Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-09-27; City Council; 18296; Shelley PropertyAB# 18,296 MTG. 9/27/05 DEPT. PLN Project Applications GPA 03-1 1 ZC 03-09 CT 02-1 7 HDP 02-08 HMPP 05-04 CITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL TITLE: - SHELLEY PROPERTY GPA 03-1 IlZC 03-09lCT 02-17/HDP 02-08/HMPP 05-04 Ad m in ist ra tive Reviewed by and Approvals Final at Planning Final at Council Commission To be reviewed - X X X X X DEPT. HD. CITY ATTY. RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council INTRODUCE Ordinance No. , APPROVING Zone Change ZC 03-09 and ADOPT Resolution No. 2005294 ADOPTING a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and APPROVING in concept the General Plan Amendment 04-16, Carlsbad Tract Map 02-1 7, Hillside Development Permit 02-08 and Habitat Management Plan Permit 05-04. NS-774 ITEM EXPLANATION: On August 17, 2005, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for a 52 lot residential subdivision in the southeast quadrant of the City. The project requires approval by the City Council since the project is requesting changes to the General Plan Land Use and Open Space Elements and the Zoning map and the subdivision contains more than 50 lots. The Shelley Property project consists of the subdivision of 81.3 acres into a 52-lot subdivision with 49 single-family residential lots with a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet and 3 open space lots. The developed portion will cover 25.84 acres and the open space area 55.46 acres. In addition to the Tentative Tract Map, a Hillside Development Permit is required to address the development of hillside slopes on the property and the Habitat Management Plan Permit is for the take of two San Diego Goldenstar plants. The Planning Commission discussed the merits of all applications, and voted 6-0 (Cardosa absent) to recommend approval of the project to the City Council. A full disclosure of the Planning Commission's discussion for the Shelley Property project and a complete description and staff analysis of the project is included in the attached minutes and staff report to the Planning Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL: The proposed project has been reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Potentially significant biological and noise impacts were identified. The developer has agreed to mitigation measures to reduce the identified impacts to below a level of significance in accordance with CEQA. The environmental documents were sent to the State Clearinghouse for circulation and sent directly to the area offices of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. No comments were received. In consideration of the foregoing, the Planning Director issued a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project on December 26, 2003. Comments were received from the US Fish & Wildlife Service and the I PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. California Department of Fish & Game. Based on comments received from the wildlife agencies, the project was revised and a Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and noticed on February IO, 2005. Additional comments from the wildlife agencies were incorporated into the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 18,296 FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impacts have been identified. EXHIBITS: 1. City Council Ordinance No. -774 2. City Council Resolution No. 2005-294 3. Location Map 4. 5. 6. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5951, 5952, 5953, 5954, 5955 and 5956 Planning Commission Staff Report, dated August 17, 2005 Draft Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated August 17, 2005. DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Van Lynch, (760) 602-461 3, vlync@ci.carlsbad.ca.us 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. NS-774 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 21.05.030 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP TO GRANT A ZONE CHANGE, ZC 03-09, FROM RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY, 40,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE MINIMUM, TO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY, 10,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE MINIMUM AND OPEN SPACE ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD ALONG THE CITY’S EASTERN BOUNDARY IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 11. CASE NAME: SHELLEY PROPERTY CASE NO.: ZC 03-09 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, being the zoning map, is amended as shown on the map marked Exhibit “ZC 03-09,” dated August 17, 2005 attached hereto and made a part hereof. SECTION II: That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5953 constitute the findings and conditions of the City Council. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation within fifteen days after its adoption. INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council held on the 27th dayof S-er , 2005, and thereafter. Ill Ill Ill Ill Ill 1 1 t i E 5 1C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of, 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAl N: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor ATTEST: LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk (SEAL) -2- 4 ZC 03-09 Shelley Property Auaust 17,2005 EXISTING PROPOSED Related Case File No(s): GPA 03-1VCT 02-1 7/HDP 02-OWHMP 05-04 Zoning Map Designation Change Property ]From: 1 To: A 223-061-01-00 I R-1-40,000 I R-I- 10,000 / OS I . .. I I I R 223-061-02-00 I R-1-40,000 I R-I - 10.000 / OS 1 D. I I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2005-294 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND APPROVING A GENERAL LAND USE ELEMENT AND THE OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN, A PLAN AMENDMENT, IN CONCEPT GPA 03-1 1 TO AMEND THE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, CT 02-17, A HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, HDP 02-08 AND A HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN PERMIT, HMPP 05-04 FOR THE SHELLEY PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD ALONG THE CITY’S EASTERN BOUNDARY IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 11. CASE NAME: SHELLEY PROPERTY CASE NO.: GPA 03-11/ZC 03-09/CT 02-17/ HDP 02-08/ HMPP 05-04 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning Commission did, on August 17, 2005, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit and Habitat Management Plan Permit; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the day of , 2005, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider said Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit and Habitat Management Plan Permit and at that time received recommendations, objections, protests, comments of all persons interested in or opposed to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and/or GPA 03-1 1/CT 02-17/ HDP 02-08/ HMPP 05-04; and 27th September NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad as follows: 1. 2. That all recitations are true and correct. That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission as set forth in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5951, 5952, 5954, 5955 and 5956 on file with the City Clerk and made a part hereof by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council. That the application for a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit and 3. E 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 Management Plan Permit on property generally located southeast of Rancho Santa Fe Road and along the City’s boundary is approved as shown in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5951,5952,5954, 5955 and 5956. 4. That the application for a General Plan Land Use Element Amendme from Residential Low (RL) to Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM) and Open Space (O! and an Open Space Conservation Element Amendment on property generally located southea of Rancho Santa Fe Road and along the City’s boundary, as shown in Planning Commissic Resolution No. 5952, is hereby accepted, approved in concept, and shall be formally approve with GPA Batch No. 3 of 2005. 5. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Counc The Provisions of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, “Time Limits for Judici Review” shall apply: “NOTICE TO APPLICANT” 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 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.” .... .... .... .... . . .. .... . . .. . . .. .... .... .... -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 27th day of September , 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Hall, Kulchin, Packard, Sigafoose NOES: None /? ABSENT: None ATTEST: LORRAINE M. WOdb, City Clerk (SEAL) ' -3- EXHIBIT 3 Site SITE MAP NOT TO SCALE SHELLEY PROPERTY GPA 03-1 l/ZC 03-09/CT 02-1 71HDP 02-08/HMPP 05-04 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 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5951 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO SUBDIVIDE AND GRADE 8 1.3 1 ACRES INTO 49 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND THREE OPEN SPACE LOTS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD ALONG THE CITY’S EASTERN BOUNDARY IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 11. CASE NAME: SHELLEY PROPERTY CASE NO.: GPA 03-1 1/ZC 03-09/CT 02-17/HDP 02-08/ HMPP 05-04 WHEREAS, Fair Oaks Valley, LLC, “Developer/Owner,” has fi,;d a verifiec application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as That portion of the east half of Lot 6 of Rancho Las Encinitas, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 848, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, June 27, 1898. (APN 223-061-01-00 and 223-061-02-00) (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring an( Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of August, 2005, holc a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimonj and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, an( considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factor: relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reportinz Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: I 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 1. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Plan 1 g Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Exhibit “NOI” dated February 10, 2005, and “PII” dated January 31, 2005, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Shelley Property the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and d. based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. PC RES0 NO. 5951 -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 C' mmission PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning f the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of August 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, and Whitton NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Cardosa CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: DON NEU Assistant Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5951 -3- - City of Carlsbad NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: SHELLEY PROPERTY CASE NO: GPA 03-1 1/ZC 03-09/CT 02-17/HDP 02-08/HMPP 05-04 PROJECT LOCATION: Southeast of Rancho Santa Fe Road and Melrose Drive along the City’s eastern boundary in the southeast quadrant of the City and bounded to the east by the County of San Diego, to the south by City of Encinitas and to the north and west by Villages of La Costa Master Plan area. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of a General Plan Amendment to the RLM and OS land use designations to delineate the boundaries of the open space preserve and allocate the permitted density to the developable portion of the property, a Zone Change to ensure consistency with the General Plan, and a Tentative Subdivision Map, and Hillside Development Pennit to grade and subdivide 49 single family, 10,000 square foot (minimum) lots and three open space lots on 81 acres located southeast of Rancho Santa Fe Road along the City’s eastern boundary in the southeast quadrant of the City. Grading would occur on approximately 26.6 acres or 33% of the site to create the subdwided single fdy lots and associated infrastructure. An earthen vegetated swale will be located within the preserve to ensure water quality, and a sewer line and access road will bisect the southern portion of the preserve. A trail is proposed on existing dirt paths through the property from the northern to southern boundaries where connections will be made to trails within the County and the City of Encinitas. The City will require an irrevocable offer of dedication for 102’ of public right-of-way across the preserve from the eastern project boundary to the eastern property boundary to enable the extension of a General Plan Circulation Element arterial roadway (Melrose Drive) at some future date. Because the County of San Diego, which abuts the property to the east, and the City of Encinitas, which abuts the property to the south, have indicated that their General Plans include no future circulation arterial roadway connections to a roadway through the Shelley property, construction of the roadway is not proposed or required. The project is proposing to connect an 8” gravity sewer to an existing he located within the Leucadia Wastewater District (LWD) service area. The property is currently within the LWD sphere of influence; therefore it is necessary for LWD to process documents required by LAFCO to annex the property into its service area. This annexation was anticipated for sewer facilities to serve the project by the City’s applicable Zone 11 Local Facilities Management Plan. PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project “as revised” may have a sigrdicant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad City Council. A copy of the initial study (EL4 Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of the date of this notice. The proposed project and Mitigated Negative Declaration are subject to review and approvaYadoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. Additional public notices will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call AM Hysong in the Planning Department at (760) 602- 4622. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD PUBLISH DATE FEBRUARY 10.2005 FEBRUARY 10,2005 THROUGH MARCH 9.2005 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 CASE NO: GPA 03-1 1/ZC 03-09/CT 02-17IHDP 02-08IHMPP 05-04 DATE: December 19,2003 Revised: January 3 1,2005 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. CASE NAME: Shelley Property LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Van Lmch, (760) 602-4613 PROJECT LOCATION: Eastern terminus of Camino Juniper0 in the southeastern corner of the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County. APN 223-061-01 and 02 PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: Group, Inc., 703 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 300, Carlsbad, CA 92009 Robert Ladwig;. Ladwig Design GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RL/OS ZONING: R- 1-40,000 OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): USFWSKDFG PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: The site is located southeast of Rancho Santa Fe Road along the City’s eastern boundary in the southeast quadrant where it is surrounded to the north by open space, to the south by large lot residential development in the City of Encinitas, to the east by vacant land in the County of San Diego, and to the west by future single-family development in Villages of La Costa. Topographically, the property slopes moderately up from the south to the northeast with elevations ranging from 366’ to 690’ MSL. The City’s General Plan designates the southern 6W acres of the property for Residential Low (RL) density (0 - 1.5 ddacre) development with corresponding zoning of R-l-40,000, and the northern 20.5 acres of the property, which includes an 100’ wide San Diego Gas & Electric transmission line easement that traverses the property from east to west, is designated for Open Space. The open space is occupied by coastal sage scrub (CSS) habitat. The remainder of the site, which has been disturbed by cattle grazing for many years, is occupied by non-native grassland. An isolated north-south broken blue-line stream extends approximately 1000’ north of the southern property line within the eastern portion of the property; however, it no longer qualifies as Jurisdictional Waters of the 1 Rev. 07/03/02 /3 U.S. because the drainage has been isolated by development to the south. A second east to west drainage that bisects the northern portion of the property within existing open space is Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. The northern, eastern and southern portions of the site .are designated as a hardline preserve area in the City’s draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP). The project consists of a General Plan Amendment to delineate the boundaries of the HMP open space preserve and allocate the permitted density to the developable portion of the property, a Zone Change to ensure consistency with the General Plan, a Tentative Subdivision Map and Hillside Development Permit to grade and subdivide 49 standard single family, 10,000 square foot (minimum) lots and three open space lots on 81 acres. Grading would occur on approximately 26.6 acres or 33% of the site to create the subdivided single-family lots and associated infrastructure. An earthen vegetated swale will be located within the preserve to ensure water quality, and a sewer line will bisect the southern portion of the preserve. A trail is proposed on existing dirt paths through the property from the northern to southern boundaries where connections will be made to trails within the County and the City of Encinitas. The City will require an irrevocable offer of dedication for 102’ of public right-of-way across the preserve from the eastern project boundary to the eastern property boundary to enable the extension of a General Plan Circulation Element arterial roadway (Melrose Drive) at some future date. Because the County of San Diego, which abuts the property to the east, and the City of Encinitas, which abuts the property to the south, have indicated that their General Plans include no future circulation arterial roadway connections to a roadway through the Shelley property, construction of the roadway is not proposed or required. The Shelley project is proposing to connect an 8” gravity sewer to an existing line located within the Leucadia Wastewater District (LWD) service area. The property is currently within the LWD sphere of influence; therefore it is necessary for LWD to process documents required by LAFCO to annex the property into its service area. This annexation was anticipated for sewer facilities to serve the project by the City’s applicable Zone 11 Local Facilities Management Plan. 2 Rev. 07/03/02 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 0 Aesthetics Geology/Soils 0 Agricultural Resources (XI Hazardshlazardous 0 Air Quality Biological Resources 0 Cultural Resources Materials c] HydrologyNater Quality Land Use and Planning 0 Mineral Resources Mandatory Findings of Significance Noise Population and Housing 0 Public Services Recreation c] TransportatiodCirculation Utilities & Service Systems 3 Rev. 07/03/02 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) IXI 0 0 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 sipficant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL WACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. Planner Signatur Date Planning Director’s Signature Date 4 Rev. 07/03/02 STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears.in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation ’ of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly adverse. Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required. When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. 5 Rev. 07/03/02 e A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment. e If there are one or more potentially significant adverse .effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. 6 Rev. 07/03/02 8 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the EIA-Part 11 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. 7 Rev. 07/03/02 /9 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but 0 0 not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or 0 quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 0 11. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or 0 Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 0 c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? 111. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.) Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Mitigation Incorporated Unless Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI 0 ow w o IXI 0 w 0 IXI 0 8 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? o 0 IXI 0 0 Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 0 0 Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: 0 IXI cl 0 Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Ixl 0 o 0 Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 0 Cl IXI 0 Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? 0 0 IXI Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 0 [XI IXI Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? cl 0 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 0 0 0 IXI Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? 9 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: 0 0 0 0 0 IXI a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in $15064.5? 0 0 IXI b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to $15064.5? 0 0 IXI c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 0 0 0 Ixl d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? IV. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: 0 0 IXI 0 i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 0 0 0 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 0 0 0 0 0 Ix1 0 IXI 0 IXI iv. Landslides? 0 0 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? 0 cl 0 IXI d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 0 0 CI IXI 10 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). IV. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI IXI 0 0 IXI 11 Rev. 07/03/02 a3 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 0 0 0 IXI 0 0 c) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 IXI 0 IXI d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? 0 e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off- site? 0 0 Ixl cl 0 o Ixl f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 0 0 0 cl 0 1x1 0 1x1 g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? 0 0 0 i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? 0 IXI j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 0 0 0 cl 0 IXI 0 IXI I) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. 12 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). IX. X. X. Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI IXI 0 IXI CI IXI IXI 0 IXI IXI cl IXI 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 13 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise (7 levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) 0 X. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce Substantial growth in an area either directly 0 (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace Substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating 0 the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? 0 ii) Police protection? 0 iii) Schools? 0 iv) Parks? 0 v) Other public facilities? 0 Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Mitigation Incorporated Unless Impact 0 [XI a 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 cl 0 0 0 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI 14 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (Le., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Result in inadequate emergency access? Result in insufficient parking capacity? Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn- outs, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 IXI I7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cl 0 0 CI 0 0 0 Ix1 (XI (XI 0 0 (XI cl Ixl 0 (XI 0 (XI 0 Ixl 15 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumula- tively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? EARLIER ANALYSES Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 0 0 CI 0 0 CI Ixl 0 [XI IXI IXI 0 0 Ixl 0 0 0 Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identifjr the following on attached sheets: 16 Rev. 07/03/02 a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specific conditions for the project. 17 Rev. 07/03/02 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact - The project site is not located in proximity to a scenic corridor and minimal visual impacts will result from future development of single family homes that are surrounded by an open space preserve area on three sides. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? No Impact (b & c)- The project site is undeveloped and partially disturbed by past cattle grazing activity. There are no scenic resources on the site. The proposed land subdivision and grading will occur within this previously disturbed area and will not degrade the visual character or quality of the site. There are no visually significant trees, rock outcroppings, or vegetation that could be damaged from future development of the site. Future single-family homes will be required to comply with the City’s development standards that ensure high quality design and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhoods. Therefore, the project will not damage scenic resources or degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. b) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Impact - The proposed single-family lots will not create significant new sources of light and glare. Two-thirds of the site will remain undeveloped and lighting produced by future single- family homes and street lighting that is adjacent to similar development will be minimal. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project: b) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact - The project site is not considered Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Therefore, the proposed project will not convert farmland to a non- agricultural use. a) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 18 Rev. 07/03/02 No Impact - The site is designated by the General Plan for Residential Low density development and is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. b) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non- agricultural use? No Impact: residential lots. The project consists of the subdivision of residentially designated land into AIR QUALITY-Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non-attainment area for ozone (03), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PMlo). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (R4QS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). A pIan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state-mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non-attainment areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November gfh through 10~ in 1994, and was forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996. The proposed project relates to the SIP and/or RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city’s and the County’s general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact. Section 15125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the following: 0 Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area? Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan? 19 Rev. 07/03/02 The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being implemented. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions of the City’s General Plan and the RAQS. Therefore, the project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional plan. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is in the City of Oceanside. Data available for this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both 2000 and 2001) and one day in 2001 for the federal %hour average for ozone and one day for the 24-hour state standard for suspended particulates in 1996. No violations of any other air quality standards have been recorded recently. The project would involve minimal short-term emissions associated with grading and construction. Such emissions would be minimized through standard construction measures such as the use of properly tuned equipment and watering the site for dust control. Long-term emissions associated with travel to and from the project will be minimal. Although air pollutant emissions would be associated with the project, they would neither result in the violation of any air quality standard (comprising only an incremental contribution to overall air basin quality readings), nor contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less Than Significant Impact. The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. The proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the proposed project would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the proposed project, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15 130 (a)(4), the proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact. As noted above, the proposed project would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or concentrations. In addition, there are no sensitive receptors (e.g., schools or hospitals) located in the vicinity of the project. No impact is assessed. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. The construction of the proposed project could generate fumes from the operation of construction equipment, which may be considered objectionable by some people. Such exposure would be short-term or transient. In addition, the number of people exposed to such transient impacts is not considered substantial. 20 Rev. 07/03/02 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated: The 81-acre property contains a negotiated Habitat Management Plan (HMP) hardline preserve area that is approximately 52.87 acres (not including 1.9 acres of trail) or two-thirds of the property. The site is occupied by the following sensitive habitats and plant and animal species: 13.9 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat and 6.2 acres of disturbed coastal sage scrub habitat located in the northern third of the property that is currently designated as permanent open space; 61.2 acres of non-native grassland (identified as sensitive habitat requiring mitigation by the City’s HMP); 1,092 individuals of the San Diego Goldenstar (Muilla clevelandii) plant species, which is a narrow endemic species required to be preserved by the City’s HMP; and two species (San Diego sagewort and California adolphia) identified as a list 2 rare plant species by the California Native Plant Society. Sensitive animal species that are also identified as HMP species requiring conservation and management within HMP preserve areas were observed on the site during several surveys conducted between 1999 and 2002. Species include the Rufous crowned sparrow (single individual observed in 1999 survey only), California gnatcatchers, and San Diego horned lizard (single individual observed in 1999 survey only). Sightings of gnatcatchers have all occurred north of the power line easement within existing open space that is occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat. At least two pairs of gnatcatchers are believed to occupy the site. A recent survey of the site (April 27,2005) by Dossey and Associates did not identify any changes to the previous vegetation mapping. The lack of grazing activity on the site hasn’t caused the site to even begin reverting to coastal sage scrub. Direct ImpactsMitigation: Biological impacts resulting from the project include 26.6 acres of non-native grassland within the proposed development footprint and a 12,000 square foot strip (20’ x 600’) that will be disturbed by installation of a sewer pipeline that extends to the southern property line. A trail that occupies approximately 1.9 acres will also be built primarily along existing dirt roads in the open space. A portion of the trail would also serve as a sewer access road for the sewer pipeline mentioned above thereby avoiding further disturbance to non-native grassland. These impacts will be mitigated through preservation of 32.7 acres within the preserve area south of the SDG&E easement. Due to the presence of gnatcatchers within coastal sage scrub habitat on the property, vegetation clearing activities shall take place outside of the breeding season for raptors and gnatcatchers (February 15 to August 31). Prior to construction activity, the project will conduct a raptor and gnatcatcher survey on the property to determine if there are any active nests. If nests are located, a temporary 500 foot buffer shall be established between construction activities and active raptor nests and a 300 foot temporary buffer for active gnatcatcher nests so that nesting activities are not interrupted. If there are any White Tailed Kites in adjacent developed areas, they will be detected during the raptor surveys, and a 500 foot buffer established around them. 21 Rev. 07/03/02 33 The non-native grassland area is presumed to originally be a coastal sage scrub habitat based on the surrounding plant communities and indicator species present. If a coastal sage scrub habitat begins to emerge, the coastal sage scrub should be allowed to develop and replace the non-native grassland. A total of 1,092 San Diego Goldenstar plants were observed on the property. Impacts to this narrow endemic plant species were avoided through a project redesign that avoids nearly all individuals and limits direct impact to an estimated two individuals out of the 1,092 total individuals observed in 2003, thereby preserving 99% of the San Diego Goldenstar observed onsite. The Goldenstar will be separated from the landscaped slopes by a brow ditch drainage structure to keep the hydrology of the preserve area from changing. Some populations will remain within fire management zones for the project. Current circumstances wouldn’t require any clearing for fire protection within those areas where the San Diego Goldenstar occurs. Any future Zone 3 brush management within Open Space Lot A shall be done without disturbing the ground and shall require a biological monitor. Activities in the proximity to the San Diego Goldenstar shall occur between July 1 and November 30, when the plant is not expected to have foliage above the ground and no heavy equipment will be used that may compact the soil. Project CC&Rs shall be required to incorporate these restrictions. Preservation of the San Diego sagewort and California adolphia is not required by the MHCP or HMP; therefore; it is assumed that mitigation through preservation of native habitats within the habitat preserve areas incorporates these species. Temporary ImpactsNitigation: Temporary impacts include 1.7 acres of non-native grassland within the HMP preserve area resulting from grading of slopes outside the subdivision footprint and a 40’ x 200’ drainage swale extending from the eastern boundary of the subdivision into the preserve area. The swale is a permanent structure made of natural material designed to slow, clean and desilt the run-off from portions of the subdivision. The swale is compatible with the open space in that it would be entirely of earthen construction beyond the initial outfall. The swale would be planted with native grasses and possible riparian species if sufficiently wet. All of the temporary impacts would be within the proposed preserve area. In summary, the temporary impacts would involve grading, excavating and/or installing the improvements mentioned above and mitigation would consist of revegetating the impacted areas with native grassland. A revegetation plan shall be prepared and approved by the City and wildlife agencies prior to commencement of work. Indirect ImpactsNitigation: Brush Manavement: The areas requiring Zones 1 and 2 brush management are entirely within the development footprint. Thinning of shrubbery (Zone 3) brush management is required; however, currently there is no area within Zone 3 that has any shrubs and certainly not enough density to warrant thinning. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated to the San Diego Goldenstar from Zone 3 brush management. Should Zone 3 brush management become necessary in the future, the thinning shall be done with a biological monitor and without disturbing the ground. Activities shall occur between July 1 and November 30, when the plant is not expected to have foliage above the ground and no heavy equipment will be used that may compact the soil. 22 Rev. 07/03/02 Drainage and Erosion: Temporary impact areas within the HMP preserve will be revegetated with native plants to reduce/prevent erosion problems. This includes graded slopes and the swale for desiltation. This is compatible with the HMP and no significant impacts are anticipated. Landscaping: The temporary impact areas from grading will be revegetated with San Diego County native plant species. The sewer line impacts will be passively restored to native grasslands. These adjacent areas will be incorporated into the preserve. No significant impacts are anticipated. Lighting: All street lighting adjacent to the preserve will be from low pressure sodium sources and, to whatever extent possible without compromising safety, directed away from the preserve area. This is compatible with the HMP and no significant impacts are expected. Fencing: All existing fencing within the preserve shall be dismantled and removed. Portions of the boundary of the preserve area should be fenced with public access points that will limit access and reduce overall impacts from residents and pets without preventing passive enjoyment of the preserve area. Fence plans shall be approved by the USFWS prior to approval of final landscape plans. This is compatible with the HMP and a positive impact is anticipated. Simage: General signage shall be provided at the public access points noting that the area is a preserve and explaining the rules of HMP preserve areas. A public information kiosk where land managers can post notices regarding the preserve shall be placed at a public access point. This is required by the HMP and will benefit the preserve. A positive impact is anticipated. Exotic Species: Use of native species for landscaping in areas adjacent to the preserve shall be required. Use of invasive exotics shall be excluded from all other project landscape plans. Project CC&Rs shall be required to incorporate Lists A & B of the California Exotic Pest Plant Council’s list of “Exotic Pest Plants of Greatest Ecological Concern in California as of October 1999” to avoid in individual landscape plans. This is compatible with the HMP and no significant impacts are anticipated. Noise: No construction activity with noise in excess of 60 dB shall occur within 300 feet of an active gnatcatcher nest or 500 feet of an active raptor nest between February 15 and August 3 1. If activities occur with sound levels exceeding 60 dB, measures shall be taken to reduce the sound to less than 60 dB at the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat. This is compatible with the HMP and no significant impacts are anticipated. Rock crushing activities required for grading shall be done on Lot 40 of the Shelley Tentative Map which is roughly 800 feet from any coastal sage scrub habitat. The acoustical analysis performed by Pacific Noise Control states that noise generated by the crusher would be 82 dB at a distance of 50 feet. Therefore, an additional 750 foot buffer shall be provided to ensure an adequate distance is provided for the purpose of avoiding excessive noise impacts within open space areas occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat. Blasting at the site shall be done outside the breeding season if it is within 300 feet of gnatcatcher habitat. 23 Rev. 07/03/02 In accordance with the HMP, the project shall be conditioned to require a Conservation Easement, an appropriate natural lands management organization, management plan and funding mechanism as follows: As a condition of this approval, applicant must comply with the requirements of all regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the project and any mitigation requirements of the environmental documents for the project. Pursuant to Government Code section 65871 and Carlsbad Municipal Code Title 20, Chapter 20.04, section 20.04.140 applicant shall grant a conservation easement for the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants and the habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of certain species thereof, in accordance with the City’s adopted Habitat Management Plan. Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first, the Developer shall take the following actions to the satisfaction of the Planning Director in relation to the open space lot(s): a. Select a Conservation entity, subject to approval by the City, that possesses the necessary qualifications to hold title to the open space lot(s) and manage it for conservation purposes. b. Prepare a Property Analysis Record (PAR) or other method acceptable to the City for estimating the costs of management and monitoring of the open space lot(s) in perpetuity. Based on the results of the PAR, provide a non-wasting endowment or other financial mechanism acceptable to the Planning Director and Wildlife Agencies, to the selected conservation entity in an amount sufficient for management and monitoring of the open space lot(s) in perpetuity. d. Concurrent with recordation of the final map, transfer fee title to the open space lot(s) to the selected Conservation entity. 0 c. HMP Hardline Equivalencv Assessment: As a result of the project redesign, the proposed HMP hardline is slightly altered so that the overall preserve area is increased in size due to the discovery of San Diego Goldenstar within the previously negotiated development boundaries. The HMP preserve area has increased from 52.16 acres to 54.75 acres, or 2.59 acres. (Acreages within easements that bisect the preserve will be deducted from the total preserve acreage upon recordation of the conservation easement). The San Diego Goldenstar is identified as an HMP narrow endemic plant species requiring preservation. The revised hardline boundary is drawn to avoid the San Diego Goldenstar within the northeastern portion of the subdivision and to encroach slightly into the existing hardline boundary along the eastern and southern boundaries. In accordance with the City’s draft HMP amendment process, Equivalency Findings are necessary to adjust the hardline boundary. The applicant has gone to great lengths to redesign the project since the original hardline was established, with the result that the current project impacts only 26.6 acres permanently and 1.9 acres temporarily. The original design impacted 28.3 acres permanently and 3 acres temporarily. Upon completion, there will be more acreage available for corridors and open space than the original design. These modifications to the hardline will result in a biologically more friendly design for the project than what was previously proposed. As a result, the project is proposing to alter the hardline to accommodate the new design. In Figure 3, the existing hardline is shown in pink, and the proposed permanent impact areas (new hardline) is shown in blue. This project is proposing to revise the pink line to the blue line in order to accommodate the biological superior 24 -7 i Rev. 07/03/02 L? 0 design. A sewer line will also be installed below the trail easement in the southern portion of the property. Allowing for this design will improve the overall biology and better protect the biological resources at the site. HMP MITIGATION AND/OR RATIO 2: 1 The following table identifies impacts, HMP mitigation requirements, and proposed preservation and revegetation acreages (mitigation) for the project. MITIGATION REQUIRED 0.0 SPECIES IMPACTS Scrub Sage I 0.0 Disturbed Sa eScrub Coastal 1 0.0 PERMANENT IMPACTS 0.0 0.0 2:l 1 0.0 * Preservation of 13.9 acres Preservation of 6.2 acres 25 Rev. 07/03/02 HABITAT/ SPECIES Non-Native Grassland San Diego Goldenstar 1,092 plants (All inside HMP preserve) Total TEMPO WRY IMPACTS 1.9 acres 1.9 acres non-native grassland PERMANENT IMPACTS 26.6 acres 2 plants 26.6 acres non-native grassland 2 San Diego golden star HMP MITIGATION AND/OR RATIO 0.5: 1 95% preservation inside Focused Planning Area NIA *A revegetation plan shall be prepared and approved by the MITIGATION REQUIRED ~~~~ 13.3 acres Avoidance and minimization 13.3 acres non-native grassland 95% preservation ity and wildlii MITIGATION PROPOSED: * Preservation of 32.7 acres (34.6 after native grassland revegetation of areas temporarily impacted 1.090 (inside preserve) Preservation of 13.9 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat and 6.2 acres of Disturbed Coastal Sage Scrub Preservation of 32.7 acresl34.6 acres after temporary impacts are revegetated Presewation of (99.8%) 1,090 San Diego Goldenstar agencies and a biological monitor shall be present during project construction and implementation to ensure compliance with the above mitigation measures for direct, indirect, and temporary impacts. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 26 Rev. 07/03/02 c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? Less than Significant Impact (b & c) - A sewer line with trail above are proposed to be constructed across a drainage in the southern portion of the property that is shown as a broken blue line stream on the US Geological Survey map and surveyed in 1999 as approximately 2,400 feet long and consisting of .08 acre of Jurisdictional Waters. However, at the point of the proposed temporary sewer line impact, there is no clear bed or bank for the stream. It is a swale with some evidence of surface flow; a few small ephemeral flow lines less than six inches deep, none more than a foot wide, can be found between the grasses. A few individuals of obligate wetland species, wrinkled rush, was found during the 2001 surveys but not observed in 2002 within the swale. There is clearly not a preponderance of hydrophytic vegetation; therefore no impacts are identified to wetland habitats. The biological analysis of the site determines that the drainage south of the property on the downstream end is cut off from any surface water attachment to any existing drainages; therefore, the drainage has been isolated from any adjacent Jurisdictional Waters and no longer qualifies as Jurisdictional Waters of the US due to its isolation. A second drainage that runs across the northern portion of the property from east to west is defined as Jurisdictional Waters of the United States. This drainage is within the existing open space area, and it will not be impacted by the proposed development. In summary, no jurisdictional waters of the US will be impacted by this project. Notification to California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) shall be required due to the past presence of wrinkled rush. Due to the site being disturbed and the impacts to the drainage being minimal, there would not be any anticipated significant impacts fkom the proposed action. The project shall consult with the USACE regarding the jurisdictional waters determination. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - The project site contains a negotiated HMP hardline preserve area that consists of approximately two-thirds of the 81-acre property. The proposed development will permanently disturb approximately 26.6 acres of non- native grassland within the western portion of the site that abuts approved development in the City of Carlsbad, however, the remaining non-native grassland and all of the existing coastal sage scrub habitats will remain undisturbed within the habitat preserve area which connects to existing habitat preservedopen space along the northern, eastern, and southern property lines. No trees will be removed or impacted by this project and there will be no impact to any potential white tailed kite nesting areas as that type of habitat does not occur on the property. If construction is planned during the bird breeding season (February 15 through August 31), the applicant will be required to conduct gnatcatcher and raptor surveys prior to any Construction activity. If raptor nests are located, a 500 foot buffer shall be established between construction activities and the nest so that nesting activities are not interrupted. If gnatcatcher nests are located, a 300’ buffer shall be established. If there are any white tailed kites in adjacent developed areas, they will be detected during the raptor surveys, and a 500’ buffer established around them. The project therefore provides connections for and avoids significant impacts to the movement of any established native resident or migratory wildlife species. 27 Rev. 07/03/02 e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact - The project is consistent with the preservation and mitigation requirements of the City’s Habitat Management Plan which is used as a standard of review for biological impacts. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Less Than Significant Impact - The project is consistent with the preservation and mitigation requirements of the City’s Habitat Management Plan which is used as a standard of review for biological impacts. (See discussion above and under “Land Use & Planning,’’ Item I). g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? No Impact - The only drainage and/or wetland habitat identified on the site as Jurisdictional Waters of the US occurs along the northern property line within existing open space. The area is also part of the negotiated HMP hardline preserve area; therefore, no environmentally sensitive tributary areas would be impacted by the project. CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact (a, b, & d) - The project site is an undeveloped site that has been disturbed by cattle grazing for many years. According to the cultural resource survey of the property performed by Affinis Environmental Services, there are no recorded archaeological sites and no evidence of historical or archeological resources were found on the project site. No Impact (c) - According to the City’s geologic maps, the likelihood of paleontological resources at the site is very low. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -Would the project: a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: 28 Rev. 07/03/02 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. . ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant Impact (a.i. to a.iii.) - There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zones within the City of Carlsbad and there is no other evidence of active or potentially active faults within the City. However, there are several active faults throughout Southern California, and these potential earthquakes could affect Carlsbad. The project site is located in an area of stable soil conditions and the risk of seismic-related ground failure or liquefaction is minimal. Although the area may be subject to moderate to severe ground shaking, the risk from ground shaking is not significant when structures are built pursuant to the Uniform Building Code (earthquake standards). b) Landslides? No Impact - According to the “Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation” of the property prepared by Geocon, no landslides were encountered nor are any known to exist on the site. c) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No Impact -According to the US Department of Agriculture, Soil Survey - San Diego Area, December 1973, the project site contains soils that have high erosion limitations, as do most soil types in Carlsbad. The project’s compliance with standards in the City’s Excavation and Grading Ordinance that prevent erosion through slope planting and installation of desiltation basins or other temporary means will avoid substantial soil erosion impacts. d) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? No Impact - The geotechnical analysis performed for the site by Geocon revealed that no significant geotechnical problems exist that could result in exposure to unsafe conditions, and that the site is favorable for the proposed development provided the recommendations summarized in the preliminary geotechnical report are followed. e) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? No Impact- The geotechnical analysis performed for the site by Geocon revealed that no significant geotechnical problems exist that could result in exposure to unsafe conditions, and that the site is favorable for the proposed development provided the recommendations summarized in the preliminary geotechnical report are followed. 29 f) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact - The project site is an undeveloped site surrounded by existing and planned urban development. The project includes a sewer connection to an existing sewer main at the southern property line. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? No Impact (a, b, c & d) - The project consists of a single-family residential subdivision; therefore, no hazardous materials would be used or generated by the project. The site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact (e & f) - The project is located outside the McClellan Palomar Airport influence area. The Carlsbad Airport Land Use Plan (CLUP) specifies the areas subject to safety hazards, i.e., the flight activity zone and the crash hazard zone. The development is not located within either of these zones; therefore a significant safety hazard would not result from the development of single-family homes. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact - The private residential development does not interfere with the City’s emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. 30 Rev. 07/03/02 h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Less than Significant Impact - The project is surrounded by native and non-native vegetation. The project complies with City standards requiring 60’ fire suppression zones that create buffers between high fuel native species and residential structures. The project has also included fire resistive construction and fire sprinklers in high exposure areas. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Impacts to groundwater quality? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? No Impact (a, b, c, d, e, f & g) - The project site is located in an area where development will not have a significant impact to groundwater. The project will install a public storm drain system necessary to convey the developed 100 year flows for the existing offsite areas and onsite improvements from the subject development. Post condition runoff for the project is less than pre-condition and will not necessitate any requirement for onsite detention facilities. Desiltation will be required per the State Water Resource Quality Control Board to include necessary de- pollutant devices, and the project includes a desiltation swale at the southeastern corner of the development for this purpose. The project is conditioned to require a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) that will ensure that it is designed and constructed in compliance with the City’s NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity issued by the State Water Resources Control Board and the San Diego NPDES Municipal Storm Water Permit issued to San Diego County and Cities by the California Regional Water Quality 31 Rev. 07/03/02 Control Board. Therefore, the project will not violate any water quality standards, deplete groundwater supplies or quality, substantially alter existing drainage patterns, cause substantial erosion or flooding, or significantly impact the capacity of stormwater drainage systems. h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact (h & I) - The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to the Flood Insurance Rate Map. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in housing or structures within a 100-year flood hazard area. j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact (j & k) - According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992, the project site is not located within any dam failure inundation area, or area subject to inundation by seiche or tsunami. Therefore, the project will not result in exposing people or structures to significant risk from flooding as a result of a dam failure, or from inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. 1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? No Impact (1, m, n, o & p) - The project site is not located adjacent to any body of water. Drainage from the site is subject to the City’s drainage and storm water pollution control standards (NPDES and best management practices), which ensure that sediment and pollutants from any development of the site will not discharge into any downstream receiving surface waters. Also, the City’s drainage and storm water pollution control standards ensure that development does not reduce water quality of any marine, fresh or wetland waters or 32 Rev. Q7/03/02 groundwater. The project design includes a desiltation swale that will receive runoff from the project, and the project will be conditioned to prepare a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) to ensure that City standards are met. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact - The project site is located along the eastern City boundary where it is bounded to the east by vacant land in the County of San Diego and to the south by existing estate lot development in the City of Encinitas. Small lot single family residential development in the Villages of La Costa Master Plan is approved to the west of the proposed subdivision. The proposed development will be separated from the adjacent jurisdictions by a minimum 300’ wide HMP preserve area. Future residential development of the site on minimum 10,000 square foot lots will be compatible and integrate well with the approved La Costa Oaks south small lot single family development to the west. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less than Significant Impact - The project is currently General Plan designated for Residential Low (RL) (0 - 1.5 dwelling unitdacre) density development and zoned R-1-40,000, requiring minimum 40,000 square foot single-family residential lots. The proposed density of .86 dwelling units per acre for the 49 lot subdivision is within the 0 - 1.5 dwelling unitlacre density range and slightly below the Growth Management growth control point of 1 dwelling unitlacre. The project is therefore 7 units below the maximum of 56.67 dwelling units permitted by the RL growth control point. The growth control point was used by the Department of Housing and Community Development for the purpose of calculating the City’s compliance with “fair share” Housing Element law. However, consistent with Program 3.8 of the City’s certified Housing Element, all of the dwelling units, which were anticipated toward achieving the City’s fair share allocation but are not utilized by developers in approved projects, are deposited in the City’s Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. These excess dwelling units are available for allocation to other projects through density transfers, density bonuses and General Plan Amendments. Accordingly, there is no net loss of residential unit capacity. Two-thirds of the site will be preserved in open space as a HMP habitat preserve area requiring development to occur within the remaining one-third of the property. A General Plan Amendment is proposed to redesignate the HMP preserve area to Open Space and redesignate the remainder of the property to Residential Low Medium (RLM) (0 - 4 ddacre) density for the purpose of permanently transferring density from the entire site to the proposed development area. A Zone Change is also proposed to redesignate the property to the R-1-10,000 and Open Space (0-S) zoning designations to ensure zoning consistency with the proposed General Plan designations. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 33 Rev. 07/03/02 Less Than Significant Impact - Approximately two-thirds of the project site is identified by the City’s Habitat Management Plan (HMP) as a negotiated hardline habitat preserve located within Core Area 7. The property is further identified as Figure 23 within the HMP. The proposed hardline is slightly altered so that the overall preserve area is increased in size due to the discovery of San Diego Goldenstar within the previously negotiated development boundaries. The San Diego Goldenstar is identified as an HMP narrow endemic plant species requiring preservation. In accordance with the City’s HMP amendment process, Equivalency Findings must be made. (See the Biological Resources section of this document for the Equivalency Findings). The project is consistent with the HMP hardline preserve area requirements in that it preserves two-thirds of the site, avoids disturbance to 100% of the coastal sage scrub habitat, preserves 99.8% of the sensitive (narrow endemic) San Diego Goldenstar plant species existing on the site, and exceeds the required .5: 1 mitigation ratio for disturbance to non-native grassland through onsite preservation and native grassland revegetation of 34.6 acres within the preserve area. MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No Impact (a & b) - According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992, the project site does not contain any mineral resources; therefore, the project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or mineral resource recovery site. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated The Noise Element of the General Plan specifies that sixty (60) dB CNEL is the exterior noise level to which all residential units should be mitigated, and that interior noise levels should be mitigated to 45 dB CNEL. According to the noise assessment performed for the project, exterior noise levels for units along Calle Junipero, a circulation arterial roadway, would range up to 71 dB thereby exceeding the City’s standard of 60 dBA CNEL exterior noise level. Mitigation necessary to reduce exterior rear yard noise levels to 60 dBA CNEL consists of construction of a combination of 1 foot - 4 foot high berms and maximum 6 foot high masonry noise walls with a surface density of 3.5 pounds per square foot with no openings or cracks on Lots 1, and 8-21 to be located as shown on the tentative map. If two story homes are located on Lots 1, 8-22, and 49, prior to issuance of building permits, an interior noise analysis will be required to determine appropriate mitigation to reduce interior noise levels to 45 dBA. Mitigation to accomplish the interior noise standard will most likely require air-conditioning and/or mechanical ventilation and 46 34 Rev. Q7IQ3lQ2 possibly sound rated windows. Noise mitigation would not be required if Camino Juniper0 terminates within the City of Carlsbad. Temporary Impact Rock Crushing and Blasting: A portable rock crusher would be used onsite during construction. The crushing operation would begin with a front loader picking up material and dumping the material into a primary crusher. Electric power would be provided by a diesel engine generator. The closest homes would be located near the southwestern portion of the site. These homes are currently being constructed. Based on noise measurements that have been conducted for portable rock crushing operations, the rock crushing activity would generate a one-hour average noise level of approximately 82 dB at 50 feet. Assuming the rock crusher is operated during the daytime hours for a period of ten hours each day, the CNEL would be approximately 82 dB at 50 feet. To mitigate noise levels resulting from the rock crushing operation to the 60 dB standard at the backyards of the off-site residences, the rock crushing operation shall be located on Lot 40 of the Shelley Tentative Map, which is located approximately 500 feet from the nearest future residence. This conservatively assumes an attenuation of 5 dB that would result from solid masonry walls constructed at the rear property lines of the off-site residences. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact - Blasting: Blasting may be required during construction if rock encountered during grading cannot be ripped by bulldozers. According to the noise analysis, construction blasting generates a maximum noise level of approximately 94 dB at a distance of 50 feet. The blast is generally perceived as a dull thud, rather than as a loud explosion. The closest homes to the on-site limits of grading would be located more than 60 feet away. Assuming blasting activities are conducted adjacent to the closest home, the maximum noise level would be approximately 92 dB. This noise level would be noticeable, but would not result in a significant noise impact because of the infrequent nature of blasting. Vibration levels associated with blasting would vary. Ground-borne vibration is influenced by the soil conditions and the receiving building. Vibration source levels associated with construction blasting are typically a peak particle velocity of approximately 0.80 inches per second at a distance of 25 feet. At a distance of 60 feet, peak particle velocity would be approximately 0.2 inches per second. The U.S. Bureau of Mines has set a peak particle velocity “safe blasting limit” of 2.0 inches per second from single events such as dynamite blasts. According to sources reviewed as part of the noise analysis, there is virtually no risk of building damage below this level. This vibration level would be perceptible to people, but because of the infrequent nature of blasting, it would result in a less than significant vibration impact. c) d) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact - The single-family housing development will increase the ambient noise level above existing noise levels, however, residential development will not ’ generate substantial increases in noise. Periodic increases in ambient noise levels will occur with the grading operation, however, the project will be required to comply with the City’s Grading 35 Rev. Q7lQ3lQ2 Ordinance which imposes timing and noise limitations to avoid substantial noise impacts. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No impact (e & f) - The project is not located within 2 miles of a public airport or private airstrip. The site lies outside of the McClellan-Palomar Airport Influence area and the noise notification area as specified by the Carlsbad Airport Land Use Plan (CLUP). POPULATION AND HOUSING -Would the project: a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact - The project is located on a site that is adjacent to an approved Master Plan development in the City of Carlsbad and existing development in the City of Encinitas with road and utility infrastructure that the proposed subdivision will extend to provide vehicular access and utility connections. Although the General Plan Circulation Element identifies a major arterial roadway extending to the southern or possibly eastern property lines of the property, the adjacent jurisdictions have indicated that their respective General Plan Circulation Elements do not identify an arterial roadway in the vicinity of the project. Since no plans exist for the potential extensiodconnection of a major roadway beyond the Carlsbad City boundary, an irrevocable offer of dedication for the right-of-way will be required as part of the final subdivision map in the event that some future connection is planned, however, no roadway construction will be required as part of the project. Therefore, the project is not growth inducing with respect to residential development or infrastructure. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact (b & c)’ The project site is undeveloped. Therefore, the project will not displace any existing housing or people. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain 36 Rev. 07/03/02 acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 1. Fire protection? ii. Police protection? iii. Schools? iv. Parks? v. Other public facilities? No Impact (a.i to a.v.) -The project site is located within Local Facilities Management Zone (LFMZ) 1 1. The provision of public facilities within LFMZ 1 1, including fire protection, parks, libraries and other public facilities, has been planned to accommodate the projected growth of that area. Because the project will not exceed the total growth projections anticipated within LFMZ 11, all public facilities will be adequate to serve residential development on the site. Therefore, the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts to or result in the need for additional public facilities. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact (a & b) - As part of the City’s Growth Management Program (GMP), a performance standard for parks was adopted. The park performance standard requires that 3 acres of Community Park and Special Use Area per 1,000 population within a park district (quadrant) must be provided. The project site is located within Park District #4 (Southeast Quadrant). The necessary park acreage to achieve the GMP standard (3 acres/1,000 population) for Park District #4 was based upon the GMP dwelling unit limitation for the Southeast Quadrant. Existing and planned public parks in the southeast quadrant are adequate to satisfy the additional demand resulting from the 49 lot residential subdivision in accordance with the GMP. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC-Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? Less Than Significant Impact. The project will generate 490 Average Daily Trips (ADT), 38 AM (12 in, 26 out) peak hour trips, and 48 PM (34 in, 14 out) peak hour trips. This traffic will primarily utilize Rancho Santa Fe Road as the main route to access the proposed project. Existing traffic on this arterial is 29,600 ADT (2002) between San Elijo Road and Cadencia Street and is based on traffic counts provided by the City for the La Costa Town Square project. 37 Rev. 07/03/02 The design capacity of Rancho Santa Fe Road affected by the proposed project is 40,000 vehicles per day. The project traffic would represent 1.6% and 1.2% of the existing traffic volume and the design capacity, respectively. While the increase in traffic from the proposed project may be slightly noticeable, the street system has been designed and sized to accommodate traffic from the project and cumulative development in the City of Carlsbad. The proposed project would not, therefore, cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The impacts from the proposed project are, therefore, less than significant. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less Than Significant Impact. SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The Existing and Buildout average daily traffic (ADT) and Existing LOS on these designated roads and highways in Carlsbad is: Existing; ADT* Buildout ADT* Rancho Santa Fe.Road 15-32 ‘‘A-C” 28-43 El Camino Real 2 1-50 “A-C” 32-65 Palomar Airport Road 10-52 “A-B” 29-77 SR 78 120 “F” 144 1-5 183-198 “D” 2 19-249 *The numbers are in thousands of daily trips. The Congestion Management Program’s (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is “E”, or LOS “F” if that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS “F” in 1990). Accordingly, all designated roads and highways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS. Note that the buildout ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region’s general and community plans. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan and, therefore, its traffic was used in modeling the buildout projections. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS) “E” standard assumes implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on the design capacity(ies) of the designated roads and highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the short-term and at buildout. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Airport. It would not, therefore, result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact assessed. 38 Rev. 07/03/02 d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? No Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City standards; and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and zoning. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No impact assessed. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police Departments. No impact assessed. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. The proposed project is not requesting a parking variance. Additionally, the project would comply with the City’s parking requirements to ensure an adequate parking supply. No impact assessed. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)? No Impact. The project is a single family residential development that does not require bike racks. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS -Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? No Impact (a & b) - The project site is located within Local Facilities Management Zone (LFMZ) 11 , which is served by the Encina wastewater treatment facility. Wastewater treatment capacity has been planned to accommodate the projected growth of Zone 1 1. Because the project will not exceed the total growth projections anticipated within LFMZ 11 , wastewater treatment capacity will be adequate to serve residential development on the site. Therefore, the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts to or result in the need for additional wastewater treatment facilities. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 39 Rev. 07/03/02 e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? No Impact (e, d & e) - All public facilities, including sewer, water, drainage facilities and wastewater treatment capacities, have been planned and designed to accommodate the growth projections for the City at build-out. The proposed residential land use will not result in growth that exceeds the City’s growth projections; therefore, water, drainage, and sewer facilities, and wastewater treatment capacities will not be exceeded. No unmitigated environmental effects will result fiom construction of sewer and water transmission lines and storm drains to serve the subdivision in accordance with LFMZ 1 1. The project proposes to construct an 8” PVC sanitary sewer that will connect to an existing line at the property’s southern boundary. The existing line is located in the Leucadia Wastewater District (LWD) service area. The annexation of the Shelley property, which is currently located within the Leucadia Wastewater District (LWD) sphere of influence, into the LWD service area is required prior to development. Documents are currently being processed through LAFCO to complete the annexation. Impacts to the physical environment resulting fiom the construction of the sewer line are addressed in the biological section of this document. 9 Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact (f & g) - Existing waste disposal services contracted by the City of Carlsbad are adequate to serve the proposed 49 lot residential subdivision without exceeding landfill capacities. Future residential development resulting from the proposed land subdivision will be required to comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - Through preservation of an HMP preserve area on two-thirds of the site, the project will not degrade the quality of the physical environment. Although disturbance to 26.6 acres of non-native grassland and two San Diego Goldenstar will result from the project, mitigation through onsite preservation within the preserve at ratios and percentages that far exceed the HMP mitigation requirement will avoid substantial reductions of non-native grassland and San Diego Goldenstar. 40 Rev. 07/03/02 There are no historic structures on the site and there are no known cultural resources on the site. Therefore, the project will not result in the elimination of any important examples of California prehistory. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) Less than Significant Impact - San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects regional growth for the greater San Diego area, and local general plan land use policies are incorporated into SANDAG projections. Based upon those projections, region-wide standards, including storm water quality control, air quality standards, habitat conservation, congestion management standards, etc, are established to reduce the cumulative impacts of development in the region. All of the City’s development standards and regulations are consistent with the region-wide standards. The City’s standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality and drainage standards, traffic standards, habitat and cultural resource protection regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that development within the City will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact. There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a cumulatively considerable impact on. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. As discussed above, the proposed project will result in residential development, which represents a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with residential development would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with residential development of the site, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the residential development is implemented. Therefore, the impact is assessed as less than significant. Also, as discussed above, the County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The CMA has determined, based on the City’s growth projections in the General Plan, that these designated roadways will function at acceptable levels of service in the short-term and at build-out. The project is consistent with the City’s growth projections, and therefore, the cumulative impact from the project to the regional circulation system is less than significant. With regard to any other potential impact associated with the project, City standards and regulations will ensure that residential development on the site will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - Development of the site will comply with City development standards designed to avoid substantial adverse environmental effects to residents. The project site is located in an area where human beings could be exposed 41 Rev. 07/03/02 to 60 - 71 dBA CNEL noise levels generated by a major arterial roadway. As discussed above, City standards require: 1) noise attenuation to reduce exterior noise levels to 60 dBA CNEL; and 2) interior noise levels to be mitigated to the 45 dBA CNEL standard. The project will be conditioned to require a combination of berms and noise walls along property lines abutting public rights of way, disclosure notices, and measures to reduce interior noise levels will be incorporated into future residential units. Temporary impacts resulting from rock crushing will be mitigated through locational mitigation measures to avoid. excessive noise exposure. Residential development on the site will be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, regional and City regulations, which will ensure the development of the site will not result in an adverse impact on human beings, either directly or indirectly. EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. 2. “Biological Resources Report for the Shelley Property” prepared by Dossey & Associates, dated July 23, 2002 and Letter dated June 10, 2003 regarding San Diego Goldenstar; 3. Letter from Dossey & Associates dated March 11, 2004 in response to Wildlife Agency Comment Letter dated February 2,2004; 4. “Biological Resources Report for the Shelley Property” prepared by Dossey & Associates, Revised December 12,2004. 5. “Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation” prepared by Geocon, Inc., dated November 27, 2001. 6. “Preliminary Hydrology Report for Shelley Property”, prepared by Buccola Engineering, Inc., dated August 2,2002. 7. “Shelley Property - Environmental Noise Assessment”, prepared by Pacific Noise Control, dated July 17,2002 and addendum; 8. “Shelley Property - Environmental Noise Assessment” prepared by Pacific Noise Control, dated December 1,2004. 9. “Leucadia Wastewater District, Fair Oaks Valley Annexation” letter dated December 8, 2004. 10. Letter from Dossey & Associates dated May 6, 2005 in response to Wildlife Agency Comment Letter dated March 1 1,2005. 42 3-f Rev. 07/03/02 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) 95% 1. Biological Mitigation: Avoidance HABITAT/ SPECIES TEMP. IMPACTS PERMANENT IMPACTS Coastal Sage 1 0.0 I 0.0 Coastal Sage Scrub Scrub Disturbed 0.0 0.0 1,092 plants (inside HMP preserve) San Diego Goldenstar 2 plants preservation inside Focused Planning Area HMP MITIGATION AND/OR RATIO 2: 1 and minimization 2: 1 0.5: 1 MITIGATIOD REQUIRED 0.0 0.0 13.3 acres MITIGATION PROPOSED: Preservation of 13.9 acres onsite Preservation of 6.2 acres onsite Preservation of 32.7 acres onsite (34.6 after revegetation of areas temporarily impacted with native grasses 99.8% preserved 43 Rev. 07/03/02 HABITAT/ SPECIES Total TEMP. IMPACTS 1.9 acres non-native grassland PERMANENT IMPACTS 26.6 acres non-native grassland 2 San Diego golden star ~ HMP MITIGATION AND/OR RATIO NIA MITIGATIO N REQUIRED 13.3 acres non-native grassland 90% preservation MITIGATION PROPOSED: Preservation of 13.9 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat and 6.2 acres of Disturbed Coastal Sage Scrub onsite Preservation of 32.7 acresl34.6 acres after native grassland revegetation of areas temporarily impacted. Preservation of (99.8%) 1,090 San Diego Goldenstar 0 In accordance with the HMP, the project shall be conditioned to require a Conservation Easement, an appropriate natural lands management organization, management plan and funding mechanism as follows: As a condition of this approval, applicant must comply with the requirements of all regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the project and any mitigation requirements of the environmental documents for the project. Pursuant to Government Code section 65871 and Carlsbad Municipal Code Title 20, Chapter 20.04, section 20.04.140 applicant shall grant a conservation easement for the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants and the habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of certain species thereof, in accordance with the City’s adopted Habitat Management Plan. Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first, the Developer shall take the following actions to the satisfaction of the Planning Director in relation to the open space lot(s) which are being conserved for natural habitat in conformance with the City’s Habitat Management Plan: a. Select a conservation entity, subject to approval by the City, that possesses the necessary qualifications to manage the open space lot(s) for conservation purposes. 0 44 Rev. 07/03/02 b. Prepare a Property Analysis Record (PAR) or other method acceptable to the City for estimating the costs of management and monitoring of the open space lot(s) in perpetuity. c. Based on the results of the PAR, provide a non-wasting endowment or other financial mechanism acceptable to the Planning Director in an amount sufficient for management and monitoring of the open space lot(s) in perpetuity. The non- wasting endowment shall be legally structured such that it shall transfer to the City if the City accepts the Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate fee title to the open space lot(s). d. Record a Conservation Easement over the open space lot(s) which includes an Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate fee title to the open space lot(s) in favor of the City. e. Prepare an Interim Management Plan which will ensure adequate management of the open space lot(s) until such time as a permanent preserve management plan is prepared and approved by the City. 0 Brush Management: Any future Zone 3 brush management within Open Space Lot A shall be done without disturbing the ground and shall require a biological monitor. Activities in the proximity to the San Diego Goldenstar shall occur between July 1 and November 30, when the plant is not expected to have foliage above the ground and no heavy equipment will be used that may compact the soil. Project CC&Rs shall be required to incorporate these restrictions. 0 Drainage/Erosion/Landscaping/Avoidance of Exotic Species: Temporary impacts within the HMP preserve area adjacent to the subdivision boundary shall be revegetated with native species. Use of invasive exotics shall be excluded from all other project landscape plans. Project CC&Rs shall be required to incorporate the HMP List of Exotic Species to avoid in individual landscape plans. 0 The Developer shall provide the Wildlife agencies with a proposed landscaping plan for review and approval prior to grading permit issuance. 0 The Developer shall provide the Wildlife agencies with a proposed fencing plan for review and approval prior to the final landscape plan approval. 0 Noise: o No construction activity with noise in excess of 60 dB shall within 300 feet of an active gnatcatcher nest or 500 feet of an active raptor nest between February 15 and August 3 1. If activities occur with sound levels exceeding 60 dB, measures shall be taken to reduce the sound to 60 dB at the edge of the coastal sage scrub. o Rock crushing activities shall be done on Lot 40 of the Shelley Tentative Map to ensure an adequate buffer is provided for the purpose of avoiding excessive noise impacts within open space areas occupied by coastal sage scrub habitat. o Blasting at the site shall be done outside the breeding season if it is within 300 feet of gnatcatcher habitat. 45 Rev. 07/03/02 57 Bird Breeding Season: Vegetation clearing activities shall take place outside the breeding season for raptors and gnatcatchers (February 15 to August 31). Prior to construction activity, the project will conduct a raptor and gnatcatcher survey on the property to determine if there are any active nests. If nests are located, a temporary 500’ buffer shall be established between construction activities and active raptor nests and a 300 foot temporary buffer for active gnatcatcher nests so that nesting activities are not interrupted. If there are any White Tailed Kites in adjacent developed-areas, they will be detected during the raptor surveys, and a 500’ buffer established around them. 0 The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) shall be notified regarding the need for a Streambed Alteration Agreement prior to construction due to the past presence of wrinkled rush within a drainage swale. 2. Noise Mitigation Construct a combination of 1 ’ to 4’ high berms and maximum 6’ high masonry noise walls at 40’ setback line along Calle Junipero if the roadway is connected to, and provides through circulation for, properties to the east of the project in either the County of San Diego or Encinitas. Additionally, if two story homes are located on these lots, prior to issuance of building permits, an interior noise analysis will be necessary to determine appropriate mitigation to reduce interior noise levels to 45dBA. Mitigation to accomplish the interior noise standard will most likely require air-conditioning and/or mechanical ventilation and possibly sound rated windows. No mitigation would be required if Camino Junipero terminates within the City of Carlsbad. 0 The rock crushing operation shall be located on Lot 40 of the Shelley Tentative Map. This conservatively assumes an attenuation of 5 dE3 that would result from solid masonry walls constructed at the rear property lines of the off-site residences. 46 Rev. 07/03/02 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF Feb. 2, 2.005 Date Signature 46 Rev. 07/03/02 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. 5952 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMM.ISSI0N OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD LONG THE CITY’S EASTERN BOUNDARY IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 11. CASE NAME: SHELLEY PROPERTY CASE NO: GPA 03-1 1 WHEREAS, Fair Oaks Valley, LLC, “Developer/Owner,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as That portion of the east half of Lot 6 of Rancho Las Encinitas, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 848, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, June 27, 1898. (APN 223-061-01-00 and 223-061-02-00) (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a General Plan Amendment as shown on Exhibit “GPA 03-11” dated August 17,2005, attached hereto and on file in the Carlsbad Planning Department, SHELLEY PROPERTY - GPA 03-11, as provided in Government Code Section 65350 et. seq. and Section 21.52.160 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 17th day of August 2005, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; 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 General Plan Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows: Lo 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) That the above recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commissio based on the following findings: RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of SHELLEY PROPERTY - GPA 03-11, Findinps: 1. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated August 17,2005 including, but not limited to the following: a. Land Use: The redesignation of 25.8 acres from the RL to the RLM designation is for the purpose of transferring density from the remaining acreage proposed to be designated as Open Space to the development area. The potential increase in overall density that would result from this change is 14 units. Although the RLM designation could theoretically yield 71 units on 25.8 acres, the R-1-10,000 zoning, configuration of land, surrounding habitat preserve, and necessary development and design standards will limit the yield on the property so that no more than the 56 units that the current RL designation would allow will occur unless a planned development permit allowing smaller lots is approved on the property. b. Open Space: - 55.46 acres will be redesignated to Open Space and preserved and maintained as a habitat preserve area in accordance with the City’s Habitat Management Plan. c. Circulation: An irrevocable offer of dedication for 102’ of public right-of-way across the open space preserve from the eastern project boundary to the eastern property boundary will enable the extension of General Plan Circulation Element arterial roadway (Melrose Drive) at some future date if the need arises. Because the County of San Diego, which abuts the property to the east, and the City of Encinitas, which abuts the property to the south, have indicated that their General Plans include no future circulation arterial roadway connections to a roadway through the Shelley property, construction of the roadway is not proposed or required. 2. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project. Conditions: 1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy PC RES0 NO. 5952 -2- 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 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of violation on the property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of this General Plan Amendment. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the General Plan Amendment docunients, as necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with all requirements of law. Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City’s approval and issuance of this General Plan Amendment, (b) City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non- discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator’s installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation survives until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City’s approval is not validated. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, ZC 03-09, CT 02-17, HDP 02- OS and HMPP 05-04 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5951,5953,5954,5955 and 5956 for those other approvals. NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as “fees/exactions.” You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these feedexactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section PC RES0 NO. 5952 -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 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified feedexactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 17th day of August 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, and Whitton NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Cardosa ABSTAIN: JEFFRE N. SEGALL, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: n DON NEU Assistant Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5952 -4- 63 GPA 03-11 Shelley Property Auuust 17,2005 Related Case File No(s): ZC 03-09/CT 02-1 7/HDP 02-O8/HMP 05k4 G.P. Map Designation Change . EXISTING B. 223-061-02-00 C. PROPOSED RL RLM-OS Property IFrom: I To: A. 223-061-01-00 I RL I RLM-OS I 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. 5953 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING 10,000 AND OPEN SPACE ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD ALONG THE CITY’S EASTERN BOUNDARY IN LOCAL, FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 11. CASE NAME: SHELLEY PROPERTY APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE FR0.M R-1-40,000 TO R-1- CASE NO: ZC 03-09 WHEREAS, Fair Oaks Valley, LLC, “Developer/Owner,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as That portion of the east half of Lot 6 of Rancho Las Encinitas, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 848, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, June 27, 1898. (APN 223-061-01-00 and 223-061-02-00) (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Zone Change as shown on Exhibits “ZC 03-09’’ dated August 17, 2005, attached hereto and on file in the Planning Department, SHELLEY PROPERTY - ZC 03-09, as provided by Chapter 21.52 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of August, 2005, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Zone Change. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. Lr 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) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of SHELLEY PROPERTY - ZC 03-09, based on the following findings: Findings: 1. That the proposed Zone Change from R-1-40,000 to R-1-10,000 and 0-S is consistent with the goals and policies of the various elements of the General Plan, in that the zone change to R-10,000 is applicable to and consistent with the reduced acreage designated for Residential Low-Medium density development, and the zone change to 0-S is applicable to the HMP habitat preserve area designated as Open Space. 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 R-1-10,000 and 0-S Zones are intended to implement the RLM and OS General Plan land use designations. 3. That the Zone Change is consistent with the public convenience, necessity and general welfare, and is consistent with sound planning principles in that the proposed zone changes will enable implementation of the City’s Habitat Management Plan through the transfer of density to the developable area of the parcel. 4. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project. Conditions: 1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of violation on the property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of this Zone Change. 2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Zone Change documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. 3. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance. lI PC RES0 NO. 5953 -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 4. 5. 6. 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 tlm 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. Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City’s approval and issuance of this Zone Change, (b) City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator’s installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation survives until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City’s approval is not validated. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, GPA 03-11, CT 02-17, HDP 02- 08 and HMPP 05-04 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5951,5952,5954,5955 and 5956 for those other approvals. NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as “fees/exactions.” You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these feedexactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified feedexactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any feedexactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. ... ... PC RES0 NO. 5953 -3- 67 1 1 C t r i E 5 1c 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, held on the 17th day of August 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, and Whitton NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Cardosa ABSTAIN: CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: DON NEU Assistant Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5953 -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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5954 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING SUBDIVIDE 81.31 ACRES INTO 49 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND THREE OPEN SPACE LOTS ON PROPERTY GENERALLYLOCATEDSOUTHEASTOFRANCHOSANTA FE ROAD ALONG THE CITY’S EASTERN BOUNDARY IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1 1. CASE NAME: SHELLEY PROPERTY APPROVAL OF CARLSBAD TRACT CT 02-17 TO CASE NO.: CT 02- 17 WHEREAS, Fair Oaks Valley, LLC, “Developer/Owner,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as That portion of the east half of Lot 6 of Rancho Las Encinitas, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 848, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, June 27, 1898. (A€” 223-061-01-00 and 223-061-02-00) (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Tentative Tract Map as shown on Exhibits “A” - “Z” dated August 17, 2005, on file in the Planning Department, SHELLEY PROPERTY - CT 02-17, as provided by Chapter 20.12 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 17th day of August 2005, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, 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: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 69 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) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of SHELLEY PROPERTY - CT 02-17, 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, is consistent with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan, any applicable specific plans, Titles 20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and the State Subdivision Map Act, and will not cause serious public health problems, in that the lots being created satisfy all minimum requirements of Titles 20 and 21 governing lot sues and configuration and have been designed to comply with all other applicable City regulations. That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since surrounding properties are designated for RLM development on the General Plan, in that the proposed open space and single-family lots are consistent with single family lots approved within the adjacent La Costa Oaks development. 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 project complies with all City policies and standards without the need for a variance 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 prior to or concurrent with recordation of the fmal map, the developer will vacate and adjust any easements that conflict with the proposed development. 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 lots are oriented in an east-west alignment for southern exposure and/or to take advantage of shade or prevailing breezes. 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 habitat, in that the project is conditioned to comply with biological mitigation measures that will mitigate impacts on the site prior to final map approval. PC RES0 NO. 5954 -2- 70 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 9. 10. That the discharge of waste fiom the subdivision will not result in violation of existing California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, in that the project includes a desiltation swale at the storm drain outlet to slow the velocity and filter drainage prior to release. The project is also conditioned to comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Standards to prevent any discharge violations. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated August 17,2005 including, but not limited to the following: A. B. C. D. E. Land Use - The proposed density of 36 dwelling units per acre is below the RL designation growth management control point of 1 ddac used for the purpose of calculating the City’s compliance with Government Code Section 65584. The growth management control point permits 56 units on the 56.66 net acre lot, and the project consists of 49 single-family lots. Consistent with Program 3.8 of the City’s certified Housing Element, all of the dwelling units, which were anticipated toward achieving the City’s share of the regional housing need that are not utilized by developers in approved projects, are deposited in the City’s Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. These excess dwelling units are available for allocation to other projects. Accordingly, there is no net loss of residential unit capacity and there are adequate properties identified in the Housing Element allowing residential development with a unit capacity, including second dwelling units, adequate to satisfy the City’s share of the regional housing need. 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 purchase 9 credits in a combined inclusionary housing project or provide 7 inclusionary units onsite. Public Safety - The project is designed with the required 60-foot fire suppression zones between native habitat and development thereby reducing fire hazards to an acceptable risk level. Open Space & Conservation - 55.46 acres will be redesignated as Open Space and preserved and maintained as an HMP habitat preserve area. The project implements water pollution prevention methods through the provision of a desiltation swale at the storm drain outlet to slow the velocity and filter drainage prior to release. Circulation - All public infrastructure necessary to serve the project will be constructed in accordance with City standards. An irrevocable offer of dedication for 102 foot of public right-of-way across the open space preserve from the eastern project boundary to the eastern property boundary will enable the extension of a General Plan Circulation Element arterial roadway (Melrose Drive) at some future date if the need arises. Because the County of San Diego, which abuts the property to the east, and the City of Encinitas, which abuts the property to the south, have indicated that their General -- 7/ PC RES0 NO. 5954 -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 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Plans include no future circulation arterial roadway connections to a roadway through the Shelley property, construction of the roadway is .not proposed or required at this time. F. Noise - The project will be required to .construct noise walls along Camino Junipero to mitigate noise levels to the 60 dBA CNEL noise standard and to perform a noise analysis to determine the mitigation measures necessary to limit interior noise levels of future single-family homes to the 45 dBA CNEL noise standard with the assumption that Camino Junipero is a through circulation element roadway. Temporary noise impacts resulting from rock crushing during construction will be mitigated by locational restrictions to avoid noise levels that exceed City standards. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 11 and all City public facility policies and ordinances. The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or provide funding to ensure that all facilities and improvements regarding: sewer collection and treatment; water; drainage; circulation; fire; schools; parks and other recreational facilities; libraries; government administrative facilities; and open space, related to the project will be installed to serve new development prior to or concurrent with need. Specifically: A. The project has been conditioned to provide proof from the Encinitas Union and San Dieguito High School Districts that the project has satisfied its obligation for school facilities. B. Park-in-lieu fees are required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 20.44, and will be collected prior to issuance of building permit. 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 2 1.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project. This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 11. That all necessary public facilities required by the Growth Management Ordinance will be constructed or are guaranteed to be constructed concurrently with the need for them in that public facilities in Zone 11 are adequate to accommodate the demand created by this project. That the project is consistent with the City's Landscape Manual (Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 14.28.020 and Landscape Manual Section I B). The Planning Commission hereby finds that all development in Carlsbad benefits from the Habitat Management Plan, which is a comprehensive conservation plan and implementation program that will facilitate the preservation of biological diversity and 'la PC RES0 NO. 5954 -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 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. ... provide for effective protection and conservation of wildlife and plant species while continuing to allow compatible development in accordance with Carlsbad’s Growth Management Plan. Preservation of wildlife habitats and sensitive species is required by the Open Space and Conservation Element of the City’s General Plan which provides for the realization of the social, economic, aesthetic and environmental benefits from the preservation of open space within an increasingly urban environment. Moreover, each new development will contribute to the need for additional regional infrastructure that, in turn, will adversely impact species and habitats. The In-Lieu Mitigation Fee imposed on all new development within the City is essential to fund implementation of the City’s Habitat Management Plan. That the City has adopted a Citywide Trails Program and a segment of the trail network is associated with this project. That the property cannot be served adequately with a public street without panhandle lots due to unfavorable conditions resulting from unusual topography, surrounding land development, or lot configuration, in that two-thirds of the property will be preserved as an HMP habitat preserve area. The configuration of the reduced development footprint results in otherwise developable areas that are accessible only by panhandle driveways. That subdivision with panhandle lots will not preclude or adversely affect the ability to provide full public street access to other properties within the same block of the subject property, in that except for two panhandle lots, the subdivision design provides the required street frontage for each single family lot. That the buildable portion of the lot consists of a minimum of 10,000 square feet, which meets the requirements of Section 21.10.080(c) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. That the front, side, and rear property lines of the buildable lot, for purposes of determining required yards, are as shown on Exhibits “A” -“Z.” That any panhandle lot hereby approved satisfies all the requirements of Section 21.10.080(d) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The project complies with City Council Policy No. 66, Livable Neighborhoods, in that due to environmental constraints, a grid pattern exclusive of cul-de-sac streets is not possible. The proposed subdivision design provides two points of access to Camino Junipero for the majority of the lots thereby providing alternate routes of travel and adequate access for emergency service vehicles and emergency evacuation routes for residents. Both cul-de-sac and local streets are designed in accordance with City standards and include parkways between street and sidewalk. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project. 73 PC RES0 NO. 5954 -5- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Conditions: Note: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior .J approval of final map or issuance of grading permit, whichever occurs first. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of violation on the property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of this Tentative Tract Map. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Tentative Tract Map documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different fiom this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with all requirements of law. Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City’s approval and issuance of this Tentative Tract Map, (b) City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non- discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) DevelopedOperator’ s installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation survives until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City’s approval is not validated. Developer shall submit to the Planning Department a reproducible 24” x 36” mylar copy of the Tentative Map reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making body. 74 PC RES0 NO. 5954 -6- 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 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the Director from the Encinitas Union and San Dieguito High School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to provide school facilities. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures, which are required as part of the Zone 11 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits. 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 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. A note to this effect shall be placed on the Final Map. Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the Shelley Property Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, GPA 03-11, ZC 03-09, HDP 02- OS, and HMPP 05-04 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5951,5952,5953,5955 and 5956 for those other approvals. Prior to approval of the final map, the Developer shall provide an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City of Carlsbad for a trail easement for trail(s) shown on the tentative map within Open Space Lots 12,13, and 14. If the City of Carlsbad accepts dedication of the trail easement, the trail shall be constructed as apubfic trail and will be the maintenance and liability responsibility of the City of Carlsbad. If the City of Carlsbad does not accept dedication of the trail easement, the trail shall still be constructed but it shall be constructed as a private trail and shall be the maintenance and liability responsibility of the Homeowners Association. The applicant shall prepare and submit a trail plan for approval by the Park and Recreation Director prior to construction. Construction shall be inspected to ensure conformity with the Standards for Design and Construction of Public Works Improvements in the City of Carlsbad (“Standards”); Trail Construction Standards; and the approved plans. Prior to the approval of a final map the Developer shall pay to the City a Trail Plan Check fee and inspection fee in accordance with the current city fee schedule. 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 purchase 9 credits in the Villa Loma Apartment project or provide seven (7) affordable second dwelling units onsite in accordance with the requirements and process set forth in Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The draft Affordable Housing Agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Director no later than 60 days prior to the 73- PC RES0 NO. 5954 -7- 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 16. 17. 18. 19. request to final the map. The recorded Affordable Housing Agreement shall be binding on all future owners and successors in interest. Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of a Final Landscape and Irrigation Plan showing conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City’s Landscape Mand. Developer shall construct and install all landscaping as shown on the approved Final Plans, and maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris. The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to the landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Department and accompanied by the project’s building, improvement, and grading plans. 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. 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&Rs shall contain the following provisions: a. General Enforcement bv the Citv. 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. Notice and Amendment. A copy of any proposed amendment shall be provided to the City in advance. If the proposed amendment affects the City, City shall have the right to disapprove. A copy of the final approved amendment shall be transmitted to City within 30 days for the official record. C. Failure of Association to Maintain Common Area J,ots and Easements. In the event that the Association fails to maintain the “Common Area Lots and/or the Association’s Easements” as provided in Article 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, 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. , Section d. Special Assessments Levied by the Citv. 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 PC RES0 NO. 5954 -8- 76 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 e. f. g. h. 1. j. 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 hll 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 fiom 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 andor to pursue lien foreclosure procedures against any Owner and hisher respective Lot for purposes of collecting such special assessment in accordance with the procedures set forth in Article of this Declaration. Landscape Maintenance Responsibilities. The HOAs and individual lot or unit owner landscape maintenance responsibilities shall be as set forth in Exhibit “-”. Brush Manapement: Any future brush management within Fire Suppression Zone 3 of Open Space Lot 12 shall be done without disturbing the ground and shall require a biological monitor. Activities in the proximity to the San Diego goldenstar shall occur between July 1 and November 30, when the plant is not expected to have foliage above the ground and no heavy equipment will be used that may compact the soil. Project CC&Rs shall incorporate the HMP List of Exotic Species to avoid in individual landscape plans. Recreational Vehicles: The storage of recreational vehicles in the required front yard setback shall be prohibited. Perimeter Fencing: Perimeter fencing that is adjacent to open space shall require approval of the USFWS prior to installation. Interior Fencing: There shall be no combustible fencing within one hundred feet from undisturbed natural vegetation. 20. Perimeter fencing that is adjacent to open space shall require approval of the USFWS prior to installation. 77 PC RES0 NO. 5954 -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 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. The Developer shall provide the Wildlife agencies with a proposed landscaping plan for review and approval prior to grading permit issuance. If satisfaction of the school facility requirement iqvolves a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District or other financing mechanism which is inconsistent with City Council Policy No. 38, by allowing a pass-through of the taxes or fees to individual home buyers, then in addition to any other disclosure required by law or Council policy, the Developer shall disclose to hture owners in the project, to the maximum extent possible, the existence of the tax or fee, and that the school district is the taxing agency responsible for the financing mechanism. The form of notice is subject to the approval of the Planning Director and shall at least include a handout and a sign inside the sales facility stating the fact of a potential pass-through of fees or taxes exists and where complete information regarding those fees or taxes can be obtained. Developer shall display a current Zoning and Land Use Map, or an alternative, suitable to the Planning Director, in the sales office at all times. All sales maps that are distributed or made available to the public shall include but not be limited to trails, future and existing schools, parks and streets. Developer shall post a sign in the sales office in a prominent location that discloses which special districts and school district provide service to the project. Said sign shall remain posted until ALL of the units are sold. This project has been found to result in impacts to wildlife habitat or other lands, such as agricultural land, non-native grassland, and disturbed lands, which provide some benefits to wildlife, as documented in the City’s Habitat Management Plan and the environmental analysis for this project. Developer is aware that the City has adopted an In-lieu Mitigation Fee consistent with Section E.6 of the Habitat Management Plan and City Council Resolution No. 2000-223 to fund mitigation for impacts to certain categories of vegetation and animal species. The Developer is further aware that the City has determined that all projects will be required to pay the fee in order to be found consistent with the Habitat Management Plan and the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan. The City is currently updating the fee study, which is expected to result in an increase in the amount of the fee, and the Developer or Developer’s successor(s) in interest shall pay the adjusted amount of the fee. The fee shall be paid prior to recordation of a final map, or issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first. If the In-lieu Mitigation Fee for this project is not paid, this project will not be consistent with the Habitat Management Plan and the General Plan and any an all approvals for this project shall become null and void. 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, notifj4ng all interested parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit and Habitat Management Plan Permit by Resolutions No. 5954, 5955 and 5956 on the property. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property description, location of the. file containing complete project details and all conditions of approval as well as any 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, 78 PC RES0 NO. 5954 -10- 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 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer or successor in interest. 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 fiom the proposed or existing Transportation Corridor, Camino Junipero, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney (see Noise Form #1 on file in the Planning Department). Developer shall dedicate on the final map, an open space easement for Lots 12,13 and 14 which are in slopes, wetlands, coastal sage scrub or other constrained land plus all other lands set aside as part of the Citywide Open Space System to prohibit any encroachment or development, including but not limited to fences, walls, decks, storage buildings, pools, spas, stairways and landscaping, as shown on Exhibits “A” - “Z.” Removal of native vegetation and development of Open Space Lots 12, 13 and 14 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, landscape plan, etc.) as shown on Exhibits “A” - “Z,” is specifically prohibited, except upon written order of the Carlsbad Fire Department for fire prevention purposes, or upon written approval of the Planning Director, based upon a request fiom the Homeowners Association accompanied by a report from a qualified arboristhotanist indicating the need to remove specified trees andor 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. As a condition of this approval, applicant must comply with the requirements of all regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the project and any mitigation requirements of the environmental documents for the project. Pursuant to Government Code section 65871 and Carlsbad Municipal Code Title 20, Chapter 20.04, section 20.04.140 applicant shall grant a conservation easement for the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants and the habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of certain species thereof, in accordance with the City’s adopted Habitat Management Plan. Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first, the Developer shall take the following actions to the satisfaction of the Planning Director in relation to the open space lot(s) which are being conserved for natural habitat in conformance with the City’s Habitat Management Plan: a. Select a conservation entity, subject to approval by the City, that possesses the necessary qualifications to manage the open space lot(s) for conservation purposes. Prepare a Property Analysis Record (PAR) or other method acceptable to the City for estimating the costs of management and monitoring of the open space lot(s) in perpetuity. b. 79 PC RES0 NO. 5954 -1 1- 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. Based on the results of the PAR, provide a non-wasting endowment or other financial mechanism acceptable to the Planning Director in an amount sufficient for management and monitoring of the open space lot(s) in perpetuity. The non- wasting endowment shall be legally structured such that it shall transfer to the City if the City accepts the Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate fee title to the open space lot(s). Record a Conservation Easement over the open space lot(s) which includes an Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate fee title to the open space lot(s) in favor of the City. Prepare an Interim Management Plan which will ensure adequate management of the open space lot(s) until such time as a permanent preserve management plan is prepared and approved by the City. d. e. Enpineering: 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site within this project, Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the City Engineer for the proposed haul route. Prior to issuance of any building permit, Developer shall comply with the requirements of the City's anti-graffiti program for wall treatments if and when such a program is formally established by the City. Developer shall provide to the City Engineer, an acceptable means, CC&Rs and/or other recorded document, for maintaining the private easements within the subdivision and all the private improvements: streets, sidewalks, street lights, parkways and street trees, storm drain and water quality treatment facilities located therein and to distribute the costs of such maintenance in an equitable manner among the owners of the properties within the subdivision. The developer shall process and record an encroachment agreement for the Storm Water filtration devices located within the public right of way. The CC&Rs for this project shall also reflect the responsibility to maintain these devices to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. There shall be one Final Map recorded for this project. Developer shall install sight distance corridors at all street intersections in accordance with Engineering Standards and shall record the following statement on the Final Map (and in the CC&Rs). "No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object shall be placed or permitted on the subject property within the Caltrans corner sight distance corridors. No obstructions shall impede nor conflict with the line-of-sight which is established per City Standard Public Street-Design Criteria, Section 8.B.1 and B.2 The sight line is depicted on the tentative map. The underlying property owner shall maintain this condition." PC RES0 NO. 5954 -12- 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 The limits of these sight distance corridors shall be reflected on any improvement, grading, or landscape plan prepared in association with this development. FeedAgreements 38. 39. 40. 41. Prior to approval of the Final Map for this project the developer shall complete the LAFCO annexation process to annex into Leucadia Waste Water District. This project shall be annexed into City of Carlsbad Street Lighting and Landscaping District No. 2 (SL&LD #2). Prior to approval of any grading, building permits or final map for this project, Developer shall cause Owner to execute an Agreement to annex the subject property into City of SL&LD #2. The Agreement shall be in a form approved by the Assistant City Finance Director. Developer shall pay all fees necessary to annex the property into SL&LD #2. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, Developer shall cause Owner to give written consent to the City Engineer to the annexation of the area shown within the boundaries of the subdivision into the existing City of Carlsbad Street Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1 and/or to the formation or annexation into an additional Street Lighting and Landscaping District. Said written consent shall be on a form provided by the City Engineer. Prior to approval of the first final map, the developer shall enter into a Prepayment Agreement with the City for prepayment of the developer obligation for the funding to improve Rancho Santa Fe Road, which will satisfy the special condition in the Zone 11 LFMP requiring a financing plan guaranteeing construction of Rancho Santa Fe Road. Grading 42. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer proof that a Notice of Intention for the start of work has been submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board. 43. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the Tentative Map, a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall apply for and obtain a grading permit from the City Engineer. Dedicationsfimprovements 44. Developer shall cause Owner to make an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City andor other appropriate entities for all public streets and other easements shown on the Tentative Map. The offer shall be made by a certificate on the final map andor by separate document. All land so offered shall be offered free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost. Streets that already public are not required to be rededicated. 