HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-02-05; City Council; 16539; Thompson/TabataCITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL
AB# ld,53q m:
THOMPSONITABATA
MTG. d-sa
DEPT. PLN '#
ZC 98-081LCPA 98-041CT 98-14lPUD 98-05lCP 00-021SDP
99-06IHDP 98-15/CDP 98-68 DEPT.HD. CITY ATTY. E-
CITY MGR 332
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That Council INTRODUCE Ordinance No. h.3 - b I x , AMENDING the Zoning Map and Local
Coastal Program Zoning Map, and ADOPT Resolution No. dOOa-Oq b , APPROVING the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Zone Change, Local
Coastal Program Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development Permit,
Condominium Permit, Site Development Plan, Hillside Development Permit, and Coastal
Development Permit for the ThompsoniTabata subdivision.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On November 7, 2001 and December 5, 2001, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings and recommended approval with a 6-0 vote (Neilsen absent) of the various legislative and
development permits associated with the ThompsoniTabata subdivision. The proposal involves
three components: 1) changing the zoning and LCP designation from Limited Control (L-C) to One
Family Residential and Residential Density-Multiple, both with a Qualified Development Overlay (R-
1-7.500-Q) and (RD-M-Q); 2) allowing the subdivision and grading of coastal hillside lands for 238
single family homes and 24 multifamily condominiums affordable to lower-income households; and 3) approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration requiring on-site open space preservation,
replacement of southern willow scrub habitat, fugitive dust control, agricultural land conversion fees,
and roadway noise attenuation.
The proposed development would include three housing types: standard single-family residences,
small-lot single-family residences, and multifamily condominiums affordable to lower-income
households. The proposed grading would be balanced on the site and within the acceptable limits of
the Hillside Development Ordinance. The primaty access to the site would be off of Poinsettia Lane
through a signalized intersection with Rose Drive. The in-fill residential project would also involve
several access links to existing public streets, namely: Lemon Leaf Drive, Lonicera Street, Alyssum Road, and Rose Drive.
There have been several expressions of public interest in the project by residents and/or property
owners in the surrounding neighborhoods. A petition from the Vista Pacifica neighborhood was
submitted to the City Council in May 2000. The Community Development staff conducted a
Community Information Forum on August 17, 2000. Copies of the petition and the minutes of the Community Information Forum are attached to the Planning Commission Staff Report for reference.
Due to public input at the Planning Commission hearings, several modifications to the proposal were
made. The modifications are detailed in the attached City Council Resolution and include the
to potentially reduce offsite traftic volumes to the south. The proposed legislative and development provision of livable streets within the proposed development and the redesign of a cul-de-sac street
permits are consistent with the General Plan, the Local Coastal Program and all other applicable
ordinances, regulations and policies. Therefore, Staff and the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the ThompsoniTabata subdivision, as modified.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
The potential environmental impacts of the Thompson/Tabata subdivision, as designed and
conditioned, were reviewed and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was issued on April 4, 2001. The
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. I bI % 37
Mitigated Negative Declaration includes mitigations in the areas of Land Use, Housing, Geology,
Water, Air Quality, Circulation, Biological Resources, Hazards, Noise and Paleontological Resources. Given these measures, development and occupation of the proposed project would not
cause any significant adverse environmental impacts.
The findings of no significant impact are supported by a number of previous environmental review
documents as well as site-specific studies. The previous environmental reviews include the Master
Environmental Impact Report for the 1994 General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01) and the Program EIR for the Zone 20 Specific Plan (EIR 90-03). The site-specific studies are listed in the Planning
Commission Staff Report and the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
In response to the 30-day public review period, the City received four comment letters regarding the
Mitigated Negative Declaration. These letters, attached to the Planning Commission Staff Report,
were prepared by neighboring residents or their representatives. Staff responses to those comment
letters are also attached to the Planning Commission Staff Report. No comments on the Mitigated
Negative Declaration were received from any State agencies.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The fiscal impacts to the City are negligible since all development fees will be collected at time of
final map and building permit issuance. All public facilities necessary to serve the development will
be in place prior to, or concurrent with, development.
EXHIBITS:
I. City Council Ordinance No. E35 -b 18
2. City Council Resolution No. mb
4. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5070, 5071, 5072, 5073, 5074, 5075, 5076, 5077, and
3. Location Map
5. Planning Commission Staff Reports, dated November 7,2001 and December 5,2001
6. Excerpts of the Planning Commission Minutes, dated November 7, 2001 and December 5, 2001.
5078
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1s
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2s
26
27
28
ORDINANCE NO. NS-618
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 21 OF THE
CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY AN AMENDMENT TO THE
ZONING MAP TO GRANT A ZONE CHANGE, ZC 98-08, FROM LIMITED CONTROL (L-C) TO ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITH
A QUALIFIED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE (R-1-7,5004)
FOR 40.41 ACRES, AND RESIDENTIAL DENSITY-MULTIPLE
WITH A QUALIFIED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE (RD-M-
Q) FOR 37.62 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH AND
AND SNAPDRAGON DRIVE IN THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT. SOUTH OF POINSETTIA LANE, BETWEEN AVIARA PARKWAY
CASE NAME: THOMPSONKABATA
CASE NO.: ZC 98-08lLCPA 98-04
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does ordain as follows:
SECTION I: That Section 21.05.030 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended by the amendment of the zoning map as shown on the map attached hereto, Exhibits
"ZC 98-08" and "LCPA 98-04", and made a part hereof.
SECTION II: That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission as
set forth in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5071 and 5072constitute the findings and
conditions of the City Council.
SECTION 111: The Council further finds that this action is consistent with the
General Plan and the Housing Element of the General Plan in that it is consistent with the
residential land use and affordable housing goals and objectives.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its
adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be
published at least once in a publication of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within
fifteen days after its adoption. (Not withstanding the preceding, this ordinance shall not be
effective within the City's Coastal Zone until approved by the California Coastal Commission.)
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill 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
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City
Council on the - day of 2002, and thereafter.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the ~ day of 2002, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
~~ CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
-2- Y
PROPERTY ZONE CHANGE ZC: 98-08
draft [XI final
Project Name: Thompsonnabata Related Case File No@): LCPA 98-
04CT 98-14/PUD 98-05, CP 00-02,
SDP 99-06, HDP 98-15, and CDP 98-68
Legal Description(s): The northeast quarter of the northeast quarter and the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section
28, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, according to the official plat thereof;
together with that portion of the southeast quarter of Section 21, Township 12 South, Range 4 West of the
San Bernardino Meridian, according to the official plat thereof, shown on Parcel B on a Certificate of
Compliance recorded November 7,1988 as File No. 88-569475 and on Record of Survey Map No. 12096,
filed on March 23, 1989; all lying within the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California; except
therefrom those portions thereof vested with Tabata Brothers Partnership by documents recorded November
13, 1972 as File No. 303362 and November 4, 1974 as Files No. 74-292547 and 74-292548; and except
therefrom those portions lying within Poinsettia Lane and Rose Drive as described in Files No. 89-546752, 89-637695,90-146889 and 91 -0036964 of Official Records
Zone Change Approvals
Property: From: To:
R-1-7.500-Q and RD-M-Q Ordinance No: A. 21 4-1 70-36 L-c
8.214-170-46 L-C R-1-7,500-Q Effective Date:
C. 214-170-58 L-c RD-M-Q
D. 214-170-59 L-c RD-M-Q
Council Approval Date:
Signature:
SEE ATTACHED FOR MORE PARCELS
Property: From: To:
E. 214-170-74 L-c
F. 214-170-75 L-c
G. 214-170-76 L-c
H. 214-170-77 L-c R-1-7,500-Q AND RD-M-Q
I. 214-170-79 L-c RD-M-Q
R-1-7,500-Q
RD-M-Q
R-1-7,500-Q
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LCPA: 98-04
draft final 0
Project Name: Thompson/labata I Related Case File No(s): ZC 98-06,
Property/Legal Description(s): The northeast quarter of the northeast quarter and the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 28, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, according to the
official plat thereof; together with that portion of the southeast quarter of Section 21, Township 12 South, Range 4
West of the San Bernardino Meridian, according to the official plat thereof, shown on Parcel B on a Certificate of
Compliance recorded November 7,1988 as File No. 88-569475 and on Record of Survey Map No. 12096, filed on
those portions thereof vested with Tabata Brothers Partnership by documents recorded November 13, 1972 as File
March 23, 1989; all lying within the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California; except therefrom
lvina within Poinsettia Lane and Rose Drive as described in Files No. 89-546752. 89-637695. 90-146889 and 91-
No. 303362 and November 4, 1974 as Files No. 74-292547 and 74-292548; and except therefrom those portions
003%964 of Official Records
LCPA Map Designation Change Approvals
Property
A. 21 4-1 70-36
From: To: Council Approval Date:
L-c
B. 214-170-46
R-1-7,500-Q and RD-M-Q Resolution No:
L-c
C. 21 4-1 70-58 L-c RD-M-Q Signature:
R-1-7,500-Q Effective Date:
D. 214-170-59 1-c RD-M-O
SEE AT'ACHED FOR MORE PARCELS
7
Properly: From: To: E. 214-170-74 L-c F. 214-170-75 L-c RD-M-Q G. 214-170-76
H. 214-170-77 L-c L-c R-1-7,500-Q and RD-M-Q R-1-7,500-Q
1. 214-170-79 L-c RD-M-Q
R-1-7,500-Q
H.\WORD\GPAZC\LCPA9804
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. 2002-046
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM, ZONE CHANGE, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
AMENDMENT, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, SITE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT,
AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE
THOMPSONmABATA SUBDIVISION, LOCATED NORTH AND
SOUTH OF POINSETTIA LANE, BETWEEN AVIARA PARKWAY
AND SNAPDRAGON DRIVE, IN THE SOUTHWEST
QUADRANT.
CASE NAME: THOMPSONnABATA
CASE NO.: ZC 98-08/LCPA 98-04/CT 98-14/PUD 98-05/
CP 00-02/SDP 99-06/HDP 98-15/CDP 98-68
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning
Commission did, on November 5, 2001 and December 5, 2001, hold a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law to consider a Zone Change, Local Coastal Program Amendment,
Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development Permit, Condominium Permit, Site
Development Plan, Hillside Development Permit, and Coastal Development Permit; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 5th day of
February , 2002, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider said Zone Change,
Local Coastal Program Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development Permit,
Condominium Permit, Site Development Plan, Hillside Development Permit, and Coastal
Development Permit, and at that time received recommendations, objections, protests,
comments of all persons interested in or opposed to ZC 98-08/LCPA 98-04/CT 98-14/PUD 98-
05/CP 00-02/SDP 99-06/HDP 98-15/CDP 98-68; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the City Council approves City Council Resolution No.
and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission as set forth in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5070, 5071, 5072, 5073, 5074, 5075, 5076, 5077, and 5078, on
tile with the City Clerk and made a part hereof by reference, are the findings and conditions of
the City Council.
2002-046
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
3. That the application for a Zone Change from Limited Control (L-C) to One
Zone (R-1-7,500-Q and RD-M-Q) on property generally located north and south of Poinsettia
Family Residential and Residential Density-Multiple, both with a Qualified Development Overlay
Lane, between Aviara Parkway and Snapdragon Drive, is approved as shown in Planning
Commission Resolution No. 5071.
4. That the application for a Local Coastal Program Amendment from
Limited Control (L-C) to One Family Residential and Residential Density-Multiple, both with a
Qualified Development Overlay Zone (R-1-7,500-Q and RD-M-Q) on property generally located
north and south of Poinsettia Lane, between Aviara Parkway and Snapdragon Drive, is approved as shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5072.
5. That the application for a Tentative Tract Map to allow the subdivision of
82.20 acres into 108 standard single family lots, 130 small-lot single family lots, a condominium
vehicle storage lot, on property generally located north and south of Poinsettia Lane, between
lot with 24 multifamily units, three recreation lots, two open space lots, and a recreational
Aviara Parkway and Snapdragon Drive, is approved as shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5073.
6. That the application for a Planned Unit Development Permit to allow the
development of 130 small lot single family lots with units, two passive recreation lots and two
Aviara Parkway and Snapdragon Drive, is approved as shown in Planning Commission
open space lots on property generally located north and south of Poinsettia Lane, between
Resolution No. 5074.
7. That the application for a Condominium Permit to allow the development
of 24 multifamily condominiums on property generally located north and south of Poinsettia
Lane, between Aviara Parkway and Snapdragon Drive, is approved as shown in Planning
Commission Resolution No. 5075.
8. That the application for a Site Development Plan to allow the subdivision,
grading and construction of 82.20 acres, creating 238 single family lots with dwellings, two open
space lots, three recreation lots, a recreational vehicle storage lot, and a 24 unit, for-sale
condominium project affordable to lower-income households on property generally located north
and south of Poinsettia Lane, between Aviara Parkway and Snapdragon Drive, is approved as
shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5076.
9. That the application for a Hillside Development Permit to allow the
grading and construction of 82.20 acres, creating 238 single family lots with dwellings, two open
space lots, three recreation lots, one recreational vehicle storage lots, and a 24 unit, for-sale
multifamily condominium project affordable to lower-income households on property generally
located north and south of Poinsettia Lane, between Aviara Parkway and Snapdragon Drive, is
approved as shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5077.
IO. That the application for a Coastal Development Permit grading and
three recreation lots, one recreational vehicle storage lots, and a 24 unit, for-sale multifamily
construction of 82.20 acres, creating 238 single family lots with dwellings, two open space lots,
condominium project affordable to lower-income households on property generally located north
and south of Poinsettia Lane, between Aviara Parkway and Snapdragon Drive, is approved as shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5078.
-2-
I
I_ 1
2 -
4
5
t
i
E
9
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 the City Council of the City 01
Carlsbad on the - day of 2002, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
AlTEST:
LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
-3-
THOMPSON/TABATA
ZC 98-08/LCPA 98-041CT 98-1 4/PUD 98-051
CP 00-02/SDP 99-06/HDP 98-1 5/CDP 98-68
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. 5070
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM TO ALLOW A ZONE CHANGE AND LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO CHANGE 37.62
ACRES FROM LIMITED CONTROL (LC) TO ONE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL WITH A QUALIFIED DEVELOPMENT
OVERLAY (R-1-7,500-Q), AND TO CHANGE 40.41 ACRES
FROM LIMITED CONTROL (L-C) TO RESIDENTIAL
DENSITY-MULTIPLE WITH A QUALIFIED DEVELOPMENT
OVERLAY (RD-M-Q), AND THE SUBDIVISION, GRADING
AND CONSTRUCTION OF 82.20 ACRES, CREATING 238
SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH DWELLINGS, TWO OPEN
SPACE LOTS, THREE RECREATION LOTS, ONE
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE LOT AND A 24 UNIT,
FOR-SALE CONDOMNUM PROJECT AFFORDABLE TO
LOWER-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, LOCATED ON PROPERTY
NORTH AND SOUTH OF POINSETTIA LANE, BETWEEN
AVIARA PARKWAY AND SNAPDRAGON DRIVE IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20.
CASE NAME: THOMPSON/TABATA
CASE NO.: ZC 98-08LCPA 98-04/CT 98-14PUD 98-05/
CP 00-02/SDP 99-06/HDP 98-15ICDP 98-68
WHEREAS, Standard Pacific, Developer,” has filed a verified application with
the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Standard Pacific Corporation and David B.
Thompson and Karen R Thompson, “Owner,” described as
The northeast quarter of the northeast quarter and the southeast
quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 28, Township 12 South,
Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, according to the official
plat thereof; together with that portion of the southeast quarter of
Section 21, Township 12 South, Range 4 West of the San
Bernardino Meridian, according to the official plat thereof, shown
on Parcel B on a Certificate of Compliance recorded November
7,1988 as File No. 88-569475 and on Record of Survey Map No.
12096, filed on March 23, 1989; all lying within the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California; except
therefrom those portions thereof vested with Tabata Brothers
Partnership by documents recorded November 13, 1972 as File No.
303362 and November 4, 1974 as Files No. 74-292547 and 74-
292548; and except therefrom those portions lying within Poinsettia
Lane and Rose Drive as described in Files No. 89-546752, 89-
637695,gO-146889 and 91-0036964 of Official Records,
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
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Dec
with said project; and
:laration was prepare ,d in conjunction
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of November 2001 and
on the 5th day of December 2001 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to
consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by st&, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, according to
Exhibit “ND” dated April 4,2001, and “PII” dated March 1,2001, attached hereto
and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
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 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 EL4 Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PC RES0 NO. 5070 -2- 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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of December 2001, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Dominguez,
Heineman, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Nielsen
ABSTAIN: : . SEGALL. C aimerson JEFF^. SEGALL. ClGmerson
CARLSBAD PL~G OM MISSION ~~
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5070 -3-
~ City of Carlsbad
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddresslLocation: North and south of Poinsettia Lane. west of Aviara Parkway and east of
Snapdragon Drive. in the City of Carlsbad. County of San Diego. State
of California
Project Description: Request for a Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment to
change 40.41 acres of the subdivision from Limited Control (L-C) to
Residential Multiple-Density with a Qualified Development Overlay
Zone (RD-M-Q) and to change 41.79 acres from Limited Control (L-C)
to One Family Residential with a Qualified Development Overlay Zone
(R-I-Q); and a Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development Permit.
Site Development Plan, Condominium Permit, Hillside Development
Permit and Coastal Development Permit to subdivide. grade, and
develop 82.20 acres, creating 238 single family lots, two open space lots.
four recreation lots, one recreational vehicle storage lot and a 24 unit,
for-sale condominium project, affordable to lower-income households.
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 (EL4 Pan 2)
identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or
proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial
study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where
clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in
light of the whole record before the City that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the
environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project.
Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents 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 date of issuance. If you
have any questions, please call Michael Grim in the Planning Department at (760) 6024623.
DATED: APRIL 4.200 I
CASE NO: ZC 98-08lLCPA 98-04/CT 98-14PUD 98-05lCP 00-02/SDP 99-06MDP 98-
ISICDP 98-68
CASE NAME: THOMPSON/TABATA
PUBLISH DATE: APRIL 4,200 1
- MICHAEL J. HOLZMILL~?~
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad. CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us 16 @
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMEN3
CASE NO: ZC 9S-OSLCPA 9S-041CT 98-14lPLD OS-03
CP 00-02/SDP 99-06/HDP 9S-I5/CDP 9s-6s
DATE March 1.200 I
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Thomosoflabata
2. APPLICANT: Standard Pacific Housing
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5750 Fleet St. Suite 200. Carlsbad CA
92008 (858) 292-2200
4. DATE EL4 FORM PART I SUBMITTED: September 18, 1998
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reauest for a Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment
to change 40.41 acres of the subdivision from Limited Control (L-C) to Residential Multiple-
Densitv with a Qualified Development Overlav Zone (RD-M-0) and to change 41.79 acres from
Limited Control (L-C) to One Familv Residential with a Oualified Development Overlav Zone
(R-1-0); and a reauest for a Tentative Tract Map. Planned Unit Development Permit. Site
Development Plan. Condominium Permit. Hillside Development Permit and Coastal
Development Permit to subdivide. made, and develop 82.20 acres, creating 238 single familv lots.
two oDen space lots. four recreation lots, one recreational vehicle storax lot and a 24 unit, for-
sale condominium oroiect. affordable to lower-income households. on oroDertv eenerallv locared
Facilities Management Zone 20.
north and south of Poinsettia Lane. between Aviara Parkwav and Snapdragon Drive, in Local
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
Unless Mitigation Incorporated as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact.” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Land Use and Planning [XITransportation/Circulation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing [XI Biological Resources OUtilities & Service Systems
IXI Geological Problems Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Water Hazards
Air Quality H Noise
0 Cultural Resources
IXI Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
11
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0
[XI
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 significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared,
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect@) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore,
a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
2 Rev. 03/28/96 f f
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES. Chapter 3. Anicle 5. Section 15063 requires that the Cit!
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a slznificanr
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the follow in^
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 IO
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but 4 potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a
supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required
by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no
additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence
that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96 19
b If there are one or more potentially significant effects. the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant. and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated“
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked. and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards. and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Ovemding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not
reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Pan I1 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 ENVIRONkENTAL-EVALUATION: ~ Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96 20
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Porentlally
Signrticmt lrnpacl Impm
No
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #'sj: (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18. #2: Pgs 111-74 -
111-87)
bj Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
polic~es adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
proJect? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18. #2. Pgs 111-74 - 111-87)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.0. impacts
(#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18. #2, Pgs 111-74 - 111-87)
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#l:Pgb 5.6-1 - 5.6-18. #2, Pgs 111.27 -111-
31)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 56-18, #2. Pgs
111-74 - 111-87)
0
0
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI 0
0 0 U [XI
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6. #2, Pgs
111-74 - 111-87)
b) Induce subbtanrlal growth in an area either d~rectly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 -
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
5.5-6. #2, Pgs 111-74 - 111-87)
housmg? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6. #2, Pgs 111-74 - 111-87)
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15. #2: Pgs III-II2 -
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 . 5.1-15. #?:
c) Seismic ground failure. including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 ~ 5.1-15. #2:
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
5.1-1-5.1-15.#2:PgsIII-I12-III-118)
conditions from excavatlon. grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15. #2: Pgs
h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15. #2: Pgs Ill-112
111-112-111-118)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - - 111-1 18)
5.1-15.#2:PgsIII-112-III-118)
expose people to potential impacts involving:
111- 1 18)
Pgs Ill-112 - 111-118)
5.1-1-5.1.15.#2:PgsIII-112-III-118)
5.1-15. #2: Pgs 111-1 12 - 111-1 18)
PgsIII-112-III-II8)
0 0 0 IXI
0 0 0 [XI
0 0 0 IXI
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
nu o[XI IXI
5 Rev. 03/28/96 a j
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Porentmll!
Sguficmr
lmpacr
Slpnlticmr Potenuall!
M~t~gat~on L'nless
Incorporated
'0
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates. drainage patterns. or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 52
11) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 I)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
oxygen or turbidrty)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 52-11)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11)
0 Changes in the quantity of ground waters. either
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5211)
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (#l:Pgs5.2-1 - 5211)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(#I:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-1 I)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-
11)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
0 0 €3
0 0
0
0
0
[XI
€3 0
0
0
0
0 0
0
[XI
[XI
[XI 0 0
0
0
0
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
1 - 5.3-12. #2: Pgs 111-28 - 111-36)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12. #2: Pgs 111-28 -111-36)
c) Alter air movement. moisture. or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12. #2: Pgs
111-28 - 111-36)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12. #2:
Pgs 111-28 - 111-36)
no 0
0
0
0 0 o[XI
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCLJLATION. Would the
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
proposal result in:
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
5.7-1 - 5.7.22. #2: Pgs 111-58 - 111-75)
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.p. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.722. #2: Pgs
111-58 - 111-75)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22. #2: Pgs 111-58 -111-75)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
f#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22. #2: Pgs 111-58 -111-75)
0 Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22. #2: Pgs 111-58 - 111-75)
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22. #2: Pgs 111-58 - 111-75)
6
Ixl 0
0
00
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
Rev. 03/28/96 .& a
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
Significant
Potentially
Impact
IncoGrated 0 0 0 g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic Impacts'? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -
5.7.22. #2: Pgs 111-58 - 111-75)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a) Endangered. threatened or rare species or their habitats
animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24. #?: Pgs III-
(including but not limited to plants. fish, insects,
37 - 111-58)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24. #2: Pgs 111-37 - 111-58)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat. etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24. #2:
Pgs 111-37 - 111-58)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24. #2: Pgs 111-37 - 111-58)
- 5.4-24. #2: Pgs 111-37 - III-58)
0 [XI 0 0
IXI
[XI
IXI
[x]
0
0 IXI
0 0
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
1 - 5.13-9)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
0
17
0 0
0
IXI IXI
cl [x]
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil. pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5.
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
#2: Pgs 111-97 - 111-105)
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -
5.10.1-5. #2: Pgs 111-97 - 111-105)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 ~ 5.10.1-5. #2: Pgs 111-97 -
111-105)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5. #2: Pgs III-
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush.
97 - 111-105) grass. or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5. #2: Pgs III-
97 - 111-105)
0 IXI 17 [x]
0 0
0
0
0 0
[E3
[E3
[XI
[XI
0
0
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases In existing noise levels? (#I:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9-
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
15. #2: Pgs 111-88 - 111-98)
1 - 5.9-15. #2: Pgs 111-88 - 111.98)
I
0
Rev. 03/28/96 ,a 3
Issues (and Supponing Information Sources). Potenriall) Significanr
lmoacr
Significant Potentially
Unless
Mltlpatlon
Incorporated
Slpnificant
Less Than
Imp~ct Impact
N <I
XI. PmLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon. or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6. #?: Pgs
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4. #2: Pgs
111-108 - 111-1 11)
C) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5. #2: Pgs 111-108 - 111-108-111-111)
111-1 11)
d) Malntenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services'? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - (#l:Pgs5.1Z1-1 -5.12.8-7.#2:PpsII1-108-III-III)
5.12.8-7. #?: Pgs 111-108 - 111-1 11)
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
[XI
5
5
Ix1
[XI
0
0
0 0
0 0
XII.UTUITlES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 . 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
b) Communications systems? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
d) Sewer or septlc tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
e) Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
fl Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
5.12.3-7)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
b) Have a demonstrated neeative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5. #2: Pgs
5.11-1-5.11-5.#?:PgsIII-I19-111-151)
5.11-1 -5.11-5.#2:PgsII1-119-111-151)
111-119-111-151)
0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0
El
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 [XI
5
[XI
U
0
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 .5.8-10)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 5.8-
I - 5.8-10)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 53-10)
10. #2: Pgs 111-106- 111-107)
1 0)
XV.RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
0
0
0
[XI
0 [XI
0 0 0 0 0 [XI [XI
0 0 [XI
Rev. 03/28/96 2CLt 8
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
impact
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? r#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
5.12.8-7)
Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
0
0
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? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)? Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
0
0
0
EARLIER ANALYSES.
A number of previous environmental review documents and technical studies have been performed for the
project site. The pertinent environmental review documents include the Master Environmental Impact
Report for the 1994 General Plan Update (MER 93-01) and the Program Environmental Impact Report
for the Zone 20 Specific Plan (EIR 90-03). The MER reviewed the potential environmental impacts
associated with buildout of the City’s General Plan, including transportation and air quality. The Program
EIR for the Zone 20 Specific Plan reviewed the potential impacts associated with the development of the
Zone 20 Specific Plan with uses in accordance with the City’s General Plan. All applicable mitigation
measures contained in these two documents that are relevant to the proposed project have been .
incorporated into the project design or are expressly listed in the mitigation measures below.
The pertinent technical documents include the project’s geotechnical, hydrologic, traffic impact,
biological. acoustical, and contaminant review reports. These references, listed at the end of this
document, contain specific information regarding the potential environmental impacts and recommended
mitigation measures associated with the development of the proposed Thompsoflabata project on the
project site. All of these references were used to make the enclosed environmental determination and
should be referred to in addition to the discussion contained below.
9 Rev. 03/28/96 a
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The Thompsonff'abata proposal involves two components. The first involves a Zone Change and Local
Coastal Program Amendment to change 40.41 acres of the property from Limited Control (1-CI to
Residential Multiple-Density with a Qualified Development Overlay Zone (RD-M-Q) and to change
41.79 acres from Limited Control (L-C) to One Family Residential with 3 Qualified Development
Overlay Zone (R-1-7.500-Q). The second component involves a Tentative Tract Map. Planned Unit
Development Permit. Condominium Permit. Site Development Plan, Hillside Development Permit and
Coastal Development Permit to allow the subdivision. grading. and development of 23s single family
dwellings, two open space lots, three recreation lots. one recreational vehicle storage area and a 24-unit.
for-sale condominium project affordable to lower-income households over the entire 82.20 acre site.
The project site is located north and south of Poinsettia Lane. between Aviara Parkway and Snapdragon
Drive. in Local Facilities Management Zone 20. The western 40.41 acres of the site is designated
Residential Medium (RM) in the City's General Plan. allowing from 4.0 to 8.0 dwelling units per acre.
The eastern 41.79 acres of the site is designated Residential Low-Medium. allowing up to 4.0 dwellings
per acre. The City's Growth Management Plan limits these densities to maximums of 3.2 and 6.0
dwellings per acre, respectively. The project site is also located within the Mello I1 segment of the City's
Local Coastal Program and within the Zone 20 Specific Plan area. The project site is zoned Limited
Control (LC) that allows agricultural uses and requires a Zone Change prior to or concurrent with
detailed development plans.
The project site consists of three areas. The majority of the site is located south of Poinsettia Lane, with
two areas north of Poinsettia Lane: at the extension of existing Lemon Leaf Drive and at the extension of
existing Lonicera Street. 20 single-family planned development lots would be created on the Lonicera
Street extension and 19 single family lots (minimum of 10.000 square feet in area) would be created along
future Lemon Leaf Drive. The remaining 199 single-family units, the 24-unit multifamily condominium.
the recreational vehicle storage area and the passive recreational areas are all located south of Poinsettia
Lane. Except for a small portion in the northeastern corner, the project site is completely surrounded by
the north, Sandpiper at Aviara to the east, Spinnaker Hill to the southeast and east, and Vista Pacifica to
rssidential development and related open space. The surrounding developments are: Mariner's Point to
the east.
The two portions north of Poinsettia Lane are separated by two existing lots totaling 2.40 acres that are
not a part of the proposed subdivision. The properties contain the existing single-family residence and
accessory structures from the previous agricultural operations. The residence currently takes access off of
Lonicera Street, just south of its intersection with Camino de las Ondas. via an access easement and paved
driveway. The proposed subdivision does not affect this existing access and provides public street
frontage to the east side of the lot through the extension of Lemon Leaf Drive. thereby allowing future
development of the site.
All three of the project areas have historically been under commercial agricultural production. The
agricultural uses consisted of open fields, greenhouses and related access roads and storage structures.
There is an existing single-family house located south of Poinsettia Lane that would remain with the
proposed development. In late 2000, the greenhouses were cleared from the site. which is currently
covered by fallow open fields. The topography of the site is a north-south trending ridgeline and west-
facing slope. There is a small strip of native habitat along the eastern boundary of the project site that is
part of a larger open space canyon within the Aviara Master Plan community.
The proposed residential development would entail a balanced grading scheme with approximately
496.700 cubic yards of cut and fill. Some removal of unconsolidated materials may be necessary.
depending upon detailed soils investigations. The proposed topography would remain essentially the
same, with a north-south trending ridge and development stepping down the west-facing slope. The
proposed development includes public infrastructure, such as streets. storm drains, and sewer and water
systems. The proposed subdivision would connect to the surrounding street system in thqee locations: at
10 Rev. 03/28/94
Rose Drive and Poinsettia Lane: through the extension of Alyssum Road to the west: and through the
extension of Rose Drive to the south. All three of these connections were designed to accommodate
access to the project site with the original development of the surrounding subdivisions. The proposed
development would also connect to the existing infrastructure. such as sewer. storm drain. potable and
recycled water. within existing rights-of-way or utility easements.
The project proposes three residential dwelling unit types: small-lot single-family. standard lot single-
family and multifamily condominiums. The small lot single-family product would range from 2.836
square feet to 3.297 square feet whereas the standard single-family product would range from 3.567
square feet to 4.849 square feet. The multifamily condominiums would range from 1.129 square feet to
1,872 square feet. The standard single-family products would be a mix of one- and two-story units while
the small-lot single-family and multifamily condominium would be two-story structures. The
architectural styles would be varied and would be compatible with the existing surrounding residential
neighborhoods. The site would also include a recreational vehicle storage site and several common
passive open space parks.
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
The subject property is covered by two General Plan designations: the western 40.41 acres is designated
Residential Medium density (allowing 4.0 - 8.0 dwelling unit per developable acre) and the eastern 41.79
acres is designated Residential Low-Medium density (allowing 0.0 to 4.0 dwelling units per acre). As
detailed in the project description. each portion of the project proposes residential development within the
allowed density range of the underlying General Plan designation; the proposed densities are 3.88
dwellings per acre on the western portion (including the proposed 24-unit affordable condominium
project) and 2.58 dwellings per acre on the eastern portion.
The maximum densities allowed through the General Plan have been modified by the City’s Growth
Management Ordinance (Chapter 21.90 of the Zoning Ordinance) through the use of Growth
Management Control Points. These Growth Management Control Points are 6.0 dwellings per acre for
the RM designation and 3.2 dwellings per acre for the RLM designation. The proposed project densities
in each portion of the project are below their respective growth management control points.
The project site is currently zoned Limited Control (L-C) on the City’s Zoning Map. Limited Control is a
temporary zoning designation typically given to newly annexed properties of the City. It allows
agricultural uses, as well as those uses existing on the property as of annexation. According to Section
21.39.010 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Limited Control zoning should be replaced with an appropriate
zoning once development plans have been formed. The project site is also located within the Zone 20
Specific Plan Area (SP 203), which constitutes the zoning for the subject property. According to Section
1II.B.I of the Zone 20 Specific Plan, the appropriate zoning for the General Plan RM designated
properties is Residential Multiple Density (R-DM); the appropriate zoning for the General Plan RLM
designated properties is One Family Residential with a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet (R-1-
7.500). The zoning designations proposed for the project site through the project’s Zone Change (ZC 98-
08) correlate with those zoning designations recommended by the Zone 20 Specific Plan for the
respective General Plan designations.
In addition to conforming to the General Plan designations, and the Zone 20 Specific Plan with regard to
the appropriate zoning designations, the proposed project is consistent with all applicable zoning and
coverage. building height. building setbacks and placement of buildings,
Specific Plan standards and requirements. These standards include lot size and configuration. building
11 Rev. 03/28/96 47
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project?
The applicable local environmental plans and policies include the Master Environmental Impact Report
for the 1994 General Plan Update. the Program Environmental Impact Report for the Zone 20 Specific
Plan. and the environmental policies and regulations contained in the Carlsbad General Plan and the
Carlsbad Municipal Code. The project is also located within the Mello I1 segment of the City's coastal
zone and. therefore. subject to the environmental policies of the Mello I1 segment of the City's Local
Coastal Program.
The Master Environmental Impact Report for the 1994 General Plan Update evaluates the potential
impacts of the complete development of the City in accordance with the General Plan. As noted in
Section XVII above (Earlier Analysis), the proposed project is consistent with the various policies of the
General Plan and incorporates all applicable mitigation measures of the Master EIR. Therefore no
conflicts with the environmental policies of those documents will occur. Title 19 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code (Environmental Review) contains the City's regulations with regard to the processing of
environmental review documents. According to Section 19.04.030, the State CEQA Guidelines are
adopted by reference and the processing regulations contained in Title 19 are substantially as shown in the
State CEQA Guidelines.
The Mello I1 segment of the City's Local Coastal Program contains several environmental policies
centering around the preservation of coastal resources, namely: environmentally sensitive habitat areas.
wetlands. riparian resources, and steep slope areas with native habitat. The proposed project is consistent
with these policies in that no environmentally sensitive areas exist within the previously disturbed site.
The only. native habitat existing on site is a 1.8-acre strip of coastal sage scrub habitat located along the
eastern boundary that is proposed to remain undisturbed by construction and would be placed under an
disturbed southern willow scrub that was created by agricultural runoff within a man-made depression.
open space easement for perpetuity. The other potentially sensitive resource is a 0.1-acre patch of
As discussed in Section V1I.a below, even though the patch is isolated and disturbed it would be mitigated
on-site at a ratio two-to-one. Given the above, the proposal is consistent with all applicable
environmental plans and policies.
C) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
With the exception of the multifamily development along the project's northwestern boundary (Las
Playas), the land uses surrounding the project site are single-family with intermittent open space along a
portion of the eastern boundary. The surrounding developments are: Mariner's Point to the north.
Sandpiper at Aviara to the east. Spinnaker Hill to the southeast and east. and Vista Pacifica to the east.
The densities of these surrounding neighborhoods are: Las Playas at 7.58 dwellings per acre, Sandpiper
at Aviara at 1.25 dwellings per acre, Spinnaker Hill at 3.64 dwellings per acre, and Vista Pacifica at 5.55
dwellings per acre. Given the above, the proposed densities of the project are compatible with the
surrounding land uses.
The Thompsoflabata project also contains certain features that necessitate discussion. The first feature
is a 24-unit, for sale condominium project over 2.93 acres of the western portion of the project. While
this project was included in the overall density calculations for the General Plan'RM designated portion of
the property, it does constitute a different land use than the remainder of the proposed development. The
24-unit condominium project is situated within the interior of the project site and gains access directly off
of Rose Drive. a future public street that forms a signalized intersection with Poinsettia Lane. Adjacent to
the proposed 24-unit condominium project is proposed to be a 16,800 square foot recreational vehicle
directly off of Rose Drive. Neither of these components of the project are considered to be incompatible storage area. This RV storage area is also situated within the interior of the project site and gains access
to the existing land uses given their interior location, their direct access though a signalized intersection
and the fact that neighboring land uses also contain multifamily dwellings and recreational vehicle storage
areas.
12 Rev. 03/28/96 3
The project also proposes connections of local streets in accordance with those previously approved and
constructed residential subdivisions. The project proposes the extension of Alyssum Drive on the western
boundary of the site and Rose Drive on the southern boundary of the site. As discussed further in Section
VI - TransportatiodCirculation below. the proposed additional traftic trips do not exceed the maximum
design volumes of the existing public streets and lack of connection of these roadways would reduce the
circulation efficiency of the overall area. Given the above. the proposed project is not incompatible to the
existing land uses in the vicinity.
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands. or impacts
from incompatible land uses?
The proposed project site has been under agriculture up until late 2000 with open strawberry fields and
greenhouse rose production. Since the site is surrounded by existing residential uses and intermittent
open space, it represented the last stand of agriculture in the immediate area. No other agricultural
operations use the site for access nor do any agricultural lands use runoff from the site. Therefore, no
adjacent or neighboring agricultural resources or operations would be impacted by the in-fill residential
development.
A large majority of the project site is identified as Site 111 of the Mello I1 segment of the City’s Local
Coastal Program, bringing it under the regulation of the Coastal Agricultural Overlay Zone (Chapter
21.202 of the Zoning Ordinance). Requirements for the conversion of this site from agriculture to
residential development are also contained in the Program EIR for the Zone 20 Specific Plan. To mitigate
the potential impacts due to loss of prime agricultural areas within the Coastal Zone, the project is
conditioned to pay the required agricultural conversion mitigation fee of $6.655.00 per acre for that
portion of the site contained in Site 111 (approximately 63 acres), or a total of $419.265.00. Satisfaction
of this mitigation measures brings the potential impacts to agricultural resources to less than a significant
level.
e) Disrupt of divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including low-
income or minority community)?
The proposed project is completely contained within the project boundaries and requires no off-site
improvements. Therefore, the physical arrangements of the established communities would not be
disrupted or divided as a result of the proposed development. ‘As mentioned above. two of the adjacent
existing residential subdivisions contained roadway segments that were designed to serve the site and
provide those neighborhoods with an alternate connection to Poinsettia Lane. the area’s major arterial
roadway. Therefore, development of the proposed project would complete the local residential street
system in this area, ending the existing division of neighborhoods caused by the continuation of
agricultural operations on the site.
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections?
Regional population projections are provided by the local Council of Governments known as the San
Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). In concert with the update of local Housing Elements.
SANDAG prepares a Regional Housing Needs Assessment. This assessment distributes the expected
growth among the member jurisdictions based upon a number of variables. The 1999 needs assessment
identified a estimated housing need within Carlsbad of 6,214 additional dwelling units over the next five
years. In addition, according to SANDAG population projections, the San Diego region should expect an
additional 990.000 residents within the next 20 years. In fact, the Regional Growth Management
Strategy Committee for SANDAG is requesting that all member agencies. including the City of Carlsbad,
enhance the residential capacity of their local General Plans to accommodate this additional growth.
13 Rev. 03/28/96 a9
Therefore. if the project exceeded the City's General Plan residential density designation. it would more
closely approximate and accommodate. rather than exceed. regional population projections.
Local population projections are provided by the City's Growth Management Program and are detailed in
the City's Housing Element of the General Plan. The Growth Management Program established dwelling
unit maximums for the four quadrants of the City. The quadrants are those four areas defined by the
intersection of El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road. with the project site falling in the southwest
quadrant. The estimated amount of future dwelling units for the City was calculated by multiplying the
Growth Control Point of all undeveloped residential properties by the their total developable acres; by
adding the sum of undeveloped property yield to the total units existing as of 1986. the total dwelling unit
maximums were derived. The dwelling unit maximum for the southwest quadrant is 12.859. Since the
density of the proposed project is below the Growth Control Point for the property, the project does not
exceed local housing unit projections.
The City's Housing Element also contains information regarding the expected and potential amount of
housing unit and population growth. In addition to detailing the Regional Housing Needs Assessment
from SANDAG. the element estimates the potential growth within the City. According to Section I.D.4
of the 1999 Housing Element, the City could accommodate a total of 24.694 additional dwelling units
over the next five years, based upon the availability of residentially designated land and the facility
planning provided by the Local Facilities Management Zone Plans. Given the above, the proposed
project would not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections.
b) Induce substantial growth in an area directly or indirectly (e& through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)?
The proposed project constitutes an in-fill development, replacing the existing agricultural uses with uses
similar to those surrounding the property. As discussed in Section II(a) above, the project proposed fewer
dwelling units than planned for in the City's Growth Management Plan and General Plan. As detailed
above. there is no extension of major infrastructure proposed with the project. Therefore, the proposed
in-fill development would not induce substantial growth. either directly or indirectly.
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?
As mentioned above, the project site has been used for agriculture and, except for the two existing single-
family homes to remain in place, the site contained no housing units. In addition. no housing units
currently or historically used the site for access. Therefore development of the site would not displace
any existing housing, rather it is providing improved infrastructure and services to the existing homes and
adding affordable housing units to the site.
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS: Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential
impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture?
The potential geologic impacts of the proposed development were reviewed and reported in the project
geotechnical investigation (iy, dated
September 1998. Geocon, Inc. Geotechnical Consultants). According to that report, the.project site is not
located on any known active or potentially active fault trace. The nearest known active fault is the Rose
Canyon fault, located approximately five miles to the west. Therefore construction of the proposed
project would not rupture or otherwise affect any known fault.
b) Seismic ground shaking?
As mentioned above, the Rose Canyon fault zone is located approximately five miles west of the project
site. Other potential sources of ground motion on the site are the Elsinore Fault Zone and the Offshore
14 Rev. 03/28/96 36
Zone of Deformation. These sources of potential ground motion affect the entire coastal San Diego
County area. Therefore. any development of the site would be subject to the same existing earthquake or
ground motion hazards that affect the entire southern California area. The project is conditioned.
therefore, to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code‘s construction standards for
Seismic Zone 4 - those areas containing known active faults. Conformance with the requirements of the
Uniform Building Code lessens any potential impacts due to fault rupture to a less than significant level.
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
The potential for seismic ground failure. including liquefaction, is typically limited to those soils that are
relatively loose or unconsolidated. Liquefaction also typically requires a permanent water table below the
site. According to the project’s geotechnical investigation. the fill and formational materials of the
project site contain a relatively high density and grain-size distribution characteristics and there is no
permanent water table in the development areas. Therefore, according to the report. “the risk of
seismically induced soil liquefaction occurring at the property is considered very low.”
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
A seiche is an oscillating movement within a closed body of water caused by seismic or atmospheric
disturbances, similar to a tsunami in the ocean. There are no lakes or open areas of standing water on or
near the project site; the closest water body being the Batiquitos Lagoon 1.33 miles to the south and well
over 150 feet lower in elevation. As mentioned in Section III(b) above, there is an Offshore Zone of
Deformation off of the southern California coast that has the potential of creating a tsunami. or tidal
wave. The project’s site elevation of 180 to 310 feet above mean sea level greatly reduces the chance of
adverse impacts due to tsunami. According to the project geotechnical report (Geotechnical Investieation - Poinsettia Amicultural Property, dated September 1998, Geocon. Inc. Geotechnical Consultants). there
are no volcanic hazards on the project site or within the project area. Given the above. the proposed
project would not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts due to seiches, tsunamis. or
volcanic hazards.
e) Landslides or mudflows?
The project’s geotechnical report states that no ancient landslides have occurred within the project
boundaries. The report does reference two confirmed and one suspected landslide near the project area,
along the east-facing slope near the east-central and southeast project boundary. These historic landslides
occurred within the adjacent development to the east, Aviara Sandpiper (CT 90-37) and were mitigated
and prepared for development through removal of soils, buttressing and stability fills. According to the
project geotechnical report, no mudflows were observed on the project site and the likelihood of a
mudflow occurrence is low. Given the above, no significant adverse environmental impacts due to
landslides or mudflows would occur with development of the proposed project.
D Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or till?
The proposed project is subject to the provisions of the City of Carlsbad Engineering Standards, Coastal
Zone Ordinances, and the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit. All of the
regulatory documents contain requirements for erosion control and desedimentation of storm water
runoff. These requirements would be provided in the project’s approved grading plan and monitored by
City Engineering Inspection staff during construction. The essential north-south trending ridge
topography would remain with the project development. The proposed development would result in cuts
and fills of up to 30 feet, however the general topography would not significantly change.
All grading operations are required to maintain stable soil conditions. The project geotechnical report
identified some unconsolidated fill, topsoil and colluvium/alluvium materials on the project site. These
materials are not suitable for the support of fill or structural loads and, therefore, require remedial grading
in the form of removal and compaction. As part of the grading permit application process, a detailed soils
15 Rev. 03/28/96 31
investigation would be conducted and reviewed and any detailed soil treatment or handling requirements
would be incorporated into the grading permit. Given the design of the proposed development and the
regulatory measures in place for grading operations. the project would not cause any significant adverse
environmental impacts due to erosion. changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from
excavation. grading. or fill.
g) Subsidence of the land?
Subsidence, or sinking, of the land can occur when material below the ground is altered or removed. This
is typically associated with groundwater, oil or natural gas deposits that are extracted and result in a
lowering of the surface elevation. As mentioned above, there is no permanent water table below the
project site and no mineral resources have been identified on site. No drilling or extraction activities are
proposed with the residential subdivision and no mention of possibility of subsidence is mentioned in the
project’s geotechnical investigation. Therefore, the proposed development would not result in any
significant adverse environmental impacts associated with subsidence of the land.
h) Expansive soils?
According to the project’s geotechnical report. the site contains with undocumented fill. topsoil,
colluvium/alluvium material, terrace deposits, and Santiago Formatioflorrey Sandstone. The expansion
potential of the Santiago FormationfI‘orrey Sandstone and the terrace deposits is low, therefore no
impacts due to expansion of those materials would be expected. The colluviudalluvium materials,
topsoil and undocumented fill all have a potential for expansion and. in accordance with the project’s
geotechnical report. would be required to undergo remedial grading in the form or removal and
compaction. Adherence to the project geotechnical report is therefore a mitigation measure of the project
that would bring the potential adverse environmental impacts due to expansive soils to a level of
insignificance.
i) Unique geologic or physical features?
According to the project’s geotechnical report, no unique geologic or physical features exist within the
project site. The types of materials found on the site (Le. terrace deposits, colluviudalluvium, etc.) are
typical to the Carlsbad region and are not unique. As stated previously, no off-site improvements are
proposed with the project. Therefore, construction and occupation of the proposed residential subdivision
would not create any significant adverse impacts to unique geologic or physical features.
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
The proposed conversion of the previously agricultural property into a residential subdivision similar to
the surrounding development would change the absorption rates, drainage patterns. and the rate and
amount of surface runoff. Until recently, the property was either in open fields or covered by
greenhouses, agricultural buildings and paved access roads. Even though greenhouses covered a large
portion of the site, the amount of impervious surfaces would increase with the proposed residential
development of the property because of the increase in paved areas and the replacement of open fields
with residential roof areas.
To mitigate potential off-site impacts related to the increase in absorption rates. drainage patterns and the
amount of surface runoff. the City of Carlsbad requires that any development be designed such that there
is no increase in the velocity of the runoff at the property line. According to the project’s hydrology report
(Preliminarv Hvdroloev Reuort for Zone 20 Poinsettia F’roperties, dated September 8, 1999, Buccola
Engineering, Inc.) the project has been designed to accommodate runoff from a 100-year storm event. as
required by the City of Carlsbad. In addition, prior to the issuance of a grading permit or final map, a
detailed hydrology report must be reviewed and approved. Given that the project design accommodates a
16 Rev. 03/28/96 3 4
100-year storm event and the project would be subject to the standard requirement of detailed hydrolog
reports upon final design. there would be no significant adverse environmental impacts due to the changes
in absorption rates. drainage patterns or the rate or amount of surface runoff.
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding?
As mentioned above, the project's hydrology report (Preliminan, Hvdroloev Report for Zone 20
Poinsettia Properties, dated September 8, 1999. Buccola Engineering. Inc.) states that the project design
could accommodate a 100-year storm event within the proposed storm drain infrastructure and the open
drainage courses. including public streets. All proposed lots would be graded in accordance with City
Engineering Standards that require a minimum of five feet of positive drainage away from all structures.
This standard provides a swale for water runoff to traverse the lot instead of flooding the structure. Given
the above, there would be no significant adverse environmental impact due to the exposure of people or
property to water related hazards such as flooding.
e) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
No surface waters exist on or in close proximity to the project site. The closest open body of water is the
Batiquitos Lagoon located 1.33 miles to the south. All water leaving the project site is subject to the
requirements of the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) and,
therefore, must meet the water quality standards of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board.
All of the project site runoff would be intercepted and collected by the project's storm water drainage
facilities and conveyed through existing facilities to the existing detentiorddesiltation basin north of
Batiquitos Lagoon, within the Azure Cove residential subdivision. The detention and desiltation of the
storm water allows for settlement of particulate matter and for the reduction in water speed. Given the
requirements for clean runoff by the City's NPDES permit and the treatment of the water through the
desiltatioddetention basin. the proposed project would not cause significant adverse environmental
impacts due to discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality.
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body?
As stated above, there are no surface water bodies on or in close proximity to the project site. All storm
water runoff would be conveyed to the existing detentioddesiltation basin within the Azure Cove
development and then would drain into Batiquitos Lagoon. The detention basin serves to reduce the
speed and volume of water entering the lagoon, thereby reducing impacts to the amount of surface water
in the water body. It should also be noted that, due to recent renovation efforts, Batiquitos Lagoon was
returned to its original tidal flushing regime. Therefore, the amount of water in the lagoon varies with the
changing tides. Given the passage of storm water runoff through the detention basin and the tidal aspects
of the lagoon, no significant adverse environmental impacts due to changes in the amount of surface
water in any water body would occur as a result of the project.
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements
As discussed above, no open bodies of water or streams exist within or near the project site. No off-site
improvements are required or proposed with the project. As discussed above, the runoff from the project
site would pass through a detention basin, thereby reducing its speed, volume and energy. The project
runoff would then drain into Batiquitos Lagoon. a tidal flushing lagoon. Due to the lack of surface water
on the project site and the minimization of incident energy of project runoff. the proposed development
would not result in significant, adverse changes in currents. or the course or direction of water
movements.
17 Rev. 03/28/96 33
D Changes in the quantity of ground water, either through direct additions or withdrawals. or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability?
According to the project’s geotechnical report. only perched groundwater and seepages were found on the
project site; no permanent water table exists below the project development area. The City‘s Master EIR
states that the City of Carlsbad is not located within a groundwater basin. which would be sub,ject to
additions, withdrawals and recharges. and contains no aquifers. While the construction activities may
penetrate areas of perched groundwater or seepage from previous precipitation events. these areas are
temporary in nature and do not contribute to the regional groundwater supply. Given that the project site
is outside of a groundwater basin and only temporary perched groundwater and seepage have been found
on the project site. no significant adverse changes in the quantity of ground water, either through direct
additions or withdrawals. or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through
substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability, would occur as a result of the project.
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
As mentioned in Section IV.f above, there are no permanent groundwater sources within the project area
and Carlsbad is not located within a groundwater basin. The perched groundwater and seepages
contained in the project site are temporary in nature and are not connected to a larger groundwater system.
Therefore. no significant adverse environmental impacts due to the alteration of direction or rate of flow
of groundwater would occur due to the project construction and occupation.
h) Impacts to groundwater quality?
As mentioned above, no significant or permanent sources of groundwater exist on or neat the site. All
water needed to serve the proposed residential subdivisions would come from aqueduct rather than
groundwater sources. Development of the proposed residential subdivision. including all excavation
operations, would therefore no cause any significant adverse environmental impacts to the groundwater
quality.
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies?
As mentioned in Section IV.f above, there are no permanent groundwater sources within the project area
and Carlsbad is not located within a groundwater basin. The perched groundwater and seepages
contained in the project site are temporary in nature and are not connected to a larger groundwater system.
No local or regional public water supplies rely on groundwater resources from the Carlsbad area: the
California and Colorado River aqueducts supply all local water. Therefore. no significant adverse
environmental impacts due to the reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public
water supplies would occur due to construction and occupation of the project.
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation?
In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EIR that analyzed the impacts that will result from the build-
out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concludes that continued development to
build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts in the form of
increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in
increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur. and
suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in
the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a %on-attainment basin”, any additional air
emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to build-out as
18 Rev. 03/28/96 3 6
proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air qualit! of the
region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan build-out. a variety of
mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway
and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development: 2) measures to reduce vehicle
trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transponarion Demand Management: 3) provisions
to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services: 1) conditions to promote
energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies
when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either
been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within
a %on-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant
Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore. the preparation of an EIR is not
required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246.
included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air quality impacts. This “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR. This
project is within the scope. of that MER This document is available at the Planning Department.
The City has reviewed the 1994 MEIR to determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent
projects. Although the MEIR was certified more than five years ago, the City found that no substantial
changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was certified. The only
potential changed circumstance, the intersection failure at Palomar Airport Rd. and El Camino Real. is in
the process of being mitigated to below a level of significance. Additionally, there is no new available
information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the MEIR was certified.
Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate to review later projects.
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
See (a) above,
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate?
The conversion of the project site from an agricultural site with open fields and greenhouses to a
residential subdivision would alter the air movement, moisture and temperature on a microclimatic level.
The height of the proposed single family residences and multifamily residences would be limited to 30
feet and 35 feet respectively. The proposed development would include numerous areas of ornamental
landscaping to offset the increase in paving area. There would also be a change in surface reflectiveness,
or albedo due to the inclusion of concrete and other light materials in the development. All of these
factors are limited in nature and are typical for in-fill developments. No significant adverse
environmental impacts due to the alteration of air movement, moisture, temperature, or climate change
would occur as a result of the proposed residential subdivision.
d) Create objectionable odors?
The project site has been previously used for commercial agricultural operations and, therefore, has been
the source or objectionable odors in the past. Some odors may be present during construction of the
associated with the extraction of soils and underground tanks. These brief encounters with odors are
proposed residential subdivision, including exhaust fumes from construction equipment and odors
short-term and isolated and are not considered significant in nature. Since only those uses typical to a
residential development are proposed with the project, no objectionable odors are expected upon
occupation of the residential subdivision. Therefore, no significant adverse environmental impacts due to
the creation of objectionable odors would result due to the proposed project.
19 Rev. 03/28/96 3 y
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
The potential traffic impacts of the proposed project are discussed in the project’s traffic report (Traffic
Impact Analvsis. Thomuson’ Prouertv. Carlsbad. California. dated December 6. 2000. Linscott. Law &
Greenspan Engineers). According to the traffic report. the proposed residential subdivision would
generate a total of 2,572 new vehicle trips. These trips would be distributed amongst the connecting
segments (Alyssum Road and Rose Drive) would slightly alter the distribution of traffic in the
streets at Poinsettia Lane. Alyssum Road. and Rose Drive. The continuation of the two existing road
surrounding neighborhoods by offering multiple vehicle connection opportunities. Poinsettia Lane and
the local streets adjacent to the project were designed to carry the additional traffic generated by the
proposed subdivision. According to the analysis in the project traffic report. the total trip generation and
peak trip generation of the does not exceed capacity of any of the adjacent streets: therefore no significant
adverse environmental impacts due to increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion would occur.
In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR that analyzed the impacts that would result from the
build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concluded that continued
development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan would result in increased traffic
volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build-out traffic: however, 12 full and 2
partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no
jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections
along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of
intersections are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at build-
out.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan build-out, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) measures to
ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need 2) provisions to develop alternative
modes of transportation such as trails. bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages. and
commuter rail systems: and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The
diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates
impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General
Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are
included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation’ impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of
intersections at build-out of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic. therefore, the “Initial Study”
checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan,
therefore. the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR
93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for
circulation impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects covered by the
General Plan’s Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MER This document is available at
the Planning Department.
The City has reviewed the 1994 MER to determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent
projects. Although the MEIR was certified more than five years ago, the City has found that no
substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was certified.
The only potential changed circumstance, the intersection failure at Palomar Airport Rd. and El Camino
Real. is in the process of being mitigated to below a level of significance. Additionally, there is no new
available information. which was not known and could not have been known at the time the MER was
certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate to review later projects.
20 Rev. 03/28/96 3 6
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.& sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (eg. farm equipment)?
All of the public and private streets within the proposed residential subdivision meet the Engineering
Standards of the City of Carlsbad. All sharp curves meet the City standards with regard to design and
speed limit of the roadway and all intersections meet or exceed the minimum intersection spacing. As
noted previously. the intersection of future Rose Drive with Poinsettia Lane. a major arterial. would be
signalized to provide for safe traffic movements.
Due to the construction of Poinsettia Lane in the late 1980's. some of the agricultural operations have
traversed the major arterial for daily operations. The development of the adjacent residential
subdivisions. including the Aviara Master Plan community, necessitated adjustments by the agricultural
operations to maintain compatibility. Development of the in-fill property with residential uses eliminates
the potential for safety hazards due to incompatible uses. Given the above. no significant adverse impacts
due to hazards from street design features would result from the development of the proposed project.
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
The proposed residential development would connect its internal public street system with the adjacent
properties in three locations: Rose Drive at Poinsettia Lane to the north. connection with existing
Alyssum Road to the west, and connection with Rose Drive to the south. The signalized intersection at
Poinsettia Lane and the local street connections allow for multiple access points to the proposed
subdivision, thus providing ample emergency access to the site. By connecting the local street systems
between neighborhoods, access to nearby uses is also augmented.
The project also contains the standard condition requiring all-weather access roads be provided and
maintained throughout construction to allow for emergency access. Therefore, given the proposed street
design and project conditions. no significant adverse impacts due to emergency access or access to nearby
uses would occur.
d) Insufticient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
The parking requirements for residential uses are contained in Chapter 21.44 - Parking and Chapter 21.45 - Planned Development of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, the Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP
203) contains requirements for recreational vehicle storage for standard single-family subdivisions. Both
Chapters 21.44 and 21.45 require that all single-family homes contain a two-car garage, minimum 20 feet
by 20 feet in dimension. In addition, Chapter 21.45 requires all planned developments to provide guest
parking and recreational vehicle storage. As mentioned above, the western half of the proposed
subdivision would be a planned development with 133 single-family units and 24 multi-family units.
According to the requirements of Chapter 21.45 of the Zoning Ordinance. this portion of the development
would need a minimum of 42 guest parking spaces and a minimum of 3,140 square feet of recreational
vehicle storage area.
The proposed subdivision meets all of the applicable parking requirements. All single-family units
contain two-car garages and all multifamily units have at least two covered parking spaces, some with a
two-car garage. The planned development portion of the project contains 42 guest parking spaces and a
recreational vehicle storage area of 16.808 square feet. To conform to the requirements of the Zone 20
Specific Plan, a minimum of ten percent of all standard single-family lots have increased side yard
setbacks to accommodate the storage of a recreational vehicle. Given the above. the proposed project has
sufficient parking capacity on-site and no impacts to off-site parking should occur.
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
Consuuction of the project will be conducted completely on-site and no pedestrian or bicycle traffic
currently uses the previously agricultural site for circulation. There are existing pedestrian and bicycle
21 Rev. 03/28/96 3 1
circulation paths on the three streets adjoining the proposed subdivision. namely Poinsettia Lane.
Alyssum Road and Rose Drive. The only anticipated hazards or barriers to pedestrian and bicycle
circulation would occur during the construction of the Poinsettia LanelRose Drive signalized intersection.
This construction activity would require the processing of Traffic Control Plans that would address and
mitigate any hazards or barriers to pedestrian and bicycle circulation. These measures \vould be
temporary in nature and short-term in duration. Upon completion of the proposed residential subdivision
and connection of the three access points. the circulation opportunities for pedestrians and bicyclists
would be greatly enhanced. Given the above, the proposed project will not cause any significant adverse
environmental impacts with regard to pedestrian or bicycle circulation.
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to
plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)?
As discussed previously, almost the entire project site has been under agricultural operations until several
months ago. According to the project biological resource report (Biolozical Survey of the Thomuson
Property, City of Carlsbad, dated October 3. 2000, Dudek and Associates. Inc.). no sensitive plant. fish.
insect. animal or bird species within the project area. There are two sensitive habitats within the project
site. The first is a narrow strip of Coastal sage scrub habitat along the eastern boundary of the property
that is pan of a larger open space area to the east, within the Aviara Master Plan. A total of 1.8 acres
exists on the project site; it is dominated by California sagebrush and includes flat-top buckwheat.
California bush sunflower. black sage, laurel sumac. lemonadeberry, and prickly pear. The habitat is
proposed to remain undisturbed and would be covered by an open space easement with the residential
development.
Also within the project site, on the western boundary, is a 0.1-acre patch of disturbed southern willow
scrub habitat. This area is located within a manmade water retention basin created to trap agricultural tail
water. The area contains arroyo willow. red willow, tamarisk and giant cane. While the area was
manmade and is disturbed, the applicant is nevertheless mitigating the loss of the southern willow scrub
habitat with the provision of two detention basins on lots 170 and 182 of the subdivision. These detention
basins would function similarly to the existing tail water capture basin and would be planted with similar
species of flora. The project biological report recommends a mitigation ratio of 2: 1, resulting in 0.2 acres
of replanted habitat within the project desiltation basins. The planting mix would include cuttings of
arroyo willow, southwestern willow, sandbar willow and a seed mix including western ragweed,
mugwort. mule fat, and San Diego sagewort. A mitigation measure has been added to address to impacts
to the southern willow scrub habitat.
When referring to agricultural lands, the Zone 20 Program EJR notes that there is a potential for fallow
land to be occupied by burrowing owls. Since the project site has been historically used for agriculture
and has been fallow for a number of months, the recommended mitigation measure from the Zone 20
Program EIR has been incorporated into this environmental document. The project would be conditioned
such that a biological reconnaissance survey by a certified biologist shall be conducted for the burrowing
owl a prior to issuance of a grading permit. If owls are found on the site, the biologist shall recommend
mitigation for the disturbance to bring the project impacts to a level of insignificance. According to the
Zone 20 Program EIR, this mitigation would include on-site preservation in a defensible open space
easement or off-site mitigation within a quality habitat.
Given the lack of sensitive flora and fauna species on-site, the proposed preservation of the on-site coastal
sage scrub. the proposed mitigation of the loss of the disturbed southern willow scrub habitat, and the
required survey for burrowing owls, the proposed residential project would not produce any significant
adverse environmental impacts relating to endangered. threatened or rare species or their habitats.
22 Rev. 03/28/96 3 8
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
The City of Carlsbad has not designated any flora species as locally significant and has no herita, me trees.
In addition. no mature trees exist within the project boundaries due to the site's historic asricultural use.
No off-site construction or development is needed to accommodate the project. therefore. no off-site trees
would be impacted. Given the above, the proposed development would not result in significant adverse
environmental impacts related to locally designaced flora species.
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
As discussed above and in the project biological report (Biological Survev of the Thomoson Prooertv,
Citv of Carlsbad. dated October 3. 2000, Dudek and Associates. Inc.). the project site contains two
sensitive habitats. Please refer to section VILa above for a discussion of potential impacts and mitigation.
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
As discussed above and in the project biological report (Biological Survev of the ThomDson Prooertv,
Citv of Carlsbad, dated October 3, 2000, Dudek and Associates, Inc.), the project site contains a small
patch of southern willow scrub habitats. No vernal pools were identified on the project site. Please refer to
Section V11.a for a discussion of potential impacts and mitigation for the southern willow scrub habitat.
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
Since the project site has been actively used for agricultural operations continuously until several months
ago, and due to its location within a developed residential area of the City. no wildlife has occupied the
site, either permanently or transiently. As discussed in the project biological report and the Zone 20
Program EIR, the property has no possibility of viable connectivity to neighboring habitats and has no
value as a wildlife dispersal or migration corridor. No significant adverse impacts to wildlife corridors
would occur due to the proposed development.
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
There are currently no local adopted energy conservation plans within the City. Energy would be
provided to the project by San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), a division of Sempra Energy.
According to SDG&E, the estimated demand rate for residential uses is 5.926 kilowatts per dwelling unit
per year. The entire southern California region has experienced recent energy shortages, however these
energy shortages are due to the recent deregulation of energy rather than a shortage of supply. The State
of California, through Title 24, requires new construction to incorporate energy conservation design and
materials. This requirement is enforced during the building permit review. Given the above, no
significant adverse environmental impacts due to conflicts with adopted energy conservation plans would
occur due to the proposed residential development.
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner?
The proposed residential development does not propose any unique or special construction methods or
building materials that would result in the wasteful or inefficient use of non-renewable resources.
Standard construction practices call for the efficient use of materials for economic and budgetary
purposes. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts due to the wasteful and inefficient use of non-
renewable resources would occur due to the proposed project.
23 Rev. 03/28/96 3 9
C) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State?
As stated previously and contained in the project’s geotechnical report (Geotechnical Investiration -
Poinsettia Azricultural Proueny. dated September 1998. Geocon. Inc. Geotechnical Consultants). no
known mineral resources exist on the subject property. Therefore no resource that would be of future
value to the region and the residents of the State would become unavailable due to construction of the
proposed development. Given the above. no significant adverse environmental impacts due to loss of
availability of mineral resources would occur as a result of the proposed residential subdivision.
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
The proposed residential development would involve grading and construction activities that require the
storage of flammable materials on site. All construction projects within the City are required to obtain
Fire Marshal approval of such storage prior to bringing the materials on-site. Therefore the risk of
accidental explosion is low.
As mentioned previously, the project site has been used for commercial agricultural operations for many
years. In order to evaluate the potential impacts due to pesticides, hazardous materials. methane or other
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update Includine Methane and Fixed Gases Survev - Poinsettia
gases, an Environmental Site Assessment was conducted. The results of that survey are contained in
Agricultural Property, dated February 6. 2001. Geocon, Inc. Geotechnical and Environmental
Consultants. According to Phase I report, “’the potential for the existing presence of environmental
impairment to the site from hazardous materialdwastes on-site or on properties in the vicinity remains
low.”
Despite this fact. the Zone 20 Program EIR contains a mitigation measure requiring that a detailed soils
investigation shall be conducted and submitted to the San Diego County Health Department prior to
issuance of grading permit. Any recommended remediation or other soil handling shall be incorporated
into the scope of work for the project grading operations. This mitigation measure has been added to
ensure that no significant adverse environmental impacts due to accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances would occur.
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Since the project site has been under private agricultural operations and currently contains no public
streets or roads, access through the site is not included in any emergency response plans or emergency
evacuation plans. The proposed residential subdivision would include public streets that would connect
to existing public streets in three locations: at Poinsettia Lane to the north, at Alyssum Road to the west
and at Rose Drive to the south. By providing multiple street connections and multiple points of access to
the site. emergency response to the proposed subdivision and the surrounding existing subdivisions is
enhanced.
As is standard for all developments, the project is conditioned to provide all-weather emergency access
roads throughout construction until such time as the newly constructed public streets can provide
adequate access. Given that the site is not currently used for emergency access, and that access will be
provided during and after construction of the project, no adverse impacts due to interference with
emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans would occur due to development of the
proposed project.
24 Rev. 03/28/96 k/. 0
C) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards?
As discussed in Section IX.a above. the historic agricultural operations on the property have not produced
any circumstances that would cause potential health hazards upon development of the site with residential
uses. Fire Marshal approval is required prior to the import of any flammable materials and a subsequent
soils investigation must be reviewed and approved by the San Diego County Department of Health prior
to any grading operations. No significant adverse impacts due to the creation of any health hazards or
potential health hazards should occur due to the development of this residential subdivision.
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards?
Please see Sections Ka and Kc above.
e) Increase fire hazards in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees?
The project site is currently consists of fallow agricultural fields. There are no significant stands of trees
or brush and the overgrowth of grass has been curtailed by the efforts of the property owner. No
significant fire hazards currently exist on site. The construction activities of the project would be
monitored by the Engineering and Fire Departments with regard to the storage of flammable materials
and provision of ail-weather emergency access roads through the site. The proposed development would
consist of single-family and multi-family residential uses, with associated ornamental landscaping. All
landscaping would be imgated and, therefore, no increase in fire hazards in areas with flammable brush
trees. or grass would occur.
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
Until recently, the project site has been used for commercial agricultural operations, involving machinery,
large trucks, and other noise producers. Construction of the proposed project would temporarily increase
times of the day and days of the week through Section 8.48.010 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This
ambient noise levels due to construction activities. All construction activities are limited to particular
ordinance prohibits construction noise on Sundays, holidays and between sunset and 7:OO am on Mondays
through Fridays and before 8:OO am on Saturdays.
Upon development of the proposed subdivision, it is anticipated that typical noise levels experienced
within residential areas will occur within the proposed project. No uses are proposed that would produce
additional noise. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts due to increases in existing noise levels would
occur with development of the project.
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
The project site is currently exposed to two significant sources of noise: traffic noise from Poinsettia
Lane in the northern portion of the site, and aircraft noise due to overflight of planes and helicopters using
McClellan-Palomar airport, located approximately 1.23 miles northeast of the project site. The City of
Carisbad General Plan calls for exterior noise levels to be mitigated to a maximum level of 60 dBA
CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level), based upon buildout traffic volume projections. Exterior
noise impacts from aircraft overflight are limited to 65dBA CNEL. All internal noise levels must be
mitigated to a level of 45 (IBA CNEL.
To assess the potential noise exposure from Poinsettia Lane, an acoustical study was prepared. This
study, Standard Pacific Poinsettia Prowrtv Acoustical Study. dated January 2. 2001, Investigative
Science and Engineering, Inc.. identified several future lots that would necessitate mitigation measures in
order to meet the 60 dBA CNEL exterior noise maximum. The lots, identified in the project acoustical
study and in the mitigation measures, will require the placement of a five to seven foot high sound wall or
25 Rev. 03/28/96 41
sound wallhem combination between the rear or side yards and Poinsettia Lane. Placement of the sound
wall would lower the projected buildout traffic noise levels within the subject lots to less than 60 dB.4
CNEL.
