HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 98-68; Thompson/Tabata; Coastal Development Permit (CDP)c CITY OF CARLSBAD
LAND USE REVIEW APPLICATION
1) APPLICATIONS APPLIED FOR: (C
Q Administrative Permit - 2nd
Dwelling Unit
Q Administrative Variance
[X] Coastal Development Permit
Q Conditional Use Permit
(~| Condominium Permit
[2 Environmental Impact
Assessment
Q] General Plan Amendment
fxj Hillside Development Permit
Q Local Coastal Plan Amendment
n Master Plan
Q Non-Residential Planned
Development
0 Planned Development Permit
HECK BOXES)
(FOR DEPARTMENT
USE ONLY)
clDf0 ^$-6$
te-ir
yS-or
Q Planned Industrial Permit
n Planning Commission
Determination
[]] Precise Development Plan
|~l Redevelopment Permit
I | Site Development Plan
Q Special Use Permit
O Specific Plan
Q Tentative Parcel Mop
Obtain from Engineering Department
§3 Tentative Tract Map
|~~| Variance
O Zone Change
Q List other applications not
specified
(FOR DEPARTMENT
USE ONLY)
?8'<V
2)
3)
4)
ASSESSOR PARCEL NO(S).:
PROJECT NAME:
214-140-44, 214-170-09, 36, 47, 58, 59, 73,74&75
Poinsettia Properties
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: 231 lot single-family residential subdivision
Note; Applicant's Rep; Jack Henthorn & Assoc. at 760-438-4090
5) OWNER NAME (Print or Type)
MAILING ADDRESS
CITY AND STATE ZIP TELEPHONE
1 CERTIFY THAT 1 AM THE LEGAL OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE
INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY
KNOWLEDGE.
SIGNATURE DATE
6) APPLICANT NAME (Print or Type)
Standard Pacific Corp.
MAILING ADDRESS
9335 Chesapeake Drive
CITY AND STATE ZIP TELEPHONE
San Diego, CA 92123-1010 292-2200
1 CERTIFY THAT 1 AM THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND
CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.
^•^ <^^ a/?e/<te^jj — n — i *jr^ *f*>*y — t-e
SIGNATURE /^ DATE
7) BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR OF THE SE AND NE QTR' S OF THE NE QTR OF SEC 28 AND
FOR OF THE SE QTR OF SEC 21, T12S,R4W,SBM, CARLSBAD,SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIF.
NOTE: A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRING MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS BE FILED, MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 3:30 P.M.
A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRING ONLY ONE APPLICATION BE FILED, MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 4:00 P.M.
Form 1 6 PAGE 1 OF 2
c
8)LOCATION OF PROJECT:
ON THE
Adjacent to Poinsettia Lane and Rose Drive
STREET ADDRESS
West
(NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, WEST)
BETWEEN Palomar Airport Rd ,
SIDE OF
AND
(NAME OF STREET)
9) LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE
10) PROPOSED NUMBER OF LOTS
Zone 20
1 3) TYPE OF SUBDIVISION
1 6) PERCENTAGE OF PROPOSED
PROJECT IN OPEN SPACE
1 9) GROSS SITE ACREAGE
22) EXISTING ZONING
11) NUMBER OF EXISTING
RESIDENTIAL UNITS
14) PROPOSED IND OFFICE/
SQUARE FOOTAGE
1 7) PROPOSED INCREASE IN
ADT
20) EXISTING GENERAL
PLAN
23) PROPOSED ZONING
Aviara Parkway
(NAME OF STREET)
La Costa Avenue
(NAME OF STREET)
12) PROPOSED NUMBER OF
RESIDENTIAL UNITS
15) PROPOSED COMM
SQUARE FOOTAGE
1 8) PROPOSED SEWER
USAGE IN EDU
21) PROPOSED GENERAL
PLAN DESIGNATION
24) IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING THIS APPLICATION IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR MEMBERS OF CITY
STAFF, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEMEBERS OR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
TO INSPECT AND ENTER THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION. I/WE CONSENT
TO ENTRY FOR THIS PURPOSE
SIGNATURE
FOR CITY USE ONLY
FEE COMPUTATION
APPLICATION TYPE
TOTAL FEE REQUIRED
FEE REQUIRED
12.0-7.
77 ex? .00
23,3/2-.
RECEIVED
SEP 1 8 1998
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPT.
DATE STAMP APPLICATION RECEIVED
RECEIVED BY:
DATE FEE PAID RECEIPT NO.
Form 16 PAGE 2 OF 2
POINSETTIA PROPERTIES Q
M.AND USE REVIEW APPLICATION
OWNER SIGNATURES
I CERTIFY THAT I AM THE LEGAL OWNER AND THAT ALL OF THE ATTACHED INFORMATION ON THE LAND USE
REVIEW APPLICATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.
IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING THIS APPLICATION IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR MEMBERS OF CITY STAFF,
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS OR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO INSPECT AND
ENTER THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION. I/WE CONSENT TO ENTRY FOR THIS
PURPOSE.
APN(S): 214-140-44 & 214-170-74
OWNER: Tabata Family Trust, U.D.T. Dated
January 14,1983 & Isokazu Tabata
ADDRESS: P.O. Box 943, Carlsbad, CA 92018
TELEPHONE: (760) 438-0280
BY:DATE:
(signature)
Noboru Tabata
(print name)
BY:DATE:
(signature)
Evelyn Tabata
(print name)
BY:DATE:
(signature)
Isokazu Tabata
(print name)
(signature)
Thompson
(print name)
A>N(S): 214-170-58 & 59
OWNER: POINSETTIA VENTURES, a California
general partnership
ADDRESS: 10468 Hot Mineral Spa Road, Niland CA
\ 92257
TELEPHONE: (760)354-1533
BY:DATE:
(signature)
William Ehgler
(print name)
APN(S): 214-170-73 \
OWNER: THE MENDIVIL FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, a
California limited partnership
ADDRESS: 21241 San Miguel, Mission Viego, CA 92692
TELEPHONE: (949) 830-3386\
BY:DATE:
(signature)
Consuelo Duncan
(print name)
BY:DATE:
APN(S): 214-170-09,36447
OWNER: D KST Limited Liability Company
ADDRESS: 7040 Rose Drive, Carlsbad CA 92009
TELEPHONED (760) 438-1189
(signature)
Carmel Verodi Frees
(print name)
APN(S): 214-170-75
OWNER: Standard Pacific Corp.
ADDRESS: 9335 Chesapeake Dr., San Diego, CA 92123
TELEPHONE: (619)292-2200
BY:
(signature)
DATE:
(print name)
Gregg Linhoff
1-A
c POINSETTIA PROPERTIES
LAND USE REVIEW APPLICATION
OWNER SIGNATURES
I CERTIFY THAT I AM THE LEGAL, OWNER AND THAT ALL OF THE ATTACHED INFORMATION ON THE LAND USE
REVIEW APPLICATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.
IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING THIS APPLICATION IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR MEMBERS OF CITY STAFF,
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS OR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO INSPECT AND
ENTER THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION. I/WE CONSENT TO ENTRY FOR THIS
PURPOSE.
APN(S): 214-140-44 & 214-170-74
OWNER: Tabata Family Trust, U.D.T. DaUd
\ January 14,1983 & Isokazu Tabata
ADDRESS: P.O. Box 943. Carlsbad, CA 92018
TELEPHONE: (760)438-0280
BY:DATE:
(signature),
\Noboru Tabata
{print name)
BY:
\
DATE:
(signature) \
__ Evelyn Tabata
(print name)
BY:DATE:
(signature)
Isokazu Tabata
(print name)
BY:DATE:
(aignature)
David B. Thompaon
(print nama)
APN(S):
OWNER:
214-170-68 & 58
William E. Engler
ADDRESS: 10468 Hot Mineral Spa Road, Niland CA
92257
TELEPHONE: (760) 354-1533
BY: \]
(signature)
William Engler
ft DATE:7-l-VA
(print name)
N(S):
NER:
214-170-73
THE MENDIVIL FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, a
California limited partnership
ADDRESS: 21241 San Miguel, Mlaalon Viejo, CA 92692
TELEPHONE: (949) 830-3386
BY:DATE:
(signature) \
Consuelo Duncan
(print name)
BY;DATE:
APN(S): 214-170-09,36 & 47
OWNER: DSKT Llmltad Liability Company
ADDRESS: 7040 Rose Drive, Carlsbad CA 92009
TELEPHONE: (760)438-1189
(signature)
Carmel Verodi Freea
(print nama)
APN(S): 214-170-75
OWNER: Standard Pacific Corp.
ADDRESS: 9335 Chesapeake Dr., San Diego, CA 92123
TELEPHONE: (619)292-2200
BY:DATE:
(signature)
Gregg Linhoff
(print name)
1-A
POINSETTIA PROPERTIES Q
AND USE REVIEW APPLICATION
OWNER SIGNATURES
I CERTIFY THAT I AM THE LEGAL OWNER AND THAT ALL OF THE ATTACHED INFORMATION ON THE LAND USE
REVIEW APPLICATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.
IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING THIS APPLICATION IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR MEMBERS OF CITY STAFF,
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS OR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO INSPECT AND
ENTER THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION. I/WE CONSENT TO ENTRY FOR THIS
PURPOSE.
APN(S): 214-140-44 & 214-170-74
OWNER: Tabata Family Trust, U.D.T. Dated
January 14, 1983 & Isokazu Tabata
ADDRESS: P.O. Box 943, Carlsbad, CA 92018
TELEPHONE: (760) 438-0280
BY:DATE:
(signature)
Noboru Tabata
(print name)
BY:
\
DATE:
(signature)
Evelyn Tabata
(print name)
BY:DATE:
(signature)
Isokazu Tabata
(print name)
BY:DATE:
(signature)
David B. Thompson
(print name)
APN(S): x 214-170-58 & 59
OWNER: POINSETTIA VENTURES, a California
general partnership
ADDRESS: 10468 Hot Mineral Spa Road, Niland CA
92257
TELEPHONE: (760) 354-1533
BY:DATE:
(signature)
William Engler
(print name)
APN(S): 214-170-73
OWNER: THE MENDIVIL FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, a
California limited partnership
ADDRESS: 21241 San Miguel, Mission Viego, CA 92692
TELEPHONE: (949) 830-3386
BY:-J>ATE:
(signature)
Consuelo Duncan
(printjTame)
B1 DATE:
APN(S): 214-170-09, 36 & 47
OWNER: DSKT Limited Liability Company
ADDRESS: 7040 Rose Drive, Carlsbad CA 92009
TELEPHONE: (760)438-1189
(signature)
Carmel Verodi Frees
(print name)
APN(S): 214-170-75
OWNER: Standard Pacific Corp.
ADDRESS: 9335 Chesapeake Dr., San Diego, CA 92123
TELEPHONE: (619) 292-2200
BY:DATE:
(signature)
(print name)
Gregg Linhoff
1-A
~ POINSETTIA PROPERTIES
W.AND USE REVIEW APPLICATI
OWNER SIGNATURES
I CERTIFY THAT I AM THE LEGAL OWNER AND THAT ALL OF THE ATTACHED INFORMATION ON THE LAND USE
REVIEW APPLICATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.
IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING THIS APPLICATION IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR MEMBERS OF CITY STAFF,
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS OR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO INSPECT AND
ENTER THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION. I/WE CONSENT TO ENTRY FOR THIS
PURPOSE.
APN(S): 214-140-44 & 214-170-74
OWNER: Tabata Family Trust, U.D.T. Dated
January 14, 1983 & Isokazu Tabata
ADDRESS: P.O. Box 943, Carlsbad, CA 92018
TELEPHONE: (760) 438-0280
(signature)
Noboru Tabata
(print name)
X^-c» J ^/7 / ^,
BY: ^^Q^^-v-^^C^SL,DATE: ?///>/
(signature)
Evelyn Tabata
(print name)
BY:DATE:
(signature)
Isokazu Tabata
(print name)
A>N(S): 214-170-09, 36 & 47
OWNER: DSKT Limited Liability Company
ADDRESS: 7040 Rose Drive, Carlsbad CA 92009
TELEPHONE: (760)438-1189
BY:DATE:
(signature)
Karen R. Thompson
(print name)
APN(S): 214-170-58 & 59
OWNER: William E. Engler
ADDRESS: 10468 Hot Mineral Spa Road, Niland CA
92257
TELEPHONE: (760)354-1533
BY:DATE:
(signature)
William Engler
(print name)
APN(S): 214-170-73
OWNER: THE MENDIVIL FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, a
California limited partnership
ADDRESS: 21241 San Miguel, Mission Viejo, CA 92692
TELEPHONE: (949) 8X30-3386
BY:\DATE:
(signature)
Consuelo Duncan
(print name)
BY:DATE:
(signature)
Carmel Verodi Frees
(print name)
APN(S): 214-170-75
OWNER: Standard Pacific Corp.
ADDRESS: 9335 Chesapeake Dr., San Diego, CA 92123
TELEPHONE: (619) 292-2200
BY:DATE:
(signature)
Gregg Linhoff
(print name)
1-A
POINSETTIA PROPERTIES
LAND USE REVIEW APPLICATION
OWNER SIGNATURES
I CERTIFY THAT I AM THE LEGAL OWNER AND THAT ALL OF THE ATTACHED INFORMATION ON THE
LAND USE REVIEW APPLICATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.
IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING THIS APPLICATION IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR MEMBERS OF CITY
STAFF, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS OR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
TO INSPECT AND ENTER THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION. I/WE CONSENT
TO ENTRY FOR THIS PURPOSE.
APN(S): Por. 214-170-09 APN(S): 2.1 f- IVO- &% 36>
OWNER: David B. Thompson and Karen R. OWNER: £ K5 T L-imii-ejef
Thompson Revocable Trust
ADDRESS: 7040 Rose Drive, Carlsbad CA 92009 ^ADDRESS: +76^0 ftp-Se^Jb rive,
TELEPHONE: (760)438-1189 TELEPHONE: ^^ Y36~//g'?
DATEr?
(signature) (signature)
_ David B. Thompson _ _ t>SM/>g/
(print name) (print name)
1-B
0
* SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FORM FOR ALL
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITS
+ APPLICATION CHECKLIST FOR SINGLE FAMILY
REGULAR & MINOR COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITS
(Application checklist for Nort^ir^ Family Regular Coastal Development Pemiits covered u
This supplemental application is to be filed for any development requiring a Coastal
Development Permit issued by the City of Carlsbad.
I. GENERAL BACKGROUND
A. Estimated Cost of Development:
Development costing $60,000 or more does not qualify as a Minor Coastal
Development Permit. The Planning Director shall make the final determination
regarding a project's cost of development.
The primary basis for determining cost of development will be the application of
dollar costs per square foot for different types of residential construction. These
costs are set by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) and
are applied throughout San Diego County.
Please complete the following information to assist in the determination of this
project's cost of development (Contractor proposals may also be submitted for
consideration by the Planning Director).
=> New Residential Square Footage:
square feet x $78.00/sq. ft. = $ N/A
=> Residential Addition Square Footage:
square feet x $94.00/sq. ft. = $ N/A
=> Any Garage Square Footage:
square feet x $22.00/sq. ft. = $ N/A
=> Residential Conversion Square Footage:
square feet x $26.00/sq. ft. = $ N/A
=> For Non-Residential Uses, use the following figures for calculations:
Retail/Store @ $38.00/sq. ft.; Restaurant @ $69.007 sq. ft.; Office @
$55.007 sq. ft.; Manufacturing/Warehouse @ $24.00/sq. ft.:
square feet x $ /sq. ft. = $ N/A
COST OF DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATE: $ N/A
B. Do you wish to apply for:
1. A Minor Coastal Development Permit (Under $60,000)
2. A Regular Coastal Development Permit ($60,000 or more)
Form 15 10/97 Page 1 of 8
C. Street address of proposed development
Approx. 1000 Block of Poinsettia Lan@ & Approx
D.
7000 block of Rose Dr,
E.
Assessor's Parcel Number of proposed development
214-140-44, 214-170-09, 36, 47, 58, 59, 73, 74 & 75
Development Description:
1 . Briefly describe project: 231 lot residential subdivision on
74.9 acre site adjacent to Poinsettia Lang & Rose Drive, within
Zone 20 LFMP . Includes TM, PD, HDP & GDP for 98 R-l lots,
129 PD lots, and 4 open space/park lots _ '
i ?n nno
F.
2. Estimated cost of development: <
Describe the present land uses (i.e. Vacant land, single family homes,
apartments, offices, etc.) that surround the proposed development to the:
North: Single family homes
South:.
East:
Single family homes
Vacant land & single family homes
West:Single family S< multi family homes
G. Is project located within a 100 year flood plain? []] Yes No
PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY
Yes NoA. Are there existing structures on the property? ^ _
If yes, please describe.
There are greenhouse and flower operations buildings currently
existing & two single family homes just outside the property
boundary.B. Will any existing structure be removed/demolished? ££l Yes Q No
If yes to either question, describe the extent of the demolition or removal,
including the relocation site, if applicable (also show on plans).
Thg temporary greenhouses and agricultural use structures
will be removed.
III. LOT COVERAGE
A. Existing and Proposed
Building Coverage
Landscaped Area
Hardscape Area
Unimproved Area
(Left Natural)
Existing New Proposed Total
_sq. ft.
_sq. ft.
_sq. ft.
_sq. ft. N/A sq. ft.
_sq. ft. 18 AC-sq-ft.
To be_sq. ftpeterminedtq. ft.
2 . 9AC sq.-ft-. 2.9 AC-sq^ft. 2.9 ACsq,-ftr
Form 15 10/97 Page 2 of 8
c o
B. Parking: Number of existing spaces N/A
Number of new spaces proposed N/A
Existing/Proposed TOTAL:
Number of total spaces required N/A
Number of covered spaces N/A
Number of uncovered spaces N/A
Number of standard spaces
Number of compact spaces
Is tandem parking existing? Q Yes # [x] No
Is tandem parking proposed? Q Yes # [£] No
C. Grade Alteration:
Is any grading proposed? [x| Yes Q No
If yes, please complete the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Amount of cut 491,345
Amount of fill 491,345
Maximum heiqht of fill slope
Maximum heiqht of cut slope
Amount of import or export
Location of borrow or disposal site
33.3
34.4
0
N/A
cu. yds.
cu. vds.
feet
feet
cu. yds.
Form 15 10/97 Page 3 of 8
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Submit Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Part I with Regular Coastal
Development Permits; check with Planning Staff regarding Minor Coastal Development
Permits and Single Family Regular Coastal Development Permits for any environmental
review requirements.
V. GENERAL APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
(For Single Family Regular and Minor Coastal Development Permits; Regular
Coastal Development Permits covered under separate handout)
A. Site Plan: Four (4) copies for a Minor Coastal Development Permit, four (4)
copies for a Single Family Regular Coastal Development Permit prepared on a
24" x 36 sheet(s) folded to 81/2" x 11". The site plan shall include the following
information:
1. General
a. Name and address of applicant, engineer and/or architect, etc.
b. Location, size and use of all easements.
c. Dimensions and locations of: access, both pedestrian and vehicular,
showing service areas and points on ingress and egress, off-street
parking and loading areas showing location, number and typical
dimension of spaces, and wheel stops.
d. Distance between building and/or structures.
e. Building setbacks (front, rear and sides).
f. Location, height and materials of walls and fences.
g. Dimensions/location of signs.
h. A summary table indicating the following information (if applicable to the
application):
(1) Site acreage
(2) Existing zone and land use
(3) Proposed land use
(4) Total building coverage
(5) Building square footage
(6) Percent landscaping
(7) Number of parking spaces
(8) Square footage of open/recreational space (if applicable)
(9) Cubic footage of storage space (if applicable)
B. Building elevations (all sides of all buildings) and floor plans: Four (4) copies for
a Minor Coastal Development Permit and four (4) copies for a Single Family
Regular Coastal Development Permit, prepared on 24" x 36" sheets folded to
81/2n x 11" size. The building and floor plans shall include the following:
1. Location and size of storage areas (if applicable)
2. All buildings, structure, walls and/or fences, signs and exterior lights.
3. Existing and proposed construction.
C. Grading and Drainage: Grading and drainage plans must be included with this
application. In certain areas, an engineering geology report must also be
included. Please consult the City Planning and Engineering Department
representative for a determination on any grading plan geotechnical
Form 15 10/97 Page 4 of 8
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 92008
Applicant: STANDARD PACIFIC HOMES
Description
CDP9868A
Amount
795.00 103011/12/02000201 02
COP 795.00
Receipt Number: R0030840
Transaction Date: 11/12/2002
Pay Type Method Description Amount
Payment Check 14030358 795.00
Transaction Amount: 795.00
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
434-2867 ^ -^
REC'D FROM
ACCOUNT NO.DESCRIPTION 1274 09/1S/98 0001 AMOUNTC-PftHT 23312-50
COP-
itiP- It-/* ititir
Poo oo
NOT VALID UNLESS VALIDATED BY
CASH REGISTER .
TOTAL
PLEASE NOTE:
Time limits on the processing of discretionary projects established by state law
do not start until a project application is deemed complete by the City. The
City has 30 calendar days from the date of application submittal to determine
whether an application is complete or incomplete. Within 30 days of submittal
of this application you will receive a letter stating whether this application
is complete or incomplete. If it is incomplete, the letter will state what is
needed to make this application complete. When the application is complete, the
processing period will start upon the date of the completion letter.
Applicant Signature: ~1M cJL*j&'~M . Qfifis*^. .a-c k
I ~7 \ e^-rt <2rt>T}C(^ -r £# i'SiC /
Staff Signature: 1/W
Date:
To be stapled with receipt to application
Copy for file
City of Carlsbad Planning DepartmO
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No.
P.C. AGENDA OF: December 5, 2001
Application complete date: N/A
Project Planner: Michael Grim
Project Engineer: Clyde Wickham
SUBJECT: ZC 98-08/LCPA 98-04/CT 98-14/PUD 98-05/CP 00-02/SDP 99-06/HDP 98-
15/CDP 98-68 - THOMPSON/TABATA - Request for recommendation of
approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program; a Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment to change 40.41
acres of the subdivision from Limited Control (L-C) to Residential Multiple-Density
with a Qualified Development Overlay Zone (RD-M-Q) and to change 37.62 acres
from Limited Control (L-C) to One Family Residential with a Qualified
Development Overlay Zone (R-l-Q); and a Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit
Development Permit, Site Development Plan, Condominium Permit, Hillside
Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit to subdivide, grade, and
develop 82.20 acres, creating 238 single family lots, two open space lots, four
recreation lots, one recreational vehicle storage lot and a 24 unit, for-sale
condominium project, affordable to lower-income households, on property generally
located north and south of Poinsettia Lane, between Aviara Parkway and Snapdragon
Drive, in Local Facilities Management Zone 20.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5070,
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, issued by the Planning Director, and ADOPT Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 5071, 5072, 5073, 5074, 5075, 5076, 5077 and 5078,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of Zone Change ZC 98-08, Local Coastal Program Amendment
LCPA 98-04, Tentative Tract Map CT 98-14, Planned Unit Development Permit PUD 98-05,
Condominium Permit CP 00-02, Site Development Plan SDP 99-06, Hillside Development Permit
HDP 98-15 and Coastal Development Permit CDP 98-68, based upon the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein.
II.BACKGROUND
On November 7, 2001, Planning Commission heard the staff presentation and took public testimony.
Due to the lateness of the hour, the project was continued to December 5,2001.