45. Additional drainage easements may be required. Developer shall dedicate and provide or 81 PC RES0 NO. 5954 -13- 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 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. install drainage structures, as may be required by the City Engineer, prior to or concurrent with any grading or building permit. Developer shall execute and record a City standard Subdivision Improvement Agreement to install and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, public improvements shown on the Tentative Map and the following improvements including, but not limited to paving, base, signing & striping, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, medians, grading, clearing and grubbing, undergrounding or relocation of facilities, sewer, water, fire hydrants, street lights, water quality treatment facilities and reclaimed water, to City Standards to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The improvements are: a) b) c) Onsite improvements including but not limited to sewer, water, storm drain, water quality treatment facilities, and streets as shown on the Tentative Map. Camino Junipero (Melrose Drive) full width as a secondary arterial within a 102’ graded right of way. Guard Rail at the end of Camino Junipero (Melrose Drive). A list of the above 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 subdivision or development improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement. Prior to issuance of building permits for any unit within this subdivision, the developer shall provide evidence that the backbone infrastructure has been constructed and accepted by the City of Carlsbad for public use. A note to this effect shall be placed on the Final Map. Prior to the approval of the Final Map, the Developer shall make an Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate (IOD) to the Leucadia Waster Water District, a 20’ wide easement for sewer service from the existing main to the easterly boundary of the property. The specific alignment of this easement shall be approved by the District Engineer and the City Engineer and shall be shown on the final map. Developer shall cause Owner to waive direct access rights on the final map for all lots fronting more than 1 street as shown on the tentative map and as approved by the City Engineer. This condition applies to the following lots: Lots 1, 6,8,9, 10, 11, 15, 16,17,18,19,20,24,28,35 and 37. Prior to the issuance of grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, Developer shall submit for City approval a “Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).” The SWPPP shall be in compliance with current requirements and provisions established by the San Diego Region of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and City of Carlsbad Requirements. The SWPPP shall address measures to reduce to the maximum extent practicable storm water pollutant runoff during construction of the project. At a minimum, the SWPPP shall: a. include all content as established by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements; 22 PC RES0 NO. 5954 -14- 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. include the receipt of “Notice of Intent” issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board; recommend source control and treatment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be implemented with this project to avoid contact or filter said pollutants from storm water to the maximum extent practicable before discharging to City right-of-way or natural drainage course; and establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine clean up. Special considerations and effort shall be applied to employee education on the proper procedures for handling clean up and disposal of pollutants. d. 51. Prior to the issuance of grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, Developer shall submit for City approval a “Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP).” The SWMP shall demonstrate compliance with the City of Carlsbad Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Order 200 1-0 1 issued by the San Diego Region of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and City of Carlsbad Municipal Code. The SWMP shall address measures to avoid contact or filter said pollutants from storm water, to the maximum extent practicable, for the post-construction stage of the project. At a minimum, the SWMP shall: a. b. c. identify existing and post-development on-site pollutants-of-concern; identify the hydrologic unit this project contributes to and impaired water bodies that could be impacted by this project; recommend source controls and treatment controls that will be implemented with this project to avoid contact or filter said pollutants from storm water to the maximum extent practicable before discharging to City right-of-way; establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine clean up. Special considerations and effort shall be applied to resident education on the proper procedures for handling clean up and disposal of pollutants; ensure long-term maintenance of all post construct BMPs in perpetuity; and identify how post-development runoff rates and velocities from the site will not exceed the pre-development runoff rates and velocities to the maximum extent practicable. d. e. f. 52. Developer shall incorporate into the gradinghprovement plans the design for the project drainage outfall end treatments for any drainage outlets where a direct access road for maintenance purposes is not practical. These end treatments shall be designed so as to 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 andor radially designed rip-rap, or other means deemed appropriate, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Final Map Notes 53. Note(s) to the following effect(s) shall be placed on the map as non-mapping data A. Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the appropriate agency determines that sewer and water facilities are available. PC RES0 NO. 5954 - 15- 83 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. Geotechnical Caution: 1. The owner of this property on behalf of itself and all of its successors in interest has agreed to hold harmless and indemnify the City of Carlsbad from any action that may arise through any geological failure, ground water seepage or land subsidence and subsequent damage that may occur on, or adjacent to, this subdivision due to its construction, operation or maintenance. C. 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 sight distance corridors. Special Conditions 54. The Average Daily Trips (ADT) contained in the staff report and shown on the Tentative Map are for planning purposes only. Developer shall pay traffic impact and sewer impact fees based on Section 18.42 and Section 13.10 of the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code, respectively. Water 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. Prior to approval of improvement plans or final map, Developer shall meet with the Fire Marshal to determine if fire protection measures (fire flows, fire hydrant locations, building sprinklers) are required to serve the project. Fire hydrants, if proposed, shall be considered public improvements and shall be served by public water mains to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. The Developer shall design and construct public facilities within public right-of-way or within minimum 20-feet wide easements granted to the District or the City of Carlsbad. At the discretion of the District Engineer, wider easements may be required for adequate maintenance, access and/or joint utility purposes. Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall pay all fees, deposits, and charges for connection to public facilities. Developer shall pay the San Dieno County Water author it^ capacity charae(s) prior to issuance of Building Permits. The Developer shall prepare a colored recycled water use map and submit this map for processing and approval by the District Engineer. A copy of the approved exhibit shall accompany the landscape, improvement and grading plans for reference. The Developer shall design landscape and irrigation plans utilizing recycled water as a source. Said plans shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. The Developer shall install potable water and recycled water services and meters at a location approved by the District Engineer. The locations of said services shall be reflected on public improvement plans. PC RES0 NO. 5954 -16- 84 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 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. The Developer shall install sewer laterals and clean-outs at a location approved by the District Engineer. The locations of sewer laterals shall be reflected on public improvement plans. The Developer shall design and construct public water, sewer, and recycled water facilities substantially as shown on the Tentative Map to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. Proposed public facilities shall be reflected on public improvement plans. This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be issued for the development of the subject property, unless the District Engineer has determined that adequate water and sewer facilities are available at the time of occupancy. A note to this effect shall be placed on the Final Map, as non-mapping data. Prior to Final Map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever is first, the entire potable water, recycled water, and sewer system shall be evaluated in detail to ensure that adequate capacity, pressure, and flow demands can be met to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. The Developer shall coordinate with the District Engineer regarding the looped system and easements. The Developer shall submit a detailed sewer study, prepared by a Registered Engineer, that identifies the peak flows of the project, required pipe sizes, depth of flow in pipe, velocity in the main lines, and the capacity of the existing infrastructure. Said study shall be submitted concurrently with the improvement plans for the project and the study shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The Developer shall submit a detailed potable water study, prepared by a Registered Engineer that identifies the peak demands of the project (including fire flow demands). The study shall identify velocity in the main lines, pressure zones, and the required pipe sizes. Said study shall be submitted concurrently with the improvement plans for the project and the study shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. The Developer shall submit detailed design drawings prepared by a Registered Engineer for the construction of a pressure reducing station, if required to serve the project. Said plans shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. Code Reminders 69. 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. 70. Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. 33- PC RES0 NO. 5954 -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 71. 72. 73. 74. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ,.. ... ... ... Developer shall provide the following note on the final map of the subdivision and final mylar of this development submitted to the City: A. “Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code established a Growth Management Control Point for each General Plan land use designation. Development cannot exceed the Growth Control Point except as provided by Chapter 21.90. The land use density designation for this development allows 0 - 4 dwelling units per non-constrained acre. The required findings for the proposed density of .86 dwelling units per acre have been made. Parcels 223-061-01 and 223-061-02 were used to calculate the intensity of development under the General Plan and Chapter 21.90. Subsequent redevelopment or resubdivision of any one of these parcels must also include parcels 223-061-01 and 223-061-02 under the General Plan and Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.” 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 tentative map shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date this tentative map approval becomes final. 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 Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. PC RES0 NO. 5954 -18- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as “fees/exactions.” You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these feedexactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 17th day of August 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, and Whitton NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Cardosa CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION DON NEU Assistant Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5954 -19- 87 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. 5955 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD ALONG THE CITY’S EASTERN BOUNDARY IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 11. CASE NAME: SHELLEY PROPERTY CASE NO: HDP 02-08 WHEREAS, Fair Oaks Valley, LLC, “Developer/Owner,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as That portion of the east half of Lot 6 of Rancho Las Encinitas, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 848, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, June 27, 1898. (A€” 223-061-01-00 and 223-061-02-00) (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Hillside Development Permit as shown on Exhibits “A” - “2” dated August 17, 2005, on file in the Carlsbad Planning Department, SHELLEY PROPERTY - HDP 02-08, as provided by Chapter 21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of August 2005, 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. ti‘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 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of SHELLEY PROPERTY - HDP 02-08, Findings: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. That hillside conditions have been properly identified on the constraints map which show existing and proposed conditions and slope percentages. That undevelopable areas of the project, i.e. slopes over 40%, have been properly identified on the constraints map. That the development proposal is consistent with the intent, purpose, and requirements of the Hillside Ordinance, Chapter 21.95, in that the development conforms to the slope of the land, grading has been minimized and the project is designed in an environmentally sensitive manner to preserve wildlife habitats and an HMP habitat preserve area. That the proposed development or grading will not occw in the undevelopable portions of the site pursuant to provisions of Section 21.53.230 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, in that steep slopes will not be impacted by the project. That the project design substantially conforms to the intent of the concepts illustrated in the Hillside Development Guidelines Manual, in that slope heights, which are less than 40 feet in height, will be screened by landscaping and future single family homes will adhere to slope edge setbacks. That the project design and lot configuration minimizes disturbance of hillside lands, in that the project avoids steep slopes and adheres to the existing grades to the greatest extent possible so that grading quantities are well within the acceptable range. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project. Conditions: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to approval of final map or issuance of grading permit, whichever occurs first. 1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of violation on the property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said 89 PC RES0 NO. 5955 -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 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of this Hillside Development Permit; Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Hillside Development Permit documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with all requirements of law. Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City’s approval and issuance of this Hillside Development Permit, (b) City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non- discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator’s installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation survives until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City’s approval is not validated. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, GPA 03-11, ZC 03-09, CT 02- 17, and HMPP 05-04 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5951,5952,5953,5954 and 5956 for those other approvals. NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as “fees/exactions.” You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely 70 PC RES0 NO. 5955 -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 follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified feedexactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 17th day of August 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, and Whitton NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Cardosa ABSTAIN: CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: n DON NEU Assistant Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5955 -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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5956 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMENDING APPROVAL OF A HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN PERMIT TO ALLOW THE TAKE OF SENSITIVE HABITAT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD ALONG THE CITY’S EASTERN BOUNDARY IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 11. CASE NAME: SHELLEY PROPERTY CASE NO: HMPP 05-04 WHEREAS, Fair Oaks Valley, LLC, “Developer/Owner,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad property described as That portion of the east half of Lot 6 of Rancho Las Encinitas, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 848, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, June 27, 1898. (APN 223-061-01-00 and 223-061-02-00) (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has received authorization to issue permits to impact various sensitive species and habitats, including species listed as Threatened or Endangered, by virtue of Incidental Take Permit No. TE022606-0 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Natural Community Conservation Planning Permit No. 2835-2004-00 1-05; and WHEREAS, the authority stated above is based on a plan titled Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad, Final Approval November 2004, referred to as the HMP, and approval of all projects is contingent on a finding of consistency with the HMP; and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Habitat Management Plan Permit pursuant to the City’s authority, on file in the Carlsbad Planning Department, SHELLEY PROPERTY - HMPP 05-04; and 9J 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of August 2005, 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 Habitat Management Plan Permit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That the Shelley Property project is consistent with the HMP as described in the following findings. C) That based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Commission RECOMENDS APPROVAL of the Habitat Management Plan Permit, HMPP 05-04, for the SHELLEY PROPERTY based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings: 1. That the Shelley Property is shown in Figure 23, Section D, of the approved HMP as a hardline project. 2. That the project will modify the hardline area and the findings for equivalency can made in that there is a net gain of 2.3 acres of habitat containing the San Diego Goldenstar being preserved by the modification. 3. That authorization to take species of concern is subject to continuous compliance with all provisions of the Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad (HMP), the Citywide Incidental Take Permit issued for the HMP, the Implementing Agreement, the Terms and Conditions of the Incidental Take Permit, and the Biological Opinion. 4. That authorization to take species of concern is subject to continuous compliance with all mitigation measures as stated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, GPA 03-11, ZC 03-09, CT02-17 and HDP 02- 08 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5951, 5952, 5953, 5954 and 5955 for those other approvals, including but not limited to recordation of conservation easements over all conserved areas, seasonal grading restrictions, and management and monitoring in perpetuity by a qualified conservation entity. PC RES0 NO. 5956 -2- 43 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 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. That authorization to take species of concern is subject to continuous compliance with the provisions of Volumes I, 11 and 111 of the Multiple Habitat Conservation Program and the Final Environmental Impact StatementEnvironmental Impact Report for Threatened and Endangered Species Due to Urban Growth within the Multiple Habitat Conservation Program Planning Area (SCH No. 93 121073). . That all impacts to habitat and all take of species will be incidental to otherwise lawful activities related to construction and operation of the Shelley Property project. That the project design as approved by the City of Carlsbad has avoided and minimized impacts to wildlife habitat and species of concern to the maximum extent practicable. That adequate funding has been provided to address changed circumstances and adaptive management needs that may be reasonably anticipated in the future, consistent with the HMP Implementing Agreement. That the incidental take of species of concern as a result of the project will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the species in the wild due to compliance with all of the above stated requirements, as well as ongoing monitoring and reporting to the wildlife agencies and the public. That the Planning Director is authorized to sign the Take Permit. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project. Conditions: 1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of violation on the property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of this Habitat Management Plan Permit. 2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Habitat Management Plan Permit documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. 94 PC RES0 NO. 5956 -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 3. 4. 5. 6. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project.are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with all requirements of law. Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City’s approval and issuance of this Habitat Management Plan Permit, (b) City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator’ s installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation survives until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City’s approval is not validated. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, GPA 03-11, ZC 03-09, CT02-17 and HDP 02-08 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5951,5952,5953,5954 and 5955 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference. As a condition of this approval, applicant must comply with the requirements of all regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the project and any mitigation requirements of the environmental documents for the project. Pursuant to Government Code section 65871 and Carlsbad Municipal Code Title 20, Chapter 20.04, section 20.04.140 applicant shall grant a conservation easement for the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants and the habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of certain species thereof, in accordance with the City’s adopted Habitat Management Plan. PC RES0 NO. 5956 -4- 95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as “fees/exactions.” You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these feedexactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any feedexactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 17th day of August 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, and Whitton NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Cardosa ABSTAIN: CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: n DON NEU Assistant Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5956 -5- The City of Carlsbad Planning Department EXHIBIT 5 P.C. AGENDA OF: August 17,2005 A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application complete date: January 26,2004 Project Planner: Van Lynch Project Engineer: Clyde Wickham SUBJECT: GPA 03-11/ZC 03-09/CT 02-17/HDP 02-OWHMPP 05-04 - SHELLEY PROPERTY - Request for a recommendation of adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; a recommendation of approval for a General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan land use designations from Residential Low density (RL,) and Open Space (OS) to Residential Low-Medium density (RLM) and Open Space (OS) and a Zone Change to rezone the property from R-1-40,000 to R-1-10,000 and 0-S consistent with the proposed land use designations; and a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit and Habitat Management Plan Permit to subdivide and grade a 81.3 acre site into 49 standard single-family lots and three open space lots generally located southeast of Rancho Santa Fe Road along the City’s eastern boundary in Local Facilities Management Zone 1 1. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5951, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5952, 5953, 5954, 5955 and 5956 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of General Plan Amendment GPA 03-1 1, Zone Change ZC 03-09, Tentative Tract Map CT 2-17, Hillside Development Permit HDP 02-08 and Habitat Management Plan Permit HMPP 05-04, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. 