The exterior noise levels due to aircraft overflight have already been addressed by the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Airport (CLUP). The CLUP indicates the pro.jected noise
contours of aircraft noise levels at buildout of the airport. The areas that would be subjected to exterior
noise levels over 65 dBA CNEL are restricted to non-residential uses. The proposed project lies well
outside of the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour, therefore no adverse noise levels should be experienced due
to aircraft overflight. The Zone 20 Program EIR does contain a mitigation measure requiring that
potential homebuyers be noticed about the likelihood of aircraft overflight. Given the proposed
mitigation measures, the project would not cause any significant adverse environmental impacts due to
the exposure of people to severe noise levels.
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result on a need for new
or altered government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection?
The project site is served by Fire Station #4, located at the comer of Batiquitos Drive and Buttercup Road.
approximately 0.38 miles away. According to the City's Growth Management Program. no new
development can cause the violation of a performance standard for one of the facilities listed in the
program. The performance standard for fire protection is a response time of five minutes or less for
priority one emergency calls. Due to the proximity of the fire station, and the current and planned staffing
levels. the Fire Department has stated that the development of the proposed project would not cause a
violation in the Growth Management performance standard for fire protection. Therefore no significant
adverse impacts related to fire protection would occur.
b) Police protection?
The Carlsbad Police station is located at the Safety Center, approximately 2.46 miles to the northeast.
While there is no Growth Management performance standard for police protection. the Carlsbad Police
Department does review development proposals for the purposes of staffing level maintenance. The
proposed subdivision would be surrounded by existing residential subdivisions and. therefore, would not
constitute a remote area that might be difficult to serve. The proposed connections of the development to
the local street system also facilitate emergency access to the future residential neighborhood. Given the
above, the proposed development would not cause any significant adverse environmental impact due to
effects on police protection.
C) Schools?
The project site is located within the Carlsbad Unified School District. There are currently two
elementary schools and one middle school near the project site, namely the Pacific Rim Elementary
(approximately 0.36 miles to the west) and the Aviara Oaks Elementary and Middle Schools
(approximately 1.13 miles to the east). The only high school within the Carlsbad Unified School District
is Carlsbad High School, approximately 3.98 miles to the northwest. According to the latest enrollment
information, all three schools have capacity to accommodate additional students.
The student generation rates currently available are as follows: 0.261 elementary students per dwelling
unit; 0.072 junior high school students per dwelling unit; and 0.136 high school students per dwelling unit
for a total of 0.469 students per dwelling unit. The proposed 238 dwelling unit residential subdivision
would therefore generate a capacity demand for 111.62 elementary school students. 62.12 junior high
school students and 17.14 high school students. In order to mitigate the increased demand on school
facilities, the project would be conditioned to pay the appropriate school fees to the satisfaction of the
Carlsbad Unified School District. Proof of satisfaction of school mitigation would be required prior to
26 Rev. 03/28/96 $3
issuance of building permits. Payment of school fees reduces the potential adverse environmental
impacts due to the effect on schools to below a level of significance.
d) Maintenance of public facilities. including roads?
The proposed public streets, storm drains. sewer. potable and reclaimed water facilities within the project
area would fall under the maintenance responsibility of the City of Carlsbad. The Public Works
Department currently operates a number of programs that maintain the City’s entire public facility
infrastructure. These operations are funded. in part. through the collection of Public Facilities Fees
associated with any development. According to the Zone 20 Program EIR. collection of Public Facilities
Fees prior to the issuance of building permits would adequately address the proposed residential
development’s impacts to the maintenance of public facilities. Therefore. no significant adverse
environmental impacts due to public facility maintenance should occur.
e) Other governmental services?
The other governmental services examined for this report are city administration facilities and libraries.
These services are covered by the City’s Growth Management Plan performance standards. As discussed
above, the development community’s funding for the construction of these facilities usually comes in the
form of a Public Facilities Fee that is paid at time of building permit issuance. According to the Program
EIR and Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 20, the proposed development would not create a
violation of any Growth Management performance standards for governmental services. Therefore, the
standard practice of payment of a Public Facilities Fee is adequate to address the proposed project’s
impact on governmental services. Given the above, no significant adverse environmental impacts due to
effects on governmental services would result from development of the proposed subdivision.
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new
systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas?
The proposed residential subdivision would connect to the existing power and natural gas infrastructure
provided by Sempra Energy. Under the current energy regulatory framework, the individual future
homeowners would be able to purchase power from any available provider and even produce power
onsite if desired. According to the Master EIR, no significant adverse environmental impacts due to
power or natural gas supply would occur due to the buildout of the City. Therefore, the project would not
result in the need for new power or natural gas systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to power or
natural gas systems.
b) Communications systems?
The proposed residential subdivision would connect to the existing telecommunications and cable
television infrastructure provided by Pacific Bell, MCI and Daniels Cablevision. According to the
Master EIR. no significant adverse environmental impacts on communications systems would occur due
to the buildout of the City. Therefore, the project would not result in the need for new systems or
supplies or substantial alterations to communication systems.
C) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities?
Wastewater generated by the project site would be conveyed to the Encina Wastewater Treatment
Facility, located approximately 1.14 miles to the west. According to the Carlsbad Public Works
capacity is 36.00 million gallons per day. The treatment plant therefore’ has sufficient capacity to
Department, the treatment plant is currently processing 23.68 million gallons per day, whereas its
accommodate the increased sewer treatment demand generated by the proposed development and no
significant adverse impacts to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities would occur.
21 Rev. 03/28/96 3
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
The project site is within the jurisdiction of the City of Carlsbad Sewer Service District. There are
currently no sewer lines on the property and the two existing single-family dwelling are on septic
systems. The proposed residential subdivision would be conditioned to provide all on-site and off-site
sewer system improvements necessary to accommodate the increased sewer demand. The improvements
would be required concurrent or prior to the need. The existing dwelling unit south of Poinsettia Lane
would continue to use its existing septic tanks.
The sewerage generated by the project would exit the site in four locations. connecting to the existing
sewer systems within existing public streets or easements. Developments north of Poinsettia Lane would
connect to the existing facilities in Lemon Leaf Lane and Lonicera Street rights-of-way. The
development south of Poinsettia Lane would connect to the existing sewer facilities within the Alyssum
Road, Rose Drive, and a sewer easement though lot 183 and the Vista Pacifica residential subdivision
along the eastern boundary of the project.
According to the relevant Growth Management and environmental documents. the Local Facilities
Management Plan and the Program EIR for Zone 20, the sewer system facilities downstream of the
project site are adequate to accommodate the sewer volumes up to, and possibly exceeding, its total
anticipated residential yield. Sewer volumes are expressed in units known as Equivalent Dwelling Units
(EDU); the proposed Thompsodfabata subdivision would generate a demand for 238 EDU of sewer
capacity. The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 20 anticipated a total of 378 EDU for the
subject property, therefore all sewer system facilities are adequately sized to accommodate the proposed
development.
e) Storm water drainage?
As discussed in Section N.a above, the project's hydrology report (Preliminan Hvdrolow Reoort for
Zone 20 Poinsettia ProDerties. dated September 8. 1999, Buccola Engineering, Inc.) stated that the
proposed storm water system would adequately address the runoff from a 100-year storm. The report also
stated that no alterations to the existing storm drain system would be necessary to accommodate the
proposed residential subdivision. Therefore no significant adverse impacts due to storm water drainage
would occur due to the proposed development.
D Solid waste disposal?
Solid waste collection within the City is contracted to Coast Waste Management. the City's franchise
trash hauler. The solid waste collected within the City is currently deposited in four County-owner
landfills. with a majority of the waste being hauled to the Otay Mesa facility and the Sycamore Canyon
facility. According to Coast Waste Management and based upon permitted daily capacity, the Otay Mesa
landfill has an estimated life expectancy of 57 additional years and the Sycamore Canyon facility has an
estimated life expectancy of 32 additional years. Therefore there is sufficient capacity in the appropriate
landfills to accommodate the additional solid waste generated by the proposed residential subdivision.
Given the above, no significant adverse environmental impacts due to solid waste disposal would occur as
a result of the proposed project.
g) Local or regional water supplies?
The City of Carlsbad receives its water from the California and Colorado River Aqueducts. The amount
of water available for existing and future demands is controlled by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District.
The District Engineer has stated that there is currently enough capacity in the water supplies to
accommodate the proposed residential subdivision. As is standard for all proposed developments, the
project would be conditioned such that building permits could not be issues unless the District Engineer
finds that water supplies would be adequate through to the time of occupancy of the proposed
28 Rev. 03/28/96 #
development. Therefore. no significant adverse impacts to the local or regional water supplies would
result due to the proposed project.
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
As detailed in the Zone 20 Program EIR. the ridge-site project site is visible from lower elevations to the
west. Therefore. the project would be designed to follow the existing topography. including stepped
levels of development. The project would also include a mixture of one- and two-story homes with a
variety of architectural styles and materials. All large slopes within the project would be planted with
trees and shrubs to soften their appearance and add texture to the views of the project site. The proposed
development would. therefore, not significantly adversely impact any scenic vistas.
The proposed project is located both north and south of Poinsettia Lane, which is identified in the City's
General Plan as a potential scenic roadway. In accordance with that potential designation. the Zone 20
Program EIR reviewed the potential aesthetic impacts due to development along the road. The proposed
residential subdivision would be designed to minimize aesthetic impacts. The project design would
incorporate an average landscaped setback from the Poinsettia Lane right-of-way of 50 feet. The
proposed structures proximate to Poinsettia Lane would be a mixture of one- and two-stories, similar to
the existing development along the roadway. Given the design and architectural features of the project,
no significant adverse environmental impacts due to aesthetic affect on a scenic vista or highway would
occur.
b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect?
See XII1.a above.
C) Create light or glare?
The two potential sources of light or glare would exist during construction and upon occupation of the
proposed residential subdivision. As mentioned in Section X.a above, construction activities are limited
to daylight hours and. therefore, are not expected to produce significant amounts of light. Reflective glare
from construction-related equipment would likely be no more significant than the previous glare from
agriculture-related equipment in the past. Any light or glare impacts related to construction would be
short-term in duration.
Upon completion and occupation of the residential subdivision. it is anticipated that the normal amount of
light and glare associated with single-family and multifamily residential uses would be produced. The
only open parking area is the recreational vehicle storage site. located in the northwest portion of the site
adjacent to Poinsettia Lane. As discussed in Section X1II.a above. the RV lot would be screened with a
wall/berm barrier and heavy landscaping. All overhead lighting would be designed to not allow
significant amounts of light to leave the subject property. Review and approval of an exterior lighting
plan by the Planning Director is a standard condition of approval for development projects and is
incorporated into the design of the Thompsoflabata residential subdivision. Given the minor and short-
term potential impacts due to construction and the typical nature of the proposed residential uses, no
significant adverse environmental impacts due to the creation of light or glare would occur as a result of
the project.
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
As discussed in the project's geotechnical report (Geotechnical Investigation - Poinsettia Aericultural m. dated September 1998, Geocon, Inc. Geotechnical Consultants), the project site contains
29 Rev. 03/28/96 i-/ $
materials from the Santiago Formation and terrace deposits. The Santiago Formation contains sandstones
and siltstones that were formed in the Tertiary Age. approximately 45 million years ago. Some Tenia?
Age deposits have produced large numbers of vertebrate and invertebrate fossils. The terrace deposits are
Quaternary Age alluvial deposits that have the potential to contain fossiliferous rock from Pleistocene
terrace deposits of not more than 2 million year in age. This formation also has a high likelihood for
fossils.
Given the potential for fossils on the project site. the project applicant has been conditioned to retain a
qualified paleontologist during excavation operations to monitor and. if necessary. direct grading
operations to maximize the possibility of fossil discovery and recovery. Provision of an on-site
paleontologist, as described in mitigation measure number XI11 below, reduces the potential adverse
paleontological impacts to a level of less than significant.
b) Disturb archeological resources?
The project site has been surveyed for archeological and cultural resources on previous occasions. As
detailed in the Zone 20 Program EJR, there are two archeological sites within the project area and one
near the site to the northwest. The two sites within the project boundaries (SDM-W-2044 and SDM-W-
4031) were identified in the Zone 20 Program EIR as insignificant. The was because all evidence of
cultural materials at the recorded location had been destroyed prior to the program EIR surveys or the
cultural remains had been determined to be a dispersed portion of a nearby site. The nearby site (SDi-
9477) has already been tested and has been determined to be insignificant. According to the Zone 20
Program Em, the cultural resources recorded consisted of small to moderate sized marine shellfish
scatters with associated lithic materials; no additional testing or work is needed at any of these three
archeological sites. Therefore, the proposed development would not cause any adverse environmental
disturbances to archeological resources.
C) Affect historical resources?
The project site has historically been used for agricultural purposes with the only structures being
greenhouses, sheds, and two single-family homes. According to the City’s Master Environmental Impact
Report and the Zone 20 Program EIR, no historical resources exist on or near the project site. Therefore.
no significant adverse environmental impacts to historical resources would occur with the development of
the proposed residential subdivision.
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change that would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
The physical changes proposed with the residential subdivision include grading, infrastructure
installation, and construction of structures. Except for sewer connections, all proposed improvements
would occur within the project boundary. The project site has not been designated as significant or used
for any activities associated with unique ethnic cultural values. Conversion of the commercial
agricultural site to a residential subdivision would have no potential to cause a physical change that would
affect unique cultural values.
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area?
The previously agricultural site has not been used for any religious or sacred uses. No religious or sacred
uses exist in proximity to the project site and no such off-site uses utilize the site for access or other
activities. No off-site construction would occur with the project therefore no impacts to any off-site
religious or sacred uses should occur. Given the above, the proposed Thompsoflabata residential
subdivision would not restrict existing religious uses or sacred uses within the potential impact area.
30 Rev. 03/28/96 4$
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities?
The provision of additional dwelling units increases the demand for parks and other recreational facilities.
According to the City‘s Growth Management Program. 0.01 acres of additional public park are3 is needed
for each additional dwelling unit. Performance standard conformance for parks facilities is tabulated b!
each quadrant of the City and, once the performance standard is exceeded. the City has up to five years to
provide the necessary park space. In order to mitigate a residential development‘s impacts on the
provision of parks, projects are conditioned to pay a park-in-lieu fee at the time of the final subdivision
map. These park-in-lieu fees are then used to acquire property for future City parks.
The project also proposes a number of dwelling units on substandard, or planned development, lots. The
project is, therefore, required to provide private and common recreational facilities in accordance with the
City’s Planned Development Ordinance, Chapter 21.45 of the Zoning Ordinance. All proposed single-
family planned development lots would contain a rear yard with minimum dimensions of 15 feet by 15
planned development unit, or a total of 13.000 square feet. The proposed multifamily portion of the
feet. In addition, common passive recreational areas would be provided at a ratio of 100 square feet per
development would provide private recreation areas in the form of balconies and patios, and would
provide a minimum 1,200 square foot active recreation area within the multifamily development site.
To address the potential impacts of the project on citywide recreational facilities, the project is
conditioned to pay the appropriate park-in-lieu fees, as determined by the Growth Management Program
(via the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 20). Given this mitigation measure, and the project’s
provision of passive and active recreation areas on site, the proposed development would not cause any
significant adverse environmental impacts associated with the increase in demand for parks or other
recreational facilities.
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
The project site has been under commercial agricultural operations and, therefore, no recreational
opportunities existed on the site. The site is currently vacant and contains no authorized or unauthorized
recreational opportunities. No recreational opportunities exist in close proximity to the project site and
the site is not used to access any recreational areas. Development of the project would increase the
number of people that could potentially use the existing recreational opportunities in the City, however no
adverse impacts are anticipated due to increased park demand (see XV.a above). Given that no existing
recreational opportunities exist on or near the project site and increased demand on existing recreational
facilities is accommodated through the payment of park-in-lieu fees and the provision of on-site
recreation areas, no significant adverse impacts to existing recreational opportunities should occur as a
result of the project’s development.
EARLIER ANALYSES USED
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, (760) 6024600.
I. Final Master Environmental Imuact Reuort for the Citv of Carlsbad General Plan Uudate (MER 93-01). dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2. Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Zone 20 Specific Plan Proiect Carlsbad,
California, dated June 1992, Brian F. Mooney Associates.
3. Geotechnical Investigation - Poinsettia Agricultural Prouerty, dated September 1998, Geocon, Inc. Geotechnical Consultants.
31 Rev. 03/28/96 47
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Preliminary Hvdroloev Reuort for Zone 20 Poinsettia Prooerties. dated September S. 1999.
Buccola Engineering, Inc.
Site Assessment and Health Risk Assessment Reuon -Poinsettia Amicultural Prouem - Tabata
Site Carlsbad, California, dated August 1998. Geocon. Inc. Geotechnical and Environmental
Consultants.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment - WeidnerDennis Prouertv. Carlsbad California. dated
March 1999, Geocon. Inc. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Uudate Includine Methane and Fixed Gases Survev -
Poinsettia Amicultural Prooerty, dated February 6. 2001, Geocon, Inc. Geotechnical and
Environmental Consultants.
Biological Survev of the Thomoson Prouertv, Citv of Carlsbad. dated October 3. 2000. Dudek
and Associates, Inc.
Traffic Imoact Analvsis. Thomuson Pro~erty, Carlsbad, California, dated December 6, 2000,
Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers.
Standard Pacific Poinsettia Prouertv Acoustical Study, dated January 2. 2001, Investigative
Science and Engineering, Inc.
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES
I.
11.
111.
Iv.
To mitigate the loss of agricultural lands, the property shall pay an agricultural conversion
mitigation fee of $6,655.00 per acre for those prime agricultural lands within the project
(approximately 63 acres or a total of $419.265.00) prior to approval of Final Map or grading
permit, whichever occurs first.
To mitigate potential impacts of the project on the provision of a variety of housing types, the
project is conditioned to provide 24 for-sale housing units affordable to families of lower-income.
in accordance with the provisions of the approved Affordable Housing Agreement between the
property owner and the City of Carlsbad. Said affordable housing agreement must be approved
and recorded prior to the approval of final map or grading permit, whichever occurs first.
a) To mitigate potential soils and geological impacts of the project, all construction activities and
operations shall comply with the recommendations of the soils and geotechnical investigation,
(Geotechnical Investieation - Poinsettia Amicultural Prooerty, dated September 1998,
Geocon, Inc. Geotechnical Consultants), to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
b) To mitigate potential impacts due to ground motion, the project is conditioned to be
constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code’s construction standards for
Seismic Zone 4 -those areas containing known active faults.
a) To mitigate potential impacts to the provision of potable water. the project is conditioned to
comply with the City of Carlsbad Potable Water Master Plan and the City of Carlsbad
Reclaimed Water Master Plan. In addition, the project is conditioned to not allow
construction of dwelling units unless the District Engineer of the Carlsbad Municipal Water
District states that water will be available for the project at time of final map recordation.
b) To mitigate potential impacts to storm water runoff systems, the project shall comply with the
recommendations of the hydrology report, (Preliminarv Hvdroloev Report for Zone 20
Poinsettia Properties, dated September 8. 1999, Buccola Engineering, Inc.) and the
32 Rev. 03/28/96 8
requirements of the City of Carlsbad National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
general permit.
V. a) To lessen the impacts of the proposed project to air quality. the project is conditioned to
require coordination wit NCTD regarding the placement of bus stops and other transit needs.
b) To lessen impacts of the proposed project to air quality. the homeowner's association is
conditioned to obtain and distribute to owners and tenants annual information from Caltrans
and NCTD regarding the availability of public transportation, ride-sharing and transportation
pooling services in the area. Said mitigation measure shall be incorporated into the project
CC&R's prior to approval of final map or grading permit, whichever occurs first.
c) To lessen the impacts of construction activities of the proposed project on air quality. the
project shall comply with all requirements of the APCD and shall incorporate the following
measures into the consttuction activities:
Control fugitive dust by regular watering, paving construction roads, or other dust
preventive measures;
Maintain equipment engines in proper tune;
Spread soil binders;
Seed and water until vegetation cover is grown;
Wet the area down, sufficient enough to form a crust on the surface with repeated
soakings. as necessary, to maintain the crust and prevent dusk pick up by the wind;
Street sweeping, should silt be carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares;
Use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas where vehicles move damp
enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site;
Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day;
Use low sulfur fuel (0.5% by weight) for construction equipment.
VI. To address potential impacts of the project on traffic circulation. the project is conditioned to
provide signalized access on Poinsettia Lane, pursuant to the recommendations of the Program
EIR for the Zone 20 Specific Plan. This signalized access shall be at the Rose Drive intersection
of Poinsettia Lane and shall be provided in accordance with the approved tentative map for the
project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
VII. To lessen the potential impacts to on-site native vegetation. the existing stand of coastal sage
scrub habitat on the easterly portion of the site shall be surveyed and staked by a certified
biologist prior to disturbance of the site. The entire habitat area shall be placed in an open space
easement, to be maintained by the development homeowner's association in perpetuity.
VIII. To mitigate the loss of 0.1 acres of disturbed southern willow scrub habitat on the westerly
portion of the project site, the property owner shall create and revegetate a minimum of 0.2 acres
of southern willow scrub habitat within the proposed surface drainage devices located in the
westerly portion of the site. The amount and type of vegetation to be planted shall be in
accordance with the project biological report (Biological Survev of the Thomuson ProDertv. City
of Carlsbad, dated October 3, 2000, Dudek and Associates, Inc.) to the satisfaction of the
Planning Director.
IX. To assess and address potential biological impacts of the project, a certified biologist shall
conduct a biological reconnaissance for the burrowing owl a prior to issuance of a grading permit.
If owls are found on the site, the biologist shall recommend mitigation for the disturbance to
bring the. project impacts to a level of insignificance, including on-site preservation in a
defensible open space easement or quality habitat off-site.
33 Rev. 03/28/96 49
X.
XI.
XII.
XI11
To mitigate against potential impacts to biological resources, the property owner shall consult
with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and GJms
regarding the project’s impact to wildlife and be issued any permits required by those apciss
prior to approval of final subdivision map.
To mitigate the potential health hazards due to the presence of pesticides and other hazardous
substances, a detailed soils investigation shall be conducted and submitted to the San Diego
County Health Department prior to issuance of grading permit. Any recommended remediation
or other soil handling shall be incorporated into the scope of work for the project grading
operations.
a) To mitigate potential impacts of the future project residents due to roadway noise. the project
must comply with the recommendations of the noise report. (Standard Pacific Poinsettia
Inc.), including the construction of a noise attenuation wall along the Poinsettia Lane project
Prooertv Acoustical Study, dated January 2. 2001. Investigative Science and Engineering.
frontage and the provision of mechanical ventilation for units as described in the report.
b) To address potential impacts due to the overflight of aircraft, the property owner shall file and
record a Notice of Aircraft Overflight form on the propenies. advising potential homebuyers
of the overflight of aircraft using McClellan-Palomar airport.
To address potential impacts to paleontological resources, a qualified paleontologist shall be
retained to perform periodic inspections of excavations and, if necessary, salvage exposed fossils.
The frequency of inspections will depend on the rate of excavation. the materials being
excavated, and the abundance of fossils. In areas of high potential, monitoring shall be full-time.
initially. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an exposed
fossil to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage. Due to the small nature of some fossils it
may be necessary to collect matrix samples for processing through fine mesh screens. Any fossils
collected shall be prepared to the point of identification and properly curated before they are
donated to their final repository. All fossils collected shall be donated to a public, non-profit
institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History
Museum.
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
34 Rev. 03/28/96 50
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 1 of 5
SI
C
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 2 of 5
C
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 3 of 5
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST Page 4 of 5
s 0 2
5-3
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 5 of 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
2E
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5071
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE OF 37.62 ACRES FROM
LIMITED CONTROL (L-C) TO ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
WITH A QUALIFIED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (R-1-7,500-
Q, AND A ZONE CHANGE OF 40.41 ACRES FROM LIMITED
CONTROL (L-C) TO RESIDENTIAL DENSITY-MULTIPLE
ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH AND
SOUTH OF POINSETTIA LANE, BETWEEN AVIARA
PARKWAY AND SNAPDRAGON DRIVE IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20.
CASE NAME: THOMPSON/TABATA
CASE NO: ZC 98-08
WHEREAS, Standard Pacific Homes, “Developer,” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Standard Pacific
Corporation and David B. Thompson and Karen R. Thompson, “Owner,” described as
WITH A QUALIFIED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (RD-M-Q)
The northeast quarter of the northeast quarter and the southeast
quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 28, Township 12 South,
Range 4 West, San Bemardino Meridian, according to the official
plat thereof; together with that portion of the southeast quarter of
Section 21, Township 12 South, Range 4 West of the San
Bemardino Meridian, according to the official plat thereof, shown
on Parcel B on a Certificate of Compliance recorded November
7,1988 as File No. 88-569475 and on Record of Survey Map No.
12096, filed on March 23, 1989; all lying within the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California; except
therefrom those portions thereof vested with Tabata Brothers
Partnership by documents recorded November 13, 1972 as File No.
303362 and November 4, 1974 as Files No. 74-292547 and 74-
Poinsettia Lane and Rose Drive as described in Files No. 89-
546752, 89-637695, 90-146889 and 91-0036964 of Official
Records
I 292548; and except therefrom those portions lying within
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Zone Change as shown on
Exhibit “ZC 98-08‘ dated November 7, 2001, on file in the Planning Department,
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
THOMPSONRABATA - ZC 98-08 as provided by Chapter 21.52 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of November, 2001
and on the 5th day of December 2001 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to
consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Zone Change; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of THOMPSON/TABATA ZC 98-08 based on
the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findinps:
1. That the proposed Zone Change from Limited Control (L-C) to One Family
Residential with a Qualified Development Overlay (R-1-7,500-Q and R-1-10,000-Q)
and Residential Multiple-Density with a Qualified Development Overlay (RD-M-Q)
is consistent with the goals and policies of the various elements of the General Plan, in
that the R-1-Q and RD-M-Q designations implement the existing RLM and RM
General Plan designations, respectively.
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 residential zoning designations would allow the appropriate
implementation of the existing residential General Plan 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 it allows for the further
implementation of the Carlsbad General Plan and the Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP
201), which also recommends these zoning designations.
Conditions:
1. This approval is granted subject to the approval of LCPA 98-04, CT 98-14, PUD 98-05, . CP 00-02, SDP 99-06, HDP 98-15, and CDP 98-68 and is subject to all conditions
57 PC RES0 NO. 5071 -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
contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5072, 5073, 5074, 5075, 5076,
5077 and 5078 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 fiom date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any feedexactions of which you have previously been given
a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously othenvise
expired.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 5th day of December 2001, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Dominguez,
Heineman, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Nielsen
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. ~ZM~LER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5071 -3- 59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2c
21
22
2?
24
25
2c
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5072
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CARLSBAD
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM TO CHANGE 37.62 ACRES
RESIDENTIAL WITH A QUALIFIED DEVELOPMENT
FROM LIMITED CONTROL (L-C) TO ONE FAMILY
OVERLAY (R-1-7,500-Q), AND A ZONE CHANGE OF 40.41
ACRES FROM LIMITED CONTROL (L-C) TO RESIDENTIAL
DENSITY-MULTIPLE WITH A QUALIFIED DEVELOPMENT
OVERLAY (RD-M-Q), BRINGING THE DESIGNATIONS ON
THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, GENERAL PLAN, AND
ZONING MAP INTO CONFORMANCE ON PROPERTY
LOCATED NORTH AND SOUTH OF POINSETTIA LANE,
BETWEEN AVIARA PARKWAY AND SNAPDRAGON
DRIVE, IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20.
CASE NAME: THOMPSON/TABATA
CASE NO: LCPA 98-04
WHEREAS, California State law requires that the Local Coastal Program,
General Plan, and Zoning designations for properties in the Coastal Zone be in conformance; and
WHEREAS, Standard Pacific Homes, “Developer”, has filed a verified
application for an amendment to the Local Coastal Program designations regarding property
owned by Standard Pacific Corporation and David B. Thompson and Karen R Thompson,
“Owners”, described as
The northeast quarter of the northeast quarter and the southeast
quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 28, Township 12 South,
Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, according to the official
plat thereof; together with that portion of the southeast quarter of
Section 21, Township 12 South, Range 4 West of the San
Bemardino Meridian, according to the official plat thereof, shown
on Parcel B on a Certificate of Compliance recorded November
7,1988 as File No. 88-569475 and on Record of Survey Map No.
12096, filed on March 23, 1989; all lying within the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California; except
therefrom those portions thereof vested with Tabata Brothers
Partnership by documents recorded November 13, 1972 as File No.
303362 and November 4, 1974 as Files No. 74-292547 and 74-
292548; and except therefrom those portions lying within Poinsettia
Lane and Rose Drive as described in Files No. 89-546752, 89-
637695,90-146889 and 91-0036964 of Official Records
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 Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Local Coastal
Program Amendment as shown on Exhibit LCPA 98-04 dated November 7,2001 as provided in
Public Resources Code Section 30574 and Article 15 of Subchapter 8, Chapter 2, Division 5.5 of
Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations of the California Coastal Commission
Administrative Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of November 2001 and
on the 5th day of December 2001 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to
consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Local Coastal Program Amendment.
WHEREAS, State Coastal Guidelines requires a six week public review period for
any amendment to the Local Coastal Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) At the end of the State mandated six week review period, starting on June 29,
2000, and ending on November 6,2001, staff shall present to the City Council a
summary of the comments received.
C) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of THOMPSON/TABATA - LCPA 98-04
based on the following findings, and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1. That the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment meets the requirements of, and is
in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act and all applicable policies
of the Mello I1 segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program not being amended by
this amendment, in that it allows for the development of residentially designated lands
PC RES0 NO. 5072 -2- 60
1
2
3
4
5
6
I
8
9
la
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
with residential development and provides consistency between the Land Use
Designations and Zoning designations of the Local Coastal Program.
2. That the proposed amendment to the Mello I1 segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal
Program is required to bring it into consistency with Carlsbad Zoning Map.
Conditions:
1. This approval is granted.subject to the approval of ZC 98-08, CT 98-14, PUD 98-05, CP
00-02, SDP 99-06, HDP 98-15, and CDP 98-68 and is subject to all conditions
contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5071, 5073, 5074, 5075, 5076,
5077 and 5078 for those other approvals.
2. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the proposed Local Coastal Program
Amendment by the California Coastal Commission. Any revisions to this approval
by the California Coastal Commission must be submitted to and reviewed by the
Planning Department for an evaluation of consistency with this approval; said
revisions may require an amendment to this approval.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting to the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 5th day of December 2001, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Dominguez,
Heineman, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Nielsen
ABSTAIN:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5072 -3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5073
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
SUBDIVIDE 82.20 ACRES INTO 108 STANDARD SINGLE
FAMILY LOTS, 130 SMALL-LOT SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, A
CONDOMINIUM LOT WITH A 24 MULTIFAMILY UNITS,
THREE RECREATION LOTS, TWO OPEN SPACE LOTS AND
A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE LOT ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH AND SOUTH OF
POINSETTIA LANE, BETWEEN AVIARA PARKWAY AND
SNAPDRAGON DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 20.
CASE NAME: THOMPSON/TABATA
CASE NO.: CT 98-14
WHEREAS, Standard Pacific Homes, “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Standard Pacific
Corporation and David B. Thompson and Karen R Thompson, “Owner”, described as
APPROVAL OF CARLSBAD TRACT NUMBER CT 98-14 TO
The northeast quarter of the northeast quarter and the southeast
quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 28, Township 12 South,
Range 4 West, San Bemardino Meridian, according to the official
plat thereof; together with that portion of the southeast quarter of
Section 21, Township 12 South, Range 4 West of the San
Bemardino Meridian, according to the official plat thereof, shown
on Parcel B on a Certificate of Compliance recorded November
7,1988 as File No. 88-569475 and on Record of Survey Map No.
12096, filed on March 23, 1989; all lying within the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California; except
therefrom those portions thereof vested with Tabata Brothers
Partnership by documents recorded November 13, 1972 as File No.
303362 and November 4, 1974 as Files No. 74-292547 and 74-
292548; and except therefrom those portions lying within
Poinsettia Lane and Rose Drive as described in Files No. 89-
546752, 89-637695, 90-146889 and 91-0036964 of Official
Records
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Tentative Tract
Map as shown on Exhibits “A” - “EEEE” dated November 7, 2001, on file in the Planning
Department THOMPSONlTABATA - CT 98-14, as provided by Chapter 20 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code; and &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
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 7th day of November 2001
and on the 5th day of December 2001 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.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THOMPSONRABATA - CT 98-14,
based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
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 Title 20 governing lot sizes and
configuration and have been designed to comply with other applicable regulations
including the Planned Development Ordinance, the One Family Residential (R-1)
zoning designation and the Residential Multiple-Density (RD") zoning
designation.
That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since
surrounding properties are designated for single family and multifamily residential
development on the General Plan, in that the project is an iafill project and completely
surrounded by property which is already developed in accordance with these same
designations.
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 site can accommodate the proposed residential
development while complying with all development standards and public facilities
requirements and is less than the number of units that are permitted by the existing
plans and regulations applicable to the site.
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
PC RES0 NO. 5073 -2- b3
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.
that concurrent with the recordation of the final map the developer will vacate and
adjust any easements that conflict with the propose 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 structures are oriented
in various directions and adequate separations will be provided to allow for breezes
to cool the areas and landscaping will be installed to provide shade and reduce the
temperature of developed areas.
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 will implement all mitigation measures contained in the
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the ThompsonPTabata residential subdivision
and the associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
That the discharge of waste from the subdivision will not result in violation of existing
California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, in that the project has
been designed in accordance with the Best Management Practices for water quality
protection in accordance with the City’s sewer and drainage standards and the
project is conditioned to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) requirements.
The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in
conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan and Specific Plan 201 based
on the facts set forth in the staff report dated November 7, 2001 including, but not
limited to the following:
The proposed residential densities of 2.58 and 3.88 dwellings per acre, respectively,
are consistent with the existing RLM and RM General Plan designations;
AIL roadways needed to serve the development will be dedicated and constructed
prior to, or concurrent with, site development all the project minimizes access points
to Poinsettia Lane, a major arterial;
The project includes a noise study with mitigation measures to reduce the Poinsettia
Lane traffic noise impacts on the proposed residences to 60 dBA CNEL;
The project provides a variety of housing types, including for-sale, multifamily
condominiums with four-bedroom units, affordable to lower-income households and
large family households;
The project preserves the existing 1.8 acre coastal sage scrub habitat and mitigates
the disturbance of the 0.1 acre southern willow scrub area;
PC RES0 NO. 5073 -3- 64
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.
All necessary water mains, fire hydrants and appurtenances will be installed prior
to occupancy and all-weather access roads will be maintained throughout
construction;
Over 28 percent of all standard single-family lots contain side yards adequate for
the storage of a recreation vehicle; and
The project includes a 50 foot landscaped setback along the Poinsettia Lane right-
of-way.
The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 20 and all City public facility policies and
ordinances. The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or
provide hding 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 Carlsbad
Unified School District 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.
c. The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and
will be collected prior to the 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 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of
public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project.
This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the
Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 20.
The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project
and said comments thereon, and the Program, on file in the Planning
Department, prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project;
and
b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Program have been prepared in
accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of
the City of Carlsbad; and
PC RES0 NO. 5073 -4- b5
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
15.
c. they reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the
City of Carlsbad; and
d. based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, the Planning
Commission, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a
significant effect on the environment.
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:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to final map or
grading permit, whichever occurs first.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
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; 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 from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
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.
The 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-
PC RES0 NO. 5073 -5- 66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
E
s
1c
11
12
12
14
15
1C
1;
15
IS
2(
21
2:
2:
2r
2:
2t
2:
21
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c)
DeveloperDperator’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.
The Developer shall submit to Planning Department a reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar
copy of the Tentative Map and Site Plan reflecting the conditions approved by the final
decision making body.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the
Director fiom the Carlsbad Unified 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 20 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to
that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
This approval is granted subject to the approval of ZC 98-08, LCPA 98-04, PUD 98-05,
CP 00-02, SDP 99-06, HDP 98-15, and CDP 98-68 and is subject to all conditions
contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5071, 5072, 5074, 5075, 5076,
5077 and 5078 for those other approvals.
This approval shall become null and void if a final map is not approved for this project
within 24 months &om the date of project approval.
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.
If a grading permit is required, all grading activities shall be planned in units that can be
completed by October 1st. Grading activities shall be limited to the “dry season”, April
1st to October 1st of each year. Grading activities may be extended to November 15th
upon written approval of the City Engineer and only if all erosion control measures are in
place by October 1st.
Prior to the approval of the final map for any phase of this project, or where a map is not
being processed, prior to the issuance of building permits for any lots or units, the
Developer shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City to provide and
deed restrict 24 dwelling units (including: All units on Lot 82) as affordable to lower-
income households for the useful life of the dwelling units, in accordance with the
requirements and process set forth in Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The
draf? Affordable Housing Agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Director no later
than 60 days prior to the request to final the map. The recorded Affordable Housing
Agreement shall be binding on all future owners and successors in interest.
PC RES0 NO. 5073 -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
14.
15.
16.
17.
The Developer shall construct the required inclusionary units concurrent with the
project’s market rate units, unless both the final decision making authority of the City and
the Developer agree within an Affordable Housing Agreement to an alternate schedule
for development.
The Developer shall 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 Manual. The 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.
The Developer shall establish a homeowner’s association and corresponding covenants,
conditions and restrictions. Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by the
Planning Director prior to final map approval. Prior to issuance of a building permit the
Developer shall provide the Planning Department with a recorded copy of the official
CC&Rs that have been approved by the Department of Real Estate and the Planning
Director. At a minimum, the CC&Rs shall contain the following provisions:
a. General Enforcement by 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 Lots and Easements. In the event
that the Association fails to maintain the “Common Area Lots andor the
Association’s Easements” as provided in Article , Section the
City shall have the right, but not the duty, to perform the necessary maintenance. If
the City elects to perform such maintenance, the City shall give written notice to the
Association, with a copy thereof to the Owners in the Project, 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.
d. SDecial Assessments Levied by the City. In the event the City has performed the
necessary maintenance to either Common Area Lots and/or Association’s Easements,
the City shall submit a written invoice to the Association for all costs incurred by the
City to perform such maintenance of the Common Area Lots and or Association’s
PC RES0 NO. 5073 -7- bg
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18.
19.
20.
21.
Easements. The City shall provide a copy of such invoice to each Owner in the
Project, together with a statement that if the Association fails to pay such invoice in
full within the time specified, the City will pursue collection against the Owners in
the Project pursuant to the provisions of this Section. Said invoice shall be due and
payable by the Association within twenty (20) days of receipt by the Association. If
the Association shall fail to pay such invoice in full within the period specified,
payment shall be deemed delinquent and shall be subject to a late charge in an amount
equal to six percent (6%) of the amount of the invoice. Thereafter the City may
pursue collection from the Association by means of any remedies available at law or
in equity. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, in addition to all other
rights and remedies available to the City, the City may levy a special assessment
against the Owners of each Lot in the Project for an equal prorata share of the invoice,
plus the late charge. Such special assessment shall constitute a charge on the land and
shall be a continuing lien upon each Lot against which the special assessment is
levied. Each Owner in the Project hereby vests the City with the right and power to
levy such special assessment, to impose a lien upon their respective Lot and to bring
all legal actions and/or to pursue lien foreclosure procedures against any Owner and
hisher respective Lot for purposes of collecting such special assessment in
accordance with the procedures set forth in Article of this Declaration.
e. Landscape Maintenance Resuonsibilities. The HOAs and individual lot or unit owner
landscape maintenance responsibilities shall be as set forth in Exhibits “A” -
“EEEE”, dated November 9,2001.
The Developer shall provide bus stops to service this development at locations and with
reasonable facilities to the satisfaction of the North County Transit District and the
Planning Director. Said facilities, if required, shall be free from advertising and shall
include at a minimum include a bench and a pole for the bus stop sign. The facilities
shall be designed to enhance or be consistent with basic architectural theme of the
project.
This project is being approved as a condominium permit for residential homeownership
purposes. If any of the units in the project are rented, the minimum time increment for
such rental shall be not less than 26 days. The CC&Rs for the project shall include this
requirement.
Prior to approval of the final map, the Developer shall: 1) consult with the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding the impacts of the Project; and, 2) obtain
any permits required by the USWFS.
Prior to the issuance of the grading or building permit, whichever occurs first,
Developer shall submit to the City a Notice of Restriction to be filed in the office of the
County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, notifying all
interested parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a
Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development Permit, Condominium Permit,
Site Development Plan, Hillside Development Permit and Coastal Development
Permit by Resolutions No. 5073 , 5074, 5075, 5076, 5077, and 5078 on the real
property owned by the Developer. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property
description, location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of
PC RES0 NO. 5073 -8- b9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
la
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
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 whxh modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by
the Developer or successor in interest.
If satisfaction of the school facility requirement involves 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 fhre 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.
The Developer shall display a current Zoning and Land Use Map, or an alternative,
suitable to the Planning Director, in the sales ofice at all times. All sales maps that are
distributed or made available to the public shall include but not be limited to trails, hture
and existing schools, parks and streets.
The 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.
Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map or the issuance of building permits,
whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property
may be subject to noise impacts from the proposed or existing Transportation Corridor, in
a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney (see Noise Form
#I on file in the Planning Department).
Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map or the issuance of building permits,
whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property
is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating fiom McClellan-Palomar
Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and the City Attorney
(see Noise Form #2 on file in the Planning Department).
The Developer shall post aircraft noise notification signs in all sales and/or rental offices
associated with the new development. The number and locations of said signs shall be
approved by the Planning Director (see Noise Form #3 on file in the Planning
Department).
The Developer shall construct trash receptacle and recycling areas enclosed by a six-foot
high masonry wall with gates pursuant to City Engineering Standards and Carlsbad
Municipal Code Chapter 21.105. Location of said receptacles shall be approved by the
Planning Director. Enclosure shall be of similar colors and/or materials to the project to
the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
PC RES0 NO. 5073 -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
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
No outdoor storage of materials shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief.
When so required, the Developer shall submit and obtain approval of the Fire Chief and
the Planning Director of an Outdoor Storage Plan, and thereafter comply with the
approved plan.
The Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of an exterior lighting
plan including parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and
avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property.
The Developer shall provide a minimum of 25 percent of the non-planned development
lots with adequate sideyard area for Recreational Vehicle storage pursuant to City
Standards. The CC&Rs shall prohibit the storage of recreational vehicles in the required
front yard setback.
Compact parking spaces shall be located in large groups, and in locations clearly marked
to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the Thompson/Tabata
Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
The tentative map approval shall expire twenty - four (24) months from the date of the
resolution containing the final decision for tentative map approval.
Prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit the Developer shall provide all required
passive and active recreational areas per the approved plans, including landscaping and
recreational facilities.
The Developer shall submit a street name list consistent with the City’s street name
policy subject to the Planning Director’s approval prior to final map approval.
Engineering Conditions:
NOTE: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following engineering
conditions upon the approval of this proposed major subdivision must be met prior to approval of
a final map.
37. Prior to issuance of grading permit or final map, whichever occurs first, the
Developer shall redesign the tentative map for that area covered by lots 107 through
119, lots 182 through 195, and lots 213 through 224 such that there are no more than
ten (10) residential lots in a row without an intervening open space lot or street
intersection of at least 90 degree angle.
38. Prior to approval of final map or grading permit, whichever occurs first, the
developer shall realign the Street “C” cul-de-sac to intersect with Street “A” in a
location between lot 107 and lot 119 to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and
Planning Director. Upon such redesign, there will be no intersection of Street “C”
with Street “B”.
PC RES0 NO. 5073 -10- 71
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
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
There shall be a maximum of three final subdivision maps recorded for this project. All
lots shall be numbered consecutively and phases shall be approved in numerical order, i.e.
Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3. Any changes to lot numbering or construction phasing
shall be submitted as a substantial conformance review to Planning and Engineering.
The developer shall provide an acceptable means for maintaining the private easements
within the subdivision and all the private: streets, sidewalks, street lights, storm drain
facilities and sewer facilities located therein and to distribute the costs of such
maintenance in an equitable manner among the owners of the properties within the
subdivision. Adequate provision for such maintenance shall be included with the CC&Rs
subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
All concrete terrace drains shall be maintained by the homeowner's association (if on
commonly owned property) or by the individual property owner (if on an individually
owned lot). An appropriately worded statement clearly identifying the responsibility
shall be placed in the CC&Rs and shall be identified on the Non-Mapping sheet of the
Final Map.
The developer shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers,
and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents,
officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void or null an approval of the City, the
Planning Commission or City Engineer which has been brought against the City within
the time period provided for by Section 66499.37 of the Subdivision Map Act.
Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site
within this project, the developer shall submit to and receive approval from the City
Engineer for the proposed haul route. The developer shall comply with all conditions and
requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the hauling operation.
The developer shall install sight distance corridors at all street intersections in accordance
with Engineering Standards and shall record the following statement on the non -
mapping sheet of the Final Map (and in the CC&Rs).
"No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object over 30 inches above the
street level may be placed or permitted to encroach within the area identified as a sight
distance corridor in accordance with City Standard Public Street-Design Criteria, Section
8.B.3. The underlying property owner shall maintain this condition."
This condition affects: lots 1,2,31,32,36,37,48,59,60,67,68,73,74,84,91,98,107,
121, 122, 137, 138, 173, 174, 201, 239, and 242. The owner of the lot is specifically
required to maintain and keep clear the corner sight distance corridors shown on
the tentative map and the approved grading plan for this project.
The developer shall pay all current fees and deposits as required.
Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for
recordation the City's standard form Drainage Hold Harmless Agreement regarding
drainage across the adjacent property.
PC RES0 NO. 5073 -11- VA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
47.
48.
49.
50.
Developer shall cause property owner to execute, record and submit a recorded
copy to the City Engineer, a deed restriction on the property which relates to the
proposed cross lot drainage as shown on the tentative map. The deed restriction
document shall be in a form acceptable to the City Engineer and shall:
A. Clearly delineate the limits of the drainage course;
B. State that the drainage course is to be maintained in perpetuity by the underlying
property owner; and
C. State that all future use of the property along the drainage course will not restrict,
impede, divert or otherwise alter drainage flows in a manner that will result in
damage to the underlying and adjacent properties or the creation of a public nuisance.
Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, the owner shall give
written consent to the annexation of the area shown within the boundaries of the
subdivision plan into the existing City of Carlsbad Street Lighting and Landscaping
District No. 1 on a form provided by the City.
Prior to the issuance of grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first,
the applicant 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. The SWPPP shall address measures to reduce to the
maximum extent possible storm water pollutant runoff at both construction and
post-construction phases of the project. At a minimum, the Plan shall:
1) Identify existing and post-development on-site pollutants.
2) Recommend source control Best Management Practices (BMPs) to filter said
pollutants.
3) 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.
4) Ensure long-term maintenance of all post construct BMPs in perpetuity.
5) Identify how post-development runoff rates and velocities from the site will not
exceed the pre-development runoff rates and velocities for a 10-year, 6-hour
storm event. If maintaining post-development rates at pre-development levels
cannot be achieved, adequate justification subject to the City Engineer’s
approval must be provided.
The City of Carlsbad is presently considering action to reform Bridge and
Thoroughfare District No. 2 (B&TD#2) to finance cost increases incurred andlor
estimated to complete the design and construction of Aviara Parkway and Poinsettia
Lane within the boundaries of the district. Prior to approval of a final map or
issuance of a building permit on the project site, whichever occurs first, the property
owner shall enter into an agreement with the City whereby the owner/developer
agrees not to oppose the reformation of B&TD#2 and further agrees to pay their
project’s fair share contribution for the B&TD#2 facilities in accordance with the
fee schedule as may be adopted by the City Council upon reformation of B&TD#2.
PC RES0 NO. 5073 -12- 72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
I8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
In the event building permits are issued in advance of the reformation of the
district, the owner/developer shall post a cash deposit with the City in the amount of
the proposed fee as estimated in the latest revision to the B&TD#2 Fee Study Report
available at the time of building permit issuance.
Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the
tentative map, a grading permit for this project is required. (the developer must submit
and receive approval for grading plans in accordance with city codes and standards prior
to issuance of a building permit for the project.)
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, the
developer shall submit proof that a Notice of Intention has been submitted to the State
Water Resources Control Board.
No grading for private improvements shall occur outside the limits of the subdivision
unless a grading or slope easement or agreement is obtained and recorded from the
owners of the affected properties. If the developer is unable to obtain the grading or slope
easement, or agreement, no grading permit will be issued. In that case the developer must
either amend the tentative map or modify the plans so grading will not occur outside the
project site in a manner which substantially conforms to the approved tentative map as
determined by the City Engineer and Planning Director.
Additional drainage easements may be required. Drainage structures shall be provided or
installed prior to or concurrent with any grading or building permit as may be required by
the City Engineer.
The owner shall make an offer of dedication to the City for all public streets and
easements required by these conditions or shown on the tentative map. Including but not
limited to the 60' wide Irrevocable offer to extend Lemon Leaf Drive. The offer shall
be made by a certificate on the final map for this project. All land so offered shall be
granted to the City free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost to the
City. Streets that are already public are not required to be rededicated.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall underground all existing
overhead utilities along, adjacent to and within the subdivision boundary.
Direct access rights for all lots abutting Poinsettia Lane shall be waived on the final
map. Access rights for all lots that have frontage on two streets shall waive access as
required and as shown on the tentative map. This condition affects lots: 1,31,32,36,
37,48,59, 60,73, 74, 84,91,98,107,119, 121, 122, 137, 138, 168, 172,173, 174,201,
205,239, & lot 242.
The developer shall comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The developer shall provide best
management practices as referenced in the "California Storm Water Best Management
Practices Handbook" to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge
to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer.
Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifymg prospective owners and tenants of
the following:
PC RES0 NO. 5073 -13- 7LT
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
59.
60.
61.
62.
Developer shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Developer shall provide
improvements constructed pursuant to best management practices as referenced in
the “California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook” to reduce
surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans
for such improvements shall be submitted to and subject to the approval of the City
Engineer. Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifying prospective
owners and tenants of the following:
A.
B.
C.
Toxi
AU owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with established
disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and hazardous waste
products.
Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil, antifreeze,
solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain or storm water
conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides, herbicides,
insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet Federal,
State, County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective containers.
Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants
when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements.
c chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil, antifreeze,
solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such fluids shall not be
discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain or storm water
conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides,
fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet Federal, State, County and City
requirements as prescribed in their respective containers.
Streets “E”, “F”, “H”, “J” and Street “A” between its intersection with Street “B”
and with Street “H”, shall be designed and constructed to the City’s Livable Street
Standards. All streets within the subdivision shall be designed and constructed with
the parkway adjacent to the curb.
Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all public improvements shall be
prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In accordance with City Standards, the
developer shall install, or agree to install and secure with appropriate security as provided
by law, improvements shown on the tentative map and the following improvements:
A fully actuated and interconnected traffic signal at the intersection of “A” Street
and Poinsettia Lane.
Modification and reconstruction of Poinsettia Lane to accommodate the left turn
pocket and median improvements associated with the intersection of “A” Street and
Poinsettia Lane.
Flexible check dams downstream and east of lots 7 & 8 across the open space lot
offsite from this subdivision, as required downstream to control erosion of drainage.
PC RES0 NO. 5073 -14-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
E
s
1c
11
12
12
14
15
1C
li
1I
IS
2(
21
2;
2:
2r
2:
2t
2:
21
63.
64.
65.
The developer shall construct a bus stop and install a bus bench along Poinsettia
Lane at the far side of the intersection of “A” Street & Poinsettia Lane as required
by NCTD and as approved by the City Engineer. Improvements may include but
are not limited to: Bus turnout lanes, signage, lights, and a bench or trellis /
enclosure. Additional right of way may be required to accommodate the proposed
improvements and shall be dedicated on the Final Map for this subdivision.
The developer shall provide sewer, water, storm drain, and underground utilities to
the “Tabata” parcel (APN 214-170-54 & 72) and also to the Thompson Parcel (lot
244). The contractor shall coordinate shut off and inspection as to not interrupt
service more than reasonable. The sewer system shall be located to serve these
parcels considering the possibility of future development.
Temporary access (all weather during construction) and permanent access to the
adjacent properties (Thompson and Tabata) shall be provided.
This subdivision has provided for 3 different points of access to adjacent properties.
The cul-de-sac (Lemon Leaf) and locations of future streets shall be posted with
permanent signs that state “Future Road Extension”. If permanent Barricades are
proposed, the wording shall be engraved and painted black in the horizontal panels.
A list of the above improvements shall be placed on an additional map sheet on the final
map per the provisions of Sections 66434.2 of the Subdivision Map Act. Improvements
listed above shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the secured
improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement.
Drainage outfall end treatments for any drainage outlets where a direct access road for
maintenance purposes is not provided, shall be designed and incorporated into the
gradinghmprovement plans for the project. These end treatments shall be designed so as
to prevent vegetation growth from obstructing the pipe outfall. Designs could consist of a
modified outlet headwall consisting of an extended concrete spillway section with
longitudinal curbing andor radially designed rip-rap, or other means deemed appropriate,
as a method of preventing vegetation growth directly in front of the pipe outlet, to the
satisfaction of the Community Services Director and the City Engineer.
Notes to the following effect shall be placed on the final map as non-mapping data:
“No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object over 30 inches above the
street level may be placed or permitted to encroach within the area identified as a sight
distance comdor in accordance with City Standard Public Street-Design Criteria, Section
8.B.3. The underlying property owner shall maintain this condition.”
This subdivision has provided for 3 different points of access to 2 adjacent
properties. The adjacent properties could develop and access will be provided via
the public streets as irrevocably offered and as shown on this recorded map. Specific
points of access are: Lemon Leaf Drive west of lots 236 & 237, Lonicera Street north
of lot 224. and access to “A” Street from lot 244 between lot 164 & 165.
PC RES0 NO. 5073 -15- 7L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
la
11
12
13
14
15
16
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
Code Reminders:
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy
#17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section
5.09.030, and CFD #1 special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable
Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 20, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such
taxedfees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxedfees are not paid, this
approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void.
The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.08.050 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.
Premise identification (addresses) shall be provided consistent with Carlsbad Municipal
Code Section 18.04.320.
Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance
with the City’s Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval of the Planning
Director prior to installation of such signs.
The developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to
prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance
with the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the City Engineer.
Some improvements shown on the tentative map and/or required by these conditions are
located offsite on property which neither the City nor the owner has sufficient title or
interest to permit the improvements to be made without acquisition of title or interest.
The developer shall conform to Section 20.16.095 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
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 fiom date of approval to protest imposition of these feeskxactions. 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
PC RES0 NO. 5073 -16- 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
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, California, held on the 5th day of December 2001, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Dominguez,
Heineman, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Nielsen
ABSTAIN:
JEFME N. SEGALL, &airperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
ha*&
MICHAEL J. H&ZM&LER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5073 -17- 78
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. 5074
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
LOTS WITH UNITS, TWO PASSIVE RECREATION LOTS
AND TWO OPEN SPACE LOTS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED NORTH AND SOUTH OF POINSETTIA LANE,
BETWEEN AVIARA PARKWAY AND SNAPDRAGON DRIVE
IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20.
CASE NAME: THOMPSON/TABATA
CASE NO.: PUD 98-05
WHEREAS, Standard Pacific Homes, “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Standard Pacific
Corporation and David B. Thompson and Karen R Thompson, “Owners”, described as
PUD 98-05 TO ALLOW 130 SMALL-LOT SINGLE FAMILY
The northeast quarter of the northeast quarter and the southeast
quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 28, Township 12 South,
Range 4 West, San Bemardino Meridian, according to the official
plat thereof; together with that portion of the southeast quarter of
Section 21, Township 12 South, Range 4 West of the San
Bemardino Meridian, according to the official plat thereof, shown
on Parcel B on a Certificate of Compliance recorded November
7,1988 as File No. 88-569475 and on Record of Survey Map No.
12096, filed on March 23, 1989; all lying within the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California; except
therefrom those portions thereof vested with Tabata Brothers
Partnership by documents recorded November 13, 1972 as File No.
303362 and November 4, 1974 as Files No. 74-292547 and 74-
292548; and except therefrom those portions lying within
Poinsettia Lane and Rose Drive as described in Files No. 89-
546752, 89-637695, 90-146889 and 91-0036964 of Official
Records
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Planned Unit
Development Permit as shown on Exhibits “A” - ‘‘EEEE” dated November 7,2001, on file in
the Planning Department, THOMPSON/TABATA - PUD 98-05 as provided by Chapter
21.45/21.47 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
la
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 7th day of November, 2001
and on the 5th day of December 2001 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 Planned Unit Development Permit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. OF THOMPSON/TABATA - PUD 98-05,
based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
That the granting of this permit will not adversely affect and will be consistent with the
Municipal Code, the General Plan, applicable specific plans, master plans, and all
adopted plans of the City and other governmental agencies, in that the project is
consistent with the Residential Medium (RM) General Plan Land Use designation as
it has a density of 3.88 dwellings per acre; the project complies with the
development standards of the Residential Density-Multiple (RD") zoning
designation and the Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 201).
That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary and desirable to provide a
service or facility which will contribute to the long-term general well-being of the
neighborhood and the community, in that the development of single-family homes on
minimum 6,000 square foot lots and associated recreational facilities and RV
storage complies with the requirements of the Planned Development Ordinance and
is consistent with the adjacent Vista Pacifica development with single family lots of
4,000 square feet and greater in area.
That such use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons
residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity, in that the project design conforms to all design and development standards
applicable to the property. Public improvements will be provided concurrent with
the development of the project to meet all City standards. All manufactured slopes
will be landscaped to prevent erosion and visually screen the slopes.
That the proposed Planned Development meets all of the minimum development
standards set forth in Chapter 21.45.090, the design criteria set forth in Section 21.45.080,
and has been designed in accordance with the concepts contained in the Design
PC RES0 NO. 5074 -2- 80
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.
Guidelines Manual, in that the proposed lots are over 3,500 square feet in area, the
project provides private and common passive recreation areas and common RV
storage, and guest parking is adequately distributed throughout the project.
That the proposed project is designed to be sensitive to and blend in with the natural
topography of the site, and maintains and enhances significant natural resources on the
site, in that the general trend of the development follows the existing sloping
topography, grading volumes are Limited to an acceptable level of 6,042 cubic yards
per acre, and the existing coastal sage scrub habitat is being preserved.
That the proposed project’s design and density of the developed portion of the site is
compatible with surrounding development and does not create a disharmonious or
disruptive element to the neighborhood, in that the project density and lot size are
consistent with the adjacent small-lot single family neighborhood.
That the project’s circulation system is designed to be efficient and well integrated with
the project and does not dominate the project.
Conditions:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to grading or
building permit, whichever occurs first.
1.
2.
3.
4.
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; 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 Planned Unit Development Permit.
Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Planned Unit 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.
The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local
ordinances 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.
PC RES0 NO. 5074 -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
5. The 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, &om 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, &om (a) City’s approval and issuance of this Planned Unit 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.
6. This approval is granted subject to the approval of ZC 98-08, LCPA 98-04, CT 98-14,
CP 00-02, SDP 99-06, HDP 98-15, and CDP 98-68 and is subject to all conditions
contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5071, 5072, 5073, 5075, 5076,
5077 and 5078 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 fiom 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.
...
...
...
...
PC RES0 NO. 5074 -4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
1c
11
12
12
14
15
1C
1;
1t
IS
2(
21
2;
2:
2r
21
2t
2:
21
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of December 2001, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES : Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Dominguez,
Heineman, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Nielsen
ABSTAIN:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5074 -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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5075
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
THE DEVELOPMENT OF 24 MULTIFAMILY CONDOMINIUMS
ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF
POINSETTIA LANE, BETWEEN AVIARA PARKWAY AND
SNAPDRAGON DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 20.
CASE NAME: THOMPSONRABATA
CASE NO.: CP 00-02
WHEREAS, Standard Pacific Homes, “Developer,” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Standard Pacific
Corporation and David B. Thompson and Karen R Thompson, “Owner,” described as
APPROVAL OF CONDOMINIUM PERMIT CP 00-02 TO ALLOW
The northeast quarter of the northeast quarter and the southeast
quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 28, Township 12 South,
Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, according to the official
plat thereof; together with that portion of the southeast quarter of
Section 21, Township 12 South, Range 4 West of the San
Bernardino Meridian, according to the official plat thereof, shown
on Parcel B on a Certificate of Compliance recorded November
7,1988 as File No. 88-569475 and on Record of Survey Map No.
12096, filed on March 23, 1989; all lying within the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California; except
thereftom those portions thereof vested with Tabata Brothers
Partnership by documents recorded November 13, 1972 as File No.
303362 and November 4, 1974 as Files No. 74-292547 and 74-
292548; and except therefrom those portions lying within
Poinsettia Lane and Rose Drive as described in Files No. 89-
546752, 89-637695, 90-146889 and 91-0036964 of Official
Records
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Condominium
Permit as shown on Exhibits “A” - “EEEE” dated November 7,2001, on file in the Planning
Department, THOMPSON/TABATA - CP 00-02 as provided by Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code; and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 7th day of November, 2001
and on the 5th day of December 2001 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 Condominium Permit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of THOMPSON/TABATA - CP 00-02, based
on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1. That the granting of this permit will not adversely affect and will be consistent with the
Municipal Code, the General Plan, applicable specific plans, master plans, and all
adopted plans of the City and other governmental agencies, in that the project is
consistent with the Residential Medium (RM) General Plan Land Use designation as
it has a density of 3.88 dwellings per acre; the project complies with the
development standards of the Residential Density-Multiple (RD") zoning
designation and the Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 201).
2. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary and desirable to provide a
service or facility which will contribute to the long-term general well-being of the
neighborhood and the community, in that the development of 24 multifamily
condominium units in four buildings, and associated recreational facilities and RV
storage, comply with the requirements of the Planned Development Ordinance and
is consistent with the adjacent small-lot single family uses proposed to be developed
in conjunction with this condominium.
3. That such use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons
residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity, in that the project design conforms to all design and development standards
applicable to the property. Public improvements will he provided concurrent with
the development of the project to meet all City standards. All manufactured slopes
will be landscaped to prevent erosion and visually screen the slopes.
4. That the proposed Planned Development meets all of the minimum development
standards set forth in Chapter 21.45.090, the design criteria set forth in Section 21.45.080,
and has been designed in accordance with the concepts contained in the Design
PC RES0 NO. 5075 -2- 82-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1s
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Guidelines Manual, in that the project provides private and common passive
recreation areas and common RV storage, guest parking is adequately distributed
throughout the project and all vehicular access ways are a minimum of 30 feet wide.
5. That the proposed project is designed to be sensitive to and blend in with the natural
topography of the site, and maintains and enhances significant natural resources on the
site, in that the general trend of the development follows the existing sloping
topography, grading volumes are limited to an acceptable level of 6,042 cubic yards
per acre, and the existing coastal sage scrub habitat is being preserved.
6. That the proposed project’s design and density of the developed portion of the site is
compatible with surrounding development and does not create a disharmonious or
disruptive element to the neighborhood, in that the multifamily residential product
type and density are consistent with the proposed small-lot single family
development that surrounds it.
7. That the project’s circulation system is designed to be efficient and well integrated with
the project and does not dominate the project.
Conditions:
Note: Unless otherwise suecified herein. all conditions shall be satisfied prior to building or
1.
2.
3.
4.
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; 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 Condominium Permit.
Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Condominium Permit documents, as necessary to make them
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.
The 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.
-
PC RES0 NO. 5075 -3- 86
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.
The DevelopedOperator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and
hold harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and
representatives, f?om 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 Condominium Permit, (b)
City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-
discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein.
This approval is granted subject to the approval of ZC 98-08, LCPA 98-04, CT 98-14,
PUD 98-05, SDP 99-06, HDP 98-15, and CDP 98-68 and is subject to all conditions
contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5071, 5072, 5073, 5074, 5076,
5077 and 5078 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
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.
...
...
...
PC RES0 NO. 5075 -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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of December 2001, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Dominguez,
Heineman, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Nielsen
ABSTAIN:
/
JEF$@. SEGALK Chairperson CHSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HU~ZMI~ER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5075 -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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5076
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION, GRADING AND
CONSTRUCTION OF 82.20 ACRES, CREATING 238 SINGLE
FAMILY LOTS WITH DWELLINGS, TWO OPEN SPACE
LOTS, THREE RECREATION LOTS, ONE RECREATIONAL
APPROVAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SDP 99-06 TO
VEHICLE STORAGE LOT AND A 24 UNIT, FOR-SALE
CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AFFORDABLE TO LOWER-
INCOME HOUSEHOLDS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED NORTH AND SOUTH OF POINSETTIA LANE,
BETWEEN AVIARA PARKWAY AND SNAPDRAGON DRIVE
IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20
CASE NAME: THOMPSON/TABATA
CASE NO.: SDP 99-06
WHEREAS, Standard Pacific Homes, “Developer,” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Standard Pacific
Corporation and David B. Thompson and Karen R Thompson, “Owner,” described as
The northeast quarter of the northeast quarter and the southeast
quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 28, Township 12 South,
Range 4 West, San Bemardino Meridian, according to the official
plat thereof; together with that portion of the southeast quarter of
Section 21, Township 12 South, Range 4 West of the San
Bemardino Meridian, according to the official plat thereof, shown
on Parcel B on a Certificate of Compliance recorded November
7,1988 as File No. 88-569475 and on Record of Survey Map No.
12096, filed on March 23, 1989; all lying within the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California; except
therefrom those portions thereof vested with Tabata Brothers
Partnership by documents recorded November 13, 1972 as File No.
303362 and November 4, 1974 as Files No. 74-292547 and 74-
292548; and except therefrom those portions lying within Poinsettia
Lane and Rose Drive as described in Files No. 89-546752, 89-
637695,90-146889 and 91-0036964 of Official Records,
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Site Development
Plan as shown on Exhibits “A” - “EEEE” dated November 9, 2001, on file in the Planning
Department, THOMPSONRABATA - SDP 99-06 as provided by Chapter 21.06 and Section
21.53.120 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and s9
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 7th day of November, 2001
and on the 5th day of December 2001 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 Site Development Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of THOMPSONRABATA SDP
99-06 based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1. That the requested use is properly related to the site, surroundings and environmental
settings, is consistent with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, will
not be detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the area in which
the proposed use is to be located, and will not adversely impact the site, surroundings or
traffic circulation, in that the proposed density is equal to or lower than the
surrounding residential development and is consistent with the General Plan Land
Use designations for the property; all roads necessary to serve the development will
be constructed prior to, or concurrent with, development, the grading quantities are
limited to an acceptable level of 6,042 cubic yards per acre, and the proposed
grading results in a sloping topography similar to the existing topography of the
site.
2. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in
that the project site can accommodate the proposed residential development while
complying with all development standards and public facilities requirements
applicable to the project.
3. That all yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to adjust
the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be
provided and maintained, in that the proposed in-fill residential development will be
surrounded by solid masonry walls and landscaping and is compatible with the
surrounding single family and multifamily land uses.
4. That the street systems serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic
generated by the proposed use, in that the project is served by Poinsettia Lane, a major
arterial, and will connect to four existing local streets: Alyssum Road, Rose Drive,
PC RES0 NO. 5076 -2- 90
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
Lonicera Drive and Lemon Leaf Drive. The project-specific traffic report (Traffic
ImDact Analysis. Thompson Property, Carlsbad, California, dated December 6,
2000, Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers) states that no adverse impacts due to
traffic circulation will occur with this project.
Conditions:
Note: Unless othenvise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to grading or
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
building 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; 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 Site Development Pian.
Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Site Development Plan documents, as necessary to make them
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.
The 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 paymenl
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.
The 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, ffom (a) City’s approval and issuance of this Site Development Plan, (b)
City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-
discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein.
This approval is granted subject to the approval of ZC 98-08, LCPA 98-04, CT 98-14,
PUD 98-05, CP 00-02, HDP 98-15, and CDP 98-68 and is subject to all conditions
contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5071, 5072, 5073, 5074, 5075,
5077 and 5078 for those other approvals.
PC RES0 NO. 5076 -3- c?r
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 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.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of December 2001, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Dominguez,
Heineman, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Nielsen
ABSTAIN:
. SEGALUChairperson
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. H&Z&ER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5076 -4-
1
i
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
la
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5077
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO
ALLOW THE GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF 82.20
ACRES, CREATING 238 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH
DWELLINGS, TWO OPEN SPACE LOTS, THREE
RECREATION LOTS, ONE RECREATIONAL VEHICLE
CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AFFORDABLE TO LOWER-
INCOME HOUSEHOLDS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED NORTH AND SOUTH OF POINSETTIA LANE,
BETWEEN AVIARA PARKWAY AND SNAPDRAGON
DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20.
CASE NAME: THOMPSON/TABATA
CASE NO: HDP 98- 15
WHEREAS, Standard Pacific, “Developer,” has filed a verified application with
the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Standard Pacific Corporation and David B.
Thompson and Karen R Thompson, “Owner,” described as
STORAGE LOT AND A 24 UNIT, FOR-SALE
The northeast quarter of the northeast quarter and the southeast
quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 28, Township 12 South,
Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, according to the official
plat thereof; together with that portion of the southeast quarter of
Section 21, Township 12 South, Range 4 West of the San
Bemardino Meridian, according to the official plat thereof, shown
on Parcel B on a Certificate of Compliance recorded November
7,1988 as File No. 88-569475 and on Record of Survey Map No.
12096, filed on March 23, 1989; all lying within the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California; except
therefrom those portions thereof vested with Tabata Brothers
Partnership by documents recorded November 13, 1972 as File No.
303362 and November 4, 1974 as Files No. 74-292547 and 74-
292548; and except thereffom those portions lying within Poinsettia
Lane and Rose Drive as described in Files No. 89-546752, 89-
637695,gO-146889 and 91-0036964 of Official Records,
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Hillside
Development Permit as shown on Exhibits “A - “EEEE dated November 7, 2001, on file in
q3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
1c
11
12
13
14
1s
16
17
18
1s
2c
21
22
22
24
25
2t
2i
28
the Carlsbad Planning Department, THOMPSON/TABATA - HDP 98-15, as provided by
Chapter 21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of November 2001 and
on the 5th day of December 2001 consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Hillside Development Permit and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL, of THOMPSON/TABATA HDP 98-15 based
on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1. That hillside conditions have been properly identified on the constraints map which show
existing and proposed conditions and slope percentages;
2. That undevelopable areas of the project, i.e. slopes over 40%, have been properly
identified on the constraints map;
3. That the development proposal is consistent with the intent, purpose, and requirements of
the Hillside Ordinance, Chapter 21.95, in that the proposed development follows the
existing topography, does not contain any tall manufactured slopes, preserves
natural slopes with over 40 percent inclination, and minimizes the amount of
grading to an acceptable level.