ATTACHMENT;
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5070 (Mitigated Negative Declaration)
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5071 (ZC 98-08)
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5072 (LCPA 98-04)
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5073 (CT 98-14)
5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5074 (PUD 98-05)
6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5075 (CP 00-02)
7. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5076 (SDP 99-06)
8. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5077 (HDP 98-15)
9. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5078 (CDP 98-68)
10. Staff report dated November 7, 2001 with attachments
We City of Carlsbad Planning DepaUnent
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No. (10)
P.C. AGENDA OF: November 7,2001
Application complete date: N/A
Project Planner: Michael Grim
Project Engineer: Clyde Wickham
SUBJECT: ZC 98-08/LCPA 98-04/CT 98-14/PUD 98-05/CP 00-02/SDP 99-06/HDP 98-
15/CDP 98-68 - THOMPSON/TAB AT A - Request for recommendation of
approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program; a Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment to
change 40.41 acres of the subdivision from Limited Control (L-C) to Residential
Multiple-Density with a Qualified Development Overlay Zone (RD-M-Q) and to
change 37.62 acres from Limited Control (L-C) to One Family Residential with a
Qualified Development Overlay Zone (R-l-Q); and a Tentative Tract Map,
Planned Unit Development Permit, Site Development Plan, Condominium Permit,
Hillside Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit to subdivide,
grade, and develop 82.20 acres, creating 238 single family lots, two open space
lots, four recreation lots, one recreational vehicle storage lot and a 24 unit, for-sale
condominium project, affordable to lower-income households, on property
generally located north and south of Poinsettia Lane, between Aviara Parkway
and Snapdragon Drive, in Local Facilities Management Zone 20.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5070,
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, issued by the Planning Director, and ADOPT Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 5071, 5072, 5073, 5074, 5075, 5076, 5077 and 5078,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of Zone Change ZC 98-08, Local Coastal Program
Amendment LCPA 98-04, Tentative Tract Map CT 98-14, Planned Unit Development Permit
PUD 98-05, Condominium Permit CP 00-02, Site Development Plan SDP 99-06, Hillside
Development Permit HDP 98-15 and Coastal Development Permit CDP 98-68, based upon the
findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
The proposal has two components. The first involves a change in the zoning designation for 11
parcels, covering 82.20 acres, from Limited Control (L-C) to Residential Density-Multiple Zone
with a Qualified Development Overlay and One Family Residential with a Qualified
Development Overlay. The Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment are required
to change the Zoning Map in both the City's Zoning Ordinance and the City's Local Coastal
Program. The second component involves the subdivision, grading and construction of a 238
unit, single-family development and a 24-unit affordable, for-sale condominium development
over the entire 82.20 acres. A Tentative Tract Map is needed to subdivide the property and a
Planned Unit Development Permit is required to allow a portion of that subdivision to contain
ZC 98-08/LCPA 98-04/cOs-14/PUD 98-05/CP 00-02/SDP 99-oOtDP 98-15/CDP 98-68 -
THOMPSON/TABATA
November 7,2001
Page 2
small-lot single-family development. A Condominium Permit is required to allow a portion of
the subdivision to contain multifamily condominiums. A Site Development Plan is required to
develop a property covered by the Qualified Development Overlay as well as to develop the 24-
unit for-sale affordable condominium portion of the project. A Hillside Development Permit is
required to develop the sloping project site and a Coastal Development Permit is required for all
development within the City's Coastal Zone. The project meets all applicable regulations and
staff has no issues with the proposal.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Standard Pacific Homes is requesting a number of legislative and development permits to allow
the development of 82.20 acres with a 238 unit single-family development and a 24 unit
affordable, for-sale condominium development within the western portion of Zone 20. The
project site is located west of Aviara Parkway, with approximately 11 acres north of Poinsettia
Lane and the remainder south of Poinsettia Lane. To the south of the project is the Spinnaker
Hill single-family development; to the east is the Aviara Planning Area 25 open space and
single-family development (Sandpiper). To the north of the project is the Mariner's Point single
family subdivision and to the west are the Las Playas multifamily subdivision and the Vista
Pacifica single family subdivision.
With the exception of a 1.8 acre coastal sage scrub habitat area in the eastern portion of the
property, the project site has been cleared of native habitat and used for agricultural purposes for
many years. The agricultural uses consisted of open fields, greenhouses and related access roads
and storage structures. These uses were discontinued during 2000 in anticipation of development
and most of the greenhouses and agricultural structures have been removed from the site. The
subject property is now fallow open fields containing no tangible land uses.
The eastern half of the project site (41.79 acres) is designated Residential Low Medium Density
(RLM) in the City's General Plan, allowing a range from 0.0 to 4.0 dwelling units per
developable acre with a Growth Management Control Point of 3.2 units per acre. The western
half of the project site (40.41 acres) is designated Residential Medium density, allowing a range
from 0.0 to 8.0 dwelling units per developable acre, with a Growth Control Point of 6.0 units per
acre. The subject property is also located within the City's Coastal Zone, Mello II segment, and
the Zone 20 Specific Plan area (SP 203). The entire site is zoned Limited Control (L-C) which
allows agricultural uses and requires a Zone Change prior to development.
Except for the manufactured 2:1 slopes associated with Poinsettia Lane and a 1.8 acre slope area
containing coastal sage scrub, virtually the entire site is developable according to the criteria
established in Section 21.53.230 of the Zoning Ordinance. For the purposes of calculating the
maximum residential yield on the property, slopes with inclinations between 25 and 40 percent
receive only half credit towards developable acreage. After subtracting the undevelopable
portions of the property, there remains a total of 73.71 developable acres within the site; 34.54 of
these acres are covered by the RLM General Plan designation and 39.17 acres are covered by the
RM General Plan designation. Using the Growth Management.Control Points of 3.2 and 6.0
dwelling units per acre for the RLM and RM designations respectively, the total allowable
residential yield on the property is 345 dwelling units ((33.54 x 3.2) + (39.17 x 6.0) = 345).
ZC 98-08/LCPA 98-04Q 98-14/PUD 98-05/CP 00-02/SDP 99O HDP 98-15/CDP 98-68 -
THOMPSON/TAB ATA
November 7,2001
Page 3
Since the project is proposing 262 total units, the development would be 83 dwelling units below
that allowed by the Growth Management Program.
The zoning proposed with Zone Change ZC 98-08 is divided along the existing General Plan
boundary between the RLM and RM portions of the site. On the RLM side, the proposed zoning
is One Family Residential with a Qualified Development Overlay (R-1-7,500-Q). There is a 4.17
acre parcel north of Poinsettia Lane that is already zoned R-l-10,000. On the RM side, the
proposed zoning is Residential Density-Multiple Zone with a Qualified Development Overlay
Zone (RD-M-Q). These zoning designations are consistent with those recommended by the
Zone 20 Specific Plan. In addition, the R-1-10,000-Q zoning proposed for those lots north of
Poinsettia Lane on the extension of Lemon Leaf Drive is consistent with the zoning of the
existing Mariner's Point development. Since the project site is located in the City's Coastal
Zone, a Local Coastal Program Amendment is also needed to effectuate the proposed Zone
Change.
In addition to the legislative actions described above, the project includes a Tentative Tract Map,
Planned Unit Development Permit, Condominium Permit, Site Development Plan, Hillside
Development Permit and a Coastal Development Permit. The project entails the subdivision,
grading and construction of 238 single-family lots, one multifamily lot with 24 condominium
units and a common recreation area, a recreational vehicle storage lot, two common recreation
lots and two open space lots. Of the 238 single-family units, 107 units would involve lots
measuring 7,500 square feet or larger. 130 single-family units would be located on lots of 6,000
square feet or greater. One existing single-family structure, the Thompson residence, would
remain and be included in the subdivision as a new lot.
The proposed residential development would entail a balanced grading scheme with
approximately 486,700 cubic yards of cut and fill. This results in a grading intensity of
approximately 6,000 cubic yards per acre. Some removal of unconsolidated materials may be
necessary, depending upon detailed soils investigations. The proposed topography would remain
essentially the same, with a north-south trending ridge and development stepping down the west-
facing slope. The proposed development includes public infrastructure, such as streets, storm
drains and sewer and water systems, which would tie into existing infrastructure in the area.
The project site would take access off of Poinsettia Lane via an existing intersection with Rose
Drive. The intersection would be signalized and would represent the primary ingress and egress
point for the subdivision. The proposed development would also extend four existing local
streets into the project site, connecting the existing local street circulation and providing multiple
access points. Two of these streets, Lemon Leaf Drive and Lonicera Street, are located north of
Poinsettia Lane and would be extended to form cul-de-sacs. The other two streets, Alyssum
Road and Rose Drive, are located south of Poinsettia Lane and would be extended to provide
through circulation. According to the project traffic report (Traffic Impact Analysis. Thompson
Property. Carlsbad. California, dated December 6, 2000, Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers),
the resulting traffic volumes would conform to City standards and some existing traffic volume
issues, such as circulation on Rose Drive, may actually benefit from the connection of the local
street system.
ZC 98-08/LCPA 98-04/C'O-14/PUD 98-05/CP 00-02/SDP 99-oOoP 98-15/CDP 98-68 -
THOMPSON/TABATA
November 7,2001
Page 4
There is a 2.40 acre area separating the northern portions of the development which contains an
existing single family dwelling and accessory structures. The residence currently takes access
off of Lonicera Street, just south of its intersection with Camino de las Ondas, via an access
easement and paved driveway. The proposed subdivision does not affect this easement and
provides public street frontage to the east of the lot by the extension of Lemon Leaf Drive,
thereby allowing future subdivision of the property.
The proposed standard lot, single family units would include four models, with options available
for each, and would range in size from 3,044 square feet to 4,203 square feet. These homes
would be a mix of one-story and two-story structures between 18.5 feet and 30 feet tall. The
proposed small lot single-family units would also include four models and would range from
2,757 square feet to 3,288 square feet. While all small lot units would be two story structures,
the architecture would include varied roof planes, exterior wall offsets and single story edges to
create a variety of appearances and compliment the resulting street scene.
The affordable housing component of the project involves four multifamily buildings, containing
a total of 24 units. The units range in size from 1,129 square feet to 1,872 square feet. In order
to address the special housing needs of large households, 16 of the units would contain four
bedrooms. The structures would contain two stories and would be approximately 30 feet tall.
The affordable housing units would be located south of Poinsettia Lane and bordered by the
major arterial to the north and new single-family development to the west, south and east. The
site would share access off of Rose Drive with the Recreational Vehicle storage site and would
include a common active recreation area for the condominium units.
There have been several expressions of public interest in the project by residents and/or property
owners in the surrounding neighborhoods. A petition was submitted to the City Council from the
residents and property owners of the Vista Pacifica subdivision, which borders the project site on
the west, was received in May 2000. This petition is attached as Attachment 15 to this staff
report. Due to the large amount of public interest in the project, Community Development staff
conducted a Community Information Forum on August 17, 2000. All surrounding property
owners within the Vista Pacifica, Las Playas, Spinnaker Hill and Mariner's Point residential
developments were notified of the forum. Copies of the minutes of that forum are also attached
as Attachment 16 to this report. The bulk of the issues discussed at this forum centered on the
project's generation of additional traffic and school children, as well as the proposed connection
of the projects' streets to the existing stubs at Alyssum Road and Rose Drive.
The Thompson/Tabata project is subject to the following regulations:
A. General Plan;
B. Local Coastal Program;
C. Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 203);
D. One-Family Residential Zone (Chapter 21.10 of the Zoning Ordinance);
E. Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code);
F. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (Chapter 21.85 of the Zoning Ordinance);
G. Planned Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.45 of the Zoning Ordinance);
H. Hillside Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.95 of the Zoning Ordinance);
I. Growth Management Ordinance (Chapter 21.90 of the Zoning Ordinance);
ZC 98-08/LCPA 98-04/O98-14/PUD 98-05/CP 00-02/SDP 99-OnDP 98-15/CDP 98-68 -
THOMPSON/TABATA
November 7,2001
PageS
J. Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan.
IV. ANALYSIS
The recommendation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project's
consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. The following analysis
section discusses compliance with each of these regulations/policies utilizing both text and
tables.
A.General Plan
1. Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment Compliance
The legislative actions associated with the Thompson/Tabata proposal are consistent with the
applicable policies and programs of the General Plan. Particularly relevant to the Zone
Change/LCPA is the Land Use Element. The existing General Plan land use designations of the
Thompson/Tabata site are Residential Low Medium Density (RLM) and Residential Medium
Density (RM).
The existing zoning of Limited Control (L-C) is a holding zone that does not implement any
General Plan designations, therefore, it is appropriate to remove that zoning to allow
development. Since the General Plan designations are residential designations, it follows that the
proposed zoning should also be residential designations. The densities allowed by the RLM and
RM designations range from 0.0 to 4.0 and 4.0 to 8.0 dwelling units per developable acre,
respectively. The applicant has proposed the One-Family Residential with a minimum lot size of
7,500 square feet (R-l-7,500) designation to implement the RLM designation; the Residential
Density-Multiple Zone (RD-M) designation is proposed to implement the RM designation.
These zoning designations are appropriate to implement the existing General Plan designations
and are in conformance with the recommendations of the Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 203). The
proposed zoning of R-l-7,500 and RD-M are, therefore, consistent with the General Plan Land
Use Element.
2. Subdivision and other development permits
The Thompson/Tabata residential subdivision proposal is consistent with the applicable policies
and programs of the General Plan. Particularly relevant to the residential development request
are the Land Use, Circulation, Noise, Housing, Public Safety, elements. Table 2 below indicates
how the project complies with these particular elements of the General Plan
TABLE 2 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
Element
Land Use
Use Classification, Goal,
Objective or Program
Site is designated for low-
medium (RLM) and medium
(RM) density residential
development.
Proposed Use and
Improvements
Proposed project density is
2.58 dwellings per acre in
RLM area and 3.88 dwellings
per acre in RM area.
Compliance
Yes
ZC 98-08/LCPA 98-04/C
THOMPSON/TABATA
November 7,2001
Page 6
-14/PUD 98-05/CP 00-02/SDP 99-0'P 98-15/CDP 98-68-
TABLE 2 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
Element
Circulation
Noise
Housing
Open Space and
Conservation
Public Safety
Use Classification, Goal,
Objective or Program
Require new development to
provide pedestrian linkages to
schools, points of interest, and
major transportation corridors.
Require new development to
construct all roadways needed to
serve the proposed development.
Minimize the number of access
points to major and prime
arterials to enhance the
functioning of these streets and
thoroughfares.
Require that a noise study be
submitted with all residential
projects over five units. Enforce
the City policy that 60 dBA
CNEL is the maximum exterior
noise level for residential units.
Provide sufficient new,
affordable housing to meet the
needs of groups with special
requirements.
Preserve open space in as natural
a state as possible.
Provision of emergency water
systems and all-weather access
roads.
Proposed Use and
Improvements
Site design incorporates
pedestrian link to and across
Poinsettia Lane, facilitating
access to the Pacific Rim
Elementary School and
Poinsettia Park.
All roadways needed to serve
the development will be
dedicated and constructed
prior to, or concurrent with,
site development.
The project design includes
only one connection to
Poinsettia Lane, a major
arterial, and connects the
existing local streets with
those proposed within the
development.
The project includes a noise
study with mitigation
measures to reduce traffic
noise from Poinsettia Lane to
60 dBA CNEL.
The project includes 24 for-
sale condominium units that
are affordable to lower income
households and 16 of which
contain four bedrooms.
The existing 1.8 acre coastal
sage scrub habitat is remaining
undisturbed by the project.
All necessary water mains, fire
hydrants, and appurtenances
must be installed prior to
occupancy of any unit and all-
weather access roads will be
maintained throughout
Compliance
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
ZC 98-08/LCPA 98-04Q 98-14/PUD 98-05/CP 00-02/SDP 99O HDP 98-15/CDP 98-68 -
THOMPSON/TABATA
November 7,2001
Page?
TABLE 2 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
Element Use Classification, Goal,
Objective or Program
Proposed Use and
Improvements
construction.
Compliance
Given the above, the Thompson/Tabata residential project is consistent with the City's General
Plan.
B. Local Coastal Program
1. Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment Compliance
The Thompson/Tabata residential subdivision site is located within the Mello II segment of the
Local Coastal Program. The implementing ordinances for the Mello II segment are contained in
the City's Zoning Ordinance and includes a Zoning Map. The Local Coastal Program Zoning
Map shows that the project site is designated Limited Control (L-C), consistent with the City's
Zoning Map. In order to maintain consistency between the City's Zoning Map and the Local
Coastal Program, the zoning designation on both the Zoning Map and LCP must be changed.
Therefore, the proposed Zone Change/Local Coastal Program Amendment from L-C to R-l-
7,500-Q, .and RD-M-Q provides consistency between the City's Zoning designations and the
zoning designations contained in the Local Coastal Program.
2. Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development, Condominium Permit, Hillside
Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit Compliance
As mentioned above, the Thompson/Tabata residential subdivision lies within the Mello II
segment of the City's Coastal Zone and is subject to the corresponding land use policies and
implementing ordinances, including zoning designations. The policies of the Mello II segment
emphasize topics such as preservation of prime agriculture and scenic resources, protection of
environmentally sensitive lands, provision of shoreline access, and prevention of geologic
instability and erosion.
The proposed project is consistent with these policies. The project site contains two areas of
sensitive natural resources: a 1.8 acre strip of coastal sage scrub on the eastern boundary and 0.1
acres of southern willow scrub within a man-made water detention pond on the west side of the
property. The coastal sage scrub area is contiguous to an open space lot within the Avaira
Master Plan and is proposed to remain undisturbed. The southern willow scrub area is proposed
to be replaced with a passive recreational area and mitigated on site at a ratio of 1:1.
The proposed development is located on the side of a ridgeline and, since the development
begins at top of ridge and substantially follows the existing sloping topography, no public views
of coastal resources would be impaired. No coastal bluffs exist on site and the only natural slope
area with native vegetation is being completely preserved in open space. No significant geologic
features or existing geotechnical risks exist on the property. All grading must follow the City of
Carlsbad Standards and would be confined to the dry season (i.e. April 1st to October 1st).
-14/PUD 98-05/CP 00-02/SDP 99-OoWfc>P 98-15/CDP 98-68 -
THOMPSON/TABATA
November 7,2001
PaeeS
The project site is designated as Site HI in Mello II, therefore requiring the payment of an
agricultural conversion mitigation fee ranging from $6,655.00 to $10,000.00 per acre, depending
on the time of development. This mitigation fee would be placed in a conservancy and used for
promoting agricultural and natural resources within the City's Coastal Zone. Given the project's
location, 1.1 miles from Pacific Ocean and 0.75 miles from Batiquitos Lagoon, no coastal access
or coastal recreational opportunities exist within the site.
C. Zone 20 Specific Plan
The Thomson/Tabata project site constitutes all of Planning Area D of the Zone 20 Specific Plan
area and, therefore, is subject to the requirements and provisions of the Zone 20 Specific Plan
(SP 203). Table 3 below details the Specific Plan requirements and the project's consistency
with those requirements.
TABLE 3 - ZONE 20 SPECIFIC PLAN CONFORMANCE
ZONE 20 REQUIREMENT PROPOSED PROJECT CONFORMANCE
GENERAL PROVISIONS
General Plan/Zoning Consistency -
All properties designated as RLM
should be zoned R-l and all RM
properties should be designated RD-M.
Project proposes R-l-Q zoning for
RLM portion and RD-M-Q zoning for
RM portion.
Yes
RV Storage - 25% or all standard
single-family lots must have increased
side yard setbacks to accommodate RV
storage. All PUDs must conform with
PD standards for RV storage.
31 of the 107 standard single-family
lots contain minimum 10 foot side
yards to accommodate RVs. The 154
PUD and condominium units are served
by RV storage lot of 3,360 sq ft, based
upon the 20 sq ft per unit requirement.
Yes
Open Space - projects must conform
to the Specific Plan open space exhibit
(page 56 of SP 203), requiring a
minimum 50-foot landscaped parkway
along both sides of Poinsettia Lane.
Project proposes 50 foot landscaped
parkway along the north and south side
of Poinsettia Lane to be maintained by
the Homeowners Association.Yes
Architectural Standards - variety of
roof and wall materials and colors,
window and door enhancement,
articulated building forms, one and
two story structures and elements
within structures (minimum 10% one
story), curvilinear street designs.
All residential structures proposed with
the project contain a variety of roof and
wall materials with varied pitches and
offsets. All small lot single-family
homes meet the City's Small Lot Single
Family Guidelines, thereby including
wall offsets and single story edges.
Yes
Given the above, the Thompson/Tabata residential project is consistent with the Zone 20 Specific
Plan (SP 203). .
ZC 98-08/LCPA 98-04/W98-14/PUD 98-05/CP 00-02/SDP 99-Qffl)P 98-15/CDP 98-68 -
THOMPSON/TABATA
November 7,2001
Page 9
D. One-Family Residential Zone
In addition to conformance with the Zone 20 Specific Plan standards, those portions of the
project zoned R-l-10,000 and proposed for R-1-7,500-Q zoning are subject to the provisions of
the R-l zone, as contained in Chapter 21.10 of the Zoning Ordinance. Table 4 below describes
the project's conformance with these standards.
TABLE 4 - R-l ZONING COMPLIANCE
STANDARD
Minimum lot area: The minimum
lot area is designated by the proposed
zoning designation and measures
either 7,500 square feet or 10,000
square feet.
Building Height: A maximum of 30
feet with a minimum roof pitch of
3:12.
Front Yard: A minimum 20 feet.
Side yards: A minimum of ten
percent of the lot width for all internal
side yards and a minimum often feet
for all street side yards.
Rear Yards: A minimum of 20
percent of the lot width.
Lot Width: All lots with R-l -7,500
zoning must have a minimum lot
width of 60 feet.
All lots with R-l-10,000 zoning must
have a minimum lot width of 75 feet.
Lot Coverage: Maximum of 40
percent.
Garage Dimensions: All units must
contain a two-car garage with
minimum dimensions of 20 feet by 20
feet interior space.
Dwelling Unit Width: All units
must have a minimum width of 20
feet.
PROPOSED
All lots meet or exceed the minimum lot
size requirement, with the minimum lot
size being 7,876 square feet in the R-l-
7,500 zone and 10,001 square feet for the
R-l-10,000 zone.
All proposed structures measure from 25.5
feet to 27.75 feet tall, with a minimum
roof pitch of 3:12.
All units are setback a minimum of 20 feet
from public right-of-way.
All units have internal side yard setback
equal to at least ten percent of the lot
width and all street side yards measure a
minimum often feet from the public right-
of-way.
All units possess rear yard setbacks equal
to at least 20 percent of the corresponding
lot width.
All R-l -7,500 lots meet or exceed the
minimum lot width requirement of 60 feet.
All R-l-10,000 lots meet or exceed the
minimum lot width requirement of 75 feet.
All proposed R-l units possess a lot
coverage below 40 percent.
All proposed R-l units contain at least a
two-car garage with minimum dimensions
of 20 feet by 20 feet interior space.
All proposed R-l units measure over the
20 foot minimum width.
COMPLIANCE
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
ZC 98-08/LCPA 98-04/cO-14/PUD 98-05/CP 00-02/SDP 99-0<Qbp 98-15/CDP 98-68 -
THOMPSON/TABATA
November 7,2001
Page 10 _^
Given the above, the proposed Thompson/Tabata residential project is consistent with the
requirements of the R-l zone, Chapter 21.06 of the Zoning Ordinance.
E. Subdivision Ordinance
Since the Thompson/Tabata project involves a subdivision of land, the proposal is subject to the
regulations of Title 20, the Subdivision Ordinance. Chapter 20.16 of the Subdivision Ordinance
addresses the requirements for a major subdivision, that being a subdivision that creates more
than four parcels. These requirements mostly deal with providing the drainage, sewerage and
circulation dedications and improvements needed to serve the subdivision. There are also
requirements concerning consistency with Title 21, the Zoning Ordinance, which is addressed in
the other sections of this staff report.
The proposed Thompson/Tabata residential subdivision would provide all necessary facilities
prior to, or concurrent with, construction. The hydrology report, submitted by the applicant,
indicates that all runoff can be controlled on-site and conveyed into existing and proposed storm
drain facilities. The on-site sewer system would be connected with the existing system in
Poinsettia Lane, the Las Playas subdivision, Alyssum Road, the Vista Pacific subdivision, and
Rose Drive. Water distribution would involve one-way and looped service from existing lines in
Lonicera Drive, Lemon Leaf Drive and Poinsettia Lane. As mentioned above, the subdivision
involves the connection of future streets within the project to Lemon Leaf Drive, Lonicera Street,
Poinsettia Lane, Alyssum Road, and Rose Drive. These circulation connections would complete
the local street circulation in the immediate area. No standards variances are needed to approve
the project. Given the above, the proposed subdivision would provide all necessary facilities and
improvements without producing land title conflicts, therefore the project is consistent with the
Subdivision Ordinance.
F. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
The proposed residential subdivision is subject to the provisions of the Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance, Chapter 21.85 of the Zoning Ordinance. Since the project involves more than seven
units, it must provide affordable housing units, preferably within the project boundaries. The
current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires that a minimum of 15 percent of the proposed
units be affordable to lower-income households.
