, 1998, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the CDP. 57 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 I - 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. W Find-: That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission of LOHF SUBDIVISION - CDP 97-39, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: 1. That the proposed development is in conformance with the Certified Local Coastal Program and all applicable policies in that no prime agricultural lands exist on the site; 93 percent of the adjacent environmentally sensitive habitats will remain in their undisturbed state; no coastal access is or will be needed through or adjacent to the project site; erosion will be controlled by grading in conformance with the City Standards; and no significant visual panoramas exist on or near the site. 2. The project site is not located in the Coastal Agricultural Overlay Zone, according to Map X of the Land Use Plan, certified September, 1980, and, therefore, is not subject to the provisions of the Coastal Agriculture Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.202 of the Zoning Ordinance). 3. The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.203 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that the project will adhere to the City’s Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan and Grading Ordinance to avoid increased runoff and soil erosion; all steep slopes except three areas of dual-criteria slopes, totaling approximately 1.5 acres, are proposed to remain; and the site is not prone to landslides or susceptible to accelerated erosions, floods, or liquefactions. 4. The project site is not located between the sea and the first public road parallel to the sea and, therefore, is not subject to the provisions of Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.204 of the Zoning Ordinance). 5. The project site is located within the Mello II segment of the City’s Coastal Zone and, therefore, is not subject to the Coastal Resource Overlay Zone Mello I Segment Ordinance (Chapter 21.205 of the Zoning Ordinance). . . Condltlons . . 1. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the document(s) necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. PC RESO NO. 4429 -2- -5-8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. 3. 4. The applicant shall apply for and be issued building permits for this project within two (2) years of approval or this coastal development permit will expire unless extended per Section 21.201.210 of the Zoning Ordinance. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall apply for and obtain a grading permit issued by the City Engineer. Approval of CDP 97-39 is granted subject to approval of ZC 97-06, LCPA 97-08, CT 97-15 and HDP 97-16. CDP 97-39 is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4425,4426,4427 and 4428, respectively. 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 the 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 tile the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PC RESO NO. 4429 -3- 3-9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day of December, 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners Compas, Heineman, Nielsen, Savary, and Welshons NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Monroy ABSTAIN: ,-“. I .<’ *-x. _, “‘ * .a - . ‘, : , ‘:_‘\ ., ‘i i _I’ 1; 3 ., ., _I,, L *’ by :: 1 :;-,. <<‘)..., -;:,;., ; G+. .=- ..‘Ie >, a BAILEY NOBLE, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: . . !!L* MICHAEL J. HOI!ZMII%ER Planning Director II PC RESO NO. 4429 -4- EXHIBIT 5 The City of CABLSBAII Planning Department A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item No. 7 0 Application complete date: June 15, 1997 P.C. AGENDA OF: December 2,1998 Project Planner: Michael Grim Project Engineer: Clyde Wickham SUBJECT: SU ZC 97-06/LC A 97 OS/CT 97-WHDP 97-16KDP 97-39 P - - LOHF BDI- VISION - Request for a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Zone Change, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit to change the zoning from Limited Control (L-C) to One Family Residential with a Qualified Development Overlay (R-1-7,500-Q), and to subdivide and grade for 73 single-family lots with three open space lots on 36.7 acres generally located west of El Camino Real, between Cassia Road and Dove Lane in Local Facilities Management Zone 2 1. I. COMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4424, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and GDOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4425, 4426, 4427, 4428 and 4429, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of Zone Change ZC 97-06, Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 97-08, Tentative Tract Map CT 97-15, Hillside Development Permit HDP 97-16, and Coastal Development Permit CDP 97-39, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. INTRODUCTION The proposal has two components. The first involves a change in the zoning designation for two parcels, covering 36.7 acres, from Limited Control (L-C) to One Family Residential with a Qualified Development Overlay (R-1-7500-Q). The Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment are required to change the Zoning Map in both the City’s Zoning Ordinance and the City’s Local Coastal Program, The second component involves the subdivision of, and grading for, a 73-unit single-family subdivision with three open space lots, covering the same 36.7 acres. A Tentative Tract Map is needed to subdivide the property, a Hillside Development Permit is required to grade the sloping site and a Coastal Development Permit is necessary because the project is located in the City’s Coastal Zone. The project meets all applicable regulations and staff has no issues with the proposal. ZC 97-06/LCPA 97-08/C I’ 97-lS/HDP 97-16/GDP 97-39 - LOHF SUl3DIVISION December 2, 1998 Page 2 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND LAMCO Housing, Inc. is requesting a Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment to change the zoning designation of a 36.7 acre property from Limited Control (L-C) to One Family Residential with a Qualified Development Overlay (R-1-7,500-Q) and a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit to allow subdivision of, and grading for, 73 single-family lots and three open space lots over the same 36.7 acres. The project site is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 21, with the northeast comer of the property being located approximately 200 feet west of El Camino Real. To the south of the project site are the Plaza Paseo Real shopping center and the Pavoreal single-family neighborhood. North of the property are two, individually-owned single-family lots, each containing one home, and west of the property is undeveloped, residentially-designated property. The project site has been mostly cleared of native vegetation by previous agricultural operations and contains three single-family homes, each with a dirt access. There is a large, relatively undisturbed native habitat area in the southwest portion of the site that includes the northern end of a riparian oak woodland. This area is to be placed in open space and would be maintained by the future Homeowner’s Association. There is also a mature oak tree in the middle of the site, which would be mitigated by the replanting of 10 oaks in the open space area. Virtually the entire site is designated Residential Low Medium Density (RLM) in the City’s General Plan, allowing a range from 0.0 to 4.0 units per acre, with a Growth Control Point of 3.2 units per acre. There is a small, 0.5 acre sliver of unconstrained land in the northeast comer of the project site that is designated Residential Medium (RM), allowing between 4.0 and 8.0 units per acre with a Growth Control Point of 6.0 units per acre. While no units are proposed for the RM area, it is developable for the purposes of calculating allowable unit yields. Deducting the constrained lands contained in slopes, riparian woodlands and Circulation Element roadways, the developable acreage on the site would yield a maximum of 112 units. Due to design constraints and open space preservation, the project proposes only 73 units. The proposed zoning of R-1-7,500-Q is an appropriate zone to implement the RLM and RM designations. R-1-7,500 zoning is used throughout the City to implement the RLM and RM General Plan designations by creating single-family neighborhoods. The Q Overlay ensures that the building locations and architectural styles are reviewed and approved. through a Site Development Plan prior to issuing building permits for production housing. As shown on Exhibits “A” - “K”, the proposed site design would include an access off of the existing terminus of Dove Lane, with two cul-de-sac streets taking access off of meandering drives that lead from Dove Lane and Mimosa Drive northward to Poinsettia Lane. There would also be a small portion of development north of Poinsettia Lane that would include 12 lots on a double-loaded street. All lots would have a minimum street frontage of 60 feet, with the exception of three cul-de-sac lots that have at least 35 feet of frontage. As discussed below, all lots meet the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and the R-l -7,500 zone. The project also involves the construction of the portion of Poinsettia Lane, a Circulation Element roadway, that traverses the subject property. Poinsettia Lane is not needed for the early 63 ZC 97-06/LCPA 97-08/C 1’ 97-l 5&IDP 97-l 6KDP 97-39 - LOHF SUBDIVISION December 2, 1998 phases of the project but will likely be constructed simultaneous with the residential subdivision. There are also several adjacent properties that require access connections: the single-family homes of Saska and Steiner to the north, Kevane to the east and Pavoreal to the south. To provide the access to the north, the developer has committed to constructing driveways from the project’s streets to the Saska and Steiner homes. In order to provide future access to the undeveloped Kevane property, the developer has indicated an area where access could be taken off of their local streets and proposed an irrevocable offer of dedication in this area for future access. The proposed subdivision also shows a connection to Mimosa Drive to the south, linking the local circulation system in the Pavoreal subdivision with this subdivision, as originally intended with the Pavoreal map (then known as Viewpoint - CT 85-34). The exact commitments of the developer for access as shown on Exhibit “B”, dated December 2, 1998 and listed in Planning Commission Resolution No. 4427. As mentioned above, the Lohf Subdivision proposal has two components: the legislative Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment actions, and the adjudicatory Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit. Since the Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment are subject only to compliance with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program, these analysis sections are organized to evaluate each component separately. Taken together, the Lohf Subdivision proposal subject to the following regulations: A. General Plan; B. Local Coastal Program; C. R-l - One Family Residential Zone (Chapter 21.10 of the Zoning Ordinance); D. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (Chapter 2 1.85 of the Zoning Ordinance); E. Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code); F. Hillside Development Ordinance (Chapter 2 1.95 of the Zoning Ordinance); G. Growth Management Ordinance (Chapter 2 1.90 of the Zoning Ordinance); H. Zone 2 1 Local Facilities Management Plan. IV. A&g ,YSIS The recommendation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project’s consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. The following analysis section discusses compliance with each of these regulations/policies utilizing both text and tables. ZC 97-06/LCPA 97-08K.i 97-lS/I-IDP 97-16/GDP 97-39 - LOHF &JBDIVISION December 2,1998 A. General Plan 1. Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment Compliance The legislative actions associated with the Lohf Subdivision proposal are consistent with the applicable policies and programs of the General Plan. Particularly relevant to the Zone Change/LCPA is the Land Use Element. The existing General Plan land use designation of the Lohf Subdivision site is Residential Low Medium Density (RLM), with the exception of approximately 0.5 acres in the northwest portion, which is designated Residential Medium Density (RM). The existing zoning of Limited Control (L-C) is a holding zone that does not implement any General Plan designations, therefore it is appropriate to remove that zoning to alloti development. Since the General Plan designation is a residential designation, it follows that the proposed zoning should also be a residential designation. The densities allowed by the RLM and RM designations range from 0.0 to 4.0 and 4.0 to 8.0 dwelling units per acre with Growth Management Control Points of 3.2 and 6.0 dwelling per acre, respectively. The applicant has proposed the One Family Residential with a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet (R-1-7,500) designation to implement the RLM and RM designations. R-1-7,500 is one of the appropriate zones to implement RLM and RM designations and is the zoning of the developed subdivision immediately to the south of the project site. The proposed zoning of R-1-7,500 is, therefore, consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element. The Lohf Subdivision proposal does not involve the construction of any dwelling units and the site is quite visible from El Camino Real, a scenic corridor. The project site does not front on El Camino Real, therefore, it is not subject to the Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone. Staff is therefore recommending that the site be designated with a Qualified Development Overlay (Q) so that the future production housing can be reviewed and approved through a Site Development Plan prior to issuance of any building permits. This is also consistent with the development subdivision to the south and with zoning practices City-wide. Since one of the goals of the Land Use Element is to “create a visual form for the community that is pleasing to the eye.. .“, the Q Overlay ensures discretionary review of future building architecture and siting on the lots. Given the above, the proposed R-1-7,500-Q zoning designation is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. 2. Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit Compliance The Lohf Subdivision is consistent with the applicable policies and programs of the General Plan. Particularly relevant to the single-family subdivision are the Land Use, Circulation, Noise, Housing, Open Space and Conservation, and Public Safety Elements. Table 1 below indicates how the project complies with these particular elements of the General Plan. - ZC 97-06/LCPA 97-08/Cl’97- 15hIDP 97-l 6KDP 97-39 - LOHF SUE3DIVISION December 2,1998 TABLE 1 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE ELEMENT USE CLASSIF’ICATION, GOAL, PROPOSED USES AND COMPLIANCE OBJECTIVE OR PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS Land Use Site is designated Residential Low Proposed density of 2.2 Medium (0.0 - 4.0 du/ac) and du/ac meets the RLM range; Residential Medium (4.0 - 8.0 du/ac) RM area is only slopes. Yes Circulation Require new development to Project is conditioned to improve all rights-of-way needed to provide public streets to serve the development. serve the development and Yes access to adjacent parcels Noise Enforce the City Policy requiring Noise study was conducted exterior noise levels to be mitigated and noise walls and internal to 60 dBA CNEL. ventilation requirements Yes have been identified. Housing Ensure that all qualified subdivisions Housing Commission provide a range of housing for all recommended approval of income ranges. off-site provision in Villa Loma apartments. Project is Yes conditioned to enter Affordable Housing Agreement prior to final map *en Space Preserve open space in as natural a 93 percent of existing state as possible. southern maritime chaparral habitat is remaining in Yes undisturbed open space. Utilize Best Management Practices Project will comply with all for control of storm water pollutants NPDES requirements. Yes Public Safety Provision of emergency water All necessary water mains, systems and all weather access roads. fire hydrants and appurtenances must be installed prior to future unit Yes occupancy and all weather access roads will be maintained throughout construction. - - ZC 97-06/LCPA 97-08K1 97-lS/HDP 97-16KDP 97-39 - LOHF SUBDIVISION December 2, 1998 Page 6 B. Local Coastal Program 1. Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment Compliance The Lohf Subdivision site is located in the Mello II segment of the Local Coastal Program. The implementing ordinances for the Mello II segment are contained in the City’s Zoning Ordinance and includes a Zoning Map. The Local Coastal Program Zoning Map shows that the project site is designated L-C, consistent with the City’s Zoning Map. In order to maintain consistency between the City’s Zoning Map and the Local Coastal Program, the zoning designation on both the Zoning Map and LCP must be changed. Therefore the proposed Zone Change/Local Coastal Program Amendment from L-C to R-1-7,500-Q provides consistency between the City’s Zoning designations and the zoning designations contained in the Local Coastal Program. 2. Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit Compliance As mentioned above, the Lohf Subdivision site lies within the Mello II segment of the City’s Coastal Zone and is subject to the corresponding land use policies and implementing ordinances, including zoning designations. The policies of the Mello II segment emphasize topics such as preservation of prime agriculture and scenic resources, protection of environmentally sensitive lands, provision of shoreline access, and prevention of geologic instability and erosion. The proposed project is consistent with these policies. There are no agricultural activities or prime agricultural lands within the project area. No impacts to scenic resources will occur because none exist on or near the site. Since the site is located over 0.18 miles from the Batiquitos Lagoon and 0.53 miles from the Pacific Ocean, no shoreline access provisions apply. The project is conditioned to adhere to the City Standards with regard to erosion control and grading operations, therefore no geologic instability or erosion should occur. The project proposes to preserve virtually all of the environmentally sensitive lands, namely those areas with slopes over 25 percent inclination that contain native habitat (a.k.a. dual-criteria lands). As shown on Exhibit “E”, dated December 2, 1998, the development would encroach into three dual criteria areas, totaling 7,600 square feet. The Mello II segment of the Local Coastal Program allows for up to ten percent encroachment into dual criteria lands if total preservation of such lands would preclude a reasonable use of the property. The three areas of dual criteria land encroachment are located at critical design points within the development as it relates to the alignment and grade of Poinsettia Lane. Given that the range of positions and elevations of the Circulation Element roadway are very limited, the proposed development minimizes the amount of encroachment while maintaining at-grade access with Poinsettia Lane. The only applicable implementing ordinance is found in the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.203 of the Zoning Ordinance). The provisions in this implementing ordinance mimic the provisions contained in the Mello II land use policies, therefore, based on the above, the project is consistent with the implementing ordinances. Given the above, the Lohf Subdivision conforms to the provisions of the Local Coastal Program. - ZC 97-06/LCPA 97-08/C’i 97-l 5/HDP 97-16KDP 97-39 - LOHF SUBDIVISION December 2,1998 C. R-l - One Family Residential Zone The proposed zoning for the Lohf Subdivision property is One Family Residential with a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet (R-1-7,500-Q). Therefore the proposed development must comply with all applicable portions of R-l zone, as contained in Chapter 2 1.10 of the Zoning Ordinance. Since no structures are proposed with the single-family subdivision, only those R-l standards addressing lot size and dimensions are applicable. Table 2 below illustrates the proposed subdivision’s consistency with the R-l zone. TABLE 2 - R-l ZONE COMPLIANCE STANDARD PROPOSED COMPLIANCE Minimum lot size: 7,500 sq. ft. All lots range in size from 7,500 sq. ft. to over 11,500 sq. ft. Yes Minimum lot width: 60 ft. All lots widths measure between 60 ft. and 115 ft. Yes Given the above, the proposed subdivision design is consistent with the requirements of the R-l- 7,500 zone. D. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance The proposed residential subdivision is subject to the provisions of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, Chapter 21.85 of the Zoning Ordinance. Since the project involves more than seven units, it must provide affordable units, either within the project or within a combined project in the same quadrant. Given the total project yield of 73 dwelling units, the project’s inclusionary obligation of affordable housing would just under 11 dwelling units. At the November 19, 1998 meeting of the Housing Commission, the project applicant requested purchasing affordable unit credits in the Villa Loma Apartment project, located in the northern portion of the southwest quadrant. The Housing Commission recommended approval of this request, therefore, the project is conditioned to enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement to ensure the provision of affordable units prior to final map. The Housing Commission recommendation and Affordable Housing Agreement condition address the requirements of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance for the Lohf Subdivision project. E. Subdivision Ordinance Since the Lohf project involves a subdivision of land, the proposal is subject to the regulations of Title 20, the Subdivision Ordinance. Chapter 20.16 of the Subdivision Ordinance addresses the requirements for a major subdivision, that being a subdivision that creates more than four parcels. These requirements mostly deal with providing the drainage, sewerage and circulation dedications and improvements needed to serve the subdivision. There are also requirements concerning consistency with Title 21, the Zoning Ordinance, which is addressed in the other sections of this staff report. - ZC 97-06/LCPA 97-08/C I 97-lS/HDP 97-16KDP 97-39 - LOHF SUBDIVISION December 2,1998 The proposed Lohf subdivision would provide all necessary facilities prior to, or concurrent with, construction. The hydrology report, submitted by the applicant, indicates that all runoff can be controlled on-site and conveyed into existing and proposed storm drain facilities. The on-site sewer system would be connected with the existing system in Dove Lane and water distribution would involve looped service from existing lines in the El Camino Real right-of-way. As mentioned above, the applicant would improve Poinsettia Lane within their subdivision boundary and complete off-site improvements to connect Poinsettia Lane with El Camino Real to the east. The project would also provide access to the four adjacent properties surrounding the site to the north, west and south (including a connection to Mimosa Street as previously planned with the Pavoreal subdivision). No standards variances are needed to approve the project. Given the above, the proposed subdivision would provide all necessary facilities and improvements without producing land title conflicts, therefore the project is consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance. F. Hillside Development Ordinance The Lohf Subdivision involves development over sloping topography and, therefore, it is subject to the Hillside Development regulations, Chapter 21.95 of the Zoning Ordinance. While the City recently amended the Hillside Development Ordinance, these amendments have not been approved by the California Coastal Commission and have not been effectually incorporated into the Local Coastal Program implementing ordinances. Therefore the project is subject to the pre- existing Hillside Development Ordinance. Table 3 below details the project’s conformance with the provisions of the Hillside Development Ordinance. The project includes the grading and construction of Poinsettia Lane, a Circulation Element roadway, through the northern portion of the project site. According to Section 21.95.070 of the Hillside Development Ordinance, the decision making body may approve modifications to the hillside development standards if the site requires extensive grading to accommodate a Circulation Element roadway. In this case, the decision making body is the City Council. The grading required for Poinsettia Lane involves 82,000 cubic yards of cut and 28,000 cubic yards of fill and covers and area of 5.5 acres. To acquire access from Poinsettia Lane at a safe distance from El Camino Real, the development requires a 36 foot high slope and a 3,800 square foot encroachment into sloping native habitat. By accommodating Poinsettia Lane, and the allowable intersection spacing for arterials, the project design still allows for almost complete preservation of the existing native habitat. II TABLE 3 - HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT CONFORMANCE STANDARD PROPOSED CONFORMANCE Preservation of 40% slopes 1 With the exception of two small 1 areas associated with the grading of Poinsettia Lane, all slopes Yes, if approved by Council 1 steeper than 40% are preserved. 1 Maximum slope height of 30 feet All man-made slopes are 30 feet Yes, if approved by Council maximum. except one slope area - ZC 97-06/LCPA 97-08/C I’ 97-l S/HDP 97- 16KDP 97-39 - LOHF SUBDIVISION December 2,1998 TABLE 3 - HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT CONFORMANCE STANDARD PROPOSED CONFORMANCE needed for Poinsettia Lane. Contour grading The perimeter slopes of the project include contour grading. Yes Grading volumes less than Excluding the grading for Yes, if approved by Council 10,000 cubic yards per acre with Poinsettia Lane, the grading circulation element roadway volumes reach 9,586 cy/ac. Given the above, and the requirement for developing Poinsettia Lane, the Lohf Subdivision project is consistent with the Hillside Development Ordinance, Chapter 21.95 of the Zoning Ordinance. G. Growth Management Ordinance The proposed Lohf residential subdivision is subject to the provision of the Growth Management Ordinance, Chapter 21.90 of the Zoning Ordinance. Since the project is 39 units below the total yield anticipated by the Zone 21 LFMP, all existing and planned facilities are or will be adequate to serve the need generated by this project. Table 4 below details the project’s compliance wi’th the applicable Growth Management facility requirements. TABLE 4 - GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE Standard Impacts/Standards Compliance City Administration 588.26 sq fi Yes Library 313.70 sq fi Yes Waste Water Treatment 73 EDU Yes Parks 1.18 acres Yes Drainage 19.5 cfs Yes Circulation 438 ADT Yes Fire Station # 2 Yes Open Space 7.1 acres Yes Schools Carlsbad Unified Yes Sewer Collection System 73 EDU Yes Water 16,060 GPD Yes The project is 39 units below the Growth Management Control Point - ZC 97-06/LCPA 97-08/C’l 97-15iHDP 97-16/GDP 97-39 - LOHF SUBDIVISION December 2, 1998 H. Zone 21 Local Facilities Management Plan The project site lies within Local Facilities Management Zone 2 1. The special requirements for development in Zone 21 include payment of park-in-lieu fees and public facility fees. As discussed above, the developer would also construct Poinsettia Lane from the western subdivision boundary eastward to El Camino Real. No other special conditions exist in the zone plan and all required facilities would be constructed prior to, or concurrent with, need. Therefore the proposed Lohf Subdivision is consistent with the Zone 21 Local Facilities Management Plan. The potential impacts of the Lohf Subdivision project, as conditioned, were reviewed and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was issued on October 26, 1998. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was necessary to mitigate potential impacts to biological resources, air quality, and cultural resources. As described above, the project would include slight encroachments into the existing native habitat and would require the removal of a mature oak tree. These impacts are mitigated to a level of insignificance by the preservation of the remaining open space within the project area and an oak tree replacement ratio of 1O:l within the project open space. The project site could also contain paleontological resources, however any potential impacts are mitigated to a level of insignificance because all grading operations must be reviewed and supervised by a paleontologist. Since the project involves grading operations directly adjacent to occupied homes, the developer is conditioned to provide controls against fugitive dust, in order to mitigate any potential short-term air quality impacts. All of the above potential impacts and their mitigation have been analyzed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and relevant conditions of approval have been included in Planning Commission Resolution No. 4424. With regard to the proposed alignment of Poinsettia Lane within the project area, the certified EIR for the Zone 20 Specific Plan reviewed this alignment of Poinsettia Lane through all of Zone 21. With regard to other areas of concern, such as population and housing, geologic problems, water, air quality, transportation and circulation, energy and mineral resources, hazards, noise, public service, utilities and service systems, aesthetics and recreation, the project, as designed, has no additional impacts not previously analyzed in the Master Environmental Impact Report for the 1994 General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01) and no additional review or mitigation measures are necessary with regard to these areas of concern. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted for a 30 day public review period and staff received no comments. ZC 97-06/LCPA 97-08/C1 97-lS/HDP 97-16KDP 97-39 - LOHF SUBDIVISION December 2,1998 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4424 Planning Commission Resolution No. 4425 Planning Commission Resolution No. 4426 Planning Commission Resolution No. 4427 Planning Commission Resolution No. 4428 Planning Commission Resolution No. 4429 Location Map Background Data Sheet Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form Disclosure Statement Exhibits “A” - “K”, dated December 2, 1998 A- . BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: ZC 97-06/LCPA 97-08KT 97-lS/HDP 97-16/GDP 97-39 CASE NAME: I ,ohf Subdivis’ ion APPLICANT: LAMCO Housing. Inc. REQUEST AND LOCATION: . . Request for a Mltmed &Eat ive Declaration. Mitigation Monitoring and Renortme Prom. Zone Cha.nPe. Local Coastal Proeram Amendment, . . e tat e T act Map. Hillside Development Permit and Coastal De elopet Permit to cha Tn iv r V nge the zoning from Limited Control (L-C) to One Family Residential with a Qualified Development Overlav (R 1 - - 7.500-o). and to subd ivide and made for 73 smgle farmlv lots with three onen snace lots for 36.7 acres generally located west of El Camino Real. between Cassia Road and . . . Dove Lane in Local Facrhties Man-t Zone 2 1, LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel 2 of Map No. 2244. tiled in the Office of the County Recorder on Januarv 10. 1974 and the southern half of the northeast quarter of Section 26, Township 12 South. Range 4 West. San Bernardino Meridian. all in the City of Carlsbad. County of San Dleog , State of California. APN: 215-050-18. -59 Acres: 36.7 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 76 lots/73 units GENERAL PJAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation: RI,M and RM Density Allowed: 0.0-3.2 & 4-6 du/ac Density Proposed: 2.2 du/ac Existing Zone: J,-C Proposed Zone: R-l -7.500-o Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad’s Zoning Requirements) Zoning Land Use Site L-C Agriculture/Single family North L-C Vacant South R- 1 -Q Single family houses East L-C Vacant West R-l Vacant PUBLIC FACILITIES School District: Carlsbad Unified Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: &&&XI Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 73 EDI J Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated: aber 10. 1998 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT El Mitigated Negative Declaration, issued October 26. 1998 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: Lohf Subdivision - ZC 97-06/ICPA 97-08/CT 97-l S/HDP 97-16/GDP 97-39 LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 21 GENERAL PLAN: RLM & RM ZONING: L-C DEVELOPER’S NAME: LAMCO Housing, Inc. ADDRESS: 2385 * V’ R * 1 PHONE NO.: (760) 929-160Q ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 215-050-18. -59 QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 36.7 ac - 73 du ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: March. 7000 A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = Library: Demand in Square Footage = Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) Park: Demand in Acreage = Drainage: Demand in CFS = Identify Drainage Basin = (Identify master plan facilities on site plan) Circulation: Demand in ADT = (Identify Trip Distribution on site plan) Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = Open Space: Acreage Provided = Schools: (Demands to be determined by staff) Sewer: Demands in EDU Identify Sub Basin = (Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan) Water: Demand in GPD = 588.26 313.70 1.18 19.5 PJDA D 438 No. 7 71 Carlsbwed 7-l 6A8z21R J6.060 The project is 39 units below the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance. 73 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: 1. APPLICANT List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application. Lamco Housing, Inc. 2. 3. 4. 2385 Camino Vida Roble, Suite 107 Carl&ad, CA 92009 OWNER List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Lohf Trust, 6/22/92 Alice M. Lamplugh Trust, 3/9/89 1425 Via De1 Corvo San Marcos, CA 92069 If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names and addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. Gene Rosenfeld 300 No. Continental Ave Suite 390 kl Segundo, CA 90245 If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names and addresses of any person serving as officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the trust. Richard Alexander L&f and Linda Jean Uhf (Trustees of Lohf Trust) 1PV (Successor Trustee of Alice Lamplugh Trust) 1425 Via De1 Corvo San Marcos, CA 92069 2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad. CA 92009-1576 - (619) 438-11610 FAX (G19) 438-0894 7t’ @? 5. Have you had I- than $250 worth of business trc ;ted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) mo.nths? cl Yes Gil No If yes, please indicate person(s): . . Person is defined as :Any individuat,.~firm;-~partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization,.rorporation;-Cstate,:trust,;receiver,.syndicate, this and any other county, city and ,counw, .dty ;municipa~~~~~~~r.~~r~olifical;r;9~ibdivision .or any other group or combination. acting-as-%&ii?- -‘_ _,.: _.,. --..;: ,,>. ‘>-.’ . .._ ?. ,, c . ‘ _., .:A A.! : _ .:; .-.-:.~ . .-.. NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. L.&f Trust, Dated June 22, 1992 Richard A. Lohf & Linda J. L&f Print or type name of owner Trustfzes Lance Waite, LAMCO Housing, Inc. Print or type name of applicant Disclosure Statement 1 O/96 75 Page 2 of 3 5. A H&$ou had L ,.+than $250 worth of business tral -dcted with any member of City”s&ff, Board& ‘Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) ,months? cl Yes 0 X No If yes, please indiqate person(s): ” y;.: , . . Parson is defined~~s.~~~~y~j~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~tp;.~oi~t.-~nture, association, social club, fraternal ;or9anization,;cq~~~~~~~~~i~~~~~,~~licate,’rhis and any other county, city combinatiomactiti Pl$Qisision..or \any other group or . 4 ..r. ._- - . - . ._ : NOTE: Attach 9,ditional sheets if necessary. Signature of :cjwnerfdate Signature of applicant/date Alice M. Lamplugh Trust Agreement, 3/g/89 Ron Hadley, Successor Trustee Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant 1 Disclosure Statement 1 O/96 7b Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT 6 7. LC 97-O§.,!LCPA 97-08lCT 97.15/HnP 97-lG/CDP 97 39 w I LOHF SUBDIVISION - Request for a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting Program, Zone Change, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit to change the zoning from Limited Control (L-C) to One Family Residential with a Qualified Development Overlay (R-1-7,500-Q), and to subdivide and grade for 73 single- family lots with three open space lots on 36.7 acres generally located west of El Camino Real, between Cassia Road and Dove Lane in Local Facilities Management Zone 21. Chairperson Noble announced that the Commission’s action on this item is not final and will be forwarded to the City Council for its consideration. Assistant Planning Director, Gary Wayne, introduced this item and stated that the staff report would be given by Associate Planner, Michael Grim. Chairperson Noble stated that the applicant has the right to be heard by a full Commission and asked the applicant if he was willing to have this item continue with the six Commissioners present. The applicant agreed to have this item heard by the six Commissioners present. Project Planner, Michael Grim, presented the staff report and described the project, using overhead projections and exhibits. This item is described as a request for a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Zone Change, Tentative Tract Map, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Hillside Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit for a single family subdivision located in Zone 21. The site is located directly north and adjacent to the Pavoreal subdivision. To the southeast is the existing Plaza Paseo Real shopping center and to the west is undeveloped property, some of which is agriculture and some is not, and the property to the north is also undeveloped. The two small rectangular lots in the northwest comer of the site are not included in this proposal but they each contain a single family home which had to be considered with regard to access and other potential impacts. The Zone Change and LCPA would change the zoning of the property from Limited Control to R- 1-7,500-Q, which is consistent with the existing RLM and RM General Plan designations. The Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit would allow the actual subdivision and grading for the 73 units, 76 lot development. The Mitigated Negative Declaration defines the project’s required environmental mitigation in the areas of fugitive dust control, biological preservation, and paleontological monitoring. Using the site plan, Mr. Grim illustrated the project circulation and access point to adjacent properties, grading and slopes, biological preservation areas, proposed lot sizes and Coastal Zone ordinance compliance. Commissioner Compas asked if there is a connection between the property immediately west of the site and Mimosa Drive. MINUTES r77 PLANNING COMMISSION December 2. 