4. That the proposed development or grading will not occur in the undevelopable portions
of the site pursuant to provisions of Section 21.53.230 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code,
in that the natural slopes over 40 percent inclination are being preserved and the
over 40 percent slopes proposed for development were manufactured in accordance
with the approved grading plans for Poinsettia Lane.
5. That the project design substantially conforms to the intent of the concepts illustrated in
the Hillside Development Guidelines Manual, in that the project grading steps down
with the existing west-facing sloping topography of the site.
PC RES0 NO. 5077 -2- 93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
la
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6. That the project design and lot configuration minimizes disturbance of hillside lands, in
that the project proposes only 6,042 cubic yards per acre of grading, whereas up to
8,000 cubic yards per acre is considered acceptable by the Hillside Development
Ordinance.
Conditions:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to grading or
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
building 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; institute and prosecute litigation to
compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No
vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of
this Hillside Development Permit.
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.
The 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.
The 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, fiom 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, @) City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or
non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein.
This approval is granted subject to the approval of ZC 98-08, LCPA 98-04, CT 98-14,
PUD 98-05, CP 00-02, SDP 99-06, and CDP 98-68 and is subject to all conditions
contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5071, 5072, 5073, 5074, 5075,
5076 and 5078 for those other approvals.
- -
PC RES0 NO. 5077 -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
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified 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.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of December 2001, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Dominguez,
Heineman, and Trigas
Commissioner Nielsen
, JEFF^^
CARL BADPL G COMMISSION
erson
ATTEST:
bb“ .. -.
MICHAEL J. HOL&IL&
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5077 -4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
15
18
1s
2c
21
22
22
24
25
2t
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5078
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
68 TO ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION, GRADING AND
CONSTRUCTION OF 82.20 ACRES, CREATING 238 SINGLE
FAMILY LOTS WITH DWELLINGS, TWO OPEN SPACE
LOTS, THREE RECREATION LOTS, ONE RECREATIONAL
APPROVAL OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CDP 98-
VEHICLE STORAGE LOT AND A 24 UNIT, FOR-SALE
CONDOME” PROJECT AFFORDABLE TO LOWER-
INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED NORTH AND SOUTH OF POINSETTIA LANE,
BETWEEN AVIARA PARKWAY AND SNAPDRAGON DRIVE
IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20.
CASE NAME: THOMPSON/TABATA
CASE NO.: CDP 98-68
WHEREAS, Standard Pacific Homes, “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Standard Pacific
Corporation, and David B. Thompson and Karen R. Thompson, “Owners”, described as
The northeast quarter of the northeast quarter and the southeast
quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 28, Township 12 South,
Range 4 West, San Bemardino Meridian, according to the official
plat thereof; together with that portion of the southeast quarter of
Section 21, Township 12 South, Range 4 West of the San
Bemardino Meridian, according to the official plat thereof, shown
on Parcel B on a Certificate of Compliance recorded November
7,1988 as File No. 88-569475 and on Record of Survey Map No.
12096, filed on March 23, 1989; all lying within the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California; except
therefrom those portions thereof vested with Tabata Brothers
Partnership by documents recorded November 13, 1972 as File No.
303362 and November 4, 1974 as Files No. 74-292547 and 74-
292548; and except therefrom those portions lying within Poinsettia
Lane and Rose Drive as described in Files No. 89-546752, 89-
637695,90-146889 and 91-0036964 of Official Records
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Coastal
Development Permit as shown on Exhibits “A” - “EEEE” dated November 7,2001, on file in
97
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 Planning Department, THOMPSONlTABATA - CDP 98-68 as provided by Chapter
21.201.040 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 7th day of November 2001
and on the 5th day of December 2001 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to
consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the CDP.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of THOMPSONlTABATA - CDP 98-68
based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1. That the proposed development is in conformance with the Certified Local Coastal
Program and all applicable policies in that the proposal does not disturb the existing
coastal sage scrub habitat and includes on-site mitigation for the disturbance to the
0.1 acre southern willow scrub habitat; the grading for the project will conform to
the City Standards thereby precluding off-site erosion; the project site is located
over 1 mile from the Pacific Ocean and no coastal access opportunities exist on the
site.
2. The proposal is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3
of the Coastal Act in that the project site is located over 1 mile from the Pacific Ocean
and is bisected by a fully improved major arterial roadway. No coastal access
opportunities exist on the site and public access through the area is already
provided by Poinsettia Lane.
3. The project is consistent with the Coastal Agriculture Overlay Zone (Chapter
21.202 of the Zoning Ordinance), in that the project is conditioned to pay the
required agricultural conversion mitigation fee.
4. The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection
Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.203 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that the project will
adhere to the City’s Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan
and Grading Ordinance to avoid increased runoff and soil erosion; no steep slopes
PC RES0 NO. 5078 -2- w
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
exist on the property; and the site is not prone to landslides or susceptible to
accelerated erosion, floods or liquefactions.
5. The project site is not located between the sea and the first public road parallel to
the sea and, therefore, is not subject to the provisions of the Coastal Shoreline
Development Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.204 of the Zoning Ordinance).
6. The project is not located within the Mello I Segment and, therefore, is not subject
to the provisions of the Coastal Resource Overlay Zone Mello I Segment Ordinance
(Chapter 21.205 of the Zoning Ordinance).
Conditions:
Note: Unless othenuise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to grading permit
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
or final map, 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; institute and prosecute litigation to
compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No
vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of
this Coastal Development Permit.
Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Coastal Development Permit documents, as necessary to make
them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project.
Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed
development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
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.
The 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 Coastal 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.
PC RES0 NO. 5078 -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
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
This approval is granted subject to the approval of ZC 98-08, LCPA 98-04, CT 98-14,
PUD 98-05, CP 00-02, SDP 99-06 and HDP 98-15 and is subject to all conditions
contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5071, 5072, 5073, 5074, 5075,
5076 and 5077 for those other approvals.
The applicant shall receive and record a final map for this project within two (2) years
of approval or this coastal development permit will expire unless extended per Section
21.201.210oftheZoning Ordinance.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall apply for and obtain a
grading permit issued by the City Engineer.
If a grading permit is required, all grading activities shall be planned in units that can be
completed by October 1st. Grading activities shall be limited to the “dry season”, April
1st to October 1st of each year. Grading activities may be extended to November 15th
upon written approval of the City Engineer and only if all erosion control measures are in
place by October 1st.
Prior to issuance of final map, the developer shall pay the appropriate agricultural
mitigation fee for the total developable acreage on the project site. The developable
acreage within the project area totals 73.71 acres. The amount of the mitigation fee
will be a function of the fiscal year of the final map approval as shown below:
For fiscal year 2002, the fee totals $7,220.50 per developable acre;
For fiscal year 2003, the fee totals $7,942.55 per developable acre;
For fiscal year 2004, the fee totals $8,736.05 per developable acre;
For fiscal year 2005, the fee totals $9,609.73 per developable acre;
For fiscal years 2006 and beyond, the fee totals $10,000 per developable acre.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified 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
PC RES0 NO. 5078 -4- 300
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 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, California, held on the 5th day of December 2001, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Dominguez,
Heineman, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Nielsen
ABSTAIN:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. MLZ&LLER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5078 -5-
The City of Carlsbad Planaing Department Exm5
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING 'COMMISSION
ItemNo. @
Application complete date: NIA
P.C. AGENDA OF: December 5,2001 Project Planner: Michael Grim
Project Engineer: Clyde Wickham
L
SUBJECT: ZC 98-0SILCPA 98-04/CT 98-14/PUD 98-05/CP OO-OZ/SDP 99-06MDP 98-
WCDP 98-68 - THOMPSON/TABATA - Request for recommendation of
approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program; a Zone Change and Local Coastal Program 'Amendment to change 40.41
acres of the subdivision from Limited Control (L-C) to Residential Multiple-Density
with a Qualified Development Overlay Zone (RD-M-Q) and to change 37.62 acres
from Limited Control (L-C) to One Family Residential with a Qualified
Development Overlay Zone (R-1-Q); and a Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit
Development Permit, Site Development Plan, Condominium Permit, Hillside
Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit to subdivide, grade, and
develop 82.20 acres, creating 238 single family lots, two open space lots, four
recreation lots, one recreational vehicle storage lot and a 24 unit, for-sale
condominium project, affordable to lower-income households, on property generally
located north and south of Poinsettia Lane, between Aviara Parkway and Snapdragon
Drive, in Local Facilities Management Zone 20.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5070,
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, issued by the Planning Director, and ADOPT Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 5071, 5072, 5073, 5074, 5075, 5076, 5077 and 5078,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of Zone Change ZC 98-08, Local Coastal Program Amendment
LCPA 98-04, Tentative Tract Map CT 98-14, Planned Unit Development Permit PUD 98-05,
Condominium Permit CP 00-02, Site Development Plan SDP 99-06, Hillside Development Permit
HDP 98-15 and Coastal Development Permit CDP 98-68, based upon the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein.
II. BACKGROUND
On November 7,2001, Planning Commission heard the staff presentation and took public testimony.
Due to the lateness of the hour, the project was continued to December 5,2001.
ATTACHMENT:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
I.
8.
9.
10.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5070 (Mitigated Negative Declaration)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5071 (ZC 98-08)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5072 (LCPA 98-04)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5073 (CT 98-14)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5074 (PUD 98-05)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5075 (CP 00-02)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5076 (SDP 99-06)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5077 (HDP 98-15)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5078 (CDP 98-68)
Staff report dated November 7,2001 with attachments
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
ItemNo. @
Application complete date: NIA
P.C. AGENDA OF: November 7,2001 Project Planner: Michael Grim
Project Engineer: Clyde Wickham
SUBJECT: ZC 98-08LCPA 98-04/CT 98-14/PUD 98-05/CP 00-02/SDP 99-06MDP 98-
WCDP 98-68 - THOMPSON/TABATA - Request for recommendation of
approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program; a Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment to
change 40.41 acres of the subdivision from Limited Control (L-C) to Residential
Multiple-Density with a Qualified Development Overlay Zone (RD-M-Q) and to
change 37.62 acres ftom Limited Control (LC) to One Family Residential with a
Qualified Development Overlay Zone (R-1-Q); and a Tentative Tract Map,
Planned Unit Development Permit, Site Development Plan, Condominium Permit,
Hillside Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit to subdivide,
grade, and develop 82.20 acres, creating 238 single family lots, two open space
lots, four recreation lots, one recreational vehicle storage lot and a 24 unit, for-sale
condominium project, affordable to lower-income households, on property
generally located north and south of Poinsettia Lane, between Aviara Parkway
and Snapdragon Drive, in Local Facilities Management Zone 20.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5070,
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, issued by the Planning Director, and ADOPT Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 5071, 5072, 5073, 5074, 5075, 5076, 5077 and 5078,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of Zone Change ZC 98-08, Local Coastal Program
Amendment LCPA 98-04, Tentative Tract Map CT 98-14, Planned Unit Development Permit
PUD 98-05, Condominium Permit CP 00-02, Site Development Plan SDP 99-06, Hillside
Development Permit HDP 98-15 and Coastal Development Permit CDP 98-68, based upon the
findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
11. INTRODUCTION
The proposal has two components. The first involves a change in the zoning designation for 11
parcels, covering 82.20 acres, fiom Limited Control (L-C) to Residential Density-Multiple Zone
with a Qualified Development Overlay and One Family Residential with a Qualified
Development Overlay. The Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment are required
to change the Zoning Map in both the City’s Zoning Ordinance and the City’s Local Coastal
Program. The second component involves the subdivision, grading and construction of a 238
unit, single-family development and a 24-unit affordable, for-sale condominium development
over the entire 82.20 acres. A Tentative Tract Map is needed to subdivide the property and a
Planned Unit Development Permit is required to allow a portion of that subdivision to contain
ZC 98-08iLCPA 98-041CT 98-14iF‘UD 98-05/CP 00-02/SDP 99-061 HDP 98-151CDP 98-68 -
THOMPSON/TAl3ATA
November 7,2001
Page 2
small-lot single-family development. A Condominium Permit is required to allow a portion of
the subdivision to contain multifamily condominiums. A Site Development Plan is required to
develop a property covered by the Qualified Development Overlay as well as to develop the 24-
unit for-sale affordable condominium portion of the project. A Hillside Development Permit is
required to develop the sloping project site and a Coastal Development Permit is required for all
development within the City’s Coastal Zone. The project meets all applicable regulations and
staff has no issues with the proposal.
111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Standard Pacific Homes is requesting a number of legislative and development permits to allow
the development of 82.20 acres with a 238 unit single-family development and a 24 unit
affordable, for-sale condominium development within the western portion of Zone 20. The
project site is located west of Aviara Parkway, with approximately 11 acres north of Poinsettia
Lane and the remainder south of Poinsettia Lane. To the south of the project is the Spinnaker
Hill single-family development; to the east is the Aviara Planning Area 25 open space and
single-family development (Sandpiper). To the north of the project is the Mariner’s Point single
family subdivision and to the west are the Las Playas multifamily subdivision and the Vista
Pacifica single family subdivision.
With the exception of a 1.8 acre coastal sage scrub habitat area in the eastern portion of the
property, the project site has been cleared of native habitat and used for agricultural purposes for
many years. The agricultural uses consisted of open fields, greenhouses and related access roads
and storage structures. These uses were discontinued during 2000 in anticipation of development
and most of the greenhouses and agricultural structures have been removed from the site. The
subject property is now fallow’ open fields containing no tangible land uses.
The eastern half of the project site (41.79 acres) is designated Residential Low Medium Density
(RLM) in the City’s General Plan, allowing a range f?om 0.0 to 4.0 dwelling units per
developable acre with a Growth Management Control Point of 3.2 units per acre. The western
half of the project site (40.41 acres) is designated Residential Medium density, allowing a range
ftom 0.0 to 8.0 dwelling units per developable acre, with a Growth Control Point of 6.0 units per
acre. The subject property is also located within the City’s Coastal Zone, Mello II segment, and
the Zone 20 Specific Plan area (SP 203). The entire site is zoned Limited Control (L-C) which
allows agricultural uses and requires a Zone Change prior to development.
Except for the manufactured 2:l slopes associated with Poinsettia Lane and a 1.8 acre slope area
containing coastal sage scrub, virtually the entire site is developable according to the criteria
established in Section 21.53.230 of the Zoning Ordinance. For the purposes of calculating the
maximum residential yield on the property, slopes with inclinations between 25 and 40 percent
receive only half credit towards developable acreage. After subtracting the undevelopable
portions of the property, there remains a total of 73.71 developable acres within the site; 34.54 of
these acres are covered by the RLM General Plan designation and 39.17 acres are covered by the
Rh3 General Plan designation. Using the Growth Management Control Points of 3.2 and 6.0
dwelling units per acre for the RLM and RM designations respectively, the total allowable
residential yield on the property is 345 dwelling units ((33.54 x 3.2) + (39.17 x 6.0) = 345).
ZC 98-08LCPA 98-04KT 98-14PUD 98-05/CP 00-02/SDP 99-06/ HDP 98-15KDP 98-68 -
THOMPSON/TABATA
November 7,2001
Page 3
Since the project is proposing 262 total units, the development would be 83 dwelling units below
that allowed by the Growth Management Program.
The zoning proposed with Zone Change ZC 98-08 is divided along the existing General Plan
boundary between the RLM and RM portions of the site. On the RLM side, the proposed zoning
is One Family Residential with a Qualified Development Overlay (R-1-7,500-Q). There is a 4.17
acre parcel north of Poinsettia Lane that is already zoned R-1-10,000. On the RM side, the
proposed zoning is Residential Density-Multiple Zone with a Qualified Development Overlay
Zone (RD-M-Q). These zoning designations are consistent with those recommended by the
Zone 20 Specific Plan. In addition, the R-1-10,000-Q zoning proposed for those lots north of
Poinsettia Lane on the extension of Lemon Leaf Drive is consistent with the zoning of the
existing Mariner’s Point development. Since the project site is located in the City’s Coastal
Zone, a Local Coastal Program Amendment is also needed to effectuate the proposed Zone
Change.
In addition to the legislative actions described above, the project includes a Tentative Tract Map,
Planned Unit Development Permit, Condominium Permit, Site Development Plan, Hillside
Development Permit and a Coastal Development Permit. The project entails the subdivision,
gradiig and construction of 238 single-family lots, one multifamily lot with 24 condominium
units and a common recreation area, a recreational vehicle storage lot, two common recreation
lots and two open space lots. Of the 238 single-family units, 107 units would involve lots
measuring 7,500 square feet or larger. 130 single-family units would be located on lots of 6,000
square feet or greater. One existing single-family structure, the Thompson residence, would
remain and be included in the subdivision as a new lot.
The proposed residential development would entail a balanced grading scheme with
approximately 486,700 cubic yards of cut and fill. This results in a grading intensity of
approximately 6,000 cubic yards per acre. Some removal of unconsolidated materials may be
necessary, depending upon detailed soils investigations. The proposed topography would remain
essentially the same, with a north-south trending ridge and development stepping down the west-
facing slope. The proposed development includes public infrastructure, such as streets, storm
drains and sewer and water systems, which would tie into existing infrastructure in the area.
The project site would take access off of Poinsettia Lane via an existing intersection with Rose
Drive. The intersection would be signalized and would represent the primary ingress and egress
point for the subdivision. The proposed development would also extend four existing local
streets into the project site, connecting the existing local street circulation and providing multiple
access points. Two of these streets, Lemon Leaf Drive and Lonicera Street, are located north of
Poinsettia Lane and would be extended to form cul-de-sacs. The other two streets, Alyssum
Road and Rose Drive, are located south of Poinsettia Lane and would be extended to provide
through circulation. According to the project traEc report (Traffic Imuact Analvsis. Thomuson
Prourn. Carlsbad. California, dated December 6,2000, Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers),
the resulting traffic volumes would conform to City standards and some existing traffic volume
issues, such as circulation on Rose Drive, may actually benefit &om the connection of the local
street system.
ZC 98-08/LCPA 98-04/CT 98-14/PUD 98-05ICP 00-02/SDP 99-06/HDP 98-15/CDP 98-68 -
THOMF’SON/TABATA
November 7,2001
There is a 2.40 acre area separating the northern portions of the development which contains an
existing single family dwelling and accessory structures. The residence currently takes access
off of Lonicera Street, just south of its intersection with Camino de las Ondas, via an access
easement and paved driveway. The proposed subdivision does not affect this easement and
provides public street fkontage to the east of the lot by the extension of Lemon Leaf Drive,
thereby allowing hture subdivision of the property.
The proposed standard lot, single family units would include four models, with options available
for each, and would range in size hm 3,044 square feet to 4,203 square feet. These homes
would be a mix of one-story and two-story structures between 18.5 feet and 30 feet tall. The
proposed small lot single-family units would also include four models and would range from
2,757 square feet to 3,288 square feet. While all small lot units would be two story structures,
the architecture would include varied roof planes, exterior wall offsets and single story edges to
create a variety of appearances and compliment the resulting street scene.
The affordable housing component of the project involves four multifamily buildings, containing
a total of 24 units. The units range in size from 1,129 square feet to 1,872 square feet. In order
to address the special housing needs of large households, 16 of the units would contain four
bedrooms. The structures would contain two stories and would be approximately 30 feet tall.
The affordable housing units would be located south of Poinsettia Lane and bordered by the
major arterial to the north and new single-family development to the west, south and east. The
site would share access off of Rose Drive with the Recreational Vehicle storage site and would
include a common active recreation area for the condominium units.
There have been several expressions of public interest in the project by residents andor property
owners in the surrounding neighborhoods. A petition was submitted to the City Council hm the
residents and property owners of the Vista Pacifica subdivision, which borders the project site on
the west, was received in May 2000. This petition is attached as Attachment 15 to this staff
report. Due to the large amount of public interest in the project, Community Development staff
conducted a Community Information Forum on August 17, 2000. All surrounding property
owners within the Vista Pacifica, Las Playas, Spinnaker Hill and Mariner’s Point residential
developments were notified of the forum. Copies of the minutes of that forum are also attached
as Attachment 16 to this report. The bulk of the issues discussed at this forum centered on the
project’s generation of additional traffic and school children, as well as the proposed connection
of the projects’ streets to the existing stubs at Alyssum Road and Rose Drive.
The ThompsonlTabata project is subject to the following regulations:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
General Plan;
Local coastal Program;
Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 203);
One-Family Residential Zone (Chapter 21.10 of the Zoning Ordinance);
Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code);
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (Chapter 21.85 of the Zoning Ordinance);
Planned Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.45 of the Zoning Ordinance);
Hillside Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.95 of the Zoning Ordinance);
Growth Management Ordinance (Chapter 21.90 of the Zoning Ordinance);
ZC 98-08LCPA 98-04lCT 98-14PUD 98-051CP 00-02/SDP 99-061 HDP 98-151CDP 98-68 -
THOMPSON/TABATA
November 7,2001
Page 5
J. Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan.
IV. ANALYSIS
The recommendation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project's
consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. The following analysis
section discusses compliance with each of these regulations/policies utilizing both text and
tables.
A. General Plan
1. Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment Compliance
The legislative actions associated with the ThompsodTabata proposal are consistent with the
applicable policies and programs of the General Plan. Particularly relevant to the Zone
ChangeLCPA is the Land Use Element. The existing General Plan land use designations of the
ThompsodTabata site are Residential Low Medium Density (IUM) and Residential Medium
Density i,RM).
The existing zoning of Limited Control (L-C) is a holding zone that does not implement any
General Plan designations, therefore, it is appropriate to remove that zoning to allow
development. Since the General Plan designations are residential designations, it follows that the
proposed zoning should also be residential designations. The densities allowed by the RLM and
RM designations range fiom 0.0 to 4.0 and 4.0 to 8.0 dwelling units per developable acre,
respectively. The applicant has proposed the One-Family Residential with a minimum lot size of
7,500 square feet (R-1-7,500) designation to implement the RLM designation; the Residential
Density-Multiple Zone (RD-M) designation is proposed to implement the RM designation.
These zoning designations are appropriate to implement the existing General Plan designations
and are in conformance with the recommendations of the Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 203). The
proposed zoning of R-1-7,500 and RD-M are, therefore, consistent with the General Plan Land
Use Element.
2. Subdivision and other development permits
The ThompsodTabata residential subdivision proposal is consistent with the applicable policies
and programs of the General Plan. Particularly relevant to the residential development request
are the Land Use, Circulation, Noise, Housing, Public Safety, elements. Table 2 below indicates
how the project complies with these particular elements of the General Plan
I TABLE 2 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIAh'CE I I Element 1 Objective or Program Improvements 1 Compliance 1 Use Classification, Goal, Proposed Use and I
medium @L.M) and medium
Site is designated for low-
per acre in RM area. development.
2.58 dwellings per acre in
RLM area and 3.88 dwellings (RM) density residential
Proposed project density is
Yes
ZC 98-08LCPA 98-04lCT 98-14Pl.D 98-05lCP 00-02lSDP 99-061 HDP 98-15lCDP 98-68 -
THOMPSON/TABATA
November 7,2001
Element
Jirculation
Voise
Xousing
3pen Space and
Jonservation
'ublic Safety
TABLE 2 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
Use Classification, Goal,
Objective or Program
Require new development to provide pedestrian linkages to
schools, points of interest, and
major transportation corridors.
Require new development to
construct all roadways needed to
serve the proposed development.
Minimize the number of access
points to major and prime
arterials to enhance the
functioning of these streets and thoroughfares.
Require that a noise study be
submitted with all residential projects over five units. Enforce
the City policy that 60 &A
CNEL is the maximum exterior noise level for residential units.
Provide sufficient new,
affordable housing to meet the
needs of groups with special requirements.
Preserve open space in as natural
a state as possible.
Provision of emergency water systems and all-weather access
roads.
Proposed Use and
Improvements
Site design incorporates
pedestrian link to and across Poinsettia Lane, facilitating
access to the Pacific Rim
Elementary School and
Poinsettia Park.
All roadways needed to serve
the development will be dedicated and constructed
prior to, or concurrent with,
site development.
The project design includes
only one connection to
Poinsettia Lane, a major arterial, and connects the
existing local streets with
those proposed within the development.
The project includes a noise
study with mitigation
measures to reduce traffic noise from Poinsettia Lane to
60 dF3A CNEL.
The project includes 24 for-
sale condominium units that
are affordable to lower income
households and 16 of which contain four bedrooms.
The existing 1.8 acre coastal
undisturbed by the project. sage scrub habitat is remaining
All necessary water mains, fire hydrants, and appurtenances must be installed prior to
occupancy of any unit and all-
maintained throughout
weather access roads will be
Compliance
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
ZC 98-08LCPA 98-04/CT 98-14PUD 98-05/CP 00-02/SDP 99-061 HDP 98-15/CDP 98-68 -
THOMPSON/TABATA
November 7,2001
Page 7
TABLE 2 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
Element Use Classification, Goal,
Improvements Objective or Program
Proposed Use and Compliance
I 1 construction. I Given the above, the ThompsodTabata residential project is consistent with the City’s General
Plan.
B. Local Coastal Program
1. Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment Compliance
The ThompsodTabata residential subdivision site is located within the Mello I1 segment of the
Local Coastal Program. The implementing ordinances for the Mello II segment are contained in
the City’s Zoning Ordinance and includes a Zoning Map. The Local Coastal Program Zoning
Map shows that the project site is designated Limited Control (L-C), consistent with the City’s
Zoning Map. In order to maintain consistency between the City’s Zoning Map and the Local
Coastal Program, the zoning designation on both the Zoning Map and LCP must be changed.
Therefore, the proposed Zone ChangeLocal Coastal Program Amendment f?om L-C to R-l-
7,500-Q, and RD-M-Q provides consistency between the City’s Zoning designations and the
zoning designations contained in the Local Coastal Program.
2. Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development, Condominium Permit, Hillside
Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit Compliance
As mentioned above, the Thompson/Tabata’residential subdivision lies within the Mello 11
segment of the City’s Coastal Zone and is subject to the corresponding land use policies and
implementing ordinances, including zoning designations. The policies of the Mello II segment
emphasize topics such as preservation of prime agriculture and scenic resources, protection of
environmentally sensitive lands, provision of shoreline access, and prevention of geologic
instability and erosion.
The proposed project is consistent with these policies. The project site contains two areas of
sensitive natural resources: a 1.8 acre strip of coastal sage scrub on the eastem boundary and 0.1
acres of southem willow scrub within a man-made water detention pond on the west side of the
property. The coastal sage scrub area is contiguous to an open space lot within the Avaira
Master Plan and is proposed to remain undisturbed. The southern willow scrub area is proposed
to be replaced with a passive recreational area and mitigated on site at a ratio of 1 :l.
The proposed development is located on the side of a ridgeline and, since the development
begins at top of ridge and substantially follows the existing sloping topography, no public views
of coastal resources would be impaired. No coastal bluffs exist on site and the only natural slope
area with native vegetation is being completely preserved in open space. No significant geologic
features or existing geotechnical risks exist on the property. All grading must follow the City of
Carlsbad Standards and would be confined to the dry season (i.e. April 1st to October 1st).
ZC 98-08LCPA 98-04/CT 98-14/PUD 98-O5/CP 00-02/SDP 99-06/ HDP 98-15/CDP 98-68 -
THOMESON/TABATA
November 7,2001
Paoe 8
The project site is designated as Site III in Mello II, therefore requiring the payment of an
agricultural conversion mitigation fee ranging from $6,655.00 to $10,000.00 per acre, depending
on the time of development. This mitigation fee would be placed in a conservancy and used for
promoting agricultural and natural resources within the City’s Coastal Zone. Given the project’s
location, 1.1 miles fiom Pacific Ocean and 0.75 miles from Batiquitos Lagoon, no coastal access
or coastal recreational opportunities exist within the site.
C. Zone 20 Specific Plan
The ThomsodTabata project site constitutes all of Planning Area D of the Zone 20 Specific Plan
area and, therefore, is subject to the requirements and provisions of the Zone 20 Specific Plan
(SP 203). Table 3 below details the Specific Plan requirements and the project’s consistency
with those requirements.
TABLE 3 - ZONE 20 SPECIFIC PLAN CONFORMANCE
ZONE 20 REQUIREMENT
GENERAL PROVISIONS
General PLadZoning Consistency - All properties designated as RLM
should be zoned R-1 and all RM
properties should be designated RD-M.
RV Storage - 25% or all standard
single-family lots must have increased
side yard setbacks to accommodate RV storage. All PUDs must conform with
PD standards for RV storage.
to the Specific Plan open space exhibit Open Space -projects must conform
(page 56 of SP 203), requiring a
minimum SO-foot landscaped parkway along both sides of Poinsettia Lane.
Architectural Standards - variety of roof and wall materials and colors,
window and door enhancement,
articulated building forms, one and
two story structures and elements
within structures (minimum 10% one story), curvilinear street designs.
PROPOSED PROJECT I CONFORMANCE
Project proposes R-1-Q zoning for RLM portion and RD-M-Q zoning for Yes
RM portion.
31 of the 107 standard single-family
lots contain minimum 10 foot side yards to accommodate RVs. The 154
PUD and condominium units are served
by RV storage lot of 3,360 sq ft, based
Yes
upon the 20 sq ft per unit requirement.
Project proposes SO foot landscaped
parkway along the north and south side of Poinsettia Lane to be maintained by
the Homeowners Association. Yes
All residential structures proposed with the project contain a variety of roof and
wall materials with varied pitches and
offsets. All small lot single-family homes meet the City’s Small Lot Single
Yes
Family Guidelines, thereby including
wall offsets and single story edges.
Given the above, the Thompsoflabata residential project is consistent with the Zone 20 Specific
Plan (SP 203).
ZC 98-08LCPA 98-04KT 98-14PUD 98-05KP 00-02/SDP 99-06/ HDP 98-15KDP 98-68 -
THOMF'SON/TABATA
November 7,2001
D. One-Family Residential Zone
In addition to conformance with the Zone 20 Specific Plan standards, those portions of the
project zoned R-1-10,000 and proposed for R-1-7,500-Q zoning are subject to the provisions of
the R-1 zone, as contained in Chapter 21.10 of the Zoning Ordinance. Table 4 below describes
the project's conformance with these standards.
TABLE 4 - R-1 ZONING COMPLIANCE
STANDARD
Minimum lot area: The minimum lot area is designated by the proposed
zoning designation and measures either 7,500 square feet or 10,000
square feet.
Building Height: A maximum of 30
feet with a minimum roof pitch of
3:12.
Front Yard: A minimum 20 feet.
Side yards: A minimum of ten
percent of the lot width for all internal side yards and a minimum of ten feet
for all street side yards.
Rear Yards: A minimum of 20
percent of the lot width.
Lot Width All lots with R-1-7,500
zoning must have a minimum lot
width of 60 feet.
All lots with R-1-10,000 zoning must
have a minimum lot width of 75 feet.
Lot Coverage: Maximum of 40
Dercent.
Garage Dimensions: All units must
contain a two-car garage with
minimum dimensions of 20 feet by 20 feet interior mace.
Dwelling Unit Width: All units
must have a minimum width of 20
feet.
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE
All lots meet or exceed the minimum lot size requirement, with the minimum lot
size being 7,876 square feet in the R-l- 7,500 zone and 10,001 square feet for the
R-1-10,000 zone.
All proposed structures measure from 25.5
feet to 27.75 feet tall, with a minimum
roof pitch of 3:12.
All units are setback a minimum of 20 feet from public right-of-way.
All units have internal side yard setback
equal to at least ten percent of the lot width and all street side yards measure a
minimum of ten feet from the public right- Yes
of-way.
All units possess rear yard setbacks equal
to at least 20 percent of the corresponding
lot width.
All R-1-7,500 lots meet or exceed the
minimum lot width requirement of 60 feet.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
All R-1-10,000 lots meet or exceed the
minimum lot width requirement of 75 feet. Yes
All proposed R-1 units possess a lot
coverage below 40 percent.
Yes
All proposed R-1 units contain at least a two-car garage with minimum dimensions
of 20 feet by 20 feet interior space. Yes
All proposed R-1 units measure over the
20 foot minimum width.
Yes
ZC 98-08LCPA 98-041CT 98-14PUD 98-051CP 00-021SDP 99-061 HDP 98-151CDP 98-68 -
THOMPSONlTABATA
November 7,2001
Page 10
Given the above, the proposed ThompsodTabata residential project is consistent with the
requirements of the R-1 zone, Chapter 21.06 of the Zoning Ordinance.
E. Subdivision Ordinance
Since the Thompsoflabata project involves a subdivision of land, the proposal is subject to the
regulations of Title 20, the Subdivision Ordinance. Chapter 20.16 of the Subdivision Ordinance
addresses the requirements for a major subdivision, that being a subdivision that creates more
than four parcels. These requirements mostly deal with providing the drainage, sewerage and
circulation dedications and improvements needed to serve the subdivision. There are also
requirements concerning consistency with Title 21, the Zoning Ordinance, which is addressed in
the other sections of this staff report.
The proposed ThompsodTabata residential subdivision would provide all necessary facilities
prior to, or concurrent with, construction. The hydrology report, submitted by the applicant,
indicates that all runoff can be controlled on-site and conveyed into existing and proposed storm
drain facilities. The on-site sewer system would be connected with the existing system in
Poinsettia Lane, the Las Playas subdivision, Alyssum Road, the Vista Pacific subdivision, and
Rose Drive. Water distribution would involve one-way and looped service f?om existing lines in
Lonicera Drive, Lemon Leaf Drive and Poinsettia Lane. As mentioned above, the subdivision
involves the connection of future streets within the project to Lemon Leaf Drive, Lonicera Street,
Poinsettia Lane, Alyssum Road, and Rose Drive. These circulation connections would complete
the local street circulation in the immediate area. No standards variances are needed to approve
the project. Given the above, the proposed subdivision would provide all necessary facilities and
improvements without producing land title conflicts, therefore the project is consistent with the
Subdivision Ordinance.
F. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
The proposed residential subdivision is subject to the provisions of the Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance, Chapter 21.85 of the Zoning Ordinance. Since the project involves more than seven
units, it must provide affordable housing units, preferably within the project boundaries. The
current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires that a minimum of 15 percent of the proposed
units be affordable to lower-income households.
The ThompsowTabata project proposes to satisfy its 15 percent requirement through a
combination of on-site construction and offsite affordable housing credit purchases. Based upon
a total unit count of 262 dwellings, the total inclusionary housing requirement is 40 affordable
units. The project proposes to construct 24 for-sale condominium units within the subdivision
boundary, 16 of which would contain four-bedrooms. Large family households are identified as
a special needs group in the City’s Housing Element. The remaining requirement for 16 units
would be satisfied through the purchase of off-site credits within the Villa Loma apartment
project. As required by the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, the project is conditioned to enter
into an Affordable Housing Agreement prior to approval of the final map. This agreement will
establish the specifics of the project including the exact level of affordability of the units (based
upon the current San Diego County Median Income figures), the schedule for production of the
Ila
ZC 98-08LCPA 98-04/CT 98-14PUD 98-05/CP 00-02/SDP 99-06/ HDP 98-15KDP 98-68 -
THOMPSONlTABATA
November 7,2001
Paee 11
units and purchase of the off-site credits, the tenure of affordability of the units, and resale
restrictions.
Given that the Thompsoflabata residential development proposes the construction of 24 for-
sale affordable condominium units within the project boundary, and the payment of 15.3 credits
within the Villa Loma apartments, the project is consistent with the Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance.
G. Planned Development Ordinance
There are two components of the ThompsodTabata residential project that are subject to the
provisions of the Planned Development Ordinance: the 130 unit small lot single-family planned
unit development and the 24 unit multifamily condominium development. Tables 5 and 6 below
detail the conformance of these two components with the appropriate development standards and
design criteria contained in the Planned Development Ordinance, Chapter 21.45 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
TABLE 5 - SINGLE FAMILY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CONFORMANCE
STANDARD PROPOSED
Arterial Setback All units must be setback from major arterials a
All units are setback a minimum of 50 feet
minimum of 50 feet.
from the Poinsettia Lane right-of-way.
Front Yard Setback: All garages
feet from the local street right-of-way. All must be setback a minimum of 20
All garages are setback a minimum of 20
with an average setback of over 15 feet. minimum of 10 feet.
feet from the local street right-of-way, setback an average of 15 feet with a living areas are setback a minimum of 10 feet. All living areas must be
Corner Lot Setback: All units must have a minimum street side
All corner lot units have a street side yard
yard of 10 feet.
setback of at least 10 feet.
Resident Parking: All units must All units have a two-car garage, with
have at least two full-sized covered minimum dimensions of 20 feet by 20 feet
parking spaces. interior space.
Visitor Parking: For a 130 unit project, a minimum of 35 guest The project offers 35 delineated guest
Planned Development units. parking spaces are required.
parking spaces on the streets in front of the
Recreational Space: A minimum All units include private yards measuring
of 200 square feet per unit of at least 15 feet by 15 feet in dimension.
passive recreational space is Project also includes three passive parks,
required. Private yards measuring at
common passive recreational area. 100 square feet of credit.
exceeds the required 13,000 square feet of least 15 feet by 15 feet qualify for
totaling over 18,000 square feet which
~
CONFORMANCE
Yes
Yes
Yes
~
Yes
Yes
Yes
1
ZC 98-08LCPA 98-04/CT 98-14/PUD 98-05/CP 00-02/SDP 99-061 HDP 98-15/CDP 98-68 -
THOMPSON/TABATA
November 7.2001
Page 12
TABLE 5 - SINGLE FAMILY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CONFORMANCE
I STANDARD
Recreational Vehicle Storage: A
minimum of 20 square feet per unit,
exclusive of driveways and approaches. For 130 units, a
minimum of 2,600 square feet is
required.
Minimum Lot Size: Single-family
products must have a minimum lot size of 3,500 square feet.
Minimum Street Frontage: A minimum frontage of 40 feet on
linear streets and 35 feet on sharply curved streets or at end of cul-de-
sacs.
Building Height: Maximum building height, as measured to the
peak of the roof, is 30 feet for roof
pitches equal to or greater than 3:12.
~~ ~~
PROPOSED
~~~ I CONFORMANCE
The project includes an RV storage area that is shared with the 24 multifamily
condominiums. For 154 units, the
minimum required RV storage area is
3,080 square feet. A total of 3,360 square feet is provided in nine parking spaces.
Yes
Lot sizes in the Planned Development measure between 6,022 and 26,226 square
feet in area.
The street frontages for all units on linear
streets measure over 40 feet, with most
exceeding 60 feet. All units at the end of cul-de-sacs have a street frontage of at
least 39 feet.
Yes
~
Yes
All units have minimum roof pitches of 3:12 and measure between 25.5 feet and
27.75 feet to the peak of the roof. Yes
In addition to the Planned Development compliance, the proposed single-family planned
development must conform to City Council Policy No. 44, the Small Lot Single family
Guidelines. Table 6 below details the requirements of Policy No. 44 and the project's
compliance to those requirements.
I TABLE 6 - SMALL LOT SINGLE FAMILY GUIDELINES CONFORMANCE
I STANDARD
At least one out of three two story
units in a row must have a single
story edge along the entire
building of at least 10 feet in
width.
33 percent of all units within the
project must contain a single
story edge for 40 percent of the building perimeter.
~~
On street sides with over 45 feet
of frontage, at least 50 percent of all units shall contain at least four
PROPOSED CONFORMANCE
Both the Plan 1 and Plan 2 buildings contain
single story edges measuring between 10 and
17 feet wide. The units are mixed such that at least one Plan 1 or Plan 2 building is
contained in anv ~OUD of three structures.
Yes
The Plan 1 buildings contain a single story
edge for approximately 55 percent of the
structure perimeter. The Plan 2 buildings contain a single story edge for approximately 45 percent of the structure perimeter. Out of Yes
the 130 total units, there are 27 Plan 1
models and 25 Plan 2 models, constituting
40 percent of all units.
All four proposed model tyues contain a minim& 0; four building planes on their
front and rear elevations with a minimum Yes
ZC 98-08LCPA 98-04/CT 98-14PUD 98-051CP 00-02/SDP 99-06/ HDP 98-15KDP 98-68 -
THOMPSONRABATA
November 7,2001 .
TABLE 6 - SMALL LOT SINGLE FAMILY GUIDELINES CONFORMANCE
STANDARD
separate building planes with a
minimum offset of 18 inches on
their front and rear elevations.
At least 50 percent of all units must contain one side elevation
with sufficient offsets so that the
side yard averages seven (7) feet.
Roof framing for each floor plan shall exhihit directional variety
with resuect to the street frontaee.
PROPOSED CONFORMANCE
offset of 18 inches.
Plan 2 models contain offsets measuring 11 feet deep by 11 feet wide. Plan 3 models
contain offsets measuring 14 feet deep by 15
feet wide. 66 out of the 130 units are proposed to be either Plan 2 or Plan 3.
These features, combined with the proposed
setbacks, results in an average setback of
over seven (7) feet for more than 50 percent of the units.
Yes
The roof framing on all models exhibit a
wide variety of orientation and pitch,
raneine from 4:12 to 8:12 in sloue. Yes
Given the above, the proposed single-family planned development units are consistent with City
Council Policy 44, the Small Lot Single Family Guidelines.
TABLE 7 - MULTIFAMILY CONDOMINIUM CONFORMANCE
STANDARD CONFORMANCE PROPOSED
Arterial Setback All units must
Lane right-of-way. minimum of 50 feet.
minimum of 65 feet from the Poinsettia be setback from major arterials a
All multifamily buildings are setback a
Yes
Front Yard Setback All garages
a minimum of 5 feet. feet to the 30-foot wide private street. must be setback from private streets
All garages are setback a minimum of 5
Distance Between Structures: All residential structures are two-story and
The minimum distance between measure between 20 and 90 feet apart.
two-story structures is 20 feet.
Yes
Yes
Resident Parking: All units must
units have a one-car garage and an exterior parking spaces.
contain a two-car garage. The other two have at least two fbll-sized covered
Four of the six units in each building
Visitor Parking: For a 24 unit The project offers 11 delineated guest
project, a minimum of 9 guest parking spaces in parking bays adjacent or
oarkine suaces are reauired. uroximate to the residential buildings.
space covered by a carport.
Yes
Yes
Recreational Space: A minimum
of 200 square feet per unit of
All units include private yards measuring
active recreation area, which exceeds the required. Private yards measuring at
Project also includes a 1,800 square foot passive recreational space is
at least 15 feet by 15 feet in dimension.
~~
Yes
ZC 98-08LCPA 98-04KT 98-14/PUD 98-05/CP 00-02/SDP 99-06/ HDP 98-15KDP 98-68 .
THOMF’SON/TAElATA
November 7,2001
Page 14
TABLE 7 - MULTIFAMILY CONDOMINIUM CONFORMANCE
STANDARD
least 15 feet by 15 feet qualify for 100 square feet of credit.
Recreational Vehicle Storage: A minimum of 20 square feet per unit,
exclusive of driveways and
approaches. For 24 units, a
minimum of 480 square feet is required.
Minimum Street Width: Private streets for multifamily attached
units must measure a minimum of 30 feet from curb to curb.
PROPOSED CONFORMANCE
1,200 square foot common recreation area
requirement.
The project includes an RV storage area that is shared with the 130 single-family
units. For 154 units, the minimum
required RV storage area is 3,080 square
feet. A total of 3,360 square feet is provided in nine parking spaces.
Project includes a private street measuring a minimum of 30 feet wide, as measured
from curb to curb.
Yes
Yes
I
Given the information in Tables 5 and 7, the Thomspoflabata project is consistent with the
Planned Development Ordinance, Chapter 21.45 of the Zoning Ordinance.
H. Hillside Development Ordinance
The Thompsoflabata project involves development over sloping topography and, therefore, it is
subject to the Hillside Development regulations, Chapter 21.95 of the Zoning Ordinance. While
the City recently amended the Hillside Development Ordinance, the ThompsodTabata Hillside
Development Permit was deemed complete prior to those amendments taking effect. Therefore,
the project is subject to the pre-existing Hillside Development Ordinance.
The project site contains two areas of slopes over 40 percent inclination: the 2:l manufactured
slopes along the Poinsettia Lane ftontages and the natural slopes along the eastem boundary of
the project site, adjacent to the Aviara Master Plan area. There are numerous manufactured
slopes of 25 to 40 percent inclination throughout the project site that were created as part of the
previous open field and greenhouse agricultural operations. Table 8 below details the project’s
conformance with these regulations.
TABLE 8 - HILLSIDE
STANDARD
Preservation of slopes over 40
percent inclination. Manufactured
that were grading according to an
slopes over 40 percent inclination
approved grading plan may be altered.
Grading volumes should be limited
to 8,000 cubic yards per acre.
EVELOLPMENT ORDINANCE CONFORMANCE
PROPOSED CONFORMANCE
The project proposes no encroachment into
the natural slopes over 40 percent inclination. The manufactured slopes over
40 percent inclination created with the construction of Poinsettia Lane are
proposed to be lowered by up to 25 feet.
The proposed grading volume of 496,700
cubic yards over 82.20 acres results in 6,042 cubic yards per acre.
Yes
Yes
I16
ZC 98-08/LCPA 98-04/CT 98-14MJD 98-05/CP 00-02/SDP 99-06/ HDP 98-15/CDP 98-68 -
THOMPSON/TABATA
November 7,2001
Page 15
TABLE 8 - HILLSIDE DEVELOLPMENT ORDINANCE CONFORMANCE
STANDARD CONFORMANCE PROPOSED -
Manufactured slopes should not
the project measures 30 feet in height. The exceed 30 feet.
Yes The tallest manufactured slope created by
existing slopes over 40 feet high along the
Poinsettia Lane southern frontage would
be lowered by up to 25 feet.
Given the above, the Thompsoflabata residential project is consi.stent with the provisions of the
Hillside Development Ordinance.
I. Growth Management Ordinance
The ThompsodTabata residential development proposal is subject to the provisions of the
Growth Management Program, as contained in Chapter 21.90 of the Zoning Ordinance. The
open space requirements of the Growth Management Program were modified in the Zone 20
Local Facilities Management Plan; the requirement for this site (Planning Area D) consists of a
minimum 50 foot landscaped setback fiom the Poinsettia Lane right-of-way. Since the project is
83 units below the total yield anticipated by the Zone 20 LFMP, all existing and planned
facilities are or will be adequate to serve the need generated by this project. Table 9 below
details the project's conformance with the requirements of the Growth Management Program.
-
ZC 98-08LCPA 98-04/CT 98-14PUD 98-05/CP 00-02/SDP 99-06/ HDP 98-15/CDP 98-68 -
THOMPSON/TABATA
November 7,2001
J. Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan
The project site lies within Local Facilities Management Zone 20. Other than the modification
of the Growth Management open space requirement discussed above, there are no special
conditions or requirements within the Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan that apply to
this residential project. The project is conditioned to pay the appropriate park-in-lieu fees, public
facility fees, water and sewer connection fees, traffic impact fees, and school fees. All facility
improvements necessary to accommodate the development will be in place prior to, or concurrent
with, development. Therefore, the ThompsodTabata residential development is consistent with
the Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The potential impacts of the development of the Thompsoflabata residential subdivision, as
designed and conditioned, were reviewed and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was issued on
April 4, 2001. The Mitigated Negative Declaration includes mitigations in the areas of Land
Use, Housing, Geology, Water, Air Quality, Circulation, Biological Resources, Hazards, Noise
and Paleontological Resources (listed on pages 32 through 34 of the Environmental Impact
Assessment Form - Part II, dated March 1, 2001). Given these measures, development and
occupation of the project would not cause any significant adverse environmental impacts. The
findings of no significant impact are supported by a number of previous environmental review
documents and site-specific studies. The previous environmental review documents include the
Master Environmental Impact Report for the 1994 General Plan Update (MER 93-01) and the
Program EIR for the Zone 20 Specific Plan (EIR 90-03). The Master EIR reviewed the potential
environmental impacts associated with the buildout of the City’s General Plan, including
transportation and air quality. The Program EIR for the Zone 20 Specific Plan reviewed the
potential impacts associated with development of the Zone 20 Specific Plan area with uses in
accordance with the City’s General Plan. All applicable mitigation measures contained in these
two documents that are relevant to the proposed project have been incorporated into the project
design or are expressly listed in the project’s mitigation measures.
As mentioned above, the project falls within the scope of the City’s MEIR for the City of
Carlsbad General Plan update (EIR 93-01) certified in September, 1994, in which a Statement of
Overriding Considerations was adopted for cumulative impacts to air quality and traffic. MER’S
may not be used to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior to the filing of an
application for a later project except under certain circumstances. The City is currently
reviewing the 1994 MEIR to determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects.
Although the MEIR was certified more than five years ago, the City’s preliminary review of its
adequacy finds that no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under
which the MER was certified. The only potential changed circumstance, the intersection failure
at Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real, has been mitigated to below a level of
significance. Additionally, there is no new available information, which was not known and
could not have been known at the time the MEIR was certified. Therefore, the MER remains
adequate to review later projects. All feasible mitigation measures identified by the MEIR which
are appropriate to this project have been incorporated into the project.
ZC 98-08/LCPA 98-04/CT 98-14/PUD 98-05/CP OO-O2/SDP 99-061 HOP 98-15KDP 98-68 -
THOMPSONlTABATA
November 7,2001
Page 17
The site-specific studies, on file with the Planning Department, include: Geotechnical
Investigation - Poinsettia Arrricultural Property, dated September 1998, Geocon, Inc.
Geotechnical Consultants; Preliminary Hvdrologv Report for Zone 20 Poinsettia Properties,
dated September 8, 1999, Buccola Engineering, Inc.; Site Assessment and Health Risk
Assessment Rmort - Poinsettia Agricultural Property - Tabata Site Carlsbad. California, dated
August 1998, Geocon, Inc. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants; Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment - WeidnerDennis Property, Carlsbad California, dated March
1999, Geocon, Inc. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants; Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment Uudate Including Methane and Fixed Gases Survev - Poinsettia Agricultural
Property, dated February 6, 2001, Geocon, Inc. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants;
Biological Survev of the Thompson Prouertv, Citv of Carlsbad, dated October 3, 2000, Dudek
and Associates, Inc.; Traffic Impact Analvsis. Thompson Property. Carlsbad. California, dated
December 6, 2000, Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers; and Standard Pacific Poinsettia
Prouem Acoustical Study, dated January 2,2001, Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc.
In accordance with State Law, a copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration was forwarded to
the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse for distribution to interested
agencies. The reviewing agencies were: State Resources Agency, California Coastal
Commission, State Department of Conservation, State Department of Fish and Game (Region 5),
State Department of Parks and Recreation, Caltrans (Division of Aeronautics), California
Highway Patrol, Caltrans (District II), Regional Water Quality Control Board (Region 9),
Native American Heritage Commission, Public Utilities Commission, and the State Lands
Commission. On May 3, 2001, the City received correspondence &om the State Clearinghouse
stating that no state agencies submitted comments and that the City complied with the State
Clearinghouse requirements pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
In addition to the State Clearinghouse letter, the City received four letters fiom interested
members of the public (copies attached). The commenting parties were: Vista Pacifica
Homeowner’s Association, Mary and Joseph Hull, Timothy M. Hutter, and Donald W. Detisch,
Esq. of Detisch and Christensen, Attorneys at Law. The letter from the Vista Pacifica HOA
contained comments regarding the location of the affordable housing, the extension of Alyssum
Road, proposed air quality mitigation measures, previous agricultural runoff and storm drain
capacity, and impacts to schools. The letter fiom Mary and Joseph Hull contained comments
regarding previous iterations of the project’s design, previous environmental review documents,
projsct grading and the resulting topography, the fbture signalization of the Poinsettia
Lane/Snapdragon Drive intersection, project density and the amount of open space, use of
agricultural mitigation funds, connection of existing street system, erosion and runoff, traffic
generation and local street circulation, school capacity, parkland impacts, and bus circulation.
The letter from Timothy M. Hutter contained comments regarding traffic generation and local
street circulation, school capacity, and power availability. The letter &om Donald W. Detisch,
Esq. contained comments regarding noise from Poinsettia Lane, existing access to an adjacent
property not included in the subdivision, and lighting of recreation areas. While not a
requirement of CEQA, the City did respond to the comments letters received and those responses
are also attached for reference.
4
ZC 98-08hCPA 98-04KT 98-14RUD 98-05KP 00-02/SDP 99-061 HDP 98-15KDP 98-68 - ’
THOMPSON/TABATA
November 7,2001
Page 18
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5070 @litigated Negative Declaration)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5071 (ZC 98-08)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5072 (LCPA 98-04)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5073 (CT 98-14)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5074 (PUD 98-05)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5075 (CP 00-02)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5076 (SDP 99-06)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5077 @DP 98-15)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5078 (CDP 98-68)
Location Map
Disclosure Statement
Background Data Sheet
Local Facilities Impact Assessment
Copy of letters from Public Review Period for Mitigated Negative Declaration
Copy of City’s Responses to Environmental Review Public Comment letters
Copy of Petition to Mayor Bud Lewis from Homeowners of Vista Pacifica
Minutes from the Community Information Forum, dated August 25,2000
Exhibits “A” - “EEEE”, dated November 7,2001
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Applicant‘s Statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require
discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board. Commission or Committee.
The followin_e information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project canno1
be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print.
Note: Person is defmed as “Any individual, fm, co-pamenhip, joint venture, association. social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, bust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and county. cir?:
municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit.”
provided below.
Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and properry owner must be
I. APPLICANT (Not the applicant‘s agent)
Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of & persons having a financial
interest in the application. If the applicant includes a coworation or oartnershie. include the
names. title. addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO
APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-owned comoration, include the
names. titles. and addresses of the corporate offlcers. (A separate page may be attached if
necessary.)
INDIVIDUALS ow MORE THAN IO% OF THE SHARES. PLEASE INDICATE NON-
., Corp/Part-
Title a Delaware corporation Title
Address 9335 Chesapeake Dr. Address
San Diego, CA 92123
7 -. OWNER (Not the owner‘s agent)
Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of & persons having any ownership
interest in the property involved. Also. provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e.
partnership. tenants in common. non-profit. corporation. etc:). If the ownership includes a
corporation or oartnershio. include the names. title. addresses of all individuals owning more
than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES,
PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE W/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-
owned corooration. include the names. titles. and addresses of the corporate offlcers. (A separate
page may be attached if necessary.)
Person See attached uaae( s) Corp/Part NA
Title Title
Address Address
2075 Las Palrnas Dr. - Carlsbad. CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-1161 FAX (760) 438-0894 @ .la I
3. NON-PROF~T OR @KUTION OR TRUST
If any person identi , pursuant to (I) or (2) above is a or a trust. list the
names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit '
organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the.
Non Profiflrust See attached page ( S hon Profinrust
Title Title
Address Address
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of Cify staff.
Boards. Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months? 0 Yes No If yes. please indicate person(s):
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary.
I certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
See attached Signature page(s)
Signature of ownerldate
Ibid.
Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant
Standard Pacific C0rp.r
a Delaware corporation
~~ Signature of owier/applicant's agent if applicable/date
Print or'type name of owner/appIicant's agent
H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98 Page 2 of 2 Id a,
POINSETTIA PROPERTIES
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
OWNER DlSCLOSURESlSlGNATURES
APN(S): Por. 214-170-09 APN(S): 214- 170 - 07 3L d 4'7
OWNER David 8. Thompson and Karen R. OWNER D KST Lir~~aeOpL/h.b,'l$yhp~7
ADDRESS: 7040 Rose Drive, Carlsbad CA 92009 ESS: 70uo R~SC w;ve Thompson Revocable Trust
'.. ( <-, L I \
tnbad Cf+ SWOq
By: L- <.L .~. .- \ ) 1 ':.L . \., ~ , 9/3/'ns
(signature l date) (signatureldate)
David B. Thompson Dw;d 8. 'iThomPSOn
(print name) (print name)
Gwerd Wlmi~?e/r (title)
Trustee
(title)
..
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: ZC 98-08LCPA 98-04/CT 98-14/PUD 98-05CP 00-02/SDP 99-06/
HDP 98-15/CDP 98-68
CASE NAME: Thompsoflabata
APPLICANT: Standard Pacific Homes
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Zone Change and Local Coastal Pros~am Amendment to
change 40.41 acres of the subdivision from Limited Control (L-C) to Residential Multiole-
Density with a Oualified Develoument Overlay Zone (RD-M-0) and to change 37.62 acres from
Limited Control (L-C) to One Family Residential with a Oualified Development Overlav Zone
@-1-0): and a Tentative Tract Mau, Planned Unit Development Permit, Site Develooment Plan,
Coastal Development Permit, Hillside Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit to
subdivide, grade. and develou auuroximatelv 82.20 acres, creating 238 single familv lots. two
open suace lots, three recreation lots, one recreational vehicle storage lot and a 24 unit, for-sale
condominium uroiect. affordable to lower-income households, on urouerty generallv located
north and south of Poinsettia Lane. between Aviara Parkway and Snaudragon Drive in Local
Facilities Management Zone 20.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The northeast quarter of the northeast auarter and the southeast
quarter of the northeast auarter of Section 28. Townshiu 12 South. Range 4 West, San
Bemardino Meridian. accordincr to the official ulat thereoE together with that portion of then
southeast quarter of Section 21. Townshiu 12 South. Ranee 4 West of the San Bemardino
Meridian. according to the official olat thereof. shown on Parcel B on a Certificate of
Compliance recorded November 7.1988 as File No. 88-569475 and on Record of Survey Mau
No. 12096, filed on March 23, 1989: all lying within the City of Carlsbad. Countv of San Diego,
State of California: exceut therefrom those portions thereof vested with Tabata Brothers
Partnership by documents recorded November 13. 1972 as File No. 303362 and November 4,
1974 as Files No. 74-292547 and 74-292548: and exceut therefrom those portions lying within
Poinsettia Lane and Rose Drive as described in Files No. '89-546752.89-637695.90-146889 and
91-0036964 of Official Records.
APN: 214-140-44.214-170-09. -36. -58. -59, -73-77 Acres: 82.20
Proposed No. of LotsAJnits: 244 lots/238 single familv units/24 affordable multifamily units
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: RLM (41.79 ac) and RM (40.41 ac)
Density Allowed: RLM = 0.0 - 4.0 ddac: RM = 4.0 - 8.0 ddac
Density Proposed: RLM = 2.56 ddac: RM = 3.89 ddac
Existing Zone: L-C and R-1-10.000-Q Proposed Zone:RD-M-0. R-1-7.500-0 and R-1-10.000-0
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use:
Zoning General Plan Current Land Use
Site L-c RLM and RM vacant
North R-1-IO-Q and RD-M-Q RLM and RM Single family residential
South R-1 RLM Single family residential
East P-C -Aviara Master Plan OS and RLM Open space and single
West RD-M RM Single family residential
PUBLIC FACILITIES
family residential
School District: Carlsbad Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 262
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Mitigated Negative Declaration, issued A~ril4.2001
0 Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
0 other,
CITY OF CAIUSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
(To be Submitted with Development Application)
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: ThomusodTabata - ZC 98-08LCPA 98-04/CT 98-14PUD 98-05/CP
00-O2/SDP 99-06/HDP 98-15/CDP 98-68
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 20 GENERAL PLAN: RLM and RM
ZONING L-c
DEVELOPER’S NAME: Standard Pacific Homes
ADDRESS: 5750 Fleet St. Suite 200 Carlsbad, CA 92008
PHONE NO.: 760-602-6800 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 214-140-44, 214-170-09, -36, -58,
-59. -73, -77
QUANTITY OF LAND USEDEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 82.20 acres
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 882.18 sa fl
Library: Demand in Square Footage = 469.8 sa fl
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) 261 EDU
Park: Demand in Acreage = 1.76 acres
Drainage: Identify Drainage Basin = PLDA D
Circulation: Demand in ADT = 2.572 ADT
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 4
Open Space: Acreage Provided = 50’ setback to Poinsettia Lane
Schools: Carlsbad Unified
Student Generation: Elem. = 68 students; Middle = 19 students; High = 36 students
Sewer: Demands in EDU 261 EDU
Water: Demand in GPD = 57,420 GPD
The project is 83 units the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.
MARY b JOSEPH HULL
913 POPPY LANE
CARCSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009
May 1,2001
Mr. Michael J. Holtmiller
Planning Director
Ci? of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314
Dear Mr. Holzmiller:
We have completed our review of the Negative Declaration (ND) dated April 4,
2001 for the proposed Standard Pacific Development Project-Thompsoflabata
Site. Our comments are outlined by categories of Project and Environmental Issues
and identified by page number as shown in the ND. - The Final ND should include a concise and complete list of public information
meetings held and ani public notices sent for the project. I requested a copy of this
informadon kst year and did not receive any response. In addition, the ND should A
contain a summary of the modifications to the project and tentative map including
the reasoning for eacn modification. The ND states on &e first page that.. ."there
is no substand el.idence in hght of the whole record before the CiT that the
project "as re\ised" may have a significant effect on the environment." Because the
tentative map has been revised numerous dmes, including moving the affordable
units to the south side of PoinsetrL Lane, a complete his to^ is needed for the
"whole record".
The ND should also contain a map of the project location and a map of the project
site at a minimum. -4 map showing the project layout and circulation is also
suggested.
..
DI >mxm
P.4GE 10-The project site contains three areas, the size and density of each area 8
should be added to the ND. The project also straddles Poinsectlil Lane and the area
of each portion should be included in the ND.
P.4'GE 10-In late 2000 the greenhouses on the property were removed. This is after
Standard Paafic acquired the property. Did the City issue a permit and approve this
removal? If not, what is the justification for this work on the property?
P-IGE 10-The development proposes 500,000 cubic yards of cuts and US. The ND 0
states that the topography would remain essentially the same, yet the cut and fills
proposed are over 30 feet in helght. This should be addressed in the Aesthetics
section as a ~isual impact to the area.
C
c A
PrlGE 1 1-The project proposes three connecdons ro the local street nework. .in
important component that should be considered in the ND is the proposed siLgnal at
Poinsettia Lane and Snapdragon Drive. The city conducted a meeting in .\upst of
last gear and stated that a signal is akeady warranted at that location. The ND
completely ignores that issue. .A detailed discussion of the proposed signal is
necessary for a complete ND.
...
USE AND PLANNING
PAGE 11-The project is dixided in m*o sections north and south of Poinsetria Lane.
The ND should contain densities for each section of the project along uith the
description contained for the westem and eastern pordon of the project.
PAGE 12-A complete summaq of the Master EIR for the 1994 General Plan
update should be included in the ND.
PAGE 12-The overall density for the project should be added in section c). The
density of Mariner's Point needs to be included. Generally, the project is too dense.
The proposed project includes a number of lots that are not only less than 7,500
square feet but, are less than 6,500 square feet. The project should contain a more
balanced lot sizing and more open space. Thls lack of open space creates a loss of
character to the area and substannal increases in urban.runoff which directly impacts
Batiquiros Lagoon.
PAGE 13-How udl the mitigation fimding of 5419,265 for loss of agricultural land
be used?
PAGE 13-Due to the new project, Section e) should contain a detailed discussion of
the signijicnni impad of the connection of the new development to the existing
developments. The established communides of Spinnaker W and Vista Pacifica
ud be disrupted by the proposed development due to the sigruficant increase in
traffic on the streets within those de\-elopments.
P-AGE 14-Include the acd current number of units in the SW quadrant of
Carlsbad. Uhg information from 1986 is inappropriate.
GEOLOGICPROBLEMS PAGE 14-Aa additional mitigation measure should be added to notify potenrial
homebuyers that this project is in Zone 4 for seismic design. Zone 4 is the highest
zone number included in the UBC.
PAGE Ij-As previously mentioned the project proposes cuts and 6lls over 30 feet
in height. Special care should be taken to prevent erosion both during and aker
consuuction of the project. The applicant should c1,ordinate uith and be required
to obtain a permit form the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Due to the
large amount of grading and lack of open space, high amounts of erosion are likely.
E
F
G
t-t
L
3-
t<
L
m
2
'148
WATER PAGE 16-The propem is described as having greenhouses covering a large pordon
of the project. In fact, the site had mostly open fields with greenhouses coring
about 15 to 20 Yo of the site (see attached photo).
PAGE 16-The project should be redesigned to create more open space areas to
prevention high concentrations of urban runoff. Of the 87.20 acre site 76.16 acres
are to be graded. This grading should be reduced to aroid impacting water qdv.
The lack of open space conuibutes significantly to urban runoff pollution with
potential impacts to the Bariquitos Lagoon. This should be of great concern
because it not only impacts the lagoon environment but the beaches of southern
Carlsbad that connects directly to the lagoon. - PAGE 19-Section c) states that the maximum building height for the project is 30
feet for single family residences and 35 feet for muld-family residences. Based on
the grading proposed with cuts and 6lls of over 30 feet in height, the existing terrain
could be 60-65 feet different in some areas. This should be discussed in the
Aesthetics secdon of the ND. This large of an alteration uith close proximi+ to the
coast is a sipficant impact to the surrounding area.
; I
Page 20-The Linscon, Law & Greenspan (LLG) traffic study contains several
inconsistencies and errors regarding the existing and proposed traffic volumes (see
attached). The report also should include information for Sx#agon Drive
incluhg discussion of the proposed signal at Poinsema Lane. The traffic study also
fails to address a key intersection at Poinsema Lane and Batiquitos Drive. This
intersection currently experiences demand that esceeds capaav for the northbound
Badquitos Drive left turn to westbound Poinsetda Lane. This infomadon is
necessary for an adequate review by rhe residenrs ,of Spinnaker Hill and Vista
Pacifica.
The current layout of the project proposes three points of access. These include
Street “A” to Poinsettia Lane, Rose Drire to Daisy Avenue and .41pssm to
Snapdragon Drive. It is estimated that the project will generate 2,562 daily trips
(ADT). The traffic srudy shows 70% of the trips from the project will go to 1-5.
This breaks down to about 45% of the trips from the project entering/eriting at
“A” Street to Poinsetb. Lane and 25% of the project trips using the connection of
Rose Drive to Daisy Avenue. In addition, 10% of the project uips are estimated to
use the Daisy connection in order to proceed south on Badquitos Drive. This
means that 35 % of the nips from the project dl use Dais? Avenue. This adds 760
trips to Daisy Avenue bringmg the total -\DT on Daisy -4venue to about 2800
.4DS. By contrast, the project proposes to add 980 trips to westbound Poinserda
Lane and 430 trips a dar to eastbound Poinsetda Lane. This trip dismbudon is
severely unbalanced given that Poinsetda currently carries 10 dmes the amount of
traffic, as does Daisr -4venue. Due to this increase of traffic on Daisy Avenue a
stgn$cmZ impact wdl occur on Dais? .\venue and in the Spinnaker Hill cornmuntn..
N
0
f
9
3
However. the traffic srudv concludes that the additional traffic on Daisy ,Avenue uill
be within acceptable nlues. The report classifies Daisy as a residential collector
meet aith a capaciry of 4,500 .ADT; ths is an incorrect classification. The report
cites the San Diego County Public Road Standards for classifnng streets. Because
Daisy -4cenue is as wide as a residential collector street, the report assumes it is one.
For non-circulation element roads (Section 4.5) a residendal collector is defmed as a
having a 60-foot right-of-way wide and 40 foot curb-to curb width. It also states,
“Such roads are not envisioned as providmg for through uaffic generadng in one
cornmurity and desdned for another.” -4s such, the proper classification for Dais).
.Avenue is a “residential road.” A residential road has a capaciv of 1,500 ;\DT. This
explains why the general consensus uirhin the Spinnaker Hill Communiv is that the
existimg traffic volume on Daisy Avenue already exceeds proper design salues.
The City of San Diego Street Den& Mannu/ has more detailed information regarding
roadway classification. This manual has similar urban local streets as compared with
the County standards. The City manual has several types of residential streets for
use in residend areas. These include a Two-Lane Collector Street, a Two-Lane
Sub-Collector Street, and a Residend Street. The wo-lane collector has a
recommended capaci? of 5,000 ADT, along uirh no direct front residential access.
Whereas the nvo-lane sub-collector has a capacity of 2,200 .iDT, the residential
street has a capacirf of 1,500.4DT. bo& with direct residential access. Direct access
is really the main difference between a collector rype of street and a residentid road.
The proposed ADT on Daisy Avenue far esceeds these values. Therefore, the
project udl cause a signfiunfimpact.
The ND needs to address this sign$cunnl impact and provide for altemanves to aroid
rhs impact. Two such alternatives are suggested below
(1) As currently configured, a right &/right on Poinseraa Lane could be added to
the development. It could be placed benveen Snapdragon Drive and the proposed
connecrion of Street “A”. .+n emergency access rype gate could be placed at the
proposed connection to Daisy .+venue, similar to the exisring gate at the southerly
end of Daisy -\venue.
(2) Redesign the development to create a loop sysrem with wo full points of access
to Poinserm Lane. This system could place nvo signals on exisdng Poinsettia Lane
about 600 feet apart. These slgnals would both be three-way slgnals and provide full
access to the development. Although, rhis configuration would require a variance to
the signal spacing policy of the City of Carlsbad, in this pa.&& case the signals
could be interconnected and basically perform as one slgnal. Left turn movements
from the development could be s)mchronized such that the disruption of Poinsettia
Lane would occur only once for both signals. In other words, placing two signals
with reduced signal spacing would not impact Poinserda Lane to any greater extent
than a single signal. This signal spacing would also meet the Caltrans ramp signal
spacing criteria of 160 meters (525 feet).
R
4
/3 0
In addition, the uaffic report notes that speeding has been observed on Daisy
Avenue. It also states the Civ should prepare a “Traffic Calmrng Report” to ‘S
address this issue. Calming delices such as stop signs, mini-roundabouts and raised
pinch points along Daisy Avenue are suggested. The proposed project obviously
compounds this public safey situation. The ND contains no informadon or
discussion of a traffic chg report - PAGE 26-The Carlsbad School District has recently changed the elementary school
boundaries. The ND should contain a.lerter from the School District that the new -r
students associated uith the development can be accommodated. This information
should also include the current total enrollment at each school, the enrollment
generated by the project, and the capacity of each school. The ND is incomplete in
ths area.
RECREATIONBI. PAGE 31-Based on the size of the project an additional 2.Q acres of parkland is 0
needed. Will the project contribute to acquire parkland? If so, where? If not, how is this impact being mitigated?
Currently, NCTD operates bus senice (Route #321) on Daisy Avenue. WiLl the
project impact this bus senice? The ND should require- coordination with NCTD
before the project is approved to ensure this senice continues and is not impacted.
v
We appreaate the opporrunicy to rmiew this document but strongly feel that the
impacts of this project arc sign$cunt and severe to the adjacent communities. Based
on the number of comments above and general lack of conclusive data in the ND it
is substand? inadequate for public circulation and should be revised and released
again for public comment. The ND was issued on ,\pril 4, 2001 with a 30-day
us at (760) 438-2719.
comment period. If you hare any questions regardmg OUI comments please contact
Sincerely,
Mary E. Hull Joseph R. Hull
c: Carlsbad City Council
Carlsbad Planning Commission
NOTE: - ADTs are shown midblock - AM/PM Peak hour volumes are shown at the intersections
NOTE - AUT8 ON shown midbiock - N/PM Peak hour vdumea am shorn. at tho intodon8
Figure 7b
7.m = US0
Figure
hlay 1.200 I
Planning Director.