The Thompson/Tabata project proposes to satisfy its 15 percent requirement through a
combination of on-site construction and offsite affordable housing credit purchases. Based upon
a total unit count of 262 dwellings, the total inclusionary housing requirement is 40 affordable
units. The project proposes to construct 24 for-sale condominium units within the subdivision
boundary, 16 of which would contain four-bedrooms. Large family households are identified as
a special needs group in the City's Housing Element. The remaining requirement for 16 units
would be satisfied through the purchase of off-site credits within the Villa Loma apartment
project. As required by the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, the project is conditioned to enter
into an Affordable Housing Agreement prior to approval of the final map. This agreement will
establish the specifics of the project including the exact level of affordability of the units (based
upon the current San Diego County Median Income figures), the schedule for production of the
ZC 98-08/LCPA 98-040 98-14/PUD 98-05/CP 00-02/SDP 99O/ HDP 98-15/CDP 98-68 -
THOMPSON/TABATA
November 7,2001
Page 11
units and purchase of the off-site credits, the tenure of affordability of the units, and resale
restrictions.
Given that the Thompson/Tabata residential development proposes the construction of 24 for-
sale affordable condominium units within the project boundary, and the payment of 15.3 credits
within the Villa Loma apartments, the project is consistent with the Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance.
G. Planned Development Ordinance
There are two components of the Thompson/Tabata residential project that are subject to the
provisions of the Planned Development Ordinance: the 130 unit small lot single-family planned
unit development and the 24 unit multifamily condominium development. Tables 5 and 6 below
detail the conformance of these two components with the appropriate development standards and
design criteria contained in the Planned Development Ordinance, Chapter 21.45 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
TABLE 5 - SINGLE FAMILY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CONFORMANCE
STANDARD PROPOSED CONFORMANCE
Arterial Setback: All units must
be setback from major arterials a
minimum of 50 feet.
All units are setback a minimum of 50 feet
from the Poinsettia Lane right-of-way.Yes
Front Yard Setback: All garages
must be setback a minimum of 20
feet. All living areas must be
setback an average of 15 feet with a
minimum of 10 feet.
All garages are setback a minimum of 20
feet from the local street right-of-way. All
living areas are setback a minimum of 10
feet from the local street right-of-way,
with an average setback of over 15 feet.
Yes
Corner Lot Setback: All units
must have a minimum street side
yard of 10 feet.
All comer lot units have a street side yard
setback of at least 10 feet.Yes
Resident Parking: All units must
have at least two full-sized covered
parking spaces.
All units have a two-car garage, with
minimum dimensions of 20 feet by 20 feet
interior space.Yes
Visitor Parking: For a 130 unit
project, a minimum of 35 guest
parking spaces are required.
The project offers 35 delineated guest
parking spaces on the streets in front of the
Planned Development units.Yes
Recreational Space: A minimum
of 200 square feet per unit of
passive recreational space is
required. Private yards measuring at
least 15 feet by 15 feet qualify for
100 square feet of credit.
All units include private yards measuring
at least 15 feet by 15 feet in dimension.
Project also includes three passive parks,
totaling over 18,000 square feet which
exceeds the required 13,000 square feet of
common passive recreational area.
Yes
ZC 98-08/LCPA 98-04/cO-14/PUD 98-05/CP 00-02/SDP 99-OdGfc>P 98-15/CDP 98-68 -
THOMPSON/TABATA
November 7,2001
Page 12
TABLE 5 - SINGLE FAMILY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CONFORMANCE
STANDARD PROPOSED CONFORMANCE
Recreational Vehicle Storage: A
minimum of 20 square feet per unit,
exclusive of driveways and
approaches. For 130 units, a
minimum of 2,600 square feet is
required.
The project includes an RV storage area
that is shared with the 24 multifamily
condominiums. For 154 units, the
minimum required RV storage area is
3,080 square feet. A total of 3,360 square
feet is provided in nine parking spaces.
Yes
Minimum Lot Size: Single-family
products must have a minimum lot
size of 3,500 square feet.
Lot sizes in the Planned Development
measure between 6,022 and 26,226 square
feet in area.Yes
Minimum Street Frontage: A
minimum frontage of 40 feet on
linear streets and 35 feet on sharply
curved streets or at end of cul-de-
sacs.
The street frontages for all units on linear
streets measure over 40 feet, with most
exceeding 60 feet. All units at the end of
cul-de-sacs have a street frontage of at
least 39 feet.
Yes
Building Height: Maximum
building height, as measured to the
peak of the-roof, is 30 feet for roof
pitches equal to or greater than
3:12.
All units have minimum roof pitches of
3:12 and measure between 25.5 feet and
27.75 feet to the peak of the roof.Yes
In addition to the Planned Development compliance, the proposed single-family planned
development must conform to City Council Policy No. 44, the Small Lot Single family
Guidelines. Table 6 below details the requirements of Policy No. 44 and the project's
compliance to those requirements.
TABLE 6 - SMALL LOT SINGLE FAMILY GUIDELINES CONFORMANCE
STANDARD
At least one out of three two story
units in a row must have a single
story edge along the entire
building of at least 10 feet in
width.
33 percent of all units within the
project must contain a single
story edge for 40 percent of the
building perimeter.
On street sides with over 45 feet
of frontage, at least 50 percent of
all units shall contain at least four
PROPOSED
Both the Plan 1 and Plan 2 buildings contain
single story edges measuring between 10 and
17 feet wide. The units are mixed such that
at least one Plan 1 or Plan 2 building is
contained in any group of three structures.
The Plan 1 buildings contain a single story
edge for approximately 55 percent of the
structure perimeter. The Plan 2 buildings
contain a single story edge for approximately
45 percent of the structure perimeter. Out of
the 130 total units, there are 27 Plan 1
models and 25 Plan 2 models, constituting
40 percent of all units.
All four proposed model types contain a
minimum of four building planes on their
front and rear elevations with a minimum
CONFORMANCE
Yes
Yes
Yes
ZC 98-08/LCPA 98-04O 98-14/PUD 98-05/CP 00-02/SDP 99O HDP 98-15/CDP 98-68 -
THOMPSON/TABATA
November 7,2001
Page 13
TABLE 6 - SMALL LOT SINGLE FAMILY GUIDELINES CONFORMANCE
STANDARD
separate building planes with a
minimum offset of 1 8 inches on
their front and rear elevations.
At least 50 percent of all units
must contain one side elevation
with sufficient offsets so that the
side yard averages seven (7) feet.
Roof framing for each floor plan
shall exhibit directional variety
with respect to the street frontage.
PROPOSED
offset of 18 inches.
Plan 2 models contain offsets measuring 1 1
feet deep by 1 1 feet wide. Plan 3 models
contain offsets measuring 14 feet deep by 15
feet wide. 66 out of the 130 units are
proposed to be either Plan 2 or Plan 3.
These features, combined with the proposed
setbacks, results in an average setback of
over seven (7) feet for more than 50 percent
of the units.
The roof framing on all models exhibit a
wide variety of orientation and pitch,
ranging from 4:12 to 8:12 in slope.
CONFORMANCE
Yes
Yes
Given the above, the proposed single-family planned development units are consistent with City
Council Policy 44, the Small Lot Single Family Guidelines.
TABLE 7 - MULTIFAMILY CONDOMINIUM CONFORMANCE
STANDARD
Arterial Setback: All units must
be setback from major arterials a
minimum of 50 feet.
Front Yard Setback: All garages
must be setback from private streets
a minimum of 5 feet.
Distance Between Structures:
The minimum distance between
two-story structures is 20 feet.
Resident Parking: All units must
have at least two full-sized covered
parking spaces.
Visitor Parking: For a 24 unit
project, a minimum of 9 guest
parking spaces are required.
Recreational Space: A minimum
of 200 square feet per unit of
passive recreational space is
required. Private yards measuring at
PROPOSED
All multifamily buildings are setback a
minimum of 65 feet from the Poinsettia
Lane right-of-way.
All garages are setback a minimum of 5
feet to the 30-foot wide private street.
All residential structures are two-story and
measure between 20 and 90 feet apart.
Four of the six units in each building
contain a two-car garage. The other two
units have a one-car garage and an exterior
space covered by a carport.
The project offers 1 1 delineated guest
parking spaces in parking bays adjacent or
proximate to the residential buildings.
All units include private yards measuring
at least 15 feet by 15 feet in dimension.
Project also includes a 1,800 square foot
active recreation area, which exceeds the
CONFORMANCE
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
ZC 98-08/LCPA 98-04/cO-14/PUD 98-05/CP 00-02/SDP 99-0<MDP 98-15/CDP 98-68 -
THOMPSON/TABATA
November 7,2001
Page 14
TABLE 7 - MULTIFAMILY CONDOMINIUM CONFORMANCE
STANDARD
least 15 feet by 15 feet qualify for
100 square feet of credit.
Recreational Vehicle Storage: A
minimum of 20 square feet per unit,
exclusive of driveways and
approaches. For 24 units, a
minimum of 480 square feet is
required.
Minimum Street Width: Private
streets for multifamily attached
units must measure a minimum of
30 feet from curb to curb.
PROPOSED
1,200 square foot common recreation area
requirement.
The project includes an RV storage area
that is shared with the 130 single-family
units. For 154 units, the minimum
required RV storage area is 3,080 square
feet. A total of 3,360 square feet is
provided in nine parking spaces.
Project includes a private street measuring
a minimum of 30 feet wide, as measured
from curb to curb.
CONFORMANCE
Yes
Yes
Given the information in Tables 5 and 7, the Thomspon/Tabata project is consistent with the
Planned Development Ordinance, Chapter 21.45 of the Zoning Ordinance.
H. Hillside Development Ordinance
The Thompson/Tabata project involves development over sloping topography and, therefore, it is
subject to the Hillside Development regulations, Chapter 21.95 of the Zoning Ordinance. While
the City recently amended the Hillside Development Ordinance, the Thompson/Tabata Hillside
Development Permit was deemed complete prior to those amendments taking effect. Therefore,
the project is subject to the pre-existing Hillside Development Ordinance.
The project site contains two areas of slopes over 40 percent inclination: the 2:1 manufactured
slopes along the Poinsettia Lane frontages and the natural slopes along the eastern boundary of
the project site, adjacent to the Aviara Master Plan area. There are numerous manufactured
slopes of 25 to 40 percent inclination throughout the project site that were created as part of the
previous open field and greenhouse agricultural operations. Table 8 below details the project's
conformance with these regulations.
TABLE 8 - HILLSIDE DEVELOLPMENT ORDINANCE CONFORMANCE
STANDARD
Preservation of slopes over 40
percent inclination. Manufactured
slopes over 40 percent inclination
that were grading according to an
approved grading plan may be
altered.
Grading volumes should be limited
to 8,000 cubic yards per acre.
PROPOSED
The project proposes no encroachment into
the natural slopes over 40 percent
inclination. The manufactured slopes over
40 percent inclination created with the
construction of Poinsettia Lane are
proposed to be lowered by up to 25 feet.
The proposed grading volume of 496,700
cubic yards over 82.20 acres results in
6,042 cubic yards per acre.
CONFORMANCE
Yes
Yes
ZC 98-08/LCPA 98-04O 98-14/PUD 98-05/CP 00-02/SDP 99Q/ HDP 98-15/CDP 98-68 -
THOMPSON/TABATA
November 7,2001
Page 15
TABLE 8 - HILLSIDE DEVELOLPMENT ORDINANCE CONFORMANCE
STANDARD
Manufactured slopes should not
exceed 30 feet.
PROPOSED
The tallest manufactured slope created by
the project measures 30 feet in height. The
existing slopes over 40 feet high along the
Poinsettia Lane southern frontage would
be lowered by up to 25 feet.
CONFORMANCE
Yes
Given the above, the Thompson/Tabata residential project is consistent with the provisions of the
Hillside Development Ordinance.
I. Growth Management Ordinance
The Thompson/Tabata residential development proposal is subject to the provisions of the
Growth Management Program, as contained in Chapter 21.90 of the Zoning Ordinance. The
open space requirements of the Growth Management Program were modified in the Zone 20
Local Facilities Management Plan; the requirement for this site (Planning Area D) consists of a
minimum 50 foot landscaped setback from the Poinsettia Lane right-of-way. Since the project is
83 units below the total yield anticipated by the Zone 20 LFMP, all existing and planned
facilities are or will be adequate to serve the need generated by this project. Table 9 below
details the project's conformance with the requirements of the Growth Management Program.
TABLE 9 - GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE
Standard
City Administration
Library
Waste Water Treatment
Parks
Drainage
Circulation
Fire
Open Space
Schools
Sewer Collection System
Water
Impacts/Standards
882.18 sq ft
469.8 sq ft
261 EDU
1.76 acres
PLDA D
2,572 ADT
Station # 4
50' setback to Poinsettia Lane
Carlsbad Unified
261 EDU
57,420 GPD
Compliance
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
The project is 83 units below the Growth Management Control Point
ZC 98-08/LCPA 98-04/ClO-14/PUD 98-05/CP 00-02/SDP 99-06)Q)P 98-15/CDP 98-68 -
THOMPSON/TABATA
November 7, 2001
Page 16
J. Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan
The project site lies within Local Facilities Management Zone 20. Other than the modification
of the Growth Management open space requirement discussed above, there are no special
conditions or requirements within the Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan that apply to
this residential project. The project is conditioned to pay the appropriate park-in-lieu fees, public
facility fees, water and sewer connection fees, traffic impact fees, and school fees. All facility
improvements necessary to accommodate the development will be in place prior to, or concurrent
with, development. Therefore, the Thompson/Tabata residential development is consistent with
the Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The potential impacts of the development of the Thompson/Tabata residential subdivision, as
designed and conditioned, were reviewed and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was issued on
April 4, 2001. The Mitigated Negative Declaration includes mitigations in the areas of Land
Use, Housing, Geology, Water, Air Quality, Circulation, Biological Resources, Hazards, Noise
and Paleontological Resources (listed on pages 32 through 34 of the Environmental Impact
Assessment Form - Part II, dated March 1, 2001). Given these measures, development and
occupation of the project would not cause any significant adverse environmental impacts. The
findings of no significant impact are supported by a number of previous environmental review
documents and site-specific studies. The previous environmental review documents include the
Master Environmental Impact Report for the 1994 General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01) and the
Program EIR for the Zone 20 Specific Plan (EIR 90-03). The Master EIR reviewed the potential
environmental impacts associated with the buildout of the City's General Plan, including
transportation and air quality. The Program EIR for the Zone 20 Specific Plan reviewed the
potential impacts associated with development of the Zone 20 Specific Plan area with uses in
accordance with the City's General Plan. All applicable mitigation measures contained in these
two documents that are relevant to the proposed project have been incorporated into the project
design or are expressly listed in the project's mitigation measures.
As mentioned above, the project falls within the scope of the City's MEIR for the City of
Carlsbad General Plan update (EIR 93-01) certified in September, 1994, in which a Statement of
Overriding Considerations was adopted for cumulative impacts to air quality and traffic. MEIR's
may not be used to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior to the filing of an
application for a later project except under certain circumstances. The City is currently
reviewing the 1994 MEIR to determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects.
Although the MEIR was certified more than five years ago, the City's preliminary review of its
adequacy finds that no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under
which the MEIR was certified. The only potential changed circumstance, the intersection failure
at Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real, has been mitigated to below a level of
significance. Additionally, there is no new available information, which was not known and
could not have been known at the time the MEIR was certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains
adequate to review later projects. All feasible mitigation measures identified by the MEIR which
are appropriate to this project have been incorporated into the project.
ZC 98-08/LCPA 98-040* 98-14/PUD 98-05/CP 00-02/SDP 990/ HDP 98-15/CDP 98-68 -
THOMPSON/TABATA
November 7,2001
Page 17
The site-specific studies, on file with the Planning Department, include: Geotechnical
Investigation - Poinsettia Agricultural Property, dated September 1998, Geocon, Inc.
Geotechnical Consultants; Preliminary Hydrology Report for Zone 20 Poinsettia Properties.
dated September 8, 1999, Buccola Engineering, Inc.; Site Assessment and Health Risk
Assessment Report - Poinsettia Agricultural Property - Tabata Site Carlsbad. California, dated
August 1998, Geocon, Inc. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants; Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment - Weidner/Dennis Property. Carlsbad California, dated March
1999, Geocon, Inc. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants; Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment Update Including Methane and Fixed Gases Survey - Poinsettia Agricultural
Property, dated February 6, 2001, Geocon, Inc. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants;
Biological Survey of the Thompson Property. City of Carlsbad, dated October 3, 2000, Dudek
and Associates, Inc.; Traffic Impact Analysis. Thompson Property. Carlsbad. California, dated
December 6, 2000, Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers; and Standard Pacific Poinsettia
Property Acoustical Study, dated January 2,2001, Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc.
In accordance with State Law, a copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration was forwarded to
the Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse for distribution to interested
agencies. The reviewing agencies were: State Resources Agency, California Coastal
Commission, State Department of Conservation, State Department of Fish and Game (Region 5),
State Department of Parks and Recreation, Caltrans (Division of Aeronautics), California
Highway Patrol, Caltrans (District 11), Regional Water Quality Control Board (Region 9),
Native American Heritage Commission, Public Utilities Commission, and the State Lands
Commission. On May 3, 2001, the City received correspondence from the State Clearinghouse
stating that no state agencies submitted comments and that the City complied with the State
Clearinghouse requirements pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
In addition to the State Clearinghouse letter, the City received four letters from interested
members of the public (copies attached). The commenting parties were: Vista Pacifica
Homeowner's Association, Mary and Joseph Hull, Timothy M. Hutter, and Donald W. Detisch,
Esq. of Detisch and Christensen, Attorneys at Law. The letter from the Vista Pacifica HOA
contained comments regarding the location of the affordable housing, the extension of Alyssum
Road, proposed air quality mitigation measures, previous agricultural runoff and storm drain
capacity, and impacts to schools. The letter from Mary and Joseph Hull contained comments
regarding previous iterations of the project's design, previous environmental review documents,
project grading and the resulting topography, the future signalization of the Poinsettia
Lane/Snapdragon Drive intersection, project density and the amount of open space, use of
agricultural mitigation funds, connection of existing street system, erosion and runoff, traffic
generation and local street circulation, school capacity, parkland impacts, and bus circulation.
The letter from Timothy M. Hutter contained comments regarding traffic generation and local
street circulation, school capacity, and power availability. The letter from Donald W. Detisch,
Esq. contained comments regarding noise from Poinsettia Lane, existing access to an adjacent
property not included in the subdivision, and lighting of recreation areas. While not a
requirement of CEQA, the City did respond to the comments letters received and those responses
are also attached for reference.
ZC 98-08/LCPA 98-04/00-14/PUD 98-05/CP 00-02/SDP 99-OeQbP 98-15/CDP 98-68 -
THOMPSON/TABATA
November 7,2001
Page 18
ATTACHMENTS;
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5070 (Mitigated Negative Declaration)
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5071 (ZC 98-08)
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5072 (LCPA 98-04)
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5073 (CT 98-14)
5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5074 (PUD 98-05)
6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5075 (CP 00-02)
7. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5076 (SDP 99-06)
8. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5077 (HDP 98-15)
9. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5078 (CDP 98-68)
10. Location Map
11. Disclosure Statement
12. Background Data Sheet
13. Local Facilities Impact Assessment
14. Copy of letters from Public Review Period for Mitigated Negative Declaration
15. Copy of City' s Responses to Environmental Review Public Comment letters
16. Copy of Petition to Mayor Bud Lewis from Homeowners of Vista Pacifica
17. Minutes from the Community Information Forum, dated August 25,2000
18. Exhibits "A" - "EEEE", dated November 7,2001
o o
SITE
THOMPSON/TABATA
ZC 98-08/LCPA 98-04/CT 98-14/PUD 98-057
CP 00-02/SDP 99-06/HDP 98-15/CDP 98-68
&itv of Carlsbad
Planning Department
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require
discretionary action on the pan of the City Council or any appointed Board. Commission or Committee.
The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submirtal. Your project cannot
be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print.
Note:
Person is defined as "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal
organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and county, city
municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit."
Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be
provided below.
]. APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent)
Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having a financial
interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership, include the
names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO
INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES. PLEASE INDICATE NON-
APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-owned corporation, include the
names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if
necessary.)
Corp/Part N/A. spg ahfcac'hpd
Title
Address
Person Sf.anriard ParHfin Pnrp. ,
j. - a Delaware corporation
Address 9335 Chesapeake Dr.
San Diego, CA 92123
OWNER (Not the owner's agent)
Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having any ownership
interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e,
partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a
corporation or partnership, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more
than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES,
PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-
owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate
page may be attached if necessary.)
Person See attached paqe(s)
Title
Corp/Part_
Title
NA
Address Address
2O75 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (76O) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-O894
NON-PROFIT OR^NIZATION OR TRUST
If any person id^f^B pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a noJ^DfTorganization or a trust, list the
names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the.
Non Profit/Trust See attached page (s >sj0n Profit/Trust
Title
Address
Title
Address
Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of Ci.ty staff.
Boards. Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months?
QYes No If yes. please indicate person(s):_
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary.
I certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
See attached Signature page(s)
Sianature of owner/date Signature
Ibid.
Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant
Standard Pacific Corp.,
a Delaware corporation
Signature of owner/applicant's agent if applicable/date
Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent
H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98 Page 2 of 2
POINSETTIA PROPERTIES
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
OWNER DISCLOSURES/SIGNATURES
APN(S): Por. 214-170-09 APN(S): 2/V-
OWNER: David B. Thompson and Karen R. OWNER:
Thompson Revocable Trust
ADDRESS: 7040 Rose Drive, Carlsbad CA 92009 ADDRESS:
QV- i. l v ' ~' ^" '•- \ - W QVlSs«^ )D T. '-^ ^ v . . \ ,.• j \s " x v ^ \ . ' <- " -v - O T ^S«^^^A—»^
(signature / date) ' (signature/date)
David B. Thompson £>»W<g/ 8.
(print name) (print name)
Trustee
(title) (title)
W BACKGROUND DATA SHE
CASE NO: ZC 98-08/LCPA 98-04/CT 98-14/PUD 98-05CP 00-02/SDP 99-067
HDP 98-15/CDP 98-68
CASE NAME: Thompson/Tabata
APPLICANT: Standard Pacific Homes
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment to
change 40.41 acres of the subdivision from Limited Control (L-O to Residential Multiple-
Density with a Qualified Development Overlay Zone (RD-M-O) and to change 37.62 acres from
Limited Control (L-C) to One Family Residential with a Qualified Development Overlay Zone
(R-l-OV. and a Tentative Tract Map. Planned Unit Development Permit. Site Development Plan.
Coastal Development Permit. Hillside Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit to
subdivide, grade, and develop approximately 82.20 acres, creating 238 single family lots, two
open space lots, three recreation lots, one recreational vehicle storage lot and a 24 unit, for-sale
condominium project, affordable to lower-income households, on property generally located
north and south of Poinsettia Lane, between Aviara Parkway and Snapdragon Drive in Local
Facilities Management Zone 20.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The northeast quarter of the northeast quarter and the southeast
quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 28. Township 12 South. Range 4 West. San
Bernardino Meridian, according to the official plat thereof: together with that portion of then
southeast quarter of Section 21. Township 12 South. Range 4 West of the San Bernardino
Meridian, according to the official plat thereof, shown on Parcel B on a Certificate of
Compliance recorded November 7,1988 as File No. 88-569475 and on Record of Survey Map
No. 12096. filed on March 23. 1989: all lying within the City of Carlsbad. County of San Diego.
State of California: except therefrom those portions thereof vested with Tabata Brothers
Partnership by documents recorded November 13. 1972 as File No. 303362 and November 4.
1974 as Files No. 74-292547 and 74-292548: and except therefrom those portions Ivine within
Poinsettia Lane and Rose Drive as described in Files No. 89-546752. 89-637695. 90-146889 and
91-0036964 of Official Records.
APN: 214-140-44. 214-170-09. -36. -58. -59. -73-77 Acres: 82.20
Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 244 lots/238 single family units/24 affordable multifamilv units
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: RLM (41.79 ac) and RM (40.41 ac)
Density Allowed: RLM = 0.0 - 4.0 du/ac: RM = 4.0 - 8.0 du/ac
Density Proposed: RLM = 2.56 du/ac: RM = 3.89 du/ac
Existing Zone: L-C andR-l-10.000-O Proposed Zone:RD-M-O. R-1-7.500-O and R-1-10.000-O
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use:
Site
North
South
East
West
C
Zoning
L-C
R-l-10-QandRD-M-Q
R-l
P-C -Aviara Master Plan
RD-M
General Plan
RLMandRM
RLM and RM
RLM
OS and RLM
RM
O
Current Land Use
Vacant
Single family residential
Single family residential
Open space and single
family residential
Single family residential
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Carlsbad Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 262
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Mitigated Negative Declaration, issued April 4,2001
Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated_
Other,
C CITY OF CARLSBAD 0
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
(To be Submitted with Development Application)
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: Thompson/Tabata - ZC 98-08/LCPA 98-04/CT 98-14/PUD 98-05/CP
00-02/SDP 99-06/HDP 98-15/CDP 98-68
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 20 GENERAL PLAN: RLMandRM
ZONING: L-C
DEVELOPER'S NAME: Standard Pacific Homes
ADDRESS: 5750 Fleet St. Suite 200 Carlsbad. CA 92008
PHONE NO.: 760-602-6800 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 214-140-44. 214-170-09. -36. -58.
