The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1996-02-08; Housing Commission; ; LCPA 95-09|ZC 93-04|CT 93-09|SDP 93-07|HDP 93-09 - OCEAN BLUFF AFFORDABLE HOUSING- EXHIBIT 8 T~I Cm 01 C- Ewenrc & Ram~~~~rar ~DABTMQW A REPORT TO TEE HOUSING COMMISSION Item No. 1 Staff Evan E. Becket & Housing & Redevelopment Director DATE: FEBRUARY 8,1% SUBJECT: OCEAN BLUFF AFFORDABLE HOUSING - LCPA 95-09/ZC 93-04/CT 93- WSDP 93-MMDP 93-09 - Request for recommendation of approval of a 16-unit affordable apartment project satisfying the affordable housing obligation of the project known as Ocean Bluff. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Housing Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 96-001, recommending APPROVAL of 16 affordable apartment units (SDP 93-07) within the Ocean Bluff project in order to satisfy an affordable housing obligation under the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. II. BACKGROUND On December 20, 1995, the applicant, Ocean Bluff Partnership, received a recommendation for approval from the Planning Commission for a Tentative Tract Map, Local Coastal Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Plan and Hillside Development Permit to subdivide a 3 1.2 acre parcel into 92 standard single-family lots, one open space lot and one multiple-family lot with 16 affordable apartment units. The affordable project, as shown in the Site Development Plan included in the Planning Commission Staff Report (Exhibit 3), is proposed to satisfy the inclusionary housing requirement of the Ocean Bluff project. The developer’s 15% inclusionary requirement is 16.24 dwelling units, which according to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, must include two (2), three-bedroom units. The fractional unit may be satisfied by payment of the appropriate fractional amount of the In-lieu Fee established by the Inclusionary Ordinance. The proposed affordable apartments include ten (10) one-bedroom, four (4) two-bedroom, and ,as required, two (2) three-bedroom units. Rents would be affordable to households earning between 50% and 80% of the Area Median Income. As proposed, the project will meet the developer’s obligation under the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. OCEAN BLUFF PAGE 2 LCPA 95-09/ZC 93-04/CT 93-09/SDP 93-07/HDP 93-09 III. APPLICANT/DEVELOPMENT TEAM INFORMATION The development team for the proposed project is as follows: Applicant: Ocean Bluff Partnership (Also see disclosure statement included in Exhibit 3) Developer: Ocean Bluff Partnership Landscape Architect: ADL Planning Associates Engineering: Hunsaker and Associates Project Consultant/ Manager: Jack Henthorn and Associates IV. AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJ" LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The project site is generally located at the northwest comer of the future Poinsettia Lane and Blackrail Court in the Zone 20 Specific Plan area and Local Facilities Management Zone. The affordable project is located in the southwestern comer of the site in proximity to Poinsettia Lane; a major circulation arterial. The project will create access to Poinsettia Lane as an off-site improvement. The site is surrounded by rural residential and agricultural uses. The affordable apartments will consist of ten (10) one-bedroom units of approximately 660 square feet; four (4) two-bedroom units of approximately 885 square feet; and two (2) three- bedroom units of approximately 1050 square feet. The units are located in two, two-story multi- family structures. The affordable project includes a recreation area of 3200 square feet of multi-purpose play area. The project is in close proximity to major employment opportunities in the Palomar industrial/office corridor. The Aviara Oaks Elementary School is approximately one mile from the site and the planned Aviara Park is within approximately 1/2 mile. Commercial services are located approximately one mile from the site at Alga Road and El Cam;- rial. OCEAN BLUFF PAGE 3 LCPA 95-09/ZC 93-04/CT 93-09/SDP 93-07/HDP 93-09 1 2 3 TOTAL V. PROJECTAFFORDABILITY 10 $456 5 50% AMI* 4 $527 550% AMI 2 $591 5 50% AMI 16 The applicant has presented a financial proforma which indicates the following rent and affordability levels: As the above table indicates, the proforma rent levels are significantly below the inclusionary low-income requirement which is based on 80% of median income. The applicant has prepared a summarized development cost proforma which uses the above affordable rent structure and other assumptions regarding construction, financing and operating costs in order to estimate the financing "gap", Le. that amount of subsidy necessary to make the project feasible with affordable rents. While they are preliminary, the applicant's estimates and assumptions appear reasonable. At a total project cost of approximately $86,000/unit, the proforma estimates a subsidy requirement of approximately $55,000/unit. These results are reasonably consistent with the City's experience with actual projects and its study of protypical affordable projects. The financial information presented at this time only indicates that the applicant has a reasonable understanding of what will be required to develop the project. The applicant has identified no specific financing sources or commitments and no developer of the affordable housing project has been identified; therefore, it is not possible to make any assessment af project feasibility. OCEAN BLUFF PAGE 4 LCPA 95-09/ZC 93-04/CT 93-09/SDP 93-07/HDP 93-09 No financial assistance is being requested at this time, but this does not rule out a request at a later date. The applicant has requested, and the Planning Commission is recommending, an overall density increase of 11.8% in order to accommodate the 16 affordable units. This incentive for affordable housing is consistent with the City’s General Plan. The applicant’s proforma of the proposed affordable project adequately demonstrates the need for this incentive for economic reasons. VII. AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT Prior to final map approval, the developer will be required to enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement according to the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. This agreement will establish the exact timing of project development and other specifics about the project which are legally recorded against the property. Vm. HOUSING ELEMENT CONSISTENCY The proposed project is consistent with the policies and programs of the Housing Element, Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and the Zone 20 Specific Plan affordable housing requirements. The rental apartments, affordable at 50% of Area Median Income, would rank “High Priority” according to the City’s Consolidated Plan which is required by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Construction of these units with rental restrictions would count toward the City’s Housing Element production goals. Ix. SUMMARY It is the role of the Housing Commission to make recommendations to the City Council based on several considerations with respect to proposed affordable housing projects-- these are: 0 The proposal’s effectiveness in serving the City’s housing ne& and priorities as expressed in the Housing Element and HUD Consolidated Plan. o The proposal’s consistency with the City’s Mordable horcsing policies and ordimes, as expressed in the Housing Element, Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, Density Bonus Ordinance, etc. 0 The proposal’s &velopmentand operating feaibiliw, emphasizing the development team, financing sources and the role of the City (if any) in providine f: qcial assistance or incentives. OCEAN BLUFF PAGE 5 LCPA 95-09/ZC 93-04/CT 93-09/SDP 93-07/HDP 93-09 As proposed, the project would address established City affordable housing needs in a manner that is consistent with applicable City policies and ordinances. Subject to the condition contained in the recommended approvals from the Planning Commission that requires the developer to enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City prior to final map approval, staff recommends that the Housing Commission recommend this project to City Council. This recommendation concerns only the applicant’s proposal to provide an affordable housing project on site. The Planning Commission recommendation also includes conditions that permit the option of satisfying the affordable housing obligation off-site. Pursuing an off-site option would require the developer to process a request for approval through staff, the Housing Commission and City Council as the final decision maker. EXHIBITS: 1. 2. Housing Commission Review Application 3. Housing Commission Resolution No. 96-001 Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated December 20, 1995 wlattachments EBlar 1/25/96 ^ lie Oy rf CirkbaJ Hantag fcyvtant ^ A REPORT TO THE PLANIW COMMISSION Item No. (2 P.C. AGENDA OF: December 20, 1995 Application complete date: September 10, 1993 Project Planner Anne Hysong Project Engineer Jim Davis SUBJECT: LCPA 95-09/ZC 93-04/CT 93-09/SDP 93-07/HDP 93-09 - OCEAN BLUFF - Request for a Local Coastal Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan and Hillside Development Permit to rezone from L-C to R-l a vacant, 31.2 acre site and subdivide 92 single family lots and one multiple family lot with 16 affordable apartment units on property generally located at the northwest corner of future Poinsettia Lane and Blackrail Court in the Zone 20 Specific Plan area and Local Facilities Management Zone. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3867, 3868, 3869, 3870, 3871 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of LCPA 95-09, ZC 93-04, CT 93-09, SDP 93-07, and HDP 93-09 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. INTRODUCTION The applicant is requesting approval of various permits to subdivide and grade the 31.2 acre hillside parcel into 92 standard single family lots, one open space lot, and one multiple family lot with 16 affordable apartment units to satisfy the project's inclusionary housing requirement. As designed and conditioned, the project is in compliance with the General Plan, Zone 20 Specific Plan, Mello II LCP, the Subdivision Ordinance, and the relevant Zoning Chapters of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The Ocean Bluff project is located within the boundaries of Area C of the Zone 20 Specific Plan and the Mello II segment of Carlsbad's Local Coastal Program (LCP). The site is designated RLM by the General Plan allowing low-medium residential density (0-4 dwelling units/acre) and is zoned L-C allowing agricultural uses. The project consists of 16 affordable units and 92 single family lots resulting in a proposed project density of 3.6 dwelling units per acre which exceeds the RLM growth control point of 3.2 dwelling units per acre; therefore, the project requires approval of a site development plan for a 11.8% density increase. The proposed subdivision of the Ocean Bluff parcel into residential lots requires approval of a Local Coastal Plan Amendment and Zone Change to the R-l single family zone. LCPA 95-09/ZC 93-O4/Ca 93-09/SDP 9347/HDP 93-09 - OClkt'J BLUFF DECEMBER 20,1995 PAGE 2 The site consists of approximately 31 acres of vacant, previously cultivated land which is surrounded by rural residential and agricultural properties. Although the parcel rises in elevation approximately 100 feet from west to east and contains a north-south trending ridge in the eastern third of the property, the majority of the parcel is relatively flat with slopes less than 15%. A 3 acre, steep sided ravine located at the northwestern corner consists of +25% slopes containing southern mixed chaparral. The ravine, identified as Open Space Lot "A" on Exhibit "A", will be dedicated as permanent open space and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. The site conditions described above require compliance with the Hillside Development Ordinance development guidelines regulating grading and architecture, however, architectural elevations are not included as part of the project at this time. The proposed grading design preserves ocean and backcountry views and consists of balanced grading to create terraced hillside lots which generally follow the existing topography, Le., rising in elevation from west to east to the ridge line. The proposed single family lots are a minimum of 7,500 square feet in area and the multiple family lot containing a proposed 16 unit affordable apartment project is 34,410 square feet. The affordable project is located in the southwestern comer of the site in proximity to Poinsettia Lane, a major circulation arterial. As shown on Exhibits "A-F', since the project does not front on an existing public street, access to the parcel will be provided by offsite improvements which include Street "A" from the project's southwestem boundary to future Poinsettia Lane, Poinsettia Lane between its current easterly terminus and Street "A", and Blackrail Court from its northerly terminus to the northeast corner of the project. The project's proposed circulation design will also provide public street access to all adjoining properties. The provision of the necessary offsite improvements, i.e. Poinsettia Lane and Street "A" will result in impacts to approximately 4 acres of coastal sage habitat and one pair of California gnatcatchers. The proposed 4 acre coastal sage habitat take area is located within Preserve Planning Area 4 of Carlsbad's draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP) containing approximately 84 acres of coastal sage scrub and 38 acres of chaparral habitat within its core area. The Ocean Bluff project is subject to the following land use plans, policies, programs, and zoning regulations: A. General Plan B. Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 203) C. Mello I1 Local coastal Program: (1) LCP Amendment (2) LCP Regulations D. Inclusionary Housing (Chapters 21.85 and 21.53 of the Zoning Ordinance) E. Hillside Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.95 of the Zoning Ordinance) fl - LCPA 95-09/ZC 93-04/C1 93-09/SDP 93-07/HDP 93-09 - OCEA'J BLUFF DECEMBER 20,1995 PAGE 3 F. G. H. Draft Habitat Management Plan Growth Management Ordinance (Chapter 21.90 of the Zoning Ordinance) Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Me) Iv. ANALYSIS The recommendation of approval for 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. Generalplan The Ocean Bluff project is consistent with the applicable policies and programs of the General Plan. Particularly relevant to the proposed single family and integrated affordable multi-family project abutting a major circulation arterial roadway which the project will be conditioned to construct are the Land Use, Circulation, Noise, Housing, and Open Space and Conservation Elements of the General Plan. Element Land Use or Program Improvements ~~ RLM (0-4 Dwelling Units/Acre) GCP (3.2 Dwelling UnitdAcre)* Urban, low medium density residential development in which a variety of housing types may be allowed within the density range. Project is single family and multiple family at a density of 3.6 dwelling unitdame. Yes Encourage the provision of low income dwelling units to meet the objectives of the Housing Element. Project includes a 16 unit affordable apartment project. Yes Allow density increases above the maximum residential densities permitted by the General Plan (Growth Control Point) to enable the development of low income housing ...... which is compatible with adjacent land uses and in close proximity to a major roadway. Project proposes a 11.8% density increase to enable the provision of a 16 unit affordable housing project located in proximity to future Poinsettia Lane and compatible in scale with proposed single family development in that the two two-story structures result in only 23.6% coverage of the 34,410 square foot lot and setbacks are consistent with single family front, side, and rear yard setback requirements. Yes /h I LCPA 95-09/ZC 93-04/C1 93-09/SDP 93-07/HDP 93-09 - OCEtN BLUFF DECEMBER 20,1995 PAGE 4 Element 3ousing ~ 3pen Space Use Classification, God, Objective, or Program Ensure that all hillside development is designed to preserve the visual quality of the preexisting toPograPhY* Permit the approval of discretionary actions and the development of land only after adequate provision has been made for public facilities and services in accordance with Growth Management public facility performance standards. Ensure that master planned and specific planned communities and all qualified subdivisions provide a range of housing for all economic income ranges. A minimum of fifteen percent of all units approved for residential specific plans shall be affordable to lower income house holds. Recognize and implement the policies of the California Coastal Act and the Carlsbad Local Coastal Pr0gl.a.m. Protect rare, threatened or endangered plant and animal communities. Proposed Uses and/or Improvements The proposed grading design is terraced from west to east consistent with existing t0PofPPhY The project is conditioned to construct/install all public facilities necessary to serve the subdivision and citywide and quadrant wide public facilities are adequate in Zone 20 to satisfy the additional demand; therefore the project is consistent with the Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan. Project includes a 16 unit affordable apartment project to satisfy its 15% inciusionary housing requirement. Project is consistent with the Mello I1 LCP segment in that 25%+ slopes possessing chaparral plant communities (dual criterion) are preserved except for the Poinsettia Lane major circulation arterial roadway which is exempted from the "dual criterion" restriction by the Mello I1 LCP. The proposed alignment of Poinsettia Lane and Street "A" will disturb approximately 4 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat and a single pair of California gnatcatchers, however, mitigation at a 21 replacement ratio in the Carlsbad Highlands mitigation bank is a condition of approval. compliance Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes LCPA 95-09/ZC 93-O4/C1 93-09/SDP 93-07/HDP 93-09 - OCEAN BLUFF' DECEMBER 20,1995 PAGE 5 or Program Improvements Minimize impacts from new development on hillsides. Obtain an irrevocable offer to dedicate a permanent easement for trailways where trails are required as part of the Carlsbad Trail System. Require new development to construct all roadways necessary to serve the proposed development prior to or concurrent with needs. The majority of the project site is relatively flat, however, slopes exceeding 25% will not be disturbed and proposed grading will follow the natural land contour. Project is conditioned to require an irrevocable offer of dedication for trail segment along Poinsettia Lane. Project is conditioned to complete all street improvements prior to occupancy of any unit. 60 dBA CNEL is the exterior noise level and 45 dBA CNEL is the interior noise level to which all residential units should be mitigated. Project provides mitigation to reduce noise levels to 60 dBA within the usable yard area of lots abutting Poinsettia Lane and project is conditioned to require compliance with the 45 dBA interior noise standard. Compliance Yes Yes Yes Yes * Project density exceeds the Growth Management Growth Control Point, however, a density increase is being processed and required findings have been made (see the following discussion under Affordable Housing and Inclusionary Housing). B. Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 203) The Zone 20 Specific Plan requires project compliance with all applicable land use plans, policies, and ordinances, except as modified by the Specific Plan. The following discussion describes the proposed project's conformance with the relevant Specific Plan regulations which include Affordable Housing, Land Use (General Plan, Zoning, Development Standards, and the Mello I1 LCP), and Open Space Preservation. Affordable Housing The Zone 20 Specific Plan requires consistency with the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requiring that 15% of the total number of proposed units are made affordable to low income households. When feasible and compatible with surrounding land uses, the affordable units are required to be built onsite, unless an offsite contribution of units is approved by the City Council upon a showing by the developer that an onsite contribution is not appropriate for the particular LCPA 95-09/2C 93-04/C1 93-09/SDP 93-07/HDP 93-09 - OCEAN BLUFF DECEMBER 20, 1995 PAGE 6 development. To enable the higher densities necessary for affordable projects, the Specific Plan permits modification or waiver of development standards including increases in density to be accommodated through the Site Development Plan process. The project's 15% inclusionary requirement is 16.24 dwelling units. The proposed project includes a request for approval of a site development plan for a 16 unit affordable apartment project located on Lot 93 in the southwest corner of the site to satisfy this requirement. The overall project density permitted is 96.6 dwelling units, however, a total of 108 dwelling units (92 single family and 16 multi-family dwellings) are requested. The project therefore requires a density increase above the density allowed using the Growth Control Point (3.2 ddacre) for the overall site to enable the provision of 16 onsite affordable housing units. In accordance with the Zone 20 Specific Plan, the average density proposed for both the affordable and single family lots is 3.6 dwelling units per acre which would exceed the growth control point but is within the RLM General Plan range of 0 - 4 dwelling units per acre. The density increase is the only incentive requested by the applicant under the provisions of Chapter 21.53.120 for affordable projects requesting approval of a site development plan. The necessary findings that: 1) no adverse impacts to the surrounding area will result from the project; 2) the project will be compatible with surrounding land uses; 3) the lot and traffic circulation are adequate to serve the project; and 4) the necessary design features are provided, can be made and are provided in the following discussion. A project proforma providing justification for the density increase has been reviewed and verified by the Housing and Redevelopment Director and the proposed density increases will require Housing commission and City Council approval. The project is located in the southwestern corner of the site in proximity to future Poinsettia Lane, a major circulation arterial. As shown on Exhibit "H", the affordable project consists of two relatively small multi-family structures, one containing 10 units and the other containing 6 units (2 three bedroom units), which are compatible in scale with future single family dwellings. The Zone 20 Specific Plan requires affordable projects to be consistent with RD-M standards and the proposed setbacks and coverage are consistent with these standards (see Land Use discussion). In addition, the project will provide 200 square feet per unit of private and common recreation area. In accordance with the Parking Ordinance standard for multi-family units, thirty-four (34) parking spaces are provided onsite, and ingress and egress to the site is provided from non-loaded Street "A" thereby reducing traffic flow through the single family subdivision. The project site is currently not served by a public road and surrounding uses are limited to agricultural and residential dwellings. The 16 unit apartment project will not be detrimental to surrounding residential uses since all public facilities, including the construction of Poinsettia Lane and Blackrail Court, necessary to serve the project will be constructed to the site. A 25' separation between the nearest residential units and agricultural fields, and intervening 6' walls will mitigate potential conflicts between residential and agricultural uses. LCPA 95-09/ZC 93-04/C1 93-09/SDP 93-07/HDP 93-09 - OCEnN BLUFF DECEMBER 20,1995 PAGE 7 The proposed density increase is in accordance with General Plan Housing Policy 3.8 regarding excess dwelling unit allocation, since it is requested to accommodate the development of affordable housing, and the findings required to exceed the Growth Control Point can be made, in accordance with Chapter 21.90.045 of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed 11.4 dwelling unit increase would be available to be withdrawn from the City's excess dwelling unit "bank" without exceeding the Citywide or southwest quadrant dwelling unit and population buildout caps. The applicant will be conditioned to provide all necessary public facilities to serve the additional units and the project is consistent with the Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan ensuring the adequacy of public facilities. Land Use The project is located within Area C of the Specific Plan. Properties within this area are designated for Residential Low-Medium (RLM) density development by the General Plan. Planning Area C is currently zoned L-C and according to the Zone 20 Specific Plan, the appropriate zoning for these properties is the R-1 Zone. Therefore, zone changes must be processed prior to or concurrent with development proposals. The R-1 zone allows for single family detached homes and associated structures, however, the Specific Plan also allows multi-family affordable housing structures developed in accordance with the RD-M development standards to be located in the R-1 zone subject to site development plan approval. Accordingly, this project includes an application for a Zone Change from the GC Zone to the R-1 Zone. This zone change is consistent with both the RLM General Plan designation and the Zone 20 Specific Plan development provisions for Area C. The Zone 20 Specific Plan Area C development regulations include architectural design criteria and require consistency with the Landscape and Scenic Corridor Guidelines. Since architecture for the single family units is not proposed by the applicant, the project has been conditioned to require Planning Commission approval of architectural elevations through an amendment to the Hillside Development Permit (HDP). The HDP amendment shall be required to demonstrate consistency with both the City's Hillside Ordinance architectural guidelines and the Zone 20 Specific Plan architectural design criteria. As shown on Exhibits "J - L", the conceptual landscape design is consistent with the Zone 20 Specific Plan, Scenic Corridor Guidelines, and the City's Landscape Design Manual. As shown on the following table, the project meets or exceeds the R-1 (single family) zone standards as modified by the Specific Plan, and the RD-M zone (multi-family) development standards as required by the Zone 20 Specific Plan. LCPA 95-09/ZC 93-O4/C1 93-09/SDP 93-07/HDP 93-09 - OCEiN BLUFF DECEMBER 20,1995 PAGE 8 I Zone I Applicable Development Standards I Provided R-1 Single Family Use: Single Family LotsKJnits; Affordable Multi-Family Lots/units 92 Single Family Lots, 1 Open Space Lot, and 1 Multi-Family Lot 7,510 - 12,910 square I feet (single family) Lot Area: Minimum 7,500 square I feet 160' I Lot Width: 60' ~~ RD-M - use: single/MultippTi Dwellings 16 multifs Residential affordable apartment Zone Density Multiple Units Lot Area: Minimum 7,500 sq.ft. 34,410 square feet I Coverage: 50% 123.6% I Lot Width: 60' I 119' I Building Height: 35' I 29' Setbacks: Front - 20' Front - 28' Side - 5' (Interior) Side - 12' Side - 22' Rear - 10' Rear - 19' 10' (Street Side) Open SDace Preservation The project is consistent with the Open Space provisions of the Zone 20 Specific Plan in that Parcel "A" steep slopes possessing chaparral habitat will be preserved in open space, slopes exceeding 40% will not be developed, mitigation measures that establish a physical barrier between residential and agricultural uses are imposed by condition, and a 50' landscaped setback along the northern side of the portion of Poinsettia Lane that the project is conditioned to construct will be preserved as permanent open space. Mello I1 Local Coastal Program See the discussion under item C below. C1. Mello I1 Local Coastal Program Amendment The project is located within and subject to the Mello I1 Local Coastal Program segment and is designated for residential low-medium density (RLM) land use and Limited Control (L-C) zoning. Although the Mello I1 Land Use Plan is consistent with the subject parcel's RLM General Plan designation, the implementing zone (G C) specified by the Mello I1 LCP is not consistent with the proposed zone change to LCPA 95-09/ZC 93-O4/Cl 93-09/!3DP 93-07/HDP 93-09 - OCEriN BLUFF DECEMBER 20,1995 PAGE 9 R-1. Since the California Coastal Act specifies that all rezonings related to land use regulation or administration within the coastal zone, which occur after the certification of a local government's local coastal program, require a LCP amendment in order to be effective, the project includes a Local Coastal Program Amendment to change the implementing zone from LC to R-1 for the Ocean Bluff parcel. C2. Development Regulations The project is consistent with Mello I1 LCP policies addressing steep slopes (W%+) possessing chaparral plant communities since the proposed grading avoids8the only onsite area with slopes in excess of 15%. This area (Parcel A) does contain chaparral plant communities and will be preserved in open space by easement. Some coastal sage scrub on steep slopes will be disturbed by the offsite Poinsettia Lane extension, however, Mello I1 exempts City Circulation Element roadways from this policy. The project will be conditioned to provide adequate drainage, siltation and erosion control facilities as part of the approved grading permit, and the grading operation will be limited to the summer construction season, April 1 to October 1. The project contains vacant non-prime agricultural land containing Class I11 soils and is located in the Coastal Agricultural Overlay Zone (Site 111). The Mello II LCP requires mitigation when non-prime coastal agricultural land is converted to urban uses. The project will therefore be conditioned to pay an "Agricultural Conversion Mitigation Fee". D. lnclusionary Housing (Chapters 21.85 and 21.53 of the Zoning Ordinance) As specified in the above discussion under B, Zone 20 Specific Plan - Affordable Housing, the project is subject to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requiring that a minimum of fifteen percent of all approved residential units in any specific plan be restricted to and affordable by lower income households. In accordance with the ordinance, developers may apply for incentives, including requests for density increases, to offset the cost of affordable housing, however, they must submit justification for the requested incentive. Chapter 21.53.120 of the Zoning Ordinance requires the approval of a site development plan for multi-family affordable projects, and findings that the project is consistent with the underlying zoning and/or Specific Plan and in conformance with General Plan policies and goals. (See the above consistency discussion under A. General Plan and B. Specific Plan - Affordable Housing). This project complies with the Inclusionary Housing provisions of the Municipal Code (Chapter 21.85) as demonstrated below: LCPA 95-09/ZC 93-04/Ch 93-09/SDP 93-07/HDP 93-09 - OCE iN BLUFF DECEMBER 20, 1995 PAGE 10 C"ER 21.85 - INCLUSIONARY HOUSING/CHAPI'ER 2153.120 AFFORDABLE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING Standard I Inclusionary Requirements (UnitsFees) 16.24 units Location of Units II Onsite or within a I combined project 1.6 - three bedroom units Mix of Bedrooms (10% 3 BR) U I Incentives Requested 1. Density Increase 11.5% Density 2. Standards Modifications Increase 3. Direct Financial Provided I Compliance 1 Yes 16 Units + payment of the remaining .24 units Onsite on Lot 93* 2 - three bedroom units 11.5% Density Increase Yes* * * The applicant has requested the option to purchase credits in Villa Loma or participate in an offsite combined affordable project, and the project has been conditioned to require compliance with Council Policies 57 and 58 prior to City Council approval of an Affordable Housing Agreement to allow the offsite option. Concurrent with implementation of this option, the applicant will be required to process a tentative map revision to the Ocean Bluff project. ** A project proforma demonstrating that the requested density increase is necessary to achieve the affordable units was submitted to and reviewed by the Housing and Redevelopment Director. Upon completion of his review, the Housing and Redevelopment Director indicated that the proposed density increase is justified to enable the provision of affordable units. E. Hillside Development Ordinance The proposed project grading is consistent with provisions of the Hillside Ordinance requiring that undevelopable portions of the project site are identified and avoided. A steep ravine located in the northwestern corner of the site contains the only 25% + slopes and this area will be presemed through an open space easement. The project design minimizes disturbance to hillside lands through a terraced design which follows the natural topography to the greatest extent possible and retains view opportunities along the natural ridge line. Grading volumes (5,290 cy/acre) are within the acceptable range and manufactured slopes are contoured and/or less than 30' in height in accordance with the ordinance. Since architectural exhibits were not submitted with the Hillside Development Permit application, the project will be conditioned to require Planning Commission approval of a Hillside Development Permit amendment prior to the issuance of building permits to ensure that architecture is consistent with both the Hillside Development Architectural Guidelines and the Specific Plan Architectural Standards. (In order to facilitate the LCPA 95-09/ZC 93-04/Cl 93-09/SDP 93-07/HDP 93-09 - OCEA'J BLUFF DECEMBER 20,1995 PAGE 11 review/approval process, staff is recommending that the City council delegate its authority as the final decision maker to the Planning Commission). F. Growth Management Ordinance The proposed project is a residential project located within Local Facilities Management Zone 20 in the southwest quadrant. The project, including the affordable housing units, is 11.4 dwelling units above the Growth Management dwelling unit allowance of 96.6 units, however, sufficient excess dwelling units exist within the quadrant to avoid exceeding the Quadrant 3 or Citywide dwelling unit cap. Even with this density increase, all public facilities necessary to serve this project are either already in place or will be provided through conditions of approval placed on the project. The impacts on public facilities created by this project and compliance with the adopted performance standards are summarized as follows: Standard I Impacts I Compliance 11 City Administration I 375.5 square feet I Yes I 200.25 square feet I Yes Waste Water Treatment 108 EDU Yes Parks 0.75 acres Yes Drainage N/A Yes Circulation 1,016 ADT Yes Fire Station No. 4 Yes Open Space 3.6 acres Yes Yes I 123,760 GPD I Yes G. Subdivision Ordinance The Carlsbad Municipal Code requires a subdivision map to be filed in accordance with Title 20 for any subdivision project. Accordingly, a tentative map is being processed with standard single family lots and one multiple family lot including all necessary public streets required to serve the project. As conditioned, the project would provide all necessary improvements and all of the findings required by Title 20 can be made and are contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3869, dated December 20,1995. LCPA 95-09/ZC 93-04/Cl 93-09/SDP 93-07/€IDP 93-09 - OCEAN BLUFF DECEMBER 20, 1995 PAGE 12 H. Draft Habitat Management Pian (HMP) The offsite Poinsettia Lane and Street "A" alignments are consistent with the approved Zone 20 Specific Plan biological mitigation and open space preservation and the coastal sage scrub habitat loss is consistent with the HMP as follows: 1. The construction of Poinsettia Lane and Street "A" will not preclude connectivity between Preserve Planning Areas (PPAs) since they are not located within a PPA core area, and are not a part of a Linkage Planning Area. If feasible, the construction of a roadway culvert under Poinsettia Lane within the SDG&E easement, which is preserved as open space, may facilitate dispersal and movement of wildlife between core areas in PPAs 4 and 5. 2. The habitat loss will not preclude or prevent the preparation of the Carlsbad HMP in that the area is not a part of a PPA core area or Linkage Planning Area. 3. Mitigation for the loss of the 4 acres of coastal sage scrub will be in the form of the acquisition of habitat credits at a 2:l ratio within PPA 2 (Carlsbad Highlands Mitigation Bank) as discussed above. The loss of habitat on the Ocean Bluff property will therefore not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the gnatcatcher; 4. The habitat loss is located in a disturbed and partially disturbed canyon area which will be isolated by Poinsettia Lane, the Aviara development to the south, and continued agricultural uses to the east and west; therefore, large blocks of habitat will not be lost and fragmentation will not occur. 5. The habitat area being impacted is somewhat isolated by surrounding agricultural uses and development, and it is located within the alignment of a major circulation element roadway providing primary access to the proposed Ocean Bluff subdivision as well as other properties in the Zone 20 Specific Plan area. V. ENVIRONMENTALREVI Ew The project site is located within the boundaries of the Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 203) which covers the 640 acre Zone 20 planning area. The direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts from the future development of the Zone 20 planning areas have been discussed in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR 90-03) for the specific plan. Additional project level studies have been conducted including soils investigation, biological analysis, noise report, traffic study, and a hydrology report. These studies provide more focused and detailed project level analysis and indicate that additional environmental impacts beyond what was analyzed in Final EIR 90-03 would not result from implementation of the project. This project qualifies as subsequent development to both the Zone 20 EIR and the City's MEIR as identified in Section 21083.3 of the California Environmental LCPA 95-09/ZC 93-O4/C1 93-09/SDP 93-07/HDP 93-09 - OCEAN BLUFF DECEMBER 20, 1995 PAGE 13 Quality Act; therefore, the Planning Director issued a Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance on September 21,1995. The recommended and applicable mitigation measures of Final EIR 90-03 are included as conditions of approval for this project. Conditions include specific mitigation for impacts to coastal sage scrub habitat identified by the Zone 20 EIR along the Poinsettia Lane roadway through the purchase of credits at a 21 replacement ratio in the Carlsbad Highlands in accordance with the recommendation of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sewice. With regard to air quality and circulation impacts, the City's MEIR found that the cumulative impacts of the implementation of projects consistent with the General Plan are significant and adverse due to regional factors, therefore, the City Council adopted a statement of overriding consideration. The project is consistent with the General Plan and as to these effects, no additional environmental document is required. ATTACHMENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3867 Planning Commission Resolution No. 3868 Planning Commission Resolution No. 3869 Planning Commission Resolution No. 3870 Planning Commission Resolution No. 3871 Location Map Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance dated September 27, 1995 Environmental Impact Assessment Form, Part 11, dated September 18, 1995 Background Data Sheet Local Facilities Impact Assessment Disclosure Statement Reduced Exhibits Exhibits "A - N" dated December 20, 1995. m.kr November 22,1995 c \ OCEANBLUFF LCPA 95-09/ZC 93-04/CT 93-09/ SDP 93-07/HDP 93-09 PUBLIC NOTICE OF PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE Please Take Notice: The Planning Department has determined that the environmental effects of the project described below have already been considered in conjunction with previously certified environmental documents and, therefore, no additional environmental review will be required and a notice of determination will be filed. Project Title: LCPA 9549/2C 93-04/CT 93-09/SDP 93-07/HDP 93-09 - Ocean Bluff Project Location: South of Palomar Airport Road between El Camino Real and Paseo del Norte directly north of the terminus of Blackail Court in LFM Zone 20 and the Zone 20 Specific Plan area. Project Description: The project consists of a Local Coastal Program Amendment and zone change from L-C to the R-1 single family zone in which minimum 7,500 square foot lots are permitted, the subdivision of 92 single family lots, and one multifamily lot on a 3 1.2 acre parcel located in Planning Area C of the Zone 20 Specific Plan area. Consistent with the underlying RLM General Plan designation, the total number of units is 108 (92 sf lots and 16 apartment units) on 30.2 developable acres resulting in an overall project density of 3.6 dwelling units per acre. The 16 unit apartment project fulfills the project's inclusionary housing requirement. The project also includes offsite improvements necessary to serve the project including Street "A" from the southwest comer of the project south to the intersection of future Poinsettia Lane extension, Poinsettia Lane between the existing easterly terminus to Street "A", and Blackrail Court from its existing northerly terminus to the northeast corner of the project. Onsite grading involves 320,000 cubic yards of balanced cut and fill and results in a terraced hillside design in accordance with the Hillside Development Ordinance. Justification for this determination is on file in the Planning Department, Community Development, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public of date of publication. DATED: SEPTEMBER 21, 1995 CASE NO: are invited. Please submit comments in Writing to the Planning LCPA 9549/ZC 9344/CT 93-09/ SDP 93-07/HDP 93-09 APPLICANT OCEAN BLUFF PARTNERSHIP PUBLISH DATE: SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 MJH: AH:kc 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-1 161 @ - - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: LCPA 95-09/ZC 93-04/CT 93-09/SDP 93-07/HDP 93-09 DATE: SeDtember 18. 