City of Carlsbad Planning Depanment
Dear Mr Holzmiller:
We are in receipt of a copy of a repon signed by vou entitled "Mitigated Negative Declaration. '' Case
ThompsodTabata. The document is dated April 4. 2001
number ZC 98-OSILCPA 98-04iCT 9S-14PUD 98-OS/CP 00-OZ/SDP 99-06RIDP 98-lWDP 98-68.
We have examined this document carefully and find that it is filled with many inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions. For starters. you have completely mixed up our location. The Vista Pacifica planned unit
development is not east of any of the developments you mention. It is south of Poinsettia and west ofthe proposed Thompsonirabata project. There are no multi-family housing units. RV storage area or parkins
stalls in this neighborhood. Obviously_ you have us confused with the Las Playas development on the orher
side of Poinsettia. This development has multi-family units. and an RV parkins lot. However. it does not have parking stalls. Each unit has a 2 car _parage. Therefore. your desire to "cluster" compatible housing
styles adjacent to us, can only include single family homes since no other units exist here
Thompsodabata projen were to be placed on the nonh side of Poinsmia near the newer and pricier It had been brought to our attention that originally. the 24 multi family affordable units slated for the
Mariners Point tract. Mariners Point residents. alarmed at the possibility of having affordable housing units
in their neighborhood. promptly hired a lawyer. The lawyer got in touch uith the city and through some
Poinsettia. In a Inter to the city following his discussions, the lawyer representing some of the Mariners
clever sleight of hand, the 24 affordable housing units were suddenly switched to the southern side of
that an alternative site within the Thompsodabata project. preferably south of Poinsettia Road would be
Point residents stated. "hlv clients believe, based on what they perceived at the niretins with city oiiicials.
the most appropriate location for the affordable housing units." The implication is. that unknown to US. the
city and the Mariners Point layer decided that it would be more appropriate to place the affordable
housing units away from the pricier housing at Mariners Point and closer to the less expensive houses in Vista Pacifica
This maneuver compromises the basic integity of the whole planning process It may even violare HL'D
policy. We are now requesting that you reveal the details of the ':switch". how was it made. by whom. when and why. Were there secret negotiations and did any benefits accrue to the city as a result? Did rhe
Plannins Department favor a pricier more upscale neighborhood over an older established community? In our view. this is a VCT)' serious ethical situation that has been created here and your misrepresentation of our
location and neighborhood character may possibly be explained by this.
justification. It certainly would be of absolutely no benefit to the Vista Pacifica homeowners. You talk Your plan to extend Alyssum Road, a narrow residential street into the Thompsoflabata project lacks any
about connectiny communities. How do you explain then. the proliferation of so many new gated communities in this quadrant? These new developments are nor CoMected to snything; in fact. the
developers want to isolate them to boost the prices of their homes. To entor Alyssum Road kom Poinsettia.
a driver has to make a 90 deyee right hand turn onto Snapdragon. To coriaue easrward. @er 90 degree turn is required. Poinsettia and Alyssum run parallel: they are sepad by the width da one Slot?
house and patio. Even now. entering or exiting .+sum from or onto Poinsettia is very danzerous. there is
no traffic signal. We have been asked to keep the foliage trimmed at the Vista Pacifica entrance .J help
drivers get some visibility Your proposal would add at least an additional 500 vehicles to this ver?. small area creating an even more dangerous situation. To claim that Thompsodabata needs more acaruhan at
Rose or Daisy for emergency vehicles is ridiculous. How can you recommend this when you ped x, man! gated communities in our quadrant' Why would Thompsoflabata need three access points' Gated
cormunities don't We have only two .Are you telling us that for years your planning depanment has
0
A
B
c
created an unsafe environment' In fact. we have always felt veT fonunate that we are a couple of minutes
auay from the Batiquitos Fire Station. as will the future residents of the ThompsowTabata de\.elopment
We feel that you need to reLiew your traffic circulation plan Funneling more traffic onto residential streets increases the danger to families and children already in this area Motorists will use .41yssurn Road as a
shon CUI and to avoid the signal at Rose. Here in Vista Pacifica cyclists. children at play and pedestrians
have at least some semblance of safety now This will disappear of course if Alyssum Road is opened and
joined to the new project. However, your check list in the mitigation repon indicates the extension of Alyssum Road would have "no impact".
You have already stated to us that from now on, you will put signs on streets that might be enended in the
future giving notice to the public of this fact. Obviously you realize that you were negligent in the past.
landscaped, etc. To tell us now that we should have known that Alyssum Road eventually would be a
The eastern terminus of Alyssum Road was made to look like a dead end s!reet. It was ualled in.
through street is outrageous. Disclosures were never made to our homeowners by either the city of by
Standard Pacific regarding an eventual extension of Alyssum and homeowners rely on disclosures.
We are quite intrigued that you intend to mitigate the projects' impacl on air quality by having the Thompsoflabata homeowners association hand our bus schedules. On the one hand. you want to open
.Alyssum Road for better trafic circulation. Then you propose to tell the residents to take the bus. It is news to us that a homeowners association would be in the business ofworking for the AQMD. Caltrans or
the NCTD. Furthermore, if normal behavior is any indicatioh we doubt that oumrs of 5500.000 plus
homes will take the bus to work or anywhere else. for that matter. Besides. what bus would they take? The
deteriorating air quality for all of us. A fleet of busses can't possibly mitigate this. It is really insulting to
recent buildins frenzy resulting in an amazing 2% increase in population here in Carlsbad has guaranteed
anyone's intelligence to ask us to buy into this logic
Previously. when there were heavy rains. mud and debris has washed down Poinsettia Lane from the fields
adjacent IO us into our storm drains and down our streets. You claim in your repon that storm drainage is adequate. How can this be the case since we have had to call the ciry time and time again about the
problem. Our storm drains are not designed to cany the run off from the higher elevation We object to the mn off corning into our tract and you do not appear to be offering a solution to ths problem.
From the day it opened. Pacific Rim Elementary School was near or at capacity. In fact. new students living in \;ista Pacifica. who were assigned from Aviara Oaks to Pacific Rim will now have to go back to
Aviara Oaks. Multi family housing always impacts a school district more than single family homes. That cenainly has been the case in Vista and San Marcos Your growh management policy and school
cnrollment here are completely disconnected.
The low or affordable income housing ordinance, which has been in place about ten years. has always been
administered in a completely arbitrary manner. The mon notorious example is of course the Aviara development. In that case. its low income allocation ended up miles away with a wall around the units.
We have been told that the city "struck a deal" with the developers of Aviara which actually was more
the ciry has struck other deals with developers and continues to do so to this day as evidenced by the new
beneficial to the city. When you look around the city and the new and old developments. it is obvious that
developments along route 101 at the foot of Poinsenia. The .Assistant City Anomey informed us in writing
that one of the reasons the ThompsoWTabata low income units were transferred from the nonh side of
Poinsettia IO the south side. was because the city did not want to appear to be "clustering" the affordable housing units Do you not consider Villa Lomas as a clustering of low income housing units? What about
the units adjacent to the Poinsettia Station? We can name other locations and other clustering of low income housing units which clearly renders the explanation offered us by the Assistant City Attorney
suspect if not totally Untruthful. We feel it is no accident that in the proposed Thompsonnabata
development. the low income homing units and the RV storase lot seem inextricably linked It is as though ihe low income housing units deserve to be adjacent to the RV storage lot. .hd further. that both these
units deserve to be located adjacent to the Vista Pacifica tract
D
€
F
G
H
r
You must keep in mind. that Vista Pacifica is in effect. an affordable housing development That is wh!
the IaTer felt the low income housing units ofthe Thompsoflabata development should be more
appropriately placed adjacent to our community with the full impan of these units placed on us and not 011
the new development itself. The prices of homes in Vista Pacifica are far below the median price of homes
in the south-west quadrant of the city This fact obriousl!,. was not lost on the lanyer or residents of
Mariners Point Does this not fit the definition 0f"clustering" as presented to'us by the Assistant City
Attorney or would the term discrimination seem more appropriate. If clustering of IOU income housing is okay, then why was it not acceptable on the north side of Poinsettia as it was originally proposed'
You seem IO have isnored totally the fan that placing the low income housing units on the north side of
walk to the Pacific fim Elementary School or IO the local park without being forced to cross Poinsettia . Poinsettia would have provided an enra security feature for children. The children in these units could
which has become a heavily trafficked and dangerous road.
Your section XI11 - Aesthetics - notes rhat the Thompsoflabata development as currently layed out.
would have "no impact" aesthetically on the area. We would ask you to visualize a typical RV parking lot where people passing by can observe the upper portions ofthe parked RV's with their satellite dishes and
various paraphernalia stored on top of these units. Does this picture belong on Poinsettia Lane in the clear
view of foreigners and tourists who are en route to and from the .4viara Four Seasons Hotel and Golf Course' Poinsettia Lane at this location is one of the most picturesque aneries in the city Why would anyone want to deface it with an RV storage lot which would be impossible to conceal totally at'its
proposed location?
We feel that Vista Pacifica is in fact. the rye of"mixed style community which the State of California
and the County of San Diego would like to see. In addition to being the only community of its type that is affordable in this quadrant. Vista Pacifica is well maintained. well landscaped, has stroq CC&R's and its
control. code enforcement and lower propeny values. You should suppon and appreciate our community. ow security. Over time. we u8ill save this city tens of thousands of dollars in crime prevention. blight
instead of planning to diminish us. At this point. given what we know and what you plan on doing. we
propose that we sit down in an honest. open forum and resolve the issues raised here. Let us bring in all the panies involved and lay our cards on the table. Vv:e make one stipulation however. and that is that you deal
uith us in good faith. We certainly have with you.
Slncerel?;.
\ha Pacifica Homeowners Committee C/o GRG Management Inc.
P.O. Box 1 I86
Carlsbad. CA 92018-1 186
Copies to:
Mayor Pro-tern Ann Kulchin
Council Member Matt Hall .bsistam City .4ttomey
TIMOTHY M. HUTTER
May 3,2001
Mike Grim
City of Carlsbad Planning Department
Carlsbad, CA 92008
1635 Fanday Ave.
RE: Thompson/Tabata
Mitigated Negative Declarations Dated April 4,2001
Dear Mr. Grim:
The purpose of this letter is to make public comment on the above referenced Mitigated Negative
Declaration (ND). The ND in its current form provides inadequate detail from which the public can
make serious review and comment. Many of the responses IO the issues and impacts ue boilerplate
responses, as found in other City NDs. and offer little insight into the tme impacts this project will have
on the surrounding community. While others are on record with the City disputing the validity of the
ND, we will limit our comments IO the following items.
A) VI. TRA.NSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
The ND states that the project will have potentially significant impact due to increased vehicle
trips and traffic congestion. Neither the ND nor the project's traffic repon discuss the negative
impact the increase traffic will have on 1) the safety and welfare of residents of Daisy Ave. due to
the increased traffic 2) the financial impact and loss of property values and 3) the bi-polarization A
of the neighborhood. These arc significant issues and the societal impacts arc not discussed. The
statement that no significant adverse impacts will occur due to the increase in traffic on Daisy
Ave. is false. Further, many of the assertions made in the tnffic report are invalid as they arc
based on false assumptions. Primarily, the incorrect classification of Daisy Ave. as a 'residential
collector" street when in faa it is a 'residential road". Inasmuch, the increase in pmjected ADTs
as a rcsult of the completion of the projec as cxrenrly dezigned will cceed the design :apncity of
Daisy.
B)
The ND states that the proposed development wuld not cause any significant impact to the
CLAIM IS COMPLETELY FALSE. The three schools affected, Pacific Rim Elementary, Avian
school system and that local schools have capacity to accommodate additional students. THIS
addition of portable classrooms. Accordi1.g w the Carlsbad Unified School District, based on
Oaks Elementary and Avian Oaks Middle School are now nearing capacity despite the current
expected new enrollments in the Fall of 2001, all three will be at or meed design capacity. In
addition, there are no plans for the construction of any new schools in the ma of the project
prior to the urpected build out of the project.
-2-
C) XI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ..
The ND states that the project would not result in the need for new power or natural gas systems
the Master EIR assenion that no significant ndverie environmental impacts due to power or
or supplies, or substantial alterations to power or natural gas systems. This statement is based on
natural gas supply would occur due to the build out of the City. This assenion is ludicrous in
light of the ongoing power and natural gas shonages. The community is already subject to rolling
problem. Therefore the statement that this project will have no &effect on utilities and service
blackouts as a result of this shortage and my additional demand on the system will exacerbate the
systems is false.
I look forwud to your written response IO our comments.
Sincerely,
Timothy M. Hurter & Tamra F. Hurter
919 BEGONIA COCRT * CARLSBAD. CA - 91009
PHONE: 760-9lL-165b
Charles B. Christensen
Donald W. Derisch
Sean D. Schwrrdtfeger
DETISCH & CHRISTENSEN
Arromeys a1 Law
Harold 0. Valderhaug
Of Counsel
May 4,
Via Facsimile & U.S. Mail
Michael J. Holzmiller, Planning Director
City of Carlsbad Planning Department
Senior Planner
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008-7314
RE: Mitigated Negative Declaration dated April 4, 2001
Case Name: Thornpson/Tabata Publish Date: April 1, 2001
Case So.: ZC 98-08/LPCA 98-04/CT 98-14/PUD O@-OZ/SDP 99-06/HDP
98-WCDP 98-68
Dear Mr. Holzmiller:
I received the above Declaration on or about April 11, 2001. This was several days after
the initial publication date. I was informed that this was due to an oversight on the part of staff
and thus, staff was kind enough to extend our response date until May 11, 2001. (See my letter
of April 25, 2001.) In any event our general comments follow:
Overall the document generally covers the impacts associated with the project. The
document seems to address the majority of environmental issues. It would appear that this is one
of the last remaining agricultural areas surrounded by pre-existing residential communities being
converted to multi- residential use. We have been in contact with Standard Pacific, the developer,
during this process and have been favorably impressed with their willingness to work with this
office and our clients, Mr. and Mrs. Michael Burris who reside at 1250 Veronica Court. Carlsbad.
California, 92008. Ms. Baker has been particularly receptive to our concerns.
My clients' concern with the proposed subdivision primarily relates to noise. visual
pollution, traffic circulation. and the public safety and general welfare. These concerns are based
upon the most recent iteration of the proposed subdivision.
DETISCH & CHRISTENSEN
Michael J. Holzmiller, Planning Director
May 4, 2001
Page 2
We understand that any anticipated noise increase resulting from the proposed subdivision
will arise through the use of Poinsettia Lane. The proposed mitigation refers to the use of noise fi
attenuation walls. This makes good sense and is appropriate. While it would appear that this
issue has been appropriately addressed, except as set forth below, we would like to suggest that
monitoring occur to confirm the prediction of the noise consultants. Secondly, we understand that
there will be passive and active park use. My clients’ concern here is that these parks use low @
wattage or low luminous lights (if night lighting is used ) so that harsh piercing lighting is not
used.
My client’s greatest concern relates to the proposed expansion and continued use of a
driveway area which presently serves as access to the Tabata residence. By way of reference page
10 of the Declaration states: “The two portions north of Poinsettia Lane are separated by two
existing lots totaling 2.40 acres that are nor part of the proposed subdivision. The properties
contain the existing single family residence and accessory strucrures for the previous agricultural
operations. The residence currently takes access off of Lonicera Street, just south of its
intersection with Camino de Las Ondas, via an access easement and paved driveway. The
proposed subdivision does not affect this existing access and provides public street frontages IO
the east side of the lot through the extension of Lemon Leaf Drive thereby allowing ~!UK
development of the site.” Here, what has transpired is that our client’s property which lies
adjacent to this driveway access has been exposed to noise due to large mechanical equipment and
off road vehicle use whereby vehicles have actually driven onto my clients’ property. Overall this
has proven to be an altogether unsatisfactory situation for my clients’.
We understand that the proposed subdivision includes a condition to expand this access
driveway area to a 50 foot wide easement, i.e., Standard is required to dedicate 30 feet of righr
of way for the use of the Tabata property. This is then supposed to be used in connection wlth a
purported 20 foot easement to create a 50 foot wide righl of way. It is our belief that the road \$!a;’
area where the 20 foot wide alleged easement exists is not in the ownership of Mr. Tabata but is
still dedicated open space owned by the Lennar Development Company. In addition, the Tabata
property can and will be adequately accessed from Lemon Leaf Drive. Any future development
of the Tabata property can take access from Lemon Leaf and does not require a second access
point from Lonicera Street. The Tabata property will more than likely not be able to obtain more
than two or three lots for which a cul-de-sac street access from Lemon Leaf would be more than
adequate. This would eliminate the need for the 30 foot wide dedication as well as the existing
driveway access. Of course access to Lonicera would not be cut off until Lemon Leaf was opened
IO the Tabata property. In the area of the driveway access is an access point for the Municipal
Water District which obliviously would remain. My clients simply are interested in eliminating
any roadway noise which emanates from this adjacent roadway area as well as protect their
property from vehicles driving onto their property. In discussions with Standard Pacific staff they
have indicated a willingness to support the elimination of these roadway areas which are truly not
C
Michael J. Holzmiller, Planning Director
May 4, 2001
Page 2
DETISCH & CHRISTENSEN
necessary. The Lemon Leaf access which would cul-de-sac on the Tabata praperty would
adequately address this need and candidly would reduce all of the environmental impacts
associated with the addition of another roadway, e.g., air pollution, etc. It is also our
understanding that there are many other instances within the City of Carlsbad where the cul-de-
sacing of a roadway into a small area has been allowed and endorsed.
If this private access and 30 foot dedication occurs. my Clients' property will become an
island surrounded by streets. We do not believe this is appropriate.
We think this would be most appropriate and should be favo'rably considered by the City
staff.
Finally and simply by way of reference we believe that the declaration should be updated
relative to the discussion of energy use. Whether there is anything that can be done is debatable.
DWD/sll
cc: Mr. and Mrs. Michael Burris
Mr. Michael Grim
- Citv -of Carlsbad
October 9, 2001
Mary and Joseph Hull
91 3 Poppy Ln
Carlsbad CA 92009
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS REGARDING THE MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE THOMPSOWABATA SUBDIVISION
Thank you for your comments regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
ThomsponRabata residential subdivision. Listed below are the responses to your
comments. Your comment letter (copy attached) has been noted with reference
letters that correspond to the responses contained below.
A. The City of Carlsbad has not yet conducted any publicly noticed meetings for this
project. All requested documents are public record on file at the offices of the
City of Carlsbad, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad CA. The EIA focuses on the
project as presently proposed. All development proposals filed with the City
undergo numerous changes as they evolve. The result of this effort is that the
final or formal project is then subjected to environmental review under the
California Environmental Quality Act. In addition, the project location and a Site
map have been included. All of the various documents associated with the
project are contained in the above referenced files.
B. Page 11 of the EIA contains a discussion of the permitted and proposed density.
Although the property physically consists of three areas, the westerly portion of
the project (both north and south of Poinsettia) totaling 40.41 acres has a
General Plan Designation of Residential Medium density. The easterly portion of
the project (both north and .south of Poinsettia) totaling 41.79 acres has a
General Plan Designation of Residential Low Medium density. The proposed
project densities are 3.88 dwellings per acre on the western portion and 2.58
dwellings per acre on the eastern portion. The proposed project density is below
both the allowable General Plan Designations and the maximum densities
allowed through the City’s Growth Management Ordinance Control Points.
C. Permits are not required for the removal of greenhouses. The previous owners of
the property partially dismantled the greenhouse for use in conjunction with their
other agricultural operations at their other location. The project applicant,
Standard Pacific Homes, had the remaining debris removed from the site to
eliminate visual and safety concerns.
D. The majority of the cuts and fills for the project are within 5 feet plus or minus of
the existing elevations. The maximum 30 foot cut is in a small section near lot
50 and the maximum 30 foot fill is also in a small section near lot 26. Both are
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.cl.carlsbad.ca.us 49
MARY AND JOSEPH HULL
October 9,2001
Paae 2
due to the pad elevations on lots 8-23 and the transition to an open space
easement to the east of these lots. As discussed at pages 28-29 of the EIA, no
substantial aesthetic impacts are associated with the manufactured slopes
contemplated by the subdivision design. In addition, the proposed development
complies with the City’s Hillside Development Ordinance and guidelines.
E. The traffic study contains a complete analysis of the Poinsettia Lene/Snapdragon
Drive Intersection. The traffic study concludes that a traffic signal is not needed
at this intersection provided a traffic signal is installed at the Poinsettia
Lane/Street “A” (Rose Drive) intersection. If a traffic signal is not installed at
street “A”, one should be installed at Snapdragon Drive.
The signal at Poinsettia Lane and Snapdragon Drive is slated for construction
during 2001-2002. This signal is not necessary as a result of this development
nor are there any negative environmental impacts associated with the
construction of this signal. It should be noted that installing a traffic signal on
Poinsettia Lane would give residents of the Vista Pacifica community an option to
turn left onto Poinsettia Lane at a signalized intersection.
F. The EIA addresses the densities of the properties as western and eastern
portions of the project, which includes property on both sides of Poinsettia Lane.
See response B, above.
G. The City of Carlsbad has a program for monitoring and updating the MElR
related to the General Plan. This is accomplished through a series of reports
filed annually with the City Council. These reports are on file at the City offices at
1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA. The most recent report addresses the
fiscal year 1999-2000 and contains an explanation of the review process.
H. See above comment B. The density of Mariner’s Point is 5.3 dwelling per acre.
The proposed project densities are 3.88 dwellings per acre on the western
portion and 2.58 dwellings per acre on the eastern portion. The project complies
with applicable density standards. The project site is also located in the Zone 20
Specific Plan area, which further designates the zoning. The RLM designated
portion of the property (the eastern portion of the site) is One Family Residential
with a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. The lots that are less than 7,500
square feet are with the R-DM portion of the project. In addition, the project is
consistent with all of the applicable development standards as designated in the
Zone 20 Specific Plan standards and requirements. (EIA page 11) The EIA
analysis indicates that the project will not result in significant impacts to water
quality or open space.
I. Agricultural conversion (mitigation) fees are currently pledged to the
environmental restoration of Batiquitos Lagoon.
MARY AND JOSEPH HULL
October 9,2001
Paoe 3
J. The Traffic Study contains a full analysis of the potential impacts to the
“connector streets”, Alyssum Road and Daisy Avenue. As discussed therein, the
impacts are not found to be significant.
K. The 1986 reference is to the maximum number of units permitted in the
Southwest Quadrant of the City. The number was calculated using the Growth
Management Program established growth control points (page 14, EIA). The
proposed project does not exceed the growth control point for its land use
designations and is therefore consistent with the Growth Management Program.
The actual units existing in the Southwest Quadrant is estimated to be 912 units
as of June 30,2001.
L. To mitigate potential soils and geological impact from the project the project will
be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code’s construction
standards for Seismic Zone 4 - those areas containing known active faults.
Development of this site would be subject to the same existing earthquake or
ground motion hazards that affect the entire southern California area.
Homeowner disclosures are beyond the scope of CEQA and the EIA and will be
addressed by the California Department of Real Estate.
M. The Developer will have to meet all of the City of Carlsbad design standards and
the Regional Water Quality Control Board design guidelines, which include
obtaining permits. The City will also require the Developer to install on site
erosion control measures and the approval of the Storm Water Prevention Plan
and annual certification.
N. The Hydrology Report states that the property had approximately 21 acres (26%)
of the site covered with greenhouses when the Report was prepared. As noted
above, the greenhouses have since been removed.
0. The developer will meet all current Regional Water Quality Control Board design
guidelines, which are designed to minimize negative impact downstream from
any construction project during and after construction. In addition, the project will
be required to meet all of the City’s development ordinances.
P. The majority of the cuts and fills for the project are within 5 feet plus or minus of
the existing elevations. The maximum 30 foot cut is in a small section near lot
50 and the maximum 30 foot fill is also in a small section near lot 26. Both are
due to the pad elevations on lots 8-23 and the transition to an open space
easement to the east of these lots. As discussed at pages 28-29 of the EIA, no
substantial aesthetic impacts are associated with the manufactured slopes
contemplated by the subdivision design. In addition, the proposed development
complies with the City’s Hillside Development Ordinance and guidelines. Due to
the fact that this situation only occurs in a relatively small portion of the project, it
is not considered to be a significant impact to the surrounding area.
MARY AND JOSEPH HULL
October 9,2001
Paae 4
Q. See comment E above. Also, the traffic study contains a full analysis of the
Poinsettia Lane/Batiquitos Drive Intersection on Page 26. This table shows that
a LOS A is anticipated during both the AM and PM peak hours with the addition
of both project and cumulative traffic.
The traffic study estimates that the project will increase the ADT on Daisy
Avenue from 1,900 ADT to about 2,700 ADT. Based on the 40 foot width of
Daisy Avenue and the fact that this road does “collect” traffic from Primrose Way, Ivy Street, Wisteria Way, and several other streets, a Residential Collector (4,500
ADT capacity) is deemed to be the appropriate classification. In addition, the
LOS A and LOS B peak hour operations at the Daisy Avenue intersections at
Batiquitos Drive and Ivy Street with the project traffic are indications that capacity
will not be a problem on Daisy Avenue. Although the City of San Diego
Standards are not applicable, even the lowest classification from Table 2 of the
Traffic Impact Study Manual (36-foot wide Sub-Collector - LOS C capacity of
2,200 ADT), the forecasted volume of 2,700 ADT would still result in adequate
LOS D operations.
As stated in the traffic study, separate from the carrying capacity of
Daisy Avenue is the potential for speeding. In all areas of Carlsbad, speeding
and/or excessive volumes of traffic causes resident to become alarmed about
safety and quality of life. The City Council has used a citizen-based committee to
develop solutions for neighborhoods, in Carlsbad, that are affected by traffic
problems. In May 2001, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2001-139
establishing a Policy for Traffic Calming on residential public streets in
accordance with the “Carlsbad Residential Traffic Management Program”. This
document outlines the procedures for the City of Carlsbad to address
neighborhood traffic-related concerns. The City recommends that adjacent
neighborhoods that are concern with the speeding issue on Daisy Avenue should
initiate this procedure.
R. The City and the Developer have explored various subdivision designs. The
project as it is currently designed meets all of the Engineering criteria as well as
applicable City policies. The EIA concludes that the project will not significantly
impact traffic flow in the area. Accordingly, project re-design is not required.
S. See response 0, above. The traffic-calming program will be developed.
T. Establishment of attendance boundaries and timing of School construction is the
responsibility of the governing School District and by law is not within the purview
of the proposed project.
In 1998 the California Legislature adopted Senate Bill 50 and the California
voters approved Proposition 1A. These combined actions changed the methods
of school construction financing in California. In order to receive money under
the bulk of the financing programs, districts are required to provide 50% of the
project funding from local sources. Carlsbad Unified School District generates
MARY AND JOSEPH HULL
October 9,2001
Paae 5
funding from revenues collected through a financing form known as a Mello Roos
District. According to State Law, participation in the Mello Roos District
constitutes full and complete mitigation of project-related impacts and the
provision of adequate school facilities.
Students generated by the proposed project will occur as housing units are built.
Normally school facility enrollment demands also fluctuate over time. Other than
constructing new facilities, common options employed by School Districts
include; attendance boundary modifications, adjustment of grade levels among
facilities, use of temporary facilities and schedule modifications such as using
year-round tracks. Specific means to accommodate school student demand is
completely within the discretion and authority of the school district.
U. The proposed project will pay park in lieu fees and public facilities fees on a per
unit basis. These funds allow for the City to allocate money to be used for
parkland acquisition and improvements respectively.
V. North County Transit District is solely responsible for establishing its service
routes. The District is routinely provided opportunities to review and comment on
development proposals. No impacts to NCTD bus services are anticipated.
It is anticipated that the project will be heard by the Planning Commission in
November 2001. You will receive a legal notice of that hearing at least ten days in
advance. Thank you again for your participation.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL JMZMLER
Planning Director
Attachment
c: City Attorney
Assistant Planning Director
Principal Planner DeCerbo
Senior Planner Grim
File Copy
- City of Carlsbad
October 9,2001
Vista Pacifica Homeowners Committee
c/o GRG Management Inc.
P. 0. Box 1186
Carlsbad CA 9201 8-1 186
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS REGARDING THE MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE THOMPSOMABATA SUBDIVISION
Thank you for your comments regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration for
the Thomspon/Tabata residential subdivision. Listed below are the responses to
your comments. Your comment letter (copy attached) has been noted with
reference letters that correspond to the responses contained below.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
The typographical error relating to the location of the project in relationship
to Vista Pacifica has been corrected. This error does not affect the analysis of the project or the conclusion that all impacts will be mitigated to
insignificance.
The Carlsbad City Attorney’s office previously responded to your concerns
regarding the affordable housing component of the project by letters dated
July 3 and August 29, 2000. Copies of the letters have been provided. The
comments regarding affordable housing do not address environmental
issues and are beyond the scope of CEQA.
The project as proposed will connect Alyssum; however, the project is
estimated to only add three AM peak hour trips and six PM peak hour trips
to the Poinsettia Lane to Snapdragon Drive to Alyssum Road movement.
The addition of this small amount of traffic is not considered significant.
The project is estimated to add 100 ADT to Alyssum Road east of
Snapdragon Drive, bringing the total ADT to less than 500 ADT. This is well
within the carrying capacity of this roadway and is therefore not considered
to be a significant project impact.
When the Vista Pacifica Development was built, no requirement of public
notice for the installation or extension of a public street, was necessary until
the improvements are actually proposed. The public has now received
notification and has the opportunity to participate in the City’s public review
process.
9 1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad. CA 92006-7314 (760) 6024600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.c!f @
VISTA PACIFICA HOMEOWNERS COMMITTEE
October 9,2001
Paae 2
F. Home Owner Association distribution of information relating to alternative
transportation methods is one aspect of the strategy to deal with air quality
impacts in the context of the build out of the General Plan in a “non
attainment basin”. The mitigation measure also includes distribution of
information relating to ridesharing and transportation pooling.
G. The project engineer has studied the drainage requirements for the
proposed project and has determined that on-site improvements are
necessary to handle anticipated project runoff and to reduce impact to
adjacent properties. The proposed development will construct a storm drain
system that will be designed to the City of Carlsbad’s design standards and
the Regional Water Quality Control Board design guidelines. The storm
water flows in the proposed system will be controlled to match the original
designed flows for the existing storm drain system.
H. Establishment of attendance boundaries and timing of School construction
is the responsibility of the governing School District and by law is not within
the purview of the proposed project.
In 1998 the California Legislature adopted Senate Bill 50 and the California
voters approved Proposition 1A. These combined actions changed the
methods of school construction financing in California. In order to receive
money under the bulk of the financing programs, districts are required to
provide 50% of the project funding from local sources. Carlsbad Unified
School District generates funding from revenues collected through a
financing form known as a Mello Roos District. According to State Law,
participation in the Mello Roos District constitutes full and complete
mitigation of project-related impacts and the provision of adequate school
facilities.
Students generated by the proposed project will occur as housing units. are
built. Normally school facility enrollment demands also fluctuate over time.
Other than constructing new facilities, common options employed by School
Districts include; attendance boundary modifications, adjustment of grade
levels among facilities, use of temporary facilities and schedule
modifications such as using year-round tracks. Specific means to
accommodate school student demand is completely within the discretion
and authority of the school district.
1. See above response B above.
J, This development will be required to install a traffic signal at the entrance
(Rose Drive), which will include crosswalks. In addition, there is a sidewalk
that connects the affordable housing parcel directly to Poinsettia.
VISTA PACIFICA HOMEOWNERS COMMlllEE
October 9,2001
Paae 3
Pedestrians from the affordable housing site would have direct access to
the traffic signal crossing.
K. The proposed recreational vehicle storage site will be screened with a solid
wall and landscaping. In addition, the site is 15 to 20 feet above the
Poinsettia Lane elevation, thereby further reducing its visibility.
It is anticipated that the project will be heard by the Planning Commission in
November 2001. You will receive a legal notice of that hearing at least ten days
in advance. Thank you again for your participation.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL J HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
Attachment
c: City Attorney
Assistant Planning Director
Principal Planner DeCerbo
Senior Planner Grim
File Copy
__ City of Carl'sbad
October 9,2001
Timothy and Tamra Hutter
939 Begonia Ct
Carlsbad CA 92009
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS REGARDING THE MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE THOMPSONmABATA SUBDIVISION
Thank you for your comments regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Thomspoflabata residential subdivision. Listed below are the responses to your
comments. Your comment letter (copy attached) has been noted with reference letters
that correspond to the responses contained below.
A. An analysis of Daisy Avenue is included in the traffic study. The traffic study
to about 2,700 ADT. Based on the 40-foot width of Daisy Avenue and the fact that
estimates that the project will increase the ADT on Daisy Avenue from 1,900 ADT
this road does "collect" traffic from Primrose Way, Ivy Street, Wisteria Way, and
the appropriate classification. In addition, LOS A and LOS B peak hour operations
several other streets, a Residential Collector (4,500 ADT capacity) is deemed to be
at the Daisy Avenue intersections at Batiquitos Drive and Ivy Street with project
traffic are indications that capacity will not be a problem on Daisy Avenue.
Although the City of San Diego Standards are not applicable, even the lowest
classification from Table 2 of the Traffic Impact Study Manual (36-foot wide Sub-
Collector - LOS C capacity of 2,200 ADT), the forecasted volume of 2,700 ADT would still result in adequate LOS D operations.
As stated in the traffic study, separate from the carrying capacity of Daisy Avenue
is the potential for speeding. The City of Carlsbad will prepare a Traffic Calming
Study for. Daisy Avenue using the Carlsbad Residential Traffic Management
Program document (May 2001). Improvements that could be recommended
include installing stop signs on Daisy Avenue, mini roundabouts at intersections,
and/or raised pinch points along Daisy Avenue. Lastly, it should be noted that
installing a traffic signal on Poinsettia Lane at either Snapdragon Lane or Rose
Drive would give residences within the Vista Pacifica community an option to turn
left onto Poinsettia Lane at a signalized intersection. They would then be less
likely to use Daisy Avenue to reach Batiquitos Drive. This would lower the demand
on Daisy Avenue.
which focuses on environmental effects. Nevertheless, economic and social
Finally, as a general rule social and economic effects are not covered by CEQA,
effects may be considered in determining the significance of physical changes
caused by a project. In this instance, the adequate levels of service on the
conclusion that there will be no significant impacts associated with
affected streets and the relatively few trips generated by the project support the
transportatiodcirculation.
-a
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad. CA 92008-7314 - (760) 6024600 FAX (760) 602-8559 WwwCi.carlsbad!=a5 @
TIMOTHY AND TAMRA HUlTER
October 9,2001
Paae 2
B. Establishment of attendance boundaries and timing of School construction is the
responsibility of the governing School District and by law is not within the purview
of the proposed project.
In 1998 the California Legislature adopted Senate Bill 50 and the California voters
approved Proposition 1A. These combined actions changed the methods of school
construction financing in California. In order to receive money under the bulk of the
financing programs, districts are required to provide 50% of the project funding
from local sources. Carlsbad Unified School District generates funding from
revenues collected through a financing form known as a Mello Roos District.
According to State Law, participation in the Mello Roos District constitutes full and
complete mitigation of project-related impacts and the provision of adequate school
facilities.
Students generated by the proposed project will occur as housing units are built.
Normally school facility enrollment demands also fluctuate over time. Other than
constructing new facilities, common options employed by School Districts include;
attendance boundary modifications, adjustment of grade levels among facilities,
use of temporary facilities and schedule modifications such as using year-round
tracks. Specific means to accommodate school student demand is completely
within the discretion and authority of the school district.
C. Energy planning takes into account the City and Regional build out projections.
The energy supply issue is being addressed through the addition of new
generating facilities that will be available to serve the future needs of the energy
grid. The current shortages are due to economic factors related to de-regulation
legislation and are not related to inadequate power supplies. The economics of
the power grid and de-regulation are not within the scope of CEQA project review, in particular for the incremental impacts associated with a project of this size. The
project represents the implementation of the City's General Plan and as analyzed
in the EIA, no significant impacts upon utility demand is expected as a result of the
project.
It is anticipated that the project will be heard by the Planning Commission in
November 2001. You will receive a legal notice of that hearing at least ten days in
advance. Thank you again for your participation.
Sincerely,
MICHAELJ HC~~MILLER
Planning Director
Attachment
c: City Attorney
Assistant Planning Director
Principal Planner DeCerbo
Senior Planner Grim
File Copy
- City of Carlsbad
October 9,2001
Vista Pacifica Homeowners Committee
do GRG Management Inc.
P. 0. Box 1186
Carlsbad CA 9201 8-1 186
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS REGARDING THE MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE THOMPSONmABATA SUBDIVISION
Thank you for your comments regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration for
the Thomsponnabata residential subdivision. Listed below are the responses to
your comments. Your comment letter (copy attached) has been noted with
reference letters that correspond to the responses contained below.
A.
6.
C.
D.
E.
The typographical error relating to the location of the project in relationship
to Vista Pacifica has been corrected. This error does not affect the analysis
of the project or the conclusion that all impacts will be mitigated to
insignificance.
The Carlsbad City Attorney’s office previously responded to your concerns
regarding the affordable housing component of the project by letters dated
July 3 and August 29, 2000. Copies of the letters have been provided. The
comments regarding affordable housing do not address environmental
issues and are beyond the scope of CEQA.
The project as proposed will connect Alyssum; however, the project is
estimated to only add three AM peak hour trips and six PM peak hour trips
to the Poinsettia Lane to Snapdragon Drive to Alyssum Road movement.
The addition of this small amount of traffic is not considered significant.
The project is estimated to add 100 ADT to Alyssum Road east of
Snapdragon Drive, bringing the total ADT to less than 500 ADT. This is well
within the carrying capacity of this roadway and is therefore not considered
to be a significant project impact.
When the Vista Pacifica Development was built, no requirement of public
notice for the installation or extension of a public street, was necessary until
the improvements are actually proposed. The public has now received
notification and has the opportunity to participate in the City’s public review
process.
I
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 6024600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.cius
VISTA PACIFICA HOMEOWNERS COMMITTEE
October 9,2001
Paae 2
F. Home Owner Association distribution of information relating to alternative
transportation methods is one aspect of the strategy to deal with air quality
impacts in the context of the build out of the General Plan in a “non
attainment basin”. The mitigation measure also includes distribution of
information relating to ridesharing and transportation pooling.
G. The project engineer has studied the drainage requirements for the
proposed project and has determined that on-site improvements are
necessary to handle anticipated project runoff and to reduce impact to
adjacent properties. The proposed development will construct a storm drain
system that will be designed to the City of Carlsbad‘s design standards and
the Regional Water Quality Control Board design guidelines. The storm
water flows in the proposed system will be controlled to match the original
designed flows for the existing storm drain system.
H. Establishment of attendance boundaries and timing of School construction
is the responsibility of the governing School District and by law is not within
the purview of the proposed project.
In 1998 the California Legislature adopted Senate Bill 50 and the California
voters approved Proposition 1A. These combined actions changed the
methods of school construction financing in California. In order to receive
money under the bulk of the financing programs, districts are required to
provide 50% of the project funding from local sources. Carlsbad Unified
School District generates funding from revenues collected through a
financing form known as a Mello Roos District. According to State Law,
participation in the Mello Roos District constitutes full and complete
mitigation of project-related impacts and the provision of adequate school
facilities.
Students generated by the proposed project will occur as housing units are
built. Normally school facility enrollment demands also fluctuate over time.
Other than constructing new facilities, common options employed by School
Districts include; attendance boundary modifications, adjustment of grade
levels among facilities, use of temporary facilities and schedule
modifications such as using year-round tracks. Specific means to
accommodate school student demand is completely within the discretion
and authority of the school district.
1. See above response B above.
J. This development will be required to install a traffic signal at the entrance
(Rose Drive), which will include crosswalks. In addition, there is a sidewalk
that connects the affordable housing parcel directly to Poinsettia.
VISTA PACIFICA HOMEOWNERS COMMITTEE
October 9,2001
Paae 3
Pedestrians from the affordable housing site would have direct access to
the traffic signal crossing.
K. The proposed recreational vehicle storage site will be screened with a solid
wall and landscaping. In addition, the site is 15 to 20 feet above the
Poinsettia Lane elevation, thereby further reducing its visibility.
It is anticipated that the project will be heard by the Planning Commission in
November 2001. You will receive a legal notice of that hearing at least ten days
in advance. Thank you again for your participation.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL J HOWMILLER
Planning Director
Attachment
c: City Attorney
Assistant Planning Director
Principal Planner DeCerbo
Senior Planner Grim
File Copy
October 9,2001
Donald W Detisch Esq
Detisch and Christensen
444 West C St, Suite 200
San Diego CA 92101
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS REGARDING THE MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE THOMPSOWABATA SUBDIVISION
Thank you for your comments regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Thomsponflabata residential subdivision. Listed below are the responses to your
comments. Your comment letter (copy attached) has been noted with reference letters
that correspond to the responses contained below.
A. The consultant report complies with the City Noise Ordinance requirements and full
mitigation is achieved via the consultant's recommendations. In addition, the
Uniform Building Code requires internal sound attenuation.
8. The lighting or recreation areas and/or storage will meet City standards requiring
that it be shielded and directed away from surrounding residences.
C. The City staff has evaluated various designs for access to the Tabata Property. In
order to meet City standards a second means of access is required to adequately
this project, meets all City standards regarding access.
serve the Tabata property. The current access, as improved in conjunction with
It is anticipated that the project will be heard by the Planning Commission in November
2001. You will receive a legal notice of that hearing at least ten days in advance. Thank
you again for your participation.
Sincerely,
;*. Planning Director
Attachment
c: City Attorney
Assistant Planning Director
Principal Planner DeCerbo
Senior Planner Grim
File Copy
1635 Faraday Avenue. Cailsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 - www.ci.carlsbad.c~.us
PETITION TO MAYOR BUD LEWIS
FROM
HOMEOWNERS OF VISTA PACIFICA
The Honorable Bud Lewis Mayor, City of Carlsbad
Carlsbad. CA
Dear Mayor Lewis:
I am writing you on behalf of the homeowners of the Planned Unit Development, Vista Pacifica. Vista Pacifica is located on the south side ofpoinsettia Lane at the intersection ofBatiquitos Drive. Attached you will find a petition signed by the homeowners of Vista Pacifica which expresses their opposition to
certain elements of a new community slated for construction on the eastern perimeter of Vista Pacifica. The homeowners of Vista Pacifica oppose:
I. the extension of a street in the community, Alyssum Road. which currently dead ends
2. the construction Of 24 high density affordable housings units on our eastern perimeter, and
3. the construction of an RV Storage area adjacent to the affordable housing units.
inside the community,
We were informed initially by Standard Pacific, the developer of this new community (Shore Point) that the
items 1 thru 3 above were mandated on Standard Pacific by the City Planning Department. An initial inquiry ofthe City Planning Department indicated that this department had approved the placement ofthe
affordable housing units and the RV storage area at another location on the north side of Poinsettia Lane. Apparently the city planning department recommendations were overruled because of strenuous and often
vile protestations by residents of an adjoining community.
I am attaching a map and annotated photographs which will give you some idea ofthe impact the current plans submitted by Standard Pacific will have on our peacefd planned unit development. You will note that
the extension of Alyssum Road and the construction of the affordable housing units and the RV storage area will greatly increase the trafic into and out of our community. The residents on the eastern end of
Alyssum Road would virtually be cut off from our community and would be faced with the problems of noise, pollution and safety concerns for their children and elderly family members. We do not believe it is
the intent of city planners to inflict this type of a hazard on a long established community which would realize zero benefits from this current plan and yet be burdened with many liabilities. As presently drawn,
the affordable housing units and the RV Storage lot are more an appendage to Vista Pacifica than a part of the Standard Pacific development.
We believe that there are other more equitable solutions to the problem. We would like our objections and
concerns to be given a fair hearing. Our community has a great deal ofpride. We are concerned with our overall appearance, our safety and our quality of life. Many homeowners bought homes in Vista Pacifica
because they were assured that our existing boundaries would be maintained. They have invested a great deal of time. energy and resources into this community and now they feel that they are clearly being
violated by forces and powers which are not easily identifiable. Mr. Mayor we solicit your support. We know and respect your track record which puts the concerns of our larger community Carlsbad at the top of
your list. ..
Owners for the Preservation of “Olde” Vista Pacikca
Member Ramona Finnila.
Cc:Mayor Pro-tem Matt Hall; Council Member Ann Kulchin; Council Member Julie Nygaard; Council
Cc: Ray Patchett, City Manager Lloyd Hubbs, Public Works Director Marty Orenyak, Community Development Director
Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director Bob Wojcik, Public Works Manager
All Vlsta Paclflca Homeowners Mike Grim, Associate Planner
lb 3
Rear side of wall
behind Alyssum cul- de-sac
ARGUMENTS PROFFERED BY THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO LOCATE THE
POINT" ON LOMCEFLA STREET i.e.. THE NORTH SIDE OF POINSETTIA LANE :
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS OF STANDARD PACIFIC HOUSING DEVELOPMENT "SHORE
I. The affordable housing units would be adjacent to current higher density town homes,
2. The units would be next to a major arterial, Poinsettia Lane, allowing persons in those units easy
3. The units would be closer to the public elementary school,
4. Access to and from the school would be safer and could be done on foot thereby avoidins the other
5. There would be walking access to the local public park.
access to public transportation,
main arterials.
WE ARE STILL IN THE PROCESS OF COLLECTING COPIES OF THE BIGOTED AND
THREATENING MAIL WHICH WAS SENT TO EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY PLANNING
DEPARTMENT. WE UNDERSTAND THAT IT WAS THE INTENSITY AND VICIOUSNESS
OF THIS MAIL WHICH MAY HAVE CAUSED THE REVERSAL OF THE ORIGINAL
RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AS TO THE LOCATION OF THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AND THE RV STORAGE AREA. WE ASSUME THAT THIS
MAIL CAN BE OBTAINED DIRECTLY FROM THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT THAT
IS ASSUMING THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN DESTROYED.
WE ARE NOT CERTAIN IF THE THREATENING PHONE CALLS MEMBERS OF THE
STAFF RECEIVED WERE RECORDED.
ATTACHED IS THE PETITION SIGNED BY 150 HOMEOWNERS OF THE VISTA PACIFICA
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. APPROXIMATELY 40 OWNERS WERE ABSENT DURING
THE PERIOD THE PETITION WAS IN CIRCULATION AND THEIR SIGNATURES WILL
BE PROVIDED AT A LATER DATE.
PETITION
The residents of the rubdivision know as “Vista Pacifica”, located In the Clty of Carlsbad. Cailfomia.
petitlon the City of Carlsbad to prevent the proposed extension of Alyssum Road as noted on the Clty approved plans that ailow Standard Paciflc the right to extend Alyssum Road in order to gain entrance and
egress for the new subdivision known as “Poinsettia Properties”. Alyssum Road, in “Vista Pacifica”, was
originally approved a8 a cul-de-sac street, and the development currently has existing infrastructure in the form of a perimeter rtucco wall separating Vista Paciflca from adjoining development to the east. The
residents, whose signatures are affixed below, strongly believe that the extenslon of this road wlli have a
rignificant negative impad on the residents of “Vista Paciflca”. Extending Alyssum Road will add excwslve trafflc noise (several hundred care per day), and the environmental pollutants that would
of the homes currently located on the cul-de-sac at the east-end of Alyesum Rwd. Therefore, those signing
accompany that trafflc. Addltionally, the extension of this cul-de-sac would denigrate the property values
beiow, do hereby petition the City of Carlsbad to maintain the subdivision as It was approved by the City some fmwn (16) yean ago and not ailow Alyssum Road to be modified or changed in any way.
1 SIGNATURE OF RESIDENT PRINTED NAME OF RESIDENT & ADDRESS
1. - PrhbdNann: dfii>l.; 4 ~JQC .. i’ I’ , < - .I ,7 /-,C? ’.5.LW,%q
, .. ’” ,
/ Addms: Y “/ ~x5~ct rt-3
v
b
I1
.
PETITION
The residents of the subdivision know as “Vista Pacifica”, located In the Clty of Carlsbad, California,
peUtion the City of Carisbad to prevent the proposed extension of Alyssum Road as noted on the City approved plans that allow Standard Pacific the rlght to extend Alyssum Road in order to gain entrance and egresa for the new subdlvieion known as “Poinsettia Properties”. Alyssum Road, In “Vista PacMca”, was
form of a perimeter stucco wall separating Vista PaclRca from adJolnlng development to the east. The originally approved ae a culde-aac street, and the development currently has exlsting infrasttucture in the
residents, whose signatures are afRxed below, strongly believe that the extension of this road will have a
slgnlficant negatlve impact on the residents of “Vlsta PacMca”. Extending Alyssum Road will add excessive traftlc noise (several hundred cars per day), and the environmental pollutants that would
accompany that traffk. Additionally, the extension of thls cul.de-sac would denlgrate the property values
of the homes currently located on the cul4e-aac at the east-end of Alyssum Road. Therefore, those signing
some fifteen (15) yeam ago and not allow Alyseum Road to be modifled or changed In any way. below, do hereby petition the Clty of Carisbad to maintain the subdlvision as it was approved by the City
PETITION
The resldents of the subdivision know as “Vista Pacifica”, located In the Clty of Carlsbad, California,
approved plans that allow Standard Pacific the right to extend Alyssum Road in order to gain entrance and
petition the City of Carlsbad to prevent the proposed extension of Alyssum Road as noted on the City
egress for the new subdivision known as “Polnsettla Propertlea”. Alyssum Road, in “Vista Pacifica”, was
originally approved as a cul-de-sac street, and the development currently has existing infrastructure in the
form of a perlmeter stucco wall separatlng Vista PacMca from adjolnlng development to the east. The
residents, whose signatures are afflxed below, strongly believe that the extension of thls road will have a
significant negative impact on the residents of “Vista Pacifica”. Extending Alyssum Road will add excessive traffic noise (several hundred can per day), and the environmental pollutants that would
of the homes currently locared on the cul-de-eac at the esstand of Alyssum Road. Therefore, those signing accompany that mc. Additionally, the extension of thls cul-de-sac would denigrate the property values
below, do hereby petltion the City of Carlsbad to maintain the wbdlvlsion as it was approved by the Clty some fifteen (1s) yean ago and not allow Alyssum Road to be modified or changed in any way.
1 SIGNATURE OF RESIDENT
1. 1 7 t PRINTED NAME OF RESIDENT & ADDRESS
i
PETITION
The residents of the subdlvislon know as “vista Paclfka”, located In tho City of Carlsbad, California,
approved plans that allow Standard PactRc the right to extend Alyssum Road in order to galn entrance and petition the City of Carlsbad to prevent the proposed extenslon of Alyssum Road as noted on the City
egress for the new subdivision known as “Poinsettia Properties”. Alyssum Road, In “Vista Pacifica”, was
originally approved as a cul-de-sac street, and the development cumntly has existlng infrastructure in the
form of a perimeter stucco wall separating Vista Paclflca from ad]olnlng development to the east The reeldsnts, Whom signatures are fixed below, strongly boileve that the extendon of this road will have e slgnlflcant n.g.tlve impect on the midents of “Vista Peclflce”. Extending Alyuum Road will add exceaalve trllmc noise (several hundred can per day), and tho environmental pollutants that would
of the hms currently located on the cul-de-sac at the eastand of Alyssum Road. Therefore, those signing accompany that traffic. Additionally, the extenslon of this cul-de-sac would denigrate the property values
below, do hereby petition the City of Carlsbad to maintain the subdivision as It was approved by the City
some fifteen (15) yean ago and not allow Alyssum Road to be modW or changed In any way.
T
t
PETITION
The reeidents of tho SUbdiVi8iOn know as ‘Illsta PaCIRCa”, located In the City of Carisbad, California,
petition M. City of Carlsbad to prevent the propoMd extemion of Alyssum Road as noted on the City
egmu for the new subdivlsion known as “Poinsettia Promes”. Alyssum Road, in “vista Packs", wp.
approved pian. that allow Standard Paclfic the right to extend Alyssum Road in order to gain entrance and
originally approved as a cul-de-sac street, and th. development CUtwMy h88 exl8ting infrastructure in tho form of perimeter stucco wall separating Vista Paclfica from edjolnlng development to the eat me
residents, whose signatures am affixed blow, strongly bdieve that the extension of this road wlil have a
significant negative impact on the residents of “vista PaClRCe”. Extending Alp8um Road will add
excessive traffic noise (eeveral hundred can per day), and the environmental pollutants that would
accompany that traffic. Additlonally, the extension of thla cul-de-sac would denigrate the property values of th. homes currently located on the cul-de-sac at the eastand of Alyssum Road. Therefore, tho- signing
some fifteen (IS) years ago and not allow Alyssum Road to bo modifled or changed in any way. below, do hereby petition the City of Carlsbad to maintain the subdlvislon as it was approved by the City
I
/33
PETITION
The residents of the subdivision know as “Vista Pacifica”, located in the City of Carisbad, California,
petition the City of Carisbad to prevent the proposed extension of Alyssum Road as noted on the City approved plans that allow Standard Pacific the right to extend Alyssum Road in order to gain entrance and
egress for the new subdivision known as “Poinsettia Propedies”. Alyssum Road, in “Vista Pacffica”, was
originally approved as a cul-de-sac street, and the development currently has existing infrastructure In the
form of a perimeter stucco wall separating Vista PacMca from adjoining development to the wsL The
nsldents, whose signatures are affixed below, strongly believe that the extension of this road will have a significant negatlve impact on the residents of “Wsta Pacifica”. Extending Alyssum Road will add excessive traffic noise (several hundred can per day), and the environmental pollutants that would accompany that traffic. Additionally. the extenslon of this cui4e-sac would denigrate the property values
of the homes currently located on the cul-de-c at the east-end of Alyssum Road. Therefore, those signing
below, do hereby petltion the City of Carisbad to maintain the subdivision as it wo. approved by the City
sow fifteen (16) yeam ago and not allow Alyssum Road to be modmed or changed in any way.
a.
& L- 1”‘
PETITION
The residents of the subdlvislon know as “Vista Pacinca”, located in the City of Cariabad, California,
petition the City of Carisbad to prevent the propoaed extension of Alysaum Road as noted on the City approved plans that allow Standard Pacific the right to extend Alyssum Road in order to gain entrance and egress for the new aubdividon known aa ”Poinaettie Properties”. Alyssum Road, in "Vista Pacifica”, was originally approved u a culzle-aac stmet, and the development currently has existing infrastructure In the
form of a perimeter atucco wall separating Vista Paclflca from adjolnlng development to the mat. The residenta, whose dgnatures are afflxd below, strongly believe that the extension of thls road will have a signincant negaUve impact on the residents of ”Vista Pacifica”. Extending Alyssum Road will add exces8ive traffic noime (several hundred cars per day), and the environmental pollutant. that would
accompany that trafk. Additionally, the extenalon of this cul-de-sac would denigrate the property valuea
of the homes currently located on the culds-sac at the eaatand of Alyssum Road. Therefore, those aigning below, do hereby petition the Clty of Cadsbad to maintain the subdlvislon as It was approved by the City some fifteen (15) yean ago and not allow Alyuum Road to be modified or changed In any way.
PETITION
The reaidentr of the aubdiviaion know aa “Viata Pacfflca”, located in the City of Carlabad, California, petltlon the Clty of Carlabad to prevent the propoaed extenaion of Alyaaum Road aa noted on the Clty approved plana that allow Standard Pacific the right to extend Alysaum Road in order to gain entrance and egreas for the new aubdlvlaion known aa “Poinsettia Propertlea”. Alyssum Road, in “Viata Pacifica“, waa originally approved ae a culde-rac atreet, end the development cumently haa exlsting infrastructure in the
form of a pdmeter atucco wall aeparatlng Viata Paclfica from adjoining development to the east. The realdent., whoae aignaturea are amxed below, atrongly believe that the extenaion of thla mad will have a aignlficant negative impact on the reaidenta of “Wata PacMca”. Extending Alyaaum Road will add excesaive traffic noise (aeveral hundred can per day), and the environmental poilutanta that would accompany that tr.Ric. Additionally, the extension of this cul4e-aac would denigrate the propetty vaiuea
of the homea currently located on the culde-aac at the eaat-and of Alyaaum Road. Therefore, thoae algning below, do hereby peUtlon the City of Carisbad to mrintaln the aubdiviaion aa It ww approved by the Ci
some fifteen (16) years ago and not allow Alyuum Road to be modlfled or changed In any way.
P“
I
PllnW Num:
Addms: !
Pfinbd Nsm:
AddrW: I I io. P”
Addnu: I
PETITION
The residents of the Subdivision know as “Vista Pacifica”, iocated in the City of Carisbad, California,
approved plans that JilOW Standard Pecfflc the right to extend Alymum Road In order to gain entrance and
petltlon the City of Carisbad to prevent the proposed extenslon of Alyssum Road as noted on the City
originally approved as a cul-de-sac street, and the development currently has existing infrastructure in thr egress for the new subdivision known as “Poinaettla Properties”. Alyssum Road, in “Vista Pacfflca”, was
form of a perimeter stucco wall separating Vista Pacfflca from &Joining development to the east The
residenta. whore eignatures are affixed below, strongly believe that the extension of thls road will have a
excessive trdc nolee (several hundred cam per day), and the environmental pollutants that would signfflcant negative Impact on the residents of “Vista Pacifica”. Extending Alyssum Road will add
of the homes currently located on the cul-de-sac at the east-end of Alyssum Road. Therefore, those signing accompany that trMc. Addltionaliy, the extension of thls cul.de-aac would denigrate the propedy values
below, do hereby petltion the City of Carlsbad to maintain the subdivlslon as it was approved by the City
some flfteen (16) years ago and not allow Alyssum Road to be modified or changed in any way.
SIG ATURE OF RESIDENT
PETITION
Tho mldents of the subdivision know as “Vista Paclflca”, locatad In me city of Catisbad, California,
petitlon the City of Catisbad to pmvent the proposed extension of Alyssum Road as noted on the Civ approved plans that allow Standard Paclfic the tight to extend Alyuum Road in order to gain entrance and egmu for the new SUbdivlSlon known as “Poinsettia Propertlea”. Alyssum Road, In “Vista PaclRca”, was
orlglnally approved as a cul-de-sac street, and the development currently has existlng Infrastructure In the
form of a perlmeter stucco wall separatlng Vlsta PaciRca from adjolnlng development to the eaaL The
residents, whose signatures are amxed below, strongly belleve that the extenslon of thls road wlll have a
significant negaUve Impact on the residents of ‘Wsta PacMica”. Extendlng Alyasum Road will add excessive trmc noise (several hundred cam per day), and the envlronmental pollutants that would
accompany that traffic. Additionally, the extenslon of thls cul&-sac would denigrate the property values of the homes currently located on the cul-de-sac at the east-end of Alpsum Road. Therefore, those sIgning
below, do hereby petition the City of Catisbad to malntaln the subdlvislon as It was approved by the City some fifteen (15) yean ago and not allow Alpsum Road to be modlfied or changed In any way.
PETITION
The residents of the 8UbdiviSiOn know as “Vista Pacifica”, located in the City of Cvlshd, California, petltlon the City of Carlabad to prevent the propowd extension of Aly8sum Road as nohd on the City approved plana that allow Standard Pacific the right to extend Alyuum Road In order to gain entrance and egress for the new subdivision known as “Poinrettia Properties”. Alyssum Road, in “Vista PaclRa”, was
originally approved as a cul-de-sac street, and the development currently has exirting infrastructure In the
form of a perimeter stucco wall separating Vista Pacifica from adjoining development to the ea& The
residents, whose signatures are affixed below, strongly belleve that the extension of this road wlii have a
excassive Mc noise (several hundred cars per day), and the environmental pollutants that would
significant negatiw impact on the residanta of “Vista PaciRca”. Extending Alyuum Road wlii add
of the horns currently located on the cul-de-sac at the eastand of Aiysaum Road. Therefore, those signing accompany that traffic. Addltlonally, the extension d this cul-de-sac would denigrato the properly vaiwr
below, do hereby petition the City of Carisbad to maintain the subdlvision as It was approved by the City some flfteen (16) years ago and not allow Alyuum Road to be modified or changed in any way.
I
I
PETITION
The resident8 of tho subdivision know as “Vista Pacifica”, located In the City of Catisbad, Caiifomia, petition the city of Carlabad to prevent the proposed extension of Alyssum Road as noted on the City
egNS8 for the new subdivieion known as “Poinaetlis Propertks”. Alyssum Road, In “Vista Pacifica”, approved plan8 thst allow Standard Paclflc the rlght to extend Alyuum Road in order to gain entrance and
originally approved as a culdeaac street, and the daveiopmenl currently has existing infrasbucture in the
form of a perlmter stucco wsii separating Vista Pacifica from adjoining development to the east. Thr residents, whose signatures are affixed below, strongly believe that the extermion of this road will have a signfflcant negative impad on the residents of “VIsta Pacfflca”. Extending Alyuum Road will add exceulve traffic noise (several hundred cars per day), and the environmental pollutants that would accompany that trafk. Additbnaiiy, the extension of this culde-sac would denigrate the property values of the homo8 currently located on the cuide-sac at the eastand of Alyuum Road. Therefore, those eigning
below, do hereby petition the City of Cerlsbad to maintain the subdlvision as It was approved by the City
some ?ifteen (1s) years ago and not allow Aiyseurn Road to be modified or changed in sny way.
1 SIGNATURE OF RESIDENT
1. 1
PETITION
The residanta of the subdivision knormas “vista Pacifica”, hated in the City of Carlsbad, California,
petiUon the City of Carlsbad to vent the proposed extension of Alyssum Road as noted on the City approved plans that allow Standard % ac flc the dght to extend Alyuum Road in order to gain entrance and
egress for the new subdivision known as “Poinsettia Properties“. Alyssum Road, in “Vlsta Pacifica", was
originally approved as a culde-rac street, and the development currently has existing Infrastructure in the
form of a perimeter stucco wall separating Vista Pacifica from adJolnlng development to the east. The
slgnificant negative impact on the residenh of “vista Pacifica”. Extending Alyssum Road will add resident., whose signatures are mxed below, strongly belleve that the extension of this rd will have a
excessive trafflc noise (several hundred can per day), and the environmental pollutants that would
accompany that traffic. Additionally, the extension of thls cul-da-sac would denlgrate the property values of the homes currently located on the cul-de-sac at the easttand of Alyuum Road. Therefore, those signing
below, do hereby petition the City of Carlsbad to maintain the subdivision as it was approved by the City
some Mteen (15) yeara ago and not allow Alyssum Road to be modified or changed in any way.
SIGNATURE OF RESIDENT PRINTED NAME OF RESIDENT & ADDRESS
1. I
f y&!!!! PmwNm: f,X,W”EU@A4
PmMlNur*:d*rC.“1)9 &A t..zzuoJ /
PETITION
The residents of the subdivision know as "Vlsta Pacifica", located In the City of Carlsbad. Callfomla,
petition the City of Carlsbad to prevent the proposed extsnalon of Alyssum Road as noted on the City approved plans that allow Standard Pacific the right to extend Alyssum Road In order to gain entrance and egress for the new 8ubdlvislon known as "Poinsettia Properties". Alyssum Road, in "Vista Pacifica", was
originally approved as a cul-de-sac street. and the development currently has existing infrastructure in the
form of a porlmtar stucco wsll separatlng Vista Pacifica from adjoining dsvelopmenl to the east The
residents, Whose signatures am afflxed below, strongly bellsvs that the extension of thls road will havs a
SignHicant negative impact on the residents of "Vista Paclflca". Extending Alyseum Road will add
excessive tramc noise (several hundred car8 per day), and the environmental pollutants that would
accompany that traffic. Additionally, the extension of thls cul-de-sac wwld denigrate the property values
of the homes currently located on the cul-de-sac at the east-end of Alyssum Road. Therefore, thoss signing
some Meen (16) yean ago and not allow Alyssum Road to be modified or changed in any way. below, do hereby petition the City of Carlsbad to maintain the subdivision as it ww approved by the City
PETITION
The realdenta ol the aubdivialon know as “VIata Paclfka”, iocatd In thr Clty of Carlabad, Callfomir,
petltlon the City of Cartabad to prevent the proposed extenalon of Alyuum Road ae noted on the City approved plana that allow Standard Pacific the rlght to extend Alpaum Road In order to gain entrance and
originally approved as a cui-dsaac atmet, and the development currentiy has exiating infrastructure In the
egroae for ths new subdivision known aa “Polnasffla Properties". Alyaaum Road, in “Vista Pacifica”, was
form of a perimeter atucco wall separating Wata Pacfflca from adjoining development to the eaet The midenta, whoas algnatums are affixed below, atrongly belleve that the axtenslon of thi8 road wlll have,.
excessive baftic nolae (several hundred cam per day), and the environmental pollutant8 that would
algnMcant negative Impact on the realdenta of “Viata Pacllka”. Extending Alyuum Road wlll add
of the homes currently located on the culd6.u~ at the sast-end of Alyssum Road. Therefore, those aigning accompany that traffic. Additionally, the extansion of thls culde...~ would denigrate the property values
some fifteen (16) ysam ago and not allow Alyssum Road to bs modified or changed In any way.
below, do hereby patition the City of Carlabad to malntaln the subdivialon sa It wan approved by the City
I 1 SIGNATURE OF RESIDENT I PRINTED NAME OF RESIDENT & ADDRESS 1
/s3
PETITION
The residents of the subdlvlslon know as “Vlsta Pacifica”, located In the Clty of Carlsbad, California,
petition the Clty of Cadsbad to prevent the proposed extension of Alyssum Road as noted on the Clty approved plans that allow Standard Pacific the rlght to extend Alyssum Road In order to galn entrance and egrese for the new subdivision known as “Poinsettia Properties”. Alyssum Road, In “Vista Pacifica”, was
form of a perimeter stucco wall separating Vista Pacifica from adjolnlng development to the east. The
originally approved as a cul-de-sac street, and the development currently has exlstlng infrastructure In the
Nsldonts, whose signatures are amxed below, strongly believe that the extension of this road wlll have a significant negative Impact on the residents of “Vista Paclfk.”. Extending Alyssum Road will add
accompany that tr+ffic. Additionally, the extenalon of thlr cul-de-sac would denlgrrte the property values
excessive traffic noise (several hundred can per day), and the environmental pollutants that would
of the homes currently located on the cul-de-sac at the east-end of Alyssum Road. Therefore, those signing
below. do hereby petition the City of Carlsbad to maintain the subdivlslon as it was approved by the Clty some Mtrn (15) years ago and not allow Alyssum Road to be modified or changed in any way.
1 SIGNATURE OF RESIDENT PRINTED NAME OF RESIDENT 6 ADDRESS .- I
“UNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
MINUTES FROM COMMUNITY INFORMATION FORUM
Attached for review are the detailed minutes from the Community Information Forum
that staff held on Thursday, August 17, 2000 to share information on the proposed
Standard Paeific Poinsettia Properties project, at the location known as the
Thompsoflabata site, with surrounding property owners. As I indicated in a previous
memorandum, the primary issue raised by the speakers at the forum was related to the
extension of Alyssum Road. The attached minutes, however, will provide you with
verbatim comments from all of the speakers and the details of their individual concerns.
The minutes also include responses from staff to speaker questions.
As staff indicated to those attending the Information Forum, the attached minutes will be
included as an exhibit to both the Planning Commission and City Council reports that
will be submitted to process the application by Standard Pacific for their proposed
project. Staff shared that the minutes will allow the Planning Commission and City
Council to consider the concerns of the neighboring property owners as they review the
project report and related plans. It is anticipated at this time that the project will be
submitted to the Planning Commission for review and a recommendation in November,
2000, and subsequently submitted to the City Council after the first of the new year 2001
for final action.
For information purposes, Mr. Jim Hicks, representative of the Vista Pacific
Homeowner’s Association, requested a copy of these minutes from the information
forum. A copy of these minutes, therefore, have been forwarded (mailed) to him as
requested.
If you have any comments or questions regarding the attached minutes, please contact me
at X2724, or Debbie Fountain at X2935.
.. . .. .. ”. - _-
MARTY ORENYAK
C: City Attorney
Public Works Director
Housing and Redevelopment Director
Senior Civil Engineer - S. H
Senior Planner - M. Grim 7““ Planning Director
COMMUNITY INFORMATION FOt.-.h
AUGUST 17,2000
Page 1
Minutes of:
Time of Meeting:
Date of meeting:
Place of Meeting:
COMMUNITY INFORMATION FORUM
August 17,2000
6:OO P.M.
FARADAYCENTER
FARADAY ROOM 173A AND B
SUBJECT OF FORUM: Standard Pacific Poinsettia Properties - Thompsonnabata Development
PURPOSE OF FORUM: For City Staff to share information with surrounding residents regarding the project proposed by
Standard Paaficon the Poinseltia Properties known as the Thompsonflabata sites.
PROJECT LOCATION: Properties located on the north and south side of Poinsettia Lane; east of Snapdragon Drive, north of
Daisy Avenue; west of Aviara Parkway: and south of Camino De Las Ondas.
FORUM AGENDA
I. INTRODUCTION - Marty Orenyak, Community Development Director
II OERVIEW OF PROPOSED PROJECT - Mike Grim, Senior Planner (Project Planner, Planning Department)
111. REVIEW OF ROAD AND CIRCULATION ISSUES - Skip Hammann, Senior Civil Engineer (Public Works - Land Use
Development)
IV. SUMMARY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT - Debbie Fountain,
Housing and Redevelopment Director
V. NEXT STEPS FOR PROJECT CONSIDERATION - Marty Orenyak, Community Development Director
VI. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
The meeting began with presentations from staff according to the agenda noted above. The audience members were then
invited by Marty Orenyak, Community Development Director, to make comments and ask questions regarding the proposed
project. The comments and/or questions made by the audience members are noted below with staff responses.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS:
1. HELLO, MY NAME IS JOHN ZEMENICK, I LIVE IN VISTA PACIFICA WITH MY WIFE, MELINDA.
My first question is in regards to the culde-sac. I'm looking at a letter that was addressed to Kathy Baker with Standard Pacific
Homes. I'll read it, and this is from a group called Linscott, Law and Greenspan. "We understand that it has been proposed to
not connect AlpsurdRose, between Rose Drive and Snapdragon Drive. Based on results of September 23,1998, traffic studies
prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan and tenures and the fact that it is planned to signalize Poinsettia Lane and Rose Drive
intersection, this connection is not necessary to serve the project better." What has changed from that?