-59.-73.-77
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 82.20 acres
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
City Administrative Facilities:
Library:
Demand in Square Footage = 882.18 sqft
Demand in Square Footage = 469.8 sq ft
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer)
Park: Demand in Acreage =
Drainage: Identify Drainage Basin =
Circulation: Demand in ADT =
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 4
Open Space: Acreage Provided =
Schools:
Student Generation:
261 EDU
1.76 acres
PLDAD
2.572 ADT
50' setback to Poinsettia Lane
Carlsbad Unified
Elem. = 68 students: Middle = 19 students; High = 36 students
Sewer:
Water:
Demands in EDU
Demand in GPD =
261 EDU
57.420 GPD
The project is 83 units the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.
C Q
MARY & JOSEPH HULL
913 POPPY LANE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009
May 1,2001
Mr. Michael J.Holzmiller
Planning Director
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314
Dear Mr. Holzmiller:
We have completed our review of the Negative Declaration (ND) dated April 4,
2001 for the proposed Standard Pacific Development Project-Thompson/Tabata
Site. Our comments are outlined by categories of Project and Environmental Issues
and identified by page number as shown in the ND.
GENERAL COMMENTS
The Final ND should include a concise and complete list of public information
meetings held and any public notices sent for the project. 1 requested a copy of this
information last year and did not receive any response. In addition, the ND should
contain a summary of the modifications to the project and tentative map including
the reasoning for each modification. The ND states on the first page that..."there
is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the
project "as revised" may have a significant effect on the environment." Because the
tentative map has been revised numerous times, including moving the affordable
units to the south side of Poinsema Lane, a complete history is needed for the
"whole record".
The ND should also contain a map of the project location and a map of the project
site at a minimum. A map showing the project layout and circulation is. also
suggested.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
PAGE 10-The project site contains three areas, the size and density of each area
should be added to the ND. The project also straddles Poinsertia Lane and the area
of each portion should be included in the ND.
PAGE 10-In late 2000 the greenhouses on the property were removed. This is after
Standard Pacific acquired the property. Did the City issue a permit and approve this
removal? If not, what is the justification for this work on the property:'
PAGE 10-The development proposes 500,000 cubic yards of cuts and fills. The ND
states that the topography would remain essentially the same, yet the cut and fills
proposed are over 30 feet in height. This should be addressed in the Aesthetics
section as a visual impact to the area.
3
c • o
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Cont...
PAGE 11-The project proposes three connections to the local street nerwork. An
important component that should be considered in the ND is the proposed signal at
Poinsetria Lane and Snapdragon Drive. The city conducted a meeting in August of
last year and stated that a signal is already warranted at that location. The ND
completely ignores that issue. A detailed discussion of the proposed signal is
necessary for a complete ND.
LAND USE AND PLANNING
PAGE 11-The project is divided in two sections north and south of Poinseraa Lane.
The ND should contain densities for each section of the project along with the
description contained for the western and eastern portion of the project.
PAGE 12-A complete summary of the Master EIR for the 1994 General Plan
update should be included in the ND.
PAGE 12-The overall density for the project should be added in section c). The
density of Mariner's Point needs to be included. Generally, the project is too dense. Lj.
The proposed project includes a number of lots that are not only less than 7,500
square feet but, are less than 6,500 square feet. The project should contain a more
balanced lot sizing and more open space. This lack of open space creates a loss of
character to the area and substantial increases in urban runoff which directly impacts
Batiquitos Lagoon.
PAGE 13-How will the mitigation funding of 5419,265 for loss of agricultural land ^
be used?
PAGE 13-Due to the new project, Section e) should contain a detailed discussion of „._..
the significant impact of the connection of the new development to the existing 0
developments. The established communities of Spinnaker Hill and Vista Pacifica
will be disrupted by the proposed development due to the significant increase in
traffic on the streets within those developments.
PAGE 14-Include the actual current number of units in the SW quadrant of |^
Carlsbad. Utilizing information from 1986 is inappropriate.
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS
PAGE 14-Aa additional mitigation measure should be added to notify potential /
homebuyers that this project is in Zone 4 for seismic design. Zone 4 is the highest
zone number included in the UBC.
PAGE 15-As previously mentioned the project proposes cuts and fills over 30 feet
in height. Special care should be taken to prevent erosion both during and after fi\
construction of the project. The applicant should crordinate with and be required
to obtain a permit form the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Due to the
large amount of grading and lack of open space, high amounts of erosion are likely.
OWATER • '
PAGE 16-The property is described as having greenhouses covering a large pornon i r
of the project. In fact, the site had mostly open fields with greenhouses coving ^*
about 15 to 20 % of the site (see attached photo).
PAGE 16-The project should be redesigned to create more open space areas to
prevention high concentrations of urban runoff. Of the 82.20 acre site 76.46 acres ^
are to be graded. This grading should be reduced to avoid impacting water quality.
The lack of open space contributes significandy to urban runoff pollution with
potential impacts to die Bariquitos Lagoon. This should be of great concern
because it not only impacts the lagoon environment but the beaches of southern
Carlsbad that connects directly to the lagoon.
AIR QUALITY
PAGE 19-Secrion c) states that the maximum building height for the project is 30 ^
feet for single family residences and 35 feet for multi-family residences. Based on I
the grading proposed with cuts and fills of over 30 feet in height, the existing terrain
could be 60-65 feet different in some areas. This should be discussed in the
Aesthetics section of the ND. This large of an alteration with close proximity to the
coast is a significant impact to the surrounding area.
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
Page 20-The Linscott, Law & Greenspan (LLG) traffic study contains several
inconsistencies and errors regarding the existing and proposed traffic volumes (see G<
attached). The report also should include information for Snapdragon Drive
including discussion of the proposed signal at Poinsettia Lane. The traffic study also
fails to address a key intersection at Poinsettia Lane and Batiquitos Drive. This
intersection currendy experiences demand that exceeds capacity for the northbound
Batiquitos Drive left turn to westbound Poinsettia Lane. This information is
necessary for an adequate review by the residents of Spinnaker Hill and Vista
Pacifica.
The current layout of the project proposes three points of access. These include
Street "A" to Poinsettia Lane, Rose Drive to Daisy Avenue and Alyssum to
Snapdragon Drive. It is estimated that the project will generate 2,562 daily trips
(ADT). The traffic srudy shows 70% of the trips from the project will go to 1-5.
This breaks down to about 45% of die trips from the project entering/exiting at
"A" Street to Poinsettia Lane and 25% of the project trips using the connection of
Rose Drive to Daisy Avenue. In addition, 10% of the project trips are estimated to
use die Daisy connection in order to proceed south on Bariquitos Drive. This
means that 35 % of the trips from the project will use Daisy Avenue. This adds 760
trips to Daisy Avenue bringing die total ADT on Daisy Avenue to about 2800
ADT. By contrast, the project proposes to add 980 trips to westbound Poinsettia
Lane and 430 trips a day to eastbound Poinsettia Lane. This trip distribution is
severely unbalanced given that Poinsetna currendy carries 10 times the amount of
traffic, as does Daisy Avenue. Due to this increase of traffic on Daisy Avenue a
significant impact will occur on Daisy Avenue and in the Spinnaker Hill community.
Q Qc study concludes that the addiuonallfaffic on Daisy Avenue will
be within acceptable values. The report classifies Daisy as a residential collector
street with a capacity of 4,500 ADT; this is an incorrect classification. The report
cites the San Diego County Public Road Standards for classifying streets. Because
Daisy Avenue is as wide as a residential collector street, the report assumes it is one.
For non-circulation element roads (Section 4.5) a residential collector is defined as a
having a 60-foot right-of-way wide and 40 foot curb-to curb width. It also states,
"Such roads are not envisioned as providing for through traffic generating in one
community and destined for another." As such, the proper classification for Daisy
Avenue is a "residential road." A residential road has a capacity of 1,500 ADT. This
explains why the general consensus within the Spinnaker Hill Community is that the
existing traffic volume on Daisy Avenue already exceeds proper design values.
The City of San Diego Sfrtef Design Manual has more detailed information regarding
roadway classification. This manual has similar urban local streets as compared with
the County standards. The City manual has several types of residential streets for
use in residential areas. These include a Two-Lane Collector Street, a Two-Lane
Sub-Collector Street, and a Residential Street. The two-lane collector has a
recommended capacity of 5,000 ADT, along with no direct front residential access.
Whereas the two-lane sub-collector has a capacity of 2,200 ADT, the residential
street has a capacity of 1,500 ADT, both with direct residential access. Direct access
is really the main difference between a collector type of street and a residential road.
The proposed ADT on Daisy Avenue far exceeds these values. Therefore, the
project will cause a significant impact.
The ND needs to address this stgnt/icartf impact and provide for alternatives to avoid
this impact. Two such alternatives are suggested below:
(1) As currently configured, a right in/right on Poinsetria Lane could be added to
the development. It could be placed between Snapdragon Dnve and the proposed
connection of Street "A". An emergency access type gate could be placed at the
proposed connection to Daisy Avenue, similar to the existing gate at the southerly
end of Daisy Avenue.
(2) Redesign the development to create a loop system with two full points of access
to Poinsertia Lane. This system could place two signals on existing Poinsetria Lane
about 600 feet apart. These .signals would both be three-way signals and provide full
access to the development. Although, this configuration would require a variance to
the signal spacing policy of the City of Carlsbad, in this particular case the signals
could be interconnected and basically perform as one signal. Left turn movements
from the development could be synchronized such that the disruption of Poinsetria
Lane would occur only once for both signals. In other words, placing two signals
with reduced signal spacing would not impact Poinsetria Lane to any greater extent
than a single signal. This signal spacing would also meet the Caltrans ramp signal
spacing criteria of 160 meters (525 feet).
PAGE 31-Based on the size of the project an additional 2.62 acres of parkland is
needed. Will the project contribute to acquire parkland? If so, where? If not, how
is this impact being mitigated?
Currently, NCTD operates bus service (Route #321) on Daisy Avenue. Will the
project impact this bus sen-ice? The ND should require coordinanon with NCTD
before the project is approved to ensure this service continues and is not impacted.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this document but strongly feel that the
impacts of this project are significant and severe to the adjacent communities. Based
on the number of comments above and general lack of conclusive data in the ND it
is substantially inadequate for public circulation and should be revised and released
again for public comment: "The ND was issued on April 4, 2001 -with a 30-day
comment period. If you have any questions regarding our comments please contact
us at (7 60) 438-271 9.'
Sincerely,
Mary R. Hull Joseph R. Hull
c: Carlsbad City Councfl
Carlsbad Planning Commission
In addition, the traffic report notes that speeding has beelrobserved on Daisy
Avenue. It also states the City should prepare a "Traffic Calming Report" to
address this issue. Calming devices such as stop signs, mini-roundabouts and raised
pinch points along Daisy Avenue are suggested. The proposed project obviously
compounds this public safety situation. The ND contains no information or
discussion of a traffic calming report.
PUBLIC SERVICES
PAGE 26-The Carlsbad School District has recently changed the elementary school -r-
boundaries. The ND should contain a letter from the School District that the new »
students associated with the development can be accommodated. This information
should also include the current total enrollment at each school, the enrollment
generated by the project, and the capacity of each school. The ND is incomplete in
this area.
I
I
CIKZMD of las OK&15
NOTE: — ADTs ore shown midblock
- AM/PM Peak hour volumes are
shown at the intersections
REV. 12/07/00 NO SCALE
LU3919R.DWG
I.INSCOIT
LAW \
GREENSPAN
Figure 5
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
AM/PM PEAK HOURS & ADTs
NOTE: - ADTs ore shown midblock
— AM/PM Peak hour volumes are
shown at the intersections
REV. 12/07/00 NO SCU£
I
I
IL001MUJWO
I |\V( {
I \\\ \
Figure 7b
TOTAL PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
WITH ALYSSUM ROAD CONNECTED
AM/PM PEAK HOURS & ADTs
CUOMO Of La CMIUS
NOTE: - ADTs ore shown midbtock
- AM/PM Peak hour volumes ore
shown at the intersections
— 24*6
REV. 1^/07/00 ) SCALE
UJC019RDWO
I l\sf ( M I
I \\\ .\
MCI i \sr\\.
Figure 8a
+ PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
WITHOUT ALYSSUM ROAD CONNECTED
AM/PM PEAK HOURS
Mav 1.2001
Planning Director,
City of Carlsbad Planning Department
Dear Mr Holzmiller:
We are in receipt of a copy of a report signed by you entitled "Mitigated Negative Declaration. " Case
number ZC 98-08/LCPA 98-04/CT 98-14/PUD 98-05/CP 00-02/SDP 99-06/HDP 98-15/CDP 98-68.
ThompsoaTabata. The document is dated April 4, 2001
We have examined this document carefully and find that it is filled with many inaccuracies and erroneous
conclusions. For starters, you have completely mixed up our location. The Vista Pacifica planned unit
development is not east of any of the developments you mention. It is south of Poinsettia and west of the
proposed Thompson/Tabata project. There are no multi-family housing units, RV storage area or parking
stalls in this neighborhood. Obviously, you have us confused with the Las Playas development on the other
side of Poinsettia This development has multi-family units, and an RV parking lot. However, it does not
have parking stalls. Each unit has a 2 car garage. Therefore, your desire to "cluster" compatible housing
styles adjacent to us, can only include single family homes since no other units exist here
It had been brought to our attention that originally, the 24 multi family affordable units slated for the
Thompson/Tabata project were to be placed on the north side of Poinsertia near the newer and pncier
Mariners Point tract Mariners Point residents, alarmed at the possibility of having affordable housing units
in their neighborhood, promptly hired a lawyer The lawyer got in touch with the city and through some
clever sleight of hand, the 24 affordable housing units were suddenly switched to the southern side of
Poinsettia. In a letter to the city following his discussions, the lawyer representing some of the Mariners
Point residents stated. "My clients believe, based on what they perceived at the meeting with city officials.
that an alternative site within the Thompson/Tabata project, preferably south of Poinsettia Road would be
the most appropriate location for the affordable housing units " The implication is. that unknown to us, the
city and the Mariners Point lawyer decided that it would be more appropriate to place the affordable
housing units away from the pricier housing at Mariners Point and closer to the less expensive houses in
Vista Pacifica
This maneuver compromises the basic integrity of the whole planning process It may even violate HUD
policy We are now requesting that you reveal the details of the "switch", how was it made, by whom.
when and why Were there secret negotiations and did any benefits accrue to the city as a result0 Did the
Planning Department favor a pricier more upscale neighborhood over an older established community1' In
our view, this is a very serious ethical situation that has been created here and your misrepresentation of our
location and neighborhood character may possibly be explained by this
Your plan to extend AJyssum Road, a narrow residential street into the Thompson/Tabata project lacks any
justification It certainly would be of absolutely no benefit to the Vista Pacifica homeowners You talk
about connecting communities How do you explain then, the proliferation of so many new gated
communities in this quadrant? These new developments are not connected to anything, in fact, the
developers want to isolate them to boost the prices of their homes To enter AJyssum Road from Poinsettia.
a driver has to make a 90 degree right hand turn onto Snapdragon To covinue eastward, toother 90
degree turn is required. Poinsettia and AJyssum run parallel, they are separaod by the width of a one story
house and patio Even now. entering or exiting .AJyssum from or onto Poinsettia is very dangerous! there is
no traffic signal We have been asked to keep the foliage trimmed at the Vista Pacifica entrance J help
drivers get some visibility Your proposal would add at least an additional 500 vehicles to this very small
area creating an even more dangerous situation To claim that Thompson/Tabata needs more acceM-than at
Rose or Daisy for emergency vehicles is ridiculous How can you recommend this when you permit 3D
many gated communities in our quadrant9 Why would Thompson/Tabata need three access points0 Gated
communities don't We have only two Are you telling us that for years your planning department has
3
created an unsafe environment0 In fact, we have always felt very fortunate that we are a couple or" minutes
away from the Batiquitos Fire Station, as will the future residents of the ThompsonTabata development
We feel that you need to review your traffic circulation plan Funneling more traffic onto residential streets
increases the danger to families and children already in this area Motorists will use Ah ssum Road as a
short cut and to avoid the signal at Rose Here in Vista Pacifica. cyclists, children at play and pedestrians
have at least some semblance of safety now This will disappear of course if Alyssum Road is opened and
joined to the new project. However, your check list in the mitigation report indicates the extension of
AJyssum Road would have "no impact"
You have already stated to us that from now on, you will put signs on streets that might be extended in the
future giving notice to the public of this fact. Obviously you realize that you were negligent in the past
The eastern terminus of Alyssum Road was made to look like a dead end street. It was walled in.
landscaped, etc To tell us now that we should have known that AJyssum Road eventually would be a
through street is outrageous. Disclosures were never made to our homeowners by either the city of by
Standard Pacific regarding an eventual extension of Alyssum and homeowners rely on disclosures
We are quite intrigued that you intend to mitigate the projects' impact on air quality by having the
Thompson/Tabata homeowners association hand out bus schedules On the one hand, you want to open
Alyssum Road for better traffic circulation Then you propose to tell the residents to take the bus It is
news to us that a homeowners association would be in the business of working for the AQMD. Caltrans or
the NCTD Furthermore, if normal behavior is any indication, we doubt that owners of S500.000 plus
homes will take the bus to work or anywhere else, for that matter. Besides, what bus would they take0 The
recent building frenzy resulting in an amazing 25% increase in population here in Carlsbad has guaranteed
deteriorating air quality for all of us A fleet of busses can't possibly mitigate this. It is really insulting to
anyone's intelligence to ask us to buy into this logic
Previously, when there were heavy rains, mud and debris has washed down Poinsettia Lane from the fields
adjacent to us into our storm drains and down our streets. You claim in your report that storm drainage is
adequate. How can this be the case since we have had to call the city time and time again about the
problem Our storm drains are not designed to carry the run off from the higher elevation We object to the
run off coming into our tract and you do not appear to be offering a solution to this problem.
From the day it opened. Pacific Rim Elementary School was near or at capacity. In fact, new students Lj
living in Vista Pacifica, who were assigned from Aviara Oaks to Pacific Rim. will now have to go back to
Aviara Oaks. Multi family housing always impacts a school district more than single family homes That
certainly has been the case in Vista and San Marcos Your growth management policy and school
enrollment here are completely disconnected.
The low or affordable income housing ordinance, which has been in place about ten years, has always been
administered in a completely arbitrary manner. The most notorious example is of course the Aviara
development. In that case, its low income allocation ended up miles away with a wall around the units
We have been told that the city "struck a deal" with the developers of Aviara which actually was more
beneficial to the city When you look around the city and the new and old developments, it is obvious that
the city has struck other deals with developers and continues to do so to this day as evidenced by the new
developments along route 101 at the foot of Poinsertia. the .Assistant City Attorney informed us in writing
that one of the reasons the Thompson/Tabata low income units were transferred from the north side of
Poinsettia to the south side, was because the city did not want to appear to be."clustering" the affordable
housing units Do you not consider Villa Lomas as a clustering of low income housing units0 What about
the units adjacent to the Poinsettia Station0 We can name other locations and other clustering of low
income housing units which clearly renders the explanation offered us by the Assistant City Attorney
suspect if not totally untruthful We feel it is no accident that in the proposed ThompsonTabata
development, the low income housing units and the RV storage lot seem inextricably linked It is as though
the low income housing units deserve to be adjacent to the RV storage lot .And further, that both these
units deserve to be located adjacent to the Vista Pacifica tract
You must keep in mind, that Vista Pacifica is in effect, an affordable housing development That is wh\
the lawyer felt the low income housing units of the Thompson/Tabata development should be more —r-
appropriately placed adjacent to our community with the full impact of these units placed on us and not on 0
the new development itself The prices of homes in Vista Pacifica are far below the median price of homes
in the south-west quadrant of the city This fact obviously, was not lost on the lawyer or residents of
Mariners Point Does this not fit the definition of "clustering" as presented to us by the Assistant City
Attorney or would the term discrimination seem more appropriate If clustering of low income housing is
okay, then why was it not acceptable on the north side of Poinsettia as it was originally proposed0
You seem to have ignored totally the fact that placing the low income housing units on the north side of
Poinsettia would have provided an e«ra security feature for children The children in these units could
walk to the Pacific Rim Elementary School or to the local park without being forced to cross Poinsettia .
which has become a heavily trafficked and dangerous road.
Your section XIII - Aesthetics - notes that the Thompson/Tabata development as currently laved out,
would have "no impact" aesthetically on the area. We would ask you to visualize a typical RV parking lot
where people passing by can observe the upper portions of the parked RV's with their satellite dishes and
various paraphernalia stored on top of these units. Does this picture belong on Poinsettia Lane in the clear
view of foreigners and tourists who are en route to and from the Aviara Four Seasons Hotel and Golf
Course0 Poinsettia Lane at this location is one of the most picturesque an cries in the city Why would
anyone want to deface it with an RV storage lot which would be impossible to conceal totally at its
proposed location?
We feel that Vista Pacifica is in fact, the type of "mixed" style community which the State of California
and the County of San Diego would like to see In addition to being the only community of its type that is
affordable in this quadrant Vista Pacifica is well maintained, well landscaped, has strong CC&R's and its
own security Over time, we will save this city tens of thousands of dollars in crime prevention, blight
control, code enforcement and lower property vaiues You should support and appreciate our community,
instead of planning to diminish us At this point, given what we know and what you plan on doing, we
propose that we sit down in an honest, open forum and resolve the issues raised here Let us bring in all the
parties involved and lay our cards on the table We make one stipulation however, and that is that you deal
with us in good faith. We certainly have with you.
Smcerelv.
Vista Pacifica Homeowners Committee
C/o GRG Manaaemem Inc
P.O.Box 1186*
Carlsbad, C A 92018-1186
Copies to:
Mayor Pro-tern Ann Kulchin
Council Member Man Hall
.Assistant Citv Attorney
WlMOTHY M. MUTTER
May 3, 2001
Mike Grim
City of Carlsbad Planning Department
1635 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: Thompson/Tabata
Mitigated Negative Declarations
Dated April 4, 2001
Dear Mr. Grim:
The purpose of this letter is to make public comment on the above referenced Mitigated Negative
Declaration (ND). The ND in its current form provides inadequate detail from which the public can
make serious review and comment. Many of the responses to the issues and impacts are boilerplate
responses, as found in other City NDs, and offer little insight into the true impacts this project will have
on the surrounding community. While others are on record with the City disputing the validity of the
ND, we will limit our comments to the following items.
A) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
The ND states that the project will have potentially significant impact due to increased vehicle
trips and traffic congestion. Neither the ND nor the project's traffic report discuss the negative
impact the increase traffic will have on 1) the safety and welfare of residents of Daisy Ave. due to /\
the increased traffic 2) the financial impact and loss of property values and 3) the bi-polarization M
of the neighborhood. These are significant issues and the societal impacts are not discussed. The
statement that no significant adverse impacts will occur due to the increase m traffic on Daisy
Ave. is false. Further, many of the assertions made in the traffic report are invalid as they are
based on false assumptions. Primarily, the incorrect classification of Daisy Ave. as a "residential
collector" street when in fact it is a "residential road". Inasmuch, the increase in projected ADTs
as a result of the completion of the project as currently designed will exceed the design capacity of
Daisy.
B) XI PUBLIC SERVICES
The ND states that the proposed development would not cause any significant impact to the ~
school system and that local schools have capacity to accommodate additional students. THIS j^
CLAIM IS COMPLETELY FALSE. The three schools affected, Pacific Rim Elementary, Aviara
Oaks Elementary and Aviara Oaks Middle School are now nearing capacity despite the current
addition of portable classrooms. According to the Carlsbad Unified School District, based on
expected new enrollments in the Fall of 2001, all three will be at or exceed design capacity. In
addition, there are no plans for the construction of any new schools in the area of the project
prior to the expected build out of the project.
a- 2 - W May 3,2001
c) xn. unLiriES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
The ND states that the project would not result in the need for new power or natural gas systems
or supplies, or substantial alterations to power or natural gas systems. This statement is based on
the Master EIR assertion that no significant adverse environmental impacts due to power or
natural gas supply would occur due to the build out of the City. This assertion is ludicrous in
light of the ongoing power and natural gas shortages. The community is already subject to rolling
blackouts as a result of this shortage and any additional demand on the system will exacerbate the
problem. Therefore the statement that this project will have no affect on utilities and service
systems is false.