11. INTRODUCTION The project consists of a request for a General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan land use designations fiom Residential Low density (RL) and Open Space (OS) to Residential Low- Medium Density (RLM) and Open Space (OS) and a Zone Change to rezone the property from R-1-40,000 to R-1-10,000 and 0-S consistent with the proposed land use designations. The project also includes a request for a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit and Habitat Management Plan Permit to grade and subdivide an 81.3 acre property into 49 single- family, 10,000 square foot (minimum) lots, and three open space lots. The open space would be preserved as a habitat preserve area consistent with the City’s Habitat Management Plan (HMP). As designed and conditioned, the project is consistent with all applicable standards and policies and the necessary findings to approve the project can be made. i GPA 03-1 1/ZC 03-09/CT 02-17/HDP 02-08/HMPP 05-04 - SHELLEY PROPERTY August 17,2005 111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The project site is an 81.3 acre property located southeast of Rancho Santa Fe Road on the eastern terminus of Camino Junipero and along the City’s eastern boundary in the southeast quadrant. The site is surrounded to the north by open space, to the south by large lot residential development in the City of Encinitas, to the east by vacant land in the County of San Diego, and to the west by fbture single-family development located within the Villages of La Costa Master Plan. Topographically, the property slopes moderately fiom the northeast to the south with elevations ranging firom 690’ to 366’ MSL. The City’s General Plan designates the southern 60+ acres of the property for Residential Low density (RL; 0 - 1.5 ddacre) development with a corresponding Zoning designation of R-1- 40,000, and the northern 20.5 acres of the property is designated for Open Space (OS). The open space is occupied by coastal sage scrub (CSS) habitat, and the southern 60 acres, which have been disturbed by cattle grazing for many years, are occupied by non-native grassland. An isolated north-south broken blue-line stream extends approximately 1,000 feet north of the southern property line within the eastern portion of the property and a second east-west drainage bisects the northern portion of the property within the existing open space. Approximately two- thirds of the site is designated as a hardline preserve area in the City’s Habitat Management Plan (HMP). As a result of a rare plant survey of the site conducted by the project biologist in May, 2003, the San Diego Goldenstar, a narrow endemic plant species required to be preserved by the HMP, was discovered on the property. A minor amendment to the HMP hardline preserve boundary is required to incorporate the San Diego Goldenstar into the preserve area and allow a minor development encroachment into the preserve area along the eastern preserve boundary. The necessary Equivalency Findings,for a minor amendment can be supported (See Attachment 11 - HMP Hardline Exhibit). The proposed density of .86 dwelling units per acre for the 49 lot subdivision is within the 0 - 1.5 dwelling unit/acre density range permitted by the RL designation and slightly below the Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) of 1 dwelling-univacre. The project is therefore 7 units below the maximum of 56.67 dwellkg units permitted by the RL GMCP. A General Plan Land Use Element amendment is proposed to redesignate the HMP preserve area to Open Space (OS) and to redesignate the proposed development area to Residential Low Medium density (RLM; 0 - 4 ddacre) fa the purpose of permanently transferring density firom the entire site to the proposed development area. The General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element iriil also be amended to reflect the new open space. A Zone Change is also proposed to redesignate the property to the R-1-10,000 and Open Space (0-S) zoning designations to ensure zoning consistency with the proposed General Plan designations. The project also includes a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit and Habitat Management Permit to grade and subdivide the 81.3 acre site into 49 single family, 10,000 square foot (minimum) lots, and three open space lots. The subdivision design consists of the extension of Camino Junipero firom its terminus at the eastern boundary of the Villages of La Costa Master Plan area through the western 26.6 acres of the Shelley property. Two points of access firom Camino Junipero are provided via Streets “A” GPA 03-1 1/ZC 03-09/CT 02-17/HDP 02-08/€€MPP 05704 - SHELLEY PROPERTY August 17,2005 Page 3 and “D” and a network of connecting local streets provide access to the 49 lot residential subdivision. The proposed minimum 10,000 square foot lots are located north and south of Camino Junipero with 47 of the 49 lots having full width fiontage on a local public street. Two panhandle lots are proposed. One is in the northeastern comer of the project and the other is in the northwestern corner where full width street access cannot be provided. The remainder of the property will consist of three open spaces lots that comprise the HMF hardline preserve area. A proposed sewer line will bisect the southern portion of the preserve. A trail is also proposed on existing dirt paths (agricultural roads) and within the sewer easement through the preserve area fiom the northern to southern boundaries where connections will be made to trails within the County of San Diego and the City of Encinitas. The City will require an irrevocable offer of dedication for 102 feet of public right-of-way across the preserve fiom the terminus of Camino Junipero to the eastern property boundary to enable the extension of a General Plan Circulation Element arterial roadway (Melrose Drive) at some fhture date if the need arises. Construction of the roadway is not proposed or required at this time because the County of San Diego, which abuts the property to the east, and the City of Encinitas, which abuts the property to the south, have indicated that their General Plans include no future circulation arterial roadway connections to a roadway through the Shelley property. The project is subject to the following plans, ordinances, standards and policies: A. B. C. D. E. F. General Plan; Habitat Management Plan; Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 20 (Subdivision Ordinance); Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 2 1 (Zoning Ordinance) including: 1. Chapter 2 1.10 - One Family Residential Zone 2. Chapter 21.33 - Open Space Zone 3. Chapter 2 1.85 - Inclusionary Housing Ordinance 4. Chapter 21.95 - Hillside Development Regulations Council Policy 66 - Livable Neighborhoods; and Growth Management. Iv. ANALYSIS The recommendation of approval for this project was developed by analyzing the project’s consistency with the applicable regulations and policies listed above. The following analysis section discusses compliance with each of the regulations/policies utilizing both text and tables. A. General Plan The proposed project is consistent with the policies and programs of the General Plan. The following table indicates how the project, including the partial street vacation, complies with the relevant elements of the General Plan. 44 f GPA 03-1 1/ZC 03-09/CT 02-17/HDP 02-08/HMpP 05-04 - SHELLEY PROPERTY August 17,2005 Page 4 ELEMENT Land Use Housing TABLE 1: GENERAL PLAN C USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL OBJECTIVE OR PROGRAM Proposed: OS - Open Space Existing: RL - Residential Low Density (0 - 1.5 dwelling unitdacre) Growth Control Point: 1 dwelling unit/acre Proposed: RLM - Residential Low- Medium Density (0 - 4 dwelling unitdacre) Growth Management Control Point: 3.2 dwelling unit/acre Zoning consistency with General Plan 15% inclusionary housing requirement per Objective 3.6 lMPLLANCE PROPOSED USES & IMPROVEMENTS Designate 55.46 acres as Open Space to be maintained as an HMP habitat preserve area. Single Family residential lots Project density = .86/du acre. Single-family residential lots Project density = 1.84 ddacre. The project is below the GMCP of 3.2 du/ac; however, the project is within the specified range permitted by the RLM designation. Proposed R-1-10,000 and 0-S Zones are consistent with the RLM and OS General Plan designations. Project conditioned to purchase 9 credits in combined affordable project. COMPLY Yes Yes* Yes* Yes** Yes Yes i GPA 03-1 1/ZC 03-09/CT 02-17MDP 02-08/HMPP 05-04 - SHELLEY PROPERTY August 17,2005 Tr ELEMENT Public Safety Open Space & Conservation Noise BLE 1: GENERAL PLAN COMPLIP USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL OBJECTIVE OR PROGRAM Provide project review that allows consideration of seismic and geologic hazards. Reduce fire hazards to an acceptable risk level. Minimize environmental impacts to sensitive resources within the City. Preserve open space consistent with the habitat preserve and linkage areas identified in the HMP. Incorporate structural and non- structural BMPs; use small collection strategies to minimize transport of runoff and pollutants offsite and into municipal storm system. Residential exterior noise standard of 60 &A CNEL and interior noise standard of 45 &A. ICE CONTINUED PROPOSED USES & IMPROVEMENTS Project improvements will not significantly impact or be impacted by geologic or seismic conditions . Project provides 60’ fire suppression zones and requires fire resistive construction and fire sprinklers. Project will dedicate and redesignatelrezone 55.46 acres as open space. The open space will be preserved and maintained as an HMP habitat preserve area. Project provides a desiltation swale at the storm drain outlet to slow the velocity of water flow and filter drainage prior to release. The project is conditioned to construct noise walls to attenuate traffic noise along Camino Juniper0 and future units must comply with interior noise standard. COMPLY Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes GPA 03-1 1/ZC 03-09/CT 02-1 7/HDP 02-08/HMPP 05-04 - SHELLEY PROPERTY August 17,2005 Page 6 BLE 1: GENERAL PLAN COMPLIA USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL OBJECTIVE OR PROGRAM Requires new development to dedicate and improve all public rights-of-way for circulation facilities needed to serve development. TCE CONTINUED PROPOSED USES & IMPROVEMENTS All public infrastructure will be constructed in accordance with City standards except that an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for Circulation Element arterial roadway (Melro se/Camino Junipero) will be offered in lieu of constructing the roadway to the property boundary.*** COMPLY Yes *The proposed density of the project, at .86 dwelling units per acre, is below the GMCP (1 ddac) used for the purpose of calculating the City’s compliance with Government Code Section 65584. The GMCP of 1 ddacre permits 56 units on the 56.66 net acre lot, and the project consists of 49 single family lots. However, consistent with Program 3.8 of the City’s certified Housing Element, all of the dwelling units, which were anticipated toward achieving the City’s share of the regional housing need that are not utilized by developers in approved projects, are deposited in the City’s Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. These excess dwelling units are available for allocation to other projects. Accordingly, there is no net loss of residential unit capacity and there are adequate properties identified in the Housing Element allowing residential development with a unit capacity, including second dwelling units, adequate to satisfy the City’s share of the regional housing need. **The proposed General Plan Amendment will redesignate 25.8 acres to the RLM designation and 55.46 acres to the OS designation. The redesignation of 25.8 acres to the RLM designation is for the purpose of transferring density from the proposed Open Space to the proposed development area. The increase in overall density that ths change would make is 14 units. Although the RLM designation could theoretically yield 71 units on 25.8 acres, the R-1-10,000 zoning, configuration of land, and necessary development and design standards will limit the yield on the property so that no more than the 56 units that the current RL designation would allow will occur unless a planned development permit allowing smaller lots is approved on the property. ***Melrose Drive (Camino Junipero) is a major circulation arterial roadway that extends to the southern property line of the Shelley property (city boundary) on the City’s Circulation Map. The Circulation Element specifies that the City should support and encourage adjoining jurisdictions to extend Melrose Drive from the Carlsbad city limits to an appropriate connection. It also states that Melrose Drive may be built to secondary or modified standards without an amendment to the element if adequate right of way is preserved to construct a full width major ( GPA 03-1 1/ZC 03-09/CT 02-17/HDP 02-0W"P 05-04 - SHELLEY PROPERTY August 17,2005 arterial. The project will dedicate full width right of way across the property. However, the developer only proposes to construct Camino Junipero (Melrose Drive) to the limits of development. This limit of construction is 845 feet short of the subdivision boundary and city limit. The developer has provided a feasible alignment plan and has agreed to dedicate right of way and slope and drainage easements to allow for future construction by others. Construction of the roadway is not proposed or required at this time because the County of San Diego, which abuts the property to the east, and the City of Encinitas, which abuts the property to the south, have indicated that their General Plans include no future circulation arterial roadway connections to a roadway through the Shelley property. B. Habitat Management Plan (HMP) The City's HMP identifies the project site as a proposed hardline area within Core Area 7. Due to the discovery of an HMP narrow endemic plant species, San Diego Goldenstar, within the anticipated development area, the hardline boundary has been altered to incorporate the plant species into the hardline preserve area. The amendment to the hardline boundary enhances the quality of the habitat preserved and increases the preserve acreage and, therefore, the necessary HMP equivalency findings can be made. C. Subdivision Ordinance The proposed tentative map complies with the requirements of the City's Subdivision Ordinance, Title 20, of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and City of Carlsbad Standards for public improvements. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements required of the project 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. The project is designed to take advantage of heating and cooling opportunities in that lots are adequate in size to allow for maximum southern exposure and benefit of prevailing breezes. Primary access would be provided by Camino Junipero (Melrose Drive), a Circulation Element arterial roadway. The proposed cul-de-sacs serve fewer than 20 units and satisfy the 36 foot wide curb-to-curb width standard. The drainage study submitted by the applicant indicates that all runoff can be controlled on-site and conveyed through storm drains to an onsite desiltation swale prior to entering the natural drainage system onsite. The proposed water and sewer utility lines necessary to serve the project would be connected to existing lines in Camino Junipero to the west (water) and the City of Encinitas to the south (sewer). Annexation of the property to the Leucadia Wastewater District must occur prior to approval of a final map and that process has been initiated. The project is also conditioned to provide a sewer easement along or near the southerly property line fiom the existing sewer line in Encinitas to the easterly project boundary to provide sewer service to the adjacent property to the east. No standards variances are needed to approve the project. D1. Chapter 21.10 - One Family Residential Zone As shown on the following table, the single-family subdivision meets or exceeds the R-1 zone standards: 1 I GPA 03-1 1/ZC 03-09lCT 02-17iHDP 02-08/HMpP 05-04 - SHELLEY PROPERTY August 17,2005 Standard Use Lot Size Lot Width Required Proposed Single-family Lots 49 Single-family Lots Minimum 10,000 sq. ft. 10,487 to 64,987 sq. ft. Interior Lots: 75 ft. Minimum 75 ft. Cul-de-sac Lots: 33 ft. Minimum 33 ft. Panhandle Lots D2. Chapter 21.33 - Open Space Zone Buildable Portion: 10,000 sq. ft. 25,966 - 3 1,286 sq. ft. Driveway Length: 5 150 ft. 85 Ft. - 150 ft. As shown on the following table, the proposed open space is consistent with the 0-S zone standards: Use Lot Size I Standard I Reauired I ProDosed I Open Space Easements, et a1 NIA 55.46 Acres Total Open Space EasementKonservation Easement D3. Chapter 21.85 - Inclusionary Housing Ordinance The project requires compliance with the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requiring that 15% of the total number of units are made affordable to low income households. The inclusionary housing requirement for the 49-lot subdivision is nine (9) units. When feasible, the affordable units are required to be constructed onsite, however, the purchase of housing credits in an offsite combined inclusionary housing project within the same quadrant or an adjacent quadrant may be approved by the City Council. Since it would not be feasible to construct inclusionary housing onsite, the project is proposing to purchase nine (9) affordable housing credits in the Villa Loma Affordable Apartment project located in the southwest quadrant. However, the applicant has requested that the project be conditioned to allow the option to provide seven (7) affordable second dwelling units onsite. This option would require City Council approval of the affordable units prior to issuance of building permits. D4. Chapter 21.95 - Hillside Development Regulations The proposed project is consistent with the applicable Hillside Development Ordinance restrictions for development of steep slopes, slope height, grading volumes, and slope screening. The project will not disturb natural slopes exceeding 40%, the proposed grading volume of 6,137 cubic yards per acre is within the acceptable range and manufactured slopes are well below the 40 foot maximum allowed Future structures will be required to provide the necessary top of slope setback where applicable. E. Council Policy 66 - Livable Neighborhoods The Livable Neighborhood Street Design policy is applicable to the proposed subdivision design. Due to environmental constraints, a grid pattern exclusive of cul-de-sac streets is not possible. The proposed subdivision design provides two points of access to Camino Juniper0 for the majority of the lots thereby providing alternate routes of travel and adequate access for I GPA 03-1 1/ZC 03-09/CT 02-17/HDP 02-08/HMPP 05-04 - SHELLEY PROPERTY August 17,2005 STANDARD City Administration Librarv emergency service vehicles and emergency evacuation routes for residents. Both cul-de-sac and local streets are designed in accordance with City standards and include tree lined landscaped parkways between street and sidewalk. Pedestrian trails are provided along Camino Juniper0 and along “A” Street, which is adjacent to the open space parcel. IMPACTS COMPLIANCE 170.4 sf Yes 90.9 sf Yes F. Growth Management Drainage Circulation The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 11 in the southwest quadrant of the City. The impacts created by this development on public facilities and compliance with the adopted performance standards are summarized as follows: 172.5 cfs Yes 490 ADT Yes TABLE 3: GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE Open Space Schools Encinitas Union/ San Dieguito Sewer - Leucadia Waste Water District Water - Olivenhain Municipal Water District 55.46 Acres Yes Elementary = 20 Yes Middle = 16 High school = 16 49 EDU Yes 10,780 GPD Yes I Waste Water Treatment I49EDU I Yes I I Fire 1 Station No. 6 I Yes I V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff conducted an environmental impact assessment to determine if the project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Ordinance (Title 19) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Potentially significant biological and noise impacts were identified. The developer has agreed to mitigation measures to reduce the identified impacts to below a level of significance in accordance with CEQA. The environmental documents were sent to the State Clearinghouse for circulation in addition to being sent directly to the area offices of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. In consideration of the foregoing, the Planning Director issued a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project on December 26, 2003. Comments were received from the US Fish & Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish & Game. Based on comments received from the wildlife agencies, the project was revised and a Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and noticed on February 10, 2005. Additional comments from the wildlife agencies were incorporated into the Mitigated Negative Declaration. GPA 03-1 1/ZC 03-09/CT 02-17IHDP 02-08/HMpP 05-04 - SHELLEY PROPERTY August 17,2005 ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Planning Commission Resolution No. 595 1 (Mitigated Neg. Dec.) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5952 (GPA) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5953 (ZC) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5954 (CT) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5955 (HDP) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5956 (”P) Location Map Background Data Sheet Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form Disclosure Statement HMP hard line exhibit Reduced Exhibits Exhibits “A” - “Z” dated August 17,2005 BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: GPA 03-1 1/ZC 03-09/ CT 02-17/HDP 02-OS/HMPP 05-04 CASE NAME: Shelley Property APPLICANT: Ladwig; Design Group REQUEST AND LOCATION: General Plan Amendment to redesignate property from RL to RLM and Open Space and Zone Change from R- 1-40,000 to R- 1 - 10.000 and 0-S and subdivide and made the develoDable area of the parcel into 49 residential lots. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That portion of the east half of Lot 6 of Rancho Las Encinitas, in the Citv of Carlsbad, County of San Diego. State of California, according to Map thereof No. 848, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, June 27,1898. APN: 223-061-01; -02 Acres: 81.31 Proposed No. of Lots: 49 residentiaU3 open space GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation: RLWOS Density Allowed: 3.2 ddacre Existing Zone: R-1-40.000 Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use: Density Proposed: 1.84 ddacre Proposed Zone: R- 1 - 10,000 Zoning General Plan Current Land Use Site R-1-40,000 RL Vacant North P-C South City of Encinitas East County of San Diego West P-C os City of Encinitas County of San Diego (OS) Vacant Residential Vacant RLM Vacant PUBLIC FACILITIES School District: Encinitas UniodSan Dienuito Water District: Olivenhain Sewer District: Leucadia Waste Water District Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 49 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Mitigated Negative Declaration, issued Februaw 10,2005 c] Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated [7 Other, I CITY OF CARLSBAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT: FILE NAME AND NO: Shelley Prowrty - GPA 03-1 1/ZC 03-09/CT 02-17/HDP 02-08/HMPP LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 11 GENERAL PLAN: RLM/OS ZONING: R- 1 - 10,000 DEVELOPER’S NAME: Fair Oaks Valley, LLC ADDRESS: Ladwin Design Group, 703 Palomar Airport Road, #300. Carlsbad, CA 92009 QUANTITY OF LAND USEDEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 49 lots ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: Unknown PHONE NO.: (760) 438-3182 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 223-061-01; -02 A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 170.4 sf Library: Demand in Square Footage = 90.9 sf Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) 49 EDU Park: Drainage: Circulation: Fire: Open Space: Schools: Demand in Acreage = Demand in CFS = id en ti^ Drainage Basin = Demand in ADT = Served by Fire Station No. = Acreage Provided = Elementary Middle School High School .34 ac 172.5 Encinitas Creek 490 6 54.7 20.14 5.4 5.4 Sewer: Demands in EDU 49 EDU Identify Sub Basin = Leucadia Waste Water District Water: Demand in GPD = 10,780 GPD The project is 7.67 units below the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance. -, FROM : FQX NO. :858756205i p“g. 17 2805 11:21FIM P1 Qloom 68/17/M05 11: 04 FAX fd04380~ DEXTER WLSOh’ ENG Citv of Carlsbad DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Appljcant’s azturnent or disclosure of cnrain ownership intEtrStS on all Bpptications u.hich u.ill rrqurrtl discreuonazy don en the pprt oftbe City Council or any appointed %oar& Commission or Cornmince. The follewing inform&non WST be disclosed ai the th of &~llG8nOn submittal, Your prcyect cannot be te\4ewed dl &is Wonnation is camplead, Please prim. I Title, Title Address Address L - rO8.s- 1635 Faraday AYenue - Carlsbad. CA sb2@38-P314 - (760) 602-PSOG FAX (760) 692-8359 @ FROM : J * Fug. 17 2005 11:21AM P2 I 3. SON-PROFIT ORGA??ZATXON OR "RUST ' Tf any person' idmri fied pursuant to ( 1 } or is) abovss is -0 tit oraanization or o trw. Itst rhr names arrd &dresses of person senk~g as an offim or director of the non-profit orgPsizarion or a6 rrusrce or beneficiary of the. Non FTofit'Iiuq Non ProfitTrua Title Title Ad- Address 4. Haw you had more than si250 wonh of business transacted with any'member of City smff. Bo8rds- CWnmissiorxs. Gnmni#~cs and/or Council within 'Ihe pasf weiw (12) monrhs? a Yes 1x1 No If yes. ~ICS~C indicate pcrson(s): psgs 2 of 2 al I c .. . 7 s 0 8 -5 8 f; -+ \ \ \ -c Gii \- N $. \ \ .! \ $.\ \ a I I I I I \- 8 F! -+ \ \ S P 8 I I I i s 0 -2 0 -0 0 -0 I B P i I I i I 8 -+ t \\\ \ I I I I t 5 1 5 8 -+ I i 3 E s \ \ \ \ I"\ \ \ \ \ wou' I I I 3 I 1 8 -+ h 0 -+ 8 -+ 0 -+ 0 -0 I: -+ N 0 -0 I t t 8 IIII I ? ? 3 It II / / / 'mm \ \ \ -' 8 -* -I 8 -8 8 -* \ C \ \ \ \ -\ 8 -+ 0 -? 