1998 Page 9 Mr. Grim replied that because the street turns and will have a different name, it is unlikely that there will be a connection, except that the developer is going to make an irrevocable offer of dedication to allow the owners of the adjoining property access to their property. Commissioner Welshons asked if the developer will be required to bring Poinsettia Lane the rest of the way to El Camino Real. Mr. Grim replied that they are required to complete the roadway within the subdivision. He added that there is a city standard which says there can be only so many homes on a cul-de-sac street and he pointed out a section that will definitely need a connection to Poinsettia Lane. Mr. Grim also pointed out that there is a condition requiring the developer to complete that connection prior to the issuance of any building permits. Referring to the Zone 21 Local Facilities Management Plan, where it is stated “No other special conditions exist in the zone plan and all required facilities would be constructed prior to, or concurrent with need”, Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Grim to define the criteria for “need”. Mr. Grim replied that it is cul-de-sac policy and with regard to Poinsettia Lane, this only applies to one area, as he indicated on the map. Mr. Grim pointed out that the developer can build the first few phases without needing the Poinsettia Lane connection. Commissioner Welshons asked if there will be signals at the intersections of Mimosa Drive and Poinsettia Lane and also at Cassia. Principal Engineer, Bob Wojcik, replied that there will most likely be signals at those intersection. Regarding the existing private residences and the proposed driveways, Commissioner Welshons asked how close one of the driveways is to El Camino Real. Mr. Grim replied that is will probably be between 150 feet to 200 feet. Commissioner Welshons asked if it is typical to have a driveway like that. Mr. Grim replied that it is not typical and is a classic case of a partially developed city where there is a single family homeowner with frontage on a dedicated road and his right to have free access to his property. Commissioner Welshons asked if there will be median. Mr. Grim replied that there will be a median and the access will be for right in and right out only. Commissioner Welshons asked where the small sliver of land that is zoned RM is located. Mr. Grim indicated its location on the site plan. Mr. Grim replied that staff is not concerned about any land use for that small sliver of land because, as proposed, it will be developed as slopes for the development and put into open space and maintained by the homeowners association. Referring to Resolution No. 4424, under Condition No. 1, Commissioner Welshons asked if it is typical to have the means of mitigation itemized as they are in this resolution. Mr. Grim replied that these are conditions taken from a Master Environmental Impact Report for the 1994 General Plan update, the requirements for virtually any grading operation in Carlsbad. Because of the PLANNING COMMISSION December 2, 1998 Page 10 proximity of the existing homes, Mr. Grim explained that he wanted to put the mitigation measures so that the City could actually say that there could potentially be environmental impacts rather than just a nuisance. Commissioner Welshons asked if it would be appropriate, if the rest of the Commissioners agree, to specify the hours of operations so it is clear when grading and construction can occur. Mr. Grim stated that there would be no problem with specifying days and hours of operation and could be added to the condition. Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Grim to state the actual hours and days during which grading and construction will be allowed. Mr. Grim replied as follows: 7:00 a.m. to sundown, Monday through Fridays, 8:00 a.m. to sundown on Saturdays and never on Sundays and specific holidays. Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Grim to explain why the Housing Commission decided to accept the applicant’s request to purchase affordable unit credits with Villa Loma versus building affordable units on- site. Mr. Grim responded by saying that he is not aware of the exact reason and suggested that perhaps the developer can answer that question. Commissioner Welshons asked if it is typical in a development of this size, with 73 dwelling units, to provide affordable housing on-site. Mr. Grim replied that this is sometimes done with second dwelling units. While they meet the City’s inclusionary requirement, second dwelling units are less likely to satisfy as affordable units mandated by the state. For clarification, Commissioner Compas asked if the developer will, in fact, be required to complete Poinsettia Lane up to El Camino Real. Mr. Grim replied affirmatively. Referring to page 2 of the memorandum from staff, Mr. Wayne stated the following correction: In the last paragraph, “prior to the approval of a Site Development Plan” should read “prior to the approval of the Final Map”. Jack Henthorn, 5375 Avenida Encinas, Suite D, Carlsbad, representing the applicant, stated they are quite happy with the results of their efforts. He stated that he realizes there is an outstanding issue but believes they are still in compliance with city standards. Mr. Henthorn urged the Commission to accept the recommendations by staff, including all of the revisions, and approve this application. Chairperson Noble opened Public Testimony and offered the invitation to speak. Kelly Cox, 6902 Mimosa Drive, Carlsbad, a resident of the Pavoreal subdivision immediately adjacent to this project, stated that he is a member of a committee of Pavoreal residents whose sole objective has been to discourage the opening of Mimosa Drive should the Lohf subdivision ever be developed. He further stated that, in talks with the developer, the developer has stated that they would rather not extend Mimosa Drive into the new subdivision. The developers pointed out that the City, however, is requiring Mimosa Drive to be opened. Mr. Cox indicated that his committee has been trying to find out what the reasons are for this street to be opened to through traffic. In talks with staff, Mr. Cox stated that he was told that traffic studies showed that by opening Mimosa Drive, there will actually be less traffic than there MlNUTES 79 - h PLANNING COMMISSION December 2, 1998 Page 11 is today, which he feels is quite unlikely if not near impossible. He pointed out that some members of this committee have had years of experience in land planning and development and traffic analysis. Mr. Cox stated that the reports they have received show that Mimosa Drive was not included in the City’s traffic analysis. A subsequent traffic analysis by the developer, Mr. Cox continued, showed an actual increase in traffic which, as the committee’s traffic engineer will show, exceeds the City’s safety standards. Mr. Cox further stated that the second reason given by staff is convenience. When asked, “whose convenience”, the reply was, “for yours”. Mr. Cox stated that they have submitted petitions, signed by virtually every resident of Pavoreal, adamantly opposing the extension of Mimosa Drive into the new subdivision. He further stated that he was told that the City of Carlsbad follows an inflexible standard that requires at least two accesses into every community for emergency vehicles. Mr. Cox then stated that this did not sound right to him for two reasons; 1) Pavoreal was approved with only a single access into the neighborhood; and, 2) There are numerous communities within the City that have a single access point. He suggested that the City study each community, on a case by case basis, and not follow some inflexible rule. He also stated that he was told that the City likes to make continuous connections, wherever they can, but does not take into account the harm than can be done to communities. Mr. Cox suggested that there are no compelling reasons for opening Mimosa Drive to through traffic between Pavoreal and the new subdivision and that it is common knowledge that if you increase traffic in a new community, the residents will be subjected to the possibility of safety risks. He also pointed out that the streets in Pavoreal are very wide and single loaded and that emergency vehicles would have no difficulty in getting through, in either direction. Mr. Cox stated that there have been no emergencies in Pavoreal in the seven years it has been in existence. Jim Fedderhart, 2845 Nimitz Boulevard, San Diego, a traffic engineer for 49 years, stated that the original report was dated 5-12-98 and showed Dove Lane as a single connection. It did not show either of the Poinsettia connections nor did it have a connection into Mimosa Drive. He pointed out that all of the 730 ADT from the 73 units in the Lohf subdivision, had to go out Dove and then mostly to the south on El Camino Real. He further pointed out that the Traffic Engineer analyzed all of the links and all of the intersections that were affected by the Lohf project and found that there would be LOS “A” on all the links on El Camino Real and Aviara Parkway. Mr. Fedderhart stated that if the Planning Commission and the City does not connect Mimosa Drive, there will not be a capacity problem because the traffic study shows that LOS “A” will ensue, in all of the surrounding circulation elements. Mr. Fedderhart stated that the residents of Pavoreal have no objection to some type of emergency access where Mimosa meets the new project site, which would provide the required second access. Referring to the June 15, 1998 trafftc report, Mr. Fedderhart pointed out that the report was a short-term analysis which still did not assume that there would be any Poinsettia connections. In that report, Mr. Fedderhart continued, it is stated that there would be 1411 ADT on Mimosa Drive as it approaches Aviara Parkway. He then pointed out that on local streets, the City has a policy of 1200 ADT being the maximum allowable. He also pointed out that initially, the residents of Pavoreal were wholly in favor of the Lohf project s.ince none of the designs showed the opening of Mimosa Drive. Based on his experience, Mr. Fedderhart stated that the downhill configuration of Mimosa Drive will encourage speeders and the next thing to happen will be requests for speed bumps and four-way stops to slow down the traffic. Mr. Fedderhart concluded by again stating that there is not a capacity problem and there is a way for emergency vehicles to access Pavoreal and urged the Commission to allow Mimosa Drive to remain unchanged, and that Engineering Condition No. 52D, Resolution No. 4427, should be omitted. Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Fedderharl if he considered that some of the residents might wish to take Mimosa to Poinsettia Parkway rather than exit via Aviara Parkway. Mr. Fedderhart replied that he did not take that into consideration because he has been told that the residents of Pavoreal have been and still are quite content with having to exit the community via Aviara Parkway and they have no desire to use Mimosa Drive to access Poinsettia Lane. PLANNING COMMISSION December 2,1998 Page 12 Commissioner Heineman asked Mr. Fedderhart if he agrees that the whole equation will change when Poinsettia Lane is included in the Lohf project. Mr. Fedderhart replied that it will change as far as the Lohf project is concerned. Commissioner Compas asked Mr. Fedderhart if he knows of any reason why it would be detrimental to not extend Mimosa Drive. Mr. Fedderhart replied that he could think of no such reason. Dennis Stoller, 6960 Blue Orchid Lane, Carlsbad, presented overhead projections showing three examples of several communities that have recently been approved with only one access point. Those communities are: Sanderling, Morea, and Sea Cliff. Others mentioned but not shown in the projections are Aldea and Viagio. He too pointed out that Pavoreal does not have narrow streets. They are three lanes wide and provide ample ingress and egress for everyone, including emergency vehicles. Mr. Stoller stated that regardless of the City wanting multiple access points, the residents of Pavoreal do not need more than a single access point for safety. Janis Libuse, a resident of Pavoreal, by means of overhead projections, gave examples of a few local roads that have been approved for gated emergency access as a result of new developments being built on adjacent lands. The examples are Daisy Avenue in Spinnaker Hills, Whimble Court in Sandpiper, Paseo Alisio in Greystone, and El Bosque at Ranch0 Ponderosa. Also shown were Avenida La Posta in Encinitas, Village View, and Orchardwood as examples of emergency access gates that have been opened after many years and the resulting half-street barriers and speed bumps. Ms. Libuse stated that the community of Pavoreal have no objection to an emergency gate at the top of Mimosa Drive and urged the Commission to approve the Lohf project without opening Mimosa Drive to through traffic. David Lee Soanes, 6140 Portobelo Court, San Diego, project landscape architect for Robert Kevane, owner of the property directly west of the Lohf property, stated that he and his client are in full support of the development of the Lohf property, pending the resolution of a couple of minor issues. He further stated that when the Kevane property access road(s) are complete, they will relieve some of the perceived traffic problems within the Lohf subdivision. For the record, Mr. Soanes stated that the hydrology report is incorrect, as it was a report on land located many mile away. He stated that he has been assured by staff that the correct hydrology will be used in this project. The major issue remaining, he continued, is biology. It is Mr. Soanes contention that, after touring the site(s) and talking with both their biologist and Lohfs, it has been determined that the sensitive Manzanita in the City’s exhibit, does not exist and the documents should be changed to reflect that. Also, he and his biologist are contesting that the areas indicated as having Southern Maritime Chapparal have, in fact, Shimmy Chapparal. He pointed out that most biologists would agree that there is only one place in Southern California and that place is at the Torrey Pines Reserve on the slopes above Black’s Beach. He also pointed out that three principal factors are required for the existence of Southern Maritime Chapparal and they are; 1) sandstone soils; 2) a fog bank; and, 3) four of eight plant indicators. Given the absence of sandstone soils and a fog bank on this property, Mr. Soanes stated that Southern Maritime Chapparal cannot and therefore does not exist on this property. Aside from the previously mentioned issues, Mr. Soanes stated that they are totally in favor of the Lohf subdivision. Commissioner Compas asked if he or his client have a preference as to whether Mimosa Drive remains closed. In response, Mr. Soanes stated that it does not make any difference to either of them Marian Stiener, 6675 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, owner of an adjacent property, stated that she is wholeheartedly in favor of this project. However, after studying the map from the Engineering Department, she stated that she found that there has been an easement drawn through her property. She MINUTES $/ PLANNING COMMISSION December 2, 1998 Page 13 further stated that she has not granted, and has no intention of granting such an easement. Ms. Strener also stated that she is unaware of any other accesses they may or may not have, but, either way it is not her problem. She also indicated that she would like to see both the housing and Poinsettia Lane developed at the same time so as to minimize the dust, etc. Greg Saska. 6721 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, owner and resident of the smaller of two rectangular shaped lots in the northeast corner of the map, stated that after seeing the Parcel Map regarding the final sectton of the Poinsettia Lane connection to El Camino Real, he and his mother (Mrs. lsabelle Saska) would accept the plan provided the sewer, water, utilities, and their entry access are going to be adequate. In this case, he further stated that they are prepared to negotiate with the City and the developer, regarding the partial taking of their property so long as the above mentioned items are satisfactorily resolved. In addition, he agreed with Ms. Stiener, in that the construction of housing and Poinsettia Lane should occur at the same time to minimize the dirt and inconvenience. Seeing no one else wishing to testify, Chairperson Noble closed Public Testimony. Scott Sandstrom, Western Pacific Housing, 238 Camino Vida Roble, Carlsbad, stated that their original submittal did not include a connection to Mimosa Drive, but did show it as a secondary emergency access. For that reason, he continued, is why their original traffic report did not include Mimosa Drive. Mr. Sandstrom further stated that as they proceeded through the process, staff informed them that in order to meet City standards, they would have to show that connection. Regarding the hydrology issue, Mr. Sandstrom stated that the report has been corrected and a second report is on file with the City. Regarding the biology referred to as Southern Maritime Chapparal, Mr. Sandstrom stated that the City’s Habitat Management Plan show several hundreds of acres of Southern Maritime Chapparal within the City. He added that they have consulted with the California Department of Fish and Game and the Department of Fish and Wildlife and they have concurred with their biology report and all of the identifications of all vegetation species on the project. Regarding Ms. Stiener’s easement, Mr. Sandstrom stated that she is correct that there has been an easement included in the map. Unfortunately, he continued, there was an error on the landscape conceptual plan that showed one of the earlier potential easement accesses of a driveway from the Saska’s across her property. For the record, Mr. Sandstrom stated that that easement is not shown on the Tentative Map and they are not intending to have an easement across her property for the Saska’s driveway. Commissioner Compas asked Mr. Sandstrom if it makes a difference to the project if Mimosa Drive remains closed except for emergency access. Mr. Sandstrom replied that as their original submittal indicated, there was no connection indicated and the developer would not object to Mimosa Drive remaining closed except for emergency access. Commissioner Welshons asked why they asked to purchase affordable unit credits at Villa Loma instead of building affordable housing on-site. Mr. Sandstrom replied that after lengthy discussions, it was determined that they would need eleven units. The Housing Commission found that there is a threshold of about 35 units that make a viable project with a non-profit organization, and stated with a unanimous vote that one of the compelling reasons they allowed Lohf to buy into Villa Loma is the project’s proximity to Villa Loma. They felt that to have a small, secondary project so close would be somewhat redundant when there are available units to be purchased in Villa Loma. Chairperson Noble, also a member of the Housing Commission, added that very shortly there will be a guideline indicating that a project of 25 affordable units or less would not be profitable and one of the purposes of Villa Loma was to allow developers to buy into it instead of building such small affordable projects. PLANNING COMMISSION December 2,1998 Mr. Grim stated that after reviewing the open space and the existing habitat, a report was sent to the Wildlife agencies who are the experts. They reviewed the report during the Negative Declaration circulation and they also did site visits and are in full agreement with the report. Mr. Wojcik pointed out that Mr. Fedderhart is correct in that without the connection to Poinsettia Lane, there would be 1400 ADT in the area and 1200 ADT is the city standard for a local street. However, Mimosa is a single-loaded street and therefore has a larger capacity than a normal local street. Also, it would be a temporary situation because once Poinsettia Lane is completed, traffic will be reduced on Mimosa Lane. Also, because traffic will