Skip Hammann:
i haven't seen that letter, but what has changed? Nothing has changed because it has always been staffs position that, again as
I've made my presentation, we are always looking for multiple points of access and I'm not going to argue that you could close it,
but our position or policy of the City is to always provide multiple points of access so that the traffic is as evenly distributed
throughout the community as possible so that we don't over burden any one street. So the staff does not support that opinion of
Linscott, Law and Greenspan.
86
COMMUNIN INFORMATION FORh
AUGUST 17,2000
Page 2
Mr. John Zemenick:
and egresses do they have to those residential groups?
Let me ask you this, when you drive down Batiquitos Drive, there are several gated communities in Aviara. How many accesses
Skip Hammann: Well, I can't respond to all those different projects. When there gets to be over 50 units, we require secondary access, as
mandatory secondary access.
Mr. John Zemenick: There is secondary access off of Daisy on the Other side.
Skip Hammann:
Well, I'm not going to stand up here and argue with you as to why you couldn't culde-sac it (Alyssum), because clearly, you
could cul-de-sac it. But our position is, again, that we look for as many points of access within each project that we can get.
Alyssum has always been designed to connect to the Thompson/Tabata properly. One of the issues you get into when you have
a roadway like Poinsettia Avenue is that you have limited points of access to it. There are only two points of access from these
two projects including Spiniker Hills to the south. Again, we look for as many points of access as possible. vista Pacifica was
designed to accommodate the future development Of this project and it is staffs position that we can't support this project without
decrease traffic on Snapdragon, Ivy. Daisy and some of the other ones. We look at the big overall picture and the impact for the
having that access there. It improves the overall circulation. I will grant that it does increase the traffic on Alyssum, but it will
community as a whole. Thals staffs position. You'll be able to express your concerns at the Planning Commission and at the
City Council during the public hearings on this project.
Mr. John Zemenick
Can I ask one more question?
Skip Hammann:
Yes
Mr. John Zemenick
As far as the low-income housing units, what was the date of the change when formerly the project, the RV, and the low-income
project was going to go in at the North side of Poinsettia. What was the date of the change?
Debbie Fountain:
I don't have an exact date for you. It was several months ago
Mr. John Zemenick:
Would it be around the date of March 8,20007
Debbie Fountain: Like I said, I'm not sure exactly when that decision was made and the developer was informed to relocate the affordable housing
to an allemate site within the development. We actually have been talking about this project for much longer than the past year.
The developer's proposal for affordable housing was presented to the housing team early on and the location was an issue we
shared very early on in the project. The developer felt strongly that the original location they Selected was a good site, 50 they
decided to process their application with the original location. As we continued to review the project staff decided that we still
didn't' think the site selected by the developer was the best location for it (the affordable housing).
Mr. John Zemenick: I'm not bying to get on anybody's bad side, but there are several letters in the file. And you can look at the letters, you can look at
the dates. There is an attorney letter and iys drafted and what it does, it presents a picture that says that the lowincome housing
units should be moved to the south side of the street It is dated March 8,2000. And this is way prior to when the individuals that
live in Vista Pacifica were made aware of the project and the implications to our community. We have been in the area since
1985.
COMMUNITY INFORMATION FORud
AUGUST 17,2000
Page 3
Debbie Fountain:
I am willing to accept that the information you have on dates are correct. There have been different opinions on where the
affordable housing should go. As Marty mentioned, these projects are very fluid. They continue in the review and revision
process until we make a final recommendation that goes before the Planning Commission. Normally you would receive all the information on a proposed project as a property owner when it goes to Planning Commission. This forum is something that we've
never held ever before. Typically, it is the developer's responsibility to go out and meet with surrounding communities if they
know there's going to be some controversy over something. Typically, the first time you would hear about the details of a project
in a lot of cases is when it is actually scheduled for a public hearing (unless the developer holds meetings with property owners).
Once a project is scheduled for a public hearing, staff has its final recommendation on a project
Mr. John Zemenidc
Just for clarification for everybody here, the Mariner's Point individuals were apprised of the project in February. The vista
Pacifica residents were apprised of the project in May-for whatever it is worth.
2. I'M AL RIEDLER, I LIVE IN LAS PLAYAS. Am I to understand that the only affordable housing in this 222 unit development are those 24? Those are the only ones that are
identified as affordable housing?
Debbie Fountain:
Yes
Mr. AI Riedler:
Are the plans that you're considering now covering all 222 or just the 247
Debbie Fountain:
The project that's being considered is the whole development. When we sent out the notices about the meeting, the reason we
just incorporated the part abut the 24 units was because of the issue about the access. So we just wanted to share that
information. But the project that's going to be considered by Planning Commission and City Council is the entire project.
Mr. Al Riedler:
I see. Can we get a map of the whole project then instead of just the rdable housing one from you folks?
Marty Orenyak:
If you give us your name, we'll pass it on to the developer and I'm sure he'll be happy to get you the other plans.
Mr. AI Riedler:
Thank you.
Marty Orenyak:
If anybody else wants a full copy of the map, I'm sure the developer will be happy to give them to you. Just put your name on a
list here and we'll pass it on.
3. I" STUART WENTWORTH. I LIVE ON LOWER DAISY IN SPlNlKER HILL.
The developer did a study on traffic that proposed increasing traffic on Daisy by 50%. The City has not done a study since '98.
Talking to staff; they're saying that they're hoping that upper Daisy will utilize Rose. But as you said it's circuitous and Daisy is a
straight shot. What do you have to support that?
Skip Hammann:
Can I have what your question is? I don't understand to support what?
Taking bafiic off of upper Daisy through Rose
Mr. Stuart Wentwofth:
COMMUNITY INFORMATION FOh-d
AUGUST 17,2000
Page 4
Skip Hammann: I'm not prepared to get into all the traffic reports tonight, but it has been our experience that the more points of access YOU
provide people will use them, especially someone going out Poinsettia to the east, They're going to want to take the most direct
there will also be a signal at that intersection (Poinsettia & Rose) so they are going to take the most direct route wherever their
route. So if you're on upper Daisy, the shortest route to Poinsettia is through the proposed Thompsonnabata project, Again,
destination is.
4 I" LARRY STAPLETON. I LIVE IN VISTA PACIFICA.
I would like to thank the staff for their information. I've had some questions answered and your information has created some additional questions in my mind. To my knowledge there has been at least one and I believe two meetings with Planning
Department people and some of the City Council Members. I find this not too untypical of Carkbad City Council, But we can find
no records of what transpired in those meetings. And it would appear to me in the public interest that if there are dosed meetings the public be made aware of what goes on in those meetings, because it does effect us. I'd like to find out what went on in the
meetings between Standard Pacific and members of the City staff. I would appreciate it if someone could provide that for me.
When the change was made, we initially, as John pointed out, found out quite late in the process that this project was being
considered and at that time as far as we knew gone quite a ways beyond just the talk stage. The initial point for the affordable
housing was given to us as being on the other side of Poinsettia just above Las Playas, which is a multiple family home
development. I met with Mike Grim and one of the people from traffic, we were told that Poinsettia was about at 30% of the
expected capacity that it will be when it is run through to Melrose. If I were living in affordable housing, four'bedroom with two
children or three children, i don't think i would want them crossing Poinsettia Avenue even if there is a stoplight to get to and
from school and from the recreation facilities. It doesn't make sense. Kids don't always go to stop lights. We've already had one
child hit at the corner of Poinsettia and Snapdragon. And I also heard this evening that the City3 considering, a stop light at
either Rose or Poinsettia. Several of our people in our community have not been objecting to getting a stop light at Snapdragon.
We've been for it. I asked Mike at the time, 'What's it going to take, another accident or a death at the comer of Poinsettia and
Snapdragon before the City does something about it?' Mike assured me that's not the case. I fail to see the logic behind having
children cross the busy intersection where the speed limit just went up from 40 to 45. If you go out there and actually drive 40
miles per hour you're going to have somebody in your trunk-have those children going. back and forth across that street. The
logic fails me. I mean you guys are experts. I'm not going to question your expertise in these kinds of issues, but I would suspect maybe somebody ought to think about that. I don't know who makes the ordinances in Carlsbad? Who's responsible for that?
We've got a lot of ordinances that I don't understand and I guarantee you, I'm ping to learn where they come from. But I've
been told that the environmental review reviews projects against standards set by the City of Carlsbad. Is that correct? Does
anybody know?
Mike Grim:
Well, actually there's two ways. The State has guidelines for what we determine as threshold levels that would tip you into an
adverse impact, a significant adverse impact. CEQA does allow local agencies, such as the City of Carlsbad, to adopt their own
threshold levels. As a matter of fact they recommend it because they realize that each individual city might have different
thresholds. Carisbad has not officially adopted any of those. So our threshold analysis is based on previous environmental
review within the City and also anything else around the area.
Mr. Larry Stapleton
Are those static or dynamic, Mike? Have we changed them or are they pretty much firm?
Mike Grim:
impact because of particular quantifiable data on one project, may not be adverse on the other depending on the surroundings,
I would say, they are pretty much firm. However, with any project there is a level of discretion and what could be an adverse
taking on certain circumstances. So it's very difficult to actually quantify 'x" amount of traffic trips or *X' amount of volume, cubic yards of grading per acre as significant or insignificant. We do have thresholds. CEQA does have thresholds whereby you can
exempt a project from environmental review. And those are very, very specific. And obviously, this project does involve
development. They are well within the realm of having to go through environmental review. But I would say, for the most pad, the
staff would try to be consistent because we want to have fair rules that we have to make consistently.
Mr. Larry Stapleton: Thank you. Where's the affordable housing for Avian?
COMMUNITY INFORMATION FOkud
AUGUST 17,2000
Page 5
Debbie Fountain:
Let me answer some of your other questions as well since they are related to affordable housing. One, I just wanted to comment
about the children crossing the street. That doesn't just effect affordable. That issue will effect everybody that has children within
this entire development. So those are things that have to be considered and it is something that parents will have to be sensitive
to about projects in Poinsettia.
The children per sq fl in the affordable housing is probably going to be a little bit higher than that in the 2000 sq fl regular home,
Mr. Larry Stapleton:
in the rest of the project
Debbie Fountain:
Well, all that I am saying is that the issue regarding children crossing the street doesn't change regardless of what your income
level is. It is something that parents have to work with the children on. But it doesn't maner if it's an affordable project or if it is
for a number of reasons and that's what we're recommending move forward. But there are always issues like the ones you are
another project. Those are still real issues that have to be dealt with. We felt that this was the best site for the affordable housing
raising that have to be worked out, even for market rate projects ultimately. The other comment I wanted to make was about the
meetings you were talking about Marty actually mentioned this at the beginning-any private citizen, any developer, any
They are basically informational meetings. You or your home owners association, anyone can go in and talk to the Council and
interested party can meet with the City Council. There are not minutes kept at those meetings, they are not noticed meetings.
we wouldn't have minutes of those meetings. That's between you and the Councilmember you spoke to. The developers have the right to do the same thing. There are no noticing requirements. Staff meets with the developers on an ongoing and regular
basis. That's part of processing an application. So those meetings are numerous, held throughout the year. Projects processed in Carlsbad have a very complex process they go through that takes months, often years to get through. So there's numerous
what's going on. And since there was controversy on this project, we basically shared the same information we shared with you
meetings that happen. A lot of times if there's some controversy within the community, the Council asks staff to fill them in on
tonight with the Council, telling them this is what's going on, these are what the issues are. The meetings were informational
only. There's no minutes or meeting notes taken of those meetings. The meetings are to help the representatives (City Council)
of the City do their job. It's just like you could go in and present your story to the Council. The Council may simply want to know
from staff what's been going on. So, that's what we share with them. You also asked about ordinances and how they're created within the City? The City Council approves all ordinances for the City. Ordinances comes from different directions. Sometimes
private Citizens want something enacted. So, they will request that the City Council develop an ordinance to address it-barking
dogs, or noise or whatever it may be. So they can go to Council and say, "I want an ordinance that regulates these types of activities," and the Council can either decide, "Yes, we want to do it or no, we don't.' They usually get a staff report. We put the
City website address up here because I think that is very important for people to be aware that you can actually go to the City
website or you can go to the City library or you can go to the City Clerk's office and get copies of all the Agendas of meetings. It
will tell you what kinds of things are being enactehrdinances or policies or that type of thing. So they are all done at the City
Council level and it is all public information what happens. In terms of Aviara development, due to the enacbnent date of the
were considering some amendments which would possibly trigger a requirement. So, we negotiated a deal with them where we
ordinance, Aviara wasn't actually required to comply because of where their application was in the prccess. They, however,
could build a project that met their requirements and also produced additional units-that's known as the Vllla Loma Apartment
Project which is right up at El Camino Real not far from the Aviara Development The only reason that we typically go off site and
were only required to do 160, we got 344 units out of that project. We also got more affordable units. They actually provide
allow a developer to go off site is if that benefits the City in some way. In the Villa Loma case for Aviara we got more units. They
housing for people at 50 and 60 percent of the area median income. So if they're going off site to meet their requirement, they
have to show the City that there is a benefit to that. Aviara was more the timing of when they came through. It was a negotiated
deal and it was because it added benefit that we allowed them to build it outside. But right now, our policy is if you have the room
within your development you have to build it (the affordable housing) within the development.
Mr. Lany Stapleton:
So did that policy change take place in '93?
COMMUNITY INFORMATION FOhd
AUGUST 17,2000
Page 6
Debbie Fountain:
ordinance went into effect.
1993 is when the inclusionary housing ordinance became effective. Aviara, the Mlia Loma project, came very soon affer that
Mr. Lany Stapleton
How far along was Aviara at that time? Do you recall?
Debbie Fountain:
They actually had already been developing a number of their planning areas and had approved development applications. The
ordinance was applied according to the application dates. If a developer had applications in that had been deemed complete,
then you weren't obligated to meet the requirement. Aviara did develop a deal with the City because they wanted to make some
future amendments to their plans.
Mr. Larry Stapleton:
That's the thing that bothers me a lot is all the deals that go on and the public doesn't know about this. That's why I asked about
the meeting with the City Council. Thank you.
Skip Hammann:
I wanted to answer a couple of your questions in regards to pedestrian access at Poinsettia and Rose Avenue. You made the
statement about pedestrian access. When we look at any project, we're looking at access and circulation for not only cars, but
also for pedestrians, bicycles and in addition ADA access. Anytime we put a signal in, we're looking to provide all those types of
access. It's not only for access for the children from the affordable home projeck. It's going to be for all the citizens in that whole
area to be able to use. You had another comment about the stoplight at Snapdragon. Right now there is a need for a signal at
Snapdragon. It is not a great need, but the City has identified that as a potential place for a future stop light. As traffic increases
on Poinsettia Avenue, the need is going to grow. However, there is probably not a need for two signals. Maybe at some future
date there may be two signals, but right now the way staff is looking at it, is that we would probably choose one of the two
locations and Rose is probably going to be the preferred location for pedestrian access. But that is not to say that it couldn't
change. For whatever reason this project doesn't go forward and there is still a need for it, we may decide to put it back at
Snapdragon. That's going to be a decision that is made over time because the needs change as the City develops. But that's
how we are looking at it at this time.
Unidentified Citizen from the Audience:
Can you make a left tum from Rose? Do you make a left or do you just have to go right?
Skip Hammann:
If and when Rose Avenue is a signalized intersection, it will be a full access. It'll be a three way intersdon so you win be able to
make left turns there. Please, I don't want to start answering questions from the audience, we want to report all your queslons.
5. I'M DOUG McFARLAND-VISTA PACIFICA.
This staff has done a lot of work. And up until tonight, I pretty much thought you worked for us. But it appears to me that this is a
done deal. It's all but decided. A lot of things that Lany brought up, such as the school kids walking across the streetit would
be a lot easier if they were on the norlh side and I thought we were here to discuss and maybe change things. I don't have an
answer as to what we should do, but I think you ought to be prepared to listen.
6. AL RIEDLER
When there is a long distance between stop lighk. it would seem like pedestrian bridges might be the answer. Kids just don't
want to walk very far to get to a stop light and a pedestrian bridge would make it unnecessary. Any consideration being given to
that?
Skip Hammann: There's no consideration at this Bme for a pedestrian bridge. This would not be the type of situation where it would be warranted.
Quite frankly, even if you did put up a pedestrian bridge, that would not preclude an individual, a child or an adult, from jay
COMMUNITY INFORMATION FOh-..l
AUGUST 17,2000
Page 7
walking auoss the street. We do evewing we can to encourage people to go to an intersection lo cross safely, but we can't
control people who want to jay walk across the street.
7. MY NAME IS BOB GATES. I LIVE ON LEMON LEAF DRIVE.
We're an area where there would be no other alternative but to have construction traffic going through on our street and through
our community in order to construct on the end of Lemon Leaf. And I'm concerned about how they will maintain that as a clean
and safe environment during the construction process. Particuarly. we don't want to have construction workers parking their
vehides on our street during construction. We prefer not, if there's dirt or soil on the street, we would like that taken care of. We would hope that they won't do construction outside approved hours. If they damage the street, we would want to see that fixed.
And we would not like to see unsightly piles of construction material around the site. I don't know how you control that, but these are concerns that we have living in the community now and having construction going on through our community. We would be
interested in any comments you have about how we control that.
Skip Hammann: I'll try to address your comments on that. I don't know whether you've seen some of the other projects around town, but we
require that they put up construction fencing and put a wind screen or visual screen over the fencing to try to minimize the visual
impacts and try to insure that they stage other equipment and materials on site and have their contractors and workers park on
site. Our inspector is out there on a daily basis trying to make sure that they comply with these issues, especially the noise, not
starting before 7:OO o'dock in the morning, including starting up and warming up equipmentjust overall site control. But that's
not to say that there's not going to be inconvenience to people who live in that area. Anytime you have construction, there's
going to be some inconvenience, but we do take every effort lo minimize it to the best we can.
8. MY NAME IS STEVE WOLKENSTEIN. I LIVE AT THE END OF THE ALYSSUM CUL-DE-SAC.
So you're basically talking with a truly impacted property owner. It seems to me that a lot of what I've heard is that there is a
Alyssum. It seems to me that it's the same effect of putting up a crash gate, opening up visual effect but not allowing for the
concern by the City that there's not an access for fire and/or police to the area and that is one of the reasons for opening up
traffic flow. The development does have two exits out. What consideration has been given by the traffic group to putting just a crash gate for the police lo keep the visuals in tact, but not the traffic impact coming down that hill?
Well, first of all, these are public streets, so putting up a crash gate would prevent other people in the community from using that Skip Hammann:
street. We did take consideration of the neighborhood and the community. In general if we considered culde-sadng Alyssum,
then we would be treating those people on Alyssum differently than the way we are treating people on Snapdragon, Rose and
other lmal streets that could have direct access, where their property fronts directly on the road and they carry local traffic. We
did not consider a crash gate or cul-de-sac because Alyssum was always intended to go through. That may not have been
conveyed to people who are first time, second or third time buyers. Again, we put a map on the back wall so people could look at
the original approval for the whole Sea Pines (Vista Pacifica) development. One of the main issues a1 the time of approval was to
provide future access to this new proposed project, so that we could be sure and have the best circulation possible.
Mr. Steve Wolkenstein:
there, finding out if certain folks knew about it, if any? The second question is, has the City at any time changed what used to be
I guess that brings up two further questions. One is, what responsibility does the City have to gel that fact on the whole map out
an open road, that was planned on and all of the sudden decided not to at some future date. So while Alyssum was originally
designed according to the City to be a through street, has the City at any time taken a road that was supposed to be a through
street, ended up not having one, changing your mind basically? You know there's a precedent for that.
Skip Hamman. I'm not aware of any road that was intended to go through that we decided to close. It may have been closed on a temporary
basis. I'm not aware of any road that was always intended to go through but was intentionally dosed with no future extension. But again, one of the things I've mentioned earlier is that we have gone through a learning process on this particular infill project
regarding how to notice future extensions of roads. It is our intent to make a recommendation to place signs at the end of these
streets lo notify the public of future extensions. We will have the developers. their sales people and others who come down to the
City to do their own research. So, some will know. We don't go out every time someone wants to buy a home and hand out
COMMUNITY INFORMATION F0L.l
AUGUST 17,2000
Page 8
information to them on road extensions or other project issues. To try to help people understand that a street is going to go
through, we're proposing to put signs at the end of that future street which indicate the road will be extended. People driving by
these areas will see these signs and know that it would be a future extension of the street. Originally, when Standard Pacific put
in that temporary cul-de-sac there, there was a lot of discussion about the pros and cons of how you can do it. One of the main
reasons why ThompsonlRose did not have their trucks come down there was that the City and developer with the
ThompsonlRose operation wanted to not impact those citizens on Alyssum Road with all the agricultural traffic. Years ago, they
use to have their truck traffic go down Daisy and they were getting a lot of complaints. So that was part of the Sea Pines (Vista
Pacifica) development was to move their access more direcUy on to major arterial road which is Poinsettia. So that is how we got
to where we are here today.
9. MY NAME IS MELINDA RUSH. I LIVE IN VISTA PACIFICA.
I was curious about your multiple points of access policy. Is that a written policy7-the multiple points of access policy that Skip
referenced for the roadsis that a written policy?
skip Hamman: We have a written cul-de-sac policy that says any road with over 50 single family dwelling units has to have, provide secondary
access. When we get large projects, we look for multiple points of access to provide even distribution of traffic so we're not
impacting one street more than the other. We don't have a written policy that says that we need to have multiple points of
access, other than it is just good engineering and good land planning to do that.
Ms. Melinda Rush
I understand the developer has a proposal to keep the cul-de-sac. WIII you consider that plan?
Skip Hammann: Staff is not considering that plan. We're not supporting that plan for the reasons I stated prior.
Ms. Melinda Rush:
So you've seen the plan and you're not going to support i17
Skip Hammann: I have not seen the plan showing the cul-de-sac area. As I said earlier in my presentation, physically, yes, you could put a cul-de-
sac there and yes you could go out and hire a baffic engineer that says you could put a cul-de-sac. But again, we look at the big
picture and try to use good judgment and good planning and for a number of reasons, staff does not support cul-de-sac just to
benefit the residents on the dead end street of Alyssum.
Ms. Melinda Rush
And do I understand that staff is closed to the idea now? Is that what I'm hearing from you?
Skip Hammann: That's Engineering's position.
IO. I'M DAVE RUDRICK. I LIVE ON MARGARITA LANE IN VISTA PACIFICA.
Just an observation ah living in Vista Pacifica for about 14 years, the way I get out of that area is through Daisy. The reason I
go through Daisy is because the traffic is too difficult and dangerous to go out Alyssum now. And I suggest to you that I'm not the
only one who probably does that, but a lot of other Vista Pacifica people do as well. And I think that when the folks, even if you
open up Alyssum through Vista Pacifica from the proposed project, I believe a lot of folks will find out the best way to get out of
there is also back at Daisy. And that complicates my trip out of Vista Pacifica because Daisy is going to be so difficult to get out,
we're going to be blocked in. Sometimes just looking at things on paper doesn't necessarily solve a problem. I'm reminded for
example every time I go to the Seven Eleven on Paiomar Airport Road, there's a way in and a way out That's the worst planned
project in the whole City. I think we ought to be very careful about what we're doing here, in providing only two ways out of both
projects really, Vista Pacifica and the new project I think that's a mistake.
COMMUNITY INFORMATION FOLd
AUGUST 17,2000
Page 9
11. JIM HICKS.
Will I aet a copy of this here recording of the meeting. WtII I have access to what's been said tonight? Will it be in type, or do I get
a copy of the iape?
You'll get whatever we get from her (referring to minutes derk).
Marly Orenyak
Mr. Jim Hicks OK. I went to a City Council meeting and I told them that I thought Standard Pacific, the City and Planning Commission you all
were sitting back in closed rooms, making plans behind our backs. I still think this is true. I don't have too many questions. I'm
just going to give you some of my opinions. I think you all have been pretty closed minded about the whole thing. Especially
when I came this evening. The first, I'm sorry I think your name was Mark?
Marly Orenyak stated his name.
Mr. Jim Hi&:
OK.
Mr. Jim Hicks:
The first thing I heard from you tonight was that, you know, we don't plan on making any changes. We're just going to tell you all
what's going to happen and be happy. And then you've got other meetings you can go grip at. I think you've all been dosed minded about this from the beginning. As little objections have come up you all skirt the issues and do little things like take a
couple lots out and put a road somewhere else. But, you guys said you're not looking at keeping the cul-de-sac closed and I,
there you go, so it's pretty closed-minded. Actually, we're all pretty deceived. I'm sure you know something that was done 15 years ago wasn't planned here in the year 2OW and yea, we're going to put this road through in the year 2000. Did Standard
Pacific already have this whole plan set up 15 years ago? It seems to me like somewhere along the line you've got to say, "Hey,
you know what, this was done 15 years ago, instead of just being straight line, looking at those things.' We're just going to do
whatever we've got to do. I think somewhere along the line, you need to listen to people. I've got some photographs here I'm just
going to submit to you all. (The phofographs are aftached as Attachment 1 to theses minutes for record purposes.) And I'm going to show you 'cause I know that you like to always call this here a dead end, a dead end. Well by God, it is a cul-de-sac.
Everybody who bought a house there bought in with a cul-de-sac. Mually, you realize when we all bought, we all actually paid a
little bit more money for our homes because they were on a cul-de-sac. Of course. a bunch of us, I guess like myself, didn't have
good sense to come down here to the City to find that out. But, you know, I'm going to submit these pictures to you all and I want
you to look at them. Because when I bought there, I saw a wall, a stucco wall all the way around this facility - all the way around
Vista Pacifica. When I bought there I thought this was pretty much a closed community. I just figured it was a dosed community.
It's got a wall all the way around it. And now you want to start calling this all temporary stuff. I mean, either the developer
deceived us andlor the City deceived us 14-15 years ago whenever that wall was put up. And that's wrong, and by God just live
with your mistakes instead of just trying to tell us what is going on now. Maybe I do have some questions alter all. I know when I
watch the next City Council meeting, I'm going to hear a lot about these questions being answered, and by God I think they're
going to tell me most everything I say is based on emotion. By God, you're right You are messing with my home. You think I am
pissed off? I am pissed. I ain't slept all week long over this. So with that being said, let me ask a couple of questions. Is there any
way that I can get the names of all the people that sit around, I think you call it a City Planning team. I'd like to actually find out
who sits on this little team in a room and makes decisions for the residents of Carlsbad? Sometimes I don't always think you all
hold the Citizens where they ought to be. I mean, you've got to remember, it's everybody here who pays your wages and you
don't even back us on most of this stuff. So, I would really like to know who sits with, on the team in the little mom and makes all
the decisions. Is that available to me?
Marty Orenyak: I don't know what team you're talking about.
Well, you all mentioned a bunch times tonight, a City Planning team, Mr. Jim Hicks:
COMMUNITY INFORMATION FOhL..~
AUGUST 17,2000
Page 10
Marly Orenyak: Mike Grim is the project planner for this project.
Mr. Jim Hicks
I've met Mike a lot of times. I think he's a good guy. OK. Who else is on the team?
Marly Orenyak: Skip Hammon is on this team.
Mr. Jim Hicks:
So there's four people on the team or three?
Marly Orenyak:
No, it's representatives from every department that have to take care of review of this project. It is not always the same team
members, There are different teams, depending on the project. If you want this team, then we can give you that list
Mr. Jim Hicks: Oh, so it's a lot of different little teams?
Marly Orenyak:
Mike is not the only Planner we have. Skip is not the only Engineer we have. They're assigned projects and they become team
members on that project. So if you have a specific project you would like to know about, we'll give you the team members.
Mr. Jim Hicks:
Well, I'd like to have the name of the team on this here project.
Marly Orenyak:
OK. You've got them.
Mr. Jim Hicks: So it's you three there making all the decisions for this ...
Marly Orenyak. Not me. The project team makes recommendations that are then carried forward to the Planning Commission and the Counal.
Now the misconception you have and some of these other people is that tonight's meeting is some sort of public hearing and we
have a vote. We don't have a vote on anything. You're arguments that you're making to us-save them because they are great
arguments for Planning Commission and City Council.
Someone from the Audience:
We're asking you to listen.
Marly Orenyak:
We're listening.
Someone from the Audience:
No you're not
Marly Orenyak
Yes we are listening.
Someone from the Audience:
No you're not.
COMMUNITY INFORMATION FOhwA
AUGUST 17,2000
Page 11
Mr. Jim Hicks:
No one's ever listened. I've been talking now for months ever since I've heard about this. I'm saying why can't we just work on
some solutions and keep the cul-de-sac closed, keep Vista Pacifica closed. You know what, everybody just tells me. You know
what it is? This street was slated to be put through and this is the way it is. This is the way it was set down 15 years ago and we ain't going to change. I think that's wrong. So, I guess I'm just bying to tell you all that, by God. I ain't happy, And a lot of people
aren't happy. But, I find it funny that you all keep making decisions for everybody when I don't think it's what anybody really
wants. I mean it just doesn't make sense to me. i know there's ways to do it, but I think everybody's had a closed mind about
this. I think everybody gets something in their head and they can't say, 'Well you know what, we've been hearing a lot of
complaints about this. You know maybe there is a solution. Maybe we can work this a little bit different.' I've never dealt with the
you guys. But somewhere I think this has got to the point now where it's going to go and there's no stopping it, Ok. Let me ask City. So, I don't know whether I've got to go hire an architect myself and have them redraw this and then re-by to sit down with
you something about this affordable housing. Now I'm just wondering about all these little places you're talking about here in the
City. I'm wondering about this one up here on El Camino Real. I've wondered, all the people that live there, do they actually work
in the City of Carlsbad? Is it written down that says if you buy affordable housing here in Carlsbad you've got to work here tw?
Debbie Fountain:
No
Mr.Jim Hicks: Or, do people from Escondido move out here and keep their jobs in Escondido?
Debbie Fountain:
Fair housing law doesn't allow the City to do that. You can't require someone to have previously lived in Carlsbad or to work in
Carlsbad to live in affordable housing. Villa Loma does have a large percentage of people that actually work in Carlsbad, that
previously lived in Carlsbad. Sometimes that number changes, because people move in and out, but its not a requirement, They
don't have to work in Carlsbad to live in the affordable housing. They could have just lived here before in another project and
moved into this project because it is more affordable for them. But Fair Housing law doesn't allow the City to make those kind of
distinctions that require it. We by to give first preference for marketing and all of those types of processes to encourage people
that work here to live here. We can't require it, just like we can't require somebody that buys a home in Carlsbad to also work in
Carlsbad.
Mr. Jim Hicks: Ok. It's just like a dream that we get everybody that lives in Carlsbad to work in Carlsbad
Debbie Fountain:
may have to decide to live in the middle somewhere between the two work places. Our goal is to provide the opportunities. The
It's our goal. However, people make decisions where they live for a number of reasons. If you have two people workiig, they
hope is that they'll at least have that as an option to be able to live and work in the community.
Mr Jim Hicks:
Ok. Then my last question is"why won't you Iwk at other alternatives about keeping Alyssum closed? why won't you people
look a1 lhis?
Skip Hamman:
Well, as I've said before, you could put a cul-de-sac at the end of Alyssum. But we need to lwk at the big picture to do the best
thing that we can for the community and other people. By making the connection through Alyssum, we will help relieve tram on
Daisy. It will help relieve traffic on Ivy. It will help relieve traffic on Snapdragon. And, yes, it will add traffic to Alyssum. We are
City Council that that road goes through. But you are correct, you could put a cul-de-sac there. It is staffs opinion that we won't
using our best engineering, planning, traffic judgments and our recommendation is going to be to the Planning Commission and
support the project without that connection.
Mr. Jim Hicks:
So pretty much, the residents of Carlsbad live with your opinion?
COMMUNITY INFORMATION FOhd
AUGUST 17,2000
Page 12
Skip Hammann:
understanding of other policies and previous directions. You'll be able to make your case at the public hearing at the Planning
No. It is only staffs opinion. When you go to the public hearing, it is a recornmendation based on our experience and our
Commission.
Mr. Jim Hicks:
Ok. 1'11 do this then, because I heard you mention something about the people up on Daisy. I feel for a lot of people on Daisy
who has got to deal with a lot of traffic. What the gentleman says, "I think we need two more lights on that street too." Because.
really, when you all put the speed limil up there at 45, and I guess thal was a different team. Traffic has gotten loud as hell out
there on Poinsettia now. I'm having to think now about putting all new windows upstiirs because it's loud at night since you
jumped it (speed limit) up to 5 miles an hour. I don't know if everybody was going 40 to 45 up that hill and maybe they're going
45 to 60 now up that hill. i don't know what it is but by God it got louder. You do need two lights to try to somehow take care of
this traffic up through here. And the folks down on, that live in Spinniker Hills-I'll be honest with you, a lot of these folks are
heading straight down Daisy out Batiquitos to get to Poinsettia now. I don't see them saving much time going through ail these
winding roads you've got up through this here new neighborhood. In fact it looks like it's going to add another quarter mile on
their trip. Did you all look at that? I grew up in Los Angeles in the San Gabriel Valley, where you can take roads like Foothill Blvd,
Baseline, and others. These roads run for miles. You can go anywhere you want on back roads. Here in Carlsbad it's different
man. I think the biggest hick is you need to get people out to the streets just pretty much like asap. Don't have to be running
people through. but this is the long way out. So whatever I think, I just think what you are ail doing is wrong. Thanks.
12. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS BILL BROOKS. I LIVE ON SNAPDRAGON DRIVE.
when that was originally built, the people that live north of me was told that all would change when they built the three homes in
I have some of the original plans for Vista Pacifica. It does call for three homes at the end of Alyssum Drive. And it said, now
the cul-de-sac. It was not intended at the time that when Standard Padc built for that to be a through street. Now, these people
were told that they would get more properly when that was lined up with the property across the street. That road is left of course
for access for David Thompson to get his trucks in and out because he couldn't be land locked. But the reason I am here tonight
really is to ask for a definite proposal that they could put a traffic light at Snapdragon and Poinsettia. As Aviara Parkway opens
up to connect to Palomar Airport Road that traffic is going to at least double on Snapdragon because it is going to be an access
where they don't have to go up 78 and over to make their connection. I myself can not go out on Poinsettia, westbound out on
Poinsettia. I go all the way around to Daisy to go down to Batiquitos lagoon so I get the signal. Now the people that are justified
over on Daisy are objecting to the traffic. And we're contributing to that because there is no way we can get out on Snapdragon. If you live up in that area, every once in a while you'll hear some brakes screeching because people are trying to cross
Poinsettia. So I would like you to consider putting a stop signal at Snapdragon and also at Rose. Thank you.
13. LADIES AND GENTLEMAN. MY NAME IS DON STAFFORD. I LIVE AT 904 DAISY AVENUE OFF
And I think a lot has been said here tonight And I think the best thing to do, I'm talking to you folks now (refening to staff), that
you go back to the City Council or whoever is in charge of this project and you tell them that you've got about, I would say 150
people here that are madder than hell. If they want to be elected next time, they had better get on the ball. These places on
Daisy, I don't know about this project across the way from us, but they had a chance to develop this like they wanted. Put the
streets in, all this stuff. Well, you start at the top of Daisy Avenue and my neighbors do it, the only reason I don't do it is because
I live at the bottom of Daisy Avenue and two houses you can't even get up speed. And the more people that uses Daisy the
worse it's going to get And you've got Batiquitos Avenue that you come down through. Ever since that has been open, I you
make your turn there, I'm just telling you people that live on that area, you better look twice and don't turn out in the traffic, pull
over to the side. Get a start up the hill. But if you don't, somebody's going to run right over you. So I think the best thing for you to
do, I'm not trying to tell you your job. i just want you to know that these people are mad. And I'm mad with them. And there's
going to be 150 people or more at the next City Counal meeting to chew these people out that we elected. We didn't elect you.
They hired you people to do a job and you're trylng to do the job. Would you mind going back and telling them that these people
that pay their wages are mad at them. And this is the first time I have seen them mad. And we'll have a new mayor and we'll
have a new bunch of City Councilman and everything. Because they're going to have 150 people out there thals going to be
You people, you're doing what you're told to do. You're trylng to do the right thing. But you're not doing the right thing. Thank you
campaigning against them. Some of them that run don't even get 150 votes for their campaign. So would you do this for me?
very much.
OF DAISY AVENUE, POINSETTIA, SECOND HOUSE UP THE HILL.
COMMUNITY INFORMATION FOhd
AUGUST 17,2000
Page 13
14. HI. MY NAME IS VlCKlE ROBINSON. I 1 NE IN VISTA PACIFICA.
there's a very closed mind. There's no suggestion that he'll even consider any other option. The only option is that that was not I've sat and listened to a lot of the questions and answers. The thing that mrs to me. especially in the case of Skip is that
always supposed to be a cul-de-sac. It's supposed to be an open road and therefore that's the only option that exists. When I
look at that map over there, I see that the area along Alyssum which has about 10 homes along there, it becomes an island.
Once that cul-de-sac is opened they're going to have traffic along Poinsettia, traffic along Snapdragon and now you're going to
bring traffic along Alyssum. These people are going to be surrounded on all sides by substantially increased traffic. This is not
fair to the people who bought those homes. Whether they thought they were buying a cul-de-sac or not. It's not fair. If you look at
that map again, I see quite easily that you could extend that road there where it turns on to Alyssum and take it straight out to
out of a bunch of people who have bought these homes and they're very expensive homes. Yet, we must be the slums of Aviara.
Poinsettia. And you'd have another exit right on Poinsettia. I mean, that's pure straight logic. First of all, you're making an island
We're the people who don't have the big, huge expensive $600,000 homes. Our homes are only $350,000. But none the less, we
perhaps can't afford to sell our house and move someplace where we're not going to be inundated by all this new traffic that you
want to bring on to our street. I don't live on Alyssum by the way. I live on Rosemary, but I certainly can feel for these people who
do live on that street. I can feel for these people who live on this street. Obviously, Skip can't. As far as the low-income housing is concerned. the new egress that has been made, taking it out to Rose Street instead of bringing it on to Alyssuwxplain to
me please how that cul-de-sac access to this high density low-income housing is different than if they were across the street on
the other cul-de-sac? I mean a cul-de-sac is a cul-de-sac. If they're going to have one egreu from their housing, why does it
have to be this location that you have specified, rather than the location initially suggested by the developer, which seems to be a
much more logical location backed up against existing townhome type development. As far as that project is concerned in terms
of schoolsit is my understanding that we in the Vista Pacifica all the children in advanced school are currently (in a lot of these
new developments) are currently going to Aviara Oaks. That's a substantial distance away, compared to Pacific Rim.
Mike Grim and several members of the audience:
Vista Paafica is going to PaaCc Rim.
Ms. Vckie Robinson:
Are they?
Mike Grim and several members of the audience:
Yes.
Ms. Vickie Robinson:
make so much more sense to me. When my children were small, I had a situation where both my husband and I worked. I could
If that low-income housing was across the street, where the children would have much easier access to the school, it would
location where my children could get to and from school on their own without my assistance because they were latchkey kids.
have been considered in that category of a low-income housing and would have appreciated being, in my case I did. live in a
Once they got to a certain age, they took themselves to and from school and had a key to get into the house. In the case of
affordable housing, it seems to me that a much larger majority of people are going to have families of that type where both
parents work. Therefore, the children are going to have to get themselves to and from school. The people who are going to live in
the $400,0000, $500,000, $600,000 and $700,000 are mwe likely to jump into their SUV and take the kids over to school.
Whereas, the people who live in affordable housing went to work an hour ago and the kids have to get themselves to and from
school on their own. So, just from that perspective, it would seem to make a whole lot more sense for those kids to get to and
from school without having to uoss a major thoroughfare. I think those were all the points that I had, but you know, none of this
personally effects me. I don't have small children. I'm not going to move into the affordable housing. I don't live on Alyssum. But,
the only thing the Planning Department will support is for Alyssum to be opened up. We can go complain but the only thing the
I tell you what-I'm really upset with the attitude I've heard here tonight from the people who work for the City. Skip has said that
The only thing that can happen is that Alyssum will be opened up.
Planning Department is going to support is that Alyssum be opened up. And he doesn't even want to hear about any alternatlves.
COMMUNITY INFORMATION FORuhn
AUGUST 17,2000
Page 14
15. I'M RENATA MULRY. I LIVE ON NUTMEG IN VISTA PACIFICA.
feeling our tract (Vista Pacifica) is going to be a part of your learning experience. If you didn't think 15 years ago that it was
I don't think I can top the clarity of the remarks which were just made. I want to say first of all that I am very sorry that I have a
should take the results or the blunt of either your oversight, your lack of knowledge or your lack of initiative. The secund point I
necessary to put signs on.roads, which you claim ultimately was always designed to be cut through, I don't see now why we
want to address is that every buyer in the State of California, and I hope this is true of other states also, is given a subdivision
report filed with the State of California. This report describes the property, the nature of the property, where the property is and
pertinent factors which effect our property. I have here the subdivision report for Wsta Pacifica. It mentions ThompsonlRose. It
mentions Palomar Airport. Nowhere does it mention any roads being extended, cut through or whatever. Now please don't come
and tell me that as a buyer, I should have run to every City department cheNng on what is missing in this report. I have no duty
to perform such a task. The only part of this report which refers the potential buyer to seek more information is on the soils. I can
understand that because the composition of soils is something very specific and technical and probably would be too
complicated to put in the subdivision report. it seems to me, and I'm going to ask you directly, that there is not one reason why
Alyssum should be extended. When our tract was built. apparently circulation was considered completely adequate that you
could enter on Snapdragon and exit on Daisy. And certainly our tract at 196 homes is by no means that much smaller than the
tract that is being proposed to the east of us. The length of Alyssum from the new tract down to Snapdragon is such a short
distance. W~th a light, the traffic will not only be backed up on our streets, and Standard Pacific better take note of this, it will also
be backed up into their streets. That might not be an attractive feature for the high priced homes going in to the east of us. I
would now like to address the question of affordable housing. For many of you who I don't know and you don't know me, nine
years ago I stood almost alone before the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and the City Council itself and I vehemently and strongly criticized the whole affordable housing ordinance. I'm not going to go back over that now, but I will say in this open
session that the way that the program is administered is 100% arbitrary. My feeling is reinforced even more tonight by what I
have heard and have seen on the slides that you have projected for us. What I saw was that the need for very low-income
housing seems to be a greater figure than any other category, I've also heard that the City is delighted when it can create more
of these types of units by placing them at a site where they can built, in other words where there's room. But if this is true, then
why are you not saying to Standard Pacific, 'Hey, we don't want 22 or 24 units, we need 50 to meet this nonexistence State
requirement, which is not written in these figures any where.' But no, I don't understand why sometimes it's off site, sometimes
it's onsite, sometimes it's dose to the site, sometimes as in the case of Aviara it's several miles away. These are very, very
unanswered questions I have. And therefore, I want lo say again, there is no need to extend Alyssum, You have kept it secret
and obviously in a case where iYs never been revealed, somebody is on the hook here and it certainly isn't the buyer. Thank you.
16. MY NAME IS JACK RAY. I LIVE ON IVY.
I came here for the information mainly. And what I've heard is that some community members received notification on planning,
prior to others. I've heard that the higher density low-income community or housing is going to be moved from one cul-desac to another culde-sac. I've heard that the trouble with the lights and problem with the traffic is going to be such a problem on
that you're placing most of the burden on people in my community on their safety of the people and the children. You're placing
Snapdragon and Poinsettia that a light is going to be warranted, that it also might be one on the other new mad. It seems to me
more burden on us that doesn't seem to be warranted here. It seems that you have a bunch of littie squiggly lines that can easily
be redrawn a little bit to accommodate those people who have been in the community for a number of years and have chosen to
come here long before any new houses have been built I don't see why the burden has to be put on people in this community
when you can easily resolve this and be opened minded to do so. This is very uncomfortable. I'm quite disturbed by this and I
know you have plans that you want followed, but when you buy a home in this area that we bought homes in, that's a problem
now for the road to go through. You bought that home because it's a safe situation. When you bought that home, that (Alyssum)
was considered a culdesac. We bought this place because it was a very safe place and it was in the community of Carlsbad,
which we chose to be in. I think it would be a good idea to redraw those little lines and put in another street right up along side
uncomfortable. I'm quite displeased by actions from you folks. I wish you would change.
the development That solves a lot of problems. I don't understand why one culde-sac is better than another. This is so
17. HELLO. MY NAME IS BOB SMITH. I LIVE IN VISTA PACIFICA.
I bought my home in Vista Pacifica 15 years ago. All there was east of me was a culdesac that we're talking about and arguing,
rolling hills, no Aviara, none of this except Spiniker Hills. And it seems to me that Spiniker Hills has voting rights over me
because they've been here longer. I don't seem to have any rights at all because I am a Citizen of Carlsbad and no matter what I
do or what I say, i don't believe is going to change any body's mind here. But why doesn't Carlsbad pay more attention to the
COMMUNITY INFORMATION FOh,..l
AUGUST 17,2000
Page 15
people that are tax payers, have been paying taxes. Many of us have lived there for 15 years. And why isn't consideration given
to the people in this cul-de-sac. I don't live in the cul-de-sac, but have they no rights? They've been paying taxes here for many,
many years. I say this as a member of this community, not because I live in the cul-de-sac. However, I do live on Alyssum Road.
area is just going to increase traffic for me and for everybody and i venture to say even for Spiniker Hills. But I know a lot of
I'm going to have to leave my house, go out Snapdragon to Poinsettia. It seems to me that this increased traffic from this new
people who live over there take either Ivy or Snapdragon to get out to Poinsettia. I would if I lived over there. And right now, there
is plenty of traffic there for a signal. What's il going to be like when you put this new community in there? Isn't that going to
the intersection of Poinsettia and Snapdragon? Won't there be more people coming from Spiniker Hills over to that signal,
increase the traffic on Snapdragon? isn't that going to increase the traffic on Alyssum? Isn't that going to increase the traffic on
increasing the traffic on Ivy, increasing the traffic on Snapdragon? And why was Daisy stopped at the upper end and not run
through to the new area, the new development south of Spiniker Hills? That stops there. That does not run through.
Unidentified Audience Member:
Because we complained to the City and they listened to us,
Well, who is it you complained to, cause I'd like to know? Mr. Bob Smith:
Unidentified Audience Member:
We complained to the City and they listened that time and changed the plans.
Anyhow, my main concern is this. Why isn't more attention paid to the present tax payers that live in these communities, when
Mr. Bob Smith:
they put a new community in? I don't understand that. We don't seem to have a voice. And I have to agree with what was said
here before about Alyssum Road. It doesn't matter what happened 15 years ago, whether it was supposed to go through m
wasn't supposed to go through. This is impacting a whole community. It should be obvious by the number of people here. Nobody is happy with this road going through. That is all i have to say. Thank you.
18. HI. THIS IS STEVE WOLKENSTEIN AGAIN. I LIVE ON THE END OF ALYSSUM.
This is a question directed to Skip. In addressing the prior woman's comments about picking one of the two end mads to go
was that not considered as a viable option?
through to Poinsettia versus opening it (Alyssum) up. What in your opinion makes that any worse than what it already is? Or why
Well, the reason that was not considered as a viable option is that Poinsettia Avenue is classified as a major collector or major Skip Hamman:
arterial rather. There are intersection spacing requirements because of the high volume of traffic. As one of the gentlemen said
we've taken long-range planning into consideration and we can't have a number of direct access points along Poinsettia. You
earlier in the presentation, the traffic volume there for the capacity of this road is probably 30% of what it may be in the future. So
could only get two intersections spaced in this area. You can see in the picture that the proposed accesses are fairly evenly
spaced, They barely meet the minimum spacing requirements as is. So that's why we did not consider making another
connection in that area.
Mr. Steve Wolkenstein:
What about making it a right turn only? It is not a full intersection. You already have two. You have one major intersection, you
have another exit in the lower end. That would be a right turn only. They could then make a u-turn at the stop light at Rosa? We're only concerned (with) in and out. And that would certainly allow access in both from the Emergency Vehicles as well as
anybody who lives there. It would also allow for exit at least going into the easterly direction.
Again, we consider that an intersection and we want to conbol the number of intersections along a major road like this. When Skip Hammann:
engineering and highway standards.
pwple are traveling down Poinsettia, we want the traffic to flow as freely as possible. We made our decision based on
COMMUNITY INFORMATION FOR4
AUGUST 17,2000
Page 16
Mr. Steve Wolkenstein: Is Poinsettia designed to be two lane for each way or is there a design to go further? Or to be expanded to three lanes.
Skip Hammann:
continues easterly from El Camino Real and then eventually will join up with Melrose. It will terminate at Melrose on the eastem
Its designed to be two lanes in each direction and it is going to go easterly from here to connect with El Camino Real. It
boundary in the Carrillo Ranch area.
Mr. Steve Wolkenstein:
Thank you.
19. LARRY STAPLETON.
the new development needs three entrances?
I've got one more question: We have two entrances in the Vista Pacifica. one from Daisy and one fmm Poinsettia. Why is it that
Again, this project is an infill project. As Mike stated earlier, this is going to complete the last phase of the development in this Skip Hammann:
area. When Sea Pines (Vista Paafica) was designed, .Alyssum was intended to be extended to provide the Thompsonfrabata
site with another future connection point so that we can have multiple points of access to distribute the traffic as evenly as
possible. I'm not going to argue that it won't increase the traffic on Alyssum and that short segment. It clearly will. I understand
that it (the road) is an issue for the folks that live there.
Mr. Lany Stapleton: Well, the thing that comes to mind is that the property is used to grow corn or tomatoes or strawberries or something and how did
somebody have the infinite wisdom 15 years ago that there was going to be a wall there to knodc down and put that street
through? It just baffles me. We can't seem to understand from day to day what goes on and yet somebody 15 years ago knew that somebody was going to have to punch a hole through a wall and get out into the middle of an empty field because there was
a housing development going to be there. It doesn't make sense to me. Ladies and gentlemen, you've got an issue on the table
and a lot of people that are very concerned about it. I urge you to take this to the City or wherever you take it to your teams or
whatever, the business of managing a community is just like managing a business: You've got guidelines that you go by. You've
got City codes that you go by. You're paid to look at those City codes and abide by them as dearly as you can. But, in some
cases, as in business, you have to look at whether or not you are going to hide behind the book or are you going to look at the
forward to wherever you have to take it.
people involved and make a rational, logical dedsion with the people that are effected in mind. I urge you to take this message
20. TOM JUDD FROM MARINERS POINT.
I have a general questiobl actually work in Irvine, ,so when I leave for work, I go north. My wife goes south and her drive
although it is a little shorter, it takes longer because of the traffic. When you started out on all the check points you have to go through, I didn't see one thals overall San Diego County traffic plan as such. Right now traffic in the morning kind of stops near
Leucadia or La Costa around there. In the morning, and I can see adding something like the traffic from this project to bring it up to Poinsetia or something. Do you guys have guidelines you follow for that kind of traffic flow? I think the overall impact of this
development is going to put more people in the community. I think that is what the people are complaining about is the trafk
impact in their local area. And also, I guess my question is, what is the guideline for overall traffic in San Diego or in Carlsbad?
Skip Hammann: Generally we use the SANDAG standards and guidelines. SANDAG stands for San Diego Association of GoV~rnments.
SANDAG reviews regional traffic needs. Poinsettia is one of the roads which SANDAG has identified as a major link to Satisfy
some of the regional traffic needs. I'm not sure if that answers your question or not.
Mr. Tom Judd: Well,. I see this as a problem. I'm just wondering how it is addressed. I do not have an answer to the problem. I just want to know
if it is addressed.
COMMUNITY INFORMATION FORh
AUGUST 17,2000
Page 1 I
Mike Grim: It is. When we updated our General Plan about six years ago, we prepared a new environmental document. That environmental
review document showed that even without any further development in Carlsbad, we were both below the standards in air quality
and traffic circulation. Traffic is a regional issue and it is a very complex one. Palomar Airport Road is a great example. A lot of
traffic on Palomar Airport Road is not traffic that's coming from or going to Carisbad. People cut through from other aties to get
to 1-5, and we have to live with the regional aspect of that road providing regional traffic. So on one hand, you 've got the people
living in the Carlsbad community who look out and say we've got to control traffic. On the other hand, you've got SANDAG and
the regional board saying, "millions of people are coming to San Diego County, and you Cities have to accommodate them." And
so it is a bad struggle and believe us, Carlsbad and other jurisdictions are at SANDAG saying if you guys want us to accept all of
this extra traffic, then you need to provide funding. The cities are also asking: where is the State transportation fund? How much
is Caltrans participating in the problem? Where is their (Caltrans) expansion plans? What about regional commuter facilities and
want more information on how to find out about the regional issue, I can refer you to a lot of resources at SANDAG that might
services? Everyone is kind of pushing and pulling on where the traffic should or shouldn't go. So irs a very complicated. If you
help.
Mr. Tom Judd:
from the State or something like that to mitigate the impact to the community. What is the mitigating factor or requirement for the
It sounded like what you were saying is, if Cartsbad wants to participate in regional solutions to traffic, you're asking for funds
traffic the proposed development will add to the problem?
Mike Grim:
those trips until they are an insignificant portion of the existing traffic on the roadway. As soon as you tradc the traffic leaving this
In the traffic modeling for this project, we require that all the trips leaving the property be identified. What you then do is hack
project, as soon as it gets on interstate 5, then the significance of this project virtually disappears because of the orden of
magnitude of traffic volumes on 1-5 compared to this traffic. So the only way to really look at it is in a cumulative effect. Well, the
only way to Iwk at it through a cumulative effect is not in a small scale, but in a larger scale. I guess the best thing I could offer
would be the litany of studies and experts that SANDAG will have on staff and as consultants. We can refer you to find out more
information about that. I think that would answer a lot of your questions.
21. I'M JIM HICKS AGAIN.
Hey, how do I get a copy of this here tape? I'm sony I forgot
Marty Orenyak:
We'll give you a mpy of whatever she (minutes clerk) gives us,
Mr. Jim Hicks:
Is she going to give you what she is writing up?
Marty Orenyak:
Yes.
Mr. Jim Hicks: Ok. Do you guys have my name and address? Are you going to mail it to me or call me?
Marty Orenyak:
We'll contact you and call you to come and pick it up. I don't know how long it's going to take.
Mr. Jim H&
You all have my home phone number?
Marty Orenyak: Yes, I think we already have it via a letter yw sent us.
Mr. Jim Hi-:
COMMUNITY INFORMATION FORuld
AUGUST 17,2000
Page 18
Ok. Alright, I just wanted to make sure, because no one ever told me about when you dealt with those folks. I was supposed to
be called. That's what the mayor told me. He said, we'll get in touch with you and let you know what is going on, when we have
these meetings. And no one ever did. Should I call in two days or does this normally take three business days to get done until I
can get a copy of it?
Debbie Fountain:
It will be available probably at the end of next week.
Mr. Jim Hick (speaking to the minutes clerk):
Are you a subcontractor? Are you a subcontractor or do you work for the City?
Debbie Fountain:
She works for us and we'll get it (the written record) to you as soon as it is ready.
Mr. Jim Hicks:
Is she a subcontractor?
Debbie Fountain:
She's a City employee.
Mr. Jim Hicks: Oh, she is a City employee? Ok. Thanks. I would just like to have a copy of it if I could please.
Debbie Fountain: We promise to give it to you.
Marty Orenyak: Is there anyone else who would like to make a comment or ask a question? (No one raised a hand or came forward to the
podium at this time) If not, thank you very much. Again, we'll take your comments and bundle them up and carry them forward to
the Planning Commission and City Council meeting.
This meeting was completed at 8:30 p.m.
JUDY KIRSCH Minutes Clerk
;? 0.i Attachment 1 - Minutes of Information Forum 8/17/00 - Photographs submitted by Jim Hicks
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROCESSING OF A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
INFORMATION SHEET
The following provides a brief explanation of how major development projects (specifically
residential developments) are processed within the City of Carlsbad:
Step One:
Developer or property owner (or other applicant) submits a formal application with all of the
required plans and exhibitdattachments to the City of Carlsbad. The City is then required to
process this development application.
Step Two:
Staff within several city departments, including Planning, Engineeringhblic Works and Fire,
complete a comprehensive, detailed review of the proposed project and related application
materials. This review is completed to determine whether or not the proposed project meets all
applicable development standards, City requirements and other building regulations.
Often there are several options a development applicant may have to meet city standards and
other requirements. Staff works with the developer to identie the project design which best
meets the applicable development standards and other City requirements.
Step Three:
Once staff has completed its comprehensive review of the project and determines that the. project
meets all applicable development standards and other City requirements, and the environmental
review is complete, the project is scheduled for public hearings before the Planning Commission
and City Council as appropriate. As example, the ThompsonKabata project proposed by
Standard Pacific is a project that requires City Council approval. Therefore, the project will be
presented to the Planning Commission for a recommendation from that body. The project, with
the Planning Commission recommendation, will then be forwarded to the City Council for final
consideration and action. Large residential developments (over 50 units) will require Council
approval. Projects under 50 units may be approved by the Planning Commission.
Generally, if staff determines that a project meets all applicable development standards and other
City requirements, staff will recommend approval. If the project does not, staff will recommend
denial. There is no action taken by Planning Commission or City Council to approve or deny a
development project until the item is presented and the public has an opportunity to comment on
the project during a public hearing.
(Please See Other Side for More Information)
Attachment 2 - Minutes of Information Forum 8/17/00 - Handout Distributed during Form
Step Four:
Once staff has developed its recommendation, a written report is prepared which outlines the
project features, conditions of project approval, and other important information such as the
environmental review. This report is forwarded to the Planning Commission and ultimately to
the City Council for consideration prior to action on a development application. This report is
available to the public for review prior to the scheduled public hearing.
Step Five:
Public Hearings are held before the Planning Commission and City Council as appropriate. All
public hearings are noticed in the local newspaper, North County Times. In addition, property
owners within 600 feet of the proposed development receive an individual notice of the public
hearings(s) via first class mail.
Public hearings allow residents and other interested parties the opportunity to present their
arguments for or against a project.
Agendas for all of the various Boards, Commissions and the Council can be found on the City's
Website at www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us. The Planning Commission is scheduled to meet on the 1" and
3" Wednesday of each month. The City Council is scheduled to meet on the l", 2"d, 3" and 4&
Tuesday of each month.
Step Six:
The City Council's approval or denial of a development project is final. In some cases, the
Planning Commission approval of a project may be final. A Planning Commission's denial of a
project is final but is appealable to the City Council.
Planning Commission Minutes November 7,2001 -11 6
10. ZC 98-O8/LCPA 98-041CT 98-14 PUD 98-051CP 00-021SDP 99-061HDP 98-151CDP 98-68 - THOMPSON/TABATA - Request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation
change 40.41 acres of the subdivision from Limited Control (L-C) to Residential Multiple-Density
Monitoring and Reporting Program; a Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment to
with a Qualified Development Overlay Zone (RD-M-Q) and to change 41.79 acres from Limited
Control (L-C) to One Family Residential with a Qualified Development Overlay Zone (R-I-Q); and
a Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development Permit, Site Development Plan, Condominium
Permit, Hillside Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit to subdivide, grade, and
develop 82.20 acres, creating 238 single family lots, two open space lots, four recreation lots, one
recreational vehicle storage lot and a 24 unit, for-sale condominium project, affordable to lower-
income households, on property generally located north and south of Poinsettia Lane, between
Aviara Parkway and Snapdragon Drive in Local Facilities Management Zone 20.
Mr. Wayne introduced the last item on the agenda and stated that the presentation would be made by
Mike Grim, Senior Planner; and assisted by Clyde Wickham, Associate Engineer.
would go over the program boards. He described the location of the project pointing out surrounding
Mr. Grim stated the Staff report would consist of a slide presentation to describe the project and then they
subdivisions. He stated the site covers 82.2 acres with the majority south of Poinsettia Lane and two parts
north of Poinsettia Lane. The site historically has been used as agriculture with open fields and
greenhouses. He said this project represents the last remaining infill development southwest of the Aviara
topography. 40.41 acres on the western half of the property is designated Residential Medium (R-M) that
Parkway/Poinsettia Lane intersection. It qualifies as a hillside development lot due to its sloping
allows 4 to 6 units per acre. The eastern part of 41.79 acres is designated RLM which allows 0 to 3.2
units at the growth management cap. He said there is an existing 1.8 acres of coastal sage scrub along
the eastern end that is adjacent to a larger open space within Aviara and is to remain undisturbed. There
is also an existing .I acre of southern willow scrub area that will be mitigated onsite.
Mr. Grim stated the proposal is to change the zoning from Limited Control to Single Family Residential and
Residential Multiple both with qualified development overlays. The total proposal is for 262 units with 4
open space lots. He described the lot sizes as including 107 standard lots that are 7,500 square feet or
more, the lots north of Poinsettia Lane that attach to the Mariners Point project will be a minimum of
subdivision. He stated that many lots are much greater than the minimum square footage due to the
10,000 square feet, and 130 lots with a 6,000 square feet minimum are proposed in the smaller
street design. An existing single family lot, the Thompson property, is proposed to remain as it is and
access will be gained from the internal street system of the proposed development. A proposed 24-unit
multi-family condominium project is included in the 262 units. The proposed density for the RLM portion is
2.58 dwellings per acre, well below the 3.2 maximum; the RM portion is 3.88 dwellings per acre, also well
below the maximum of 6.
He stated the inclusionary housing requirement for the project is the standard 15% of the total housing
credits within the Villa Loma project. The affordable housing units will consist of 8 two-bedroom units and
resulting in 40 units. The applicant is proposing to provide 24 affordable units on site and to purchase 16
include garages, open parking, and its own common recreation area. 16 four-bedroom units. The four-bedroom units address a housing need for large families. It will also
The large lot units would range from approximately 3,000 to over 4,200 square feet, and 15% would be
single-story distributed throughout the site. The small lot units would range from approximately 2,700 to
over 3,200 square feet and will comply with the City's small lot single family architectural guidelines. The
existing Thompson residence will remain, but that lot can be divided in the future, therefore, provisions have been made for a future subdivision as far as access to that property.
Mr. Grim stated there will be 4 open space common recreation areas located throughout the site and
recreational vehicle storage located adjacent to the affordable housing area that will serve the small lot
areas. The standard single family subdivision is required to have increased side yards on 25 percent of the units to allow for RV parking per the Zone 20 Specific Plan.
Planning Commission Minutes November 7,2001 Page 16
He stated the project includes the extension of four existing streets to serve the property. These include Lemon Leaf Drive, Lonicera Street, Rose Drive near Daisy Avenue, and Alyssum Road. Primary access
will be at the Rose Drive and Poinsettia Lane intersection that will be signalized with a pedestrian
crossing.
Mr. Grim outlined the required discretionary permits and described the reasons for the requirements. He
stated that Staff found the project to be consistent with the following applicable regulations: The General
Plan, Mello II segment of the Local Coastal Program, the Zone 20 Specific Plan, the Subdivision
Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, the Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan, and the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
reviewed through the Zone 20 Program EIR which identified it as a residential development and identified He stated that several environmental reviews had been conducted on the property. It was originally
some of the mitigation measures that would be required to convert the agricultural area into a residential
development. There was a Mitigated Negative Declaration issued for the project on April 4, 2001. They
did not receive any comments from the State Agency Clearinghouse Review. There were four comment
letters from the public and those letters and Staffs responses are attached to the staff report.
Mr. Grim said there has been substantial public interest in this project and public participation started with
the developer going to surrounding neighborhoods to present design ideas and talking to the neighbors.
offices on August 17, 2000. The minutes of that forum are attached to the Staff report. Subsequent to
Due to the heightened public interest the City conducted a community information forum at the Faraday
that, about a month later, there was still some interest from residents of the Spinnaker Hills area, and the
City presented the information to them at another community forum at the Raintree.
He stated that Staff recommends adoption of the Planning Commission resolutions which would
recommend approval of the project to the City Council. He added that all permits presented tonight are
to the California Coastal Commission’s review and approval. The project would not be approved until all
subject to City Council review and approval. In addition, the Local Coastal Program Amendment is subject
those actions are approved.
Chairperson Segall asked if this was sent to the Coastal Commission for review and they did not
comment. Mr. Grim replied that was for the Environmental Review and it is not rare to get no comments
because they tend to reserve judgement until the entire project is before them.
Mr. Grim pointed out the project site on the program boards stating that the General Plan designation runs
right through the project and the western side is the small lot single family area and the eastern side is the
standard single family product. He indicated that the Lemon Leaf connection has been extended to the
existing Tabata property to allow future subdivision of that property. The Lonicera extension comes off of
Camino de las Ondas which is a collector road. Rose Drive would be extended into the project and he
pointed out where the Alyssum Avenue connection and Snapdragon intersection to Poinsettia would be.
Commissioner Compas asked if that was a row of garages in the front of the affordable housing and said it
looks kind of ugly. Mr. Grim replied that the garages face each other and this is common in multi-family
development and not really visible from any other part outside the project.
Commissioner Trigas asked to clarify if the affordable housing had no other mix and was 24 units. She
commented it looks like it‘s just missing a sign that says “I’m affordable housing”. She said when looking
at the surrounding housing styles there’s quite a difference architecturally. Chairperson Segall asked Commissioner Trigas if she would ask the applicant those types of questions.
Commissioner Compas asked how the project would be phased if approved. Mr. Grim said there would
be two parts of the project phasing, the first being the actual subdivision mapping of it to lay out the lots,
and the second is the construction phase. He said the entire part south of Poinsettia is one phase and he
pointed out the second and third phases. He said construction phasing depends on the developer’s
marketing plan, model location, and how many homes they can build in each section. He added that the
Planning Commission Minutes November 7,2001 Page 17
City has a policy that no construction traffic is to go through the new residential project. He said the
developer could better answer what would be built first.
Chairperson Segall asked if the location of the models had been determined and how traffic would come
answer.
into the project to see the models during the selling phase. He said he would wait for the applicant to
Mr. Grim added that the errata sheet distributed is an amendment to Planning Commission Resolution
5073. He said part of the small lot single family area in the southwest part has 11 homes in a row, which
is not consistent with the PD ordinance that states you can only have 10 in a row. Therefore, the project
has been conditioned to redesign that stretch of the roadway. He said the 11 in a row have open space
lots on either side of them so it may be an issue of swapping one of the open space lots. He added it is
wants to preserve it as a wetland this issue would be resolved. The applicant is fully aware that this
also the area where the southern willow scrub is located, so once we hear if the Coastal Commission
condition must be resolved prior to grading or the final map, whichever occurs first.
Commissioner Compas asked if the proposed size of the project is below the growth management
allowance. Mr. Grim responded that both the standard single family and small lot single family including
the affordable housing site are below the General Plan designation by about 80 units total.
Commissioner Compas asked him to describe the cut and fill situation. Mike Grim stated it‘s a balanced
cut and fill on the property and the total grading quantities are a little over 6,000 cubic yards per acre. He
said according to the Hillside Development ordinance anything up to 8,000 cubic yards per acre is acceptable, and 8,000 to 10,000 is potentially acceptable if there are some circumstances.
Commissioner Compas asked if there would be trucks hauling dirt in or out. Mr. Grim replied that the only
other thing that sometimes happens is when they get into detailed soil geotechnical reports there may be
some alluviums or other unconsolidated materials that need to be overexcavated and perhaps removed
from the site and bring in soil, but that is not anticipated with this site.
Chairperson Segall asked if that does happen what the access point would be for those kinds of vehicles.
Mr. Wickham responded they have conditioned the project that if any kind of export or construction activity
and freeway systems. There could be a hauling of agricultural waste or unsuitable soils but until grading
is required a haul route must be obtained, and they would be directed out to Poinsettia using major arterial
is started the final outcome is not known. In no instance would they be going down Daisy or any of the
internal streets.
streets, traffic calming devices, sidewalks and parkways be included in this. He asked if this can be done
Chairperson Segall asked if at this point they could ask if the livable streets concept in terms of smaller
from a Staff standpoint.
around and have the same street scene and street system as the adjacent communities. The other Mr. Wickham said they looked at that, and being an infill project, one thought is to try to match everything
thought is that all but 3 streets in the proposed subdivision are 60 feet wide which is in compliance with the
livable street policy, so they could change the design and put the livable streets on some of the streets in
the subdivision. He said Lonicera and Lemon Leaf are 56 feet wide and that would match the adjacent
community so it would be their suggestion to leave those streets as designed. He said removing the
feet curb to curb to 34 feet curb to curb is the real change in the livable street design and for the majority
sidewalks from adjacent to curb face can be done on any street of any width. Reducing the street from 40
of streets within this project it would be acceptable and could be done. He said they would recommend
that Rose Drive stay as designed being a 40 foot curb to curb similar to all the other streets in the area.
The reason is to actually invite traffic into the subdivision as a traffic calming device and use the signal at
Poinsettia and Rose rather than going down Daisy.
Commissioner Compas asked why we aren’t demanding that the streets be made in accordance with the
livable street criteria and asked what the developer’s position is on this. Mr. Wickham replied that this
Planning Commission Minutes November 7,2001 Page 18
project has been in the process for years: the developer is okay with it either way. Staff does not object to
it either way but one of their thoughts was to try to match the adjacent community.
Chairperson Segall stated he wanted to address the issue of schools. He said it's his understanding that
the students would be going to that school. Mr. Grim replied that as standard practice they require that
both developments are within the Pacific Rim portion of Carlsbad Unified School District, however, none Of
every subdivision application be accompanied with a will serve letter from the serving school district so the
school district itself says there is capacity within its district to handle whatever student generation would
happen here. He said he has heard from parents that moved to town and when they register their kid for
school they have to sign a letter that says they understand their child may not be able to go to the nearest
school and they may have to drive or find an alternative way to get their child to school.
Chairperson Segall asked if that's a disclosure that would be made when people purchase in the
development - that they know their children may not be going to Pacific Rim, they may be going to Aviara
Oaks or some other school in the district. Mr. Grim responded that he did not think the City requires the
developer to make that disclosure, however, it may be recommended they do that, but he thinks that's left
up to the school district.
Chairperson Segall said he's confused on the name Poinsettia Properties and wanted to know if it's an
official or working name, but thinks it is confusing because of another development called Poinsettia
Properties. Mr. Grim responded that it's not the official name but thought it was the developer's working
name. When they proposed that name and were told it had already been taken, the project was officially named ThompsoniTabata Subdivision.
Mr. Grim stated that Debbie Fountain from the Housing Department was in attendance. Commissioner
Compas asked Ms. Fountain to explain the reason why the affordable housing was moved from the north
side to the south side. Ms. Fountain said when they started working with Standard Pacific on this
development they came forward and said they wanted to purchase credits to satisfy their inclusionary
completely offsite. She said they denied that request and told them they needed to provide at least some of the units onsite and they would then consider going offsite for the rest. Once that determination was
made they started looking at locations. Their original proposed location was on the north side of
concern the Housing team had was that there were too many units in that area to put the townhomes on
Poinsettia and included RV storage and other single-family homes along with the townhomes. The
the cul-de-sac with only one way in and out. In addition, they did not like the design in that the affordable
housing units were split by the RV parking in the middle and the townhomes on either side. She said they
felt it was segregated from the major part of the development and at the end of a cul-de-sac with too many
units. They asked the developer to relook at the issue to determine if either the RV storage or the
affordable housing could be moved to a different location and redesigned. The developer selected the
alternate location on the south side of Poinsettia and afler looking at the redesign we felt that that was a
more appropriate location. She stated there had been some indication that it was moved because the
Mariners Point neighborhood was concerned about the location, however, that is not correct, they were concerned about the location as a staff team.