8 -+ 0 -+ T 0 -0 0 0 -+ 8 -+ - / / I I / / I I I 3 3 r I I I -1 -3 -3 -8 -/ I I I I I I I \ \ \ \ *- I \ - I t I 1 I 'i \ \ \ \ -$ -8 -% -2 -B -a -$ -3 E; -f I I I I / / I I / '"f/ -8 ""J /' / \ \ \ \ \ -3 -\ E \ \ \ \ -k\ - \ / mn / / / // "vu \ \ / / -f / sm, / / / / m / /' -a / / // \ \ / / I / I I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / \ / 8 -+ N 8 -+ N - 8 --* \ \ \ \ \ X - 2\ "\ \ \ f: i \ \ \ \ \ \ I I I 8 --+ - + e 00 e 08 .. " r I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 % v r: z B I" t d P /33 I- I Y u_L t - m - /35 -*- Planning Commission Minutes August 17,2005 DRAFT Page3 EXHIBIT 6 3. GPA 03-11/ZC 03-09/CT 02-17lHDP 02-08/HMPP 05-04 - SHELLEY PROPERTY - Request for a recommendation of adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; a recommendation of approval for a General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan land use designations from Residential Low density (RL) and Open Space (OS) to Residential Low-Medium density (RLM) and Open Space (OS) and a Zone Change to rezone the property from R-1-40,000 to R-1-10,000 and 0-S consistent with the proposed land use designations; and a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit, and Habitat Management Plan Permit to subdivide and grade an 81.3-acre site into 49 standard single-family lots and three open space lots generally located southeast of Rancho Santa Fe Road along the city’s eastern boundary in Local Facilities Management Zone 11. Mr. Neu introduced Item 3 and stated Senior Planner Van Lynch would be making the Staff presentation. Chairperson Segall opened the public hearing on Item 3. With the assistance of PowerPoint slides, Mr. Lynch, Senior Planner, gave a detailed presentation on the Shelley Property Project. The site is in the southeast portion of the city located on the city’s border. The upper left of the image shown is a portion of Rancho Santa Fe Road and halfway below is La Costa Avenue for reference purposes. The project proposes to grade an 81.3-acre property into 49 single- family, 10,000-square-foot (minimum) lots and has three open space lots. The project includes trails and an SDG&E easement, and the site has a considerable amount of habitat, mostly non-native grassland and coastal sage scrub. The proposal is to aggregate the developable area towards Camino Junipero as a residential low-medium density. Open Space would be reflected in the Open Space Conservation Element. Staff proposes to change the zoning from residential single-family, 40,000-square-foot lot sizes to R-l-10,000-square-foot lot minimums for the developable portion. Camino Junipero provides access to two locations on the north side and one on the south side. The City is requiring the project to make an irrevocable offer of dedication for Camino Junipero should the need arise to later extend Camino Junipero to the city limit. Looking back to the south is the existing development of La Costa Oaks Project. Grading would lower the west portion about 8 to 10 feet. The project has a narrow endemic plant species called the San Diego Goldenstar. The project was surveyed and resurveyed to identify all the Goldenstar on the property. The HMP hardline boundary had to be modified when the San Diego Goldenstar was discovered on the property. Mr. Lynch stated an errata sheet regarding the proposal of a new offer of dedication for a sewer easement had been presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. Lynch further stated a second errata sheet was also presented to correct a numbering error in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5954. Mr. Lynch said he would be happy to entertain any questions. Chairperson Segall asked if there were any questions for Mr. Lynch regarding his presentation. Commissioner Dominguez asked how big the large panhandle lot was. Mr. Lynch replied that it was approximately 31,000 square feet. Commissioner Dominguez asked if it would be for one unit. Mr. Lynch replied that it was. Commissioner Dominguez inquired if the walls for the noise mitigation would actually be built or if the walls would be bonded for. Mr. Lynch stated that the walls would be installed. Commissioner Baker asked when the HMP was approved. Mr. Lynch stated it was approved last year. Commissioner Baker then asked if the HMP dictated that this particular piece of property needed to be preserved by the hardline or if the hardline could be moved. Mr. Lynch replied that this particular piece of property was stated as a hardline. Commissioner Baker asked if the property was originally zoned for housing. Mr. Lynch concurred and said it was annexed into the city in 1984 under a pre-annexation zone change. Commissioner Baker asked if rezoning the property from residential low to residential low medium was a negotiation with the applicant due to the fact that large pieces of property had to be turned over for open space and habitat, or if Staff could go back and insist that it stay residential low. Mr. Lynch stated that it was an equity mechanism to get the same yield. Commissioner Montgomery asked how and what is allowed to transfer allowable density for the entire project boundaries for one particular area and what the mechanism is that allows the transfer of units that were open space or habitat area and allow the developer or the owner of the property to recapture those units. Mr. Lynch said that the property already had R-1 zoning over the entire piece of property. Commissioner Montgomery asked that Mr. Neu make a comment. Mr. Neu stated it has generally been J 38 Planning Commission Minutes August 17,2005 Page 4 the policy with the approval of the Habitat Management Plan that the developable portions of the property which are lost for development because of preservation, that every attempt would be made to make those units up on the part of the property that could be developed so that the owner would not suffer a significant financial loss by having the Habitat Management Plan impose those preservation requirements. With the implementing ordinances, which are the follow-up of the approval of the Habitat Management Plan, are some of the exact mechanisms that are going to make that very clear that there are things that the City is proposing to do to facilitate that transfer of units. One of the rationales, in part because of the support of property owners for the Habitat Management Plan, was this idea underlying that whole process that efforts would be made to try and recapture the units that they would have been entitled to without the Habitat Management Plan. Commissioner Montgomery asked if the cattle grazing and agricultural operations on the property were the cause of various habitat or just invasive. Mr. Lynch stated that grazing is what caused the grassland habitat. The HMP indicated the boundary area and where development could occur. Commissioner Montgomery wondered specifically if a grassland area was where the grazing took place. Mr. Lynch concurred and stated that everything south of the SDG&E easement was a grassland habitat as a result of cattle grazing. Assistant City Attorney Mobaldi stated that part of the rationale for the policy allowing a landowner to cluster density when dedicating land to open space is because of state law that promotes no net loss in density. So not only is it an equity issue for the landowner but it also helps to comply with state law. Chairperson Segall asked if there were any other questions. Commissioner Baker asked what the large barriers are currently on the property. Mr. Lynch directed the Commission’s attention to a slide in his presentation to show the location of the street barrier on Camino Junipero. Commissioner Baker asked if the larger pads would be totally flat and 31,000 square feet. Mr. Lynch said it was proposed as a flat pad. Chairperson Segall asked if it had always been the intent to continue the road. Mr. Lynch stated yes, the road would be built at a later date, if needed. Mr. Lynch stated the first barrier located at Camino Junipero and Avenida Amapola was to prevent people from using the road. Chairperson Segall asked if there were any other questions. Seeing none, he asked if the applicant would like to make a presentation. Bob Ladwig, 703 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 300, Carlsbad, representing the applicant, gave a brief presentation to the Commission, concurred with the errata sheet, and stated he would be available to answer questions. Chairperson Segall asked if there were any questions. Commissioner Montgomery stated he was concerned that the flat pads could later be altered as development occurs. Mr. Ladwig stated that it was a very difficult project to design and engineer. Commissioner Montgomery felt that the lots could step up towards the property to the west. Mr. Ladwig commented on the one lot that could be raised, but the other lots would be more difficult. Commissioner Whitton asked if there is only one way in and out of the project. Mr. Ladwig stated yes, but it meets all the city requirements. Chairperson Segall commented that the Staff report stated the project was 7 units below the maximum growth control point. Chairperson Segall asked if that figure was based on the entire site or the revised sizing. Mr. Ladwig answered that they wanted a minimum of 10,000 square feet and had the outer limit of the development area and it is how it turned out inside that area. Chairperson Segall asked if the number of units proposed was less than what could be built based on the growth control point. Mr. Ladwig responded yes. Commissioner Baker asked Mr. Ladwig to follow up on the big flat pads. Mr. Ladwig answered that it was a unique area. He stated it makes sense to have the views to the south and to set the pad in that direction which is consistent with the hill. Planning Commission Minutes August 17,2005 Page 5 Chairperson Segall asked if there were any other questions. Seeing none, he opened public testimony on Item 3. Deborah Forman, 7515 Circulo Sequoia, Carlsbad, stated the Commission should be in receipt of a letter regarding her concerns over this project. She stated she would like the Commission to deny the project. Ms. Forman further stated that Centex assured her that unequivocally that this land would remain open space. Chairperson Segall asked if there were any questions. Commissioner Baker asked Ms. Forman if she was aware that the property was zoned residential for many, many years. Ms. Forman stated that now she was aware, but that fact was never shared and was directly contradicted by the sales office of one of the prime developers of La Costa Oaks. Commissioner Baker asked if Ms. Forman knew that the City of Carlsbad and the Planning Commission had no control over what a real estate or sales office states. Ms. Forman said that she understood that but commented that the Commission had the ability to prevent it from happening. Commissioner Heineman asked if Ms. Forman was aware the City has no view ordinance. Ms. Forman said that she understood. Ms. Forman said that the view was significant but also the location of the construction, which is a concern of the homeowners as well. Ginger Perkins, 3451 Bumann Road, Olivenhain, stated that she owned property east of the subdivision and she knew that the Shelley property would be developed into homes. She thanked Mr. Lynch and said he was very accommodating. Ms. Perkins also stated she would like to pursue gas and electric, if possible. She further stated she is concerned about the trails near her property and people wandering onto her property. She wanted to request a fence and adequate signage, every 2 feet. Chairperson Segall asked if her property was impacted by the 1996 fires. Ms. Perkins said yes. Ted Grifkin, 751 5 Circulo Sequoia, Carlsbad, stated he only wanted to add that Centex was adamant that nothing would be built behind their home, only the possibility that some homes might be built in the southerly direction of their home. He asked if there was ever a time when maybe the developer had considered putting these lots in a different direction. Chairperson Segall stated he would get that answer. Chairperson Segall asked if there were any other members of the public who wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, he closed public testimony. He asked if the applicant would address any portion of these comments. Bob Ladwig stated that the developing area, where the homes are proposed to be built, was established in 1999 as part of the HMP hardline negotiations. Mr. Lynch stated that the rock crusher would be located on Lot 40 to alleviate noise impacts for existing residents. The trails fencing plan is to be reviewed and approved by the wildlife agencies when that plan comes forward. Chairperson Segall asked if there was a possibility of keeping motorcycles and people from using the trails. Mr. Lynch stated there is, through trail design and fencing design. Chairperson Segall asked if Mr. Lynch wanted to address the request for signage. Mr. Lynch said the trail signs would go along with the fencing signs. Commissioner Montgomery asked if Staff could address Ms. Perkins’ question regarding utilities on her property. Bob Wojcik, Deputy Civil Engineer, stated the reason why the City is able to take care of the sewer is because the sewer district is a public utility, whereas gas and electric is not. Therefore, for the City to require a private property owner to give property to another private entity is not proper use of the City’s police powers. Chairperson Segall stated it is a public utility versus a municipal-owned utility. Planning Commission Minutes August 17,2005 Page 6 Commissioner Baker asked if the Commission would be looking at the elevations before the homes are built. Mr. Lynch said the elevations would not come back to the Commission for approval. Commissioner Dominguez asked Mr. Lynch what the current City policy is for trail signage. Mr. Lynch said signs would be installed pursuant to the citywide trails plan and signs to identify biological preservation areas. Commissioner Dominguez asked if there were no regulatory warnings for off-road motor vehicles or activities. Mr. Lynch stated that there were signs that were under certain state law for people to be able to sign and protect their property. Commissioner Dominguez said he was more concerned about the City’s position in this whole matter. Mr. Neu stated that there is a trails planner who is involved in the plan check process when the grading plans come in showing the trails. It is at that stage of the development review that the trails planner is requiring specifics about trail signage. When the City has preserve cases, the preserve manager has a big interest regarding off-road vehicle use. The Center for Natural Lands Management, the La Costa Oaks Preserve Manager, has installed various signage and created other barriers to control some of that unwanted use of the open space. Commissioner Montgomery stated that it was his understanding the HMP hardline for the Shelley Property was done in 1999, which makes the grouping of the residences in that area there prior to other developments in La Costa. Mr. Lynch concurred. Commissioner Baker asked Mr. Wojcik why Camino Juniper0 is blocked off and if that section of the road would ever have been continued if no development was going in. Mr. Wojcik said at the time La Costa Oaks was being developed, the City was aware of the intention of the Shelley Property. Chairperson Segall asked if the road could be bonded for at a later date. Mr. Wojcik stated no, due to the limited time of a bond. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Montgomery, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 5951 recommending adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and adopt Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 5952, 5953, 5954, 5955 and 5956 recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 03-1 1, Zone Change 03-09, Carlsbad Tentative Tract 02-1 7, Hillside Development Permit 02-08, and Habitat Management Plan Permit 05-04, based upon the findings and subject to the conditioned contained therein and including the errata sheet distributed. Chairperson Segall stated the Planning Commission received two letters for the record. One from Ms. Forman and Mr. Grifkin and a second letter from William and Susan Hitchcock. DISCUSSION Coimmissioner Baker stated she sympathized with the people of La Costa Oaks for not knowing about the development of the Shelley Property, but she supports the project. Commissioner Montgomery also sympathized with residents of La Costa Oaks and also asked that the applicant consider not having lots as flat as indicated. Commissioner Montgomery stated he would approve the project. Chairperson Segall also stated his support of the project. Commissioner Heineman stated he also sympathized with residents who had been deceived and misled by real estate salesmen. VOTE: 6-0-1 AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, and Whitton Planning Commission Minutes August 17,2005 Page 7 NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cardosa Chairperson Segall closed the Public Hearing on Item 3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS None. PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMENTS Mr. Neu stated the City Council had approved two projects on August 16, 2005, that had previously been heard at Planning Commission. The first was the Commercial Tourist Zone and related amendments, also the Site Development Plan for the office building on Faraday across from the Farmers Building. Chairperson Segall inquired about the Open Space Committee and the Ag Mitigation Fee Committee. Mr. Neu stated that the Ag Mitigation Fee Committee staff was establishing a time to meet, and City Council is establishing the charge of the Open Space Committee. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Segall asked for a motion to adjourn. MOTION By proper motion, the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of August 17, 2005, was adjourned at 7:lO p.m. DON NEU Assistant Planning Director Transcribed by: Val Dinsmore Administrative Secretary MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRITTEN MINUTES ARE APPROVED. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO p.m. on Tuesday, September 27, 2005, to consider adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; approval for a General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan land use designations from Residential Low density (RL) and Open Space (OS) to Residential Low- Medium density (RLM) and Open Space (OS) and a Zone Change to rezone the property from R-1-40,000 to R-1-10,000 and 0-S consistent with the proposed land use designations; and a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit and Habitat Management Plan Permit to subdivide and grade a 81.3 acre site into 49 standard single-family lots and three open space lots generally located southeast of Rancho Santa Fe Road along the City’s eastern boundary in Local Facilities Management Zone 11 and more particularly described as: That portion of the east half of Lot 6 of Rancho Las Encinitas, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 848, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, June 27, 1898. (APN 223-061- 01 -00 and 223-061 -02-00). Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on or after Friday, September 23, 2005. If you have any questions, please call Van Lynch in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4613. The time within which you may judicially challenge the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit and/or Habitat Management Plan Permit if approved, is established by State law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge the Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit and/or Habitat Management Plan 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, Attn: City Clerk, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA. 92008, at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: GPA 03-1 1/ZC 03-09/CT 02-17/HDP 02-081HMPP 05-04 CASE NAME: SHELLEY PROPERTY PUBLISH: September 16, 2005 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL SITE lUAP NOT TO SCALE SHELLEY PROPERTY GPA 03-1 IIZC 03-09/CT 02-1 7/HDP 02-08/HMPP 05-04 Jim Free Printing Use Avee TEMPLATE 5160@ B www.avery.com 1 -800-GO-AVERY - CARLSBAD UNlF SCHOOL DlST 6225 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA 92011 SAN MARCOS CA 92069 SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DlST 1 CIVIC CENTER DR SAN DIEGUITO SCHOOL DlST 701 ENClNlTAS BLVD TIM JOCHEN ENClNlTAS CA 92024 1960 LA COSTA AVE LEUCADIA WASTE WATER DlST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CITY OF ENClNlTAS 505 S VULCAN AVE ENClNlTAS CA 92024 CITY OF VISTA PO BOX 1988 VISTA CA 92085 CITY OF SAN MARCOS 1 CIVIC CENTER DR SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949 VALLE C ITOS W ATE R D I ST 201 VALLECITOS DE OR0 SAN MARCOS CA 92069 CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME 4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE STE 100 SAN DIEGO CA 92123 9174 SKY PARK CT REGIONAL WATER QUALITY SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340 LAFCO 1600 PACIFIC HWY SAN DIEGO CA 92101 AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DlST 9150 CHESAPEAKE DR SAN DIEGO CA 92123 U.S. FISH &WILDLIFE 6010 HIDDEN VALLEY RD CARLSBAD CA 92011 7575 METROPOLITAN DR CA COASTAL COMMISSION STE 103 SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402 CITY OF CARLSBAD RECREATION CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLl C W ORKS/ENG INEERI NG CLYDE WICKHAM DEPT- PROJECT ENGINEER ENClNlTAS SCHOOL DlST 101 RANCHO SANTA FE RD ENClNlTAS CA 92024 OLlVEN HA1 N WATER D IST 1966 OLIVENHAIN RD ENClNlTAS CA 92024 CITY OF OCEANSIDE 300 NORTH COAST HWY OCEANSIDE CA 92054 I. P.U.A. SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND URBAN STUDIES SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505 SD COUNTY PLANNING STE B 5201 RUFFIN RD SANDIEGO CA 92123 SANDAG STE 800 401 B STREET SAN DIEGO CA 92101 ATTN TED ANASIS SAN DIEGO COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY PO BOX 82776 SAN DIEGO CA 92138-2776 CITY OF CARLSBAD PROJECT PLANNER VAN LYNCH FAIR OAKS VALLEY L L C PO BOX 230638 ENCINITAS CA 92023 CENTER FOR NATURAL LANDS MANAGEM 424 E ALVARADO ST H FALLBROOK CA 92028 TAS CA 92023 REAL ESTATE COLLATERAL MANAGEMEN 1903 WRIGHT PL 180 CARLSBAD CA 92008 CENTER FOR NATURAL LANDS MANAGEM 425 E ALVARADO ST H FALLBROOK CA 92028 ARADO ST H CENTER FOR NAT ARADO ST H MANAGEM DRESS LISTED REAL ESTATE COLL CENTEX HOMES 7421 SIT10 LIMA CARLSBAD CA 92009 TOM & MICHELE SHANNON 7487 CIRCULO SEQUOIA CARLSBAD CA 92009 MANAGE WILLIAM &SUSAN HITCHCOCK 7495 CIRCULO SEQUOIA CARLSBAD CA 92009 FREDERICK M & CHRISTIN FERNANDEZ 7499 CIRCULO SEQUOIA CARLSBAD CA 92009 STEPHEN V & JUDY MILLS 7491 CIRCULO SEQUOIA CARLSBAD CA 92009 DONNE L MAHONEY 7503 CIRCULO SEQUOIA CARLSBAD CA 92009 DARREN R MAGLIDT 7507 CIRCULO SEQUOIA CARLSBAD CA 92009 KELLEE A SAUTER 75 1 1 CIRCULO SEQUOIA CARLSBAD CA 92009 ANDREW &ANDREA BROTMAN 75 16 CIRCULO SEQUOIA CARLSBAD CA 92009 TED GRIFKIN 75 15 CIRCULO SEQUOIA CARLSBAD CA 92009 JOHN H & HA NGUYEN 7512 CIRCULO SEQUOIA CARLSBAD CA 92009 RONALD J & BEVERLY CORMIER 7504 CIRCULO SEQUOIA CARLSBAD CA 92009 CHRISTIAN S & PATFUCIA MARABELLA 7500 CIRCULO SEQUOIA CARLSBAD CA 92009 WALTER T & THERESA OLESKI 7508 CIRCULO SEQUOIA CARLSBAD CA 92009 CHARLES P & BRANDENA KALMAN 7336 CORTE HORTENSIA CARLSBAD CA 92009 RICHARD L & DIANE MURPHY 7496 CIRCULO SEQUOIA CARLSBAD CA 92009 MICHAEL B & LNIA WILLIAMS 3541 CALLE PALMITO CARLSBAD CA 92009 DOMINIC & KELLY LONG1 7344 CORTE HORTENSIA CARLSBAD CA 92009 ARNOLD M & LESLIE VOLLMER 7340 CORTE HORTENSIA CARLSBAD CA 92009 DARYL &ASHLEY FISHB OUGH 7354 CORTE TOMILLO CARLSBAD CA 92009 CHARLENE M HOEKSTRA 7358 CORTE TOMILLO CARLSBAD CA 92009 STEVEN R & ALANE PAYNE 7361 CORTE TOMILLO CARLSBAD CA 92009 JAMES M & JULIA DAVEY 7357 CORTE TOMILLO CARLSBAD CA 92009 KEVIN M & DEBRA JOSEPH J & ROXANNE BROWN 'L KnnT TCIT7Fx, lVlLLL u 3- 1 7527 CIRCULO SEQUOIA CARLSBAD CA 92009 7523 CIRCULO SEQUOIA CARLSBAD CA 92009 JERRY L LEAMING PO BOX 791 DEL MAR CA 92014 NOLI J & MILA RAI3ANG 7579 CIRCULO SEQUOIA CARLSBAD CA 92009 AJIT K CHUTKE 7538 CIRCULO SEQUOIA CARLSBAD CA 92009 RICARDO R & AMY SILVA 755 1 CIRCULO SEQUOIA CARLSBAD CA 92009 MARK R & TIFFANY BERMER HUYENTRAM PHAM-TRAN 7559 CIRCULO SEQUOIA CARLSBAD CA 92009 7562 CIRCULO SEQUOIA CARLSBAD CA 92009 ENZO M MORALES 7554 CIRCULO SEQUOIA CARLSBAD CA 92009 JOHNNY &BRENDA RODRIGUEZ 7904 CIRCULO SEQUOIA CARLSBAD CA 92009 SUZY P FISCH 7542 ClRCULO SEQUOIA CARLSBAD CA 92009 HEUNG M KIM 7538 CIRCULO SEQUOIA CARLSBAD CA 92009 PENG TAN 1452 FLAGSHIP CT SAN MARCOS CA 92078 MIKE & TERESA NAGATANI 7526 CIRCULO SEQUOIA CARLSBAD CA 92009 DARREN R & KATHERINE WARREN 7348 CORTE HORTENSIA CARLSBAD CA 92009 CHARLES M BASS 7362 CORTE TOMILLO CARLSBAD CA 92009 SALVATORE G & DORIE GALLUCCI 7357 CORTE TOMILLO CARLSBAD CA 92009 D W OAKS SOUTH LP 1302 CAMINO DEL MAR DEL MAR CA 92014 PAUL K & IRIS LAFFERTY 7543 CIRCULO SEQUOIA CARLSBAD CA 92009 JOHN B & LORENE RICE 7555 CIRCULO SEQUOIA CARLSBAD CA 92009 ANDY MOVSESIAN 7558 CIRCULO SEQUOIA CARLSBAD CA 92009 V Q SMITH PO BOX 2392 DEL MAR CA 92014 JAMES E & JANIS STONHAUS 7534 CIRCULO SEQUOIA CARLSBAD CA 92009 ESMAEL & LAILA ABEDIAN CARLSBAD CA 92009 7522 CIRCULO SEQUOIA - SEAN B & JENNIFER MARTIN 7563 CIRCULO SEQUOIA CARLSBAD CA 92009 DOUGLAS F & DEANNA STRICKLAND 7575 CIRCULO SEQUOIA CARLSBAD CA 92009 DAVID A & MARIA STEARN 3548 SITIO DAMASCO CARLSBAD CA 92009 D W OAKS SOUT BARRY J & FELICIA SHEERMAN 7570 CIRCULO SEQUOIA CARLSBAD CA 92009 RUSSELL S PERKINS 3451 BUMANN RD ENCINITAS CA 92024 RICHARD J & FIA DOWSING 1418 VIA DEL CORVO SAN MARCOS CA 92078 CORKE 3851 COPPER CREST RD ENCINITAS CA 92024 ROBERT N TAGUE 7567 CIRCULO SEQUOIA CARLSBAD CA 92009 GARY C & TERRI KRAUS 7571 CIRCULO SEQUOIA CARLSBAD CA 92009 D W OAKS SOUTH L P 1302 CAMINO DEL MAR DEL MAR CA 92014 DOUGLAS D & CYNTHIA DOWNING 3544 SITIO DAMASCO CARLSBAD CA 92009 ANTHONY J & ANGELA BOTTE 3552 SITIO DAMASCO CARLSBAD CA 92009 JAMES M & HEATHER MARTIN 3551 SITIO DAMASCO CARLSBAD CA 92009 JOSE & DANIELLE GOMEZ 7566 CIRCULO SEQUOIA CARLSBAD CA 92009 1997 PERKINS 3489 LONE JACK RD ENCINITAS CA 92024 NO PRO PFo- REAL ESTATE COLLATERAL MANAGEMEN 1903 WRIGHT PL 180 CARLSBAD CA 92008 BRANDEL FRIEDMAN 3122 DUSTY TRL ENCINITAS CA 92024 THOMAS G & AD-"E KLOPACK 3875 COPPER CREST RD ENCINITAS CA 92024 CHRIS J & JUDITH HAMILTON 14806 VISTA DEL OCEAN0 . DEL MAR CA 920 14 NO PROPERTY F ERIC L & NELLY CASSIS PO BOX 235665 l ENCINITAS CA 92023 MARK L & MELINDA REDDING 3135 DUSTY TRL ENCINITAS CA 92024 NO PRO)&Y FOUND NO PROPE P- NOPROP YFOUND / EMIL & MICHELE CHUANG PO BOX 180574 CARLSBAD CA 9201 8 MICHAEL W & KAREN LYON 3 126 DUSTY TRL ENCINITAS CA 92024 NO PROP~W GREGORY H & KATHLEEN BROWN 3128 DUSTY TRL ENCINITAS CA 92024 4 ROBERT & MONICA WESTERMEYER 3745 VIA CARA LOMA ENCINITAS CA 92024 DIEHL 3139 DUSTY TRL ENCINITAS CA 92024 THOMAS & JOAN STAFSLIEN 3140 DUSTY TRL ENCINITAS CA 92024 BROWN 3128 DUSTY TRL ENCINITAS CA 92024 NopFFo- Shelley PropertyGPA 03-11/ZC 03-09/CT 02-17/HDP 02-08/HMPP 05-04 Aerial ViewSite D81.3 acre siteD49 Residential Lots on 25.5 acresD3 Open Space LotsD55.45 acres of OSDTrailsDHabitatDAffordable housing credits OSRLMOSEXISTINGRLRLSITESITEPROPOSEDDGeneral Plan Amendment OSR-1-10,000OSEXISTINGPROPOSEDR-1-40,000SITESITER-1-40,000DZone Change View from Avenida Amapola Muilla clevelandiiSan DiegoGoldenstarCopyright © R.MitchelBeauchamp and CNPS Mitigated Negative DeclarationDNoise mitigation –sound walls/rock crusherDBiological resources -Goldenstar RecommendationDThat the City Council adopt the resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and approvingGPA 03-11/ CT 02-17, HDP 02-08 and HMPP 05-04 and adopt the ordinance approving ZC 03-09.