I look forward to your written response to our comments.
Sincerely,
Timothy M. Hutter & Tamra F. Hutter
939 BEGONIA COURT • CARLSBAD, CA • 92009
PHONE: 760-93 1-2656
rQriscH &
Attorneys at Law
Charles B. Christensen
Donald W. Detisch
Sean D. Schwerdtfeeer
Of Counsel
Harold 0. Valderhaug
Via Facsimile & U.S. Mail
May 4, 2001
444 West C Street. Su;tc 200
San Diego. California 92101
Vel. (619) 23b-9?43
Fax (619)236-830-
e-mail dclaw@adnc.com
Michael J. Holzmiller, Planning Director
City of Carlsbad Planning Department
Senior Planner
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008-7314
RE: Mitigated Negative Declaration dated April 4, 2001
Case Name: Thompson/Tabata Publish Date: April 4, 2001
Case No.: ZC 98-08/LPCA 98-04/CT 98-14/PUD 00-02/SDP 99-06/HDP
98-15/CDP 98-68
Dear Mr. Holzmiller:
1 received the above Declaration on or about April 11, 2001. This was several days after
the initial publication date. I was informed that this was due to an oversight on the part of staff
and thus, staff was kind enough to extend our response'date until May 11, 2001. (See my letter
of April 25, 2001.) In any event our general comments follow:
Overall the document generally covers the impacts associated with the project. The
document seems to address the majority of environmental issues. It would appear that this is one
of the last remaining agricultural areas surrounded by pre-existing residential communities being
converted to multi- residential use. We have been in contact with Standard Pacific, the developer,
during this process and have been favorably impressed with their willingness to work with this
office and our clients. Mr. and Mrs. Michael Burris who reside at 1250 Veronica Court, Carlsbad.
California, 92008. Ms. Baker has been particularly receptive to our concerns.
My clients' concern with the proposed subdivision primarily relates to noise, visual
pollution, traffic circulation, and the public safety and general welfare. These concerns are based
upon the most recent iteration of the proposed subdivision.
Michael J. Holzmiller, Planning Director
May 4, 2001
Page 2
DETIsfl & CHRISTENSEN
We understand that any anticipated noise increase resulting from the proposed subdivision
will arise through the use of Poinsettia Lane. The proposed mitigation refers to the use of noise
attenuation walls. This makes good sense and is appropriate. While it would appear that this
issue has been appropriately addressed, except as set forth below, we would like to suggest thai
monitoring occur to confirm the prediction of the noise consultants. Secondly, we understand that
there will be passive and active park use. My clients' concern here is that these parks use low
wattage or low luminous lights (if night lighting is used ) so that harsh piercing lighting is not
used.
My client's greatest concern relates to the proposed expansion and continued use of a
driveway area which presently serves as access to the Tabata residence. By way of reference page
10 of the Declaration states: "The two portions north of Poinsettia Lane are separated by two
existing lots totaling 2.40 acres that are not part of the proposed subdivision. The properties
contain the existing single family residence and accessory structures for the previous agricultural
operations. The residence currently takes access off of Lonicera Street, just south of its
intersection with Camino de Las Ondas, via an access easement and paved driveway. The
proposed subdivision does not affect.this existing access and provides public street frontages to
the east side of the lot through the extension of Lemon Leaf Drive thereby allowing future
development of the site." Here, what has transpired is that our client's property which lies
adjacent to this driveway access has been exposed to noise due to large mechanical equipment and
off road vehicle use whereby vehicles have actually driven onto my clients' property. Overall this
has proven to be an altogether unsatisfactory situation for my clients'.
We understand that the proposed subdivision includes a condition to expand this access
driveway area to a 50 foot wide easement, i.e., Standard is required to dedicate 30 feet of right
of way for the use of the Tabata property. This is then supposed to be used in connection with a
purported 20 foot easement to create a 50 foot wide right of way. It is our belief that the road way
area where the 20 foot wide alleged easement exists is not in the ownership of Mr. Tabata but is
still dedicated open space owned by'the Lennar Development Company. In addition, the Tabata
property can and will be adequately accessed from Lemon Leaf Drive. Any future development
of the Tabata property can take access from Lemon Leaf and does not require 'a second access
point from Lonicera Street. The Tabata property will more than likely not be able to obtain more
than two or three lots for which a cul-de-sac street access from Lemon Leaf would be more than
adequate. This would eliminate the need for the 30 foot wide dedication as well as the existing
driveway access. Of course access to Lonicera would not be cut off until Lemon Leaf was opened
to the Tabata property. In the area of the driveway access is an access point for the Municipal
Water District which obliviously would remain. My clients simply are interested in eliminating
any roadway noise which emanates from this adjacent roadway area as well as protect their
property from vehicles driving onto their property. In discussions with Standard Pacific staff they
have indicated a willingness to support the elimination of these roadway areas which are truly not
DETISC CHRISTENSEN
Michael J. Holzmiller, Planning Director
May 4, 2001
Pase 2
necessary. The Lemon Leaf access which would cul-de-sac on the Tabata property would
adequately address this need and candidly would reduce all of the environmental impacts
associated with the addition of another roadway, e.g., air pollution, etc. It is also our
understanding that there are many other instances within the City of Carlsbad where the cul-de-
sacing of a roadway into a small area has been allowed and endorsed.
If this private access and 30 foot dedication occurs, my clients' property will become an
island surrounded by streets. We do not believe this is appropriate.
We think this would be most appropriate and should be favorably considered by the City
staff.
Finally and simply by way of reference we believe that the declaration should be updated
relative to the discussion of energy use. Whether there is anything that can be done is debatable.
>incerelv,
_
Donald WTDetisch, Esq
DWD/sll
cc: Mr. and Mrs. Michael Burris
Mr. Michael Grim
6ity oof Carlsbad
Planning Department
October 9, 2001
Mary and Joseph Hull
913 Poppy Ln
Carlsbad CA 92009
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS REGARDING THE MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE THOMPSON/TABATA SUBDIVISION
Thank you for your comments regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Thomspon/Tabata residential subdivision. Listed below are the responses to your
comments. Your comment letter (copy attached) has been noted with reference
letters that correspond to the responses contained below.
A. The City of Carlsbad has not yet conducted any publicly noticed meetings for this
project. All requested documents are public record on file at the offices of the
City of Carlsbad, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad CA. The EIA focuses on the
project as presently proposed. All development proposals filed with the City
undergo numerous changes as they evolve. The result of this effort is that the
final or formal project is then subjected to environmental review under the
California Environmental Quality Act. In addition, the project location and a Site
map have been included. All of the various documents associated with the
project are contained in the above referenced files.
B. Page 11 of the EIA contains a discussion of the permitted and proposed density.
Although the property physically consists of three areas, the westerly portion of
the project (both north and south of Poinsettia) totaling 40.41 acres has a
General Plan Designation of Residential Medium density. The easterly portion of
the project (both north and .south of Poinsettia) totaling 41.79 acres has a
General Plan Designation of Residential Low Medium density. The proposed
project densities are 3.88 dwellings per acre on the western portion and 2.58
dwellings per acre on the eastern portion. The proposed project density is below
both the allowable General Plan Designations and the maximum densities
allowed through the City's Growth Management Ordinance Control Points.
C. Permits are not required for the removal of greenhouses. The previous owners of
the property partially dismantled the greenhouse for use in conjunction with their
other agricultural operations at their other location. The project applicant,
Standard Pacific Homes, had the remaining debris removed from the site to
eliminate visual and safety concerns.
D. The majority of the cuts and fills for the project are within 5 feet plus or minus of
the existing elevations. The maximum 30 foot cut is in a small section near lot
50 and the maximum 30 foot fill is also in a small section near lot 26. Both are
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
MARY AND JOSEPlQULL
October 9, 2001
Page 2
due to the pad elevations on lots 8-23 and the transition to an open space
easement to the east of these lots. As discussed at pages 28-29 of the EIA, no
substantial aesthetic impacts are associated with the manufactured slopes
contemplated by the subdivision design. In addition, the proposed development
complies with the City's Hillside Development Ordinance and guidelines.
E. The traffic study contains a complete analysis of the Poinsettia Lane/Snapdragon
Drive Intersection. The traffic study concludes that a traffic signal is not needed
at this intersection provided a traffic signal is installed at the Poinsettia
Lane/Street "A" (Rose Drive) intersection. If a traffic signal is not installed at
street "A", one should be installed at Snapdragon Drive.
The signal at Poinsettia Lane and Snapdragon Drive is slated for construction
during 2001 -2002. This signal is not necessary as a result of this development
nor are there any negative environmental impacts associated with the
construction of this signal. It should be noted that installing a traffic signal on
Poinsettia Lane would give residents of the Vista Pacifica community an option to
turn left onto Poinsettia Lane at a signalized intersection.
F. The EIA addresses the densities of the properties as western and eastern
portions of the project, which includes property on both sides of Poinsettia Lane.
See response B, above.
G. The City of Carlsbad has a program for monitoring and updating the MEIR
related to the General Plan. This is accomplished through a series of reports
filed annually with the City Council. These reports are on file at the City offices at
1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA. The most recent report addresses the
fiscal year 1 999-2000 and contains an explanation of the review process.
H. See above comment B. The density of Mariner's Point is 5.3 dwelling per acre.
The proposed project densities are 3.88 dwellings .per acre on the western
portion and 2.58 dwellings per acre on the eastern portion. The project complies
with applicable density standards. The project site is also located in the Zone 20
Specific Plan area, which further designates the zoning. The RLM designated
portion of the property (the eastern portion of the site) is One Family Residential
with a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. The lots that are less than 7,500
square feet are with the R-DM portion of the project. In addition, the project is
consistent with all of the applicable development standards as designated in the
Zone 20 Specific Plan standards and requirements. (EIA page 11) The EIA
analysis indicates that the project will not result in significant impacts to water
quality or open space.
I. Agricultural conversion (mitigation) fees are currently pledged to the
environmental restoration of Batiquitos Lagoon.
MARY AND JOSEPff^ULL
October 9,2001
Paoe 3
J. The Traffic Study contains a full analysis of the potential impacts to the
"connector streets", Alyssum Road and Daisy Avenue. As discussed therein, the
impacts are not found to be significant.
K. The 1986 reference is to the maximum number of units permitted in the
Southwest Quadrant of the City. The number was calculated using the Growth
Management Program established growth control points (page 14, EIA). The
proposed project does not exceed the growth control point for its land use
designations and is therefore consistent with the Growth Management Program.
The actual units existing in the Southwest Quadrant is estimated to be 912 units
as of June 30, 2001.
L. To mitigate potential soils and geological impact from the project the project will
be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code's construction
standards for Seismic Zone 4 - those areas containing known active faults.
Development of this site would be subject to the same existing earthquake or
ground motion hazards that affect the entire southern California area.
Homeowner disclosures are beyond the scope of CEQA and the EIA and will be
addressed by the California Department of Real Estate.
M. The Developer will have to meet all of the City of Carlsbad design standards and
the Regional Water Quality Control Board design guidelines, which include
obtaining permits. The City will also require the Developer to install on site
erosion control measures and the approval of the Storm Water Prevention Plan
and annual certification.
N. The Hydrology Report states that the property had approximately 21 acres (26%)
of the site covered with greenhouses when the Report was prepared. As noted
above, the greenhouses have since been removed.
O. The developer will meet all current Regional Water Quality Control Board design
guidelines, which are designed to minimize negative impact downstream from
any construction project during and after construction. In addition, the project will
be required to meet all of the City's development ordinances.
P. The majority of the cuts and fills for the project are within 5 feet plus or minus of
the existing elevations. The maximum 30 foot cut is in a small section near lot
50 and the maximum 30 foot fill is also in a small section near lot 26. Both are
due to the pad elevations on lots 8-23 and the transition to an open space
easement to the east of these lots. As discussed at pages 28-29 of the EIA, no
substantial aesthetic impacts are associated with the manufactured slopes
contemplated by the subdivision design. In addition, the proposed development
complies with the City's Hillside Development Ordinance and guidelines. Due to
the fact that this situation only occurs in a relatively small portion of the project, it
is not considered to be a significant impact to the surrounding area.
MARY AND JOSEPfQULL
October 9,2001
Page 4
Q. See comment E above. Also, the traffic study contains a full analysis of the
Poinsettia Lane/Batiquitos Drive Intersection on Page 26. This table shows that
a LOS A is anticipated during both the AM and PM peak hours with the addition
of both project and cumulative traffic.
The traffic study estimates that the project will increase the ADT on Daisy
Avenue from 1,900 ADT to about 2,700 ADT. Based on the 40 foot width of
Daisy Avenue and the fact that this road does "collect" traffic from Primrose Way,
Ivy Street, Wisteria Way, and several other streets, a Residential Collector (4,500
ADT capacity) is deemed to be the appropriate classification. In addition, the
LOS A and LOS B peak hour operations at the Daisy Avenue intersections at
Batiquitos Drive and Ivy Street with the project traffic are indications that capacity
will not be a problem on Daisy Avenue. Although the City of San Diego
Standards are not applicable, even the lowest classification from Table 2 of the
Traffic Impact Study Manual (36-foot wide Sub-Collector - LOS C capacity of
2,200 ADT), the forecasted volume of 2,700 ADT would still result in adequate
LOS D operations.
As stated in the traffic study, separate from the carrying capacity of
Daisy Avenue is the potential for speeding. In all areas of Carlsbad, speeding
and/or excessive volumes of traffic causes resident to become alarmed about
safety and quality of life. The City Council has used a citizen-based committee to
develop solutions for neighborhoods, in Carlsbad, that are affected by traffic
problems. In May 2001, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2001-139
establishing a Policy for Traffic Calming on residential public streets in
accordance with the "Carlsbad Residential Traffic Management Program". This
document outlines the procedures for the City of Carlsbad to address
neighborhood traffic-related concerns. The City recommends that adjacent
neighborhoods that are concern with the speeding issue on Daisy Avenue should
initiate this procedure.
R. The City and the Developer have explored various subdivision designs. ' The
project as it is currently designed meets all of the Engineering criteria as well as
applicable City policies. The EIA concludes that the project will not significantly
impact traffic flow in the area. Accordingly, project re-design is not required.
S. See response Q, above. The traffic-calming program will be developed.
T. Establishment of attendance boundaries and timing of School construction is the
responsibility of the governing School District and by law is not within the purview
of the proposed project.
In 1998 the California Legislature adopted Senate Bill 50 and the California
voters approved Proposition 1A. These combined actions changed the methods
of school construction financing in California. In order to receive money under
the bulk of the financing programs, districts are required to provide 50% of the
project funding from local sources. Carlsbad Unified School District generates
MARY AND JOSEPQlILL
October 9, 2001 *«-'
PaaeS _
funding from revenues collected through a financing form known as a Mello Roos
District. According to State Law, participation in the Mello Roos District
constitutes full and complete mitigation of project-related impacts and the
provision of adequate school facilities.
Students generated by the proposed project will occur as housing units are built.
Normally school facility enrollment demands also fluctuate over time. Other than
constructing new facilities, common options employed by School Districts
include; attendance boundary modifications, adjustment of grade levels among
facilities, use of temporary facilities and schedule modifications such as using
year-round tracks. Specific means to accommodate school student demand is
completely within the discretion and authority of the school district.
U. The proposed project will pay park in lieu fees and public facilities fees on a per
unit basis. These funds allow for the City to allocate money to be used for
parkland acquisition and improvements respectively.
V. North County Transit District is solely responsible for establishing its service
routes. The District is routinely provided opportunities to review and comment on
development proposals. No impacts to NCTD bus services are anticipated.
It is anticipated that the project will be heard by the Planning Commission in
November 2001 . You will receive a legal notice of that hearing at least ten days in
advance. Thank you again for your participation.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL J HULZMtLLER
Planning Director
Attachment
c: City Attorney
Assistant Planning Director
Principal Planner DeCerbo
Senior Planner Grim
File Copy
6 oitv of Carlsbad
Planning Department
October 9, 2001
Vista Pacifica Homeowners Committee
c/o GRG Management Inc.
P.O. Box1186
Carlsbad CA 92018-1186
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS REGARDING THE MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE THOMPSON7TABATA SUBDIVISION
Thank you for your comments regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration for
the Thomspon/Tabata residential subdivision. Listed below are the responses to
your comments. Your comment letter (copy attached) has been noted with
reference letters that correspond to the responses contained below.
A. The typographical error relating to the location of the project in relationship
to Vista Pacifica has been corrected. This error does not affect the analysis
of the project or the conclusion that all impacts will be mitigated to
insignificance.
B. The Carlsbad City Attorney's office previously responded to your concerns
regarding the affordable housing component of the project by letters dated
July 3 and August 29, 2000. Copies of the letters have been provided. The
comments regarding affordable housing do not address environmental
issues and are beyond the scope of CEQA.
C. The project as proposed will connect Alyssum; however, the project is
estimated to only add three AM peak hour trips and six PM peak hour trips
to the Poinsettia Lane to Snapdragon Drive to Alyssum Road movement.
The addition of this small amount of traffic is not considered significant.
D. The project is estimated to add 100 ADT to Alyssum Road east of
Snapdragon Drive, bringing the total ADT to less than 500 ADT. This is well
within the carrying capacity of this roadway and is therefore not considered
to be a significant project impact.
E. When the Vista Pacifica Development was built, no requirement of public
notice for the installation or extension of a public street, was necessary until
the improvements are actually proposed. The public has now received
notification and has the opportunity to participate in the City's public review
process.
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
VISTA PACIFICA hQlEOWNERS COMMITTEE
October 9,2001 **
Page 2
F. Home Owner Association distribution of information relating to alternative
transportation methods is one aspect of the strategy to deal with air quality
impacts in the context of the build out of the General Plan in a "non
attainment basin". The mitigation measure also includes distribution of
information relating to ridesharing and transportation pooling.
G. The project engineer has studied the drainage requirements for the
proposed project and has determined that on-site improvements are
necessary to handle anticipated project runoff and to reduce impact to
adjacent properties. The proposed development will construct a storm drain
system that will be designed to the City of Carlsbad's design standards and
the Regional Water Quality Control Board design guidelines. The storm
water flows in the proposed system will be controlled to match the original
designed flows for the existing storm drain system.
H. Establishment of attendance boundaries and timing of School construction
is the responsibility of the governing School District and by law is not within
the purview of the proposed project.
In 1998 the California Legislature adopted Senate Bill 50 and the California
voters approved Proposition 1A. These combined actions changed the
methods of school construction financing in California. In order to receive
money under the bulk of the financing programs, districts are required to
provide 50% of the project funding from local sources. Carlsbad Unified
School District generates funding from revenues collected through a
financing form known as a Mello Roos District. According to State Law,
participation in the Mello Roos District constitutes full and complete
mitigation of project-related impacts and the provision of adequate school
facilities.
Students generated by the proposed project will occur as housing units are
built. Normally school facility enrollment demands also fluctuate over time.
Other than constructing new facilities, common options employed by School
Districts include; attendance boundary modifications, adjustment of grade
levels among facilities, use of temporary facilities and schedule
modifications such as using year-round tracks. Specific means to
accommodate school student demand is completely within the discretion
and authority of the school district.
I. See above response B above.
J. This development will be required to install a traffic signal at the entrance
(Rose Drive), which will include crosswalks. In addition, there is a sidewalk
that connects the affordable housing parcel directly to Poinsettia.
VISTA PACIFICA HQQEOWNERS COMMITTEE
October 9, 2001
Paae3 _
Pedestrians from the affordable housing site would have direct access to
the traffic signal crossing.
K. The proposed recreational vehicle storage site will be screened with a solid
wall and landscaping. In addition, the site is 15 to 20 feet above the
Poinsettia Lane elevation, thereby further reducing its visibility.
It is anticipated that the project will be heard by the Planning Commission in
November 2001 . You will receive a legal notice of that hearing at least ten days
in advance. Thank you again for your participation.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL J HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
Attachment
c: City Attorney
Assistant Planning Director
Principal Planner DeCerbo
Senior Planner Grim
File Copy
6itv of Carlsbad
Planning Department
October 9, 2001
Timothy and Tamra Mutter
939 Begonia Ct
Carlsbad CA 92009
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS REGARDING THE MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE THOMPSON/TABATA SUBDIVISION
Thank you for your comments regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Thomspon/Tabata residential subdivision. Listed below are the responses to your
comments. Your comment letter (copy attached) has been noted with reference letters
that correspond to the responses contained below.
A. An analysis of Daisy Avenue is included in the traffic study. The traffic study
estimates that the project will increase the ADT on Daisy Avenue from 1,900 ADT
to about 2,700 ADT. Based on the 40-foot width of Daisy Avenue and the fact that
this road does "collect" traffic from Primrose Way, Ivy Street, Wisteria Way, and
several other streets, a Residential Collector (4,500 ADT capacity) is deemed to be
the appropriate classification. In addition, LOS A and LOS B peak hour operations
at the Daisy Avenue intersections at Batiquitos Drive and Ivy Street with project
traffic are indications that capacity will not be a problem on Daisy Avenue.
Although the City of San Diego Standards are not applicable, even the lowest
classification from Table 2 of the Traffic Impact Study Manual (36-foot wide Sub-
Collector - LOS C capacity of 2,200 ADT), the forecasted volume of 2,700 ADT
would still result in adequate LOS D operations.
As stated in the traffic study, separate from the carrying capacity of Daisy Avenue
is the potential for speeding. The City of Carlsbad will prepare a Traffic Calming
Study for Daisy Avenue using the Carlsbad Residential Traffic Management
Program document (May 2001). Improvements that could be recommended
include installing stop signs on Daisy Avenue, mini roundabouts at intersections,
and/or raised pinch points along Daisy Avenue. Lastly, it should be noted that
installing a traffic signal on Poinsettia Lane at either Snapdragon Lane or Rose
Drive would give residences within the Vista Pacifica community an option to turn
left onto Poinsettia Lane at a signalized intersection. They would then be less
likely to use Daisy Avenue to reach Batiquitos Drive. This would lower the demand
on Daisy Avenue.
Finally, as a general rule social and economic effects are not covered by CEQA,
which focuses on environmental effects. Nevertheless, economic and social
effects may be considered in determining the significance of physical changes
caused by a project. In this instance, the adequate levels of service on the
affected streets and the relatively few trips generated by the project support the
conclusion that there will be no significant impacts associated with
transportation/circulation.
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
TIMOTHY AND TAMBA HUTTER
October 9, 2001 W
Page 2 \
B. Establishment of attendance boundaries and timing of School construction is the
responsibility of the governing School District and by law is not within the purview
of the proposed project.
In 1998 the California Legislature adopted Senate Bill 50 and the California voters
approved Proposition 1 A. These combined actions changed the methods of school
construction financing in California. In order to receive money under the bulk of the
financing programs, districts are required to provide 50% of the project funding
from local sources. Carlsbad Unified School District generates funding from
revenues collected through a financing form known as a Mello Roos District.
According to State Law, participation in the Mello Roos District constitutes full and
complete mitigation of project-related impacts and the provision of adequate school
facilities.
Students generated by the proposed project will occur as housing units are built.
Normally school facility enrollment demands also fluctuate over time. Other than
constructing new facilities, common options employed by School Districts include;
attendance boundary modifications, adjustment of grade levels among facilities,
use of temporary facilities and schedule modifications such as using year-round
tracks. Specific means to accommodate school student demand is completely
within the discretion and authority of the school district.
C. Energy planning takes into account the City and Regional build out projections.
The energy supply issue is being addressed through the addition of new
generating facilities that will be available to serve the future needs of the energy
grid. The current shortages are due to economic factors related to de-regulation
legislation and are not related to inadequate power supplies. The economics of
the power grid and de-regulation are not within the scope of CEQA project review,
in particular for the incremental impacts associated with a project of this size. The
project represents the implementation of the City's General Plan and as analyzed
in the EIA, no significant impacts upon utility demand is expected as a result of the
project.