Commissioner Compas asked her what she thought of the design of the affordable housing. Ms. Fountain
replied that she always thinks the developers can do a better job on affordable housing. Typically when
projects come through for review they are reviewed as a complete project and they try not to get too
the affordable housing and they oflen push for more enhanced design.
involved in what their opinion is on the design, but try to determine if this is a good community in terms of
Commissioner Compas asked if the 4-bedroom units would be expensive. Ms. Fountain said they are still
based on income levels and on the household size that would be in the unit. Typically. the rule of thumb is
to take a household income, multiply by 3, and that would be what is affordable to those households. In 4-
bedroom units, households making $60,000 per year would probably be the highest income level. The
units would be around or under $200,000 depending on household size.
Chairperson Segall asked if she could define the types of careers people living in these houses might
have. Ms. Fountain said typically in terms of low income it includes people working in banks, entry-level
Planning Commission Minutes November 7,2001 Page 19
management positions, schoolteachers, firefighters, and police officers. She said they actually have to
have a fairly decent income to afford to purchase a home.
Commissioner Trigas asked if there is certain criteria stating that it must conform to the complete project in
terms of style and product type. Ms. Fountain said generally they ask that inclusionary housing be
compatible with the other design within the development. Typically affordable units won’t have quite the
enhanced architecture, but they try to produce a product that is not so significantly different that it stands
out on its own and try to do their best to integrate the project into the rest of the development.
Commissioner Trigas asked if they give official input or checkoff in some way. Ms. Fountain replied they
typically check to make sure that it‘s a good community, it has its amenities and recreational area, and is
not a segregated piece. The design is really discretionary and sometimes the hardest thing to deal with.
Commissioner Compas asked if salaries of qualified applicants increase substantially after they move in if
they would have to move. Ms. Fountain stated that after they purchase the unit, they’re not at risk of
losing it. The only time the income is important is when they initially qualify. When they sell the unit they
have the option to sell it to another low income person or if they don’t the Housing Department recaptures
their subsidy in the project and also shares in the appreciation of the project. The funding that is
recaptured would be used to produce other units throughout the community.
Commissioner Dominguez asked if she was generally satisfied with the ambient exterior amenities and
also the interior/exterior amenities that are going to be provided by this proposed housing. Ms. Fountain
replied they think it is satisfactory for an affordable housing project.
Commissioner Nielsen asked what the qualifications would be for a $200,000 unit in terms of down
payment, the loan amount they would qualify for, and if it‘s a subsidized loan in terms of interest. Ms.
on the income of the person that‘s trying to qualify, the unit may have to be subsidized down. They would
Fountain stated that when the units are built the initial market value is truly a market value and then based
determined by the interest rate at the time, homeowners association fees, and any other assessments on
still have to take out a standard mortgage on the property but the amount of the mortgage will be
the property. These would be calculated into an affordable housing payment and it‘s done on a case by
case basis. Down payments would depend on the developer and their lenders and what they find
acceptable. They have seen programs that are 5% or 10% down. Typically the developer selects their
lenders and the program is developed based on that. The developer selects the applicants and the
requirements in terms of income levels and monthly payments.
Housing Department does a final review before escrow closes to make sure that they meet all the
Commissioner Heinemann asked if there are requirements when their income changes. Ms. Fountain
said it doesn’t matter if their income changes. If they lose income and default on a loan it would be treated
like any other bank loan default.
Applicant, Todd Palmaer, President of Standard Pacific Homes, 5750 Fleet Street, Carlsbad, stated the
the staff and the surrounding neighborhoods. They met in excess of 25 times either formally or informally
project was originally submitted in January of 1998 and during the past 4 years have worked diligently with
with the adjacent neighbors. He said they prepared a number of alternative site plans in an effort to accommodate some of the Community’s requests in regard to traffic circulation. Some of the designs the
community preferred did not meet the City’s guidelines and therefore were not reflected in the proposal.
He stated that through the process they have been sensitive to the proposed lot sizes of their community
as they reflect the adjacent and existing neighborhoods surrounding the community and made a strong
attempt to have compatibility of lot sizes.
Mr. Palmaer stated that in response to some of the community’s concerns regarding traffic circulation they
redesigned the traffic flow coming from the multi-family sites such that it would encourage residents of that
for their cooperation and involvement over the past four years. He then introduced Jack Henthorn of
project to circulate and exit through their community onto Poinsettia. He thanked both neighbors and staff
Henthorn and Associates, who worked with them on the community issues.
Planning Commission Minutes November 7,2001 Page 20
Jack Henthorn, 5365 Avenida Encinas, Suite A, Carlsbad, stated he is a planning consultant and is
present to tell the Planning Commission that they concur with Staffs recommendations on the project and
request approval. He said there are a number of concerns they have been unable to completely address
because the project does comply with all of the standards (circulation, development, and various rules and regulations). He stated he would leave it to the Commission's discretion as to when he should respond to
some of the comments made in regard to the affordable housing.
Commissioner Compas asked about the phasing of this project. Applicant Todd Palmaer responded that
in terms of phasing from a site development perspective and to ensure minimum amounts of dirt
movement they would in all likelihood be grading and developing the site all at once. From a construction
they should build out the community. He said at this point they have not laid out the exact sequencing of perspective they would work with City Staff and comply with their feedback on direction in terms of how
the construction since they're quite a ways away from physically constructing a home. He stated they
plan to build the larger and smaller homes simultaneously. He pointed out where they initially thought of
putting the models for the larger product and said they have not finalized the location for the smaller
product.
the long process they've been through, hopefully pretty high because it's been an expensive process.
Commissioner Compas asked what the approximate selling prices would be. Mr. Palmaer stated that afler
Because the market is very tenuous right now he said he wouldn't venture a guess at this time.
Commissioner Compas asked what the forecasted timeframe would be to finish the project. Mr. Palmaer
summer to early fall, building homes in early 2003. They would typically try to sell 3 to 4 homes per month
replied that if they are successful tonight and with the City Council, they envision grading the site in the
per project per product line, so it would probably be completed another year and a half afler that.
Commissioner Compas asked when the affordable housing would be put in. Mr. Palmaer said he would
have to verity the timing relative to their permits. Mr. Henthorn stated the affordable housing would be
constructed subject to an agreement entered into with the City. Generally speaking it goes in with the very
first phase of construction because it needs to come on line concurrent with the construction of the market
rate product.
fit if that's what the Commission would want in order to approve the project. Mr. Palmaer said he thought
Commissioner Compas asked if they would be willing to put in the livable street concept wherever it would
they would be open to looking at that; they would need to talk to their engineer to see what impacts that
may create and if it did not have significant impacts they would be open to exploring to do that.
want to make sure they are on the Poinsettia entrance in order to mitigate any traffic coming up Daisy. He Chairperson Segall stated that he is concerned where the models will be and if this is approved would
stated he also wants to make sure that the project doesn't get boxed in with construction vehicles and
cars. Mr. Paimaer pointed out the location near Poinsettia they explored for the smaller product line. He
said their focus would be to orient it as close to Poinsettia as possible from a marketing perspective to
have the exposure.
Commissioner Trigas asked if the affordable housing design is fixed at this point as far as not adding
elements that would bring it more in line with the other product. Mr. Palmaer said they could certainly
explore that and acknowledged the project has been going a long time and the renderings could have
been enhanced. He pointed out that there actually is quite a bit of roof variation, the materials are
consistent with other roof materials used throughout the project, there is an active balcony condition on
the corners which provides relief, some recessed windows, and some trimming. He stated he feels there
variations as well.
are a number of nice elements in this product and feels it would end up looking good with some color
Chairperson Segall asked if it would be possible to introduce some of the elements and uniqueness from
the other properties into the affordable housing to make it look like a similar street scene, although
compressed. Mr. Palmaer replied that it may look somewhat contrived if they were to compartmentalize
Planning Commission Minutes November 7,2001 Page 21
each one but thinks they could explore introducing a little stronger flavor that's compatible with one of the
themes so that it is more consistent with the neighborhood.
Commissioner Compas stated his objection is the row of garages and would like to see some enhancement there. Mr. Palmaer replied that one of the challenges is with this density and size of the
within that community and not as you circulate past it. Chairperson Segall interjected that he thinks the
building. He said the garages do orient internally so, if it is challenging, it would be for the people that live
point is that they may be able to come back with some enhancements.
Mr. Palmaer introduced Dawn Wilson with RBF Consulting and traffic engineer, John Borman with
Linscott, Law, and Greenspan.
study originally prepared by Linscott, Law, and Greenspan. She gave a brief overview of the traffic
Ms. Wilson stated they were retained by Standard Pacific Homes to do the third party review on the traffic
analysis prepared for the project. She pointed out the location of the project and the three phases of the
project - Phase 1 located to the south of Poinsettia Lane and Phases 2 and 3 to the north of Poinsettia
Lane. She stated the total project ADT is forecasted to be about 2,572 trips per day. Consistent with the
guidelines set forth by the County of San Diego and the City of Carlsbad, the following study scenarios
were evaluated for this study: Existing conditions - this traffic study identified that all intersections
currently operate at acceptable levels of service which is D or better, and most operate at level service A
or B. Existing plus project conditions - in this case the project trips were manually distributed on the
roadway network considering it with and without a connection to Alyssum Road. She stated in this case
the preferred alternative is the connection to Alyssum, An existing plus approved project condition was
evaluated that included 5 approved residential projects located to the northeast of this project. In a
for other projects in the area and is consistent with projects presented in the recent past. In all cases the
buildout condition based on the 2020 Analysis SANDAG Regional Traffic Model which has been prepared
intersections being evaluated are operating at acceptable levels of service.
She stated the analysis methodology used in this study is consistent with both SANTEC guidelines as well
as the City's Growth Management Plan. Any intersection in which the project-generated trips exceeded a
total of 50 trips was included in this analysis. According to the SANTEC guidelines and the Regional CMP
guidelines, freeway segments in which 150 trips or more are added need to be included in the analysis. In
this case, that rule was not exceeded, therefore the freeway was not evaluated. The Intersection Capacity
Utilization (ICU) methodology was used to evaluate all signalized intersections. The Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM) was used for unsignalized intersections. All intersections and roadway segments were
evaluated at a level of service D or better.
She pointed out the project site plan phases 1, 2 and 3. She indicated the project's major access point is
at Rose Lane and Poinsettia Avenue. She stated additional access will be provided at Alyssum and
Daisy. Based on the forecast project generated trips there are approximately 100 ADT volumes forecast at Alyssum and approximately 760 project-generated trips at Daisy. The remainder of the project-
generated trips will come out at Poinsettia Avenue. A traffic signal is planned at Poinsettia Avenue and
Rose Drive that is expected to attract some of the trips from the neighboring communities because it will
increase access from the area south of Poinsettia Lane.
all internal roadways to local street standards. The traffic signal at Poinsettia Lane and Rose Drive will be
Ms. Wilson stated the findings of the traffic study are as follows: The project will be required to construct
the responsibility of the project. The project will construct a dedicated westbound lefl turn lane at
Poinsettia Lane and Rose Drive and will provide a contribution to the Bridge and Thoroughfare fee for
improvements to Aviara Parkway and Poinsettia Lane.
She stated the project is not forecast to significantly impact any roadway segments or intersections within
the City of Carlsbad based on the level of service criteria set forth in the regional and city guidelines.
Likewise, the extension of Street A and other roadway segments that connect to neighboring communities
are consistent with the City's goal of providing inter-community or inter-neighborhood connectivity.
Planning Commission Minutes November 7,2001 Page 22
Commissioner Compas asked what the impact would be if Alyssum was not connected. Ms. Wilson
access to the neighboring communities, so trips currently coming out at Snapdragon would continue to
replied that those 100 trips would most likely come out Poinsettia Lane but it would also not provide any
come out at Snapdragon. She said it's difficult to determine if the 100 forecasted trips are the project's
coming out or if they're going to have a higher volume coming in as well. Conditions are showing level Of
service B, so if it is not connected the 100 trips (which are about 6-8 in the peak hours) wouldn't make a
difference at that intersection.
Chairperson Segall said he thought he was told that the intersection of Alyssum and Snapdragon had a
total of 9 trips in the morning and 9 trips in the afternoon. Ms. Wilson replied that those would be peak
off and not have an impact one way or the other. Ms. Wilson replied that is correct.
hour trips. Chairperson Segall said if there are only 100 ADT from Alyssum it seems that could be sealed
Commissioner Compas asked if she felt traffic calming should be put into Daisy. Ms. Wilson said if there
is a need on Daisy and if it is put in appropriately she thinks it could be an effective tool, but thinks they would have to evaluate it more thoroughly.
Chairperson Segall asked if the assumption being made is that when you open Rose and Poinsettia it
creates a magnet for vehicles to use that route rather than going down Daisy because it's a signal light
and therefore may also attract people in Spinnaker Hill. Ms. Wilson stated that is the assumption being
for people to make a left turn out onto Poinsettia Lane and eventually traffic conditions may not allow for
made, that by adding a traffic signal at the intersection of Rose and Poinsettia you're improving the ability
that kind of a left turn to be made from an unsignalized intersection.
Chairperson Segall added that it would also attract people that are turning right and live at the northern
end of Spinnaker Hill who don't want to go all the way down the hill if they're going to Aviara Parkway or
the industrial area. Ms. Wilson said that's correct and this would facilitate their ability to make that route
shorter.
Chairperson Segall asked if in similar type projects when you have done this type of forecast if the reality
ends up matching the forecast in terms of creating this magnet of vehicles using the path of least
resistance which would be the signal light. Ms. Wilson replied that is what they tend to find.
Chairperson Segall asked how many people from Spinnaker Hills are expected to actually use this new
route. John Borman, a principal with Linscott, Law, and Greenspan Engineers, stated their firm prepared
the actual traffic study and RBF was hired to do a third party review. He said that is a difficult question to
answer. They are predicting that the project will add approximately 760 ADT to Daisy but it's also
common sense that it will take traffic off Daisy. As a traffic engineer he would estimate it at 300-500 ADT
and it gets close to being a wash, but it is difficult to put a number on it. He added that it was concluded in
would be up to the Commission whether or not it is closed. The traffic study also concluded that traffic
their study there would be no significant impacts with or without the connection of Alyssum Road and it
calming study should be done on Daisy and they recommend it.
Commissioner Compas asked if they have the number of ADT that will use the traffic signal at Poinsettia.
Mr. Borman replied it would be 980 ADT.
Commissioner Dominguez asked if they considered opening up the other end of Daisy. He said it
appeared to him when reading the report that the assumption is everyone was headed to the freeway, so
if the other end of Daisy was open it seems that it would be a substantial improvement to the whole
circulation in the area. Mr. Borman said that was not included in their study but agreed that that would be
a good connection to have.
Chairperson Segall asked what other alternatives for circulation were discussed in the planning process
prior to the Daisy, Rose and Alyssum connections being evaluated.
gone through quite a bit of networks and different configurations. There were intersections that were too
Mr. Wickham stated they looked at a lot of different designs and over the past two years the project has
Planning Commission Minutes November 7,2001 Page 23
steep, too sharp, blind corners, too many units taking access on a cul-de-sac. There were also four
alternatives that were submitted through discussions with the neighborhoods. Each option had certain
benefits and certain distractions. All in all the project before you is the one that we support as the best of
all solutions. He stated they think Daisy is a perfect candidate for traffic calming and they have a program
in place that was approved by Council in May, 2001. He said they would invite the citizens and this
subdivision or the adjacent community. project to be part of that program. He said there is nothing stopping a traffic calming design from this
Chairperson Segall asked how that plan gets implemented. Mr. Wickham replied that the citizens make a
request to the City's traffic division to look into Daisy, then there are 3 or 4 other steps, and then it comes
to a petition from the neighborhood. If there's not majority or unanimous support you wouldn't want to
change the design.
Wickham said the City has a traffic signal light proposed for Snapdragon and Poinsettia in the Capital
Commissioner Compas asked what the probability is of a traffic light needed at Snapdragon. Mr.
Poinsettia and interconnect that signal with Aviara Parkway and Batiquitos all three will work together, and
Improvement Program. He stated they want to relook at it because once they connect Rose and
by doing this interconnection we may not need a signal at Snapdragon and Poinsettia. He said by putting
a signal in you might actually increase traffic on Snapdragon which may not be a good idea for traffic
easier way to get out. He said they will revisit Snapdragon after the Rose signal is in place.
calming. It may be better not to put the signal in and let Rose become the free flow. Rose will be the
Mr. Wickham added that Linscott. Law, and Greenspan was the traffic engineer for the developer and RBF
by coincidence was the engineer that designed the subdivision and they have a traffic division, so they
were a third party review also hired by the developer. The reason Staff did not present the report is
because they did not hire RBF or Linscott, Law, and Greenspan as a traffic engineer for the project. But
as a fourth party review, Staff did review their report and concurs with it.
Chairperson Segall stated he had requests from 24 people to speak and asked the Commissioners if they
would be willing to stay until 11 :00 p.m. to complete the public testimony. The Commissioners agreed to
meet until 11 :00 p.m. He then asked the public if they would be willing to go until 11 :00 and explained that
meeting along. The majority of the public was in favor of meeting until 11:OO. Chairperson Segall opened
speakers would be limited to 5 minutes and asked them not to be redundant and he would try to move the
public testimony with the aforementioned guidelines and stated that Staff would have responses to the
questions at the December 5th meeting.
RECESS
Chairperson Segall called a recess at 931 p.m.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Chairperson Segall called the meeting back to order at 9:40 p.m.
Renata Breisacher Mulry, P.O. Box 130215, Carlsbad. Director of Research at Bexen Press, stated she is
a IO-year resident of Vista Pacifica and a past president of the homeowners association and was here to
raise some points regarding this project. She said it has nothing to do with growth; it has to do with
planning. She submitted handouts summarizing her remarks. She said the residents of Vista Pacifica and
Spinnaker Hill have run into a brick wall. They have sent petitions, letters, contacted Planning Staff, City
personnel and have not gotten anywhere.
Ms. Mulry said she has three main issues. First, she expressed how puzzled she was that a project of this
scope and complexity that requires 8 special permits, does not require an EIR. She said she knows there was a Master EIR done previously, but that is not the same as doing an EIR for the impacts a project with
over 200 houses and all the other things will cause. She said she would like someone between now and
when this is heard by the City Council to explain exactly why an EIR was not done because a Negative Declaration is absolutely insufficient for a project of this scope.
Planning Commission Minutes November 7,2001 Page 24
Ms. Mulry stated their main concern at Vista Pacifica is the opening of Alyssum. She said the potential
opening of Alyssum has never been actually indicated to the residents there and the subdivision report
makes no mention of it. She said a subdivision report is a buyer’s caveat; it‘s required by the State; it was
adopted by the State because there were so many violations of disclosure. She said the Planning
Department has fully recognized its negligence because now suddenly there are big red and white signs
all around the city where roads potentially can be cut through. She said there is no way the City can come
and tell us we were all stupid and we should have known, that is not reasonable. She stated that right now
Alyssum Road is a very dangerous intersection. To enter the new tract you would have to make a 90-
degree right hand turn, travel the length of two cars and immediately make a 90-degree left hand turn.
They do not understand why any planner would propose that.
In regard to the affordable housing, Ms. Mulry stated she is in receipt of a letter from the law firm of
the street. She stated it was admitted in full testimony that they are not compatible with the design of the Detisch & Christensen which specifically requested that those low-income units be shifted to their side of
tonight. Therefore, this is a matter of some serious ethical violations.
project. She added she did not hear any low-income units on the two previous projects that were adopted
Chairperson Segall asked her to submit a copy of the letter for the Commission’s review
Commissioner Compas asked her if she believes the comment in her write-up that states the Planning
Commission does not have a shred of interest in any comments brought before them. Ms. Mulry
responded affirmatively.
Don Detisch of Detisch & Christensen, 444 West C Street, Suite 200, San Diego, stated he represents
Mike and Pat Burris, 1250 Veronica Court. Carlsbad, a cul-de-sac lot adjacent to the proposed
subdivision. He showed a schematic of the Burris property in relation to the Tabata property and
subdivision. He said they understand there is a condition being imposed on Standard Pacific to provide a
60’ wide roadway that would access the Tabata property. He stated on behalf of the Burrises they are
opposed to it because of increased noise, dust, traffic, etc. Additionally, for security reasons as Mr. & Mrs.
to be a driveway area only and for open space and now it‘s going to be for increased traffic. He said they
Burris have had offroad vehicles going onto their property. When they moved in they thought it was going
don’t see any need for the roadway, particularly as it relates to the subdivision. He said in the traffic
analysis tonight there wasn’t one word about proposed Lemon Leaf, He said they believe that Lemon Leaf
Drive will provide access to the Tabata property and don’t think this roadway is necessary. He said they
understand that a map apparently came in within the last day or so on the Tabata property indicating a
four-lot parcel map. They believe a cul-de-sac will take care of that and believe it meets City standards.
He stated after speaking to the Fire Department the remaining safety concerns could be handled by
sprinkling the homes in this area. He said they didn’t see this in the circulation element of any plan and
added they don’t have traffic counts on it so they don’t know what it truly serves. The additional road
would also require the relocation of water and sewer lines, an expensive proposition, and will require
offsite acquisition to put the roadway in and/or the construction of expensive retaining walls. He said they
believe there are other instances in the City of Carlsbad where cul-de-sacs were allowed under similar
circumstances. He said they’re not opposed to the proposed subdivision, they simply want to see the elimination of Condition No. 54. He said he was told that the Tabata’s and Standard Pacific would also
like to see the elimination of that requirement as well.
Maureen Gooch, 7037 Snapdragon, Carlsbad, also representing her neighbors, the Arlinghauses and
MacLauchians, stated she doesn’t understand why they cannot move the affordable housing to the other side. She mentioned that the subdivision previously discussed had only one way in and one way out so
she doesn’t understand why that would be a problem. She said the other side of the street is already
condos and it would fit in much better on the other side of the street. She said the RV parking could also
be some other place and doesn’t have to be so easily accessible. She also expressed safety concerns for the children and senior citizens that live on Snapdragon if Alyssum is opened up.
Jim Hicks, 962 Alyssum Drive, Carlsbad, expressed his opposition to the opening of Alyssum Road. He
stated since he moved there in 1991 all signs indicated it was a cul-de-sac and they feel they have been
Planning Commission Minutes November 7,2001 Page 25
tricked that they live on a cul-de-sac. He's been told by the City and Standard Pacific that he should have
read, but he said not everyone reads these big long documents. He expressed concerns about fast
moving traffic on Alyssum and the danger it would present to the kids in the neighborhood. He said they
the homebuilders should leave Vista Pacifica alone and do something else.
have some green space and a beautiful wall that he thinks should not be touched. He thinks the City and
Chairperson Segall asked Mr. Grim to address at the next meeting what's going to happen to the wall Mr
Hicks alluded to.
their beautiful meandering streets are difficult to drive and require very slow traffic to avoid hitting animals
Don Connors, 921 Begonia Court, Carlsbad, said he has issues with safety and quality of life. He said
and kids. The streets are 40 feet but they are on hills and when cars are parked on a hill or a curve you
can't see more than a couple cars away. There's a problem on Daisy now when people pull out of their
this street. It's not a collector and speeding is already a problem with our own citizens. About 10 years
driveways, they can't see up or down the hill and there will be more problems if more traffic is added on
ago when Aviara was trying to put a street through, the City agreed it was not a good idea to add more
traffic to Daisy so they put a fence up with emergency vehicle access. He said the same thing could
access all the residents onto two entrances onto Poinsettia. He said Spinnaker Hill gave the City over 200
happen on Rose. He thought the developer could design a circulation system within his own plan that will
petitions objecting to opening Rose. He requested that the plan go back to the developer and the City
require him to develop a new circulation plan that will keep additional traffic off Spinnaker Hill and Vista
Pacifica streets.
Joe Hull. 913 Poppy Lane, stated he's been a resident of Spinnaker Hills for about 18 years. He stated he
should be with the packets. He said he was focusing on the issue of increased traffic on Daisy Avenue.
prepared a letter dated November 1st with a map attached and comments to the Negative Declaration that
the project is proposed. He said the City of Carlsbad has done counts on Daisy Avenue and measured
He showed a map of the existing configuration and the traffic volume increases on Poinsettia and Daisy as
volumes of 2,200 trips a day. He said the way the project is configured we're now looking at
approximately 3,000 trips a day on Daisy Avenue. He said he read the traffic study, is a registered civil
engineer, and works for CalTrans so he looks at traffic studies and analyzes what their impacts will be. In
the traffic study they're calling Daisy a residential collector street. He said they are requesting the
development be conditioned to modify the tentative map that will help lessen the impact to Daisy Avenue.
One is a realignment of the "C" Street cul-de-sac to "A" street. In addition, they are requesting that a
Street, getting on Rose Drive and heading to Daisy Avenue. He said he would encourage people to head
median be placed along the Rose Drive connection to prevent left hand turns from coming down "H
out to the signalized intersection and feels this would lessen the impact on Daisy Avenue by about 50
percent. He stated the County Road Guidelines for average daily trips states that levels of services are
traffic. Levels of service normally apply to roads that carry traffic through major trip generators and
not applied to residential streets since their primary purpose is to serve abutting lots, not carry through
attractors. It's his opinion that Daisy Avenue is basically at capacity and anything added to it would make
it over capacity.
Commissioner Compas asked if he is in disagreement with what the traffic study says since he said Daisy
is at capacity. Mr. Hull replied he does not agree with their conclusion and feels Daisy is at capacity at
guidelines recommend 1,500 trips a day on a city street. He said they used the definition of a residential
this point. The city guidelines recommend about 2,200 trips a day on a residential street and the county
collector in their study which allows a higher traffic volume. He added that also in the traffic study about
70% of the trips are headed out to 1-5, so although this may provide a shortcut for some people from Spinnaker Hills, the primary traffic direction is still headed out to 1-5.
Ronald Zaustowski, 1007 Daisy Avenue, Carlsbad stated he lived on Daisy for 23 years and wanted to try
to appeal to the Commission's logic on how they think this traffic would flow if they were driving. He
pointed out Daisy on the map and indicated it is on the bottom and goes up and comes back to Batiquitos
and then to Poinsettia. He said people wouldn't go that way and make all the turns. He said there are conflicting requirements coming up. You say the streets have to be 40 feet wide and now you want to
make them 35 feet wide. First you need to determine if you want 35 foot wide or 40 foot wide streets
Planning Commission Minutes November 7,2001 Page 26
before you know if this is feasible. Use your common sense, which way will people go. The only reason it
was done this way because it was economically feasible for the developer to do it. They claim Rose was
always supposed to go through. Daisy was put in 30 years ago and there was not even a thought of
for an excuse to make it simple.
Poinsettia. How did we know where Rose would go. It could have been a cul-de-sac. They’re using that
Deborah Kavounas, 1016 Foxglove View, Carlsbad. stated she lives in Spinnaker Hills and has two
concerns. First, this group of 200 homes will be using their streets to get out of the neighborhood and she thinks the roads should be constructed such that the majority of the traffic leaves its own neighborhood on
its own roads out to Poinsettia. Traffic slowing devices will just create noise, cars will stop at stop signs
and speed bumps and then speed up and make a lot of noise and be unpleasant and decrease property values. Her other concern is that the back of her property abuts the new development and she is
concerned about privacy and noise. Have heard a lot of things from the developer about putting up walls,
etc., but nothing in writing. She said it would be nice to have something in writing before approval is given.
Alyssum so the opening of Alyssum would basically end up in his driveway. Using some of the statistics
Steven Wolkenstein. 960 Alyssum, Carlsbad, stated he lives at the end of the current cul-de-sac on
already mentioned, he said it seems kind of silly to spend that kind of money and effort to open Alyssum when it will only take off 180 ADT a day. He said he’s lived there for 6 years and he and his wife make a
left turn off Snapdragon onto Poinsettia everyday and neither of them have a problem, so he doesn’t think
there is a major issue about turning left. He expressed concern about backups on Snapdragon and
Poinsettia causing accidents if Alyssum is opened. He said leaving Alyssum closed is a low cost
opened and thinks it was a direct request from the City. Based on what they heard tonight he doesn’t
adjustment for the developer and he doesn’t believe that early on in the plans the developer had Alyssum
think the City is justified at all in its efforts or reasoning. There are many projects in Carlsbad just as large
that have only one access point. He said this will have two and there’s no reason to have three. He
seriously requested the Commission to recommend that Alyssum be closed.
closed. The majority raised their hands. Chairperson Segall asked the audience for a show of hands of who would like to see Alyssum remain
Lowella Oakley. 7054 Snapdragon Drive, Carlsbad, stated she would like to see Alyssum remain closed
and has some concerns with privacy with the new development going in. The elevation is going to be 10
feet higher than her lot and several other lots on Snapdragon and they will have a perfect view into the second level of their homes.
Steve Oakley. 1004 Foxglove View, Carlsbad, stated he has 3 issues. One is the transition from
Spinnaker Hills into the new development on Rose Avenue. He pointed out Spinnaker Hills on the map
stating that the houses are single-story and about 1,600 square feet, and the homes in the new project are
two-stories ranging about 3,000 square feet. The elevation in the new project is approximately 6-7 feet
also sitting up on a 7-fOOt pedestal. He said the transition from Spinnaker Hills into the new development
higher, so coming in you’re not only going to see a two-story house but a house that‘s twice its size and
will be an eyesore. All the houses will be towering over their development and all he will see as he turns
the corner coming off of Daisy will be the new development. He would like to have them find some way they could reduce the elevation so the transition into his neighborhood and the new development would be
would prefer to have Rose Avenue closed. His third issue is access to the Aviara trail. He said they were
a lot nicer. He stated he spoke to Kathy Baker of Standard Pacific earlier about this issue. Secondly, he
hoping with the new development they would be given access to the trail so their residents and Vista
Pacific residents can also enjoy that beautiful trail.
Scott Cooper, 946 Daisy Avenue, Carlsbad, stated he had a couple of concerns. He wanted to check the
elevations. He said they all have single story houses and are used to having very private back yards and wants to make sure that the new houses won’t be looking directly down on them. Secondly, he said by
doing the math, if Daisy has 2,200 trips right now and we want to bump it up by 700, and if we look at the
Poinsettia exit of the subdivision it only has 1,400 trips coming out of it. If they add those 700 to Poinsettia they would have an equal number that we have now on Daisy. He asked if 2,100 or 2, 200 is good enough for us now, why isn’t it good enough for them?
Planning Commission Minutes November 7,2001 Page 27
David McKeon, 7101 Wisteria Way, stated they are not opposed to the growth and welcome a new
neighborhood. He said it‘s hard for them to understand why Daisy is going to be developed into a kind of
an alternate commuter street because as the city continues to develop and if a light goes in at
west to 1-5. He said they’re concerned the traffic study is understated and it‘s going to be closer to 3,000
Snapdragon it‘s going to be an alternative for everyone who doesn’t want to hit lights on Poinsettia going
fast and it‘s on a hill. He also wanted to talk about the decision-making process. He said he doesn’t know
trips on Daisy. He doesn’t know if traffic calming would be effective on Daisy because everyone drives
the developer’s position about why they have access to our neighborhood, but thinks it has to be one of
two things. It has to be driven by principle, something that Carlsbad has as a principle, connectivity in the
neighborhood or to have as much connectivity between neighborhoods as possible. Or it may be
preference, - the developer’s, City Council’s, City Planning Commission’s - I don’t know. But if you leave it
specifically not to be just a pass-through or commuter for people who are destined to go to 1-5.
to the residents and what our preference is, it would be that our neighborhood is not connected, and
Wayne Pasco, 535 N. Hwy. 101, Suite A, Solana Beach. stated he is a civil engineer representing the
Tabata’s, owners of the property that has been the subject of some of the conversation earlier tonight. He
said, basically we are in support of the project but there is one issue that we need to bring to your
attention. Some time ago we met with the City Staff to discuss the development criteria for the Tabata
to be processed. The issue we need to discuss is the access. The requirement from the City is that a property. Based on their input and feedback we submitted a 4-lOt parcel map to the City on October 25th
second route would need to be connected between Lemon Leaf and Lonicera. The concern we have is
that as the map is drawn there’s a conflict between the elevations of Lemon Leaf, there’s a conflict
between the vertical alignment of Lemon Leaf as it is proposed and what the City’s requirements are for street grade. He said he would like to propose that we either be given some flexibility on the design of that
street or that we can get Standard Pacific’s cooperation on changing the grades such that we can have a
successful project.
June Drazenovich, 929 Daisy Avenue, Carlsbad. stated her concerns are the traffic on Daisy Avenue
being increased. She lives at the intersection where Ivy at Vista Pacifica goes straight into her house.
She said it‘s dangerous trying to get out of her driveway and also for the people coming off Ivy. She has a concern about the livable streets; she stated Daisy Avenue at this point is almost not a livable street
they should have thought ahead and made it wide enough so they could have the parkways and make it
because of the traffic that goes down there. If they had planned to open Daisy Avenue on Rose Drive
possible for people to back out easily. It‘s not made that way now and it‘s going to be increasingly hard for
people to get out of their driveways. She said the speed bumps and slowing of traffic could conceivably
make it worse because you’re going to have more of a buildup at the end of Daisy where it enters onto
Batiquitos and then the people at the bottom of the street won’t be able to back out at all.
Del Stafford, 904 Daisy Avenue, Carlsbad, stated she lived there since 1977 and Standard Pacific never
told them they were going to open up Rose onto Daisy. She doesn’t think that‘s right. She said by
approving the Standard Pacific project and permitting all that traffic that this project will cause it to be
dumped onto Daisy you will be downgrading our standard of living and cause the value of our homes to go
down. You will jeopardize the lives of those of us who are handicapped and cannot compete with the
heavy traffic expected on our streets. She requested the Commission to please not permit this to happen.
Even though we are handicapped we do value our lives.
Donell Stafford, 904 Daisy, Carlsbad, expressed thanks for listening to their problems. He said he loves
to create more traffic on their street. He said his wife is scared to death to back out of the driveway. He
his home, thinks Standard Pacific did a good job when they built that tract, but they should not open Rose
said he hopes the Commission will see it in their hearts to keep Rose closed.
Rosalind Cori, 906 Daisy Avenue, stated that basically the current traffic on Daisy is dangerous enough
coming down the hill. She said it will be virtually impossible if you open up Rose and Daisy and she much less adding all of those cars. The way the street curves and with the hill you cannot see cars
knows it will actually depreciate their property values if this happens.
Planning Commission Minutes November 7,2001 Page 28
Chuck Vadun, 954 Alyssum Road, Carlsbad, stated when they signed the papers on their home it was
disclosed to them they were living adjacent to agricultural land, specifically rose and strawberry farms.
Now it appears there will be a development of new homes by Standard Pacific, along with a RV park. He
said he's not a foe of progress, but is here to register their concern about the proposed opening of
Alyssum Road. Theirs is one of 7 homes in Vista Pacifica that would be most adversely affected because
they will be put on the island with Poinsettia on the back and Alyssum in the front. He said they already
have the busy street behind them in Poinsettia Lane. He questioned where the people would go in the morning if they're at the stop sign or stoplight at Snapdragon; they'll stack up all the way up Alyssum
Road. He said the cost of their home included a premium for its location they thought was a cul-de-sac,
but apparently that's just semantics. They thought Alyssum would be a great place for their family to grow and never thought that their city government would approve of demolishing the barrier at the end of their
street to allow a constant stream of traffic past their front door. He said traffic folks would say it's not a
significant amount of cars that are going to go by; it's not significant unless you live there. He asked if
keeping Alyssum closed is going to have no significant impact on Standard Pacific's development why
can't we leave it closed for the sake of the people who already live there. He would like to believe that
Carlsbad is a city where the quality of life and property values are vitally important to both its residents and
its government. He believes the extension of Alyssum Road would mean a decline in both, not only for
them, but other residents on Alyssum and everyone in Vista Pacific. Referring to the sign on the wall, he concluded by saying "opening Alyssum is neither right nor popular".
opened, one of which is the stucco wall at the end of Alyssum which encloses the entire property. She
Nikki Robinson, 910 Rosemary Avenue, Carlsbad, stated there are lots of reasons not to have Alyssum
said there was no indication for anyone who ever purchased property there that that it would ever be
anything but a cul-de-sac. The other point is the area between Alyssum and Poinsettia is very short,
maybe two car lengths, and it will create a problem in the morning with cars stacking up and a worse problem in the evening when people are coming home. She said I think it's been pointed out that there is
communities are put in she may be in less disagreement, but said she could point out 15 other no great benefit to open it or not. She stated if she thought this was consistently applied as new
communities that have 300 or 400 homes with one or two exits, homes that were built right next to other
communities with no interconnectivity between the two communities so she doesn't understand why the
City is so insistent that this has to be opened into our community creating a real problem for our
neighborhood. She also has an issue with the location of the RV parking. She said they placed the RV
parking right on Poinsettia so even if they have an 8-foot wall the RV's will be higher than that wall. When
people come into a high end neighborhood along a major thoroughfare with these RV's sticking up above
the wall parked along Poinsettia, she asked if that's what you want them to see when they're headed to
Aviara Resort. She said there must be some other place in the community besides where they're going to
be seen from the main thoroughfare. She said she is frustrated because they have been taxpayers for 15
years; they've talked to the City until blue in the face expressing their dismay over this and it has been
pointed out this evening that it is an unnecessary access into our neighborhood, and the City doesn't
listen. She said they would rather listen to the developers and hear what the developers have to say
told it was pointless for us to even express our feelings because they were going to do what they decided
instead of what their current taxpayers have to say. She stated that at other meetings we were actually
They made their decision and there was nothing we could do about it. I think making an island out of the
needed to be done, and I'm talking about the people who work for the City in the Planning Department.
seven homes on Alyssum is the wrong thing to do. Separating them from the rest of their community by
making them a traffic island is a real problem.
Joyce Kennedy, 925 Begonia Court, Carlsbad. wanted to talk about money and process. She said first of
all we hear a lot about property values and generally it's used as a term to mean land development values.
That's an interesting concept but there's a collateral issue in property values too and that's aggregate
residential neighborhood property values. The 50 houses that lie west of Rose along Daisy are worth
conservatively speaking maybe $400,000 each. Some are higher, some are lower, but $400,000 is a fair
estimate. I feel each one of those stands to lose as much as $50,000 if Daisy gets loaded up, speaking
from experience. Those 50 houses are worth around $20 million that are going to be impacted if it gets
too hard to get out on the street. The other issue is process - I became aware of this situation
approximately 14 or 15 months ago and during that time I'm quite positive that countless volunteer hours
have been expended to make some compromises, get some new thoughts about need and how these
Planning Commission Minutes November 7,2001 Page 29
new traffic roads impact the neighborhood so dramatically. The very proposal that comes before YOU
tonight is effectively the same thing it was 14 months ago so that makes you wonder about process. Does
anyone really care? So what we have is a match up between professionals who have spent a lot of paid
time coming up with jargon and reasons and ADT and you’re opposed only by some very tired volunteers who understand that they’re going to lose money and lose lifestyle if this plan does not get changed. She
Ark, it was professionals who built the Titanic.”
concluded by quoting something she saw in the paper the other day - “It was volunteers who built Noah’s
Tom Judd, 1241 Gold Flower, Carlsbad. thanked the people in the Planning Department for their
information and help. He said he was reading that for the sites being developed there’s a requirement that
25 percent of them have side yards that allow for parking of RV’s. He was concerned about the vista on
Camino de las Ondas being impacted if the RV driveways are on the side of the houses that faces Camino
de las Ondas. He said right now it‘s a very nice view coming up Camino de las Ondas. He said with respect to mitigation of plans, some of it seems a little bit disingenuos. There’s one part in there about‘
mitigating effects of smog and probably traffic. One of the things you say you’ll do is pass out little
pamphlets to describe where the bus routes go and that‘s the mitigation you’re going to take for solving
smog problems. He said it doesn’t seem realistic to him so it casts a shadow on the general force of the
argument. He commented on development of the Tabata property that it seems like it should be done in conjunction with the other property. He said when they first moved to Carlsbad about 3 or 4 years they
were looking at a house on Daisy and thought it was great and then his wife went there at another time of
that are going to have Rose Avenue opened up on them. He said it doesn’t appear to him to be a
day and said isn’t this a busy street for a residential area. He said he has a lot of sympathy for the people
residential street.
Robert Gates, 6748 Lemon Leaf Drive, Carlsbad said he had 3 or 4 issues. He pointed out a triangle of
curious how that‘s going to be integrated into this project - a question for Staff next time. He said entering
land that he said looks green but is actually brown with weeds and is not part of this development and is
in from Lonicera off Camino de las Ondas there’s an existing monument for Mariners Point that needs to
be integrated with the entry into the Standard Pacific project and he thinks that people at Mariners Point
would like to work with Standard Pacific to figure out how that entry would best work. Also, being on Lemon Leaf Drive he said he had some environmental concerns about construction, specifically mud and
dirt on the street. Because all the traffic constructing this upper area will go right by his house he’s
concerned about workers parking on his street, adherence to construction hours, street repair in case of
any damages and any unsightly appearance of the work at that end as viewed by the other people on his
street. He said he would like whatever assurances he can get from Standard Pacific that all those issues
will be dealt with. Finally, he said there had been a lot of discussion of how access would be gained to the
Tabata property. He said if there is an entry off Camino de las Ondas, that means more traffic on Lemon
Leaf Drive and he hopes that would be part of the considerations of Staff.
Cynthia Allepenna, 941 Rosemary Avenue, Carlsbad. wanted to say that she and her husband are very
opposed to opening of Alyssum. Traffic has gotten busier over the 5 years they owned that home and are
afraid if Alyssum is opened up it will become another Daisy. She said if you open up Alyssum more
people are going to try to use that shortcut through their community and they have cats, dogs, and lots of
children in the neighborhood.
Chairperson Segall closed public testimony at 10:58 p.m.
Chairperson Segall stated the following people did not speak but wanted to be recorded as opposing the project: Mary Fuller, Scott Cooper, Helena Cooper, Kim Miller, Kathleen Moore, Bryan Miller, Greg Baker, and Elma Pimentel
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Trigas and duly seconded that the Planning
Commission continue Item #IO to the December 5, 2001 Planning Commission
meeting (ZC 98-081LCPA 98-041CT 98-14/PUD 98-05/CP 00-02/SDP 99-061HDP 98-18CDP 98-68)
aa3
Planning Commission Minutes November 7,2001 Page 30
VOTE:
AYES:
6-0-0
Chairperson Segall. Commissioners Compas, Dominguez, Heineman, Nielsen, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSTAIN: None None
Chairperson Segall thanked everyone for staying late and stated the Commission would reconvene on
December 5, 2001 at which time the staff would have answers to questions raised during the testimony
and the Thompsonfrabata project would be the first item on the agenda.
Planning Commission Minutes December 5,2001 Page 4
1. ZC 98-081LCPA 98-041CT 98-14 PUD 98-051CP 00-021SDP 99-061HDP 98-151CDP 98-68 -
THOMPSON/TABATA - Request for recommendation of approval of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; a Zone Change and Local Coastal
Program Amendment to change 40.41 acres of the subdivision from Limited Control (L-C) to
Residential Multiple-Density with a Qualified Development Overlay Zone (RD-M-Q) and to change
37.62 acres from Limited Control (L-C) to One Family Residential with a Qualified Development
Overlay Zone (R-I-Q); and a Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development Permit, Site
Development Pian, Condominium Permit, Hillside Development Permit and Coastal Development
space lots, four recreation lots, one recreational vehicle storage lot and a 24 unit, for-sale
Permit to subdivide, grade, and develop 82.20 acres, creating 238 single family lots, two open
condominium project, affordable to lower-income households, on property generally located north
and south of Poinsettia Lane, between Aviara Parkway and Snapdragon Drive in Local Facilities Management Zone 20.
Thompsonfrabata, which has a number of legislative and quasi-judicial actions to allow the development Mr. Wayne introduced the next agenda item; a continued public hearing for the project entitled
of a subdivision located at Poinsettia and west of Aviara Parkway.
Chairperson Segall reminded the audience that public testimony was heard on this item at the last hearing
and it would not continue at this meeting. Mr. Grim, Mr. Wickham, and consultants would respond to
questions that were raised during public testimony at the last meeting and then the applicant would
respond.
Michael Grim, Senior Planner, stated they grouped the comments into two categories and divided the Staff
presentation into two parts. He would respond to those appropriate to the Planning Department and Mr.
Wickham would address the other issues.
Mr. Grim addressed the following seven issues that were raised at the last Planning Commission hearing:
Level of Environmental Review - Mr. Grim stated that Staff feels all potential environmental impacts
circulated for the standard public comment period and they received four comments from residents in the
have been mitigated to a level of significance. He said the document attached to the staff report was
neighborhood regarding traffic concerns, but did not receive any comments from the state agencies. All
statements within the Environmental Impact Assessment are supported by documentation prepared by
experts in various fields from hydrology to biology to geology. He said Staff felt there was no need to do
an Environmental Impact Report since all potential impacts could be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
They prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration which they feel contains all the justifications.
Types and numbers of permits - Mr. Grim stated the types of permits required for this project are
determined by the zoning designation, by site location, and configuration of the site and proposed product
type. He said the zoning designation is Limited Control which requires a Zone Change and a Local
Coastal Program Amendment to develop anything. The site location requires a Coastal Development Permit and a Hillside Development Permit. The proposed product type created the need for a Subdivision
Map, a Condominium Permit, Planned Unit Development Permit, and a Site Development Plan for the
affordable housing. He noted that these are the typical numbers and types of permits required for other
developments in the Zone 20 area and added that no variances to standards or special permits were
requested.
Department of Real Estate Subdivision Report - Mr. Grim noted that the Subdivision Report is
reviewed by the State Department of Real Estate and has no relation to any of the City permits or notices.
approve it, and has no control over it.
He said the City cannot address that document because it is not theirs, they do not have an opportunity to
Link to the Aviara Master Plan Trail - Mr. Grim stated Staff did not require this as part of the project
because it is not part of the citywide trail system. He said it is not required for coastal zone pedestrian
voluntary feature of the development with coordination from the Aviara Master Homeowners Association,
access. However, even though Staff cannot require it, if the developer were to offer the trail linkage as a
Staff would have no objection.
Planning Commission Minutes December 5,2001 Page 5
Project Boundaries - Mr. Grim stated Staff has a text version of how they think the boundaries were
taken care of in regard to compatibility and buffers and believed the developer had some physical
illustrations. He said the project has increased rear yard setbacks along the area adjacent to Spinnaker
creates a berm which enhances the blockage of views from the upper pad to the lower. On top of the
Hills up to 35 or 40 feet. The proposed razorback grading (rear yard slopes go up and back down again)
berm will be a 6-foot high masonry wall, and replacement landscaping for those who lose trees in their rear yards and landscaping associated with the ThompsonlTabata project. He said they feel all these
features create a nice compatible edge between the two single-family developments.
Chairperson Segall, referring to a comment from one of the speakers, asked how the elevation would look
with Thompson 2-story homes looking into Spinnaker Hills one-story homes. Mr. Grim responded that he
believed the speaker was also concerned about the extension of Rose going north into the project and
two-story for a one-story. Regarding the overall edge, he said there is no City regulation to keep them ail
there is a 2-story home at that corner. He said Staff would be amenable to the developer swapping the
one-story but there may be something in the Homeowners Association CC&Rs for Spinnaker Hills. He felt it was basically an R1 to R1 situation where there will be grade differences and differences in building
height.
Chairperson Segall inquired if Spinnaker Hills has a requirement for only one-story. Mr. Grim replied that
to one-story.
their HOA may have a self-imposed requirement but he could not find anything on record restricting them
Commissioner Dominguez said he spoke to Staff about the particular problems accentuated in the
southeast corner where there are higher elevations separating the old and new projects. He asked Mr.
that there were basically four qualities: Increased rear yard setback up to about 40 feet, which is about
Grim to outline the mitigation efforts attempted to mitigate the substantial separations. Mr. Grim replied
double the typical 15-20 foot setback. This pulls the structures back from the shared property line with
Spinnaker Hills. He said the grading scheme will create a berm so if you're standing on a pad of one of
will be looking at a small upslope. On the top of that upslope will be a 6-foot high wall, so basically the
the new lots and look straight ahead you won't be looking straight off the edge of the pad downwards, you
foot high wall. There will also be landscaped enhanced buffers in the ThompsoniTabata project and berm adds to the visual barrier between your pad and the adjacent pad by 2 or 3 feet in addition to the 6-
possibly with homeowners along the boundaries.
Visibility of RV Parking - Mr. Grim stated that the RV parking is on top of a slope that exceeds 20 feet
and will have heavy landscaping. The parking will also be surrounded by a 6-foot masonry wall. The affordable housing site will be to the north, which will be 2-story 30-foot high building. and to the south will
displeasing looking either from a long or close perspective from Poinsettia Lane.
be a couple 2-story single-family units. He said they feel that the RV site will not be aesthetically
Wall at the end of Alyssum Street - Mr. Grim pointed out the wall on a picture and stated it was
constructed as a physical buffer from the farm traffic when Poinsettia went through and is built across two
existing undeveloped Vista Pacifica lots. He said the disposition of the wall and slope at the end of
Alyssum is not only a function of whether Alyssum is connected as a roadway, but also a function as to
the end of Alyssum as it is currently is completely a function of whether the developer wants to develop
how Standard Pacific is proposing to develop those last two lots in Vista Pacifica. He added that keeping
the last two lots in Vista Pacifica.
Chairperson Segall asked him to comment on the materials used in construction of the wall. Mr. Grim
replied he believed it is a wood frame wall with stucco on the outside.
Mr. Grim turned the presentation over to Clyde Wickham, Associate Engineer.
Mr. Wickham stated there were a number of items regarding circulation brought up at the November 7th
meeting, the main item being the overall circulation for the neighborhood. He said he planned to discuss the following items: Traffic calming as an overall program recently adopted in the City of Carisbad, livable
volumes. overall congestion, and the adjacent streets of Alyssum, Snapdragon, Rose and Daisy, which
streets, the neighborhood conditions inside subdivisions adjacent to each other, the comments on traffic
were stubbed out from the previous subdivision. He showed an aerial photo of the overall neighborhood
and pointed out the various streets that concern the residents in surrounding developments. He pointed
Planning Commission Minutes December 5,2001 Page 6
out the streets on the map that were stubbed and extended as development occurred in the area over the
years.
Mr. Wickham addressed the issue of traffic calming on Daisy. He stated the traffic-calming program is a
three-phase program that starts with a written request from the citizens to the Transportation Division of
the Engineering Department. The citizens must have more than 50 percent support to initiate the
program.
Commissioner Baker asked if the City could initiate the process by sending letters to the people on Daisy
giving them information or suggesting that the traffic-calming program may be something desirable, rather
than waiting for them to initiate, as they may not be aware of it. Commissioner Heineman, who was a
of the program that the initiation cannot come from the City, it must come from the people involved. He
member of the committee that developed the traffic-calming program, responded that it is a major feature
said no traffic-calming program can succeed unless it has tremendous support by the people affected by
it.
them with the necessary information on how to organize or initiate the program. Commissioner Heineman Commissioner Baker replied she wasn't suggesting the City do the traffic calming, but may want to provide
said that the traffic engineer would do that. Chairperson Segall added that there were probably a number
of people present that could initiate it. Mr. Wickham said programs are available at the front counter of the
Engineering Department at the Faraday Building.
want the neighbors to buy into it because there is a process to remove a device, which requires an 80
Mr. Wickham stated when they come up with a traffic-calming device that they feel is a good idea, they
percent approval. He said some of the concepts available are high visibility crosswalks, different entrance
treatments, textured pavements, and narrowed lanes.
Mr. Wickham said they also encourage the livable streets concept, another program recently adopted by
to back of sidewalk which is 3 feet more than we currently have. He said the main effect is that it is only
the City. The concept includes tree-lined streets, 7 ?4 foot parkway - a 13-foot distance from face of curb
34 feet curb to curb with parking on both sides so cars have a hard time getting by each other. He pointed
out some of the livable street areas on the map and indicated areas in the new subdivision that could be
trying to invite traffic to use Rose.
adapted to livable streets. He said they still recommend that Rose Drive remain 40 feet because we are
Commissioner Compas asked if they discussed the livable streets with the developer and what was the
response. Mr. Wickham replied they did and the developer is favorable to the idea.
Commissioner Baker asked what makes the north end of Rose unattractive for livable streets. Mr.
Wickham said the north end of Rose is already 40 feet curb-to-curb and 60-foot right-of-way. This would
remain the same and they would keep it open to allow a free flow smooth travel equal to Daisy.
Commissioner Baker asked if that would create a future traffic problem on the north end of Rose for future
homeowners. Mr. Wickham responded the reason they think it is acceptable is because it is circuitous, it has a turn in it, and is not at a large downhill grade. He pointed out where he predicted a stop sign would
be located and showed where a signal would be located. Commissioner Baker asked if the street is single
areas that would be double loaded.
or double loaded. Mr. Wickham replied it is double loaded but only in certain portions and pointed to the
Chairperson Segall asked how they would address parkways on Rose and Street A. Mr. Wickham
responded they would flip the parkways to the outside on the entire subdivision. The sidewalks will be
removed and the parkways will be adjacent to curb face. The parkways would be 5 feet instead of 7 on Rose and the stubbed streets. There would be parkways and sidewalks throughout the development.
Chairperson Segall asked if the street size of Daisy is 40 feet. Mr. Wickham said Daisy is currently 40 feet
curb-to-curb, within a 60-fOOt right-of-way. Chairperson Segall asked if he was going to address Mr. Hull's
switch of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Wickham replied he would address Mr. Hull's suggestion.
Mr. Wickham stated that there is a distance between Poinsettia and Alyssum that is greater than the
minimum standards. He said there is 120 feet from the end of curb return on Snapdragon to the
intersection of Alyssum which could technically store 6 vehicles, 4 comfortably, if they were trying to make
da7
Planning Commission Minutes December 5,2001 Page 7
a left turn. He said anticipated traffic coming off Alyssum, if connected, was 10 trips in the peak hour, so
the chances of 5-6 cars queuing up are slim in a peak hour. He pointed out the wall and cul-de-sac on
Alyssum and stated that cul-de-sacs by today's standards are about twice the size. He said it's identified on the grading plans as a temporary cul-de-sac because it fits within the extension of a right-of-way.
Due to the many concerns over traffic volumes Mr. Wickham said he looked at the City records to
volumes because there is no outlet and no additional traffic or development. Today there are about
research traffic volumes. He said Daisy was counted in 1998 but it still represents relatively accurate
14,000 vehicles on Poinsettia; 14,000 on Aviara; 6,000 on Batiquitos; 2,000 on Daisy as of 1998; and
1,450 on Snapdragon. He said the project is anticipated to generate 430 vehicles on Poinsettia, 760 on
Snapdragon, 100 on Alyssum, 980 on Poinsettia, and 540 on Batiquitos. He said this doesn't say how
many vehicles the project anticipates taking into the site, but he traffic engineer at one point felt that this
would be equal to the amount that would travel into the site. In total the existing and project ADT would generate 14,700 vehicles on Poinsettia, 14,181 on Aviara, 2,844 on Daisy, 1,550 on Snapdragon, and
6,901 on Batiquitos.
the map some of the suggested redesigns. He stated that Mr. Hull. who works for CalTrans, brought up
Mr. Wickham went on to explain some of the suggestions brought up by the citizens and pointed out on
some very good concepts. Mr. Wickham pointed out the existing design for Street C and stated that Mr.
and it would cause a shift in traffic patterns. He stated this was a good idea and they recognized this.
Hull suggested that the cul-de-sac be flipped to the north and this would create an intersection to the north
object to it, they don't feel it's necessary because the generation of an additional 100 trips a day would not
Mr. Wickham said another suggestion was to cul-de-sac or knuckle Alyssum and although they don't
damage Alyssum or Snapdragon which are designed to handle that volume. He showed a design with a
cul-de-sac and a pedestrian or emergency access that could have lockable bollards installed to keep
people from driving through it.
Commissioner Baker asked if the two lots were still buildable with the knuckle. Mr. Wickham said the lots
are buildable. Chairperson Segall asked if they would be built to the standards of the new project or be
compatible with the older plan. Mr. Grim replied they would have to conform to the older plan but would
work with them on the hybrid of architecture.
Commissioner Compas asked what the worst case scenario would be if the streets were not connected.
would recommend bringing them back into alignment. As far as bad things, there would be a lot more
Mr. Wickham said there was another design of F Street where they realigned some roadways and Staff
traffic having to drive uphill to go downhill internal to the new subdivision. He said the program they
always support is the livable communities and opening of networks.
said it actually was produced by the developer in conjunction with their discussions with the neighborhood.
Commissioner Dominguez asked if the proposal has been broached with the developer. Mr. Wickham
Chairperson Segall asked Mr. Wickham to point out where the cul-de-sac currently exists to show how much larger the new standard is. Mr. Wickham pointed out the existing cul-de-sac and said they would
recommend it be redesigned to current standards whether or not Alyssum goes through or is stubbed off
trucks, boats, trailers, etc. so it would meet the minimum radius necessary for vehicles such as fire trucks, moving and delivery
Commissioner Baker asked if enlarging the cul-de-sac would affect the property of homeowners currently living at the end of the existing cul-de-sac. Mr. Wickham replied it would not affect them because it is
entirely within the existing public right-of-way and the other right-of-way would be dedicated off the new
though it's in the public right-of-way. Mr. Wickham responded that one property owner would have a
buildable leftover lots. Commissioner Baker asked if they would lose any front yard or sidewalks even
shorter entrance, but that property is already in the public right-of-way.
Mr. Wayne said he thinks Staff will need to look at the lots to see if they meet standards and whether or
not an instant substandard lot is being created, even on a lot with a house on it, that may now violate front
yard setbacks. He said it was originally designed for the road to go through so the lots were designed to
front on a road that would extend all the way up into the ThompsonlTabata property.
Planning Commission Minutes December 5,2001 Page 8
Commissioner Dominguez asked Mr. Wayne, generally speaking on the preliminary assessment, if he thought it was doable. Mr. Wayne replied that he couldn’t tell from looking at the map because he didn’t
know what the scale is and didn’t know if one of the houses would meet setback standards and if the other
lot would have enough frontage on a cul-de-sac. Mr. Grim responded that the lot with the front yard
setback would work out because they are not changing the property line at all.
change they would recommend is that F Street go straight up to Rose which would be a much better
Mr. Wickham continued his presentation talking about F Street and E Street becoming a knuckle. The
connection. He said the reason they did this with the original subdivision was to try to create a circuitous
alignment and it was kind of a designed in traffic-calming device.
Wickham replied the proposals came in about six months ago and all were reviewed, but they still
Commissioner Baker asked if all the proposals have been reviewed with the Fire Department. Mr.
recommend the package that was before the Commission at the time they were putting together the
conditions and the Staff report. He said they brought back all the proposals because there was quite a bit
of controversy and concern and wanted the Commission to see what they had looked at as well as some
of the ideas. He said the Engineering Department still recommends that Alyssum go through.
Chairperson Segall expressed concern about building new homes on the two empty lots that would not tit
the Vista Pacifica subdivision and they have a right to pull building permits at any time to build single
in or be consistent with other homes in the development. Mr. Grim responded that the two lots are part of
family homes on them. They would probably require them to be consistent with the Planned Unit
Thompson/labata project. They would basically go back to the models and would have to substantially
Development permit that created those lots but that‘s regardless of what happens with the
conform to them, making any accommodations for new building code standards. They would be built
more in the style of the Vista Pacifica homes because they are not part of the Thompsonflabata project.
He said the only reason the two lots are being discussed in conjunction with this project is because they
needed Alyssum to go through.
Chairperson Segall asked to see the slide on Rose to show where Mr. Hull had suggested the median and
explain why they are not recommending that suggestion. Mr. Wickham pointed out where the median was
applicable on a small point by point program. He said you could be pushing a U-turn in front of someone’s
recommended. He said it‘s a traffic-calming device that might be applicable on a larger scale but it is not
driveway or in front of another street. They don’t feel the median is a traffic-calming device that should be placed without a larger view of the neighborhood.
Chairperson Segall asked if he was saying that it might fit in if they did an overall traffic-calming program
on Daisy and that was part of a mitigation effort to slow or reduce traffic. Mr. Wickham responded it might,
but they don’t think the median will be an issue. He said they don’t think the lefl turn in or out of this street
is going to generate, deter, or defer a traffic problem.
Commissioner Compas asked Mr. Wickham to go back to the Alyssum knuckle and wanted to know what
percent of homes on Streets F and E would use Alyssum if it went through. Mr. Wickham said it was
estimated to be 100 vehicles so that would be 10 homes. Most of the people would go out to Rose which
will be the free flowing easier point of access and they do not think Alyssum will become a shortcut or a
generator of any traffic in excess of 100 vehicles per day.
Applicant Todd Palmaer. President of Standard Pacific Homes, 5750 Fleet Street, Carlsbad. commended
Staff on the great job they did addressing questions and concerns raised at the last meeting. Mr. Palmaer
commented on some of the items brought up. He said all the alternative proposals presented for Alyssum
would work for them so they are open to whichever direction the Commission wishes to go. He said they
would also be open to the proposed median suggested by Mr. Hull. The item they would have a difficult time with is flipping the cul-de-sac. He said that would create some engineering for them and loss of yield.
There are 16 lots proposed on that cul-de-sac which is not a significant number in terms of traffic
generated from those homes. They feel the proposed median would deal with the majority of the traffic
concerns raised by the residents in the Daisy area.
Mr. Palmaer pointed out changes made to enhance the affordable housing architecture in response to
comments made at the last meeting. In regard to the RV storage, he said they proposed that the RV
aa9
Planning Commission Minutes December 5.2001 Page 9
parking spaces that would front on Poinsettia be restricted to low profile vehicles so that they would not
protrude significantly above the berm and wall that would be heavily landscaped in that area.
Commissioner Compas asked Mr. Palmaer if he was agreeable to the livable street concept and if they
street concept proposed on the streets to the east and the west. He said it is the plan to remove the wall
plan to remove the entire wall at the end of Alyssum. Mr. Palrnaer said they are supportive of the livable
and asked if it meets standards for a permanent wall. Mr. Grim replied with regard to construction
at the intersection portion. Chairperson Segall commented that Mr. Grim stated it was a temporary wall
wall but it currently meets standards for compatibility. He said the developer might want to be prepared to
standards he thought it meets standards; in regard to design he said it might be nice to have a more solid
border. replace it if it gets damaged during grading. He said the plans show a 6-foot high solid wall all along the
Commissioner Compas wanted to confirm that Mr. Palmaer was open to either proposal for Alyssum, and
his position on Mr. Hull's suggestions of moving the cul-de-sac to the other side and putting in the median.
Mr. Palmaer replied they're open to either proposal on Alyssum, they do not want to move the cul-de-sac,
and they are happy to put in the median. He said they feel that addresses a majority of the traffic
concerns in that section.
adopted. Mr. Palmaer said they don't have final engineering on it but the estimate is 2-3 homes.
Commissioner Dominguez asked what the decline on his yield would be if Mr. Hull's proposal were
Chairperson Segall asked Mr. Palmaer how he would address the fact that the City is not in favor of
putting in the median, and they are okay with flipping the cul-de-sac. Mr. Palmaer said he hears from the
the spirit of compromise they're trying to agree to a majority of the requests but he feels the flipping of the
City that Staff prefers not to put in the median, however, he thinks it can address the concern. He said in
cul-de-sac would be challenging for them.
Chairperson Segall asked if he was willing to put a trail through to the Aviara community if it's acceptable
with their homeowners' association. Mr. Palmaer replied they wouldn't want to be put in a position where
they're forced to obtain approval from outside associations. He said he would need to have someone
address that so he can understand the ramifications. Mr. Grim pointed out the trail on the map and
showed where the connection could be put in if the developer wanted to do that.
Jack Henthorn, 5365 Avenida Encinas, Suite A, Carlsbad, stated they reviewed the trail connection and if
the proponents advocating the connection would obtain approval from Aviara they could certainly
accommodate the connection and would be willing to do so as long as they are not in the position of
asking Aviara for something they have no need to request.
Commissioner Compas asked what their position was on swapping the two-story house on the corner for
a one-story house. Mr. Palmaer replied they would be willing to look at that and make sure that it works in
terms of the lot width and it might entail changing some lot lines along that row. He said he needed to talk
to the engineer to see if it would fit and if it does he would have no problem with that.
Chairperson Segall asked if they were going to show the cutaways of the cross sections. Mr. Henthorn
existing residence as their benchmark in their proposed grading. It basically showed the pad of existing
pointed out Rose Drive on the map and said they basically took a section between two units utilizing the
residence at 216.60 feet and their pad would be at 221. He said there is an upslope of 2 feet and a wall
on top of that so at this point you're at 224 feet. There will be an enhanced landscape buffer planted
because a razorback condition is being created where the actual elevation at the actual property line is
higher than the pad elevation so there will be a significant amount of blockage even from the second story
view. He said there are 79 feet of separation between units in this particular case and it's split pretty much evenly down the middle. There are other instances that may be different but their product is definitely set
back the maximum amount they can from the south property line.
Commissioner Trigas asked if it is correct that they will be transforming or adding to their property. Mr.
of the proposals on the table was to regrade the slope areas and push the slope further back into our
Henthorn said there was a dialogue at one point with the property owners along the southern line and one
property and create additional flat area on the bottom. He said they couldn't get unanimity of opinion
Planning Commission Minutes December 5,2001 Page 10
along that property line and they can't do it on some lots and not on others, so they were forced into the
razorback condition.
Commissioner Baker asked about the possibility of not putting Alyssum through but extending Street I,
and Alyssum becoming one street along the south edge of the affordable housing. Mr. Palmaer replied
they would be open to that.
Alyssum. Mr. Palmaer answered they would have to have substantial conformity architecturally. He Commissioner Baker asked what the two lots being split by the wall would look like if they don't extend
thought the substantial conformance would require it to be similar to the existing homes on Alyssum,
however, they are open to what the preference is.
Chairperson Segall asked if they would lose one or two homes if Alyssum goes through. Mr. Palmaer said
he believes the lots turn the other direction if the road goes through and there is not a yield impact.
Commissioner Trigas asked if there is still a question on whether the second lot size would be in
conformance. Mr. Grim responded that if Alyssum does not go through and in a straight configuration like this plan proposed, they will have to work with the design engineers to make sure whatever street design
they come up with that cui-de-sac bulbs ensure that both existing lots still meet all the standards.
Chairperson Segall asked Mr. Wickham to address the street that goes by Mr. Burris' yard as well as the
correspondence received on it. Mr. Wickham said he received some correspondence from Mr. Burris'
attorney. The application received in the early part of November for a 4-lot subdivision on a parcel owned
by Mr. Tabata is sandwiched between the Standard Pacific Thompson subdivision. The Standard Pacific
subdivision on the top has the Lemon Leaf cul-de-sac adjacent to Tabata's property and irrevocably
offering Tabata a 60-foot frontage off of the cul-de-sac. That could be extended, however, Lemon Leaf is
at a greater than 1,200 foot length and with Tabata's it is 50 units. The addition of 3 more units on the CUI-
de-sac violates the cul-de-sac policy and livable street guidelines. He said it would be our proposal to
subdivision is not proposing to grade or extend Lemon Leaf; all it is proposing to do is provide a point of
extend Lemon Leaf, and this subdivision has provided for that extension. He explained that this
opening at the top of the cul-de-sac which will require some reworking when Tabata develops, and
possibly a street vacation. There will be some excess right-of-way. A cul-de-sac will go away and the
become the responsibility of the Tabata subdivision. This 4-lot subdivision will be responsible for the CUI-
sidelines of that bulb will be given back to the adjacent property owners. The extension of that street will
de-sac and the extension down to Lonicera. The extension of Lemon Leaf as proposed wiii become a
hillside street, 32 feet curb-to-curb, with a maximum grade of 15 percent. He said the intersection of
Lonicera meets minimum spacing for intersection spacing to Camino de las Ondas, so this subdivision is
just providing the openings. Mr. Wickham said any subdivision should not preclude the reasonable
development of adjacent properties and the Thompson project is not precluding the reasonable
development of the Tabata subdivision. Tabata will be required to put in the extension of Lemon Leaf.
Chairperson Segall said it was his understanding that Burris' attorney was concerned with this project
putting that road in but wanted to clarify that that is not even before the Commission. Mr. Wickham said that's true, that proposal and what is shown in the overhead is not part of the Standard Pacific Thompson
subdivision. Chairperson Segall wanted to confirm that nothing their attorney communicated could be
acted upon by the Commission at this time. Mr. Wickham said they are asking that the opening to
Lonicera not be provided. Burris' attorney, Mr. Detisch, is actually asking that this opening on Lonicera
so in the event that Mr. Tabata wants to subdivide he has the two points of access, he can extend the CUI-
not be allowed. Standard Pacific is providing the access openings at the bottom and top of the cul-de-sac
de-sac and further develop his property. There is also an existing easement for two water lines, a sewer line, and a storm drain line in place today from the Mariners Point subdivision and also a transmission
main from CMWD. The water lines will never go away. The paved access will remain; it is the City's
easement over the top of the two water lines.
Chairperson Segall inquired if that road is continued right now there is a cul-de-sac bulb on the top, but if Tabata's property is approved then that's going to open. Mr. Wickham replied that's correct; the most recent proposal shows the extension of Lemon Leaf extending down to Lonicera and that will meet current
standards, hillside design standards for the roadway, and the cul-de-sac policy and the intent and general
guidelines of livable streets. Chairperson Segall asked if there is a need to design this project with the
bulb if it's going to go straight through. Mr. Wickham said they are going back to permanent bulbs
Planning Commission Minutes December 5,2001 Page 11
because they haven't had very good luck with temporary bulbs. When the Tabata project comes through
they will be removing that bulb and giving some land back.
Commissioner Baker asked if it wouldn't make more sense to stub that street out and put a sign on it
because building a cul-de-sac always gives the expectation that it's going to stay and why build it all. Mr.
Wickham said they have thought that process through and they have a condition on the project that is to
title reports will reflect it and the map will show it. They cannot anticipate the timing of the Tabata project
be recorded on the map to let everyone know that these streets are going to be extended. He said the
so the cul-de-sac is needed for the Thompson subdivision.
from November 7th has been slightly augmented. He explained that upon further review there are three Chairperson Segall asked Mr. Grim to comment on the errata sheet. Mr. Grim stated the errata sheet
areas within the planned unit development portion of the project that could have more than 10 houses in a
row without an intervening open space or street if developed as proposed. Therefore, they augmented the
previous new condition #37 in Resolution 5073 to add lots 182 through 195 and lots 213 through 224. He
said if the cul-de-sac on the southern portion of the project gets flipped around, that redesign may address
part of this issue. There is also the southern willow scrub along one stretch and the Coastal Commission
may solve that problem for the developer. In addition, they are recommending the Coastal Development Permit Resolution get a new condition #lo which basically calls out exactly what the developable acreage
is for the calculation of the agricultural mitigation fee and also gives the City's time scale on how that fee
has been extended until it caps out at the $10,000 maximum. He said developers will know what fee is
expected of them the date they final their map.