be split in Pavoreal, there will be “x” number of ADT going in two directions and only in the area of the five single-loaded homes, will the standards be violated. Also, the report assumed that 51 units would be constructed and occupied prior to Poinsettia Lane being completed and as can be seen in the conditions of approval, the City is requiring that the developer provide for the construction of Poinsettia Lane prior to the Final Map, which will be well in advance of any occupancy in the area that would load traffic onto Mimosa Drive. Mr. Wojcik further pointed out that the subdivisions shown in Ms. Libuse’s presentation have double-wide entries which is allowed under the cul-de-sac standard to count for 2 ways in and 2 ways out because the double-wide entry allows for four lanes of traffic. On Daisy Lane and El Bosque, Mr. Wojcik stated that City Council decided to differ with staff and it was their decisions to gate off those two streets. Some of the other projects in Ms. Libuse’s presentation were approved in the 70’s and 80’s, prior to the standard for c&de-sacs. Commissioner Compas asked Mr. Wojcik what bad thing would happen lf the Planning Commission decided to keep Mimosa Drive closed, except as an emergency access. Mr. Wojcik replied that he could not think of a bad action resulting from the continued closure of Mimosa Drive except for emergency access. Commissioner Compas also asked Mr. Wojcik if staff has not been supportive of keeping Mimosa closed because of the rules. Mr. Wojcik replied that not only because of the standards but it is also good planning practice to have as many streets as possible, connected, for all types of traffic. Commissioner Heineman stated that there seems to be a very compelling case to keep Mimosa Drive closed except for emergency access, especially since staff has already assured that Poinsettia Lane will be completed before any houses are occupied. He then asked Mr. Wojcik if he could think of a particularly tough situation that might arise from having only an emergency gate. Mr. Wojcik replied that without that connection, and as a cul-de-sac, it violates the cul-de-sac standard. Pavoreal was approved in the 1980’s, before there was that standard, and it was also approved with the full intention of Mimosa connecting through for the second access, not only for emergency vehicles but for general neighborhood traffic. Commissioner Heineman asked if that regulation would be satisfied with an emergency gate. Mr. Wojcik replied that it would but judging from City Council’s reaction to a similar situation on the Terraces at Sunny Creek project, he doubts the Council will approve. In calculating the ADT and figuring the traffic and circulation for both Pavoreal and the Lohf project, Commissioner Welshons asked how circulation will be impacted on Aviara Parkway if traffic is disbursed in three different directions. Mr. Wojcik replied that there would be less traffic using Mimosa with the connection in place because there will be traffic from Pavoreal going up to use Poinsettia to go west, rather than going south to use Aviara Parkway. PLANNING COMMISSION December 2.1998 Page 15 Commissioner Welshons asked how soon the Poinsettia connection to the west will be completed. Mr. Wojcik replied that there is one other vacant property that has no development applications on file and the development of the road occurs when there is development of the property. For that reason there is no way to tell how long it will be before the road is completed. In order to ensure that the road completion is not a long term problem, the City has formed Bridge and Thoroughfare District #2 and is collecting fees from all of the developers in that area to pay for the completion of Poinsettia Lane. Commissioner Welshons asked if there is a nexus to stipulating that this project cannot move forward or can only partially move forward without that connection to the west and the east. Mr. Wojcik replied that he does not believe there would be a nexus for the City to condition either additional improvements or stopping development. Chairperson Noble asked Mr. Wojcik to address Mr. Saska’s question regarding the improvements at his property. Mr. Wojcik replied that all of the utilities will be put in with the street improvements of the subdivision. He added that there is also a condition to stub out the utilities to adjacent properties. Mr. Wayne stated that it is not very clear when Poinsettia is required to be built and that it may be necessary to fashion a condition that will lock in the construction of Poinsettia Lane. Mr. Wojcik stated that the maximum that they would be able to construct and still meet cul-de-sac standards would be Phases I, II, III, and a portion of IV. The only portion of the property that could not have buildings on it is the portion north of Poinsettia. Commissioner Welshons asked if there are any other points in the letter from Mr. Soanes that the Commission should be considering at this meeting and are all of the points contained in the resolutions before this Commission. Mr. Grim replied that the one additional item that Mr. Soanes brought up was the connection to the Lohf subdivision, as far as access, and there is a condition of approval in there for that connection. Also, when the Kevane property becomes a complete application, then they will have to undergo environmental review which will analyze all impacts and mitigation necessary for his property. If the subdivision design requires an access from Lohf, that has been assured by this map. We are more likely to provide access and mitigate it than we are to preclude access and preserve habitat. Commissioner Welshons stated she would like to add to Resolution No. 4424, noting the hours of operation in the same way that Mr. Grim has spelled out the part about controlling the fugitive dust and maintaining equipment, etc. Mr. Grim suggested that he add one more bullet point limiting the hours of operation consistent with the code and spell out exactly what they are. Commissioner Compas stated that the testimony from the representatives of Pavoreal, and others, has convinced him that this project should be approved without the opening of Mimosa Drive to through traffic. Commissioner Heineman agreed with Commissioner Compas in that there has been compelling testimony in favor of keeping Mimosa Drive closed and the construction of an emergency gate. Chairperson Noble also agreed that Mimosa Drive should have a gate for emergency access. PLANNING COMMISSION December 2, 1998 Page 16 VOTE ON AMENDMENT: ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Heineman, and duly seconded, to approve a new condition for the construction of an emergency gate, with pedestrian access, at the end of Mimosa Drive between Pavoreal and the Lohf subdivision. Commissioner Nielsen stated that he does not see a problem with the emergency gate at this time. However, when the new subdivision is finished and the Poinsettia Lane connection is finished, he would recommend that the subject of the gate be revisited. Chairperson Noble stated that Commissioner Nielsen’s recommendation is not necessary because the Commission will have an opportunity to look at the issue again when the Final Map comes in. He then asked Mr. Wayne if that will be a problem. Mr. Wayne replied that it might be a little difficult because the Commission will not consider the final map. When you consider the Site Development Plan, you would then be making an exaction not related to a map but related to design, and that may bring up nexus issues. Right now is the appropriate time to address the Mimosa connection. Commissioner Welshons stated that she could not support the amendment to the motion because she is in favor of seeing Mimosa Drive go all the way through since she believes that all the evidence indicates that the additional traffic will be disbursed adequately without severely impacting the Pavoreal neighborhood. VOTE: 3-3 AYES: Noble, Heineman, and Compas NOES: Savary, Welshons, and Nielsen Motion failed. VOTE ON MAIN MOTION: ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Heineman, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 4424, recommending approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4425, 4426, 4427, 4428, and 4429, recommending approval of Zone Change ZC 97-06, Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 97-08, Tentative Tract Map CT 97-15, Hillside Development Permit HDP 97-16, and Coastal Development Permit CDP 97-39, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, including revised Condition No. 56, and further revised with an insert on Condition No. 52, changing Site Development Plan to Final Map and further conditioned to include the hours of operation as specified by Mr. Grim. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: 6-O Noble, Heineman, Savary, Welshons, Compas, and Nielsen None None Although all of them did not testify, approximately 63 members of the audience each submitted a “Request to Speak” form, to establish their collective opposition to the opening or the extension of Mimosa Drive into the Lohf subdivision and are listed below: - PLANNING COMMISSION December 2,1998 The Pavoreal Homeowners Association - Board of Directors: Don Holmes, Hollie Kunin, Kelly Cox, Cynthia Boone, David Kantowitc. Kelly Cox, Carol Lageder Danelle Russo Pasquale Russo Chuck & Holly Kunin Dan Ducommin Gus & Kristina Mokalis Donald Holmes Jeane Holmes Celine Mertz Nancy Fleming Daniel Fleming Eric & Beverly Fox Gregg Boone Mrs. Gregg Boone Dave Schell Lynn Pressey Stacy Gardner Steve Gardner Lenita Charhut Richard Toolson Louise Toolson Ray Yutrzenka Tony Colucci Janet Colucci Mark & Leslie Spiro David Kanowite Beverly Arhelger John Bimkos Sandy Bimkos Terry Kane Alan Burson Kathy Day Ken & Heidi Davis Fred & Tiffany Scott Dennis Dollar C. C. Taylor Jeanette Behrens Bernice Taylor Norman Behar Rita M. Calle Michael Epstein Margo Epstein Charlene Baron Paul C. Murphy Yuhon Ho Pearly Ho Kim P. Yeoh Mat-tie Fearn Gary Rush Cathy Rush 6902 Mimosa Dr., 6912 a4 6922 Y " ” 6933 Y 6936 Y 6937 ” 6943 ” " I 6946 ” 6947 Y Y I 6952 Y 6953 ” " ” 6956 ” ‘I n 6957 Y Y n 6963 Y 6967 Y Y ” 6996 ” Carlsbad n I, u ” n ” ” 4‘ ” II 64 ” n ” ” ” ” II ” ” ” ” 6903 Blue Orchid Lane, Carlsbad Y 1, 41 6907 “ 9, 6913 “ 11 I‘ n Y 6933 u II ” ” II 6937 Blue Orchid Lane, Carlsbad 6943 “ 6947 ” 6948 “ 6957 ” 6960 ” 6962 u _ Y ,I ” w 6963 u Y .I 6964 u Y 11 6974 u ” I‘ 1, 6927 Dusty Rose Place, 14 ” u n 6933 ” 6942 y 11 ,I n 91 It 1, ,I II ,I .I -1 (1 91 11 .a 4‘ II ” 1, 9, I‘ Page 17 PLANNING COMMISSION December 2. 1998 Richard T. Kent Alex Bohlmeijer Janis Libuse Martin Bennett Sue Woodworth-Bennett Jeff Rohring Susan Rohring Hector Serrano Kathleen Serrano 6946 u 6947 u 11 ,I 6952 u I‘ II 6956 u Y n 1710 Lobelia Court ” n 11 It ” I, 1‘ 11 Y ” ” Page 18 87 AGENDA ITEM + q),.::y a Mayor City Council City Manager Cily Attorney z ’ - h . < p 714 556a3. ~CTIOl4 FBX . 01 ,. 1 B \\ (yzE&/& 4-L.: y-&Lq/&.c /&+& y/-’ &II ~ D - .BA$MACIYAN-DARF+dE& INC. I f~&,~L~:/Q+L-~4& ENQINCEPINQ AN0 PUNNINO TrinrporWo~ Tfrttk Munlcip8( Trrnrlt It90 01 Alrpotl Lo00 OltvO Corm Mow Cdlfornlr 92826 (711) 667-e780 -+ /&i:‘/ e c:: &WC E ,’ LY OL- -,3 /&-&,g& _ yj~&~/&~ 'z-4 $L'"<. cl ,I5 ,=Z&&., April 20, 1988 .-;ii:-&Tt2,j,& L’ i’- (7t7 Huneaker & Asrociates .& 5 G- ‘f&l /&y&g .f 6122 Nancyridge Drive BDI REF. NO.: 000413 Guftr 101 San Diego, Ca. 92121 Attn: Dan Rehm Subject2 Traffic Analyeis for Viewpoint Tentative Tract Map in the City of Carlsbad Dear Mr. Rehmc In accordance with your request Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc. 0~11 has conducted an analysirr of two items relative to the subject project. Your direction was for uf3 to analyea the City of Carlsbad’s suggestion to consider redesigning the Viewpoint Tract to extend Mimosa Street straight through the development and eliminate the knuckle in the vicinity of lots 18 and 19. Secondly, the City requested an analysis of project traffic at the intersection of Mimoea Street and Alga Road to determine if the Viewpoint project would cause a traffic signal to be warranted. The following discusses our analysis of there two itemr. . Mimosa Drive Extention Analysis It is our understanding that the City of Carlebad reqursted the analysis of the desirability to extend Mimosa Street straight through the project oite to the northerly tract boundary rather than utilieing the knuckle in the vicinity.of lot6 18 and 19 to be arrured that future traffic problems would not be created at Figure 2 depicts the anticipated street cj rculation pat tern. This level of future development and etreet circulation * . z 714 5?6@32S PCTIFH FClX et I . CITY euaaefmo WtEN8ION Of MIMOSA 8TRf!ET m JASMACIYAN-OARNELL, INC. FIGURE 1 VIEW POINT TRACT MAP AND . - ’ . 2 714 SSO? fiCTIOH Fax I 9r’ ; * e I I I I 2 I I I s ’ - I : I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . . 2 714 SS61f2m ACTION FClX . 9-b ApI. 1”’ SIGNALS AH0 LlGHTlNG TKAF FIG MANUAL Flcuro 0.x TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ihrd l . fh~~d *VWT** O*llr Tdflc - bo N(rlr II URBAf4 . x. RURAL .~. .I - I. Minimum V*hltJrt STlldfrd Nunbe~ l I Iweb fw mwln( ttoffie .O ad apporl UOi*t Sir*** MabT, Slrrrt 1 . . . . . . . , . . - 2*Ialo,r.. . . . . . . . . . 2. lntr~rv)lirr 01 Cer9inwu* Tdlir SQ1l rlirl No* k*ilCd X Numba~rf Irr*r frtmevinqtrmffir w **ch l pp~@& . ~~~~~:.:.:*::~.~I:. 1 . . a,.* ,..,.. 1 .I m.1.. . . . . . , . . , -.. 1. GnCin*ti*r hii tfid - I(98 hi*hd N* l n* rwrm# tmtiefi*4 brl tdrrir~ rwe*mls fulfillrd &OS et m*(I) - - 1 2 Minirun Rqvil*r*nlr UDT - V&irlwb pet 4.r en *qw rlwrl (crd rl b*fb .ppnd9d AA ROAO Utb*n bnf I.000 Lb00 9,oo . 6.18 9.600 1.120 1,000 s,m dATllPlEB (4 Urb Rud 12,ooo @,a l4,rnO . 10.080 14.400 IO.afO I2,000 km 8ATlWEO ir, 2 *won1r 'mhkl*l).~ CT ** h;+,w t&w rir.,.rlrrl rp,.,.rl [en* hdi.r a+) Uhll R**d 2,oo 1,180 2,400 l.b# 1.m I.240 x200 2,20 400 IAirlrc pm &r en hi+. rlw ninw clr?mqp~mrl ,“. 4*wctinn r*+\ Uk* R r*.: 1.x0 tL0 is 200 . bY) 1,501 1,120 1,boo 1,1?0 400 2 hfrorlr *’ 1. Ld tmw mwewn** fma *v ma(*# SW**4 rr.* b* Inrlrd*d 4th *1,“.1 .11.., .elr-•r If , l*)wal* rignmf )h~ ir t* k ),dd cc h Irk.1utr mor*mm*. 2. 70 k wrd dr kr NOW IMTfRSfCtlON~ .v l ,hw Iegmciw,r ~.LIw rrtud tdlic vdurrr ,.*“.I Lo r,un4rd TbNW . (a) VOWME ON ALOA ROAO AIWMEO TO BE 8AtllCtRD 1 ~.\~A~ACIYAN-OARNF.LL, INC. 4 FIGURE 4 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRENT ., &. ---- .- .-... -4. -e-m-- , - p 714 SSQO. - nc11 on FRX . Dan Rehm Hunyker & Asrociates Apt 11 20, 1988 Page 3 The neeci for a traffic signal at Alga Road and Mimooa Street was reviewed alad it has been determined that the Viewpoint Tract and the estimated 30 or 40 additional dwelling units to the north would not create the need for a traffic signal at Alga Road and Mimoea Street. I trust thie report provides you with the necessary information for processing the Viewpoint Tract map through the City of Carlobad. Please call me if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Barmaciyan-Darnell, Inc. . y$$$$ Q&c-Q-!q , P.E. TTMap.Rpt/P26C : & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & TRAFFIC ENGINEERING +4 LytJLd4~, ///a 7-i: J cL&g/q p&y#‘p45’ pJ --- September 18, 1997 rc ’ Mr. Scot Sandstrom Western Pacific Housing 2385 Camino Vida Roble Suite 107 Carlsbad, CA 92009 D&A Ref. No: 970906 Subject: Traffic Analysis for Development of 76 Single Family Housing Units Dear Mr. Sandstrom: In accordance with your authorization, we have prepared this letter report addressing the cumulative impact ‘of developing the proposed 76 single family project. Figure 1 is a vicinity map depicting the project location. Figure 2 presents the project’s site plan. ZONE 21 LOCAL FACILITIES PLAN The project is located within the City of Carlsbad Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 21. The Circulation Element of Zone 21 identifies impacted roadways and intersections to be analyzed in conjunction with proposed development of a project. The impacted roadways and intersections are: Roadways 1. El Camino Real Camino Vida Roble to Poinsettia Poinsettia to Alga Road 2. Poinsettia Lane El Camino Real to Alga Road Alga Road to Batiquitos Drive Batiquitos Drive to Paseo de1 None Paseo de1 None to I-5 3. AIga Road Poinsettia Lane to Batiquitos Drive Batiquitos Drive to El Camino Real 1202 KETTNER BLVD l SUITE 6200 l SAN DIEGO, CA 92’01 . PHONE: 619-233-9373 3 HUGHES AVENUE l SUITE 405 l IRVINE, CA 927: 6 l PHONE: 714-766-2590 FAX: 61 g-233-4034 - Mr. Scot Sandstrom Western Pacific Housing September 18, 1997 Page 2 Intersections Poinsettia Lane at: I-5 Southbound Offramp I-5 Northbound Offramp Paseo de1 None Batiquitos Drive Alga Road at: Poinsettia Lane Batiquitos Drive El Camino Real at: Alga Road Poinsettia Lane The majority of these roadways and intersections are analyzed annually by the City of Carlsbad. The latest analysis dated December 12, 1996 researched the existing Level of Service for roadways and intersections. Aviara Parkway was not examined, however we have assembled existing traffic volume data and corresponding levels of service. Table 1 summarizes the existing roadways daily traffic volume and peak LOS. Review of Table 1 shows that each of the roadways presently operate at LOS A. TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF EXISTING ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE Roadway Segment I Average Daily I Peak LOS Traffic El Camino Real b Camino Vida Roble to Poinsenia l Poinsettia to Alga Road Poinsettia Lane b Batiquitos Drive to Paseo de1 Sorte b Paseo de1 Norte to I-5 Aviara Parkway b West of El Camino Real 25,150 A 25,150 A 15,105 A 16,100 A - - Mr. Scot Sandstrom Western Pacific Housing September 18, 1997 Page 3 The 1996 Traffic Monitoring Program has analyzed several of the Zone 21 impacted intersections. Table 2 presents the results of these analyses. Review of Table 2 shows that each intersection is operating at LOS C or better and in most cases they are operating at LOS A. /I TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE Intersection Poinsettia Lane at: F I-5 Southbound Offramp b I-5 Northbound Offramp b Paseo de1 Norte b Batiquitos Drive El Camino Real at: b Aviara Parkway b Camino Vida Roble II ’ unsignalized intersection r AM r PM II ICU 0.38 0.39 0.44 A A Bs 0.50 A 0.41 A 0.40 t’ 0.49 A 0.63 B 0.53 _ A 0.54 A LOS ICU I LOS II PROJECT TRAFFIC Trio Generation Rates Trip generation potential for the proposed project is based on daily and peak hour trip generation rates published by SANDAG. Utilizing these rates and the proposed project characteristics, estimates of daily and peak hour traffic volumes can be calculated. Table 3 summarizes the trip generation rates and volumes for the proposed project. Table 3 shows that the proposed project will generate a total of 760 average daily trips with 61 trips in the AM peak hour and 76 in the PM peak hour. Mr. Scot Sandstrom Western Pacific Housing September 18, 1997 Page 4 i TABLE 3 TRIP GENERATION RATES & CALCULATIONS Trip Generation Rates Land Use Single Family Dwelling Units Intensity 76 DU Daily Trip Generation Pate 10 Trips/ Dwelling Unit Trip Generation AM Peak Hour Percentage of Daily (1n:Out) 8% (3:7) PM Peak Hour Percentage of Daily (1n:Out) 10% (7:3) Land Use Single Family Dwelling Units Total Daily Trips 760 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Trips (In:Out) Trips (1n:Out) 61 (18:43) 76 (43:23) TRIP DISTRIBUTION Project trip distribution is based on directional distribution patterns presented in the Zone 21 Local Facilities Management Plan. The distribution patterns are presented in Table 4. Also presented in Table 4 is the resulting project distribution. f I Figure 3 presents the distribution of project related daily, AM and PM traffic. PROJECT IMPACTS The impacts of adding 760 daily vehicles to the surrounding street system is considered insignificant when compared to the existing level of service. Table 5 has been prepared showing existing LOS, project traffic and existing plus project LOS. Review of Table 5 shows