It is anticipated that the project will be heard by the Planning Commission in
November 2001. You will receive a legal notice of that hearing at least ten days in
advance. Thank you again for your participation.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL J HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
Attachment
c: City Attorney Senior Planner Grim
Assistant Planning Director File Copy
Principal Planner DeCerbo
o o
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
October 9, 2001
Vista Pacifica Homeowners Committee
c/o GRG Management Inc.
P.O. Box1186
Carlsbad CA 92018-1186
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS REGARDING THE MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE THOMPSON/TABATA SUBDIVISION
Thank you for your comments regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration for
the Thomspon/Tabata residential subdivision. Listed below are the responses to
your comments. Your comment letter (copy attached) has been noted with
reference letters that correspond to the responses contained below.
A. The typographical error relating to the location of the project in relationship
to Vista Pacifica has been corrected. This error does not affect the analysis
of the project or the conclusion that all impacts will be mitigated to
insignificance.
B. The Carlsbad City Attorney's office previously responded to your concerns
regarding the affordable housing component of the project by letters dated
July 3 and August 29, 2000. Copies of the letters have been provided. The
comments regarding affordable housing do not address environmental
issues and are beyond the scope of CEQA.
C. The project as proposed will connect Alyssum; however, the project is
estimated to only add three AM peak hour trips and six PM peak hour trips
to the Poinsettia Lane to Snapdragon Drive to Alyssum Road movement.
The addition of this small amount of traffic is not considered significant.
D. The project is estimated to add 100 ADT to Alyssum Road east of
Snapdragon Drive, bringing the total ADT to less than 500 ADT. This is well
within the carrying capacity of this roadway and is therefore not considered
to be a significant project impact.
E. When the Vista Pacifica Development was built, no requirement of public
notice for the installation or extension of a public street, was necessary until
the improvements are actually proposed. The public has now received
notification and has the opportunity to participate in the City's public review
process. •
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
VISTA PACIFICA hCflEOWNERS COMMITTEE
October 9,2001
Page 2
F. Home Owner Association distribution of information relating to alternative
transportation methods is one aspect of the strategy to deal with air quality
impacts in the context of the build out of the General Plan in a "non
attainment basin". The mitigation measure also includes distribution of
information relating to ridesharing and transportation pooling.
G. The project engineer has studied the drainage requirements for the
proposed project and has determined that on-site improvements are
necessary to handle anticipated project runoff and to reduce impact to
adjacent properties. The proposed development will construct a storm drain
system that will be designed to the City of Carlsbad's design standards and
the Regional Water Quality Control Board design guidelines. The storm
water flows in the proposed system will be controlled to match the original
designed flows for the existing storm drain system.
H. Establishment of attendance boundaries and timing of School construction
is the responsibility of the governing School District and by law is not within
the purview of the proposed project.
In 1998 the California Legislature adopted Senate Bill 50 and the California
voters approved Proposition 1A. These combined actions changed the
methods of school construction financing in California. In order to receive
money under the bulk of the financing programs, districts are required to
provide 50% of the project funding from local sources. Carlsbad Unified
School District generates funding from revenues collected through a
financing form known as a Mello Roos District. According to State Law,
participation in the Mello Roos District constitutes full and complete
mitigation of project-related impacts and the provision of adequate school
facilities.
Students generated by the proposed project will occur as housing units are
built. Normally school facility enrollment demands also fluctuate over time.
Other than constructing new facilities, common options employed by School
Districts include; attendance boundary modifications, adjustment of grade
levels among facilities, use of temporary facilities and schedule
modifications such as using year-round tracks. Specific means to
accommodate school student demand is completely within the discretion
and authority of the school district.
I. See above response B above.
J. This development will be required to install a traffic signal at the entrance
(Rose Drive), which will include crosswalks. In addition, there is a sidewalk
that connects the affordable housing parcel directly to Poinsettia.
VISTA PACIFICA OlEOWNERS COMMITTEE
October 9,2001
Page 3
Pedestrians from the affordable housing site would have direct access to
the traffic signal crossing.
K. The proposed recreational vehicle storage site will be screened with a solid
wall and landscaping. In addition, the site is 15 to 20 feet above the
Poinsettia Lane elevation, thereby further reducing its visibility.
It is anticipated that the project will be heard by the Planning Commission in
November 2001. You will receive a legal notice of that hearing at least ten days
in advance. Thank you again for your participation.
Sincerely,
]MJ^^
MICHAEL J HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
Attachment
c: City Attorney
Assistant Planning Director
Principal Planner DeCerbo
Senior Planner Grim
File Copy
6itv of Carlsbad
Planning Department
October 9, 2001
Donald W Detisch Esq
Detisch and Christensen
444 West C St, Suite 200
San Diego CA 92101
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS REGARDING THE MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE THOMPSON/TABATA SUBDIVISION
Thank you for your comments regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Thomspon/Tabata residential subdivision. Listed below are the responses to your
comments. Your comment letter (copy attached) has been noted with reference letters
that correspond to the responses contained below.
A. The consultant report complies with the City Noise Ordinance requirements and full
mitigation is achieved via the consultant's recommendations. In addition, the
Uniform Building Code requires internal sound attenuation.
B. The lighting or recreation areas and/or storage will meet City standards requiring
that it be shielded and directed away from surrounding residences.
C. The City staff has evaluated various designs for access to the Tabata Property. In
order to meet City standards a second means of access is required to adequately
serve the Tabata property. The current access, as improved in conjunction with
this project, meets all City standards regarding access.
It is anticipated that the project will be heard by the Planning Commission in November
2001. You will receive a legal notice of that hearing at least ten days in advance. Thank
you again for your participation.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL J HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
Attachment
c: City Attorney
Assistant Planning Director
Principal Planner DeCerbo
Senior Planner Grim
File Copy
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
o
PETITION TO MAYOR BUD LEWIS
FROM
HOMEOWNERS OF VISTA PACIFICA
The Honorable Bud Lewis 5^v2J2.-
Mayor, City of Carlsbad
Carlsbad, CA
Dear Mayor Lewis:
I am writing you on behalf of the homeowners of the Planned Unit Development, Vista Pacifica. Vista
Pacifica is located on the south side of Poinsettia Lane at the intersection of Batiquitos Drive Attached
you will find a petition signed by the homeowners of Vista Pacifica which expresses their opposition to
certain elements of a new community slated for construction on the eastern perimeter of Vista Pacifica.
The homeowners of Vista Pacifica oppose:
1. the extension of a street in the community, Alyssum Road, which currently dead ends
inside the community,
2. the construction of 24 high density affordable housings units on our eastern perimeter, and
3. the construction of an RV Storage area adjacent to the affordable housing units.
We were informed initially by Standard Pacific, the developer of this new community (Shore Point) that the
items 1 thru 3 above were mandated on Standard Pacific by the City Planning Department. An initial
inquiry of the City Planning Department indicated that this department had approved the placement of the
affordable housing units and the RV storage area at another location on the north side of Poinsettia Lane.
Apparently the city planning department recommendations were overruled because of strenuous and often
vile protestations by residents of an adjoining community.
I am attaching a map and annotated photographs which will give you some idea of the impact the current
plans submitted by Standard Pacific will have on our peaceful planned unit development. You will note that
the extension of Alyssum Road and the construction of the affordable housing units and the RV storage
area will greatly increase the traffic into and out of our community. The residents on the eastern end of
Alyssum Road would virtually be cut off from our community and would be faced with the problems of
noise, pollution and safety concerns for their children and elderly family members. We do not believe it is
the intent of city planners to inflict this type of a hazard on a long established community which would
realize zero benefits from this current plan and yet be burdened with many liabilities. As presently drawn,
the affordable housing units and the RV Storage lot are more an appendage to Vista Pacifica than a part of
the Standard Pacific development.
We believe that there are other more equitable solutions to the problem. We would like our objections and
concerns to be given a fair hearing Our community has a great deal of pride We are concerned with our
overall appearance, our safety and our quality of life. Many homeowners bought homes in Vista Pacifica
because they were assured that our existing boundaries would be maintained. They have invested a great
deal of time, energy and resources into this community and now they feel that they are clearly being
violated by forces and powers which are not easily identifiable. Mr. Mayor we solicit your support. We
know and respect your track record which puts the concerns of our larger community Carlsbad at the top of
your list.
7^^r^_/ ^*«g6/
cificaOwners for the Preservation of "Olde" Vista Pacif
Cc:Mayor Pro-tern Matt Hall; Council Member Ann Kulchin; Council Member Julie Nygaard, Council
Member Ramona Finnila.
Cc: Ray Patchett, City Manager
Lloyd Hubbs, Public Works Director
Marty Orenyak, Community Development Director
Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director
Bob Wojcik, Public Works Manager
Mike Grim, Associate PlannerAll Vista Pacifica Homeowners
37 \ 38 39 10 41
59 58 57 56 55
42
54
43 ! 44
53
— PREPARED FOR: I
^STANDARD PACIFIC HOMES']
51
9335 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE
SAN DIEGO, CA 92123-1010
(858) 292-2200 / FAX (858) 292-2260
" .—-..- — i ^•-^^*~~~~"'^^^~*y\
35 34 33 32
NOT AlPART
PROPOSED 3-WAY.
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
APN 214-170-72
4-170-54
63
f
LONICERA ST.
W 1209 \\210 1211
651 66
II3]1141 115,
28 112*
\W
fa [130 129 127
67
-AFFORDABLEHOUSING 83 i 82
:ir:iz;i:
204
205
206
70 73
77
109,132 -C- ST.
74*
76
134
107
''106
105
93
135 136
104 1103 102'
89 90 \ 91 {92 ''94
202 201 198 1961195 194 1931192 191 190 189
MAP 11427
IHH
VISTA PACIFICA
east on
Poinsettia - entrance
to Vista Pacifica on
Snandraaon
Lookinc east-Alyssum
toward cul-de-sac
o
Homes on north side oH
AlyssuiP - going towar
cul-de-sac & proposed
new development
Alyssum cul-de-sac
Looking down/west
on Alyssum from the
cul-de-sac
Looking east on
Poinsettia-rear of
homes facina Alyssum ,'sr^ ••:•••
o
T.ookina west on
Poinsettia-east wa*fi
of Vista Pacifica thru
which Alyssum to be ex
Rear side of wall
behind Alyssum_cul-
de-sac
Lookina east on
Poinsettia (nortn-*side
which first approved ;>
for affordable units,
ARGUMENTS PROFFERED BY THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO LOCATE THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS OF STANDARD PACIFIC HOUSING DEVELOPMENT "SHORE
POINT" ON LONICERA STREET i.e., THE NORTH SIDE OF POINSETTIA LANE :
1 The affordable housing units would be adjacent to current higher density town homes.
2. The units would be next to a major arterial, Poinsettia Lane, allowing persons in those units easy
access to public transportation,
3. The units would be closer to the public elementary school,
4. Access to and from the school would be safer and could be done on foot thereby avoiding the other
main arterials
5 There would be walking access to the local public park.
WE ARE STILL IN THE PROCESS OF COLLECTING COPIES OF THE BIGOTED AND
THREATENING MAIL WHICH WAS SENT TO EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY PLANNING
DEPARTMENT. WE UNDERSTAND THAT IT WAS THE INTENSITY AND VICIOUSNESS
OF THIS MAIL WHICH MAY HAVE CAUSED THE REVERSAL OF THE ORIGINAL
RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AS TO THE LOCATION OF THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AND THE RV STORAGE AREA. WE ASSUME THAT THIS
MAIL CAN BE OBTAINED DIRECTLY FROM THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT THAT
IS ASSUMING THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN DESTROYED.
WE ARE NOT CERTAIN IF THE THREATENING PHONE CALLS MEMBERS OF THE
STAFF RECEIVED WERE RECORDED.
o
ATTACHED IS THE PETITION SIGNED BY 150 HOMEOWNERS OF THE VISTA PAC ICA
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. APPROXIMATELY 40 OWNERS WERE ABSENT DURING
THE PERIOD THE PETITION WAS IN CIRCULATION AND THEIR SIGNATURES WILL
BE PROVIDED AT A LATER DATE.
PETITION
The residents of the subdivision know as "Vista Pacffica", located in the City of Carlsbad, California,
petition the City of Carlsbad to prevent the proposed extension of Alyssum Road as noted on the City
approved plans that allow Standard Pacific the right to extend Alyssum Road in order to gain entrance and
egress for the new subdivision known as "Poinsettia Properties". Alyssum Road, in "Vista Pacifica", was
originally approved as a cul-de-sac street, and the development currently has existing infrastructure in the
form of a perimeter stucco wall separating Vista Pacifica from adjoining development to the east The
residents, whose signatures are affixed below, strongly believe that the extension of this road will have a
significant negative impact on the residents of "Vista Pacifica". Extending Alyssum Road will add
excessive traffic noise (several hundred cars per day), and the environmental pollutants that would
accompany that traffic. Additionally, the extension of .this cul-de-sac would denigrate the property values
of the homes currently located on the cul-de-sac at the east-end of Alyssum Road. Therefore, those signing
below, do hereby petition the City of Carlsbad to maintain the subdivision as It was approved by the City
some fifteen (15) years ago and not allow Alyssum Road to be modified or changed in any way.
SIGNATURE OF RESIDENT PRINTED NAME OF RESIDENT & ADDRESS
PETITION o
The residents of the subdivision know as "Vista Pacfflca", located in the City of Carlsbad, California,
petition the City of Carlsbad to prevent the proposed extension of Alyssum Road as noted on the City
approved plans that allow Standard Pacific the right to extend Alyssum Road in order to gain entrance and
egress for the new subdivision known as "Polnsettia Properties". Alyssum Road, in "Vista Pacifica", was
originally approved as a cul-de-sac street, and the development currently has existing infrastructure in the
form of a perimeter stucco wall separating Vista Pacifica from adjoining development to the east The
residents, whose signatures are affixed below, strongly believe that the extension of this road will have a
significant negative impact on the residents of "Vista Pactflca". Extending Alyssum Road will add
excessive traffic noise (several hundred cars per day), and the environmental pollutants that would
accompany that traffic. Additionally, the extension of. this cul-de-sac would denigrate the property values
of the homes currently located on the cul-de-sac at the east-end of Alyssum Road. Therefore, those signing
beiow, do hereby petition the City of Carlsbad to maintain the subdivision as it was approved by the City
some fifteen (15) years ago and not allow Alyssum Road to be modified or changed in any way.
SIGNATURED RESIDENT PRINTED NAME OF RESIDENT & ADDRESS -I
/ V Printed N.m«(1. fy *j .£•'- '<
7.Printed Nam«: )
<.>Addnm: rU?.
8.
c PETITION
The residents of the subdivision know as "Vista Pacfflca", located in the City of Carlsbad, California,
petition the City of Carlsbad to prevent the proposed extension of Alyssum Road as noted on the City
approved plans that allow Standard Pacific the right to extend Alyssum Road in order to gain entrance and
egress for the new subdivision known as "Poinsettia Properties". Alyssum Road, in "Vista Pacifica", was
originally approved as a cul-de-sac street, and the development currently has existing Infrastructure in the
form of a perimeter stucco wall separating Vista Pacifica from adjoining development to the east The
residents, whose signatures are affixed below, strongly believe that the extension of this road will have a
significant negative impact on the residents of "Vista Pacifica". Extending Alyssum Road will add
excessive traffic noise (several hundred cars per day), and the environmental pollutants that would
accompany that traffic. Additionally, the extension of this cul-de-sac would denigrate the property values
of the homes currently located on the cul-de-sac at the east-end of Alyssum Road. Therefore, those signing
below, do hereby petition the City of Carlsbad to maintain the subdivision as it was approved by the City
some fifteen (15) years ago and not allow Alyssum Road to be modified or changed in any way.
SIGNATURE OF RESIDENT PRINTED NAME OF RESIDENT & ADDRESS
PETITION
The residents of the subdivision know a* "Vista Paclfica", located In the City of Carlsbad, California,
petition the City of Carlsbad to prevent the proposed extension of Alyssum Road as noted on the City
approved plans that allow Standard Pacific the right to extend Alyssum Road in order to gain entrance and
egress for the new subdivision known as "Poinsettia Properties". Alyssum Road, in "Vista Pacrfica". was
originally approved as a cul-de-sac street, and the development currently has existing infrastructure in the
form of a perimeter stucco wall separating Vista Pactflca from adjoining development to the east The
residents, whose signatures are affixed below, strongly believe that the extension of this road will have a
significant negative impact on the residents of "vista Paclflca". Extending Alyssum Road will add
excessive traffic noise (several hundred cars per day), and the environmental pollutants that would
accompany that traffic. Additionally, the extension of this cul-de-sac would denigrate the property values
of the homes currently located on the cul-de-sac at the east-end of Alyssum Road. Therefore, those signing
below, do hereby petition the City of Carlsbad to maintain the subdivision as It was approved by the City
some fifteen (15) years ago and not allow Alyssum Road to be modified or changed in any way.
SIGNATURE OF RESIDENT PRINTED NAME OF RESIDENT & ADDRESS
f-
PETITION
The residents of the subdivision know as "Vista Paciflca", located in the City of Carlsbad, California,
petition the City of Carlsbad to prevent the proposed extension of Alyssum Road as noted on the City
approved plans that allow Standard Pacific the right to extend Alyssum Road in order to gain entrance and
egress for the new subdivision known as "Poinsettia Properties". Alyssum Road, in "Vista Pacifica", was
originally approved as a cut-de-sac street, and the development currently has existing infrastructure in the
form of a perimeter stucco wall separating Vista Pacfflca from adjoining development to the east. The
residents, whose signatures are affixed below, strongly believe that the extension of this road will have a
significant negative impact on the residents of "Vista Pacifica". Extending Alyssum Road wilt add
excessive traffic noise (several hundred care per day), and the environmental pollutants that would
accompany that traffic. Additionally, the extension of this cul-de-sac would denigrate the property values
of the homes currently located on the cul-de-sac at the east-end of Alyssum Road. Therefore, those signing
below, do hereby petition the City of Carlsbad to maintain the subdivision as It was approved by the City
some fifteen (15) years ago and not allow Alyssum Road to be modified or changed in any way.
SIGNATURE OF RESIDENT PRINTED NAME OF RESIDENT & ADDRESS1.
Printed N«nw:_
Add™.: -7010
fl.
o PETITION
The residents of the subdivision know as "Vista Pacifies", located in the City of Carlsbad, California,
petition the City of Carlsbad to prevent the proposed extension of Ajyssum Road as noted on the City
approved plans that allow Standard Pacific the right to extend Alyssum Road in order to gain entrance and
egress for the new subdivision known as HPoinsettia Properties". Alyssum Road, in "Vista Pactfica", was
originally approved as a cul-de-sac street, and the development currently has existing infrastructure in the
form of a perimeter stucco wall separating Vista Pacffiea from adjoining development to the east The
residents, whose signatures are affixed below, strongly believe that the extension of this road will have a
significant negative impact on the residents of "Vista Pacifica". Extending Alyssum Road will add
excessive traffic noise (several hundred cars per day), and the environmental pollutants that would
accompany that traffic. Additionally, the extension of this cul-de-sac would denigrate the property values
of the homes currently located on the cul-de-sac at the east-end of Alyssum Road. Therefore, those signing
below, do hereby petition the City of Carlsbad to maintain the subdivision as it was approved by the City
some fifteen (15) years ago and not allow Alyssum Road to be modified or changed in any way.
SIGNATURE CORESIDENT PRINTED NAME OF RESIDENT & ADDRESS
PETITION
The residents of the subdivision know as "Vista Paciflca", located in the City of Carlsbad, California,
petition the City of Carlsbad to prevent the proposed extension of Alyssum Road as noted on the City
approved plans that allow Standard Pacific the right to extend Alyssum Road in order to gain entrance and
egress for the new subdivision known as "Poinsettia Properties". Alyssum Road, in "Vista Pacffica", was
originally approved as a cul-de-sac street, and the development currently has existing infrastructure in the
form of a perimeter stucco wall separating Vista Paclfica from adjoining development to the east The
residents, whose signatures are affixed below, strongly believe that the extension of this road will have a
significant negative impact on the residents of "Vista Pacifica". Extending Alyssum Road will add
excessive traffic noise (several hundred care per day), and the environmental pollutants that would
accompany that traffic. Additionally, the extension of this cul-de-sac would denigrate the property values
of the homes currently located on the cul-de-sac at the east-end of Alyssum Road. Therefore, those signing
below, do hereby petition the City of Carlsbad to maintain the subdivision as it was approved by the City
some fifteen (15) years ago and not allow Alyssum Road to be modified or changed in any way.
SIGNATURE OF RESIDENT PRINTED NAME OF RESIDENT & ADDRESS
Prints N^.:
Prnted N«n.: W && 3 O R- 1
: 7 0
4.
Printed Nairw:*_
AddrMC- 9 01 £J^Vf.-
6.
i 7.Printed Name:rwO
. C
8.
9.
Jfyj^A-
Printed 1 14 <t*,
10.Printed Nam«:_
AddfMc:
^ V / I «- .'
PETITION
The residents of the subdivision know as "Vista Pacifica", located in the City of Carlsbad, California,
petition the City of Cartsbad to prevent the proposed extension of Alyssum Road as noted on the City
approved plans that allow Standard Pacific the right to extend Alyssum Road in order to gain entrance and
egress for the new subdivision known as "Poinsettia Properties". Alyssum Road, in "Vista Pacifica", was
originally approved as a cul-de-sac street, and the development currently has existing infrastructure in the
form of a perimeter stucco wall separating Vista Paciflca from adjoining development to the east The
residents, whose signatures are affixed below, strongly believe that the extension of this road will have a
significant negative impact on the residents of "Vista Paciflca". Extending Alyssum Road will add
excessive traffic noise (several hundred cars per day), and the environmental pollutants that would
accompany that traffic. Additionally, the extension of this cul-de-sac would denigrate the property values
of the homes currently located on the cul-de-sac at the east-end of Alyssum Road. Therefore, those signing
below, do hereby petition the City of Carlsbad to maintain the subdivision as it was approved by the City
some fifteen (16) years ago and not allow Alyssum Road to be modified or changed In any way.
SIGNATURE OF RESIDENT PRINTED NAME OF RESIDENT & ADDRESS
PrintedName:L.
fl&iloj C.Printed Name:
rjtinPrinted Name:
Address:f> '. / C-/
Printed Mama: /1/f i ,
/ l^Address:
Printed Name:.
Address:^
i 7.Printed Name:.
Address:
8.Printed NMIM:
9.Printed Name:.
Address:
10.
Address:
o PETITION
The residents of the subdivision know as "Vista Pacffica", located in the City of Carlsbad, California,
petition the City of Carlsbad to prevent the proposed extension of Alyssum Road as noted on the City
approved plans that allow Standard Pacific the right to extend Alyssum Road in order to gain entrance and
egress for the new subdivision known as "Poinsettia Properties". Alyssum Road, in "Vista Paciflca", was
originally approved as a cul-de-sac street, and the development currently has existing infrastructure in the
form of a perimeter stucco wall separating Vista Paciflca from adjoining development to the east The
residents, whose signatures are affixed below, strongly believe that the extension of this road will have a
significant negative impact on the residents of "Vista Pacffica". Extending Aiyssum Road will add
excessive traffic noise (several hundred cars per day), and the environmental pollutants that would
accompany that traffic. Additionally, the extension of this cul-de-sac would denigrate the property values
of the homes currently located on the cul-de-sac at the east-end of Alyssum Road. Therefore, those signing
below, do hereby petition the City of Carlsbad to maintain the subdivision as it was approved by the City
some fifteen (15) years ago and not allow Alyssum Road to be modified or changed in any way.
Printed Nairn-. .
Addret: 6?L/J J) i I-
'V. e> * ^ a z
2, A L <r^ 3 K ^ if
printed N.m.; KRRV
Addm..
SIGNATURE OF RESIDENT PRINTED NAME OF RESIDENT & ADDRESS
o PETITION
The residents of the subdivision know as "Vista Pacffica", located In the City of Carlsbad, California,
petition the City of Carlsbad to prevent the proposed extension of Alyssum Road as noted on the City
approved plans that allow Standard Pacific the right to extend Alyssum Road in order to gain entrance and
egress for the new subdivision known as "Poinsettia Properties". Alyssum Road, In "Vista Pacffica", was
originally approved as a cul-de-sac street, and the development currently has existing infrastructure in the
form of a perimeter stucco wall separating Vista Pacmca from adjoining development to the east The
residents, whose signatures are affixed below, strongly believe that the extension of this road will have a
significant negative impact on the residents of "Vista Paclflca". Extending Alyssum Road will add
excessive traffic noise (several hundred cars per day), and the environmental pollutants that would
accompany that traffic. Additionally, the extension of this cul-de-sac would denigrate the property values
of the homes currently located on the cul-de-sac at the east-end of Alyssum Road. Therefore, those signing
below, do hereby petition the City of Carlsbad to maintain the subdivision as it was approved by the City
some fifteen (15) years ago and not allow Alyssum Road to be modified or changed in any way.