Negative Declaration but the condition was written incorrectly so, consistent with the City's code, it needed
Mr. Wayne added for the record the project is conditioned to pay agricultural fees through the Mitigated
to be amended to be written correctly and this is the correct wording.
Chairperson Segall asked if the applicant is agreeable to the errata sheet. Mr. Henthorn stated they have
when projects have been in process as long as this project, things evolve and he thinks with condition #37
no problem with the condition relating to the agricultural mitigation fee. He stated that most of the time
as proposed they are becoming a victim to the evolution of the project and policy interpretation over time.
He asked the Commission to consider allowing them the flexibility to move some of the open space lots
one way, so that they can comply with the policy as it exists. He stated that to the extent they're able to
they have in their current design, which was developed in anticipation that the policy would be applied in
the condition as it's written and comply with the policy. move those open space lots and make some minor shifts in lot lines, they think they can accommodate
Chairperson Segall asked Mr. Grim where the lots are and where they would shift. Mr. Grim said the three
areas that have IO-in-row issues are fairly well distributed throughout the planned development portion of
the project. Moving the open space lots to accommodate those shifts along with taking a look at some lot
line adjustments, and taking a look at the ramifications of any street swapping that may occur, it would still
provide a good distribution of recreation areas throughout the project and Staff is okay with it.
Commissioner Compas said he would like to get the Staffs response on the developer saying he does not want to swap the cul-de-sac but wants to put in the raised median. Mr. Wickham replied Staffs opinion on
the raised median is that it will push a U-turn into someone's driveway and it is not necessarily a solution
to traffic calming, although physically moving the cul-de-sac and an entrance to 16 homes would. He said
Staff favors moving the cul-de-sac and does not favor the installation of a median on Rose Drive.
drawing. He said the current location of the affordable housing is satisfactory and he accepts Ms.
Commissioner Compas commented he would like to see the livable streets go in as portrayed in the
Fountain's reasoning, and the developer's enhancements to the garages also satisfy him. He said the
Alyssum cul-de-sac situation reminded him of a similar situation a few years ago when the housing
development project for the location behind the new library off Dove, called for connecting the project to
Mimosa which runs down to Aviara Parkway. That planned connection also generated much vehement
controversy and the Commission asked Staff what would happen if there was only an emergency connection. Staff said nothing bad would happen. He said he was strongly in favor of the emergency
connection but lost by one vote. The residents of Mimosa appealed to the City Council and lost 5-0. The
desirability of having as many streets interconnected as possible was overriding. Commissioner Compas stated he has since become a subscriber to that thinking, however, he understands the concern when
Planning Commission Minutes December 5,2001 Page 12
seeing how close Alyssum is to Poinsettia. He said his position is that Alyssum be connected to the new
project but if enough Commission members decide they want a cul-de-sac he would go along with them.
On Daisy, he said his experience is that traffic studies are generally good indicators of what is likely to
happen, however, sometimes the area residents have a better idea of what's going on, so he did his own
unscientific traffic study on Daisy. He found that at peak hours, both morning and night, cars use Daisy at
about 1.2 cars per minute and that didn't appear to be a problem. He said he was impressed with the
testimony from Mr. Hull and another gentleman who said let's use common sense and suggested we
consider altering the traffic pattern in the project toward the RoselPoinsettia traffic light by revising the
entry into Street C away from Street B and into Street A. He said he would support moving the cul-de-sac
the way Mr. Hull suggested and not putting in the raised median.
Commissioner Dominguez said one of the things that impressed him was that there was a 22-year span
since the original Spinnaker neighborhood was started and the fact that they have long endured rather
rapid traffic on Daisy as well as the impacts that will result as this development comes on line. In all
fairness to the developer and the existing residents he said he would highly favor not connecting Alyssum
because he does think that there will be a predictable backup in that area. He also believes the Hull
and balanced proposal. He also believes the developer should be as cooperative as possible with the
proposal should be employed. He said those were the two major issues in his mind that would be a fair
Aviara trail system to make that a whole process. He said he also supports livable streets.
Commissioner Heineman stated he is very much in favor of livable streets and supports connecting
Alyssum. He is in favor of swapping the cul-de-sac location and is opposed to the median. He said he
would like to reserve his final decision until they decide on some of the outstanding issues.
Commissioner Baker stated that although she was absent from the last meeting she has studied all the
relevant documents provided by Staff and read all the letters that people have sent. She also met with Mr. Palmaer and Mr. Henthorn with Mr. Wickham and Mr. Grim present to discuss the project. She also went
out to the site with Mr. Grim, Mr. Wickham, and Mr. Segall and counted cars and drove around and looked
at the site. She wanted to go on record saying that she feels very confident in her ability to vote tonight and understands what the issues are. She added that she was a little disturbed reading the minutes from
the last meeting and a previous meeting that people in the Standard Pacific area in Spinnaker Hills feel we
have already made up our minds before these last two meetings. She said she personally does not sit up
all of us spend a lot of our time given freely and if people think we've already made up our minds and don't
there hours and hours with her mind made up before hearing the testimony and it disturbs her to think that
weren't listening we wouldn't be considering some of the things we're considering tonight which is possibly
listen to anything you say because it's very important for the public to be involved and we do listen. If we
where appropriate and is interested in connecting the trails where that is feasible to Aviara. She said she
closing Alyssum and changing the cul-de-sac. She said she would very much encourage livable streets
Alyssum she would like to seriously consider extending Street I along the south edge of the affordable
is on the fence on Alyssum and can see the pros and cons either way. She added if they do not open
would rely on the engineers about what is the right thing to do. She said she is sympathetic to
housing so not all of the traffic will go out to Street A. Regarding flipping the cul-de-sac she said she
neighborhoods that have a lot of traffic going down their streets and if this is a way to slow it down and route some of the traffic in another direction she feels they need to do that for the existing neighborhood.
She said she would strongly encourage the people who live along Daisy to get involved in the traffic
calming program.
fact that no one has made up their mind and they spend so much time going on site, meeting with staff, Commissioner Trigas commented she also was quite upset about one letter in particular and stressed the
developers, and people; investigating, researching, and reading the documents. She said we have to
balance and weigh the different things coming in and very oflen it is very difficult especially because we are not the experts. She said she definitely supports the livable street concept and is more comfortable with the affordable housing. She said she does not support the raised median, but is still struggling with
the issue of flipping the cul-de-sac and on connecting Alyssum.
Chairperson Segall thanked everyone for coming out and expressing their viewpoints and concerns. He
thanked and commended Mr. Hull who not only had a problem but also came up with a viable solution for
them to consider. Chairperson Segall said he is now satisfied that there is enough of a setback for the
together because he thinks they are distinct neighborhoods and is concerned about the integrity. two-story house on Rose. He said he is leaning towards closing Alyssum and keeping the two bulbs
d 33
Planning Commission Minutes December 5,2001 Page 13
affordable housing complex will be and how that's going to come out. He said he would like to go back However, he thinks there are upstream issues that Commissioner Baker raised in terms of what the
and address that before taking a final vote. He said he absolutely supports livable streets and the concept
of putting in the trail connection to the extent they can. He supports traffic-calming efforts and would look
to Mr. Hull, since he has that expertise, to maybe leading the community to start that effort. In terms of swapping Street C. if Staff feels that can happen and not cause any major impacts and if it will direct more
traffic out toward Rose and onto Poinsettia he would support it. He said he would support putting in the
median only if a full traffic calming-study is done and it's part of that study and not part of this.
Chairperson Segall added he thinks they need more discussion on Alyssum and on swapping Street C,
Commissioner Heineman said he changed his view on the connection for Alyssum and feels the cul-de-
sac is the better way to go.
Chairperson Segall suggested they divide the issue and focus on the Alyssum issue and then take the remaining issue of Street C.
Commissioner Dominguez suggested they name the two options on Alyssum "A" and "9 with A being the
knuckle and B the "U arrangement.
Mr. Wickham stated that for the plan A knuckle (a cul-de-sac bulb to cul-de-sac bulb) they would also
recommend the extension of F Street straight up to the extension of Rose. He said that would provide RV
and affordable housing access. He said they changed it earlier for traffic-calming reasons but if they are
doing a cul-de-sac to cul-de-sac design they would also recommend the extension of F back up to A
Street.
Chairperson Segall asked where the affordable housing would enter and exit. Mr. Grim replied it would go
Wickham if they had something already laid out since that was one of their original ideas. Mr. Wickham
back to the original thought and get access directly off Alyssum. Commissioner Trigas asked Mr.
replied it was a previous version of a tentative map that has since been revised and they would bring it
back. He said this would be a substantial conformance change they could support.
could support the bulb-to-bulb, but by extending the public street straight up they could potentially lose two
Chairperson Segall asked how many houses they would lose if that is done. Mr. Palmaer stated they
additional lots due to the width of the street that would be required. He said they would prefer to keep it as
designed which provides the private egress for the affordable site out of that private road up on to Rose
Street.
Chairperson Segall stated they probably do not have enough information to make a decision and may
have to have new drawings done to see how it's going to work.
Alyssum closed, then everyone will have to come further down on Rose and she is concerned they will be
Commissioner Baker said if they don't open Street I through the affordable housing and they keep
creating some traffic problems along that street.
Commission that they do the bulb-to-bulb, more alternatives are needed before a decision can be made.
Chairperson Segall said he thinks more study has to be done. If there is a consensus from the
Commissioner Baker said she doesn't feel she could support the bulb-to-bulb unless that section of the
street goes through because she thinks it relieves some of the traffic.
Chairperson Segall said he didn't want to engineer the project and feels it needs to go back to the drawing board. Commissioner Trigas agreed they cannot do something this important from the dais, but there may
be a consensus on some basic things such as closing Alyssum. She said if she had clarification on some
of the items she thought she could make her personal judgement. She said Mr. Wickham had mentioned
that he preferred to keep Alyssum open from an engineering point of view and would like to hear his ideas
on this item.
Mr. Wickham responded that they have closed streets in the past and over the years they have seen
projects come forward and the neighborhoods asking for street closures. He has seen street closures
Planning Commission Minutes December 5,2001 Page 14
where 5 years after they closed both the neighborhoods and Staff think it would have been a better idea to
keep them open. He said if Alyssum is connected the total impact would be 100 trips per day.
Commissioner Trigas stated that if the greater good of the whole concept works better and it's only about
said from a site plan standpoint there are ways to design it with or without the connection that will make a
100 trips she is struggling with the concept of not closing it. She asked Mr. Grim for his view. Mr. Grim
with a number of projects that for some reason the roads were not connected and then five years down
good street scene and will have good compatibility between neighborhoods. He said he also was involved
the road he received phone calls from new residents who moved into the old neighborhoods asking why a
barrier is there.
connectivity. He said the Fire Department was okay with narrowing down the streets because they could
Mr. Wayne said Staffs recommendation is based on the whole livable street concept that was based on
get in from two directions. When we start taking away the connectivity we start to take away the reason
behind narrowing down the streets and that's why Staff is making this recommendation. He said we
understand what this does to existing neighborhoods but think there is a benefit to them as well.
Commissioner Trigas asked to clarify if the other issues are no longer relevant if Alyssum is connected.
connection and it is a good design. Chairperson Segall asked if they would be taking out the little
Mr. Wickham stated the connection of Alyssum has their support. He said they would like the circuitous
extension that was just put in. Mr. Wickham replied that would be taken out because that extension was
put in only if they were going to bulb it. If they were to keep Alyssum open it is a very good alignment, it is
circuitous and would slow traffic down because they have to make a few turns. If they were to cul-de-sac
it and bulb it, Mr. Wickham said he would recommend aligning F Street through to I Street. That would satisfy the livable street idea of the circulation and fire access. He said they're also proposing to narrow
the streets down as livable streets.
they vote on leaving Alyssum open.
Commissioner Compas added that after Mimosa was connected there was no problem. He suggested
would remain as presented. Chairperson Segall asked where the affordable housing would come out. Mr. Wickham pointed out it
Commissioner Dominguez said he opposed the idea of just voting on Alyssum and would like to discuss
Street C before voting.
Mr. Wickham showed the current configuration of the project and stated that cutting off the access and
flipping Street C would be a reduction of 3 to 4 units. It would also create 12-16 units taking access
directly off of A Street, an idea they can support.
Commissioner Baker asked what effect the grade would have on the street. Mr. Wickham replied one of
the lots is lost due to the steep grade and he believes 3 to 4 lots total would be lost.
Chairperson Segall asked what the grade of the street would be like. Mr. Wickham said it would be 10%
at the most and mentioned some streets that are close to 10%. He said both designs would have steep
grades and either design meets standards.
Mr. Wickham showed a rendering of Mr. Hull's recommendation and stated the applicant may lose 3-4 units with this concept. He said engineering staff does not object to the C Street alignment.
Commissioner Dominguez stated he thinks this is the core issue in this proposal and he agreed with the
testimony presented by the neighborhood that the orientation for the traffic pattern is going to be to Daisy if something like this is not employed. He said he can go along with the Alyssum connection but this is a
point he needs to stand solid on.
Chairperson Segall stated he thinks everyone is in agreement with this.
Planning Commission Minutes December 5,2001 Page 15
Commissioner Baker said she is not in disagreement but is concerned about more people out on Street A,
which is what is wanted, but that will have implications for people along that street and she wanted to
know what can be done to slow people down.
and aside from the connection of Rose, that would be 34 feet wide curb-to-curb, with an enhanced Mr. Wickham pointed out the portion they recommended to be a livable street, the portion that is upstream
parkway. He said the cul-de-sac, even in the livable street concept, needs to remain 56 right-of-way, 36
curb-to-curb, so fire trucks can unload equipment and have access.
Chairperson Segail asked Commissioner Dominguez what he was referring to earlier if one thing
happened something else might. Commissioner Dominguez stated that in totality, the Hull proposal is of
much more importance than the Alyssum issue. He said one of the problems he had with Alyssum is the
number of years that solid barrier had been there and in some cases homes had turned over two or three
times and people had just assumed that because of the solid stucco barrier, they had just assumed it was
a cul-de-sac. Many people make the largest investment of their entire lives on their home and make
this is not a permanent street closure. He said he could settle for employing the Hull proposal and leaving
certain presumptions. He said if we continue to do that sort of thing they should put a sign up there stating
Alyssum open, however he still would prefer to see it closed.
Commissioner Compas requested that they vote on keeping Alyssum open because he thought everyone
was in agreement with Street C.
Chairperson Segall asked for a straw vote for all in favor of leaving Alyssum open and a majority voted in
favor.
Commissioner Compas wanted to know what the applicant would say about flipping the cul-de-sac now
that the Commission decided to demand it.
Mr. Palmaer stated that if the Commission has strong support for that proposal they would work with Staff
to see how they could move forward. He stated it's strongly not their preference and it has a significant
financial impact on them. They strongly feel the traffic generated by 16 lots is not a significant number and yet it is a significant financial impact to flip it. He said they will go with what the Commission proposes.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Trigas and duly seconded that the Planning
adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and
Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 5070 recommending
Commission Resolutions No. 5071, 5072, 5073, 5074, 5075, 5076, 5077, and
Reporting Program issued by the Planning Director, and adopt Planning
5078 recommending approval of Zone Change ZC 98-08, Local Coastal Program
Amendment LCPA 98-04, Tentative Tract Map CT 98-14, Planned Unit Development Permit PUD 98-05, Condominium Permit CP 00-02, Site
Development Plan SDP 99-06, Hillside Development Permit HDP 98-15. and
Coastal Development Permit CDP 98-68 based upon the findings and subject to
the conditions contained therein. In addition, the Errata Sheet of December 5,
2001 in regards to ZC 98-08, LCPA 98-04, CT 98-14, PUD 98-05, CP 00-02, SDP
99-06, HDP 98-15, and CDP 98-68 - ThompsoniTabata. Amended additional to
have livable streets, flip the cul-de-sac, the redesign of affordable housing as presented tonight, and also to strongly encourage that the trail system be
voluntarily worked out with the developer and those involved with the connection
of the trail system.
02/05/02 15:26 FAX 6192368307
Charles B. Christensen
Donald W. Drtisch
Sem D. Sdlwerdlkger
Scon R. Fridell
DETISCH & CHRISTENSEN
DETISCH & CHRISTENSEN
Anorneys at Law
Harold 0. Valdarhaug
OF Counsel
FACSIMILE COVER SHEET
DATE: February 5,2002
RECIF'IENT: Mayor Bud Lewis
City of Carlsbad
City Council Members of the
FAX NO: 7601720-9461
FROM: Donald W. Derisch, Esq.
RE: Standard Pacific Subdivision
uu1
444 Wesr C Skeet. Suite 200
San Diego, California 92101
Tel. (619) 236-9343
e-& dclaw@adnc.com
FEX (619) 236-8307
COMMENTS: Please see attached correspondence of today's
date.
NO. OF PAGES
INCLUDING COVER: Twelve (12)
TRANSMISSION OPERATOR: Shonda
.,
llle infomuon conuincd in du IawLnilc rnnsagc is inremid only For thc usc of !he iuUvidd or plrirj w whom ir is Jddrersd. If rhc
reader of his musrgc is nor dre imdd rseipiml. or dre mployc or agent responsible LO ddi~ it m rhc immded reclpiuu you m hereby nocifid hl any disscminadon. diaibudon. or copyllq of& communicarion is svkdy prohibikd. If you have received his communicsdoo
in error. plcasc imrncdinely wury UI by blcphone and reun hs ongi~l mcssage IO us Y rhc sbnvc addrcrr via rbc U. S. Pnsul Scrvice.
02/05/02 15:26 FAX 6102368307 DETISCA 8: CHRISTENSEN M 002
DETISCH & CHRISTENSEN
Aaofneys at Law
Charles B. Christensen
Dooald W. Detisch
Sean D. Schwerdrfeger
ScoU R. Pride11
Of Counsel
Harold 0. Valderhaug
444 West C Sbeer, Suite 200
San Diego, California 92101
Tel. (619) 236-9343
Fax (619) 236-8307 &mad dclaw@adnc.com
February 5, 2002
Via Facsimile & U.S. Mail
Mayor Bud Lewis
City Council Members of rhe
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, California 92008
RE: Standard Pacific Subdivision
Dear Mayor Lewis and Council Members:
More rhan one year ago this office requested the City of Carlsbad’s Planning Department to
place rhis office on the City’s notice list regarding the above-referenced matter. Apparently, rhar
request had no meaning and therefore, this office was not apprized of the City Council meeting
scheduled for February 5,2002. We do not wish to impede the Council’s consideration of this map
as we know he developer has had to wait a considerable period of the 10 seek consideraaon;
however, responding to this matter when you are not timely noticed is difficult. We spoke with Mr.
Wickham of your Engineering Department this date and he made no mention of this hearing although
we are certain he was well aware of the schedule. With this shorr notice, we again are providing
the Council with copies of our letters Io the Planning Commission regarding this matter.
We also have just learned that the issue which impacrs our clients - namely a proposed future
public road designed to serve a small 2 acre parcel accessing Camino de las Ondas - may have been
dramatically changed by recent events of which we had no knowledge. In fact, it is our belief that
we purposely were not advised of alleged deeds and conveyances from Lennar Developmem IO an
adjacent property owner, Mr. Noburu Tabara. Our legal position is rhar a proposed road dedication
to be imposed on Standard Pacific is not necessary and will require deviation from the City of
Carlsbad’s engineering standards in a significant manner. This roadway dedication is allegedly
designed to supplement an existing driveway which presently services the Tabata property. The
approval of Standard Pacific’s map will allow the Tabata property to obtain access from Lemon Leaf
and will render rhe alleged roadway from the Tabata property IO Carnino de las Ondas unnecessary.
02/05/02 15:26 FAX 6192368307 DETISCH & CHRISTENSEN
DETISCH & CHRISTENSEN
M 003
Mayor Bud Lewis
City Council Members of the
City of Carlsbad
February 5,2002
Page 2
We request that the proposed roadway dedication from rhe Tabata ownership to Camino de
las Ondas be eliminated. Adequate access from Lemon Leaf will exist in the fume. The cost to
consrmct the roadway from Mr. Tabara’s properly to Camino de 1% Ondas will be extreme. It will
require in our view two variations from the Ciry road standards whereas a cul-de-sac street from
Lemon Leaf would only require one variance. The Ciry’s Fire Depanmedt has already advised that
this would be feasible so long as the houses would be sprinkled which apparently is not a difficult
requirement.
In our research regarding this road issue we discovered char Lennar/Bramlea was supposed
la have conveyed a parcel “D” IO the Mariners Point Homeowners Association. We discovered rhar
rhis conveyance should have occurred in 1998 but for some reason never occurred. These matters
took place as a result of a boundary line adjushnent/Cemficate of Compliance (Doc# 1998-
01 05282). Parcel D was to have been conveyed to the Mariners Point Homeowners Association and
added to its Lot 165 which is a small aiangular properly lying adjacent to rhe driveway access into
the Tabata ownership. It is maintained by the Homeowners Association and is planted with trees,
etc. The Map ACI does not permit the creation of additional lors through the vehicle of a boundary
line adjusment. Therefore, we believe that Lennar’s continued ownership of Parcel D appeus to
be a violation of the Map Act and any conveyance to any rhird parry other than the Mariners Point
Homeowners Association would also appear to constitute a violation of the Act.
We have been informed rhis date for the first rime hat the developer may have conveyed a
portion of their ownership interest to someone orher than the Homeowners Association. We believe
that this still may be inappropriate, So to the extent that someone believes this roadway should be
added to a proposed road dedication area we believe this to be incorrect. This proposed roadway
was represented to my clients as a driveway and not a public ro
to purchase a lot which was to lie. adjacent to a driveway at w
Again on short nonce - we are providing our comments.
and if his matler is continued for any reason we would agai s office be directly
noticed by the Ciry Clerk or the Planning Department.
DWDIsll
Enclosure(s)
cc: Mr. and Mrs. Mike Burris
02/05/02 15:27 FAX 6192368307 DETISCA & CARISTENSEN M 004
DETISCH & CHRISTENSEN
AWrneys ar Law
Charles 8. Christensen
Donald W. Detisch
Sean D. Schwerdrfegrr
Of Counsel
Harold 0. Valderhaug
-
444 Wert C Suer. Suite 200
San Diego. California 9'2101
Fax (619) 236-8307
e-mail dcIaw@adnc.com
TCl. (619) 236-9343
November 28.2001
Via FacsimiIe & U.S. Mail
Mr. Jeffrey Segall, Chairman
City of Carlsbad Planning Commission
1635 Paraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Commissioners
City of Carlsbad Planning Commission
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, California 92008
RE: ZC 98-OSILCPA 98-04-CT 98-14/PUJl98-05/CP 00-02/SDP 99-061HDP
98-15/CDP 98-68-THOMPSON SUBDIVISION
P.C. AGENDA December 5,2000-6:OO p.m.
Dear Mr. Segall and Commissioners:
This lerter is a summary and elaboration of ow remarks presented at the hearing on
November 7, 2001 related to the above-referenced subject. First, rhis material is presented on
behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Michael Burris, owners of 1250 Veronica Court, Carlsbad, (Lot 18 of
Mariner's Point). a cul-de-sac lot immediarely adjacenr to the proposed subdivision.
The following bullet points represent the majority of our comments:
0 Their concerns relare to the proposed extension of Lemon Leaf Drive to
Lonicera Drive - Increased traffic noise, dust and fumes, securiy and- privacy,
(e.g., off roaders have driven onto portions of rheir properry from existing
driveway);
02/05/02 15:27 FAX 6192368307 DETISCH & CHRISTENSEN MUUS
DETISCH & CHRISTENSEN
Mr. Jeffrey Segall, Chaiian
and Commissioners
Page 2
November 28, 2001
a At the time of their purchase, rhe Burrises were aware of rhe driveway use and
open space but not construction of a major collector street adjacent to their
cul-de-sac lot;
e All three (3) of the affected properry owners in the area, including the developer
here, support the elimination of Condition No. 54 of proposed P.C. Res. 5073 -
the Burrises, Standard Pacific and Mr. and Mrs. Tabata (see attached hers from
Standard Pacific and Steve Angus, Tabata’s arrorney);
0 The proposed roadway is not necessary for circulation and is not necessary for
safety reasons; the roadway is ‘not necessary for rhe fume development of the
Tabara propeq. The extension of the Lemon Leaf cul-de-sac intn the Tabara
property will work fine;
0 The proposed roadway to be dedicated is not necessary to develop the Thompson
property; it is not included in the circulation elemenr of any general or specific
plan, and the traffic study of Limcon, Law & Greenspan of December 6, 2000
does not even mention rhis proposed roadway;
The traffic to be generated on rhis proposed roadway does nor justify its
. The proposed roadway, if constructed, is too steep at the existing grade to meet
. The proposed subdivision of this property and that of the future subdivision of rhe
consrrucrion;
City standards. Future costs to develop ?he roadway will be excessive;
Tabara property will include a “sprinkling requirement;” and, thus, any alleged
need to have Lemon Leaf connect ro Lonicera is removed;
Any future construction of the proposed roadway will require the relocation of
water and sewer lines and also the acquisition of off-site righr-of-way andor
com~ruction of significant and expensive retaining walls; . There are other instances in the City of Carhbad where rhe cul-de-sacing of
roadways has occurred in similar circumstances (at Aviara, Sea Brire, and Sea
Breeze);
02/05/02 15:27 FAX 6192368307 DETISCH &. CARISTENSEN a006
DETrSCH & CHRXSTENSEN
Mr. Jeffrey Segall, Chairman
and Commissioners
Page 3
November 28. 2001
. There are major incomisrencies between the vertical alignment of proposed
Lemon Leaf Drive between the proposed Tabata Ranch tentative parcel map (MS
01-14) and the ThompsodStandard Pacific (TISP) Tentative Subdivision Map at
the norrherly boundary of the Tabata property. If the TISP grades are lowered to
march the Tabata grades, then the TlSP will need off-uact sewer easements to
achieve gravity flow. If rhe Tabala grades are raised to match the TISP grades
then the fume grade of Lemon Leaf Drive wi!l significantly exceed the Ciry
allowable maximum grade of 12 percent.
8 The City’s Srandards for Design and Construction of Public Works Improvenmts
(STANDARDS) recommends that the number of dwelling units on a culde-sac
not exceed 50. This standard has been commented upon above; however. if
Lemon Leaf were to cul-de-sac in the Tabara Ranch project, 52 dwelling units
would be served. This is a minor increase over rhe arbitrarily established
limitation and only affecrs a 300 foot long section of Lemon Leaf Drive. My
clients support a waiver from rhe STANDARDS to allow 52 lots and the cul-de-
sacing of Lemon Leaf into the Tabata project; and
The separation between the proposed future intersection of Lemon Leaf Drive
wirh Lonicera Street and the LonicerdCamino de Las Ondas inrersection does not
meet the minimum separation distance required by the STANDARDS.
In consideration of the conflicts with existing easements created by the extension of
Lemon Leaf Drive to Lonicera Street, the required waiver of maximum street grade standards
and the waiver of minimum street intersection separation standards, it is believed that a single
waiver to allow 52 lots in lieu of 50 lots on a cul-de-sac be granted for the Tabata Ranch and that
rhe ThompsodSrandard Pacific subdivision be relieved of rhe requirement to provide a 60 foot
wide L.O.D. adjacent to proposed Lot 224.
,.
In light of these considerations and in light of the non-existent evidence of any need for
this particular roadway and especially its proposed size, the Commission should order the
deletion of this condition. Of all of rhe proposed roads to be established by the Thompson
Subdivision rhis proposed extension of Lemon Leaf makes the least sense. The Thompson map
does not lower the elevation of Lemon Leaf Drive and thus off-site acquisition will be required
in the future to make this road arguably work. The future use of the Lemon Leaf extension is
almost non-existent and there is no traffic count which supports any conclusion to build the road.
02/05/02 15:27 FAX 6192368307 DETISCA & CARISTENSEN
DETISCH & CHRISTENSEN
@ 007
Mr. Jeffrey Segall, Chairman
and Commissioners
Page 4
November 28, 2001
On behalf of my clienrs. please eliminate the proposed extension of Lemon Leaf Drive as
a condition of the Thompson subdivision map. This letter should be included as part of the
record. Tl&k Donald W. Dedsch, Esq.
DWDlsll
Enclosure(s)
cc: Mr. and Mrs. Mike Burris
02/05/02 15:28 FAX 6192368307 DETISCH & CHRISTENSEN MOO8
September26,ZOOl
Donald W. Detisch
Detisch & Cbristemen
4444 West’C Street, Suite 200
SanDiego, CA 92101
RE: Poinsettia Properties Tentative Map CT 98-14 et al.
Phase 2
Dear Mr. Detisch:
It appears that we are on the agenda for the November 7,2001, Planning Commission Hearing. As
you are aware we have had numerous issues to resolve on this project; therefore, we are very
pleased to be moving forward.
We are aware that your client wishes that the ’‘secondary access” easement, adjacent to his property,
be eliminated fiom the project design The City Engineering staff has consistently requested that
we provide this easement. The overall project design is not dependent on this easement as a means of access nor do we need it for tr&c flow. The intent of the easement is to provide the Tabata
property “secondary access” in the event that the Tabata’s subdivide their property. Therefore, at
the City’s request, we are providing this easement to the Tabata property. If during the public
hearing process the City determines that this “secondary access” is not necessary, we would not
object to eliminating this easement horn the project design.
I have encouragedthe Tabata’s engineer to look at a couple possible alternative designs, to show the
elimination of this easement or as an emergency only access design. This would provide the City
with some alternative designs ifthe City Council agrees with the request to eliminate the easement
We appreciated your patience and support through this process and if you have any Mer
questiom please do not hesitate to call me at (760) 602-6813.
sincerely,
!STANDARD PACIFIC HOMES
Kathy Bkker
Project Manager
San Diego Division
5750 Fleet Sneer, Suite #200, Ca&bad, CA 92008
TEL (7601 6oz-6aoo FAX (7601 602-6aao
02/05/02 15:28 FAX 6192368307 DETISCH &. CHRISTENSEN M 009
STJ5VBNM. ANGUS
A?IoRNhyATUW
2611 SOUTH COA~T HIGHWAY m, sum 204 CARDIPF-BY-THS-SEA, CXLIPORNIA 92007 TELEPHONE (760) 9429050 PACSIMILK (760) 436-7483
September 17,2001
Donald W. Detisch, Esq.
Detisch & Christensen
444 West C Stre Suite 200
SanDiego, CA 92101
Re: Tabata property
. ._ .- .. " -
Dear Mr. Detisch:
Thank you for your letter, dated September 13,2001, regarding.the Lemon Leaf access
matter. My clients have expressed no objection to taking access off Lemon Leaf Drive, but have
indicated that they and ole5 Civil Engineer, Wayne Pasco, have been advised that the City objects
to such access.
Wbile I don't believe Wayne Pasco has made my formal application to the City of Carlsbad
for the subdivision, he has dhcussed the matter with City staff and will continue to prosecute the
subdivision for the bdt of the Tabatas in accordance wifk his own professional judgment. I have
' not discussed the matter with Standard Paciiic 81-14 as the Tabatas are hying to keep their costs
down, will not do so at this time. ,
I hope this makes the Tabatas' position clear to you. My office will be closed from
September 20 through October 3, as I will be out of the state.
SWsta ,. ,
cc: Mr. and Mrs. Tabata
Wayne Pasco, RCE
02/05/02 15:28 FAX 6192368307 DETISCA & CHRISTENSEN Mol0
OETISCH & CHIUSTENSEN
Atwneys az Law
Charles B. Chrismen Donald W. Detisch
Sean D. Schwerdtfeger
Of Counsel
Harold 0. Valdcrhaug
444 West C Srreet. Suite 2W
San Diego. Calirornia 92101
Tel. (619) 236-9343
e-mail dclaw@adnc.com
F~X (619) 23~307
November 6,2001
Mr. Jeffrey Segdl, Chairman
City of Carlsbad Planning Commission
and Commissioners
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
RE: ZC 9848LCPA 9844-CT 98 - 14EUD 9845ICP 00-OZISDP 99-06/HDP 98-
WCDP 98-68 - THOMPSONITABATA
P.C. AGENDA. November 7,2001 - 6:OO p.m.
Dear Mr. Segall and Commissioners:
This letter responds to the proposed subdivision entitlement request. This firm represents
Mr. and Mrs. Michael Burris, 1250 Veronica Court, Carlsbad California. The Bumsses properly
is located adjacenrro the proposed subdivision and will be further negatively impacted by aproposed
roadway 60’ wide dedication which would link Lemon Leaf Drive and Lonicera. The Burrisses do
not oppose the proposed subdivision; however they would like to see Condition No. 54 - P.C.
Resolution No. 5073, page 13 eliminated. The elimination of this dedication requirement is
supported by all three (3) affected property owners: Mike and Par Burris, Srandard Pacific (the
developer) and, Mr. and Mrs. Tabata, the owner of an approximate 2-aae parcel.
Lying adjacent to the Burris’ property is an approximate 20-foot wide paved driveway which
connects Camino de Las Ondas and the Tabata property. Accordidg to many month of title
research there is no recorded easement for this roadway to the Tabata property as it is presently
situated. This driveway area has been the source of problem for rhe Burrisses. Heavy agriculrural
equipment has historically used this driveway and has brought with it attendant noise problems. In
addition, off roaders have used the driveway and have driven onto the Burris’ property. The
opposition 10 rhs existing driveway and its expansion because of increased noise, dust, fumes,
security and privacy concern.
02/05/02 15:28 FAX 6192368307 DETISCH & CHRISTENSEN
DETISCH & CHRISTENSEN
Mr. Jeffrey Segd, Chairman
Ciry of Carlsbad Planning Commission
November 6,2001
Page 2
and Commissioners
Moll
The Burrisses property will, if this new roadway is created, be bounded by public roadways
on three (3) sides of their property, Camino de Las Ondas to the North, Veronica Court to the East
and now this proposed new 60 foot wide road to the Sourh , At the present the Burrisses enjoy an
unequaled view and living experience which will be seriously disrupted as a result of the proposed
roadway.
We understand that this proposed roadway is not necessary for circularion nor is it necessary
for safecy concerns. The Fire Department has indicated to the Burrisses engineers (Project Design
Consultants) that if certain lots of the proposed subdivisions and the parcel lots of the ultimate
subdivision of the Tabata property are properly "sprinklered" that the need for any rhrough street
would nar be necessary, if a road connection to Lonicera is infeasible. We believe that Standard
Pacific and Tabata support this proposal as well. We believe that a cul-de-sac could serve the Tabata
property in the future and rhere is no need to construct this proposed 60' wide connection.
Candidly, the Burrisses engineers, have explored the feasibility of constructing this proposed road
connection and have found it infeasible. The roadway as proposed will require the relocarion of
water and sewer lines as well as the potential acquisition of off-site properties. If this is the case,
the cost to the future developers of Tabata's 2 acre parcel will be prohibitive.
Ir is understood that the gradient of the proposed roadway from Lemon Leaf to Lonicera is
to steep at the existing grade and will require the relocation of water and sewer lines. In addition
offsite right of way will be required andlor significant retaining walls constructed. This is
problematic and unnecessary if Lemon Leaf were simply cul-de-saced into the Tabata property
during any future development.
It should also be noted that there are other instances within the City of Carlsbad within recent
years has allowed culde-sacing and, in circumstances where the lot count has approximated or
exceeded the lot totals envisioned here. This is a minor variation from any purported standard and
in these circumstances is appropriate.
All in all, the eliition of Condition No. 54 from the proposed subdivision will not have
a harmful affecr and would be welcomed by the Burrisses, the Tabatas and Smdard Pacific. The
Commission is respectfully requested to eliminate rhs condition from the map and allow the rnaaer
to proceed without this requirement.
This office met with the Engineering Department early to urge them to eliminate this
condition. One of rhe suggestions from Engineering was to engage an engineer and plot out a
proposed land use for the Tabata property. The Burrisses did this and demonstrated to the
Engineering Department rhat a cul de sac would work perfectly for the Tabara properry. The second
suggestion was to place a gate across the driveway access area which would allow emergency use
02/05/02 15:29 FAX 6192368307 DETISCH & CHRISTENSEN
DETISCH & CHRISTENSEN
Mol2
Mr. Jeffrey Sega, Chairman
City of Carlsbad Planning Commission
November 6, 2001
Page 3
and Commissioners
only. This altemtive has apparently been rejected by sraff.
This letter should be included as parr of the administrative record however it is our inrent to
speak at the Hearing on the 7th and to present rhe Bumsses position in a more graphic manner.
DWDlsll
cc: Client
Doug Vickery, Esq.
Mr. David Ragland
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
COMPLETE DATE: NIA
DESCRIPTION:
Request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program; a Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment to change
40.41 acres of the subdivision from Limited Control (LC) to Residential Multiple-Density
with a Qualified Development Overlay Zone (RD-M-Q) and to change 41.79 acres from Limited Control (L-C) to One Family Residential with a Qualified Development Overlay
Zone (R-1-Q); and a Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development Permit, Site
Development Plan, Condominium Permit, Hillside Development Permit and Coastal
Development Permit to subdivide, grade, and develop 82.20 acres, creating 238 single
family lots, two open space lots, four recreation lots, one recreational vehicle storage lot
and a 24 unit, for-sale condominium project, affordable to lower-income households.
LOCATION:
This project is within the City of Carlsbad’s Coastal Zone located north and south of
Poinsettia Lane, between Aviara Parkway and Snapdragon Drive, in Local Facilities
Management Zone 20.
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER
214-140-44
APPLICANT:
Standard Pacific Corp.
9335 Chesapeake Drive
San Diego, CA 92123
A public hearing on the above proposed project will be held by the Planning Commission in the
Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, on November 7, 2001 at
6:OO p.m.
Persons are cordially invited to attend the public hearing and provide the decision makers with
any oral or written comments they may have regarding the project. The project will be
described and a staff recommendation given, followed by public testimony, questions and a
decision. Copies of the staff report will be available on or after November 1, 2001.
If you have any questions, or would like to be notified of the decision, please contact Mike Grim
at the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, Monday through Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m..
Friday 8:OO a.m. to 500 p.m. at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008, (760) 602-
4623.
...
...
...
...
1635 &day Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760j 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us @
THOMPSONITABATA
ZC 98-08/LCPA 98-04/CT 98-1 41PUD 98-05/
CP OO-O2/SDP 99-06/HDP 98-1 5/CDP 98-68
TEOMAS R ODONNELL GERALD J & MARY GUEVIN ROBERT B STUCK
' 936 JASMINE CT 934 JASMINE CT 7202 WISTERIA WAY
CARLSBAD Ck 92009-4825 CARLSBAE CA 92009-4825 CARLSBAE CA 92009-4643
KARL KASAI MELVIN R & RAMONA SEGAL JOHN B & SARAH SARDINA
7204 WISTERIA WAY 8528 PRESTWICK DR 7104 ROSE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4843 LA JOLLA CA 92037-2048 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4839
THOMAS E EBERLY MICHAEL J BASS LUCILLE T TADLOCK
1003 FOXGLOVE W 32822 SHIPSIDE DR 1008 DAISY AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4822 DANA POINT CA 92629 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4817
CHERYL MCKIWAN STEEN NICOLE ANDREWS
1010 DAISY CT 1012 DAISY CT 1014 DAISY CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4846 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4846 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4846
CHRISTOPHER S KARPINEN ANTHONY IMBRONONE ANTHONY G MELLISSINOS
1016 DAISY AVE 1010 TULIP WAY 1012 TULIP WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4819 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4835 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4835
KATHERINE H BAUM ALWILDA B KIRSCHER MORIKAWA
1014 TULIP WAY 7111 DAFFODIL PL 1592 BERMUDA DUNES DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4835 CARLSBAE CA' 92009-4810 BOULDER CITY 89005-3647
BRADLEY & CHRISTIE ELI
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4810
7107 DAFFODIL PL
ORPHA J WAGNER
1013 FOXGLOVE VW
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4822
GEORGE R DEMIRJIAN
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4822
1007 FOXGLOVE W
STEPHEN OAKLEY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4847 1004 FOXGLOVE W
EDWIN C & CONNIE GATES SYDNEY LOGAN
7105 DAFFODIL PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4810
1015 FOXGLOVE VW
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4822
DWIGHT R RAMIREZ CHRISTOPHER J ROSS
1011 FOXGLOVE VW 1009 FOXGLOVE VW
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4822 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4822
THIERRY R FALLET MICHAEL M & IRENE CURRY
1005 FOXGLOVE VW 1002 FOXGLOVE VW
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4822 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4847
VAUGHN GEORGE M TORIGOE
1006 FOXGLOVE VW 1008 FOXGLOVE VW
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4847 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4847
. 1010 FOXGLOVE VW
FAULA C PRESENKOWKSI
CARLSBAD CA 5’2009-4847
LAWRENCE E KAVOUNAS
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4847
1016 FOXGLOVE VW
DONALD J & TAMARA FOLSE
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4809
7104 DAFFODIL PL
LOUISE N ROSENSTEIN
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4809 7112 DAFFODIL PL
WILLIAM SILVA DANIEL & MARY REINECK
1012 FOXGLOVE W 1014 FOXGLOVE W
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4847 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4847
HOWARD G PURNELL JO A WINKLER
1018 FOXGLOVE W 7102 DAFFODIL PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4847 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4809
MICHAEL ELOVITZ
7108 DAFFODIL PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4809 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4809
THOMAS J REICHERT
7110 DAFFODIL PL
DELANCEY JOHN F BRYNES
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4811
7204 DAFFODIL PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4815
936 DAISY AVE
KEITH W JAIN JOHN J ARCHER SCHUCK
938 DAISY AVE 940 DAISY AVE 2721 ATHENS AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4815 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4815 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2122
ROSA VASQUEZ SCOTT & HELENA COOPER STAN M STOERMANN
944 DAISY AVE 946 DAISY AVE 948 DAISY AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4815 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4815 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4815
ERIC R & DAVIDA BURCH CLEOTA W BRUNO NELSON C ROSS
950 DAISY AVE 7101 ROSE DR 935 DAISY AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4815 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4840 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4816
ANDREW R & THELMA LOGIE KEITH & BETSY CLEEK FRANK S & NANCY BEEAL
937 DAISY AVE 939 DAISY AVE 941 DAISY AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4816 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4816 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4816
MARILYN S GOAD ERICKSON TROY E & WINIFRED CLICK
943 DAISY AVE 945 DAISY AVE 947 DAISY AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4816 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4816 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4816
JANECEK TR BRYAN D MILLER LANH T & ANGELA TRINH
949 DAISY AVE 951 DAISY AVE , 1001 DAISY AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4816 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4816 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4818
RONALD ZAWISTOWSKI
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4818
1009 DAISY AVE
SHAFFER TR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4826
951 JASMINE CT
RUSSELL L HANTHORN
CORONADO CA 92118-1330
307 D AVE
THOMAS F HOUSE
CARLSBAU CA 52009-4826
:,i5 JASMINE CT
ROBERT A MCDONALD
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4825
952 JASMINE CT
MARK E & KAREN WILLIAMS
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4825
946 JASMINE CT
WILLIAM J BOYLE
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4825
940 JASMINE CT
CARLSBAD PROMENADE PART
LA JOLLA CA 92037-9146
4275 EXECiJTIVE DR 240
JAMES L & TEMPE MASON LEE A WOOD
1005 DAISY AVE 3336 VENADO ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4818 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7840
WILLIAM R SIKES RASHAD & PAMELA ANSARI
1011 DAISY AVE 1013 DAISY AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4818 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4818
DANIEL D AQUILA CHARLES J SMITH
945 JASMINE CT 947 JASMINE CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4826 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4826
RUBYE F SPEAR ELAINE V TRUJILLO
951 JASMINE CT 953 JASMINE CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4826 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4826
BURNETT HANK H NAKAHARA
959 JASMINE CT 11100 MOUNTAIN VISTA CI
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4826 SILVERDALE WA 98383-7337
TIMOTHY A & LYDIA VIZE GERALD L CLEMENTS
950 JASMINE CT 948 JASMINE CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4825 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4825
DORIS NELSON CECIL A CHAMBERLAIN
944 JASMINE CT 942 JASMINE CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4825 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4825
JOHN R & KATHI LAUDUSKI F N PETREY
938 JASMINE CT 7106 WISTERIA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4825 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4841
CARLSBAD PROMENADE PART AVIARA MASTER ASSN
4275 EXECUTIVE SQ 240 2011 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD
LA JOLLA CA 92037-9146 CARLSBAD CA 92009-1432
WARMINGTON AVIARA ASSOC
3090 PULLMAN ST A
COSTA MESA CA 92626-5901
. 6760 LONICERA ST RCBERT S ItlNCADC
CARSSZAD C7; ?2 0 e i, - 3 4 2 5
ELDON A & ,JULIE STAGGS
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3425
6748 LONICERA ST
PAUL J & KIM KREBS
6736 LONICERA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3425
L C & MARY ANDREWS
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3419
6750 BLUE POINT DR
EDUARD K & SUSAN POSER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3419
6738 BLUE POINT DR
MARILYN F GANSKOW MARC & OLEEN BEVILACQUA
6756 LONICERA ST 6752 LONICERA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3425 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3425
TOM & JANICE POWERS SHAHRIAR & KAREN JAMASB
6744 LONICERA ST 6740 LONICERA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3425 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3425
MORTON & HARRIET ‘GROSSM STEPHEN P SCHWERDTFEGER
6732 LONICERA ST 6754 BLUE POINT DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3425 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3419
JOHN K KRWORUKA BRENT A & TAMMY WELLMAN
6746 BLUE POINT DR 6742 BLUE POINT DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3419 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3419
FRANK F NOCERA MEHRY & RAMIN TAGHDIRI
6737 LONICERA ST 6741 LONICERA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3426 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3426
ROBERT E GAYNOR TRAVIS PRENTICE LORETTA MOORE
6745 LONICERA ST 6749 LONICERA ST 6753 LONICERA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3426 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3426 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3426
KEVEN TAGDIRI
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3422
1245 GOLD FLOWER RD
MARC & MARY ANDERSON
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3422
1233 GOLD FLOWER RD
HELEN F THOMPSON
1221 GOLD FLOWER RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3422
CHRISTOPHER W CHEN
1209 GOLD FLOWER RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3422
CHARLES T JUDD PHILIP H CARROLL
1241 GOLD FLOWER RD: 1237 GOLD FLOWER RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3422 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3422
RICHARD P BUSHER ROGER T KATHMAN
1229 GOLD FLOWER RD 1225 GOLD FLOWER RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3422 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3422
ROBERT G ANDERSON ADEL A YUNIS
1217 GOLD FLOWER RD 1213 GOLD FLOWER RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3422 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3422
DUGAN BETTY JEFF T ACAMPORA
1205 GOLD FLOWER RD 6733 LONICERA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3422 CARLSBAD CA 92009-34.26
CHARLES M WINEHOLT
CARLSBAD Ck 92009-3964
6664 CURLEW TEK
DEAN L & UDY WELSH
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3964
6654 CURLEW TER
SWOPE
6629 CURLEW TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3965
MAHON HUNTOON
6646 TOWHEE LN 6620 TOWHEE LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3900 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3900
TIMOTHY H MEDLIN ROBERT W ANDERSON
6660 CURLEW TER 6658 CURLEW TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3964 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3964
ROBERT s & JOAN L'IPSON JAMES W MCCLURKIN
6650 CURLEW TER 6625 CURLEW TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3964 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3965
JUNE P & MYRNA NOLLEDO THOMAS E KROUSE
6633 CURLEW TER 6637 CURLEW TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3965 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3965
JON C CURTIS COHEN NORMAN R DAVID J BARNETTE
6641 CURLEW TER 6645 CURLEW TER 6649 CURLEW TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3965 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3965 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3965
LINDO
6653 CURLEW TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3965
DANIEL F OCONNELL
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3965
6665 CURLEW TER
AVIARA MASTER ASSN
2011 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009-1432
KEVIN J LYNAUGH
7009 ROCKROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3955
BRIAN F OLIVER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-5025
7040 ROCK DOVE ST
LEWIS B FALK GORDON 0 SHARP
6657 CURLEW TER 6661 CURLEW TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3965 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3965
OSCAR F PRECIADO RICHARD J REASONS
6671 CURLEW TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3965
6675 CURLEW TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-3965
AVIARA LAND ASSOCIATES FRANK C & KAREN SANTORO
450 NEWPORT CENTER DR 3 NEWPORT BEACH 92660-7613 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3955
7005 ROCKROSE TER
DAVID L & DENISE OAKLEY JAMES M CONSOLE
7054 ROCKROSE TER 7050 ROCKROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3955 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3955
JEFFREY W GAJEWSKI JOOST H VANADELSBERG
7034 ROCKROSE TER 7032 ROCKROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3955 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3955
SHAN HAN
. 7028 ROCKRC!SE TER
CARLSEAT: C.7: y.2 i! Li it - 3 955
STEPHEN HORVATH
7016 ROCKROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3955
TRACEE J EUCK
7058 ROCKROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3955
VICTOR ROMERO
7071 ROCKROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3955
MAHYAR & ELAHEH AJIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3955
7086 ROCKROSE TER
REED ARLENE n DENNIS A PAQUET
7024 ROCKROSE TER 7020 ROCKROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3955 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3955
BRIAN L & REBECCA WALSH ALVIN MEEMOLO
7012 ROCKROSE TER 7062 ROCKROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3955 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3955
ELLEN M POWERS GERALD W OLIVAS
7063 ROCKROSE TER 7067 ROCKROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3955 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3955
HUSAM & SENIYE GUROL
7075 ROCKROSE TER RONALD D VOIGT
7090 ROCKROSE TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-3955 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3955
WILLIAM G MAJOR ISLEY
7082 ROCKROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3955 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3955
7078 ROCKROSE TER
QUIGLEY WILLIAM R HAMMOND ROGER & KATHERINE BERG
7074 ROCKROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3955 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3955 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3955
7070 ROCKROSE TER 7066 ROCKROSE TER
MICHAEL F KENNY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008
6953 WILDROSE TER
JEAN R & TARA SCHENK
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008
6954 WILDROSE TER
WILLIAM R MANUEL
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4009
7008 WILDROSE TER
JANET M WATSON PO BOX 2347
CARLSBAD CA 92018-2347
DOUGLAS M ISBELL DANIEL P FABINSKI
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008
6943 WILDROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008
6950 WILDROSE TER
EUGENE B GARRETT WELTY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008
6958 WILDROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4009
7004 WILDROSE TER
STEVEN A MCKESSON
7012 WILDROSE TER
HOWARD S & SUSAN LOCKER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4009
7016 WILDROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4009
CENGIZ & DILEK ISBILEN PATRICK S CAMPBELL
7024 WILDROSE TER 7019 WILDROSE TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4009 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4009
7015 WILDROSE TER
PHILIP W GLORIOSO
CARLSBAD Ti> i'2 009 -4 009
BRADLEY C SMITH
CARLSBAD CA 512009-4009
7005 WILDROSE TER
BLAKE A & CARRIE BOLAND
6931 WILDROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008
WILSON
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008
6919 WILDROSE TER
TIMOTHY J PIVNICNY JEAN L MOYNIER
7011 WILDROSE TER 7009 WILDROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4009 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4000
ANDREW G AIELLO RUSSELL I KINDERMANN
6939 WILDROSE TER 6935 WILDROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008
TIMOTHY J CUNNING~IAM JEFFREY G ROBBINS
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008
6923 WILDROSE TER 6927 WILDROSE TER
ROBERT A & NATALIE EMMA HARRY J & DIANE NAJJAR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008
6915 WILDROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008
6911 WILDROSE TER
TLAN G MORTIMER LORIN J & TERRI BEGUN MARTIN S KLECKNER
$07 WILDROSE TER 6904 WILDROSE TER 6908 WILDROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008
GALLEAR STEPHEN TAMBURRINO CHARLES S TYSON
6912 WILDROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008
6920 WILDROSE TER 6916 WILDROSE TER
JOHN C SHIMER JOHN G ROHRING KENNETH M & BETTE ROSS
6930 WILDROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008
6938 WILDROSE TER 6934 WILDROSE TER
MOKSKI
6942 WILDROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008 BRONXVILLE NY 10708 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4011
DAVID & CHRISTINE NARD1 DONNA METCALFE
60 HAMPSHIRE RD 7013 CATTAIL PL
HSU TAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4010
1301 BULRUSH CT
*** 115 Printed ***
OCCUPANT? OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
9335 CHESIiPEAKE Di? 9335 CHESAPEAKE DR PO BOX 943
SAN DIEGC, :-'I> ',Ll?3-1010 SAN DIEGO CA 92123-1010 CARLSBAD CA 92018-0943
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
9335 CHESAPEAKE UR 9335 CHESAPEAKE DR PO BOX 1338 SAN DIEGO CA 92123-1010 SAN DIEGO CA 92123-1010 CARLSBAD CA 92018-1338
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
9335 CHESAPEAKE DR 9335 CHESAPEAKE DR PO BOX 1487 SAN DIEGO CA 92123-1010 SAN DIEGO CA 92123-1010 CARLSBAD CA 92018-1487
OCCUPANTS
9335 CHESAPEAKE DR
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
9335 CHESAPEAKE DR 934 DAISY AVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-1010 SAN DIEGO CA 92123-1010 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4815
'CUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
,2 FOXGLOVE VW 1004 FOXGLOVE VW
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4847 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4847 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4847
1006 FOXGLOVE VW
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
1008 FOXGLOVE VW
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4847 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4847 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4847
1010 FOXGLOVE VW 1012 FOXGLOVE VW
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
1014 FOXGLOVE VW
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4847 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4847 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4847
1018 FOXGLOVE VW 1016 FOXGLOVE VW
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
936 DAISY AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4815 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4815 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4815
938 DAISY AVE 94 0 DAISY AVE
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS 2721 ATHENS AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2122 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4815 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4815
946 DAISY AVE 944 DAISY AVE
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS 948 DAISY AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4815 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4815 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4840 7101 ROSE DR 950 DAISY AVE .
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
7099 ROSE DR 7301 BOLERO ST 958 ALYSSUM RD
CARLSBAD i.'?, 52009-4838 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7102 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3912
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
960 ALYSSUM RD 962 ALYSSUM RD 9335 CHESAPEAKE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3912 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3912 SAN DIEGO CA 92123-1010
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
9335 CHESAPEAKE DR 955 ALYSSUM RD 953 ALYSSUM RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-1010 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3913 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3913
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
7010 SNAPDRAGON DR 7012 SNAPDRAGON DR 7014 SNAPDRAGON DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3943 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3943 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3943
."'?ANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
L'NAPDRAGON DR PO BOX 130893 7020 SNAPDRAGON DR
LARLSBAD CA 92009-3943 CARLSBAD CA 92013-0893 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3943
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
7022 SNAPDRAGON DR 7024 SNAPDRAGON DR 7026 SNAPDRAGON DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3943 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3943 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3943
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
4310 HORIZON DR 33 73 SUMMER SET WAY: 7032 SNAPDRAGON DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-3652 OCEANSIDE CA 92056-3209 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3943
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
7034 SNAPDRAGON DR 4675 BELLA VISTA DR 7038 SNAPDRAGON DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3943 MOORPARK CA 93021-2229 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3943
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
7568 NORTHLAND AVE 7042 SNAPDRAGON DR 1509 CALLE MONTERY ST
SAN RAMON CA 94583-3714 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3943 LAS VEGAS NV 89117-6692
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
7046 SNAPDRAGON DR 7048 SNAPDRAGON,DR 7050 SNAPDRAGON DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3943 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3943 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3943
7052 SNAPDRAGON DR
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
7054 SNAPDRAGON DR
OCCUPANTS
7056 SNAPDRAGON DR
CARLSBAD Cl-. "2003-3943 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3943 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3943
OCCUPANTS
7058 SNAPDRAGON DR 7060 SNAPDRAGON DR 943 ROSEMARY AVE
.. OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3943 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3943 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3941
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
6802 BRIARWOOD DR 6804 BRIARWOOD DR 27851 SHEFFIELD
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3924 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3924 MISSION VIEJO 92692-2810
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
1931 HAMPTON LN 6820 BRIARWOOD DR 19431 BUSINESS CENTER D
GLENDALE CA 91201-1107 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3924 NORTHRIDGE CA 91324-6403
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
502 PARKERSBURG RD 6826 BRIARWOOD DR 6828 BRIARWOOD DR
SPENCER WV 25276-1026 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3924 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3924
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
-030 BRIARWOOD DR 6834 BRIARWOOD DR 6836 BRIARWOOD DR
..:3LSBAD CA 92009-3924 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3924 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3924
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
6838 BRIARWOOD DR 319 NEW YORK AVE 6846 BRIARWOOD DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3924 JERSEY CITY N 07307-1401 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3924
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
6848 BRIARWOOD DR 6850 BRIARWOOD DR 6852 BRIARWOOD DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3924 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3924 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3924
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
6854 BRIARWOOD DR 6856 BRIARWOOD DR 6860 BRIARWOOD DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-1225 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3924 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3924
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
4707 CORDOBA WAY 6864 BRIARWOOD DR 1011 IRIS CT
OCEANSIDE CA 92056-5109 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3924 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4824
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
. PO BOX 1166 PO BOX 1186 PO BOX 1186
CARLSBAD CA 92018-1186 CARLSBAD CA 92018-1186 CARLSBAD CA 92018-1186
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
6630 BRIARWOOD DR 955 BOXWOOD CT 957 BOXWOOD CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3924 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3923 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3923
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
1870 HAYMARKET RD PO BOX 1893 6768 LEMON LEAF DR
ENCINITAS CA 92024-1017 MAMMOTH LAKES 93546-1893 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3424
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
1289 VERONICA CT 1285 VERONICA CT 1281 VERONICA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3431 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3431 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3431
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
1277 VERONICA CT 1273 VERONICA CT 1269 VERONICA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3431 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3431 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3431
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
1265 VERONICA CT 1261 VERONICA CT 1254 VERONICA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3431 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3431 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3431
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
24800 CHRISANTA DR 200 1257 VERONICA CT 1253 VERONICA CT
MISSION VIEJO 92691-4819 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3431 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3431
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
1250 VERONICA CT 200 S BISCAYNE BLVD 250 4275 EXECUTIVE SQ 240
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3431 MIAMI FL 33131-5340 LA JOLLA CA 92037-9146
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
3090 PULLMAN ST A 6950 WILDROSE TER 6954 WILDROSE TER
COSTA MESA CA 92626-5901 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
6958 WILDROSE TER 7004 WILDROSE TER 7008 WILDROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4009 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4009
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
- 7012 WILDROSE TER 7016 WILDROSE TER PO BOX 2347
CARLSBAE CA 92009-4009 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4009 CARLSBAD CA 92018-2347
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
6938 WILDROSE TER 6942 WILDROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008
*** 125 Printed ***
A nolice has been mailed 10 all property ownen/occupants listed herein. , , Date: /i >'"J 3 1
Signature:
INC NICOLAS S.XXICELG~C.AROL REUKUL
CARLSBAD CA 91009
6723 LEMOK LEAF DR
CARLSBAD UNIFIED SSHOOL DISTRICT DAVIS RANDALUMARIOK AG7 67 16 CAMPHOR PL
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92009
CROTTY LIVING TRCST Ob-0.:-9F
6713 CAMPHOR PL
PACHECO ROGER SkARSENIA A 6701 BARBERRY PL
IKEMOTO CARY G&JENNIFER J WILLIAMS FAMILY TRUST 03-1 2-S 1
6722 LEMON LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
6714 BARBERRY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
VIDANO FAMILY TRUST 08-30-79 ROMERO RAM. JR&LORI A
6706 BARBERRY PL 6705 BARBERRY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
KEESEE RICHARD EmOANN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
671 1 BARBERRY PL
LINZEY DAVID M&CHERYL A TRS HUNNINGHAKE DONALD B&SHERRIE K PLOTKIN BRIAN J&DONNA M
6705 CAMPHOR PL 6278 MALLORY LN CARLSBAD CA 92009
6727 LEMON LEAF DR
EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 CARLSBAD CA 92009
PADILLA CARRIE K
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6708 CAMPHOR PL
SHARKAWY MAHMOUD E
C/O PAT MOORE
3471 HIDDEN RIDGE RD
JAMUL CA 91935
STEWART CRAIG V&CYNDI L
CARLSBAD CA 92009
671 1 LEMON LEAF DR
WHITE ROBERT D&KATHLEEN M
67 10 BARBERRY PL
MABRA DEBS A JR&JOY V
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6726 CAMPHOR PL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
KIM BRIAN Y&YONG KYU
6734 LEMON LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LAWSON JON&ELSA M
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6707 BARBERRY PL
VELLA JOHN A&PENNY C
6718 BARBERRY PL CARLSBAD CA 92009
STEFFY DAVID MWE M
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6717 CAMPHOR PL
BIANCHI CHRISTOPHER J&JENNIFER M BARNES FAMILY TRUST 08-27-91 FLETCHER MARTIN J&CYNTHIA J
6714 LEMON LEAF DR 7032 EDGEWILD DR 6742 LEMON LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 RIVERSIDE CA 92506 CARLSBAD CA 92009
SERRA KEITH EkEANNE M
6731 LEMON LEAF DR . CARLSBAD CA 92009
MICHAELS VINCENT PkSUSAN J
6732 CAMPHOR PL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ZAND FARIBA
67 15 BARBERRY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SUNDSTROM ALLEN R&JUDITH L
6722 BARBERRY PL CARLSBAD CA 92009
NEELY FAMILY TRUST 06-03-88
20 BUCCANEER WAY CORONADO CA 92 1 1 8
GATES ROBERT C&ROSEMARIE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6748 LEMON LEAF DR
PETROVIC MARK0
6735 LEMON LEAF DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
MICHAELS JOSEPH M&LESLIE A
6736 CAMPHOR PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
~ F. -
KRAUS TIMOTHY&BOYL.E MARY
6719 BARBERRY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROSS FAMILY TRUST 11-18-88
6728 BARBERRY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOHNSON FAMILY TRUST 03-09-99
6725 CAMPHOR PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CHAO VINCENT W S&WANG MIN
6754 LEMON LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LARSON DUANE P&DIANE T
6740 CAMPHOR PL CARSLBAD CA 92008
NASIM MICHAEL N&DEBORAH
6726 LONICERA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GUENTHER RODNEY
6723 BARBERRY PL CARLSBAD CA 92009
EULER WILLIAM C&OLIVE D
6725 LONICERA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
OHARA KEITH&BE LISA M L
6734 BARBERRY PL CARLSBAD CA 92009
NADIR DANIEL O&KRISTIN B
6129 CAMPHOR PL
S.4RICIS LAWRENCE J
2001 BOSTOS W.AY
MODEST0 CA 95351
WHITAICER ROGER R
6744 CAMPHOR PL CARLSBAD CA 92009
LUICASIEWICZ RONALD JkLMD.4 S
6730 LONICERA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
REID TAYLOR AkDENISE A
6728 BLUE POINT DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
DEMILL BWTT IVkKATHLEEN K
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1294 VERONICA CT
CHENG HONG-CHINBrHUI-LIN
6738 BARBERRY PL CARLSBAD CA 92009
JONES PATTI M
6729 LONICERA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LEHYMLSON FAMILY TRUST 08-02-9
6760 LEMON LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
WHITE CRlSTINA M E
P 0 BOX 2522 CARLSBAD CA 92018
BALSAM FAMILY TRUST 01-29-98 <LE GULL1 RICCI A&CORINE
6733 CPjvIPHOR PL 6736 TEA TREE ST
’ CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92008
BLOCK MORTON~HARRIET G TRUST 03 ESGATEH~T M
6732 LONICERA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
VANDENKOLK MICHAEL&SHAWN BROCK SAM&ANITA
6734 BLUE POINT DR 6764 LEMON LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
GIFFORD FAMILY TRUST 10-07-98 KREBS PA
6742 BARBERRY PL CARLSBAD CA 92009
NOCEF F
GROH ROBERT I
6735 BARBERRY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CARLSBAD PROM- PARTNERS L
BALL CHARLES M&CAM A WILLYARD VINCENT A&AMY C
1290 VERONICA CT 1282 VERONICA CT CARLSBAD CA 92009‘ SBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
FEINBERG LILIAN FAMILY TRUST 01- WORTHINGTON SCOT M&TRACEY LA JORDAN BRIAN E&MARION
2 153 MADEONA DR 1286 VERONICA CT 1289 VERONICA CT
PALM SPRINGS CA 92264 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
CAMPBE~OL K
GRAAT KENNETH T&PAMELA D FERBER FAMILY TRUST 03-10-99
6731 BARBERRY PL 6746 BARBERRY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
DULEY BILL&PATRICIA M
6750 BARBERRY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KAWASHIMA MAKOTO
P LICHTENBERGER MICHAEL A&ELIZABE 6740 TEA TREE ST CARLSBAD CA 92008
BEACH CA 92660
HELLER STEPHEN EkMLISSA A
6744 TEA TREE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
TAGHDIRI MEHRY
CARLSBAD CA 92009 6741 LONICERA ST
MAURER MICHAEL J
6739 BARBERRY PL CARLSBAD CA 92009
LEIGH DOUGLAS M&ARIANNE 0
P 0 BOX 130082 CARLSBAD CA 92013
SBAD CA 92009
FAHR MIKEWARMANI SHIVA
1274 VERONICA CT
FWC JIH-MlS&\T-LI
6747 BLUE POINT DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
4275 EXE-$240
CARLSBAD PROhlESi\DEPARTS'ERS I
LmIA CA 92037
YM 7
SBAD CA 92009 ARLSBAD CA 92009
WELLINGTON REVOCABLE TRUST ENGESETH JAMESkSTEPHANIE
6743 BARBERRY PL 6747 BARBERRY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
BEATTIE RONALD E&ROLINA S NOCERA MARK
6745 LONICERA ST 6749 LONICERA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROSS RICKkIODI
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1266 VERONICA CT
SMITH DOUGLAS B&ALICE K YM
1270 VERONICA CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
KORKOW WILLIAM S&BETIY L MORRIS THOMAS S&DIANE M
6748 TEA TREE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6752 TEA TREE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BOISVERT JOSEPH LkSAISHO THERESA
6743 BLUE POINT DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
STABILE RICHARD&JOYCE B
1273 VERONICA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GANSKOW
SANNLE TODD B&KIMBERL.Y K MAVRITTE FAMI
6756 TEA TREE ST . CARLSBAD CA 92009
BRADY hlICK4EL J
1221 GOLD FLOWER Rn
C-BAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
TAGDIRI KE
MCDOUGALD CHARLENE L BAIHAGHY TONY&PATRICIA
1262 VERONICA CT P 0 BOX 676087
CARLSBAD CA 92009 RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067
AhmERSON
1233 G
YOUNG SUSANNA REVOCABLE TRUST
6751 BLUE POINT DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CAULFIELD SEAMUS TkBERNADETTE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1241 G 1229 GOLD FLOWER RD
GEORGE WILLIAM A
6754 BLUE POINT DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
AUSTIN DIANNE S
1237 GOLD FLOWER RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BURRIS MICHAEL&PATRICIA
1250 VERONICA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LUTZ FAMILY TRUST 07-07-97
1269 VERONICA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SBAD CA 92009
MARINERS POINT COM
KIRCHHOFF KLAUS&BRIGITTE
1258 VERONICA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA R'IC
200 S BISCAYNE BLVD #2500
MIAMI FL 33 13 1
BAL-- 1265 G&LSBAD CA 92009
TABATA NOBORU&EVELYN 2353 LA COSTA BLVD P 0 BOX 943 CARLSBAD CA 92018
LAS PLAYAS HOMEOWNERS ASSN (COR SWEET JANELLE
C/O GRG MGMT CO
CARLSBAD CA 92018
NELSON ARTHLX R
6812 MAPLE LEAF DR 6805 BRIARWOOD DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 . POBOX1186
VERGNE J PIERRE&JACQUELIN€ BOOTH TRUST 06-22-95
6803 MAPLE LEAF DR P 0 BOX 3512
CARLSBAD CA 92009 ORANGE CA 92665
ASSN (COR FLETCHER TERRI L
2785 1 SHEFFIELD MISSION VIEJO CA 92692
HALCOM LEiD.4 T
31017N42NDWAY
CAVE CREEK AZ 85331
LAS PLAYAS HOMEDWmRS ASK
C/O GRG
ASSN (COR CASSAPAKlS CONSTANTINE G BROOKS RICHARD O&DL4NE M
6807 BRIARWOOD DR 6813 MAPLE LEAF DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
SBAD CA 92018
CARLSBAD CA 92009
AVIARA LAND ASSOC LIMITED P CRISCUOLO MICHAEL T&ELIZABETH A BAKER DOUGLAS L
6810 MAPLE LEAF DR 6814 MAPLE LEAF DR CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
60RfBEACH CA 92660
~~ ~
CERVINO ANTHONY C&RITA M SALTZMAN WILLIAM EMLORENCE C TYSON JEAN S LIVING TRUST 10-08-
6802 BRIARWOOD DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6809 MAPLE LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 12 SANDBAR DR
CORONA DL MAR CA 92625
KENNEDY KEVIN M&KATHLEEN M JOHNSON BARBARA E TRUST 10-31-89 ANTONSON JONATHON &DEBBIE L
6803 BRIARWOOD DR 193 1 HAMF'TON LN 68 17 MAPLE LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 GLENDALE CA 91201 CARLSBAD CA 92009
ALLSUP MELODY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6804 BRIARWOOD DR
ENG S LA VERNE FAMILY TRUST 10-2 HAMILTON JANE W LIVING TRUST 03-
35 1 S MERELET LN
ORANGE CA 92869
6816 MAPLE LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HASSLER WARREN W&PEGGY M 1990 R THOMAS DONALD J
6805 MAPLE LEAF DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
68 11 MAPLE LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SCHAUB LEROY M&DOLORES Y TRS
758 E NAVILLA PLACE
COVINA CA 91723
TABATA FAMILY TRUST 01-14-83
P C BOX 1338 . CARLSBAD CA 920 18
WARMINGTON A
LEAR FAMILY TRUST 10-22-96
10520 ARBOR PARK PL SAN DIEGO CA 92 13 1
FOSTER CORKY R&BOLTON-FOSTER BA
PAROWAN UT 84761
P 0 BOX 1266
HOUGH HOWARD A&JEANNE E
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6820 BRIARWOOD DR
PYLES NORDEE S
TEMECULA CA 92592
42580 REMORA WAY
BRONSONDAVID LOMBARD0 MARGARET F.A\llLY L1\'1'
1943 1 BUSINESS CENTER DR #4
NORTHRIDGE CA 91324 CARLSBAD CA 92009
6828 BRIARWOOD DR
MITER VICTOR&TATJANA <AKA MITER YEAGER FAMILS PRI\'ATE RET.OC.4Bl
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6823 MAPLE LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6829 BRIARWOOD DR
US PLAYAS HOMEOWNERS ASSN (COR FALLON JOSEPH DB;DIANA M
C/O GRG MGMT CO
P 0 BOX 1186
CARLSBAD CA 92018
683 1 MAPLE LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DRUMM DAVID R
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6823 BRIARWOOD DR SWANN TIMOTHY R&CHRISTINE K
6830 MAPLE LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
AMBROSIO PEDRO N&ERLINDA B NICHOLAS FRANCISCO J&OLGA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6824 BRIARWOOD DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6830 BRIARWOOD DR
JOHNSON GARY PAUL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6825 MAPLE LEAF DR
BEACHLER FAMILY TRUST 05-06-88 SMITH GLORIA A
RLLNG HLS EST CA 90275
2921 1 STONECREST RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6826 BRIARWOOD DR
LINTON BRIAN
P 0 BOX 232025
ENCINITAS CA 92023
GONWS JOE Y /
BRITTON JACK PNEWEL M
CARLSBAD CA 92009
2713 SOCORRO LN
RICARDS FAMILY TRUST 11-24-92
14143 HALF MOON BAY DR
DEL MAR CA 92014
RAULSTON JEAN S REVOCABLE LIVING QUALMAN FAMILY TRUST 05-05-97
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6827 MAPLE LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6834 BRIARWOOD DR
CAMERON FAMILY TRUST 05-26-93 CURTIUS MICHAEL&MARY TRUST 12-
7301 BOLERO ST 4284 SKYLINE RD CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92008
DONNELL ROBERT L
6832 MAPLE LEAF DR . CARLSBAD CA 92009
mLUS OSVALD&LEIDA
6839 MAPLE LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
RADFORD HESRY F&\l.iRY T
6846 MAPLE LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
FARL4S JOSEPH P JRkSUSAN P
6835 MAPLE LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 JERSEY CITY NJ 07307
NISBET GEORGE TKONCETTA CLARKE CHARLES L
319NEWYORKAVE 6843 BRIARWOOD DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
STRICKLAND GARY L&CAROL J TRS
3842 SIENNA ST WRIGHT GARY G&ELIZABETH
6840 MAPLE LEAF DR JACKSON MARGARET A
1420 PEERLESS DR
OCEANSIDE CA 92056 CARLSBAD CA 92009 EL CAJOX CA 92021
HOOVER FAMILY TRUST 08-11-9 GORZEGNO TRUST 06-13-90
1624 CORMORANT DR 7177 TERN PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
NIKOLAI JAMES A&JOAN L
25234 STEINBRCK AVE #A
STEVENSON RANCH CA 91381
KIRKKATHRYNA
6836 BRIARWOOD DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KINSEY PATRICIA M
6837 MAPLE LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LAS fl PLAYAS H ASSN (COR R~~TER JULIE
C/O GRG
PO 6846 BRIARWOOD DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SBAD CA 92018
MORGAN ANNA L TRUST 01-09-97
74 19 LINDEN TER
LAS PLAYAS HOME
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LOUNDY DONALD J&SANDRA
6836 MAPLE LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ASSN (COR ELICH LOUIS F&HELENA
2042 RIDGELINE
VISTA CA 92083
CARLIN ROGER HMOAN A
3635 N EAGLE CYh'
MESA AZ 85207
CERKANOWICZ JEROME C&GRACE D T SCHNEIDER FAMILY LIVING TRUST 12
6844 MAPLE LEAF DR 11 202 LYNROSE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009 ARCADIA CA 91006
- ~ p~
BLANKENSHIP PAUL R&CHERYL L ECKERT FAMILY TRUST 09-21-99
6838 BRIARWOOD DR
TAYLOR LINDA TRUST 06-30-99
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 DIAMOND BAR CA 91765
6841 BRIARWOOD DR 22915 E COLOMBARD LN #3
GALEY'JOHN AkSHIRLEY B TRUST 05- EVANS JOHN D&TULIE
6848 BRiARWOOD DR 6852 BRIARWOOD DR . CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
BERTRAN) LAWRENCE A&\l.ARTH:\ 1
6855 MAPLE LE.4F DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LAS PLAYAS HOME0 ASSN (COR IRISH NEIL WkMAXME G LAS PLAYAS HOMEWERS ..\SST 6851 MAPLE LEAF DR C/O GRG MGM7fO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
p6 SBAD CA 920 18
BAREND WILLIAM D&MARY J TRUST 05 HSU HENRY S FAMILY TRUST I;ANITI;AR GIRA
7071 VIA CANDREJO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6855 BRIARWOOD DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1327 RICHLAND ST
COLUMBIA SC 29201
KRONENBERG DOLORES
6847 MAPLE LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LADAGE~CE A
PETERMAN FAMILY TRUST 05-23-84
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6850 BRIARWOOD DR
KGB FAMILY TRUST 07-17-98
4193 TERRY ST OCEANSIDE CA 92056
HEAD LARRY R&ALISA R
6849 MAPLE LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KEETCH JOAN J
6856 MAPLE LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LAS PLAYAS HOM
COLCLASER FAMILY REVOCABLE LIMN WIGGINS JOHN L
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1049 GOLDENEYE VW 6860 BRIARWOOD DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
LYTTLETON S ELAINE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6853 MAPLE LEAF DR
ROBERSON snm M
6858 MAPLE LEAF DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
LEVY MIRIAM B
6857 BRIARWOOD DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
REICHEL WARNE N&NANCY E NEDEAU ALFRED B I11
1254 VIA PRIVADA 6856 BRIARWOOD DR
ESCONDIDO CA 92029 CARLSBAD CA 92009
STANLEY CHARLES E&LILLIAN A
6859 MAPLE LEAF DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
KRAUT BENIAMIN&RENEE T TRS
3921 SANDUNE LN CORONA DL MAR CA 92625
LATAS ROBERT M&MARY'A TRs 4707 CORDOBA WAY
OCEANSIDE CA 92056
MCLAUGHLIN RICHARD C&ANN E
6861 MAPLE LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
PLOTKlN JAMES L
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6861 BRiARWOOD DR
WATSON ROBERT CBrHILDA B TRUST 03 STEIER DOhX
951 BOXWOOD CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
P 0 BOX 1893
MAMMOTH L.41;ES C.4 '?3iJb
OBRYAN K E LIVING TRUST 05-18-99 POZZA STEVEN ABrSHERRY A KLTSLO DOh'N.4 K LIVKG TRUST 1 1 - 1 S
6863 MAPLE LEAF DR 3962 JAMES DR 6874 BATIQL'ITOS DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92009
WADE JUDY A
14661 BERKSHIRE PL
TIJSTIN CA 92780
NICHOLAS FRANCISCO J&OLGA
6830 BRIARWOOD DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SMITH DALLAS FAMILY TRUST 03-30- CHUNG DERRICK PmAN
101 1 IRIS CT 10256 GAUL WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
. - " - . SPRING VALLEY CA 9 1977
WRIGHT CLETA TRUST 08-15-98
6865 MAPLE LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MEIS MARLENE F
955 BOXWOOD CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ANTAL JOSEPH&GERALDINE G TRS ROSEN LAWRENCE J&IRlS
6867 MAPLE LEAF DR 957 BOXWOOD CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
FAULR BERT HBrBARBARA J
6876 BATIQUITOS DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
CAMERON FAMILY TRUST 03-26-93
7301 BOLERO ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MORRISON GENEVA M TRUST 08-28-97
32371 ALIPAZ ST #I22
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO CA 92675
OPLINGER D@&JANICE R YOUNG ONALD G FAMILY TRUST 09-2 6870 MAPLE LEAF DR C/O GRG
CARLSBAD CA 92009 SBAD CA 92018
RIEDLER LIVING TRUST 04-24-92 MARSHALL EDWARD R
6869 MAPLEZEAF DR CARLSBAD CA 92009 ENCINITAS CA 92024
1870 HAYMARKET RD
SEAVER SHEILA TRUST 02-05-92 FRIED GERALD B&PATRICLA B
6864 MAPLE LEAF DR 5160 CANYON CREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 SAN RAMON CA 94583
BATHGATE BARBARA
6882 BATIQUITOS DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
STALDER FAMILY LIVING TRUST 03-1
3732 BEECHWOOD PL
RIVERSIDE CA 92506
C/O GRG
SCHLONSKY KAREN J TRUST 06-04-99 NORMAN SCOTTkKL1.4 11
7390 SEAFARER PL 943 ASPEN CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARJSBAD CA 92009
SCHOOLS TERRENE M
CARLSBAD CA 92009
953 FIR TREE PL
BO- J TR
NICINSKI STEVEN A
12727 HAGERSWOOD CI
SAN DIEGO CA 92129
STIJPIN WILLIAM JBrLINDA B HOFFMAN MARXLl'N F
1315 S EUCLID AVE
PASADENA CA 91 106 EL CAJON CA 9201 9
2205 RWABOUT PL
BELTON RICHARD G&MARY A
959 FIR TREE PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GALlNDO CHRISBrKARIE
6896 BATIQUITOS DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
BEHRBAUM WILLIAM H TRUST 10-24-9 MURRAY DAWN M
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6892 BATIQUITOS DR
ESCONDIDO CA 92026
8610 112 NELSON WAY
BELL FAMILY TRUST 09-16-88 VUKOVICH DUSHANBrNANCY
P 0 BOX 2125 941 ASPEN CT
BEAUMONT CA 92223 CARLSBAD CA 92009
SIMS PAUL A JR
98-151 PAL1 MOM1 ST#156 AIEA HI 96701
STINE ROBERT A
97 1 HYGEIA AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
METZGAR PAUL W
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6869 PEACH TREE RD
GRAWIN CAROLYN F
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6866 PEACH TREE RD
GOWING ALICE D TRUST 08-27-93 FUHS FAMILY TRUST 08-26-91
220 ESPLANADE 961 FIR TREE PL
SAN CLEMENTE CA 92672 CARLSBAD CA 92009
HARRINGTON TIMOTHY EBrSUZANNE
1334 WALNUTVIEW DR ENCINITAS CA 92024
FREDRICKSON KENNETH L&GRACE E
FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708
8752 OTTAWA RIVER CIR
VINER WILLIAM A&GLORIA G
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6898 BATIQUITOS DR
PATERSON DONALD J&SHARLENE A BERKOWITZ ROSE TRUST 05-23-96 BARNES RICHARD&K.ARIh'S
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6888 BATIQUITOS DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6894 BATIQUITOS DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
7623 RUSTIC0 DR
LITTLEFIELD BRIAN W&RAY NANCY L WOLKENSTEIN FAMILY TRUST 07-02-9 CHAU JOHX S TRUST
6872 PEACH TREE RD - CARLSBAD CA 92009
960 ALYSSUM RD P 0 BOX 17400
CARLSBAD CA 92009 SAN DIEGO CA 92177
STORY HOWARD&LILA
4729 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBAD CA 92008
JABBOUR RAYMOND TaANTOINETTE R SANGIS LOUlS LkBARBAR4 1
6874 PEACH TREE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
950 LAURELWOOD ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
GARLIEPP FAMILY TRUST 06-09-98 POSTAL RHONDA D
2180 OPAL RDG 4929 AVILA AVE
VISTA CA 92083 CARLSBAD CA 92008
PATCHEN KAREN L
955 ASPEN CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
KONIOW FAMILY TRUST 11-16-95 OKEEFE JEAN L
946 LAURELWOOD ST 952 LAURELWOOD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
WEAR CLAUDE R&DOROTHY T INTER V CAVANAGH JOHN A&RUTH E h4ARQUISS DAVID FBrLEILAM D
938 LAURELWOOD ST 216RUBY ST 6884 PEACH TREE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009 REDONDO BEACH CA 90277 CARLSBAD CA 92009
GRONDAL GWENN
957 ASPEN CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HICKS JAMES&WANDA
962 ALYSSUM RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOHNSON DONNA J
5050 CANYON CREST DR #44
RIVERSIDE CA 92507
MASTRES MICHAEL SBrLORI L VADUN CHARLES J&HEATHER J
958 ALYSSUM RD 954 ALYSSUM RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
COLE KIMBERLY A
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6878 PEACH TREE RD
GEORGE MICHAEL A&MARTHA A
6888 PEACH TREE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SILBERBERGER DOLORES A FAMILY
966 SAN LOREN20 CT
SOLANA BEACH CA 92075
FRANCO-ABBOTT FAMILY TRUST 03-12 SCHINDELAR SUSAN M
6880 PEACH TREE RD 12985 VIA GRIWLDI
CARLSBAD CA 92009 DEL MAR CA 92014
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
DESCRIPTION:
and Reporting Program; a Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment to
change 40.41 acres of the subdivision from Limited Control (L-C) to Residential
Multiple-Density with a Qualified Development Overlay Zone (RD-M-Q) and to change
41.79 acres from Limited Control (L-C) to One Family Residential with a Qualified
Development Overlay Zone (R-I-Q); and a Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit
Development Permit, Site Development Plan, Condominium Permit, Hillside
Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit to subdivide, grade, and develop
82.20 acres, creating 238 single family lots, two open space lots, four recreation lots,
one recreational vehicle storage lot and a 24 unit, for-sale condominium project,
affordable to lower-income households.