that each roadway will continue to operate at LOS A with the addition of the project. . Mr. Scot Sandstrom Western Pacific Hodsing September 18, 1997 Page 5 TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION Roadway Segment El Camino Reai: b Dove to Palomar Airport Rd b Dove to Aviara Pkwy b south of Aviara Pkwy Aviara Parkway: b east of El Camino Real b west of El Camino Real Poinsettia Lane: b west of Alga Road b east of Paseo De1 None b east of I-5 b west of I-5 Interstate 5: b north of Poinsettia Ln b south of Poinsettia Ln Dove Street: b Project to El Camino Real Project Trip Percentage 15% 85% 10% 5% 70% 70% 70% 68% 3% 30% 35% 100% Project Traffic Daily AM Peak PM Peak 114 9 11 646 52 65 76 6 8 38 3 4 532 43 53 532 43 53 532 43 53 517 41 52 23 2 2 228 18 23 266 21 27 760 61 * 76 - - . Mr. Scot Sandstrom Western Pacific Housing September 18, 1997 Page 6 TABLE 5 SUMMARY OF ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE Roadway Segment El Camino Real: b Camino Vida Roble to Poinsettia Ln (Future) b Poinsettia Ln to Aviara Poinsettia Lane: p Batiquitos Dr to Paseo de1 None Aviara Parkway: w west of El Camino Real ADT = Average Daily Traffic LOS = Level of Service b Existing Project Existing Plus Condition Traffic Project Condition ADT LOS ADT ADT LOS 25,150 A 114 25,264 A 25,150 A 646 25,796 A 15,105 A 532 15,637 A 16.100 A 532 16,632 A CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PLAN Any project which generates 2,400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak hour trips will be subject to enhanced CEQA review. The proposed project will generate 760 daily and 63 AM peak and 76 PM peak vehicles. This level of traffic generation is less than the CMP thresholds, therefore, enhanced CEQA review is not required. TRAFFIC SIGNAL ANALYSIS The project proposes a four way intersection with Poinsettia Lane approximately 950 feet west of El Cvnino Real. Examination of this intersection for traffic signal control warrants concluded that the 76 single family units would not warrant a traffic signal. The minimum daily volume on the side street to warrant a signal is 850 daily vehicles. The proposed project would have a maximum of 345 vehicles entering the intersection from the south and 35 vehicles entering from the north. - Mr. Scot Sandstrom Western Pacific Housing September 18, 1997 Page 7 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS The proposed development of 76 single family dwelling units will generate 760 daily and 63 AM peak and 76 PM peak hour trips. The existing impacted roadways and intersections within Zone 21 Local Facilities Management Plan ire presently operating at acceptable levels of service. The proposed project does not exceed CMP thresholds requiring enhanced CEQA review. The need for traffic signal control at the project’s intersection with Poinsettia Lane (future) was analyzed and determined to not warrant a traffc signal. Please call me if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, DARNELL & ASSOCIATES, INC. (u2cL-d Bill E. Darnell, P.E. BED/ld/bh 0906SAND.LTR/97-09 \ ‘\ ‘. \ Darnell & ASSOCIATES, INC. FIGURE 2 SITE PLAN I:.# .:> .-> C-J L? ii. IL . . i cr. t- -\ ‘- I ;7 I- 111 c:, I-L 7. _.I l‘\ PROJECT SITE .;* :; :i -9 Ill Darnell k ASSOCIATES, INC. LEGEND: XXX/YYY/ZZZ - DAILY/AM/PM TRAFFIC - FIGURE 3 PROJECT RELATED DAILY / AM / PM TRAFFIC i -l / L.? 5 c; i. !-I Lb *1 n- 7 ‘. :I 1 r- ;_- :.: L,: -7 = ,3 L- . - - PLANNING COMMISSION December 2. 1998 Page 8 Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4433 and 4434 approving CT 98-08 and - CP 98-06, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: 6-O Noble, Heineman, Savary, Welshons, Compas, and Nielsen None None Chairperson Noble declared a recess at 650 p.m. The Commission reconvened at 7:02 p.m. with 6 members present and Commissioner Monroy absent. 7. z 7- ; L PA T N - Request for a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting Program, Zone Change, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit to change the zoning from Limited Control (L-C) to One Family Residential with a Qualified Development Overlay (R-1-7,500-Q), and to subdivide and grade for 73 single- family lots with three open space lots on 36.7 acres generally located west of El Camino Real, between Cassia Road and Dove Lane in Local Facilities Management Zone 21. Chairperson Noble announced that the Commission’s action on this item 1s not final and will be forwarded to the City Council for its consideration. Assistant Planning Director, Gary Wayne, introduced this item and stated that the staff report would be given by Associate Planner, Michael Grim. Chairperson Noble stated that the applicant has the right to be heard by a full Commission and asked the applicant if he was willing to have this item continue with the six Commissioners present. The applicant agreed to have this item heard by the six Commissioners present. Project Planner, Michael Grim, presented the staff report and described the project, using overhead projections and exhibits. This item is described as a request for a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Zone Change, Tentative Tract Map, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Hillside Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit for a single famity subdivision located in Zone 21. The site is located directly north and adjacent to the Pavoreal subdivision. To the southeast is the existing Plaza Paseo Real shopping center and to the west is undeveloped property, some of which is agriculture and some is not, and the property to the north is also undeveloped. The two small rectangular lots in the northwest corner of the site are not included in this proposal but they each contain a single family home which had to be considered with regard to access and other potential impacts. The Zone Change and LCPA would change the zoning of the property from Limited Control to R- 1-7,500-Q, which is consistent with the existing RLM and RM General Plan designations. The Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit would allow the actual subdivision and grading for the 73 units, 76 lot development. The Mitigated Negative Declaration defines the project’s required environmental mitigation in the areas of fugitive dust control, biological preservation, and paieontological monitoring. Using the site plan, Mr. Grim illustrated the project circulation and access point to adjacent properties, grading and slopes, biological preservation areas, proposed lot sizes and Coastal Zone ordinance compliance. Commissioner Compas asked if there is a connection between the property immediately west of the site and Mimosa Drive. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION December 2, 1998 Page 9 Mr. Grim replied that because the street turns and will have a different name, it is unlikely that there will be a connection, except that the developer is going to make an irrevocaole offer of dedication to allow the owners of the adjoining property access to their property. Commissioner Welshons asked if the developer will 38 required to bring Poinsettia Lane the rest of the way to El Camino Real. Mr. Grim replied that they are required to complete the roadway within the subdivision. He added that there is a city standard which says there can be only so many homes on a cul-de-sac street and he pointed out a section that will definitely need a connection to Poinsettia Lane. Mr. Grim also pointed out that there is a condition requiring the developer to complete that connection prior to the issuance of any building permits. Referring to the Zone 21 Local Facilities Management Plan, where it is stated “No other special conditions exist in the zone plan and all required facilities would be constructed prior to, or concurrent with need”, Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Grim to define the criteria for “need”. Mr. Grim replied that it is cul-de-sac policy and with regard to Poinsettia Lane, this only applies to one area, as he indicated on the map. Mr. Grim pointed out that the developer can build the first few phases without needing the Poinsettia Lane connection. Commissioner Welshons asked if there will be signals at the intersections of Mimosa Drive and Poinsettia Lane and also at Cassia. Principal Engineer, Bob Wojcik, replied that there will most likely be signals at those intersection. Regarding the existing private residences and the proposed driveways, Commissioner Welshons asked how close one of the driveways is to El Camino Real. Mr. Grim replied that is will probably be between 150 feet to 200 feet. Commissioner Welshons asked if it is typical to have a driveway like that. Mr. Grim replied that it is not typical and is a classic case of a partially developed city where there is a single family homeowner with frontage on a dedicated road and his right to have free access to his property. Commissioner Welshons asked if there will be median. Mr. Grim replied that there will be a median and the access will be for right in and right out only. Commissioner Welshons asked where the small sliver of land that is zoned RM is located. Mr. Grim indicated its location on the site plan. Mr. Grim replied that staff is not concerned about &y land use for that small sliver of land because, as proposed, it will be developed as slopes for the development and put into open space and maintained by the homeowners association. Referring to Reso!ution No. 4424, under Condition No. 1, Commissioner Welsbons asked if it is typical to have the means of mitigation itemized as they are in this resolution. Mr. Grim replied that these are conditions taken from a Master Environmental Impact Report for the 1994 General Plan update, the requirements for virtually any grading operation in Carlsbad. Because of the MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION December 2, 1998 proximity of the existing homes, Mr. Grim explained that he wanted to put the mitigation measures so that the City could actually say that there could potentially be environmental impacts rather than just a nuisance. Commissioner Welshons asked if it would be appropriate, if the rest of the Commlssioners agree, to specify the hours of operations so it is clear when grading and construction can occur. Mr. Grim stated that there would be no problem with specifying days and hours of operation and could be added to the condition. Commissloner Welshons asked Mr. Grim to state the actual hours and days during which grading and construction will be allowed. Mr. Grim replied as follows: 7:00 a.m. to sundown, Monday through Fridays, 8:00 a.m. to sundown on Saturdays and never on Sundays and specific holidays. Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Grim to explain why the Housing Commission decided to accept the applicant’s request to purchase affordable unit credits with Villa Loma versus building affordable units on- site. Mr. Grim responded by saying that he is not aware of the exact reason and suggested that perhaps the developer can answer that question. Commissioner Welshons asked if it is typical in a development of this size, with 73 dwelling units, to provide affordable housing on-site. Mr. Grim replied that this is sometimes done with second dwelling units. While they meet the City’s inclusionary requirement, second dwelling units are less likely to satisfy as affordable units mandated by the state. For clarification, Commissioner Compas asked if the developer will, in fact, be required to complete Poinsettia Lane up to El Camino Real. Mr. Grim replied affirmatively. Referring to page 2 of the memorandum from staff, Mr. Wayne stated the following correction: In the last paragraph, “prior to the approval of a Site Development Plan” should read “prior to the approval of the Final Map”. Jack Henthom, 5375 Avenida Encinas, Suite D, Carlsbad, representing the applicant, stated they are quite happy with the results of their efforts He stated that he realizes there is an outstanding issue but believes they are still in compliance with city standards. Mr. Henthom urged the Commission to accept the recommendations by staff, including all of the revisions, and approve this application. Chairperson Noble opened Public Testimony and offered the invitation to speak. Kelly Cox, 6902 Mimosa Drive, Carlsbad, a resident of the Pavoreal subdivision immediately adjacent to this project, stated that he is a member of a committee of Pavoreal residents whose sole objective has been to discourage the opening of Mimosa Drive should the Lohf subdivision ever be developed. He further stated that, in talks with !he developer, the developer has stated that they would rather not extend Mimosa Drive into the new subdivision. The developers pointed out that the City, however, is requiring Mimosa Drive to be opened. Mr. Cox indicated that his committee has been trying to find out what the reasons are for this street to be opened to through traffic. In talks with staff, Mr. Cox stated that he was told that traffic studies showed that by opening Mimosa Drive, there will actually be less traffic than there MlNUTF,S -. - PLANNING COMMISSION December 2, 1998 Page 11 is today, which he feels is quite unlikely if not near impossible. He pointen, out that some members of this committee have had’years of experience In land planning and development and traffic analysis. Mr. Cox stated that the reports they have received show that Mimosa Drive was not included in the City’s traffic analysis. A subsequent traffic analysis by the developer, Mr. Cox contmLec, showed an actual increase in traffic which, as the committee’s traffic engineer will show, exceeds the C:ty’s safety standards. Mr, Cox further stated that the second reason given by staff is convenience. W?en asked, “whose convenience”, the reply was, “for yours”. Mr. Cox stated that they have submitted pe:itlons, signed by virtually every resident of Pavoreal, adamamy opposing the extension of Mimosa DnJe into the new subdivision. He further stated that he was told nat the City of Carlsbad follows an inflexro e standard that requires at least two accesses into every community for emergency vehicles. Mr. Cox tnen stated that this did not sound right to him for two reasons; 1) Pavoreal was approved with only a sing.e access into the neighborhood; and, 2) There are numerous communities within the City that have a srrg!e access point. He suggested that the City study each community, on a case by case basis, and not foliow some inflexible rule. He also stated that he was told that the City likes to make continuous connections, wherever they can, but does not take into account the harm tnan can be done to communities. Mr. Cox suggested that there are no compelling reasons for opening Mimosa Drive to through traffic between Pavoreal and the new subdivision and that it is common knowlecge that if you increase traffic in a new community, the residents will be subjected to the possibility of safety risks. He also pointed out that the streets in Pavoreal are very wide and single loaded and that emergency vehicles would have no difficulty in getting through, in either direction. Mr. Cox stated that tnere have been no emergencies in Pavorea! in the seven years it has been in existence. Jim Fedderhart, 2845 Nimitz Boulevard, San Diego, a traffic engineer for 49 years, stated that the original report was dated 5-12-98 and showed Dove Lane as a single connection. It did not show either of the Poinsettia connections nor did it have a connection into Mimosa Drive. He pointed out that all of the 730 ADT from the 73 units in the Lohf subdivision, had to go out Dove and then mostly to the south on El Camino Real. He further pointed out that the Traffic Engineer analyzed all of the links and all of the intersections that were affected by the Lohf project and found that there would be LOS “A” on all the links on El Camino Real and Aviara Parkway. Mr. Fedderhart stated that if the Planning Commission and the City does not connect Mimosa Drive, there will not be a capacity problem because the traffic study shows that LOS “A” will ensue, in all of the surrounding circulation elements. Mr. Fedderhart stated that the residents of Pavoreal have no objection to some type of emergency access where Mimosa meets the new project site, which would provide the required second access. Referring to the June 15, 1998 traffic report, Mr. Fedderhart pointed out that the report was a short-term analysis which still did not assume that tnere would be any Poinsettia connections. In that report, Mr. Fedderhart continued, it is stated that there would be 1411 ADT on Mimosa Drive as it approaches Aviara Parkway. He then pointed out that on local streets, the City has a policy of 1200 ADT being the maximum allowable. He also pointed out that initially, the residents of Pavoreal were wholly in favor of the Lohf project since none of the designs showed the opening of Mimosa Drive. Based on his experience, Mr. Fedderhart stated that the downhill configuration of Mimosd Drive will encourage speeders and the next thing to happen will be requests for speed bumps and four-way stops to slow down the traffic. Mr. Fedderhart concluded by again stating that there is not a capacity problem and there is a way for emergency vehicles to access Pavoreal and urged the Commission to allow Mimosa Drive to remain unchanged, and that Engineering Condition No. 520, Resolution No. 4427, should be omitted. Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Fedderhart if he considered that some of the residents might wish to take Mimosa to Poinsettia Parkway rather than exit via Aviara Parkway. Mr. Fedderhart replied that he did not take that into consideration bemuse he has been told that the residents of Pavoreal have been and still are quite content with having to exit the community via Aviara Parkway and they have no desire to use Mimosa Drive to access Poinsettia Lane. MINUTES - . PLANNING COMMISSION December 2,1998 Page 12 Commissioner Heineman asked Mr. Fedderhart if he agrees that the whole equation will change when Poinsettia Lane is included in the Lohf project. Mr. Fedderhart replied that it will change as far as the Lohf project is concerned. Commissioner Compas asked Mr. Fedderhart if he knows of any reason why it would be detrimental to not extend Mimosa Drive. Mr. Fedderhart replied that he could think of no such reason. Dennis Stoller, 6960 Blue Orchid Lane, Carlsbad, presented overhead projections showing three examples of several communities that have recently been approved with only one access point. Those communities are: Sanderling, Morea, and Sea Cliff. Others mentioned but not shown in the projections are Aldea and Viagio. He too pointed out that Pavoreal does not have narrow streets. They are three lanes wide and provide ample ingress and egress for everyone, including emergency vehicles. Mr. Stoller stated that regardless of the City wanting multiple access points, the residents of Pavoreal do not need more than a single access point for safety. Janis Libuse, a resident of Pavoreal, by means of overhead projections, gave examples of a few local roads that have been approved for gated emergency access as a result of new developments being built on adjacent lands. The examples are Daisy Avenue in Spinnaker Hills, Whimble Court in Sandpiper, Paseo Alisio in Greystone, and El Bosque at Ranch0 Ponderosa. Also shown were Avenida La Posta in Encinitas, Village View, and Orchardwood as examples of emergency access gates tha! have been opened after many years and the resulting half-street barriers and speed bumps. Ms. Libuse stated that the community of Pavoreal have no objection to an emergency gate at the top of Mimosa Drive and urged the Commission to approve the Lohf project without opening Mimosa Drive to through traffic. David Lee Soanes, 6140 Portobelo Court, San Diego, project landscape architect for Robert Kevane, owner of the property directly west of the Lohf property, stated that he and his client are in full support of the development of the Lohf property, pending the resolution of a couple of minor issues. He further stated that when the Kevane property access road(s) are complete, they will relieve some of the perceived traffic problems within the Lohf subdivision. For the record, Mr. Soanes stated that the hydrology report is incorrect, as it was a report on land located many mile away. He stated that he has been assured by staff that the correct hydrology will be used in this project. The major issue remaining, he continued, is biology. It is Mr. Soanes contention that, after touring the site(s) and talking with both their biologist and Lohf’s, it has been determined that the sensitive Manzanita in the City’s exhibit, does not exist and the documents should be changed to reflect that. Also, he and his biologist are contesting that the areas indicated as having Southern Maritime Chapparal have, in fact, Shimmy Chapparal. He pointed out that most biologists would agree that there is only one place in Southern California and that place is at the Torrey Pines Reserve on the slopes above Black’s Beach. He also pointed out that three principal factors are required for the existence of Southern Maritime Chapparal and they are; 1) sandstone soils; 2) a fog bank; and, 3) four of eight plant indicators. Given -the absence of sandstone soils and a fog bank on this property, Mr. Soanes stated that Southern Maritime Chapparal cannot and therefore does not exist on this property. Aside from the previously mentioned issues, Mr. Soanaa stated that they are totally in favor of the Lohf subdivision. Commissioner Compas asked if he or his client have a preference as to whether Mimosa Drive remains ClOS0d. In response, Mr. Soanes stated that it does not make any dtfferenca to either of them. Marian Stiener, 6675 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, owner of an adjacent property, stated that she is wholeheartedly in favor of this project. However, after studying the map from the Engineering Department, she stated that she found that there has been an easement drawn through her property. She l PLANNING COMMISSION December 2, 1998 Page 13 further stated that she has not granted, and has no intention of granting such an easement. Ms. Stiener also stated that she is unaware of any other accesses they may or may not have, but, either way it is not her problem. She also indicated that she would like to see both the housing and Poinsettia Lane developed at the same time so as to minimize the dust, etc. Greg Saska, 6721 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, owner and resident of the smaller of two rectangular shaped lots in the northeast corner of the map, stated that after seeing the Parcel Map regarding the final section of the Poinsettia Lane connection to El Camino Real, he and his mother (Mrs. lsabelle Saska) would accept the plan provided the sewer, water, utilities, and their entry access are going to be adequate. In this case, he further stated that they are prepared to negotiate with the City and the developer, regarding the partial taking of their property so long as the above mentioned items are satisfactorily resolved. In addition, he agreed with Ms. Stiener, in that the construction of housing and Poinsettia Lane should occur at the same time to minimize the dirt and inconvenience. Seeing no one,else wishing to testify, Chairperson Noble closed Public Testimony. Scott Sandstrom, Western Pacific Housing, 238 Camino Vida Roble, Carlsbad, stated that their original submittal did not include a connection to Mimosa Drive, but did show it as a secondary emergency access. For that reason, he continued, is why their original traffic report did not include Mimosa Drive. Mr. Sandstrom further stated that as they proceeded through the process, staff informed them that in order to meet City standards, they would have to show that connection. Regarding the hydrology issue, Mr. Sandstrom stated that the report has been corrected and a second report is on file with the City. Regarding the biology referred to as Southern Maritime Chapparal, Mr. Sandstrom stated that the City’s Habitat Management Plan show several hundreds of acres of Southern Maritime Chapparal within the City. He added that they have consulted with the California Department of Fish and Game and the Department of Fish and Wildlife and they have concurred with their biology report and all of the identifications of all vegetatbn species on the project. Regarding Ms. Stiener’s easement, Mr. Sandstrom stated that she is correct that there has been an easement included in the map. Unfortunately, he continued, there was an error on the landscape conceptual plan that showed one of the earlier potential easement accesses of a driveway from the Saska’s across her property. For the record, Mr. Sandstrom stated that that easement is not shown on the Tentative Map and they are not intending to have an easement across her property for the Saska’s driveway. Commissioner Compas asked Mr. Sandstrom if it makes a difference to the project if Mimosa Drive remains closed except for emergency access. Mr. Sandstrom replied that as their original submittal indicated, there was no connection indicated and the developer would not object to Mimosa Drive remaining closed except for emergency access. Commissioner Welshons asked why they asked to purchase affordable unit credits at Villa Loma instead of building affordable housing on-site. Mr. Sandstrom replied that after lengthy discussions, it was determined that they would need eleven units. The Housing Commission found that there is a threshold of about 35 units that make a viable project with a non-profit organization, and stated with a unanimous vote that one of the compelling reasons they allowed Lohf to buy into Villa Loma is the project’s proximity to Villa Loma. They felt that to have a small, secondary project so close would be somewhat redundant when there are available units to be purchased in Villa Loma. Chairperson Noble, also a member of the Housing Commission, added that very shortly there will be a guideline indicating that a project of 25 affordable units or less would not be profitable and one of the purposes of Villa Loma was to allow developers to buy into it instead of building such small affordable projects. MINUTES - A PLANNING COMMISSION . December 2, 1998 Page 14 Mr. Grim stated that after reviewing the open space and the existing habitat, a report was sent to the Wildlife agencies who are the experts. They reviewed the report during the Negative Declaration circulation and they also did site visits and are in full agreement with the report. Mr. Wojcik pointed out that Mr. Fedderhart is correct in that without the connection to Poinsettia Lane, there would be 1400 ADT in the area and 1200 ADT is the city standard for a local street. However, Mimosa is a single-loaded street and therefore has a larger capacity than a normal local street. Also, it would be a temporary situation because once Poinsettia Lane is completed, traffic will be reduced on Mimosa Lane. Also, because traffic will be split in Pavoreal, there will be “x” number of ADT going in two directions and only in the area of the five single-loaded homes, will the standards be violated. Also, the report assumed that 51 units would be constructed and occupied prior to Poinsettia Lane being completed and as can be seen in the conditions of approval, the City is requiring that the developer provide for the construction of Poinsettia Lane prior to the Final Map, which will be well in advance of any occupancy in the area that would load traffic onto Mimosa Drive. Mr. Wojcik further pointed out that the subdivisions shown in Ms. Libuse’s presentation have double-wide entries which is allowed under the cul-de-sac standard to count for 2 ways in and 2 ways out because the double-wide entry allows for four lanes of traffic. On Daisy Lane and El Bosque, Mr. Wojcik stated that City Council decided to differ with staff and it was their decisions to gate off those two streets. Some of the other projects in Ms. Libuse’s presentation were approved in the 70’s and 80’s, prior to the standard for cul-de-sacs. Commissioner Compas asked Mr. Wojcik what bad thing would happen if the Planning Commission decided to keep Mimosa Drive closed, except as an emergency access. Mr. Wojcik replied that he could not think of a bad action resulting from the continued closure of Mimosa Drive except for emergency access. Commissioner Compas also asked Mr. Wojcik if staff has not been supportive of keeping Mimosa closed because of the rules. Mr. Wojcik replied that not only because of the standards but it is also good planning practice to have as many streets as possible, connected, for all types of traffic. Commissioner Heineman stated that there seems to be a very compelling case to keep Mimosa Drive closed except for emergency access, especially since staff has already assured that Poinsettia Lane will be completed before any houses are occupied. He then asked Mr. Wojcik if he could think of a particularly tough situation that might arise from having only an emergency gate. Mr. Wojcik replied that without that connection, and as a cul-de-sac, it violates the cul-de-sac standard. Pavoreal was approved in the 1980’s, before there was that standard, and it was also approved with the full intention of Mimosa connecting through for the second access, not only for emergency vehicles but for general neighbo&ood traffic. Commissioner Helneman asked if that regulation would be satisfied with an emergency gate. Mr. Wojcik replied that it would but judging from City Council’s reaction to a similar situation on the Terraces at Sunny Creek project, he doubts the Council will approve. In calculating the ADT and figuring the traffic and circulation for both Pavoreal and the Lohf project, Commissioner Welshons asked how circulation will be impacted on Aviara Parkway if traffic is disbursed in three different directions. Mr. Wojcik replied that there would be less traffic using Mimosa with the connection in place because there will be traffic from Pavoreal going up to use Poinsettia to go west, rather than going south to use Aviara Parkway. , - PLANNING COMMISSION December 2, 1998 Page 15 Commissioner Welshcns asked how soon the Poinsettia connection to the Nest will be completed, Mr. Wojcik replied that there is one other vacant property that has no deve’ooment applications on file and the development of the road occurs when there is development of the prooerty. For that reason there is no way to tell how long it will be before the road is completed. In order to ensure that the road completion is not a long term problem, the City has formed Bridge and Thoroughfare District #2 and is collecting fees from all of the developers in that area to pay for the completion of Poinsetlla Lane. Commissioner Welshons asked if there is a nexus to stipulating that this oroject cannot move forward or can only partially move forward without that connection to the west and the east. Mr. Wojcik replied that he does not believe there would be a nexus for the City to condition either additional improvements or stopping development. Chairperson Noble asked Mr. Wojcik to address Mr. Saska’s question regarding the improvements at his property. Mr. Wojcik replied that all of the utilities will be put in with the street improvements of the subdivision. He added that there is also a condition to stub out the utilities to adjacent properties. Mr. Wayne stated that it is not very clear when Poinsettia is required to be built and that it may be necessary to fashion a condition that will lock in the construction of Poinsettia Lane. Mr. Wojcik stated that the maximum that they would be able to construct and still meet cul-de-sac standards would be Phases I, II, III, and a portion of IV. The only portion of the property that could not have buildings on it is the portion north of Poinsettia. Commissioner Welshons asked if there are any other points in the letter from Mr, Soanes that the Commission should be considering at this meeting and are all of the points contained in the resolutions before this Commission. Mr. Grim replied that the one additional item that Mr. Soanes brought up was the connection to the Lohf subdivision, as far as access, and there is a condition of approval in there for that connection. Also, when the Kevane property becomes a complete application, then they will have to undergo environmental review which will analyze all impacts and mitigation necessary for his property. If the subdivision design requires an access from Lohf, that has been assured by this map. We are more likely to provide access and mitigate it than we are to preclude access and preserve habitat. Commissioner Welshons stated she would like to add to Resolution No. 4424, noting the hours of operation in the same way that Mr. Grim has spelled out the part about controlling the fugitive dust and maintaining equipment, etc. Mr. Grim suggested that he add one more bullet point limiting the hours of operation consistent with the code and spell out exactly what they are. Commissioner Compas stated that the testimony from the representatives of Pavoreal, and others, has convinced him that this project should be approved without the opening of Mimosa Drive to through traffic. Commissioner Heineman agreed with Commissioner Compas in that there has been compelling testimony in favor of keeping Mimosa Drive closed and the construction of an emergency gate. Chairperson Noble also agreed that Mimosa Drive should have a gate for emergency access. A PLANNING COMMISSION December 2, 1998 Page 16 VOTE ON AMENDMENT: _ ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Heineman, and duly seconded, to approve a new condition for the construction of an emergency gate, with pedestrian access, at the end of Mimosa Drive between Pavoreal and the Lohf subdivision. Commissioner Nielsen stated that he does not see a problem with the emergency gate at this time. However, when the new subdivision is finished and the Poinsettia Lane connection IS finished, he would recommend that the subject of the gate be revisited. Chairperson Noble stated that Commissioner Nielsen’s recommendation is not necessary because the Commission will have an opportunity to look at the issue again when the Final Map comes in. He then asked Mr. Wayne if that will be a problem. Mr. Wayne replied that it might be a little difficult because the Commissron will not consider the final map. When you consider the Site Development Plan, you would then be making an exaction not related to a map but related to design, and that may bring up nexus issues. Right now is the appropriate time to address the Mimosa connection. Commissioner Welshons stated that she could not support the amendment to the motion because she is in favor of seeing Mimosa Drive go all the way through since she believes that all the evidence indicates that the additional traffic will be disbursed adequately without severely impacting the Pavoreal neighborhood. VOTE: 3-3 AYES: Noble, Heineman, and Compas NOES: Savary, Welshons, and Nielsen Motion failed. VOTE ON MAIN MOTION: ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Heineman, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 4424, recommending approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4425, 4426, 4427, 4428, and 4429, recommending approval of Zone Change ZC 97-06, Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 97-08. Tentative Tract Map CT 97-15, Hillside Development Permit HOP 97-16, and Coastal Development Permit CDP 97-39, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, including revised Condition No. 56. and further revised with an insert on Condition No. 52, changing Site Development Plan to Final Map and further conditioned to include the hours of operation as specified by Mr. Grim. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: 6-O Noble, Heineman, Savar-y, Welshons, Compas, and Nielsen None None Although all of them did not testify, approximately 63 members of the audience each submitted a “Request to Speak” form, to establish their collective opposition to the opening or the extension of Mimosa Drive into the Lohf subdivision and are listed below: h - PLANNING COMMISSION December 2, 1998 The Pavoreal Homeowners Association - Board of Directors: Don Holmes; Hollie Kunin, Kelly Cox, Cynthia Boone, David Kantowitc. Kelly Cox, 6902 Mimosa Dr., Carlsbad Carol Lageder Danelle Russo Pasquale Russo Chuck 8 Holly Kunin Dan Ducommin Gus & Kristina Mokalis Donald Holmes Jeane Holmes Celine Mertz Nancy Fleming Daniel Fleming Eric & Beverly Fox Gregg Boone Mrs. Gregg Boone Dave Schell Lynn Pressey Stacy Gardner Steve Gardner Lenita Charhut Richard Toolson Louise Toolson Ray Yutrzenka Tony Colucci Janet Colucci Mark & Leslie Spiro David Kanowite Beverly Arhelger John Bimkos Sandy Bimkos Terry Kane Alan Burson Kathy Day Ken 8 Heidi Davis Fred & Tiffany Scott Dennis Dollar C. C. Taylor Jeanette Behrens Bemice Taylor Norman Bet-tar Rita M. Calle Michael Epstein Margo Epstein Chartene Baron Paul C. Murphy Yuhon Ho Pearly Ho Kim P. Yeoh Martie Fearn Gary Rush Cathy Rush 6912 6922 Y 6933 6936 6937 6943 II 6946 6947 ” 6952 6953 Y 6956 1‘ 6957 Y 6963 6967 Y 6996 ” II ” “ ” ” 1. I, II I‘ II ” ” ” 11 1, ” ” Y Y I ” I. 1, ‘I II 9, 1, I. I. 1, I Y n n Y ,, IS n Y n n Y n 6903 Blue Orchid Lane, Carlsbad II n Y 6907 ” n 6913 ” n Y n Y 6933 ” ” Y I Y 6937 Blue Orchid Lane, Carlsbad 6943 ” n 6947 - n 6946 aa ” 6957 y I 6960 ” I 6962 aa n Y I Y Y II Y 6963 ” ” Y I Y 6984 ” n ” I Y 6974 ,a ” Y I Y 6927 Dusty Rose Place, ” 1‘ n ” ” I Y 6933 u n 6942 y * Y I Y . Page 17 MINUTES L PLANNING COMMISSION December 2, 1998 Richard T. Kent Alex Bohlmeijer Janis Libuse Martin Bennett Sue Woodworth-Bennett Jeff Rohring Susan Rohring Hector Serrano Kathleen Serrano 6946 “ 6947 “ I‘ II 6952 ” I‘ 11 6956 * .1 ,I 1710 Lobelia Court ” 8. Page 18 ” ,* I‘ ” $1 9, ‘4 4, ” PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: None PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMENTS: Assistant Planning Director, Gary Wayne, stated that at their next meeting the City Council will be addressing the subject of appointments to the Planning Commission. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS: None ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, the Regular meeting of the Planning Commission of December 2, 1998, was adjourned at 8:46 p.m. $zjijT$< Assistant Plannini Director MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRITTEN MINUTES ARE APPROVED. - Honorable Mayor Bud Lewis Councihnember Rarnona Finnila Councihnember Matt Hall Councihnember Ann Kulchin Councilmember Julie Nygaard 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Pavoreal Homeowner’s Association c/o Don Holmes, President 4 6943 Mimosa D&@DA ClEM #- Carlsbad, CA 92009 February 4, 1999 Mklpr City COUllCil City MZUWW City AttotneY RE: Lohf Subdivision - Request for” Emergency Access Gate” Only at North Terminus of Mimosa Drive in the “Pavoreal” Community We want to thank each of you for meeting with us prior to the February 9, 1999 City Council meeting regarding the Lohf Development and the proposed extension of Mimosa Drive. We hope that you have had an opportunity to visit our community and drive Mimosa Drive from top to bottom. During our meetings, we became aware of the need to correct mis-stated facts and clarify information regarding the application of City Planning and Engineering Standards and “Policies” to the Pavoreal development. Also, we have become aware of the recent City Council”Approval”of 31be Terraces At Sunny Creek development which by precedence supports our request for an”Emergency Access Only” at the North terminus of Mimosa Drive. . . . the de- Drive and its de- the City of Carl&d A. In accordance with the “Approved” Map CT 85-34 for Pavoreal: 1. Mimosa Drive has a 60 foot right-of-way and 40 foot curb-to-curb distance. 2. Mimosa Drive slopes from an elevation of 246 feet at the North (top) end to 178 feet at the South (bottom) end of the street. The slope of the straight street has a grade of 12%. 