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 @