SIGNATURE OF RESIDENT PRINTED NAME OF RESIDENT & ADDRESS
Printed Nan*
Address - (29
Print* Item*: 1^ A^^AC-A-
Addr»««
Printed Nanw:
Address: ^O'l
Printed MUM:
PrintedH^
: 9(93
o
The residents of the subdivision know as "Vista Pacrflca", located in the City of Carlsbad, California
petition the City of Carlsbad to prevent the proposed extension of Alyssum Road as noted on the City
approved plans that allow Standard Pacific the right to extend Alyssum Road In order to gain entrance and
egress for the new subdivision known as "Poinsettla Properties". Alyssum Road, in "Vista Padfica", was
originally approved as a cul-de-sac street, and the development currently has existing infrastructure in the
form of a perimeter stucco wall separating Vista Pacffica from adjoining development to the east The
residents, whose signatures are affixed below, strongly believe that the extension of this road will have a
significant negative impact on the residents of "Vista Paciflca". Extending Alyssum Road will add
excessive traffic noise (several hundred cars per day), and the environmental pollutants that would
accompany that traffic. Additionally, the extension of this cul^de-sac would denigrate the property values
of the homes currently located on the cul-de-sac at the east-end of Alyssum Road. Therefore, those signing
below, do hereby petition the City of Carlsbad to maintain the subdivision as It was approved by the City
some fifteen (15) years ago and not allow Alyssum Road to be modified or changed in any way.
PRINTED NAME OF RESIDENT & ADDRESS
1.Printed N«m«:
2.PrintedM«Mi
Addrws:
3.Printed N«m«!0' L-(\&-e. osiih^
Printed Nam«:
5.Printed Natm:
6.Printed N«m«:
/
7.
8.Printed Namt:
9.Printed Nanw:
AddiM*
I
:J%?,3< JT0I
10.
Addn»t»: 7x9 /
Z
o PETITION
Thepresidents of the subdivision know as "Vista Pacffica", located In the City of Carlsbad, CaJifomia,
petition the City of Carlsbad to prevent the proposed extension of Alyssum Road as noted on the City
approved plans that allow Standard Pacific the right to extend Alyssum Road in order to gain entrance and
egress for the new subdivision known as "Poinsettia Properties". Alyssum Road, in "Vista Paciflca" was
originally approved as a cul-de-sac street, and the development currently has existing infrastructure in the
form of a perimeter stucco wall separating Vista Paciflca from adjoining development to the east The
residents, whose signatures are affixed below, strongly bslieve that the extension of this road will have a
significant negative impact on the residents of "Vista Pacmca". Extending Alyssum Road will add
excessive traffic noise (several hundred cars per day), and the environmental pollutants that would
accompany that traffic. Additionally, the extension of this cul-de-sac would denigrate the property values
of the homes currently located on the cul-de-sac at the east-end of Alyssum Road. Therefore, those signing
below, do hereby petition the City of Carlsbad to maintain the subdivision as It was approved by the City
some fifteen (15) years ago and not allow Alyssum Road to be modified or changed in any way.
pfrmoN
The residents of the subdivision knownas "Vista Pacfflca", located in the City of Carlsbad, California,
petition the City of Carlsbad to prevent the proposed extension of Alyssum Road as noted on the City
approved plans that allow Standard Pacific the right to extend Alyssum Road in order to gain entrance and
egress for the new subdivision known as "Poinsettia Properties". Alyssum Road, in "Vista Pacifica", was
originally approved as a cul-de-sac street, and the development currently has existing infrastructure in the
form of a perimeter stucco wall separating Vista Pacifica from adjoining development to the east The
residents, whose signatures are affixed below, strongly believe that the extension of this road will have a
significant negative Impact on the residents of "Vista Pacifica". Extending Alyssum Road will add
excessive traffic noise (several hundred cars per day), and the environmental pollutants that would
accompany that traffic. Additionally, the extension of .this cul-de-sac would denigrate the property values
of the homes currently located on the cul-de-sac at the east-end of Alyssum Road. Therefore, those signing
below, do hereby petition the City of Carlsbad to maintain the subdivision as it was approved by the City
some fifteen (15) years ago and not allow Alyssum Road to be modified or changed in any way.
SIGNATURE OF RESIDENT PRINTED NAME OF RESIDENT & ADDRESS
Printed Hmmu: ( n IMA,
Addrw;/
Printed Nairn:
\r
Printed Nama:
Addrw:
M.
Printed Nam*:,8.
Printed Nam*:.
Address:
. //
Printed farm:2)eA>^ L • UOAMi
Printed Nama:
AddrMS
8.
4
nr\
/lf&tM <?M 9*)
/i<-
/I I I J'•Mmfi/fiA^
Printed Nam*:
AddrMt:
10.Printed Hmmm:
PETITION
The residents of the subdivision know as "Vista Paclfica", located in the City of Carlsbad, California,
petition the Crty of Carlsbad to prevent the proposed extension of Alyssum Road as noted on the City
approved plans that allow Standard Pacific the right to extend Aiyssum Road in order to gain entrance and
egress for the new subdivision known as "Poinsettia Properties". Alyssum Road, in "Vista Pacifica", was
originally approved as a cul-de-sac street, and the development currently has existing infrastructure in the
form of a perimeter stucco wall separating Vista Pacifica from adjoining development to the east. The
residents, whose signatures are affixed below, strongly believe that the extension of this road will have a
significant negative Impact on the residents of "Vista Pacifica". Extending Alyssum Road will add
excessive traffic noise (several hundred cars per day), and the environmental pollutants that would
accompany that traffic. Additionally, the extension of this cul-de-sac would denigrate the property values
of the homes currently located on the cul-de-sac at the east-end of Alyssum Road. Therefore, those signing
below, do hereby petition the City of Carlsbad to maintain the subdivision as it was approved by the City
some fifteen (15) years ago and not allow Alyssum Road to be modified or changed in any way.
SIGNATURE OF RESIDENT PRINTED NAME OF RESIDENT & ADDRESS
Addr»««: 9 / 5" Pi L V ^
AddnMt: 7^/7" AJl/7F((Sb
.<-*»/..'•'•
c o
August 25, 2000 A fa *
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: (^COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
MINUTES FROM COMMUNITY INFORMATION FORUM
Attached for review are the detailed minutes from the Community Information Forum
that staff held on Thursday, August 17, 2000 to share information on the proposed
Standard Pacific Poinsettia Properties project, at the location known as the
Thompson/Tabata site, with surrounding property owners. As I indicated in a previous
memorandum, the primary issue raised by the speakers at the forum was related to the
extension of Alyssum Road. The attached minutes, however, will provide you with
verbatim comments from all of the speakers and the details of their individual concerns.
The minutes also include responses from staff to speaker questions.
As staff indicated to those attending the Information Forum, the attached minutes will be
included as an exhibit to both the Planning Commission and City Council reports that
will be submitted to process the application by Standard Pacific for their proposed
project. Staff shared mat the minutes will allow the Planning Commission and City
Council to consider the concerns of the neighboring property owners as they review the
project report and related plans. It is anticipated at this time that the project will be
submitted to the Planning Commission for review and a recommendation in November,
2000, and subsequently submitted to the City Council after the first of the new year 2001
for final action.
For information purposes, Mr. Jim Hicks, representative of the Vista Pacific
Homeowner's Association, requested a copy of these minutes from the information
forum. A copy of these minutes, therefore, have been forwarded (mailed) to him as
requested.
If you have any comments or questions regarding the attached minutes, please contact me
at X2724, or Debbie Fountain at X2935. ' •
MARTY ORENYAK
C: City Attorney
Public Works Director
Housing and Redevelopment Director
Planning Director
Senior Civil Engineer - S. Hammann
Senior Planner - M. Grim i/
COMMUNITY INFORMATION
AUGUST 17,2000
Page 1
Minutes of: COMMUNITY INFORMATION FORUM
Time of Meeting: 6:00 P.M.
Date of meeting: August 17,2000
Place of Meeting: FARADAY CENTER
FARADAY ROOM 173A AND B
SUBJECT OF FORUM: Standard Pacific Poinsettia Properties - Thompson/Tabata Development
PURPOSE OF FORUM: For City Staff to share information with surrounding residents regarding the project proposed by
Standard Pacific on the Poinsettia Properties known as the Thompson/Tabata sites.
PROJECT LOCATION: Properties located on the north and south side of Poinsettia Lane; east of Snapdragon Drive, north of
Daisy Avenue; west of Aviara Parkway; and south of Camino De Las Ondas.
FORUM AGENDA:
I. INTRODUCTION - Marty Orenyak, Community Development Director
II OERVIEW OF PROPOSED PROJECT - Mike Grim, Senior Planner (Project Planner, Planning Department)
III. REVIEW OF ROAD AND CIRCULATION ISSUES - Skip Hammann, Senior Civil Engineer (Public Works - Land Use
Development)
IV. SUMMARY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT - Debbie Fountain,
Housing and Redevelopment Director
V. NEXT STEPS FOR PROJECT CONSIDERATION - Marty Orenyak, Community Development Director
VI. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
The meeting began with presentations from staff according to the agenda noted above. The audience members were then
invited by Marty Orenyak, Community Development Director, to make comments and ask questions regarding the proposed
project. The comments and/or questions made by the audience members are noted below with staff responses.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS:
1. HELLO, MY NAME IS JOHN ZEMENICK, I LIVE IN VISTA PACIFICA WITH MY WIFE, MELINDA.
My first question is in regards to the cul-de-sac. I'm looking at a letter that was addressed to Kathy Baker with Standard Pacific
Homes. I'll read it, and this is from a group called Linscott, Law and Greenspan. "We understand that it has been proposed to
not connect Alyssum/Rose, between Rose Drive and Snapdragon Drive. Based on results of September 23,1998, traffic studies
prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan and tenures and the fact that it is planned to signalize Poinsettia Lane and Rose Drive
intersection, this connection is not necessary to serve the project better." What has changed from that?
Skip Hammann:
I haven't seen that letter, but what has changed? Nothing has changed because it has always been staffs position that, again as
I've made my presentation, we are always looking for multiple points of access and I'm not going to argue that you could dose it,
but our position or policy of the City is to always provide multiple points of access so that the traffic is as evenly distributed
throughout the community as possible so that we don't over burden any one street. So the staff does not support that opinion of
Linscott, Law and Greenspan.
COMMUNITY INFORMATION FOfQ
AUGUST 17,2000
Page 2
Mr. John Zemenick:
Let me ask you this, when you drive down Batiquitos Drive, there are several gated communities in Aviara. How many accesses
and egresses do they have to those residential groups?
Skip Hammann:
Well, I can't respond to all those different projects. When there gets to be over 50 units, we require secondary access, as
mandatory secondary access.
Mr. John Zemenick:
There is secondary access off of Daisy on the other side.
Skip Hammann:
Well, I'm not going to stand up here and argue with you as to why you couldn't cul-de-sac it (Alyssum), because clearly, you
could cul-de-sac it. But our position is, again, that we look for as many points of access within each project that we can get.
Alyssum has always been designed to connect to the Thompson/Tabata property. One of the issues you get into when you have
a roadway like Poinsettia Avenue is that you have limited points of access to it. There are only two points of access from these
two projects including Spiniker Hills to the south. Again, we look for as many points of access as possible, vista Pacifica was
designed to accommodate the future development of this project and it is staffs position that we can't support this project without
having that access there. It improves the overall circulation. I will grant that it does increase the traffic on Alyssum, but it will
decrease traffic on Snapdragon, Ivy, Daisy and some of the other ones. We look at the big overall picture and the impact for the
community as a whole. That's staffs position. You'll be able to express your concerns at the Planning Commission and at the
City Council during the public hearings on this project.
Mr. John Zemenick:
Can I ask one more question?
Skip Hammann:
Yes
Mr. John Zemenick:
As far as the low-income housing units, what was the date of the change when formerly the project, the RV, and the low-income
project was going to go in at the North side of Poinsettia. What was the date of the change?
Debbie Fountain:
I don't have an exact date for you. It was several months ago.
Mr. John Zemenick:
Would it be around the date of March 8,2000? .
Debbie Fountain:
Like I said, I'm not sure exactly when that decision was made and the developer was informed to relocate the affordable housing
to an alternate site within the development. We actually have been talking about this project for much longer than the past year.
The developer's proposal for affordable housing was presented to the housing team early on and the location was an issue we
shared very early on in the project. The developer felt strongly that the original location they selected was a good site, so they
decided to process their application with the original location. As we continued to review the project staff decided that we still
didn't' think the site selected by the developer was the best location for it (the affordable housing).
Mr. John Zemenick:
I'm not trying to get on anybody's bad side, but there are several letters in the file. And you can look at the letters, you can look at
the dates. There is an attorney letter and it's drafted and what it does, it presents a picture that says that the low-income housing
units should be moved to the south side of the street. It is dated March 8,2000. And this is way prior to when the individuals that
live in Vista Pacifica were made aware of the project and the implications to our community. We have been in the area since
1985.
COMMUNITY INFORMATION
AUGUST 17,2000
Page 3
Debbie Fountain:
I am willing to accept that the information you have on dates are correct There have been different opinions on where the
affordable housing should go. As Marty mentioned, these projects are very fluid. They continue in the review and revision
process until we make a final recommendation that goes before the Planning Commission. Normally you would receive all the
information on a proposed project as a property owner when it goes to Planning Commission. This forum is something that we've
never held ever before. Typically, it is the developer's responsibility to go out and meet with surrounding communities if they
know there's going to be some controversy over something. Typically, the first time you would hear about the details of a project
in a lot of cases is when it is actually scheduled for a public hearing (unless the developer holds meetings with property owners).
Once a project is scheduled for a public hearing, staff has its final recommendation on a project.
Mr. John Zemenick:
Just for clarification for everybody here, the Mariner's Point individuals were apprised of the project in February. The Vista
Pacifica residents were apprised of the project in May—for whatever it is worth.
2. I'M AL RIEDLER, I LIVE IN LAS PLAYAS.
Am I to understand that the only affordable housing in this 222 unit development are those 24? Those are the only ones that are
identified as affordable housing?
Debbie Fountain:
Yes
Mr. Al Riedler:
Are the plans that you're considering now covering all 222 or just the 24?
Debbie Fountain:
The project that's being considered is the whole development. When we sent out the notices about the meeting, the reason we
just incorporated the part about the 24 units was because of the issue about the access. So we just wanted to share that
information. But the project that's going to be considered by Planning Commission and City Council is the entire project.
Mr. Al Riedler
I see. Can we get a map of the whole project then instead of just the rdable housing one from you folks?
Marty Orenyak:
If you give us your name, we'll pass it on to the developer and I'm sure he'll be happy to get you the other plans.
Mr. Al Riedler:
Thank you.
Marty Orenyak:
If anybody else wants a full copy of the map, I'm sure the developer will be happy to give them to you. Just put your name on a
list here and we'll pass it on.
3. I'M STUART WENTWORTH. I LIVE ON LOWER DAISY IN SPINIKER HILL.
The developer did a study on traffic that proposed increasing traffic on Daisy by 50%. The City has not done a study since '98.
Talking to staff, they're saying that they're hoping that upper Daisy will utilize Rose. But as you said it's circuitous and Daisy is a
straight shot. What do you have to support that?
Skip Hammann:
Can I have what your question is? I don't understand to support what?
Mr. Stuart Wentworth:
Taking traffic off of upper Daisy through Rose.
COMMUNITY INFORMATION Fqf%
AUGUST 17,2000 ^
Page 4
Skip Hammann:
I'm not prepared to get into all the traffic reports tonight, but it has been our experience that the more points of access you
provide people will use them, especially someone going out Poinsettia to the east. They're going to want to take the most direct
route. So if you're on upper Daisy, the shortest route to Poinsettia is through the proposed Thompson/Tabata project. Again,
there will also be a signal at that intersection (Poinsettia & Rose) so they are going to take the most direct route wherever their
destination is.
4 I'M LARRY STAPLETON. I LIVE IN VISTA PACIFICA.
I would like to thank the staff for their information. I've had some questions answered and your information has created some
additional questions in my mind. To my knowledge there has been at least one and I believe two meetings with 'Planning
Department people and some of the City Council Members. I find this not too untypical of Carlsbad City Council. But we can find
no records of what transpired in those meetings. And it would appear to me in the public interest that if there are closed meetings
the public be made aware of what goes on in those meetings, because it does effect us. I'd like to find out what went on in the
meetings between Standard Pacific and members of the City staff. I would appreciate it if someone could provide that for me.
When the change was made, we initially, as John pointed out, found out quite late in the process that this project was being
considered and at that time as far as we knew gone quite a ways beyond just the talk stage. The initial point for the affordable
housing was given to us as being on the other side of Poinsettia just above Las Playas, which is a multiple family home
development. I met with Mike Grim and one of the people from traffic, we were told that Poinsettia was about at 30% of the
expected capacity that it will be when it is run through to Melrose. If I were living in affordable housing, foufbedroom with two
children or three children, I don't think I would want them crossing Poinsettia Avenue even if there is a stoplight to get to and
from school and from the recreation facilities. It doesn't make sense. Kids don't always go to stop lights. We've already had one
child hit at the comer of Poinsettia and Snapdragon. And I also heard this evening that the City's considering, a stop light at
either Rose or Poinsettia. Several of our people in our community have not been objecting to getting a stop light at Snapdragon.
We've been for it. I asked Mike at the time, "What's it going to take, another accident or a death at the comer of Poinsettia and
Snapdragon before the City does something about it?" Mike assured me that's not the case. I fail to see the logic behind having
children cross the busy intersection where the speed limit just went up from 40 to 45. If you go out there and actually drive 40
miles per hour you're going to have somebody in your trunk—have those children going back and forth across that street. The
logic fails me. I mean you guys are experts. I'm not going to question your expertise in these kinds of issues, but I would suspect
maybe somebody ought to think about that. I don't know who makes the ordinances in Carlsbad? Who's responsible for that?
We've got a lot of ordinances that I don't understand and I guarantee you, I'm going to learn where they come from. But I've
been told that the environmental review reviews projects against standards set by the City of Carlsbad. Is that correct? Does
anybody know?
Mike Grim:
Well, actually there's two ways. The State has guidelines for what we determine as threshold levels that would tip you into an
adverse impact, a significant adverse impact. CEQA does allow local agencies, such as the City of Carlsbad, to adopt their own
threshold levels. As a matter of fact they recommend it because they realize that each individual city might have different
thresholds. Carlsbad has not officially adopted any of those. So our threshold analysis is based on previous environmental
review within the City and also anything else around the area.
Mr. Larry Stapleton
Are those static or dynamic, Mike? Have we changed them or are they pretty much firm?
Mike Grim:
I would say, they are pretty much firm. However, with any project there is a level of discretion and what could be an adverse
impact because of particular quantifiable data on one project, may not be adverse on the other depending on the surroundings,
taking on certain circumstances. So it's very difficult to actually quantify "x" amount of traffic trips or "x" amount of volume, cubic
yards of grading per acre as significant or insignificant. We do have thresholds. CEQA does have thresholds whereby you can
exempt a project from environmental review. And those are very, very specific. And obviously, this project does involve
development. They are well within the realm of having to go through environmental review. But I would say, for the most part, the
staff would try to be consistent because we want to have fair rules that we have to make consistently.
Mr. Larry Stapleton:
Thank you. Where's the affordable housing for Aviara?
COMMUNITY INFORMATION
AUGUST 17, 2000
PageS
Debbie Fountain:
Let me answer some of your other questions as well since they are related to affordable housing. One, I just wanted to comment
about the children crossing the street. That doesn't just effect affordable. That issue will effect everybody that has children within
this entire development. So those are things that have to be considered and it is something that parents will have to be sensitive
to about projects in Poinsettia.
Mr. Larry Stapleton:
The children per sq ft in the affordable housing is probably going to be a little bit higher than that in the 2000 sq ft regular home,
in the rest of the project.
Debbie Fountain:
Well, all that I am saying is that the issue regarding children crossing the street doesn't change regardless of what your income
level is. It is something that parents have to work with the children on. But it doesn't matter if it's an affordable project or if it is
another project. Those are still real issues that have to be dealt with. We felt that this was the best site for the affordable housing
for a number of reasons and that's what we're recommending move forward. But there are always issues like the ones you are
raising that have to be worked out, even for market rate projects ultimately. The other comment I wanted to make was about the
meetings you were talking about. Marty actually mentioned this at the beginning—any private citizen, any developer, any
interested party can meet with the City Council. There are not minutes kept at those meetings, they are not noticed meetings.
They are basically informational meetings. You or your home owners association, anyone can go in and talk to the Council and
we wouldn't have minutes of those meetings. That's between you and the Councilmember you spoke to. The developers have
the right to do the same thing. There are no noticing requirements. Staff meets with the developers on an on-going and regular
basis. That's part of processing an application. So those meetings are numerous, held throughout the year. Projects processed
in Carlsbad have a very complex process they go through that takes months, often years to get through. So there's numerous
meetings that happen. A lot of times if there's some controversy within the community, the Council asks staff to fill them in on
what's going on. And since there was controversy on this project, we basically shared the same information we shared with you
tonight with the Council, telling them this is what's going on, these are what the issues are. The meetings were informational
only. There's no minutes or meeting notes taken of those meetings. The meetings are to help the representatives (City Council)
of the City do their job. It's just like you could go in and present your story to the Council. The Council may simply want to know
from staff what's been going on. So, that's what we share with them. You also asked about ordinances and how they're created
within the City? The City Council approves all ordinances for the City. Ordinances comes from different directions. Sometimes
private Citizens want something enacted. So, they will request that the City Council develop an ordinance to address it—barking
dogs, or noise or whatever it may be. So they can go to Council and say, "I want an ordinance that regulates these types of
activities," and the Council can either decide, "Yes, we want to do it or no, we don't." They usually get a staff report. We put the
City website address up here because I think that is very important for people to be aware that you can actually go to the City
website or you can go to the City library or you can go to the City Clerk's office and get copies of all the Agendas of meetings. It
will tell you what kinds of things are being enacted—ordinances or policies or that type of thing. So they are all done at the City
Council level and it is all public information what happens. In terms of Aviara development, due to the enactment date of the
ordinance, Aviara wasn't actually required to comply because of where their application was in the process. They, however,
were considering some amendments which would possibly trigger a requirement. So, we negotiated a deal with them where we
could build a project that met their requirements and also produced additional units—that's known as the Villa Loma Apartment
Project which is right up at El Camino Real not far from the Aviara Development. The only reason that we typically go off site and
allow a developer to go off site is if that benefits the City in some way. In the Villa Loma case for Aviara we got more units. They
were only required to do 160, we got 344 units out of that project. We also got more affordable units. They actually provide
housing for people at 50 and 60 percent of the area median income. So if they're going off site to meet their requirement, they
have to show the City that there is a benefit to that Aviara was more the timing of when they came through. It was a negotiated
deal and it was because it added benefit that we allowed them to build it outside. But right now, our policy is if you have the room
within your development you have to build it (the affordable housing) within the development.
Mr. Larry Stapleton:
So did that policy change take place in '93?
COMMUNITY INFORMATION F|
AUGUST 17,2000
Page 6
Debbie Fountain:
1993 is when the inclusionary housing ordinance became effective. Aviara, the Villa Loma project, came very soon after that
ordinance went into effect
Mr. Larry Stapleton
How far along was Aviara at that time? Do you recall?
Debbie Fountain:
They actually had already been developing a number of their planning areas and had approved development applications. The
ordinance was applied according to the application dates. If a developer had applications in that had been deemed complete,
then you weren't obligated to meet the requirement Aviara did develop a deal with the City because they wanted to make some
future amendments to their plans.
Mr. Larry Stapleton:
That's the thing that bothers me a lot is all the deals that go on and the public doesn't know about this. That's why I asked about
the meeting with the City Council. Thank you.