1995 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. CASE NAME: OCEAN BLUFF APPLICANT: OCEAN BLUFF PARTNERSHIP ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT 4180 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 30, San Diego, CA 92037 DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: August 6,1993 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of a zone change from L-C to the R-1 single family zone in which minimum 7,500 square foot lots are permitted, the subdivision of 92 single family lots, and one multifamily lot on a 31.2 acre parcel located in Planning Area C of the Zone 20 Specific Plan area. Consistent with the underlying RLM General Plan designation, the total number of units is 108 (92 single family and 16 multifamily units) on 30.2 developable acres resulting in an overall project density of 3.6 dwelling units per acre which is consistent with the underlying RLM General Plan designation. The 16 unit apartment project will fulfill the projects inclusionary housing requirement. Offsite improvements necessary to serve the project include Street "A" from the southwest corner of the project south to the intersection of future Poinsettia Lane extension, Poinsettia Lane between the existing easterly terminus to Street A, and Blackrail Road from its existing northem terminus to the northeast comer of the project. Onsite grading involves 320,000 cubic yards of balanced cut and fill and results in a terraced hillside design in accordance with the Hillside Development Ordinance. 1 Rev. 1/30/95 -SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact", or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. - X Land Use and Planning - X Transportation/Circulation - Public Services - Population and Housing - X Biological Resources - Utilities and Service Systems - Geological Problems - Jhergy and Mineral Resources X Aesthetics - Water - X AirQuality - Hazards - Cultural Resources - X Noise - Recreation - Mandatory Findings of Significance a 2 Rev. 1/30/95 -DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one 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, if the effect is a ”potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated.’’ An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/MITIGATE NEGATIVE DECLARATION is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. la / 9/22-72) Planner Signature Date 3 Rev. 1/30/95 - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved ER 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 hvolved. 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 SigNficant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explk how they reduce the effect to a less than si@icant level. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. Based on an ”EM-Part XI“, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). 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. If there are one or more potentially signifhnt effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than signifrcant, 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. 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. 4 Rev. 1/30/95 -0 An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially si@icant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the signifcant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier Em, (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 5 Rev. 1/30/95 Potentially Significant Potentially UdeSS LessThan Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues (and supporting Informatlan sources): Impact Incorporated Impact Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Sources #1 & #2) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (Source #2) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (Sources #1 & #2) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (Source #2) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? (Source #2) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (Sources #1 & #2) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (Source #2) - Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (Source #2) - 6 Rev. 1/30/95 P Issues (and supporting Infm sources): III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: Fault rupture? (Sources #2 & 3) Seismic ground shaking? (Sources #2 & 3) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (Sources #2 & 3) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (Sources #2 & 3) Landslides or mudflows? (Sources #2 & 3) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (Sources #2 & 3) Subsidence of the land? (Source #3) Expansive soils? (Source #3) Unique geologic or physical features? (Source #3) IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless LessThan Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact watt a) Changes in absarption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (Sources #1 & #4) - b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (Source #4) - 7 Rev. 1/30/95 Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (Source #1) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (Source #1) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (Source #1) Potentially SignifiCaUt Potentially UdeSS LessThan Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact hwt Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (Source #1, #3) - - Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (Source #1, #3) Impacts to groundwater quality? (Source #1, #3) - - Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater othenvise available for public water supplies? (Source #1, #3) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Sources #1 & #2) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Source #1 2) - - c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (Sources #1 & #2) - - X X - - X - X - X X - - X - X X X - d) Create objectionable odors? (Sources #1 & #2) 8 Rev. 1/30/95 rc Issues (and supporting IIlfcxInatial sources): VI. TRANSPORTATION~CIRCULA'I'ION. Would the proposal result in: Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Sources #1&#2) Potentially Significant Potentially UdeSS LessThan Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. shmp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (Source #2) - - Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (Source #2) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (Source #2) Hazards or baniers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (Source #2) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Source #2) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (Source #2) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatemd or me species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (Sources #2 & #5) - - b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (Source #2 & #5) X - X X - X - X - 9 Rev. 1/30/95 Potentially Potentially Unless LessThan Significant Significant Mitigation Significaut No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source #2 & #5) X - d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (Source #2) X - e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (Source #2 & #5) X - VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (Source #1, Section 5.12.1) X - X - b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (Source #1) 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? (Source 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? (Source #1) - - X b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source #1) X c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? (Source #1) X d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (Source #2) X - 10 Rev. 1/30/95 Issues (and suppmhg lnfonnatian sources): e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (Source #2) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: Porntially Potentially UdeSS LessThan Significaut Significant Mitigation Significaut No Impact Incorporated Impact Impac t a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Source #2 & #7) - - b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Source #7) - - XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: Fire protection? (Sources #1 & #2) - - Police protection? (Sources #1 & #2) - - Schools? (Sources #1 & #2) - - roads? (Sources #1 & #2) - - Other governmental services? (Sources #1 & #2) - - Maintenance of public facilities, including 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? (Source #1) b) Communications systems? (Source #1) X - X X - - X - 11 Rev. 1/30/95 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - - - - - Potentially significant hpact LessThan Significaut Impact X X X X X - - - - - Issue5 (and supporting Infonnatian sources): c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (Sources #1 & #2) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Sources #1 & #2) - e) Storm water drainage? (Sources #2 & #4) - f) Solid waste disposal? (Sources #1 & #2) - g) Local or regional water supplies? (Sources #1 & #2) - XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (Sources #1 & #2) X b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (Source #2) c) Create light or glare? (Source #2) XN. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: Disturb paleontological resources? (Source #2) Disturb archaeological resources? (Source #2) Affect historical resources? (Source #2) - - - Have the potential to cause a &ysical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (Source #2) - within the potential impact area? (Source #2) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses - 12 Rev. 1130495 Issues (and supporting IofQmatian Sources): Potentially significant Potentially Unless LessThan significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (Source #2) - - X - b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (Source #2) - - - - X XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wild life species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? - - b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("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) - - c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X - 13 Rev. 1/30/95 - XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 14 Rev. 1/30/95 - DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. PROJECT BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. Earlier Analyses and its applicability to project The project is part of the Zone 20 Specific Plan approved by the City Council in 1994. CEQA compliance for the specific plan was achieved through the certification of the Zone 20 Program EIR which identified, analyzed, and recommended mitigation to reduce potentially significant impacts to insignificant levels. The Zone 20 Program EIR (PEIR) analyzed potential impacts to agriculture, air quality, biology, circulation, land use, noise, pesticide residue, paleontology, public facilities financing, soils/geology, and visual aesthetics that could result from the development of the Specific Plan area. The PEN is intended to be used in the review of subsequent projects within Zone 20. The project incorporates the required Zone 20 PEIR mitigation measures, and through the aid of the required additional biological, soils/geological, noise, slope, viewshed, and cultural resource analyses, a determination has been made that no additional significant impacts beyond those identified and mitigated by the PEIR will result from this project. The following discussion of environmental evaluation briefly explains the basis for this determination along with identifying the source documents which verify the PEIR impact identification, analysis, and mitigation requirements. B. Environmental Analysis The subdivision site consists of approximately 31 acres of vacant land previously used for agricultural use and surrounded by rural residential and agricultural properties. Elevations across the site range from a high of approximately 380 feet (MSL) on a gently inclined, north-south trending ridge near the middle of the property to a low of about 280 feet(MSL) in a wide, steep-sided ravine providing natural drainage in the northwestern portion of the site. The site drains predominantly to the east and west. On-site vegetation consists of scattered clusters of trees, shrubs, and grass. The majority of the site has been cultivated in the past. The sides of the northwestern ravine are severely eroded, however, there is some vegetation present in most areas and includes southern mixed chaparral, a small pocket of chamise chaparral, and disturbed habitat with scattered southern maritime chaparral. No plant or wildlife species listed as rare, endangered, or threatened by the state of federal governments were observed on the property. Offsite improvements necessary for the project include the extension of Poinsettia Lane, Street A from the southwestern corner of the site to Poinsettia Lane, and Blackrail Road from its existing northerly terminus to the project’s northeastern boundary. The extension of Poinsettia Lane from its existing eastern terminus to Street A and Street A will: 1) disturb areas currently being utilized for agricultural purposes with no sensitive or endangered plant species, 2) impact the edge of a canyon containing southern mixed chaparral, disturbed coastal sage brush, and a single pair of California gnatcatchers; and 3) disturb a small patch of disturbed coastal sage scrub adjacent to the existing agricultural road along the southwestern corner of the project site. Existing improvements to the overall site include fences, dirt roads, water lines, and overhead powerlines. 15 Rev. 1/30/95 7 - III. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 a. 1 b. lc,d. 2a. 2b. The project will not exceed the density range of 0-4 dwelling units per acre allowed by the underlying Residential Low Medium (RLM) density land use designation. The project density including affordable units is 3.6 dwelling units per acre, which is consistent with the RLM designation but exceeds the Growth Management growth control point (gcp) of 3.2 dwelling units per acre. The Growth Management gcp is imposed to ensure that the number of dwelling units in each quadrant of the City at buildout does not exceed the dwelling unit caps specified by ordinance. As a result, the project requires a density increase above the gcp which will require the removal of 12 units from the quadrants excess units. There currently exists sufficient excess units in the southwest quadrant to accommodate the request for the density increase above the gcp. The Zone 20 Specific Plan requires a change in zoning from L-C to R-1 in the project planning area and the Zone 20 Program EIR (PEIR) analyzed the environmental impacts associated with the required changes in zoning from L-C to R-1. The PEIR identified no significant impact since the underlying RLM (Residential Low Medium density) General Plan designation permits up to four dwelling units per acre, and zoning to single family lots on minimum 7,500 square foot lots is consistent with the low to medium density land use designation. The project is also subject to the Mello 11 Local Coastal Program (LCP) requiring approval by the California Coastal Commission. The project is consistent with the LCP "PA" land use designation allowing low-medium residential density development which is consistent with all Mello II land use policies. However, a Local Coastal Program Amendment is required to change the zoning from LC to R-1, and LCPA 95-09 is being processed with the project for this purpose. As detailed by the PEIR, Zone 20 is comprised of agricultural uses which are typically incompatible with residential uses due to physical and operational characteristics such as tilling and pesticideherbicide spraying. The Ocean Bluff project will not impact or be impacted directly by agricultural uses since the project will not abut any property under cultivation. PER mitigation required to reduce these impacts including notification to all future residential land owners that this area is subject to dust, pesticide, and odors associated with adjacent agricultural operations will be a condition of map approval and the provision of temporary road connections to maintain continued access to adjacent agricultural properties will be a condition of map approval. Local population projections are based upon the residential density permitted in each land use designation. In accordance with the discussion under la. above determining that the project is consistent with the property's underlying RLM land use designation, the additional population resulting from the project will not cumulatively exceed local population projections. As specified by the Zone 20 PEIR, the development of projects including transportation routes, public services, and land uses within the Zone 20 planning area is not growth inducing since the area has been previously planned and designated for residential development by the City's General Plan, Growth Management Program, and Zone 20 LFMP. Although the Poinsettia Lane extension will provide access to undeveloped parcels within Zone 20, it is a planned east-west circulation arterial and development already exists to the east, west, north, and south of Zone 20 properties; therefore, urbanization of the area is inevitable. 16 Rev. 1/30/95 3b,e. Consistent with the PEIR for Environmental Area I, an additional geotechnical investigation has €&G been prepared for the project by Ninyo and Moore. The conclusion of this report is that "based upon our geotechnical investigation, it is our opinion that site development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the following recommendations aie incorporated into the design and construction of the subject project. There appear to be no significant geotechnical constraints on the site that cannot be mitigated by proper planning, design; and sound construction practices". Compliance with the recommendations of the Ninyo and Moore Geotechnical Investigation for this project will avoid significant unstable earth conditions and or increased exposure of people or property to geologic hazards. These recommendations will be incorporated as project conditions in accordance with Zone 20 PER 4a. According to the project's Preliminary Hydrology Study prepared by Hunsaker & Associates, in which the potential for changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and amount of Surface runoff are analyzed, a temporary detention basin for the westerly drainage basin will attenuate post development runoff to predevelopment levels and "the increase in the runoff ..... from development is compensated for by the increased times of concentration ... from the proposed grading which creates longer flow paths and flatter grades." The final hydrology study will examine the flows in more detail and size the detention basin which is proposed along the western project boundary. The Zone 20 mitigation required to avoid adverse impacts to the quantity or quality of Surface water consists of compliance with the adopted LFMP performance standards. Individual projects must show compliance with drainage and water distribution design and performance standards in accordance with the adopted LFMP and City standards as well as conform to the NPDES permit requirements pursuant to Regional Water Quality Control Board No. 90-42 adopted by City Council Resolution No. 90-235. The project will be conditioned to comply with these standards. 5. The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection ifnprovements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of 17 Rev. 1130195 an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air quality impacts. This "statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. 