3. Blue Orchid Lane, a loop street, intersects Mimosa Drive twice, 244 feet North of the intersection of Mimosa Drive & Aviara Parkway and 130 feet South of the terminus of Mimosa Drive. 4. All “Pavoreal” neighborhood streets are Residential (Local) Streets not designated in anyway as future Collector or Arterial Streets. B. In accordance with the City of Carlsbad Circulation Element of the General Plan : 1. Local Streets: ( page 3, Table 1 :Street Classifications) * provide immediate access to adjoining properties *aed . d to discourage throueh-traffic *carrya minimum amount of traffic (estimated average daily trips: 500 maximum) 2. Goals, Objectives, and Implementing Policies and Action Programs (page 4) a.Goals: a. 1 “A City with an integrated transportation network serving local and regional needs which accommodated a balance of different travel modes based . . on silfetv, convemence.tiveness. cosfs, environmental and social macts. II b.Objectives; b.2. “To design streets for the & and efficient movement of peopk, goods and services within and through the City in the most environmentally sound and aesthetically pleasing manner possible. ” C. In accordance with The City of Carlsbad Department of Engineering . . Street Design , Table A: 1. Local: *ADT Ranges (Limits) = 1200 ADT *Design Speed = 25 MPH *Maximum Centerline Grade = 12 % D. In accordance with the City of Carlsbad Engineering Department Street Alignment Standards: 1. Mimosa Drive does not fall under the “Cul-De-Sac” Standards because it is intersected twice by Blue Orchid Lane, a loop street. E. In accordance with the City’s new Concern that all developments have two accesses for emergency situations such as a reoccurrence of a “Santa AM wind fueled La Costa Fire”: 1. Pavoreal has a Primary access off of Aviara Parkway and will have a Secondary Emergency Access when connected to the Lohf development with a” 20 foot Emergency Access Easement with 16 foot paved and gated access road”. 2. Pavoreal should not be likened to the areas of La Costa which burned because: a. Pavoreal is or soon will be surrounded to the North, South and East with major roads and residential & commercial development (not grassy hills). b. Pavoreal homes and all new neighboring developments are constructed of stucco and have concrete tile roofs. The Pavoreal Map CT 85-34 was approved by the City of Carlsbad without any requirements for a “secondary access”. Also, there were not any contingency requirements for any future connection of Mimosa to any future development or future road system. The residents of Pavoreal(90 homes) have lived without incident for almost 8 years. Although there is no mention of our community’s interaction with the City of Carlsbad Planning and Engineering Departments and the Developer of the Lohf property prior to the Planning Commission Meeting, we want you to know that our Homeowner AssociationlNeighborhood has been in communication with The City Departments and the Developer via letters, petitions and numerous personal meetings ever since we became aware of the proposed development in July 1997! We have 90 homeowners who do not want the road opened as a throughfare for health and safety issues - ( consider the configuration and the slope (12 % grade) of the road) . The Lohf development will have tlmz Primary road access points and does not need to utilize our portion of Mimosa Drive as a fourth “access”. At the Planning Commission meeting on December 2, 1998, the Pavoreal neighborhood, the Developer of the Lohf property and the City Planning and Engineering Departments agreed that an Emergency Access would be very acceptable between Pavoreal and the Lohf Development. The Planning Commission’s 3-3 vote was perplexing because all parties involved were in agreement with the “Emergency Access only” decision. On November 17, 1998 the City Council Approved the Terraces at Sunny Creek, CT 96-02 & SDP 97-02 ( in addition to appropriate Zone Changes and General Plan Amendments). This development is designed with 172 single-family dwelling units with 28 attached secondary dwelling units and a development of 50 affordable housing apartment units. All of these dwelling units are being constructed off of one primary access and a secondary emergency access with a street configuration consisting of a number of loop streets and culde-sacs. In our conversations with the Engineering Department, the design of the project is similar to Pavoreal only on a much greater scale (3 times larger). With the use of the loop streets and emergency access road, the development qualifies to have two accesses and does not fall under the Department of Engineering’s restrictive “Cul-De-Sac” Standards. Our request of a “Emergency Access Only” at the North terminus of Mimosa Drive is not only consistent with all City of Carlsbad Planning and Engineering Department Standards and Policies but also consistent with past and most recent City Council precedence setting decisions. If you have any questions regarding the information presented by our Pavoreal committee or in this letter, please contact me or the Committee Members at the following numbers: Don Holmes (760) 431-3737, Janis Libuse (760) 931-1057 or Kelly Cox (619) 692-1800. Sincerely, Don Holmes President, Pavoreal Homeowner ’ s Association cc City of Carlsbad, City Manager C L”---‘T =;14-~<,.i L. _ i- r . . * , * m ‘- i TABLE 1: SlREEiT CLASSIFICATIONS 8 m 8 8 m 8 8 8 * provide immediate acczu to adjoining properties m a * are designed to discourzze through-traffk : * carry a minimum amouxx of traffic (estimated average daily tips: 500 maximum) 8 8 8 . l CouectorStw 8 8 m * provide immediate acce~ to adjoining properties : * seme as the co~ecting iink for traffic between local and arterial streets ’ * generally carry light to x&rate traffic volumes (estimated average daily tips: 500 to 5,m) m 8 8 m 8 m : * provide no access or lided access to adjacent proper& : * serve as a major conn~g link for trafi% between local and arterial streets : * carry moderate traffic v--oiumes (estimated average daily trips: 5,ooO t0 10,000) 8 8 m : * provide limited access 3 adjacent properties l * 8 serve to move traffic tx~een collector streets and larger arxriais or the freeways = * have two traffic lanes XI each direction with a painted median 8 8 * carry moderate traffic voiumes (estimated average daily trips: 10,000 to 20,000) 8 8 : ,Maior Arterials; 8 8 a- m n * @al 8 .* 8 8 prohibit access to adjaczx properties unless no other aitemative exists provide intracity cirction and c~~edions to freeways and regional roads have a minimum of two zaffk lanes in each direction with a raised median CXTY moderate to hea\? zaffic volumes (estimated average ciaily trips: 20,000 to 40,000) ’ * prohibit access to adjacent properties unless no other alternative exists m . _ n I 8 8 8 l n 8 n m m B l 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 I 8 l n 8 8 8 s I I m 8 8 8 n m I 8 8 8 8 8 m 8 m l m n m 8 m 8 l 8 m a 8 m n l l n m n 8 8 I 8 8 : * provide for regional ant ti?rracity circulation and tzmxctions to freeways and other regional roads: 5 * caky very heavy traff’ic volumes (estimated average daily trips: 40,ooO or more) m n mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm8mmmmm88m P *clF!c OCEAN CIRCULATION PLAN ClTY OF CARLSBAD CIRCULATION PLAN - RAILROAD w - FREEWAY - PRlME ARTERIAL - MAJOR ARTERiAL - SECONDARY ARTE3AL ..‘..... COLLECTOR STREET MAP 1 Page 1 I a W WI m a c r 0 . s9 us *trc I :- 0 . * 2ii A;\x m 2: e e-8 + 0 . 2s Ic) *-e 0 rc: 2: 4* 0 4 z: * uto 0 d Y: -6 s R x 8 c c N , I I I I I I I : I , 5: 8 :: F fu c z 8 c c N c s 8 5 8 $! N m 3 s YS s E F. All street widening plans shall include working copies of cross-sections not to exceed 50’ on center. Additional cross-sections may be required where design situations develop. 3. At IGNMENT A. Streets shall normally intersect at right angles. Local streets shall have at least 60’ of tangent adjacent to an intersection, measured from extension of the curb face. Collectors shall have at least 100’. Arterials will require special design. An angle of intersection more than 10“ from a right angle requires special approval and design. Hillside terrain will require special design. 8. The centerline of streets entering upon opposite sides of any given street shall normally be offset by at least 200’ for local residential streets measured from centerline to centerline. Culde-sacstreets shall normally be designated as ‘7” type intersections, and may be offset at 150’. C. Culde-sacs shall be permitted when the culde-sac street meets the following standards: - 1) A 30-foot or 32-foot curb-to-curb private street, a 36-foot or W-foot curb-to-curb residential street and fl the following conditions are met: 4 Length of street does not exceed 600 feet.* b) Traffic volume at entrance does not exceed 600 ADT. cl Number of dwelling units does not exceed 60. *Length may be increased to a maximum of 1200 feet with special permission of the City Engineer under the following conditions: 2) A 40-foot curb-tocurb local street and @J of the following conditions are met: a) b) Driveway and street intersections are spaced 150 feet or more apart. The length along streets from entrance to most remote point does not exceed one-half mBe( zpo* A+.) Cl Traffic volume at entrance does not exceed 1200 ADT. d) Number of dwelling units does not exceed 120. 3) A 4-lane secondary or major arterial with a raised median and a of the following conditions are met: a) The length of street does not exceed one-h&f mile. b) Traffic volume at entrance does not exceed 3000 ADT. 4 The net buildable lot area senred by the street does not exceed 25 acres. 6 ---- i- :. ---=I’ yj i ,’ ,’ I’ . i’ ,,<,I 2% :/;: -4 / .: 1 4 . I I / ; / r I ; ’ ii 0 I / !i $ / L . . i I I 1 . . / I - / i / %N AFJ u I aa- I 5 / r ! ! I “g 7 ; I kc 8% =s *‘d 1 I ; / 1 : c ( ! g: L A- / / / i ! - - 1 i ,-.- - - - - L i / Ii< 1 := =: - 1 .^ JI : :; :. - I=. =- ._ . . .‘a b< ;si :’ .I> :.;z - I -_ ,$i‘ ;fi --i ,>i a; I= !=- T-r> , ;_ n*= .. ,= t- _-. ;I ::r ; 2;’ I:” c-- ! -ii‘ r- :I-., z ! i . . * m F ‘1 - : I ; i i < I m 3 5 . ?+ I - : ;) ZZo’ ‘,- : i-’ ; II :!- : illa U-Z =L% go- - 4x- -5 c i . i .: s;,: .i ti -7 2,s :- ii-, ,- :’ :; ‘..,\,-‘ - \+ ;: if \-. r- ;I :’ : -’ . fi .’ .*- i i’ ‘+ ,n= ;f & ‘: ; ? L;50 :: rz? -1 E u 2’. 1. -4s; ry as; ;+ : :#;I trs* . r: a-,;- :ti;i:: - I 16 p z: fr’ ;” t :,: <zz’ i r5 :i ‘. 1;‘& ;,I ; :;z 5; :?-Tf& 93; 1 AI :1 ,T -2,;‘; (i-“ ,> ‘24 ii ;: ,\ $‘ $‘ :5 5; DESCRIPTION: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING COMPLETE DATE: June 15,1997 Request for a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Zone Change, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit, and Coastal Development Permit to change the zoning from Limited Control (L-C) to One Family Residential with a Qualified Development Overlay (R-l- 7,500-Q), and to subdivide and grade for 73 single-family lots with three open space lots on 36.7 acres. LOCATION: This project is within the City of Carlsbad’s Coastal Zone located west of El Camino Real, between Cassia Road and Dove Lane in Local Facilities Management Zone 21. ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER: 215-050-59 APPLICANT: Western Pacific Housing 2385 Camino Vida Roble, #107 Carlsbad, Ca 92009 A public hearing on the above proposed project will be held by the City Council in the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, on February 9, 1999, at 6:00 p.m. Persons 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. The project will be described and a staff recommendation given, followed by public testimony, questions and a decision. Copies of the staff report will be available on or after February 5, 1999. If you have any questions, or would like to be notified of the decision, please contact Mike Grim, at the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, Monday through Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009, (760) 438-l 161, extension 4499. APPEALS The time within which you may judicially challenge the Tentative Tract Map, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting Program, Zone Change, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Tentative Map, Hillside Development Permit, and/or Coastal Development Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues raised by you or someone else at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad City Clerk’s Office at, or prior to, the public hearing. 1. Anneals to the Citv 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. 2. Coastal Commission Appealable Project: 0 This site is located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area. 0 X 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 3111 Camino De1 Rio North, Suite 200, San Diego, California 92108-1725. CASE FILE: ZC 97-06/LCPA 97-08/CT 97- 1 S/HDP 97-l 6KDP 97-39 CASE NAME: Lohf Subdivision PUBLISH: January 29,1999 LOHF PROPERTY ZC 97-06kCPA 97-081CT 97-151 HDP 97-l 6/CDP 97-39 -: a& t-1 I< i CKs; - POTIcE OF J’UBJ4JC HEARJNG COMPLETE DATE: June 15.1997 DESCRIPTION: Request for a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Zone Change, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit, and Coastal Development Permit to change the zoning from Limited Control (L-C) to One Family Residential with a Qualified Development Overlay (R-1-7,500-Q), and to subdivide and grade for 73 single-family lots with three open space lots on 36.7 acres. LOCATION: This project is within the City of Carlsbad’s Coastal Zone located west of El Camino Real, between Cassia Road and Dove Lane in Local Facilities Management Zone 2 1. ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER: 215-050-59 APPLICANT: Western Pacific Housing 2385 Camino Vida Roble #107 Carlsbad, CA 92009 A public hearing on the above proposed project will be held by the Planning Commission in the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, on December 2, 1998 at 6:00 p.m. Persons 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. The project will be described and a staff recommendation given, followed by public testimony, questions and a decision. Copies of the staff report will be available on or after November 30, 1998. If you have any questions, or would like to be notified of the decision, please contact Mike Grim at the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, Monday through Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009, (760) 438- 1 16 1, extension 4499. . . . . . . . . . ,.. 2075 Las Palmas Dr. l Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 576 - (760) 438-11610 FAX (760) 438-0894 The time within which you may judicially challenge this Zone Change, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit, and Coastal Development Permit, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge the Zone Change, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit, and Coastal Development Permit 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 prior to the public hearing. 1. Anneals to the Citv 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. 2. Coastal Commission Appealable Project: 0 This site is located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area. lxl 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 3111 Camino De1 Rio North, Suite 200, San Diego, California 92108-1725. /HDP 97-16/GDP 97-39 (Form A) TOI CITY CLERK’S OFFICE FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST Attached are the natetials necessary for you to notice zc g7-06/LcpA g7-w/CT 97-15/HDP 97-16/GDP 97-39 - Lohf Subdivision for a public hearing before the City Councfl. Please notice the item ?or the council meeting OfFirst Available Hearing Thank you. Assistant City HanhprQ- l December 18, 1998 Date CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST SD COUNTY PLANNING CITY OF ENCINITAS 801 PINE AVE STE B 505 S VULCAN AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 5201 RUFFIN RD ENCINITAS CA 92024 SAN DIEGO CA 92123 CITY OF SAN MARCOS CITY OF OCEANSIDE CITY OF VISTA 1 CIVIC CENTER DR 300 NORTH COAST HWY PO BOX 1988 SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949 OCEANSIDE CA 92054 VISTA CA 92085 CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME REGIONAL WATER QUALITY SANDAG STE 50 STE B STE 800 330 GOLDENSHORE 9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD 401 B STREET LONG BEACH CA 90802 SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331 SAN DIEGO CA 92101 LAFCO AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST 1600 PACIFIC HWY 9150 CHESAPEAKE DR SAN DIEGO CA 92101 SAN DIEGO CA 92123 I.P.U.A. SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND URBAN STUDIES SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505 NED GOOD DIANE SCOTT STE 600 AVIARA MASTER HOMEOWNERS 70 S LAKE AVE 7243 SPOONBILL PASADENA CA 91101-2601 CARLSBAD CA 92009 (ABOVE ADDRESS - For City Council Notices Only) CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING DEPT CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY SERVICES CITY OF CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT PROJECT PLANNER MIKE GRIM - DAVID MALDONADO 1590 BASSWOOD AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-1945 GABOR & ILONA REH 1555 CANTA SABINA CT SOLANA BEACH 92075-1625 THE VONS COMPANIES INC 31921 CAMINO CAPISTRANO SAN JUAN CAP1 92675-3210 SONG H RAMBOLDT 7343 BOLERO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009-7103 KATHLEEN ZICCARELLI 1910 SWALLOW LN CARLSBAD CA 92009-4138 AL1 & BAHARDAHI 1920 SWALLOW LN CARLSBAD CA 92009-4138 PERRY H BURNAND 4407 MANCHESTER AVE ENCINITAS CA 92024 201 7901 BRADLEY S BECKER PARMAN D MICHELE 1948 SWALLOW LN 1952 SWALLOW LN CARLSBAD CA 92009-4142 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4142 TIMOTHY R GROTH JOAN H MITCHELL 959 MELALEUCA AVE E 1946 SWALLOW LN CARLSBAD CA 92009-3839 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4142 MANZANITA PARTNERS L L TERRY R REITER 1000 GALLOWAY ST 6 SADDLEBACK RD PACIFIC PALIS 90272-3851 PALOS VERDES 90274-5141 JACK & PATRICIA SUDDUTH ROBERT F KEVANE 1301 FORTSIDE DR 8480 LA MESA BLVD FORT WASHINGT 20744-6779 LA MESA CA 91941-5336 ISABEL R SASKA JOSEPH R STEINER 6721 EL CAMINO REAL 6675 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4104 CARLSBAD CA 92009-2806 JOSEPH V LEVATINO FLEET CHRISTINE 22121 MALIBU LN 1926 SWALLOW LN HUNTINGTON BE 92646-8335 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4138 SHAIN WONG BURTON M & TONNA SWAIM 1918 SWALLOW LN 1914 SWALLOW LN CARLSBAD CA 92009-4138 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4138 SNYDER ELIZABETH G MALUBAY 1928 SWALLOW LN 1924 SWALLOW LN CARLSBAD CA 92009-4138 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4138 ROBERT J.