LOCATION:
of Poinsettia Lane, between Aviara Parkway and Snapdragon Drive, in Local Facilities
Management Zone 20.
Request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring
This project is within the City of Carlsbad’s Coastal Zone located north and south
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER: 214-140-44
APPLICANT : Standard Pacific Corporation
9335 Chesapeake Drive
San Diego, CA 92123
A public hearing on the above proposed project will be held by the Carlsbad City
Council in the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, on
Tuesday, February 5,2002 at 6:OO p.m.
Persons are cordially invited to attend the public hearing and provide the decision
makers with any oral or written comments they may have regarding the project, The
project will be described and a staff recommendation given, followed by public
testimony, questions and a decision. Copies of the staff report will be available on or
after Friday, February 1,2002.
If you have any questions, or would like to be notified of the decision, please contact
Mike Grim at the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, Monday through Thursday 7:30
a.m. to 530 p.m., Friday 8:OO a.m. to 5:OO p.m. at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad,
California 92008, (760) 602-4623.
Appeals
The time within which you may judicially challenge Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Zone Change, Local Coastal Program
Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development Permit, Condominium
Permit, Site Development Plan, Hillside Development Permit and Coastal Development
Permit if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short.
If you challenge the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, Zone Change, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Tentative Tract Map,
Planned Unit Development Permit, Condominium Permit, Site Development Plan,
Hillside Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit in court, you may be
limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad,
Attn: City Clerk's Office, prior to or at the public hearing.
1. Appeals to the City Council: Where the decision is appealable to the City
Council, appeals must be filed in writing within ten (IO) calendar days after a
decision by the Planning Commission.
2. Coastal Commission Appealable Project Id This site is located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area.
This site is not located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area.
Where the decision is appealable to the Coastal Commission, appeals must be filed
with the Coastal Commission within ten (IO) working days after the Coastal Commission
has received a Notice of Final Action from the City of Carlsbad. Applicants will be
notified by the Coastal Commission of the date that their appeal period will conclude.
The San Diego Office of the Coastal Commission is located at 7575 Metropolitan Drive,
Suite 103, san Diego, California 92108-4402.
CASE FILE: ZC 98-08/LCPA 98-04/CT 98-14/PUD 98-05/CP 00-02/SDP 99-
O6/HDP 98-15/CDP 98-68
CASE NAME: THOMPSONflABATA
PUBLISH: FRIDAY, JANUARY 25,2002
THOMPSONITABATA
ZC 98-08/LCPA 98-04/CT 98-1 4/PUD 98-05/
CP 00-02/SDP 99-06/HDP 98-1 5/CDP 98-68
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 516C'
CARLSBAD UNlF SCHOOL DlST
801 PINE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NORTH COAST HWY
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
U.S. FISH &WILDLIFE
2730 LOKER AVE WEST CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY
SERVICES
CITY OF CARLSBAD PROJECT PLANNER
MIKE GRIM
12/14/2001
aAVERY@ Address Labels
CITY OF ENClNlTAS
505 S VULCAN AVE
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
VISTA CA 92085
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DlST
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STE 100
9174 SKY PARK CT
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
STE 103
7575 METROPOLITAN DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
SD COUNTY PLANNING
STE B
5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
SANDAG
STE 800 401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
I.P.U.A. SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
URBAN STUDIES
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKSlENGlNEERlNG MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
DEPT
Laser 5160@
THOMAS R ODONNELL
936 JASMINE CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4825
KARL KASAI
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4843
7204 WISTERIA WAY
THOMAS E EBERLY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4822
1003 FOXGLOVE VW
GERALD J & MARY GUEVIN ROBERT B STUCK
934 JASMINE CT
CARLSBAE CA 92009-4825 CARLSBAE CA 92009-4843
7202 WISTERIA WAY
MELVIN R & RAMONA SEGAL JOHN B & SARAH SARDINA
8528 PRESTWICK DR
LA JOLLA CA 92037-2048
7104 ROSE DR CARLSBAE CA 92009-4839
MICHAEL J BASS LUCILLE T TADLOCK
DANA POINT CA 92629
32822 SHIPSIDE DR CARLSBAD CA 92009-4817
1008 DAISY AVE
CHERYL MCKIRNAN STEEN NICOLE ANDREWS
1010 DAISY CT 1012 DAISY CT 1014 DAISY CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4846 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4846 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4846
CHRISTOPHER S KARPINEN ANTHONY IMBRONONE ANTHONY G MELLISSINOS
1016 DAISY AVE 1010 TULIP WAY 1012 TULIP WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4819 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4835 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4835
KATHERINE H BAUM ALWILDA B KIRSCHER MORIKAWA
1014 TULIP WAY 7111 DAFFODIL PL 1592 BERMUDA DUNES DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4835 CARLSBAE CA 92009-4810 BOULDER CITY 89005-3647
BRADLEY & CHRISTIE ELI EDWIN C & CONNIE GATES SYDNEY LOGAN
7107 DAFFODIL PL 7105 DAFFODIL PL 1015 FOXGLOVE VW
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4810 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4810 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4822
ORPHA J WAGNER DWIGHT R RAMIREZ CHRISTOPHER J ROSS
1013 FOXGLOVE VW 1011 FOXGLOVE VW 1009 FOXGLOVE VW
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4822 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4822 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4822
GEORGE R DEMIRJIAN THIERRY R FALLET MICHAEL M & IRENE CURRY
1007 FOXGLOVE VW 1005 FOXGLOVE VW 1002 FOXGLOVE VW
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4822 CARLSBAE CA 92009-4822 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4847
STEPHEN OAKLEY VAUGHN GEORGE M TORIGOE
1004 FOXGLOVE VW 1006 FOXGLOVE Vq 1008 FOXGLOVE VW
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4847 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4847 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4847
PAULA C PRESENKOWKSI WILLIAM SILVA DANIEL & MARY REINECK
1010 FOXGLOVE VW 1012 FOXGLOVE VW 1014 FOXGLOVE VW
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4847 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4847 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4847
LAWRENCE E KAVOLINAS HOWARD G PURNELL JO A WINKLER
1016 FOXGLOVE VW 1018 FOXGLOVE VW 7102 DAFFODIL PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4847 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4847 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4809
DONALD J & TAMARA FOLSE MICHAEL ELOVITZ THOMAS J REICHERT
7104 DAFFODIL PL 7108 DAFFODIL PL 7110 DAFFODIL PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4809 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4809 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4809
LOUISE N ROSENSTEIN DELANCEY JOHN F BRYNES
7112 DAFFODIL PL 7204 DAFFODIL PL 936 DAISY AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4809 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4811 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4815
KEITH W JAIN JOHN J ARCHER SCHUCK
938 DAISY AVE 940 DAISY AVE 2721 ATHENS AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4815 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4815 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2122
ROSA VASQUEZ SCOTT & HELENA COOPER STAN M STOERMANN
944 DAISY AVE 946 DAISY AVE 948 DAISY AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4815 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4815 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4815
ERIC R & DAVIDA BURCH CLEOTA W BRUNO NELSON C ROSS
950 DAISY AVE 7101 ROSE DR 935 DAISY AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4815 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4840 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4816
ANDREW R & THELMA LOGIE KEITH & BETSY CLEEK FRANK S & NANCY BEEAL
937 DAISY AVE 939 DAISY AVE 941 DAISY AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4816 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4816 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4816
MARILYN S GOAD ERICKSON TROY E & WINIFRED CLICK
943 DAISY AVE 945 DAISY AVE 947 DAISY AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4816 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4816 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4816
JANECEK TR BRYAN D MILLER LANH T & ANGELA TRINH
949 DAISY AVE 951 DAISY AVE 1001 DAISY AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4816 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4816 CARLSBAD CA 92009-481.8
THOMAS J FITZGERALD
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4818
1003 DAISY AVE
RONALD ZAWISTOWSKI
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4818
1009 DAISY AVE
SHAFFER TR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4826
951 JASMINE CT
JAMES L & TEMPE MASON LEE A WOOD
1005 DAISY AVE 3336 VENADO ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4818 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7849
WILLIAM R SIKES RASHAD & PAMELA ANSARI
1011 DAISY AVE 1013 DAISY AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4818 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4818
DANIEL D AQUILA CHARLES J SMITH
945 JASMINE CT 947 JASMINE CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4826 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4826
RUSSELL L HANTHORN RUBYE F SPEAR ELAINE V TRUJILLO
307 D AVE 951 JASMINE CT 953 JASMINE CT
CORONADO CA 92116-1330 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4826 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4826
THOMAS F HOUSE
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4826 955 JASMINE CT
ROBERT A MCDONALD
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4825
952 JASMINE CT
MARK E & KAREN WILLIAMS
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4825
946 JASMINE CT
WILLIAM J BOYLE
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4825
940 JASMINE CT
CARLSBAD PROMENADE PART
LA JOLLA CA 92037-9146 4275 EXECUTIVE DR 240
WARMINGTON AVIARA ASSOC
3090 PULLMAN ST A COSTA MESA CA 92626-5901
BURNETT
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4826 9 59 JASMINE CT
TIMOTHY A & LYDIA VIZE
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4825
950 JASMINE CT
DORIS NELSON
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4825
944 JASMINE CT
JOHN R & KATHI LAUDUSKI
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4825
938 JASMINE CT
SQ 240
HANK H NAKAHARA
SILVERDALE WA 98383-7337
11100 MOUNTAIN VISTA CI
GERALD L CLEMENTS
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4825
948 JASMINE CT
CECIL A CHAMBERLAIN
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4825
942 JASMINE CT
F N PETREY
7106 WISTERIA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4841
AVIARA MASTER ASSN
2011 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009-1432
ROBERT S KINCADE
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3425
6760 LONICERA ST
ELDON A & JULIE STAGGS
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3425
6748 LONICERA ST
PAUL J & KIM KREBS
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3425 6736 LONICERA ST
MARILYN F GANSKOW MARC & OLEEN BEVILACQUA
6756 LONICERA ST 6752 LONICERA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3425 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3425
TOM & JANICE POWERS SHAHRIAR & KAREN JAMASB
6744 LONICERA ST 6740 LONICERA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3425 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3425
MORTON & HARRIET GROSSM STEPHEN P SCHWERDTFEGER
6732 LONICERA ST 6754 BLUE POINT DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3425 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3419
L C & MARY ANDREWS JOHN K KRWORUKA BRENT A & TAMMY WELLMAN
6750 BLUE POINT DR 6746 BLUE POINT DR 6742 BLUE POINT DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3419 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3419 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3419
EDWARD K & SUSAN POSER
6738 BLUE POINT DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3419
ROBERT E GAYNOR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3426
6745 LONICERA ST
KEVEN TAGDIRI
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3422
1245 GOLD FLOWER RD
MARC & MARY ANDERSON
1233 GOLD FLOWER RD CARLSBAD CA 92009-3422
HELEN F THOMPSON
1221 GOLD FLOWER RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3422
CHRISTOPHER W CHEN
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3422
1209 GOLD FLOWER RD
FRANK F NOCERA MEHRY & RAMIN TAGHDIRI
6737 LONICERA ST 6741 LONICERA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3426 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3426
TRAVIS PRENTICE LORETTA MOORE
6749 LONICERA ST 6753 LONICERA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3426 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3426
CHARLES T JUDD PHILIP H CARROLL
1241 GOLD FLOWER RD 1237 GOLD FLOWER RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3422 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3422
RICHARD P BUSHER ROGER T KATHMAN
1229 GOLD FLOWER RD 1225 GOLD FLOWER RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3422 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3422
ROBERT G ANDERSON ADEL A YUNIS
1217 GOLD FLOWER RD 1213 GOLD FLOWER RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3422 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3422
DUGAN BETTY JEFF T ACAMPORA
1205 GOLD FLOWER RD 6733 LONICERA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3422 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3426
RICHARD C NOIA
6650 TOWHEE LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3900 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3900
6620 TOWHEE LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3900
MAHON HUNTOON
6646 TOWHEE LN
CHARLES H WLNEHOLT TIMOTHY H MEDLIN ROBERT W ANDERSON
6664 CURLEW TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3964 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3964 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3964
6660 CURLEW TER 6658 CURLEW TER
DEAN L & UDY WELSH ROBERT S & JOAN LIPSON
6654 CURLEW TER
JAMES W MCCLURKIN
6650 CURLEW TER 6625 CURLEW TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3964 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3964 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3965
SWOPE
6629 CURLEW TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3965
JON C CURTIS
6641 CURLEW TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3965
LINDO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3965
6653 CURLEW TER
DANIEL F OCONNELL
6665 CURLEW TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3965
AIRPORT RD
KEVIN J LYNAUGH
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3955
7009 ROCKROSE TER
BRIAN F OLIVER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-5025
7040 ROCK DOVE ST
JUNE P & MYRNA NOLLEDO THOMAS E KROUSE
6633 CURLEW TER 6637 CURLEW TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3965 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3965
COHEN NORMAN R DAVID J BARNETTE
6645 CURLEW TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3965 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3965
6649 CURLEW TER
LEWIS B FALK GORDON 0 SHARP
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3965
6657 CURLEW TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3965
6661 CURLEW TER
OSCAR F PRECIADO RICHARD J REASONS
6671 CURLEW TER 6675 CURLEW TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3965 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3965
AVIARA LAND ASSOCIATES
450 NEWPORT CENTER DR 3
FRANK C & KAREN SANTORO
7005 ROCKROSE TER
NEWPORT BEACH 92660-7613 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3955
DAVID L & DENISE OAKLEY JAMES M CONSOLE
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3955
7054 ROCKROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3955
7050 ROCKROSE TER
JEFFREY W GAJEWSKI JOOST H VANADELSBERG
7034 ROCKROSE TKR CARLSBAD CA 92009-3955 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3955
7032 ROCKROSE TER
SHAN HAN REED ARLENE H
7028 ROCKROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3955 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3955 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3955
DENNIS A PAQUET
7024 ROCKROSE TER 7020 ROCKROSE TER
STEPHEN HORVATH BRIAN L & REBECCA WALSH
7016 ROCKROSE TER
ALVIN MEEMOLO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3955 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3955 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3955
7012 ROCKROSE TER 7062 ROCKROSE TER
TRACEE J BUCK
7058 ROCKROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3955 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3955 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3955
ELLEN M POWERS GERALD W OLIVAS 7063 ROCKROSE TER 7067 ROCKROSE TER
VICTOR ROMERO HUSAM & SENIYE GUROL RONALD D VOIGT
7071 ROCKROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3955 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3955 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3955
7075 ROCKROSE TER 7090 ROCKROSE TER
MAHYAR & ELAHEH AJIR WILLIAM G MAJOR
7086 ROCKROSE TER 7082 ROCKROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3955 CARLSBAE CA 92009-3955 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3955
I SLEY
7078 ROCKROSE TER
QUIGLEY WILLIAM R HAMMOND
7074 ROCKROSE TER 7070 ROCKROSE TER
CARLSBAD CR 92009-3955 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3955 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3955
ROGER & KATHERINE BERG
7066 ROCKROSE TER
MICHAEL F KENNY DOUGLAS M ISBELL DANIEL P FABINSKI
6953 WILDROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008
6943 WILDROSE TER 6950 WILDROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008
JEAN R & TARA SCHENK EUGENE B GARRETT WELTY
6954 WILDROSE TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4009
6958 WILDROSE TER 7004 WILDROSE TER
WILLIAM R MANUEL STEVEN A MCKESSON
7008 WILDROSE TER 7012 WILDROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4009 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4009 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4009
HOWARD S & SUSAN LOCKER
7016 WILDROSE TER
JANET M WATSON CENGIZ & DILEK ISBILEN PATRICK S CAMPBELL
PO BOX 2347
CARLSBAD CA 92018-2347 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4009
7024 WILDROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4009 7019 WILDROSE TER
PHILIP W GLORIOSO
7015 WILDROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4009
BRADLEY S SMITH
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4009
7005 WILDROSE TER
BLAKE A & CARRIE BOLAND
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008
6931 WILDROSE TER
TIMOTHY J PIVNICNY JEAN L MOYNIER
7011 WILDROSE TER 7009 WILDROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4009 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4009
ANDREW G AIELLO RUSSELL I KINDERMANN
6939 WILDROSE TER 6935 WILDROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008
TIMOTHY J CUNNINGHAM JEFFREY G ROBBINS
6927 WILDROSE TER 6923 WILDROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008
WILSON ROBERT A & NATALIE EMMA HARRY J & DIANE NAJJAR
6919 WILDROSE TER 6915 WILDROSE TER 6911 WILDROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008
ALAN G MORTIMER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008
6907 WILDROSE TER
GALLEAR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008
6912 WILDROSE TER
JOHN C SHIMER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008
6930 WILDROSE TER
MOKSKI
6942 WILDROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008
HSU TAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4010 1301 BULRUSH CT
LORIN J & TERRI BEGUN MARTIN S KLECKNER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008
6904 WILDROSE TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008
6908 WILDROSE TER
STEPHEN TAMBURRINO CHARLES S TYSON
6916 WILDROSE TER 6920 WILDROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008
JOHN G ROHRING KENNETH M. & BETTE ROSS 6934 WILDROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008
6938 WILDROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008
DAVID & CHRISTINE NARD1 DONNA METCALFE
BRONXVILLE NY 10708
60 HAMPSHIRE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4011
7013 CATTAIL PL
*** 115 Printed ***
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
9335 CHESAPEAKE DR PO BOX 943
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-1010 1010 CARLSBAD CA 92018-0943
OCCUPANTS
PO BOX 1338
CARLSBAD CA 92018-1338
OCCUPANTS
PO BOX 1487
GO CA 92123-1010 CARLSBAD CA 92018-1487
OCCUPANTS
934 DAISY AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4815
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
1002 FOXGLOVE VW 1004 FOXGLOVE VW 1006 FOXGLOVE VW
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4847 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4847 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4847
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
1008 FOXGLOVE VW 1010 FOXGLOVE VW 1012 FOXGLOVE VW
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4847 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4847 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4847
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
1014 FOXGLOVE VW 1016 FOXGLOVE VW 1018 FOXGLOVE VW
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4847 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4847 CARLSBAD CA' 92009-4847
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
936 DAISY AVE 938 DAISY AVE 940 DAISY AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4815 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4815 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4815
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
2721 ATHENS AVE 944 DAISY AVE 946 DAISY AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2122 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4815 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4815
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
948 DAISY AVE 950 DAISY AVE 7101 ROSE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4815 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4815 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4840
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
7099 ROSE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4838 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7102 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3912
7301 BOLERO ST 958 ALYSSUM RD
OCCUPANTS
960 ALYSSUM RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3912 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3912
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
962 ALYSSUM RD 9335 c PEAKE DR
OCCUPANTS
955 ALYSSUM RD
OCCUPANTS
953 ALYSSUM RD
SAN GO CA 92123-1010 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3913 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3913
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
7010 SNAPDRAGON DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3943 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3943 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3943
7014 SNAPDRAGON DR 7012 SNAPDRAGON DR
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS 7016 SNAPDRAGON DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3943 CARLSBAD CA 92013-0893 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3943
OCCUPANTS
PO BOX 130893 7020 SNAPDRAGON DR
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
7022 SNAPDRAGON DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3943 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3943 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3943
7026 SNAPDRAGON DR 7024 SNAPDRAGON DR
OCCUPANTS
4310 HORIZON DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-3652 OCEANSIDE CA 92056-3209 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3943
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
3373 SUMMER SET WAY 7032 SNAPDRAGON DR
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
7034 SNAPDRAGON DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3943 MOORPARK CA 93021-2229 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3943
OCCUPANTS 4675 BELLA VISTA DR 7038 SNAPDRAGON DR
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
7568 NORTHLAND AVE
SAN RAMON CA 94583-3714 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3943 LAS VEGAS NV 89117-6692 1509 CALLE MONTERY ST 7042 SNAPDRAGON DR
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
7046 SNAPDRAGON DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3943 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3943 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3943
7048 SNAPDRAGON DR 7050 SNAPDRAGON DR
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
7052 SNAPDRAGON DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3943 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3943 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3943
OCCUPANTS 7054 SNAPDRAGON DR 7056 SNAPDRAGON DR
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
7058 SNAPDRAGON DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3943 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3943 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3941
7060 SNAPDRAGON DR 943 ROSEMARY AVE
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
6802 BRIARWOOD DR 6804 BRIARWOOD DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3924 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3924 MISSION VIEJO 92692-2810
OCCUPANTS
27851 SHEFFIELD
OCCUPANTS
1931 HAMPTON LN
GLENDALE CA 91201-1107 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3924
OCCUPANTS
6820 BRIARWOOD DR OCCUPANTS
19431 BUSINESS CENTER D
NORTHRIDGE CA 91324-6403
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
502 PARKERSBURG RD
SPENCER WV 25276-1026 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3924 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3924
6828 BRIARWOOD DR 6826 BRIARWOOD DR
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
6830 BRIARWOOD DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3924
6834 BRIARWOOD DR 6836 BRIARWOOD DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3924 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3924
OCCUPANTS
6838 BRIARWOOD DR CARLSBAD CA 92009-3924 JERSEY CITY NrO7307-1401 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3924
OCCUPANTS
319 NEW YORK AVE
OCCUPANTS
6846 BRIARWOOD DR
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
6848 BRIARWOOD DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3924 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3924 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3924
6850 BRIARWOOD DR 6852 BRIARWOOD DR
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS 6854 BRIARWOOD DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-1225 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3924 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3924
6860 BRIARWOOD DR 6856 BRIARWOOD DR
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
4707 CORDOBA WAY
OCEANSIDE CA 92056-5109 6864 BRIARWOOD DR CARLSBAD CA 92009-3924 1011 IRIS CT CARLSBAD CA 92009-4824
OCCUPANTS
PO BOX 1186
CARLSBAD CA 92018-1186
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
6830 BRIARWOOD DR 955 BOXWOOD CT 957 BOXWOOD CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3924 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3923 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3923
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
1870 HAYMARKET RD PO BOX 1893 6768 LEMON LEAF DR
ENCINITAS CA 92024-1017 MAMMOTH LAKES 93546-1893 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3424
OCCUPANTS 1289 VERONICA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3431 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3431 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3431
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS 1285 VERONICA CT 1281 VERONICA CT
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
1277 VERONICA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3431 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3431 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3431
1269 VERONICA CT 1273 VERONICA CT
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
1265 VERONICA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3431 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3431 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3431
1254 VERONICA CT 1261 VERONICA CT
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
24800 CHRISANTA DR 200 1257 VERONICA CT MISSION VIEJO 92691-4819 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3431 CARLSBAD CA 92009-3431
OCCUPANTS 1253 VERONICA CT
,,' . '
,_, , .,
~. "
~"
,!' OCCUPANTS
. -~ .~ " .,. ~ OCCUPANTS
,I ! 1250 VERONICA CT "; 200 S BISCAYNE BLVD 250 OCCUPANTS
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3431, 4275 EXECUTIVE SQ 240 MIAMI FL 33131-5340 LA JOLLA CA 92037-9146
i /
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
3090 PULLMAN ST A
COSTA MESA CA 92626-5901 6950 WILDROSE TER 6954 WILDROSE TER
CARLSBAE CA 92009-4008 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
6958 WILDROSE TER 7004 WILDROSE TE,R OCCUPANTS
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4009 7008 WILDROSE TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-4009
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
7012 WILDROSE TER 7016 WILDROSE TER PO BOX 2347
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4009 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4009 CARLSBAD CA 92018-2347
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
6938 WILDROSE TER 6942 WILDROSE TER
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4008
*** 125 Printed ***
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
INC NICOLAS SAMUELWAROL REVOCABL
6723 LEMON LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT DAVIS RANDALL&MARION
6716 CAMPHOR PL CARLSBAD CA 92008
CROTTY LIVING TRUST 06-03-98
6713 CAMPHORPL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
PACHECO ROGER S&ARSENIA A
6701 BARBERRY PL
MEMOTO CARY G&JENNIFER J
6722 LEMON LEAF DR
WILLIAMS FAMILY TRUST 03-12-81
6714 BARBERRY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
VIDANO FAMILY TRUST 08-30-79 ROMERO RAUL JR&LORI A
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6706 BARBERRY PL CARLSBAD CA 92009
6705 BARBERRY PL KEESEE RICHARD E&JOANN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
671 1 BARBERRY PL
LINZEY DAVID M&C?iERYL A TRS HUNNINGHAKE DONALD B&SHERRIE K PLOTKIN BRIAN J&DONNA M
6705 CAMPHOR PL 6278 MALLORY LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009 6727 LEMON LEAF DR
EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 CARLSBAD CA 92009
PADILLA CARRIE K
6708 CAMPHOR PL CARLSBAD CA 92009
SHARKAWY MAHMOUD E
C/O PAT MOORE
3471 HIDDEN RIDGE RD
JAMUL CA 91935
WHITE ROBERT D&KATHLEEN M MABRA DEBS A JR&JOY V
6710 BARBERRY PL 6726 CAMPHOR PL
CARLSBZ CA 92009 ~ "
CARLSBAD CA 92008
~~
KIM BRIAN Y&YONG KW
6734 LEMON LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
STEWART CRAIG V&CYNDI L LAWSON JON&ELSA M
67 1 1 LEMON LEAF DR 6707 BARBERRY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
BIANCHI CHRISTOPHER J&JENNIFER M BARNES FAMILY TRUST 08-27-91
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6714 LEMON LEAF DR RIVERSIDE CA 92506
7032 EDGEWILD DR
VELLA JOHN A&PENNY C
67 18 BARBERRY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
STEFFY DAVID M&RME M
6717 CAMPHOR PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
FLETCHER MARTIN J&CYNTHIA J
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6742 LEMON LEAF DR
@AVERY@ Address Labels Laser 5160@
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 51601
ROSS FAM~LY TRUST 11-18-88
6728 BARBERRY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SEW KEITH E&JEANNE M
673 1 LEMON LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SARKIS LAWRENCE J
2001 BOSTON WAY
MODEST0 CA 95355
MICHAELS VINCENT P&SUSAN J
6732 CAMPHOR PL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JOHNSON FAMILY TRUST 03-09-99
6725 CAMPHOR PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
WHITAKER ROGER R
6744 CAMPHOR PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CHAO VINCENT W S&WANG MIN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6754 LEMON LEAF DR LUKASIEWICZ RONALD JB;LINDA S
6730 LONICERA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ZANDFARIBA
6715 BARBERRY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SUNDSTROM ALLEN R&JUDITH L
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6722 BARBERRY PL
LARSON DUANE P&DIANE T
CARSLBAD CA 92008
6740 CAMPHOR PL
REID TAYLOR A&DENISE A
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6728 BLUE POINT DR
NEELY FAMILY TRUST 06-03-88 NASIM MICHAEL N&DEBORAH
20 BUCCANEER WAY 6726 LONICERA ST
CORONADO CA 92 1 18 CARLSBAD CA 92009
DEMILL BURRITT N&KATHLEEN K
1294 VERONICA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GATES ROBERT C&ROSEMARIE
6748 LEMON LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GUENTHER RODNEY
6723 BARBERRY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CHENG HONG-CHIN&HUI-LIN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6738 BARBERRY PL
JONES PATTI M
6729 LONICERA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
PETROVIC MARK0
6735 LEMON LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
EULER WILLIAM C&OLIVE D
6725 LONICERA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MICHAELS JOSEPH M&LESLIE A
6736 CAMPHOR PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OHARA KEITH&BE LISA M L
6734 BARBERRY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LEHYNELSON FAMILY TRUST 08-02-9
6760 LEMON LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KRAUS TlMOTHY&BOYLE MARY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6719 BARBERRY PL
NADIR DANIEL O&KRISTlN B
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6729 CAMPHOR PL
WHITE CRISTINA M E P 0 BOX 2522
CARLSBAD CA 92018
aAVERYa Address Labels Laser 5160@
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
' BALSAM FAMILY TRUST 01-29-98 <LE GULL1 RlCCI A&CORIiiE
6733 CAMPHOR PL 6736 TEA TREE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92008
BLOCK MORTONMURNET G TRUST 03 ESGATE drn~ M
6732 LONICERA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
VANDENKOLK MICHAEL&SHAWN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6734 BLUE POINT DR
GIFFORD FAMILY TRUST 10-07-98
6742 BARBERRY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BALL CHARLES M&CAM A
CARLSBAD CA 92009' 1290 VERONICA CT
FEINBERG LILIAN FAMILY TRUST 01-
PALM SPRINGS CA 92264 2 153 MADEONA DR
GRAAT KENNETH T&PAMELA D
6731 BARBERRY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BROCK SAM&ANITA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6764 LEMON LEAF DR
CfiBADCA92009
Use template for 516@
GROH ROBERT J
6735 BARBERRY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
PARTNERS L
6740 LON
WILLYARD VINCENT A&AMY C
1282 VERONICA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009 SBAD CA 92009
WORTHINGTON SCOTT M&TRACEY LA JORDAN BRIAN E&MARION
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1286 VERONICA CT 1289 VERONICA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CAMPBE~OL K DULEY BILL&PATRICIA M
6750 BARBERRY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
FERBER FAMILY TRUST 03-10-99
6746 BARBERRY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
P LICHTENBERGER MICHAEL A&ELIZABE WELLMAN B
6740 TEA TREE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
NEW BEACH CA 92660 ." .~.~ ~~ ~ ~~
@AVERY@ Address Labels Laser 5160@
Smooth Feed SheetsT! Use template for 516P@
HELLER STEPHEN E&MLISSA A
6744 TEA TREE ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
TAGHDIRI MEHRY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6741 LONICERA ST
MAURER MICHAEL J
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6739 BARBERRY PL
FAHR MK&FARMANI SHIVA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1274 VERONICA CT
KRYVORUKA JO
6746 B
WELLINGTON REVOCABLE TRUST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6743 BARBERRY PL
FWU JIH-MIN&YU-LI
6747 BLUE POINT DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
TNERS L
ENGESETH JAMES&STEPHANIE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6747 BARBERRY PL
LEIGH DOUGLAS M&ARIANNE 0 BEATTIE RONALD E&ROLINA S P 0 BOX 130082
NOCERA MARK
CARLSBAD CA 92013 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
6745 LONICERA ST 6749 LONICERA ST
SBAD CA 92009
6748 LO
POWERS 67e TO
C SBAD CA 92009
CERA ST
SMITH DOUGLAS B&ALICE K
1270 VERONICA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KORKOW WILLIAM %BETTY L MORRIS THOMAS S&DIANE M
6748 TEA TREE ST 6752 TEA TREE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
BOISVERT JOSEPH L&SAISHO THERESA
6743 BLUE POINT DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BAVERYm Address Labels
ROSS RICK&JODI 1266 VERONICA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
YM
STABILE RICHARD&JOYCE B
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1273 VERONICA CT
GANSKOW
Laser 5 160@
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 516$
SANJlJLE TODD BgrKIMBERLY K
6156 TEA TREE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
06-18-99 BRADY MICHAEL J
1221 GOLD FLOWER RD
TAGDIRI KE
SBAD CA 92009
YF
MCDOUGALD CHARLENE L BAMAGHY TONY&PATRICM ANDERSON
1262 VERONICA CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
P 0 BOX 676087
RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067
1233 G OWER RD
YOUNG SUSANNA REVOCABLE TRUST EEN CAULFIELD SEWS T&BERNADETTE
675 1 BLUE POINT DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
1229 GOLD FLOWER RD
GEORGE WILLIAM A
6754 BLUE POINT DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LUTZ FAMILY TRUST 07-07-97
1269 VERONICA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SBAD CA 92009
KIRCHHOFF KLAUS&BRIGITTE
1258 VERONICA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
AUSTM DIANNE S
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1237 GOLD FLOWER RD
BURRIS MICHAEL&PATRICIA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1250 VERONICA CT
GET M JONES JAMES P& INDA M
MARINERS POINT co ASSN
C/O LENNAR H
R4J LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA lNC
MIAMIFL33131
200 S BISCAYNE BLVD #25W
TABATA NOBORU&EVELYN
2353 LA COSTA BLVD
P 0 BOX 943 CARLSBAD CA 92018
BAVERYm Address Labels Laser 5160@
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 516$
' LAS PLAYAS HOMEOWNERS ASSN (COR SWEET JA~ELLE
C/O GRG MGMT CO 6805 BRIARWOOD DR
POBOX1186 CARLSBAD CA 92009
CARLSBAD CA 92018
VERGNE J PIERRE&JACQUELINE BOOTH TRUST 06-22-95
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6803 MAPLE LEAF DR ORANGE CA 92665
P 0 BOX 3512
ASSN (COR FLETCHER TERRI L
27851 SHEFFIELD
MISSION VIEJO CA 92692
ASSN (COR CASSAPAKIS CONSTANTINE G
6807 BRIARWOOD DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SBAD CA 92018
NELSON ARTHUR R
6812 MAPLE LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HALCOM LINDA T
31017 N 42ND WAY
CAVE CREEK AZ 85331
BROOKS RICHARD O&DIANE M
6813 MAPLE LEAF DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
AViARA LAND ASSOC LIMITED P CRISCUOLO MICHAEL T&ELIZABETH A BAKER DOUGLAS L
6810 MAPLE LEAF DR 6814 MAPLE LEAF DR CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
CERVINO ANTHONY C&RITA M SALTZMAN WILLIAM E&FLORENCE C TYSON JEAN S LIVING TRUST 10-08-
6802 BRIARWOOD DR 6809 MAPLE LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
12 SANDBAR DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CORONA DL MAR CA 92625
KENNEDY KEVIN M&KATHLEEN M JOHNSON BARBARA E TRUST 10-3 1-89 ANTONSON JONATHON J&DEBBIE L
6803 BRIARWOOD DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
193 1 HAMPTON LN
GLENDALE CA 91201
6817 MAPLE LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ALLSUP MELODY
6804 BRIARWOOD DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ENG S LA VERNE FAMILY TRUST 10-2 HAMILTON JANE W LIVING TRUST 03-
35 1 S MERELET LN
ORANGE CA 92869
6816 MAPLE LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HASSLER WARREN W&PEGGY M 1990 R THOMAS DONALD J
6805 MAPLE LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
681 1 MAPLE LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SCHAUB LEROY M&DOLORES Y TRS
758 E NAVILLA PLACE
COVINA CA 91723
@AVERYa Address Labels Laser 5160@
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 516?@
TABATA FAMILY TRUST 01-14-83 BRONSONDAVID
P 0 BOX 1338
CARLSBAD CA 9201 8 NORTHRIDGE CA 91324
LOMBARD0 MARGARET FAMILY LI\P
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1943 1 BUSINESS CENTER DR #4 6828 BRIARWOOD DR
WARMINGTON A L MITER VIaOR&TATJANA <AKA MITER YEAGER FAMILY PRIVATE REVOCABL
6823 MAPLE LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6829 BRIARWOOD DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LEAR FAMILY TRUST 10-22-96
10520 ARBOR PARK PL SAN DIEGO CA 92131
ASSN (COR FALLON JOSEPH D&DIANA M
C/O GRG 6831 MAPLE LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
FOSTER CORKY R&BOLTON-FOSTER BA DRUMM DAVID R
P 0 BOX 1266
PAROWAN UT 84761
6823 BRIARWOOD DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SWANN TIMOTHY R&CHRISTINE K
6830 MAPLE LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HOUGH HOWARD A&JEANNE E AMBROSIO PEDRO N&ERLMDA B
6820 BRIARWOOD DR 6824 BRIARWOOD DR
NICHOLAS FRANCISCO J&OLGA
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
6830 BRIARWOOD DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
PYLES NORDEE S
42580 REMORA WAY TEMECULA CA 92592
JOHNSON GARY PAUL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6825 MAPLE LEAF DR
BEACHLER FAMILY TRUST 05-06-88 SMITH GLORIA A
RLLNG HLS EST CA 90275
2921 1 STONECREST RD CARLSBAD CA 92009
6826 BRIARWOOD DR
LINTON BRIAN
P 0 BOX 232025
ENCINITAS CA 92023
BRITTON JACK P&TEWEL M
CARLSBAD CA 92009
2713 SOCORRO LN
RICARDS FAMILY TRUST 11-24-92
14143 HALF MOON BAY DR
DEL MAR CA 92014
RAULSTON JEAN S REVOCABLE LIVING QUALMAN FAMILY TRUST 05-05-97
6827 MAPLE LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6834 BRIARWOOD DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CAMERON FAMILY TRUST 05-26-93 CURTIUS MICHAEL&MARY TRUST 12.
7301 BOLERO ST 4284 SKYLINE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92008
aAVERYB Address Labels Laser 5160@
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 516@@
DONNELL ROBERT L
6832 MAPLE LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
TULLUS OSVALD~LEIDA
6839 MAPLE LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
RADFORD HENRY F&MARY T
6846 MAPLE LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
FARIAS JOSEPH P JR&SUSAN P NISBET GEORGE T&CONCETTA CLARKE CHARLES L
6835 MAPLE LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 JERSEY CITY NJ 07307
319NEWYORKAVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6843 BRIARWOOD DR
STRICKLAND GARY UCAROL J TRS 3842 SIENNA ST
WRIGHT GARY G&ELIZABETH JACKSON MARGARET A
OCEANSIDE CA 92056
6840 MAPLE LEAF DR 1420 PEERLESS DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 EL CAJON CA 92021
HOOVER FAMILY TRUST 08-1 1-9
1624 CORMORANT DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GORZEGNO TRUST 06-13-90
7177 TERN PL CARLSBAD CA 92009
NKOW JAMES AgLJOAN L 25234 STEINBRCK AVE #A
STEVENSONRANCHCA91381
KIRKKATHRYNA
6836 BRIARWOOD DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
KINSEY PATRICIA M 6837 MAPLE LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LAS fl PLAYAS H ASSN (COR RXTER JULIE
PO
C/O GRG
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6846 BRIARWOOD DR
SBAD CA 9201 8
MORGAN ANNA L TRUST 01-09-97
74 19 LINDEN TER
LAS PLAYAS HOME
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LOUNDY DONALD J&SANDRA
6836 MAPLE LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ASSN (COR ELICH LOUIS F&HELENA
2042 RIDGELINE
VISTA CA 92083
CARLIN ROGER H&JOAN A
3635 N EAGLE CYN
MESA AZ 85207 CARLSBAD CA 92009
;P
BLANKENSHIP PAUL R&CHERYL. L EWRT FAMILY TRUST 09-2 1-99 TAYLOR LINDA TRUST 06-30-99
6838 BRIARWOOD DR 6841 BRIARWOOD DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CERKANOWICZ JEROME C&GRACE D T SCHNEIDER FAMILY LIVING TRUST 12
6844 MAPLE LEAF DR 11202 LYNROSE ST
ARCADIA CA 91006
22915 E COLOMBARD LN #3
CARLSBAD CA 92009 DIAMOND BAR CA 91765
a AVERYa Address Labels Laser 5160@
Smooth Feed Sheets" Use template for 516Cs
GALEY JOHN A&SHIRLEY B TRUST 05- EVANS JOh' D&JULIE
6848 BRIARWOOD DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6852 BRIARWOOD DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LAS PLAYAS HOME0 ASSN [COR IRISH NEIL W&MAXINE G
6851 MAPLE LEAF DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
BERTRAND LAWRENCE AkMARTH.4 M
6855 MAPLE LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BAREND WILLIAM D&MARY J TRUST 05 HSU HENRY S FAMILY TRUST KANITKARGIRA
7071 VIA CANDREJO 6855 BRIARWOOD DR 1327 RICHLAND ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 COLUMBIA SC 29201
KRONENBERG DOLORES
6847 MAPLE LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LADAGE~WFSGCE A
KEETCH JOAN J
6856 MAPLE LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
COLCLASER FAMILY REVOCABLE. LIVIN WIGGINS JOHN L
1049 GOLDENEYE VW 6860 BRIARWOOD DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
PETERMAN FAMILY TRUST 05-23-84 LYrnETON S ELAINE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6850 BRIARWOOD DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
6853 MAPLE LEAF DR
' KGB FAMILY TRUST 07-17-98
~ 4193 TERRY ST
i OCEANSIDE CA 92056
HEAD LARRY R&ALISA R
6849 MAPLE LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
REICHEL WAIUW N&NANCY E
1254 VIA PRIVADA ESCONDIDO CA 92029
ROBERSON SYLVIA M
6858 MAPLE LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LEVY MIRIAM B
6857 BRIARWQOD DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
aAVERY@ Address Labels
NEDEAU ALFRED B In
6856 BRIARWOOD DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
STANLEY CHARLES E&LILLIAN A
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6859 MAPLE LEAF DR
KRAUT BENJAMIN&RENEE T TRS
3921 SANDW LN
CORONA DL MAR CA 92625
LATAS ROBERT M&MARY A TRS
4707 CORDOBA WAY OCEANSIDE CA 92056
MCLAUGHLIN RICHARD C&ANN E
6861 MAPLE LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Laser 5160@
.Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 516?@
PLOTKIN JAMES L
6864 BRIARWOOD DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
WATSON ROBERT C&HILDA B TRUST 03 STEIER DONN
951 BOXWOOD CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
P 0 BOX 1893
MAMMOTH LAKES CA 93546
OBRYAN K E LIVING TRUST 05-1 8-99
6863 MAPLE LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARISBAD CA 92008
POZZA STEVEN A&SHERRY A KUSLO DONNA K LIVING TRUST 1 1 - 18 3962 JAMES DR 6874 BATIQUITOS DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
WADE JUDY A
14661 BERKSHIRE PL TUSTIN CA 92780
NICHOLAS FRANCISCO &OLGA FAULK BERT H&BARBARA 1
6830 BRIARWOOD DR 6876 BATIQUITOS DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
SMITH DALLAS FAMILY TRUST 03-30- CHUNG DERRICK PMEAN
1011 IRIS CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
10256 GAUL WAY
SPRING VALLEY CA 91977
WRIGHT CLETA TRUST 08-15-98 . MEIS MARLENE F
6865 MAPLE LEAF DR 955 BOXWOOD CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
ANTAL JOSEPH&GERALDINE G TRS ROSEN LAWRENCE J&IRIS
6867 MAPLE LEAF DR 957 BOXWOOD CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
CAMERON FAMILY TRUST 03-26-93
CARLSBAD CA 92009 7301 BOLERO ST
MORRISON GENEVA M TRUST 08-28-97
32371 ALIPAZ ST #122
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO CA 92675
OPLINGER D~ET~~JANICE R YOUNG ONALD G FAMILY TRUST 09-2 LAS PLA ASSN
6870 MAPLE LEAF DR C/O GRG
CARLSBAD CA 92009
RIEDLER LIVING TRUST 04-24-92 MARSHALL EDWARD R
6869 MAPLE LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 ENCINITAS CA 92024
1870 HAYMARKET RD BATHGATE BARBARA
6882 BATIQUITOS DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
SEAVER SHEILA TRUST 02-05-92 FRIED GERALD B&PATRICIA B STALDER FAMILY LIVING TRUST 03-1 6864 MAPLE LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 SAN RAMON CA 94583
5 160 CANYON CREST DR RNERSIDE CA 92506 3732 BEECHWOOD PL
aAVERY@ Address Labels Laser 5160°
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 51@
C/O GRG
SCHLONSKY KAREN J TRUST 06-04-99 NORMAN SCOTT&JULIA M
7390 SEAFARER PL 943 ASPEN CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
SCHOOLS TERRENE M
953 FIR TREE PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
STUPIN WILLIAM J&LINDA B
1315 S EUCLID AVE
HOFFMAN MARILYN F
2205 RUNABOUT PL
PASADENA CA 9 1 106 EL CNON CA 92019
BO- J TR BELTON RICHARD G&MARY A
959 FIR TREE PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GALINDO CHRIS&KARIE
6896 BATIQUITOS DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
NICINSKI STEVEN A
12727 HAGEMWOOD CT SAN DIEGO CA 92129
BEHRBAUM WILLIAM H TRUST 10-24-9 MURRAY DAWN M
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6892 BATIQUITOS DR
ESCONDIDO CA 92026
8610 112 NELSON WAY
BELL FAMILY TRUST 09-16-88 VUKOVICH DUSHAN&NANCY
P 0 BOX 2125 941 ASPEN CT
BEAUMONT CA 92223 CARLSBAD CA 92009
SIMS PAUL A JR
AIEA HI 96701
98-151 PAL1 MOM1 ST#156
STINE ROBERT A
97 1 HYGEIA AVE ENCINITAS CA 92024
METZGAR PAUL W
6869 PEACH TREE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GRAWIN CAROLYN F
6866 PEACH TREE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HARRINGTON TIMOTHY E&SUZANNE
1334 WALh'UTVIEW DR ENCINITAS CA 92024
FREDRICKSON KENNETH L&GRACE E
FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708
8752 OTTAWA RIVER CIR
GOWING ALICE D TRUST 08-27-93
220 ESPLANADE
SAN CLEMENTE CA 92672 CARLSBAD CA 92009
NHS FAMILY TRUST 08-26-91 VINER WILLIAM A&GLORIA G
961 FIR TREE PL 6898 BATIQUITOS DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
PATERSON DONALD J&SHARLENE A BERKOWITZ ROSE TRUST 05-23-96 BARNESRICHARD&KARINS
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6888 BATIQUITOS DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
6894 BATIQUITOS DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
7623 RUSTIC0 DR
a AVERYa Address Labels Laser 5160°
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160'$
LITTLEFIELD BRIAN W&RAY NANCY L WOLKENSTEIN FAMILY TRUST 07-02-9 CHAU JOHN S TRUST
6872 PEACH TREE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
960 ALYSSUM RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
P 0 BOX 17400
SAN DIEGO CA 92177
STORY HOWARD&LILA 4729 GATESHEAD RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JABBOUR RAYMOND T&ANTOINETTE R SANGIS LOUIS L&BARBARA V 6874 PEACH TREE RD 950 LAURELWOOD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
GARLIEPP FAMILY TRUST 06-09-98 POSTAL RHONDA D
2180OPALRDG 4929 AVILA AVE VISTA CA 92083 CARLSBAD CA 92008
PATCHEN KAREN L
CARLSBAD CA 92009 955 ASPEN CT KONIOW FAMlLY TRUST 11-16-95
946 LAURELWOOD ST
OKEEFE JEAN L
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 952 LAURELWOOD ST
WEAR CLAUDE R&DOROTHY T MTER V CAVANAGH JOHN A&RUTH E
938 LAURELWOOD ST 216RUBY ST ~ ~ ~ . .~ ~ ~
CARLSBAD CA 92009 REDONDOBEACH CA 90277
GRONDAL GWENN
957 ASPEN CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
HICKS JAMES&WANDA
962 ALYSSUM RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOHNSON DONNA J 5050 CANYON CREST DR #44
RIVERSIDE CA 92507
OB
MARQUISS DAVID F&LEILANI D
6884 PEACH TREE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MASTRES MICHAEL S&LORI L VADUN CHARLES J&HEATHER J
958 ALYSSUM RD 954 ALYSSUM RD CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
SILBERBERGER DOLORES A FAMILY TR STANDARD
966 SAN LOREN20 CT SOLANA BEACH CA 92075
FRANCO-ABBOTT FAMILY TRUST 03-12 SCHWDELAR SUSAN M
6880 PEACH TREE RD 12985 VIA GRIh4ALDI CARLSBAD CA 92009 DEL MAR CA 92014
aAVERYa Address Labels
COLE KIMBERLY A
6878 PEACH TREE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GEORGE MICHAEL A&MARTHA A 6888 PEACH TREE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Laser 5160@
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
DESCRIPTION:
and Reporting Program; a Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment to
change 40.41 acres of the subdivision from Limited Control (L-C) to Residential
Multiple-Density with a Qualified Development Overlay Zone (RD-M-Q) and to change
41.79 acres from Limited Control (L-C) to One Family Residential with a Qualified
Development Overlay Zone (R-I-Q); and a Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit
Development Permit, Site Development Plan, Condominium Permit, Hillside
Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit to subdivide, grade, and develop
82.20 acres, creating 238 single family lots, two open space lots, four recreation lots,
one recreational vehicle storage lot and a 24 unit, for-sale condominium project,
affordable to lower-income households.
LOCATION:
of Poinsettia Lane, between Aviara Parkway and Snapdragon Drive, in Local Facilities
Management Zone 20.
Request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring
This project is within the City of Carlsbad’s Coastal Zone located north and south
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER: 214-14044
APPLICANT : Standard Pacific Corporation
9335 Chesapeake Drive
San Diego, CA 92123
A public hearing on the above proposed project will be held by the Carlsbad City
Council in the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, on
Tuesday, February 5,2002 at 6:OO p.m.
Persons are cordially invited to attend the public hearing and provide the decision
makers with any oral or written comments they may have regarding the project, The
project will be described and a staff recommendation given, followed by public
testimony, questions and a decision. Copies of the staff report will be available on or
after Friday, February 1, 2002.
If you have any questions, or would like to be notified of the decision, please contact
Mike Grim at the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, Monday through Thursday 7:30
a.m. to 530 p.m., Friday 8:OO a.m. to 300 p.m. at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad,
California 92008, (760) 602-4623.
Appeals
The time within which you may judicially challenge Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Zone Change, Local Coastal Program
Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development Permit, Condominium
Permit, Site Development Plan, Hillside Development Permit and Coastal Development
Permit if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short.
If you challenge the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, Zone Change, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Tentative Tract Map,
Planned Unit Development Permit, Condominium Permit, Site Development Plan,
Hillside Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit in court, you may be
limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad,
Attn: City Clerk's Office, prior to or at the public hearing.
1. Appeals to the City Council: Where the decision is appealable to the City
Council, appeals must be filed in writing within ten (IO) calendar days after a
decision by the Planning Commission.
2. Coastal Commission Appealable Project Id This site is located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area.
This site is not located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area.
Where the decision is appealable to the Coastal Commission, appeals must be filed
with the Coastal Commission within ten (IO) working days after the Coastal Commission
has received a Notice of Final Action from the City of Carlsbad. Applicants will be
notified by the Coastal Commission of the date that their appeal period will conclude.
The San Diego Office of the Coastal Commission is located at 7575 Metropolitan Drive,
Suite 103, san Diego, California 92108-4402.
CASE FILE: ZC 98-08/LCPA 98-04/CT 98-14/PUD 98-05/CP 00-02/SDP 99-
O6/HDP 98-15/CDP 98-68
CASE NAME: THOMPSONmABATA
PUBLISH: FRIDAY, JANUARY 25,2002
THOMPSONITABATA
ZC 98-081LCPA 98-041CT 98-1 4/PUD 98-03
CP OO-OZ/SDP 99-06/HDP 98-1 5/CDP 98-68
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the above-
entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the
printer of
North County Times Proof of Publication of Notice of Public Hearing
Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers
adjudicated newspapers of general circ
the Superior Court of the County of I
State of California, for the County of 5
that the notice of which the annexed i!
copy (set in type not smaller than nonr
been published in each regular and enti
on the following dates, to-wit:
said newspaper and not in any supplemt
January 25, 2002
hi-
;a] ul
;a
ii ,a.
re
er
I certify (or declare) under penalty of p
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at
San Marcos
25th
Januarv. 2002
Legal Advertising
~
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
DESCRIPTION: Request for a proval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Mitigation
Program Amendment to chan e 4041 acres of the subdlvlsm from Monitoring and)Reparting Program: a Zone Change and Local Coastal
Limited Contmi (LC) to Resifeential' Multiple-Density with 'a' Qualified Development Overlay Zone (RD-M-0) and to change 41.79 acres irom
Overlay Zone (R-t-Q): and a Tentative Tract Ma , Planned Unit Development Permit. Site LimBed COntrOi (L-C) to One Family Residential with a Qualified Dsvebpment
Dmlopmeni Plan, Condominium Permit. Hilklde Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit to Subdivide, grade, and dwebp 82.20 acres, creating 288 sin le family lots. two open space lots, four recreation lots, one wcreationai vehicle storage%t and a 24 unit, for-sale condominium project. allordaMe to lower-incame households.
This project is whin the City of Carlsbaffs Coastal Zone located north and south 01 LOCATION:
Management Zone 20. Poimenla Lana. between Aviara Parkway and Snapdragon Drive. In Local Faciiities
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 214.14044
APPLICANT Standard Pacific COrporlltiDn
9335 Chesapeake Drlve Son DWo, CA 9217.3
A public hearin on me above proposed pro'ect will be held by the Carlsbad City Council in the Council 8!hamberS, 1200 Carlsbad Vi11age Drive. Carlsbad. California. on Tuesday, February 5. 2W2 at 6:W p.m.
Persans are cordially invited to anend the public hearing aid pmvide me decision makers with any oral or wrmen mmments they may have regarding me project. The project will be desoribed and a stall recommendanon given. followed by public testimony. questions and a decision. Copies of the stall report will be availaMe on or aner Friday. February 1, 2002.
If PU haw any quesions or would like to be notified of the decision please contact Mike Grim at the ci at Carlsbad Planning Department, MDnday thrmgh ihursday 7:30 a.m. to 5.30 P.m.. F& 6:W a.m. IO 5:OO p.m. at 1635 Faraday Avenue. Carlsbad, California 92008. (760) 602-4823.
APPEALS
The time wbhin which pu may judicially challenge Mitigated Negative Oeclaralim. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Pmgram, Zone Change. Local Coastal Program Amendment, Tentative Traet Map, Planned Unit Development Permit, Condominium Permit. Site DBYeiopment Plan, Hillside Development Permit and Coast81 Development
chailenge the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Permit if approved, is established by staie law andlor city ordinance, and IS very short. 11
rogram. Zone Change. Local CoastBI Pmgram Amendment. Tentative Tract Map. Planned Unit Developmani Permit. Condominium Permit, Site Development Pian, Hillside
raising Only ihose issues you or someone else raised at the uMic hearing described in Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit in coup1. you may be limited to
this notice, or in wnnen carrespondencedelivered to the CHy o?CPCarlsbad, Ann:clty Clerks Onice. prior to or at the public hearlng,
1. Appeabto the City Councii: where the decision is appeelaMe to me city Councr, appealamun be filed in writing within ten (10) calendar days after a decision by the Planning Commission.
This site is located within the Coastal Zone
TI' A pealable Area.
IS site is not locaied within the Coastai Zone Appealable Area.
Where the demon is appealable to me Coastal Commission, ap eals must be filed with the Coastal Cornmisston w,ilin ten (10) working days aner the Coastal CmmiSSiOn has received a Notice of Final kction fmm lhe City of Carisbad. Applicants will be lotiiied by the Coastal Commission of the date that
%/&%%&¶ai Commission ie located at 7595 rind will mnciude. The San Die o
Mstmpolllan Drive, Suite 103. San Diego. California 32t08-4402.
2ASE FILE: ZC 98-081LCPA 98-MICT g8-14PUD 36051CP 00-021SDP 99-06MDP 96-151CDP 98-68
JSE NAME:THOMPSONKABATA 8
.%a1 72071. January 25,2002
2. CoasIaI Commlssm Appealable Project
9- 5-u a
by?./e*IL 6 - Remarks to the Carlsbad City Council on the Thompson-Tabata Subdivision
February 5, 2002
b/3 ib,539
Renata Breisacher Mulry
Everything here is business, not personal. I'm confident that this group is
considering it as such.
Today's agenda, posted on your Web site, says you welcome our
participation. I'm taking you up on your offer.
There are serious flaws in ethics, planning, and process, which have to be
considered in detail, which the report in front of you either distorts or
omits,
The very fact that no EIR has been produced for this project raises all
the red flags. A negative declaration is simply insufficient for a project of
this size, asking, for example, for zone changes, road openings, and massive
grading.
I ask a basic question: if an EIR is not necessary for this, then when is it
necessary?
Your planning process is completely arbitrary, politically driven. That's why
right now, for the project east of El Camino, you have a massive lawsuit on
your hands.
The objections of Vista Pacifica to the opening of Alyssum have nothing to
do with growth. If there had been no growth, I couldn't live in my home in a
nice community, well maintained through our considerable expense and
effort, and saving Carlsbad thousands in blight prevention and other public
services.
No, our objections have everything to do with planning.
There is no valid reason to extend Alyssum. Standard Pacific has not
asked for it. Traffic engineers have not asked for it. Fire and Police have
. .
not asked for it. No other community has asked for it. We have maintained
that cul-de-sac since the project opened, from the stucco wall to full
landscaping.
Obviously, the decision to open Alyssum stems rather from personal bias and
wishes, which have no place in the planning process.
At the beginning of the planning for this project, Standard Pacific, being
forced to place inclusionary housing on-site, contrary to other upscale
communities in Carlsbad, had assigned this attached housing to the north
side of Poinsettia, adjacent to Las Playas, which is all attached housing.
However, homeowners in Mariners' Point project, north of Poinsettia, hired
legal counsel. One letter was sent to the city, and the location of these
units was promptly shifted to the south side of Poinsettia, adjacent to us.
There was nothing open or logical about this shift in location. Rather, we
consider it to be political pressure by a perhaps more affluent group to
remove any threat of lower-priced housing in its neighborhood, possibly
degrading property values. Their action is entirely understandable for them,
but not for you. Obviously, the city has acquiesced completely to one
NIMBY group.
This means that the City now has to accommodate all other NIMBY groups.
To do otherwise would really be arbitrary and biased. Bias, I believe, is
illegal.
I have lived in Vista Pacifica for ten years. Our community offers housing at
many income levels because of the different house sizes available.
Communities such as ours are the backbone of this city.
We ask, therefore, that you agree with our reasonable and proven position
and maintain the integrity of our geographical boundaries.
Opening up Alyssum would result in serious, irrevocable disruptions in our
community. We deserve better.
Renata Brcisacher Muliy
7010 Nutmeg Way
Carlsbad, CA 92oW-3951
(760) 929"
bwen~ss@com~servr.com