6a. The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. 6b. The Poinsettia Lane extension and the onsite circulation are designed in accordance with the General Plan Circulation element and City standards thereby avoiding hazards to safety from design features. Additionally, temporary road connections to maintain continued access to adjacent agricultural properties that could be impacted by future Poinsettia Lane improvements will be provided. 7a. The Biology Section (3.4) of the Zone 20 Specific Plan PEIR provides baseline data at a gross scale due to the large size of the specific plan area. Given the large number of property owners and their differing development horizons and the inevitable change in biological conditions over the long-term buildout of the specifk plan area, it is not possible to mitigate biological impacts from the buildout of the entire specific plan under one comprehensive open space easement that crosses property lines or a habitat revegetatioflenhancement plan sponsored solely by the property owners. The implementation of the biological section of the EIR is based on future site specific biological survey studies that focus on the impacts created by individual subsequent development projects. These additional biological studies are required to consider the baseline data and biological open space recommendations of the PER and provide more detailed and current resource surveys plotted at the 18 Rev. 1/30/95 tentative map scale for each property. The range of the future mitigation options may include preservation of sensitive habitat onsite in conjunction with enhancement/revegetation plans, payment of fees into a regional conservation plan, or the purchase and protection of similar habitat offsite. To meet these EIR requirements, a biological resources field survey was prepared for the project by Anita M. Hayworth, Biological Consultant, dated March 1995. This subsequent biological study provides more focused, current, and detailed project level analysis of site specific biological impacts and provides more refined project level mitigation measures as required by the Zone 20 PEIR. The property was surveyed for the burrowing owl and the bird was not observed on the site. No brown- headed cowbirds were observed on the property or in the vicinity. The biological report indicates that implementation of the project would not result in the disturbance of biological resources onsite, however, construction of offsite Poinsettia Lane to the west from "A" Street to Alga Road and the construction of "A" Street between the project's southwestern boundary and Poinsettia Lane will result in impacts to a single pair of gnatcatchers and approximately 4 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat. The 3.7 acres of Diegan sage scrub habitat located along the proposed Poinsettia Lane alignment consists of California sagebrush, flat-top buckwheat, yerba mta, laural sumac, wart- stemmed ceanothus, California encelia, black sage, and weedy species such as tree tobacco, and shows signs of past and continuing disturbance. The habitat quality in the impacted area varies and has been disturbed by human activities associated with encampments and illegal dumping. Although the habitat area does offer cover and foraging areas for wildlife found in the area, the PEIR mitigation mapping indicates that this area will be isolated by Poinsettia Lane to the north, the Aviara development to the south and continued agricultural uses to the east and west. Coastal sage scrub habitat areas directly impacted by the Poinsettia Lane alignment requiring mitigation are approximately 3 acres in size, however, indirect impacts to the remaining .7 acres should also be mitigated. The total area of disturbance for the Poinsettia Lane extension requiring mitigation is therefore 3.7 acres and the mitigation recommended by Biological Consultant Hayworth is the preservation of 3.7 acres of coastal sage habitat within the high quality, gnatcatcher inhabited coastal sage area found in the Carlsbad Highlands mitigation bank area. Another 1.1 acres located at the southwestern comer of the Oceanbluff parcel is identified as containing disturbed coastal sage scrub. Disturbance to .28 acres of the 1.1 acre area of coastal sage scrub will result from necessary offsite grading to construct Street "A" from the southwestern corner of the Oceanbluff site to the proposed Poinsettia Lane extension. The proposed mitigation for this .28 acre area of disturbance to coastal sage scrub is preservation of an additional .28 acre area in the Carlsbad Highlands mitigation bank area for a total of 3.98 acres. The Poinsettia Lane extension is within Preserve Planning Area 4, as defined by the City's draft Habitat Management Plan dated July, 1994, in which 84 acres of coastal sage scrub and 38 acres of chaparral habitat are identified within the core area. Although disturbance to approximately 4 acreas of coastal sage scrub and southern mixed chaparral habitat will result from construction of Poinsettia and Street "A", it will not preclude connectivity between PPA's nor preclude the preservation of 50% of the habitat in PPA4. Moreover, this project provides mitigation in the form of offsite mitigation because it will preserve one acre of these habitat in PPA2 for every acre of the same habitat affected by the proposed project. Additionally, the Zone 20 PEIR mitigation measur; 3.4.3.10 which is incorporated as a project condition requires that an oversized roadway culvert be installed under the Poinsettia Lane extension at the SDG&E easement to maintain and enhance wildlife connections in native habitat areas that would otherwise be fragmented by impassable roadway crossings. The feasibility of constructing an oversized culvert at this location shall be evaluated at the time roadway improvement plans are submitted to the City Engineering department for review. Specific mitigation measures required to be incorporated into the design of this culvert, if necessary, shall be based on 19 Rev. 1130195 a biological study performed for this purpose which will be subject to review and approval by the Planning Department. 7c. The project is consistent with Mello II LCP policies regarding the disturbance of 25% slopes possessing endangered species and/or coastal sage scrub and chaparral plant comrnunities (dual criteria). Onsite, the only area possessing 25% slopes with this type of habitat will be preserved in open space. The Poinsettia Lane alignment offsite will encroach into an area meeting this dual criteria, however, the dual criteria policy does not apply to the construction of roads on the City's Circulation Element. 8.a-c. The project's compliance with Building Codes, Title 20, and Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code in accordance with the MER mitigation measures to reduce impacts (Electricity and Natural Gas Section 5.12.1 of the MEIR) associated with the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful manner will ensure the implementation of energy conservation measures The MEIR has identified mineral resources within the City of Carlsbad boundaries, and no mineral resources are located within the project area. gad. The single family residential project is not a use typically associated with risks such as accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances thereby creating a potential health hazard. Although agricultural operations will continue on parcels in the vicinity of the Oceanbluff subdivision, compliance with the Zone 20 PEIR measures and Zone 20 Specific Plan development regulations to buffer residential development from agricultural operations will avoid health hazards resulting from pesticide residue. Specifically, the project is conditioned to require prior to final map approval a detailed soils testing and analysis report shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer for City and County approval, a minimum 25' buffer shall be provided between the project boundaries and open field cultivation, temporary road connections required to maintain continued access to adjacent agricultural properties that could be impacted by the Poinsettia Lane extension improvements will be provided, a Notice of Restriction notifying all owners, users, and tenants of this project that the area is subject to dust, pesticides, and odors associated with adjacent agricultural operations shall be recorded prior to final map approval, and drainage will be disposed of through stormdrains in accordance with City standards and compliance with NPDES standards is required for the project. 9e. The project's compliance as conditioned with the City's Landscape Design Manual - Fire Protection policies will avoid increasing fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, trees, and grass. lOa,b. The Zone 20 PEIR noise mitigation included a requirement that all projects within 500 feet of the existing Poinsettia Lane prepare a noise study in accordance with the General Plan Noise Element. The Noise &port prepared for the Ocean Bluff project revealed that noise levels exceeding 60 dBA CNEL would potentially impact Lots 78 - 87 and Lots 91-91 which are adjacent to the roadway without acceptable mitigation. Berms and 6' noise walls have been incorporated into the project within the 50' landscaped setback from Poinsettia Lane approximately 40' from the right of way line to reduce the noise exterior levels of these lots to 60 dBA CNEL or below within the usable yard areas as required by the Zone 20 PER and the City's General Plan Noise Element. 11-12. to In accordance with the City's MEIR, the project must be consistent with and will be conditioned comply with the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards for public facilities and services to enswe that adequate public facilities are provided prior to or concurrent with development. 20 Rev. 1/30/95 13. 14. 