& LINDA BAKER DONALD F & LEONA EDIC PO BOX 958 1912 SWALLOW LN BLUE JAY CA 92317-0958 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4138 ELLABLANCHE K SALMI ELLIOTT R & CARYN ROSEN 1940 SWALLOW LN 2390 BOTELLA PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-4142 CARLSBAD CA 92009-8011 MARK D GAUTHIER 1938 SWALLOW LN CARLSBAD CA 92009-4142 CLEON W & DONA WINSLOW PO BOX 780 MONARCH BEACH 92629-0780 STANLEY R SOPCZYK LORRAINE P THOMPSON J&E INC 1954 SWALLOW LN 1960 SWALLOW LN 6721 CANTIL ST CARLSBAD CA 92009-4142 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4143 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5808 H W BRIGHAM BEVERLY W WOTHERSPOON ARTHUR J & LOIS SERRIN 6994 EL CAMINO REAL 1972 SWALLOW LN 4423 SALISBURY DR CARLSBAD CA 92009-4116 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4143 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2867 LISA K ADAMS DEANNEMCLARK JOHN T MITCHELL 1962 SWALLOW LN 1966 SWALLOW LN PO BOX 738 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4143 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4143 GREAT FALLS M 59403-0738 CAROL SURPRISE MCGINNIS & SPENCER TR NANCY J SCHUTH 1974 SWALLOW LN 1978 SWALLOW LN 1977 SWALLOW LN CARLSBAD CA 92009-4143 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4143 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4144 DEIRDRE M SIMS PAULA D BARNES B J KNOWLES 1973 SWALLOW LN 1969 SWALLOW LN 1965 SWALLOW LN CARLSBAD CA 92009-4144 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4144 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4144 NORMAN H MEYERS PIACARINA LABOS GORDON J SCHMIDT PO BOX 1792 1979 SWALLOW LN 1975 SWALLOW LN RANCH0 SANTA 92067-1792 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4144 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4144 DMITRI KITARIEV PETER J & TERIE SMITH JAMES WALSH 1971 SWALLOW LN 1967 SWALLOW LN 1963 SWALLOW LN CARLSBAD CA 92009-4144 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4144 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4144 CATHERINE BEDFORD PETER & VANDER MILES ANTIMO GONZALES 1953 SWALLOW LN 6363 RANCH0 MISSION RD 140 HAZEL WAY CARLSBAD CA 92009-4139 SAN DIEGO CA 92108-2013 SAN GABRIEL C 91776-3249 MURIEL F & COLEEN INNIS ROBERT J FOREMAN THOMAS A HENKELS 1941 SWALLOW LN 1937 SWALLOW LN 1955 SWALLOW LN CARLSBAD CA 92009-4139 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4139 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4139 CONRAD0 R BALLECER LEAH D NEIPRIS GORDON R DRIVER 221 W CONRAD DR 1947 SWALLOW LN 1943 SWALLOW LN PHOENIX AZ 85023-5296 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4139 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4139 KLAS ELAINE R MARYLKRAMER DOROTHIE BLETH 1021 WILLOW DR 4012 MISSISSIPPI ST 11 6901 QUAIL PL C HEMET CA 92543-5811 SAN DIEGO CA 92104-2449 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4120 JOSEPH BENDIK LORA M STRELIC TRUP FAMILY 467 CARROLL ST 10092 BEVERLY DR 1747 EDGEFIELD LN SUNNYVALE CA 94086-6204 HUNTINGTON BE 92646-5425 ENCINITAS CA 92024-1979 SANDRA M COMORRE STEPHEN CRAIG GARY K & HELEN PIRO 6901 QUAIL PL G 6901 QUAIL PL F 2641 VALEWOOD AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009-4120 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4120 CARLSBAD CA 92008-7925 TAMARA THOMPSON PRISCILLA LO JERRY R LATHROP 7104 DAFFODIL PL 3133 HATACA RD 6903 QUAIL PL C CARLSBAD CA 92009-4809 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7518 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4122 MARIA R SPENCER 2230 BROOKHAVEN PASS VISTA CA 92083-8334 CATHERINE M LANGNER GARY K & HELEN PIRO 667 COVE RD 4 930 BOARDWALK D STAMFORD CT 06902-5420 SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2634 KENNETH E JOHNSON JOAN P ENRIGHT MICHAEL S SMITH 6905 QUAIL PL C 6905 QUAIL PL B 2257 BAXTER CANYON RD CARLSBAD CA 92009-4123 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4123 VISTA CA 92083-8331 JUNE WOOD CHARLES E MINERD LOWELL L CAMPBELL PO BOX 232134 6905 QUAIL PL G 6905 QUAIL PL F ENCINITAS CA 92023-2134 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4123 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4123 MICHAEL K MCGINNIS NICHOLAS GIKAS MICHAEL P CALIGIURI 6905 QUAIL PL E 5858 EDISON PL 2413 LA PLANCHA LN CARLSBAD CA 92009-4121 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6519 CARLSBAD CA 92009-9128 MARY HEBERT 205 PASEO MARGUERITA VISTA CA 92084-2556 NANCY E NESA PAUL SCHEIBE 5806 MISSION CENTER RD PO BOX 1349 SAN DIEGO CA 92123-3866 SOLANA BEACH 92075-7349 COPES FRANCIS A DERBY GAETANO SELVAGGIO 21941 CONSTANCIA 5275 MIDDLETON RD 2775 TORRY CT MISSION VIEJO 92692-1018 SAN DIEGO CA 92109-1523 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7151 JIM A ZITTEL MARTIN & RICHARD KRANTZ EDWARD D MAGGIORE 6911 QUAIL PL A 15863 VINCENNES ST 2 VILLAGE PARK WAY CARLSBAD CA 92009-4126 SEPULVEDA CA 91343-2920 SANTA MONICA 90405 SHEILA BUITEN SCOTT G MILLS KIM H NGUYEN 6800 WATERCOURSE DR 6911 QUAIL PL E 8912 CHANNING AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009-3709 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4121 WESTMINSTER C 92683-5414 MICHAEL K MCGINNIS SERGE R POLOME BRUCE D TRUMPIS 6911 QUAIL PL G 6911 QUAIL PL H 2720 LUCIERNAGA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009-4126 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4126 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5826 ELENOR J KROHN WILLIAM L ZIEGLER JUDY L SAYER 2931 LONE JACK RD 1836 CAMPESINO PL 6913 QUAIL PL A ENCINITAS CA 92024-7006 OCEANSIDE CA 92054-6134 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4127 EDWIN G MELLICK KENNETH DAVIS TRACY & TAM1 BRIMNER 7036 FERN PL 6913 QUAIL PL G 7637 RUSTIC0 DR CARLSBAD CA 92009-5116 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4127 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7919 RAFAEL GARCIA MARTIN E ROGGE ANDREW W HOFMANN 6913 QUAIL PL 6915 QUAIL PL D 6915 QUAIL PL C CARLSBAD CA 92009-4121 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4128 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4128 ROSALYNN M MCNANIE NANCY A KYGAR TERI J MEEKS 6915 QUAIL PL B 6915 QUAIL PL A 6458 EDMONTON AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009-4128 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4128 SAN DIEGO CA 92122-2513 SONG JIN LORI A JONES JULIE D MCLAIN 6915 QUAIL PL G 3384 SHERWOOD LN 9823 AMANITA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009-4128 SAN MARCOS CA 92069-6151 TUJUNGA CA 91042-2916 EDWARD J KATZ RAPHAEL A AULET NORMA V CORBIN 6919 QUAIL PL A 6919 QUAIL PL B 745 OCEAN CREST RD CARLSBAD CA 92009-4129 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4129 CARDIFF CA 92007-1336 - NORBERTO PARRA LINDA AMADOR 6919 QUAIL PL D 6919 QUAIL PL E 6919 QUAIL PL F CARLSBAD CA 92009-4129 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4121 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4129 SUE C FULLER REX S COATES CAROLYN T SCHMALTZ 12443 CARMEL POINTE 6919 QUAIL PL H 1754 GASCONY RD SAN DIEGO CA 92130-2269 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4129 ENCINITAS CA 92024-1225 MARTIN G ORDMAN HAHN FAMILY JEFFREY T HOVERSON 6921 QUAIL PL C 1170 RANCH0 ENCINITAS D 6816 XANA WAY CARLSBAD CA 92009-4130 ENCINITAS CA 92024-7023 CARLSBAD CA 92009-6028 KELLY & MIKE COVIELLO REGINO A PADUA WILLIAM LICKHALTER 6921 QUAIL PL H 8250 MIRA MESA BLVD B 6921 QUAIL PL F CARLSBAD CA 92009-4130 SAN DIEGO CA 92126-2624 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4130 LESLIE A KULCHIN ROBERT C & CLAY LASTUCK BARBARA L GROSS 3014 GARBOSO ST 6907 QUAIL PL A 4940 ARTESIA RD CARLSBAD CA 92009-8326 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4124 SHINGLE SPRIN 95682-9515 JORGE CARTAGENA 205 PASEO MARGUERITA VISTA CA 92084-2556 MARY DRALLE STEPHEN M KUEHL 6907 QUAIL PL D 400 N THE STRAND 2 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4124 OCEANSIDE CA 92054-1994 PHILIP G PETROWSKI JEROMY A BIRKET JAMES F & TYLA SAWYER 732 BLUE RIDGE DR 6907 QUAIL PL G 1812 OVERLAND AVE 203 SANTA MARIA C 93455-2121 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4124 LOS ANGELES C 90025-4761 ERIC E & BEVERLY FOX ROBERT L & CELINE MERTZ DOUGLAS A CYPHER 6952 MIMOSA DR 6946 MIMOSA DR 6942 MIMOSA DR CARLSBAD CA 92009-5154 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5154 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5151 DANIEL R DUCOMMUN LEE ERNEST H WRIGHT 6936 MIMOSA DR 14736 BROOKSTONE DR 6926 MIMOSA DR CARLSBAD CA 92009-5151 POWAY CA 92064-6436 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5151 PASQUALE RUSS0 JOSEF & CAROL LAGEDER GHOLAMREZ A CHITGARI 6922 MIMOSA DR 6912 MIMOSA DR 6906 MIMOSA DR CARLSBAD CA 92009-5151 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5151 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5151 THOMAS K & CLAUDIA COX ANTON10 R COLUCCI TZER-FEN & SU CHEN 6902 MIMOSA DR 6903 BLUE ORCHID LN 6618 HEIDI CT CARLSBAD CA 92009-5151 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5158 MC LEAN VA 22101-1606 DAVID J KANTOWITZ SOON H & HYUN HWANG C P KERSTETTER 6913 BLUE ORCHID LN 6917 BLUE ORCHID LN 6923 BLUE ORCHID LN CARLSBAD CA 92009-5158 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5158 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5159 JAMES M MITCHELL JOHN A Et C BINIKOS TERRANCE J KANE 6927 BLUE ORCHID LN 6933 BLUE ORCHID LN 6937 BLUE ORCHID LN CARLSBAD CA 92009-5159 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5159 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5159 ALAN H & JOANNE BURSON GREGORY S DAY JOHN W NORCROSS 6943 BLUE ORCHID LN 6947 BLUE ORCHID LN 6953 BLUE ORCHID LN CARLSBAD CA 92009-5159 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5159 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5159 FREDERICK S HARDESTY RITA M CALLE HECTOR SERRANO 6957 BLUE ORCHID LN 6963 BLUE ORCHID LN 1710 LOBELIA CT CARLSBAD CA 92009-5162 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5162 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5168 ROBERT L WAGAMAN CALVIN E KRINGEL LILLIAN T BAUER 1708 LOBELIA CT 1707 LOBELIA CT 1711 LOBELIA CT CARLSBAD CA 92009-5168 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5168 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5168 GREGG A & CYNTHIA BOONE DANIEL A FLEMING DONALD A & JEANE HOLMES 6953 MIMOSA DR 6947 i4IMOSA DR 6943 MIMOSA DR CARLSBAD CA 92009-5153 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5153 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5153 KONSTANDINOS MOKALIS CHARLES B KUNIN MAZIR HAFEZI 6937 MIMOSA DR 6933 MIMOSA DR 6927 MIMOSA DR CARLSBAD CA 92009-5152 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5152 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5152 MARK MEAD COLLEEN M BLACKMORE NICK & INNA PODOLSKY 6906 BLUE ORCHID LN 6910 BLUE ORCHID LN 6914 BLUE ORCHID LN CARLSBAD CA 92009-5157 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5157 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5157 VAUGHAN RUSH RICHARD T KENT 6936 DUSTY ROSE PL 6942 DUSTY ROSE PL 6946 DUSTY ROSE PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-5166 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5166 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5166 MARTIN & SUE BENNETT JEFFREY & SUSAN ROHRING THOMAS E GOODWIN 6952 DUSTY ROSE PL 6956 DUSTY ROSE PL 6960 DUSTY ROSE PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-5166 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5166 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5166 FRANK M SIUI GEORGE J SARNECKY ALEXANDER W BOHLMEIJER 6957 DUSTY ROSE PL 6953 DUSTY ROSE PL 6947 DUSTY ROSE PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-5167 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5167 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5167 WILLIAM B MAFFUCCI LOREN G & PATRICIA MEAD PATRICK C FEARN 6943 DUSTY ROSE PL 6937 DUSTY ROSE PL 6933 DUSTY ROSE PL CARLSBAD CA 92009-5167 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5167 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5167 NAI L & KHOO HO ROBERT T PATTON KENNETH B DAVIS 6927 DUSTY ROSE PL 6944 BLUE ORCHID LN 6948 BLUE ORCHID LN CARLSBAD CA 92009-5167 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5160 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5160 ANNE M FEARN ALEXANDER W BOHLMEIJER JEANETTE BEHBRENS 6956 BLUE ORCHID LN 6960 BLUE ORCHID LN 6962 BLUE ORCHID LN CARLSBAD CA 92009-5161 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5161 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5161 MICHAEL EPSTEIN LINDA S HAGER 6964 BLUE ORCHID LN 6968 BLUE ORCHID LN CARLSBAD CA 92009-5161 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5161 *** 197 Printed *** MANZANITA PARTNERS L L REAL ESTATE COLLATERAL 1000 GALLOWAY ST PO BOX 9000-685 PACIFIC PALIS 90272-3851 CARLSBAD CA 92018 *** 2 Printed *** WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING JACK HENTHORN & ASSOC. 2385 CAMINO VIDA ROBLE 5375 AVENIDA ENCINAS #D SUITE 107 CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92009 PAVOREAL ASSOCIATION RESIDENT C/O PAT THOMPSON 6907 BLUE ORCHARD LN 19700 FAIRCHILD RD #230 CARLSBAD CA 92009 IRVINE CA 92715 H:WMINLABELSUCP INTERESTED PARTIES UPDATED 1 l-96 OLIVENHAIN M.W.D. 1966 OLIVENHAIN ROAD ENCINITAS CA 92024 CRAIG ADAMS SIERRA CLUB SAN DIEGO CHAPTER 3820 RAY SAN DIEGO CA 92101 LESLIE ESPOSITO 1893 AMELFI DRIVE ENCINITAS CA 92024 LANIKAI LANE PARK SHARP; SPACE 3 6550 PONTO DRIVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 KIM SEIBLY SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC PO BOX 1831 SAN DIEGO CA 92112 PERRY A LAMB 890 MERE POINT ROAD BRUNSWICK MAINE 04011 RICHARD RETECKI COASTAL CONSERVANCY SUITE 1100 1330 BROADWAY OAKLAND CA 94612 DALE/DONNA SCHREIBER 7163 ARGONAURA WAY CARLSBAD CA 92009 COPIES TO: + CITY CLERK + MAIN LIBRARY + BRANCH LIBRARY + WATER DISTRICT CITY OF ENCINITAS COM DEV DEPARTMENT 505 S VULCAN AVE ENCINITAS CA 92024 REGIONAL WATER QUAL. BD EXECUTIVE OFFICER SUITE B 9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD SAN DIEGO CA 92124 GUY MOORE JR 6503 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA 92009 CYRIL AND MARY GIBSON 12142 ARGYLE DRIVE LOS ALAMITOS CA 90702 JOHN LAMB 1446 DEVLIN DRIVE LOS ANGELES CA 90069 MARY GRIGGS STATE LANDS COMMISSSION SUITE 100 SOUTH 100 HOWE AVE SACRAMENTO CA 95825-8202 SAN DIEGO COUNTY PLANNING & LAND USE DEPT JOAN VOKAC - SUITE B-5 5201 RUFFIN ROAD SAN DIEGO CA 92123 ANTHONY BONS 25709 HILLCREST AVE ESCONDIDO CA 92026 MR/MRS MICHAEL CARDOSA 6491 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA 92008 U.S. FISH &WILDLIFE SERVICES 2730 LOKER AVE WEST CARLSBAD CA 92008 TABATA FARMS PO BOX 1338 CARLSBAD CA 92018 KENNETH E SULZER SANDAG - EXEC DIRECTOR 1ST INT’L PLAZA, SUITE 800 401 B STREET SAN DIEGO CA 92101 JAN SOBEL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PO BOX 1605 CARLSBAD CA 92008 BILL MCLEAN c/o LAKESHORE GARDENS 7201 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92009 SPIERS ENTERPRISES DWIGHT SPIERS SUITE 139 23 CORPORATE PLAZA NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 SUPERVISOR BILL HORN ATTN: ART DANELL COUNTY OF SD, ROOM 335 1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY SAN DIEGO CA 92101 LEE ANDERSON CRA PRESIDENT 5200 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA 92008 FLOYD ASHBY 416 LA COSTA AVE ENCINITAS CA 92024 CARLENE TIMM SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC PO BOX 1831 SAN DIEGO CA 92112 ’ LABELS - 5163 LCPA MAILING LIST (GOVERNMENT AGENCIES) SANDAG (SAN DIEGO COUNTY) WELLS FARGO PLAZA SUITE 800 APPENDIX A (LIST IS REQUIRED BY COASTAL 401 B STREET COMMISSION) SANDIEGO CA 92101 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL ROOM 700 110 WEST A STREET SANDIEGO CA 92101 PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 350 MCALLISTER STREET SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103 OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH OFFICE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AFAIRS 1400 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO CA 95814 DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE STEVE SHAFFER, AGRICULTURE RESOURCES ROOM 100 1220 N STREET SACRAMENTO CA 95814 BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION & HSG AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WILLIAM G. BRENNAN ROOM 5504 DEPUTY SECRETARY AND SPECIAL COUNCIL 1120 N STREET SUITE 2450 SACRAMENTO CA 958 14 980 NINTH STREET SACRAMENTO CA 95814 DISTRICT 11 CALTRANS RESOURCES AGENCY TIM VASQUEZ, ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING RM 1311 2829 SAN JUAN ST 1416 NINTH STREET SAN DIEGO CA 92 138 SACRAMENTO CA 95812 . AIR RESOURCES BOARD ANNE GERAGHTY, MANAGER GENERAL PROJECTS SECTION PO BOX 2815 SACRAMENTO CA 95812 ENERGY RESOURCES, CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION CHUCK NAJARIAN 15 16 NINTH STREET SACRAMENTO CA 95814 MARINE RESOURCES REGION, DR & G ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES SUPERVISOR 350 GOLDEN SHORE LONG BEACH CA 90802 COASTAL CONSERVANCY SUITE 1100 1330 BROADWAY OAKLAND CA 94612 DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME RONALD D REMPEL, CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION la4 1341 1416 NINTH STREET SACRAMENTO CA 95814 DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY DOUG WICKIZER, ENVIROMENTAL COORD RM 1516-2 1416 NINTH STREET SACRAMENTO CA 95814 SOUTHERN REGION SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION JOHN WALSTROM, TECHNICAL SERVICES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 8885 RIO SAN DIEGO DRJVE BILL TRAVIS SAND DIEGO CA 92108 30 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO CA 958 14 STATE LANDS COMMISSION DWIGHT SANDERS SUITE 1005 100 HOWE AVE SACRAMENTO CA 95825-8202 WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD PO BOX 100 SACARAMENTO CA 95801 . REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SUITE B ROBERT L. ERWIN, DIRECTOR 9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD SUITE 1037 SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331 630 SANSOME STREET SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ATTN: GARY RESOURCE CONSERVATIONIST SUITE 102 2121-C SECOND STREET DAVIS CA 95616 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF OCEAN AND COASTAL L McGILVRAY 1825 CONNECTICUT AVENUE WASHINGTON DC 20235 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS SUITE 700 333 MARKET STREET SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 611 RYAN PLAZA DR STE 400 ARLINGTON TX 760 1 l-4005 USDA - RURAL DEVLOPMENT 430 ST DEPT 4 169 DAVIS CA 95616 COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CHAIRMAN 722 JACKSON PLACE NORTH WEST WASHINGTON DC 2006 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE LOS ANGELES DISTRICT ENGINEER PO BOX 2711 LOS ANGELES CA 90053 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COMMANDANT, ELEVENTH NAVAL DISTRICT DISTRICT CIVIL ENGINEER SANDIEGO CA 92132 - U. S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 2 135 BUTANO DRIVE SACRAMENTO CA 95825 U. S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION LOWER COLORADO REGION PO BOX 427 BOULDER CITY CO 89005 SUPERINTENDENT CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK 1901 SPINNAKER DRIVE SAN BUENAVENTURA CA 93001 BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS RONALD M. JAEGER 2800 COTTAGE WAY SACRAMENTO CA 95825 CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SUITE 200 3 111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH SAN DIEGO CA 92108 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY CLIFFORD EMMERLING, DIRECTOR SUITE 350 901 MARKET STREET SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVE DUNCAN LENT HOWARD, REGIONAL ADMIN 450 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102 U. S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION MID-PACIFIC REGION 2800 COTTAGE WAY SACRAMENTO CA 95825 DOUGLAS WARNOCK, SUPERINTENDENT REDWOOD NATIONAL PARK DRAWER N 1111 2NDSTREET CRESCENT CITY CA 95531 U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE SUITE 130 33 10 EL CAMINO AVENUE SACRAMENTO CA 95821 BARRY BRAYER, AWP-8 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WESTERN REGION PO BOX 92007 LOS ANGELES CA 90009 City of. Carlsbad February 16,1999 Western Pacific Housing 2385 Camino Vida Roble, Suite 107 Carlsbad, CA 92009 1 RE’: LONF SUBDW~tohl, CT 974SrZC 97161LCPA 97=8MN= 97-l WDP 97139 1 Enclosed for your reference are copies of Carlsbad City Council Agenda Bill No. 15,042 and Resolution No. 99-46. These documents went before the City Council on February 9, 1999, when the Resolution was adopted. (Also enclosed is a copy of introduced Ordinance No. NS-469 which will come back before the City Council for adoption. It approves changing the Zoning Map in the Carlsbad Municipal Code.) Resolution No. 99-46 approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Zone Change, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Hillside Development Permit, Coastal Development Permit and the Tentative Map for your project. If you have any questions regarding your project, please call Mike Grimm, your project planner. Mr. Grimm can be reached in the Planning Department at (760) 438-l 161 extension 4499. Kathleen D. Shoup Sr. Office Specialist 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive * Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989 - (760) 43.4-2808 @