15. The project is within and subject to the Zone 20 Specific Plan requiring it to be in accordance with the approved Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan thereby ensuring that performance standards for public facilities will be met through build-out of the zone. The Zone 20 PEIR visual aesthetic mitigation relevant to the Ocean Bluff project includes the following prior to tentative map approval: a. b. additional visual analysis within any signifcant viewsheds and the addition of any recommended mitigation measures as conditions of project approval; structures and roofs shall be earth tone in color and prior to issuance of building permits the applicant is required to submit for Planning Director approval a color board depicting the proposed earth tones; manufactured slopes and roadway cuts shall be landform-graded, contoured, and heavily screened by landscaping in conformance with Zone 20 Specific Plan; and general visual design guidelines shall be taken into consideration during initial site planning and design phases prior to approval of a tentative map or implementing permit for any development within the Specific Plan area. c. d. The Ocean Bluff project includes a hillside development permit application (HDP 93-09) which requires compliance with hillside architectural and grading standards. The Ocean Bluff project is in compliance with hillside grading standards and PEIR mitigation requiring landform gmhg and contouring, and landscaping to screen cut and fill slopes. The project is located within the palomar Airport Road and Palomar Airport viewsheds identified by the Zone 20 PER. Additional visual analysis performed by the applicant has identified that units along the northeastern and northern elevations will be visible from these viewsheds, however, as specified in the Zone 20 PEIR, any visual impact along the Palomar Airport Road viewshed will be brief and possibly less than significant due to traveling speeds and topography. The hillside development permit will therefore be conditioned to require compliance with the general visual design guidelines specified by the PEIR with special emphasis on providing a combination of one and two story homes, a variety of roof heights and roof massing, a variety of earth tone roof and wall materials and colors, and enhanced fenestration. Since the project is a standard subdivision with no proposed architecture at this time, a condition will be added to the hillside development permit (HDP 93-09) requiring that an amendment be processed prior to the issuance of building permits to ensure that the proposed architecture is consistent with the general visual design guidelines as well as the Hillside Development Ordinance architectural standards. The project Contains no sites listed as Level 3 or 4 by the Zone 20 PEIR; therefore no additional environmental review of cultural resources is required. The project will increase the demand for community parks, however, the project will be conditioned to require compliance with the Growth Management Ordinance and Zone 20 LFMP which requires that parks in accordance with the growth management standard are provcded to serve new development. SOURCE DOCUMENTS - (NOTE: All source documents are on fib in the Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009, Phone (619) 438-1161). 21 Rev. 1/30/95 Planning Department, ceztifd September 6,1994. 2. ''Final Propam Environmental Impact Report for Zone 20 Specific Plan" and Planning Commission Resolution 3525 for EIR 203 dated June 16, 1993. 3. "Geotechnical Investigation" dated February 6,1989, performed by Ninyo & Moore, Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants 4. "Preliminary Hydrology Study for Ocean Bluff, City of Carlsbad" dated September 3, 1993 prepared by Hunsaker & Associates San Diego, Inc. 5. "Biological Field Survey Update, Oceanbluff Ct 93-09" dated March 1995 performed by Anita M. Hayworth, Biological Consultant. 6. Jack Henthorn's letter dated May 3, 1995, "Archaeological Site CB-1SDi-12026- Oceanbluff CT 93- 09". 7. "Report on an Acoustical Study - Ocean Bluff - On the extension of Poinsettia Lane at Black Rail Road, City of Carlsbad" dated August 6, 1993, and Addendum received May 12, 1995, performed by James C. Berry, Acoustician. 22 Rev. 1/30/95 - BACKGROUND DATA SHEET - CASE NO: LCPA 95-09/ZC 93-04/CT 93-09/SDP 93-07/H DP 93-09 CASE NAME: Ocean Bluff APPLICANT: Ocean Bluff Partnership REQUEST AND LOCATION: Request for a Local Coastal Plan Amendment, Zone Chanae, Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan and Hillside Development Permit to Rezone from L-C to R-1 vacant, 31.2 acre site and subdivide 92 single familv lots and one multiple familv lot with 16 affordable apartment units on propertv aenerallv located at the northwest corner of future Poinsettia Lane and Blackrail Court in the Zone 20 Specific Plan area and Local Facilities Manaclement Zone. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 3 in Section 22, Township 12 south, rancle 4 west, San Bernadino base and meridian in the Countv of San Dieao, State of California, exceptinq therefrom those portions thereof Ivina north of the south boundaw line of Rancho Aclua Hedionda, as said south line was established Mav 5, 1913, bv decree of the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for San Dieao Countv, in that certain action (No. 16830) entitled Kellv Investment Companv, a corporation, vs. Clarence Davton Hillman and Bessie Olive Hillman. APN: 21 5-070-1 6 Acres 31.2 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 93 Lots/l08 DU’s (Assessor’s Parcel Number) GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation RLM Density Allowed 0-4 Density Proposed 3.6 Existing Zone L-c Proposed Zone R-1 Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad’s Zoning Requirements) Zoninq Land Use Site L-c North R- 1 South L-C East L-c Vacant/Agricultural Vacant Horticulture Vacant west L-c Vacant PUBLIC FACILITIES School District CUSD Water District CMWD Sewer District Carlsbad Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity) 108 EDU Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated Auaust 5, 1993 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT - Negative Declaration, issued - Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated Other, Prior Compliance. dated September 27, 1995 c h CITY OF CARLSBAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM (To be Submitted with Development Application) PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT: FILE NAME AND NO: LCPA 95-09/ZC 93-04/CT 93-09/SDP 93-07/HDP 93-09 - OCEAN BLUFF LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 20 GENERAL PLAN: RLM ZONING: L-C DEVELOPERS NAME: OCEAN BLUFF PARNERSHIP ADDRESS: 4180 LA JOLLA VILLAGE DRIVE, SUITE 30, SAN DIEGO 92037 QUANTITY OF LAND USEDEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 31.2 AC/108 DU's ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: PHONE NO.: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 215-070-16 A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. City Administrative Facilities: Library: Demand in Square Footage = 200.25 Sauare Feet Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) Park: Demand in Acreage = 0.75 Acres Drainage: Demand in CFS = N/A Identify Drainage Basin = NIA Demand in Square Footage = 375.5 Sauare Feet 108 EDU (Identify master plan facilities on site plan) Circulation: Demand in ADTs = 1.016 ADT (Identify Trip Distribution on site plan) Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 4 Open Space: Acreage Provided - 3.6 Acres Schools: CUSD (Demands to be determined by staff) Sewer: Demand in EDUs - 108 EDU Identify Sub Basin - C (Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan) Water: DemandinGPD - 23.760 The project is 11.4 units above the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance. .I DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPUCAWS STATEMEM OF OISCLOSURE CK CERTNN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL ~TIOHS WHICH WIU REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL OR ANY APPOINTED BOARD, COMMLSSlON OR COMMITTEE. :leaso Print) e following information must be disclosed: ApDlicant ist the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application. Oceanbluff Partnershlr, 4370 La l-Dr-- I 990 La Jolla, Ca,, 92122 Owner -ist the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Same If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names and addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or awning any partnership interest in the partnership. Please see list (attachment 81) If any person identified pursuant to (1) 01 (2) above Is a non-pront organization or a trust, list the names and addresses of any person serving a3 oflicer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the trust. awl001 12/91 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 - (t 19) 438-1 161 @ . isclosure Statement Page 2 Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes - No - If yes, please indicate person(s) Person is,defined u: ‘Any Individual. firm, coputnenhip, joint venture. uwckth, eodd dub, hd.mJ wganhatlon, corporation, eatate, trust, receive, syndicate. thir and any other county, city and county, city rnunlcipdity. dirtrM 01 other pdiitkrl wbdlvision, w any other group or combination acting (u ;nit‘ t (NOTE: Attach additional pages as fl€WSSaty.) Signature of Owner/date Signature of applicant/date Print or type name of owner ~ Print or type name of applicant /- Attachment #1 Javier Benito 2275 Via Lucia La Jolla, Ca., 92037 OCEANBLUFF PARTNERSHIP - Eugene L. Freeland P.O. Box 732 Rancho Santa Fe., Ca., 92067 Paul R. Hasley c/o Illiff, Thorn 6 Company 2386 Faraday Avenue Suite 100 Carlsbad, Ca., 92008 Mary Beth Jernigan P.O. Box 898 Ketchum, ID., 83340 Fritz Leibhardt 7575 Carrizo Drive La Jolla, Ca., 92037 L.M. Scher P.O. Box 9565 Newport Beach, Ca., 92658 Walter Wegner 1304 Larch Avenue Moraga, Ca., 94556 J. Sterling Hutchison Gray, Cary, Ames 6 Frye 1700 First Interstate Plaza 401 "B" Street San Diego, Ca., 92101-4219 Frederick Liebhardt 7224 Carrizo Drive La Jolla, Ca., 92037 John F, Linden 8 Quai D'Orleans 75004 Paris, France Calvin F. schmid 888 Armada Terrace San Diego, Ca., 92106 Robert L. Wineteer 4370 La Jolla Village Dr. #990 San Diego, Ca., 92122 TENTATIVE 'MAP OCEAN BLUFF CITY OF CARLSBAD, CA. t ,- ' 'VICINITV YAP NO SCALE CT 93-09 QENERAL DEIllON NOTES PUBLIC UTLITIES urn .................... arr ff -m - ........................ mvuUIIIIDIcIM0 PU.BECTII: ................. - - ....................... mill ......................... mff- *).xu .................... amJW0vIB-m -DIUy ..................... -A%- WAE .................. -- - ................. mff- CT 93-09 CT 93-09 400 0 400 - CT 93-09 CT 93-09 11 OW$ItI! POINSElTlA LANE ORADINQ OUANTITIES TOTAL CUT 14600 C.Y. TOTAL FILL 91200 C.Y. OCEAN BL FF CT 93-09 I I I SJ 7- I I RSVIUD 8-7-80 r--j ‘I I SLOPES 25% AND OREATER SITE PLAN AFFORDABLE HOUSING SITE LOCATION Cgm*-llllbhrtb