Skip Hammann:
I wanted to answer a couple of your questions in regards to pedestrian access at Poinsettia and Rose Avenue. You made the
statement about pedestrian access. When we look at any project, we're looking at access and circulation for not only cars, but
also for pedestrians, bicycles and in addition ADA access. Anytime we put a signal in, we're looking to provide all those types of
access. It's not only for access for the children from the affordable home projects. It's going to be for all the citizens in that whole
area to be able to use. You had another comment about the stoplight at Snapdragon. Right now there is a need for a signal at
Snapdragon. It is not a great need, but the City has identified that as a potential place for a future stop light. As traffic increases
on Poinsettia Avenue, the need is going to grow. However, there is probably not a need for two signals. Maybe at some future
date there may be two signals, but right now the way staff is looking at it, is that we would probably choose one of the two
locations and Rose is probably going to be the preferred location for pedestrian access. But that is not to say that it couldn't
change. For whatever reason this project doesn't go forward and there is still a need for it, we may decide to put it back at
Snapdragon. That's going to be a decision that is made over time because the needs change as the City develops. But that's
how we are looking at it at this time.
Unidentified Citizen from the Audience:
Can you make a left turn from Rose? Do you make a left or do you just have to go right?
Skip Hammann:
If and when Rose Avenue is a signalized intersection, it will be a full access. It'll be a three way intersection so you will be able to
make left turns there. Please, I don't want to start answering questions from the audience, we want to report all your questions.
5. I'M DOUG McFARLAND-VISTA PACIFICA.
This staff has done a lot of work. And up until tonight, I pretty much thought you worked for us. But it appears to me that this is a
done deal. It's all but decided. A lot of things that Larry brought up, such as the school kids walking across the street—it would
be a lot easier if they were on the north side and I thought we were here to discuss and maybe change things. I don't have an
answer as to what we should do, but I think you ought to be prepared to listen.
6. ALRIEDLER.
When there is a long distance between stop lights, it would seem like pedestrian bridges might be the answer. Kids just don't
want to walk very far to get to a stop light and a pedestrian bridge would make it unnecessary. Any consideration being given to
that?
Skip Hammann:
There's no consideration at this time for a pedestrian bridge. This would not be the type of situation where it would be warranted.
Quite frankly, even if you did put up a pedestrian bridge, that would not predude an individual, a child or an adult, from jay
COMMUNITY INFORMATION
AUGUST 17,2000
Page?
walking across the street. We do everything we can to encourage people to go to an intersection to cross safely, but we can't
control people who want to jay walk across the street.
7. MY NAME IS BOB GATES. I LIVE ON LEMON LEAF DRIVE.
We're an area where there would be no other alternative but to have construction traffic going through on our street and through
our community in order to construct on the end of Lemon Leaf. And I'm concerned about how they will maintain that as a dean
and safe environment during the construction process. Particuarly, we don't want to have construction workers parking their
vehicles on our street during construction. We prefer not, if there's dirt or soil on the street, we would like that taken care of. We
would hope that they won't do construction outside approved hours. If they damage the street, we would want to see that fixed.
And we would not like to see unsightly piles of construction material around the site. I don't know how you control that, but these
are concerns that we have living in the community now and having construction going on through our community. We would be
interested in any comments you have about how we control that
Skip Hammann:
I'll try to address your comments on that I don't know whether you've seen some of the other projects around town, but we
require that they put up construction fencing and put a wind screen or visual screen over the fencing to try to minimize the visual
impacts and try to insure that they stage other equipment and materials on site and have their contractors and workers park on
site. Our inspector is out there on a daily basis trying to make sure that they comply with these issues, especially the noise, not
starting before 7:00 o'clock in the morning, including starting up and warming up equipment—just overall site control. But that's
not to say that there's not going to be inconvenience to people who live in that area. Anytime you have construction, there's
going to be some inconvenience, but we do take every effort to minimize it to the best we can.
8. MY NAME IS STEVE WOLKENSTEIN. I LIVE AT THE END OF THE ALYSSUM CUL-DE-SAC.
So you're basically talking with a truly impacted property owner. It seems to me that a lot of what I've heard is that there is a
concern by the City that there's not an access for fire and/or police to the area and that is one of the reasons for opening up
Alyssum. It seems to me that it's the same effect of putting up a crash gate, opening up visual effect but not allowing for the
traffic flow. The development does have two exits out. What consideration has been given by the traffic group to putting just a
crash gate for the police to keep the visuals in tact, but not the traffic impact coming down that hill?
Skip Hammann:
Well, first of all, these are public streets, so putting up a crash gate would prevent other people in the community from using that
street. We did take consideration of the neighborhood and the community. In general if we considered cul-de-sacing Alyssum,
then we would be treating those people on Alyssum differently than the way we are treating people on Snapdragon, Rose and
other local streets that could have direct access, where their property fronts directly on the road and they carry local traffic. We
did not consider a crash gate or cul-de-sac because Alyssum was always intended to go through. That may not have been
conveyed to people who are first time, second or third time buyers. Again, we put a map on the back wall so people could look at
the original approval for the whole Sea Pines (Vista Padfica) development. One of the main issues at the time of approval was to
provide future access to this new proposed project, so that we could be sure and have the best circulation possible.
Mr. Steve Wolkenstein:
I guess that brings up two further questions. One is, what responsibility does the City have to get that fact on the whole map out
there, finding out if certain folks knew about it, if any? The second question is, has the City at any time changed what used to be
an open road, that was planned on and all of the sudden dedded not to at some future date. So while Alyssum was originally
designed according to the City to be a through street has the City at any time taken a road that was supposed to be a through
street, ended up not having one, changing your mind basically? You know there's a precedent for that.
Skip Hamman.
I'm not aware of any road that was intended to go through that we decided to close. It may have been closed on a temporary
basis. I'm not aware of any road that was always intended to go through but was intentionally dosed with no future extension.
But again, one of the things I've mentioned earlier is that we have gone through a learning process on this particular infill project
regarding how to notice future extensions of roads. It is our intent to make a recommendation to place signs at the end of these
streets to notify the public of future extensions. We will have the developers, their sales people and others who come down to the
City to do their own research. So, some will know. We don't go out every time someone wants to buy a home and hand out
COMMUNITY INFORMATION F0/"\i
AUGUST 17,2000 *"*
Page 8
information to them on road extensions or other project issues. To try to help people understand that a street is going to go
through, we're proposing to put signs at the end of that future street which indicate the road will be extended. People driving by
these areas will see these signs and know that it would be a future extension of the street. Originally, when Standard Pacific put
in that temporary cul-de-sac there, there was a lot of discussion about the pros and cons of how you can do it. One of the main
reasons why Thompson/Rose did not have their trucks come down there was that the City and developer with the
Thompson/Rose operation wanted to not impact those citizens on Alyssum Road with all the agricultural traffic. Years ago, they
use to have their truck traffic go down Daisy and they were getting a lot of complaints. So that was part of the Sea Pines (Vista
Pacifica) development was to move their access more directly on to major arterial road which is Poinsettia. So that is how we got
to where we are here today.
9. MY NAME IS MELINDA RUSH. I LIVE IN VISTA PACIFICA.
I was curious about your multiple points of access policy. Is that a written policy?—the multiple points of access policy that Skip
referenced for the roads—is that a written policy?
Skip Hamman:
We have a written cul-de-sac policy that says any road with over 50 single family dwelling units has to have, provide secondary
access. When we get large projects, we look for multiple points of access to provide even distribution of traffic so we're not
impacting one street more than the other. We don't have a written policy that says that we need to have multiple points of
access, other than it is just good engineering and good land planning to do that.
Ms. Melinda Rush
I understand the developer has a proposal to keep the cul-de-sac. Will you consider that plan?
Skip Hamrhann:
Staff is not considering that plan. We're not supporting that plan for the reasons I stated prior.
Ms. Melinda Rush:
So you've seen the plan and you're not going to support it?
Skip Hammann:
I have not seen the plan showing the cul-de-sac area. As I said earlier in my presentation, physically, yes, you could put a cul-de-
sac there and yes you could go out and hire a traffic engineer that says you could put a cul-de-sac. But again, we look at the big
picture and try to use good judgment and good planning and for a number of reasons, staff does not support cul-de-sac just to
benefit the residents on the dead end street of Alyssum.
Ms. Melinda Rush
And do I understand that staff is closed to the idea now? Is that what I'm hearing from you?
Skip Hammann:
That's Engineering's position.
10. I'M DAVE RUDRICK. I LIVE ON MARGARITA LANE IN VISTA PACIFICA.
Just an observation after living in Vista Pacifica for about 14 years, the way I get out of that area is through Daisy. The reason I
go through Daisy is because the traffic is too difficult and dangerous to go out Alyssum now. And I suggest to you that I'm not the
only one who probably does that, but a lot of other Vista Pacifica people do as well. And I think that when the folks, even if you
open up Alyssum through Vista Pacifica from the proposed project, I believe a lot of folks will find out the best way to get out of
there is also back at Daisy. And that complicates my trip out of Vista Pacifica because Daisy is going to be so difficult to get out,
we're going to be blocked in. Sometimes just looking at things on paper doesn't necessarily solve a problem. I'm reminded for
example every time I go to the Seven Eleven on Palomar Airport Road, there's a way in and a way out. That's the worst planned
project in the whole City. I think we ought to be very careful about what we're doing here, in providing only two ways out of both
projects really, Vista Pacifica and the new project. I think that's a mistake.
COMMUNITY INFORMATION
AUGUST 17,2000
Page 9
11. JIM HICKS.
Will I get a copy of this here recording of the meeting. Will I have access to what's been said tonight? Will it be in type, or do I get
a copy of the tape?
Marty Orenyak:
You'll get whatever we get from her (referring to minutes clerk).
Mr. Jim Hicks
OK. I went to a City Council meeting and I told them that I thought Standard Pacific, the City and Planning Commission you all
were sitting back in closed rooms, making plans behind our backs. I still think this is true. I don't have too many questions. I'm
just going to give you some of my opinions. I think you all have been pretty closed minded about the whole thing. Especially
when I came this evening. The first, I'm sorry I think your name was Mark?
Marty Orenyak stated his name.
Mr. Jim Hicks:
OK.
Mr. Jim Hicks:
The first thing I heard from you tonight was that, you know, we don't plan on making any changes. We're just going to tell you all
what's going to happen and be happy. And then you've got other meetings you can go grip at. I think you've all been closed
minded about this from the beginning. As little objections have come up you all skirt the issues and do little things like take a
couple lots out and put a road somewhere else. But, you guys said you're not looking at keeping the cul-de-sac closed and I,
there you go, so it's pretty closed-minded. Actually, we're all pretty deceived. I'm sure you know something that was done 15
years ago wasn't planned here in the year 2000 and yea, we're going to put this road through in the year 2000. Did Standard
Pacific already have this whole plan set up 15 years ago? It seems to me like somewhere along the line you've got to say, 'Hey,
you know what, this was done 15 years ago, instead of just being straight line, looking at those things." We're just going to do
whatever we've got to do. I think somewhere along the line, you need to listen to people. I've got some photographs here I'm just
going to submit to you all. (The photographs are attached as Attachment 1 to theses minutes for record purposes.) And I'm going
to show you 'cause I know that you like to always call this here a dead end, a dead end. Well by God, it is a cul-de-sac.
Everybody who bought a house there bought in with a cul-de-sac. Actually, you realize when we all bought, we all actually paid a
little bit more money for our homes because they were on a cul-de-sac. Of course, a bunch of us, I guess like myself, didn't have
good sense to come down here to the City to find that out. But, you know, I'm going to submit these pictures to you all and I want
you to look at them. Because when I bought there, I saw a wall, a stucco wall all the way around this facility - all the way around
vista Pacifica. When I bought there I thought this was pretty much a closed community. I just figured it was a closed .community.
It's got a wall all the way around it. And now you want to start calling this all temporary stuff. I mean, either the developer
deceived us and/or the City deceived us 14-15 years ago whenever that wall was put up. And that's wrong, and by God just live
with your mistakes instead of just trying to tell us what is going on now. Maybe I do have some questions after all. I know when I
watch the next City Council meeting, I'm going to hear a lot about these questions being answered, and by God I think they're
going to tell me most everything I say is based on emotion. By God, you're right. You are messing with my home. You think I am
pissed off? I am pissed. I ain't slept all week long over this. So with that being said, let me ask a couple of questions. Is there any
way that I can get the names of all the people that sit around, I think you call it a City Planning team. I'd like to actually find out
who sits on this little team in a room and makes decisions for the residents of Carlsbad? Sometimes I don't always think you all
hold the Citizens where they ought to be. I mean, you've got to remember, it's everybody here who pays your wages and you
don't even back us on most of this stuff. So, I would really like to know who sits with, on the team in the little room and makes all
the decisions. Is that available to me?
Marty Orenyak:
I don't know what team you're talking about.
Mr. Jim Hicks:
Well, you all mentioned a bunch times tonight, a City Planning team.
COMMUNITY INFORMATION
AUGUST 17,2000
Page 10
Marty Orenyak:
Mike Grim is the project planner for this project.
Mr. Jim Hicks
I've met Mike a lot of times. I think he's a good guy. OK. Who else is on the team?
Marty Orenyak:
Skip Hammon is on this team.
Mr. Jim Hicks:
So there's four people on the team or three?
Marty Orenyak:
No, it's representatives from every department that have to take care of review of this project. It is not always the same team
members. There are different teams, depending on the project. If you want this team, then we can give you that list.
Mr. Jim Hicks:
Oh, so it's a lot of different little teams?
Marty Orenyak:
Mike is not the only Planner we have. Skip is not the only Engineer we have. They're assigned projects and they become team
members on that project. So if you have a specific project you would like to know about, we'll give you the team members.
Mr. Jim Hicks:
Well, I'd like to have the name of the team on this here project.
Marty Orenyak:
OK. You've got them.
Mr. Jim Hicks:
So it's you three there making all the decisions for this...
Marty Orenyak.
Not me. The project team makes recommendations that are then carried forward to the Planning Commission and the Council.
Now the misconception you have and some of these other people is that tonight's meeting is some sort of public hearing and we
have a vote. We don't have a vote on anything. You're arguments that you're making to us—save them because they are great
arguments for Planning Commission and City Council.
Someone from the Audience:
We're asking you to listen.
Marty Orenyak:
We're listening.
Someone from the Audience:
No you're not.
Marty Orenyak:
Yes we are listening.
Someone from the Audience:
No you're not.
COMMUNITY INFORMATION
AUGUST 17,2000
Page 11
Mr. Jim Hicks:
No one's ever listened. I've been talking now for months ever since I've heard about this. I'm saying why can't we just work on
some solutions and keep the cul-de-sac dosed, keep Vista Pacifica dosed. You know what, everybody just tells me. You know
what it is? This street was slated to be put through and this is the way it is. This is the way it was set down 15 years ago and we
ain't going to change. I think that's wrong. So, I guess I'm just trying to tell you all that, by God, I ain't happy. And a lot of people
aren't happy. But, I find it funny that you all keep making decisions for everybody when I don't think it's what anybody really
wants. I mean it just doesn't make sense to me. I know there's ways to do it, but I think everybody's had a closed mind about
this. I think everybody gets something in their head and they can't say, 'Well you know what, we've been hearing a lot of
complaints about this. You know maybe there is a solution. Maybe we can work this a little bit different." I've never dealt with the
City. So, I don't know whether I've got to go hire an architect myself and have them redraw this and then re-try to sit down with
you guys. But somewhere I think this has got to the point now where it's going to go and there's no stopping it. Ok. Let me ask
you something about this affordable housing. Now I'm just wondering about all these little places you're talking about here in the
City. I'm wondering about this one up here on El Camino Real. I've wondered, all the people that live there, do they actually work
in the City of Carlsbad? Is it written down that says if you buy affordable housing here in Carlsbad you've got to work here too?
Debbie Fountain:
No
Mr.Jim Hicks:
Or, do people from Escondido move out here and keep their jobs in Escondido?
Debbie Fountain:
Fair housing law doesn't allow the City to do that. You can't require someone to have previously lived in Carlsbad or to work in
Carlsbad to live in affordable housing. Villa Loma does have a large percentage of people that actually work in Carlsbad, that
previously lived in Carlsbad. Sometimes that number changes, because people move in and out, but it's not a requirement. They
don't have to work in Carlsbad to live in the affordable housing. They could have just lived here before in another project and
moved into this project because it is more affordable for them. But Fair Housing law doesn't allow the City to make those kind of
distinctions that require it. We try to give first preference for marketing and all of those types of processes to encourage people
that work here to live here. We can't require it, just like we can't require somebody that buys a home in Carlsbad to also work in
Carlsbad.
Mr. Jim Hicks:
Ok. It's just like a dream that we get everybody that lives in Carlsbad to work in Carlsbad.
Debbie Fountain:
It's our goal. However, people make dedsions where they live for a number of reasons. If you have two people working, they
may have to decide to live in the middle somewhere between the two work places. Our goal is to provide the opportunities. The
hope is that they'll at least have that as an option to be able to live and work in the community.
Mr Jim Hicks:
Ok. Then my last question is—why won't you look at other alternatives about keeping Alyssum closed? Why won't you people
look at this?
Skip Hamman:
Well, as I've said before, you could put a cul-de-sac at the end of Alyssum. But we need to look at the big picture to do the best
thing that we can for the community and other people. By making the connection through Alyssum, we will help relieve traffic on
Daisy. It will help relieve traffic on Ivy. It will help relieve traffic on Snapdragon. And, yes, it will add traffic to Alyssum. We are
using our best engineering, planning, traffic judgments and our recommendation is going to be to the Planning Commission and
City Council that that road goes through. But you are correct, you could put a cul-de-sac there. It is staffs opinion that we won't
support the project without that connection.
Mr. Jim Hicks:
So pretty much, the residents of Carlsbad live with your opinion?
COMMUNITY INFORMATION
AUGUST 17, 2000
' /-%
W
Page 12
Skip Hammann:
No. It is only staffs opinion. When you go to the public hearing, it is a recommendation based on our experience and our
understanding of other policies and previous directions. You'll be able to make your case at the public hearing at the Planning
Commission,
Mr. Jim Hicks:
OK. I'll do this then, because I heard you mention something about the people up on Daisy. I feel for a lot of people on Daisy
who has got to deal with a lot of traffic. What the gentleman says, "I think We need two more lights on that street too.* Because,
really, when you all put the speed limit up there at 45, and I guess that was a different team. Traffic has gotten loud as hell out
there on Poinsettia now. I'm having to think now about putting all new windows upstairs because it's loud at night since you
jumped it (speed limit) up to 5 miles an hour. I don't know if everybody was going 40 to 45 up that hill and maybe they're going
45 to 60 now up that hill. I don't know what it is but by God it got louder. You do need two lights to try to somehow take care of
this traffic up through here. And the folks down on, that live in Spinniker Hills—I'll be honest with you, a lot of these folks are
heading straight down Daisy out Batiquitos to get to Poinsettia now. I don't see them saving much time going through all these
winding roads you've got up through this here new neighborhood. In fact it looks like it's going to add another quarter mile on
their trip. Did you all look at that? I grew up in Los Angeles in the San Gabriel Valley, where you can take roads like Foothill Blvd,
Baseline, and others. These roads run for miles. You can go anywhere you want on back roads. Here in Carlsbad it's different
man. I think the biggest trick is you need to get people out to the streets just pretty much like asap. Don't have to be running
people through, but this is the long way out. So whatever I think, I just think what you are all doing is wrong. Thanks.
12. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS BILL BROOKS. I LIVE ON SNAPDRAGON DRIVE.
I have some of the original plans for Vista Padfica. It does call for three homes at the end of Alyssum Drive. And it said, now
when that was originally built, the people that live north of me was told that all would change when they built the three homes in
the cul-de-sac. It was not intended at the time that when Standard Pacific built for that to be a through street. Now, these people
were told that they would get more property when that was lined up with the property across the street. That road is left of course
for access for David Thompson to get his trucks in and out because he couldn't be land locked. But the reason I am here tonight
really is to ask for a definite proposal that they could put a traffic light at Snapdragon and Poinsettia. As Aviara Parkway opens
up to connect to Palomar Airport Road that traffic is going to at least double on Snapdragon because it is going to be an access
where they don't have to go up 78 and over to make their connection. I myself can not go out on Poinsettia, westbound out on
Poinsettia. I go all the way around to Daisy to go down to Batiquitos lagoon so I get the signal. Now the people that are justified
over on Daisy are objecting to the traffic. And we're contributing to that because there is no way we can get out on Snapdragon.
If you live up in that area, every once in a while you'll hear some brakes screeching because people are trying to cross
Poinsettia. So I would like you to consider putting a stop signal at Snapdragon and also at Rose. Thank you.
13. LADIES AND GENTLEMAN. MY NAME IS DON STAFFORD. I LIVE AT 904 DAISY AVENUE OFF
OF DAISY AVENUE, POINSETTIA, SECOND HOUSE UP THE HILL.
And I think a lot has been said here tonight. And I think the best thing to do, I'm talking to you folks now (referring to staff), that
you go back to the City Council or whoever is in charge of this project and you tell them that you've got about, I would say 150
people here that are madder than hell. If they want to be elected next time, they had better get on the ball. These places on
Daisy, I don't know about this project across the way from us, but they had a chance to develop this like they wanted. Put the
streets in, all this stuff. Well, you start at the top of Daisy Avenue and my neighbors do it, the only reason I don't do it is because
I live at the bottom of Daisy Avenue and two houses you can't even get up speed. And the more people that uses Daisy the
worse it's going to get. And you've got Batiquitos Avenue that you come down through. Ever since that has been open, if you
make your turn there, I'm just telling you people that live on that area, you better look twice and don't turn out in the traffic, pull
over to the side. Get a start up the hill. But if you don't, somebody's going to run right over you. So I think the best thing for you to
do, I'm not trying to tell you your job. I just want you to know that these people are mad. And I'm mad with them. And there's
going to be 150 people or more at the next City Council meeting to chew these people out that we elected. We didn't elect you.
They hired you people to do a job and you're trying to do the job. Would you mind going back and telling them that these people
that pay their wages are mad at them. And this is the first time I have seen them mad. And we'll have a new mayor and we'll
have a new bunch of City Councilman and everything. Because they're going to have 150 people out there that's going to be
campaigning against them. Some of them that run don't even get 150 votes for their campaign. So would you do this for me?
You people, you're doing what you're told to do. You're trying to do the right thing. But you're not doing the right thing. Thank you
very much. .
COMMUNITY INFORMATION FJ*y./l
AUGUST 17,2000 W
Page 13
14. HI. MY NAME IS VICKIE ROBINSON. I LIVE IN VISTA PACIFICA.
I've sat and listened to a lot of the questions and answers. The thing that occurs to me, especially in the case of Skip is that
there's a very closed mind. There's no suggestion that he'll even consider any other option. The only option is that that was not
always supposed to be a cul-de-sac. It's supposed to be an open road and therefore that's the only option that exists. When I
look at that map over there, I see that the area along Alyssum which has about 10 homes along there, it becomes an island.
Once that cul-de-sac is opened they're going to have traffic along Poinsettia, traffic along Snapdragon and now you're going to
bring traffic along Alyssum. These people are going to be surrounded on all sides by substantially increased traffic. This is not
fair to the people who bought those homes. Whether they thought they were buying a cul-de-sac or not. It's not fair. If you look at
that map again, I see quite easily that you could extend that road there where it turns on to Alyssum and take it straight out to
Poinsettia. And you'd have another exit right on Poinsettia. I mean, that's pure straight logic. First of all, you're making an island
out of a bunch of people who have bought these homes and they're very expensive homes. Yet, we must be the slums of Aviara.
We're the people who don't have the big, huge expensive $600,000 homes. Our homes are only $350,000. But none the less, we
perhaps can't afford to sell our house and move someplace where we're not going to be inundated by all this new traffic that you
want to bring on to our street I don't live on Alyssum by the way. I live on Rosemary, but I certainly can feel for these people who
do live on that street. I can feel for these people who live on this street. Obviously, Skip can't. As far as the low-income housing
is concerned, the new egress that has been made, taking it out to Rose Street instead of bringing it on to Alyssum—explain to
me please how that cul-de-sac access to this high density low-income housing is different than if they were across the street on
the other cul-de-sac? I mean a cul-de-sac is a cul-de-sac. If they're going to have one egress from their housing, why does it
have to be this location that you have specified, rather than the location initially suggested by the developer, which seems to be a
much more logical location backed up against existing townhome type development. As far as that project is concerned in terms
of schools—it is my understanding that we in the Vista Pacifica all the children in advanced school are currently (in a lot of these
new developments) are currently going to Aviara Oaks. That1 s a substantial distance away, compared to Pacific Rim.
Mike Grim and several members of the audience:
vista Pacifica is going to Pacific Rim.
Ms. Vickie Robinson:
Are they?
Mike Grim and several members of the audience:
Yes.
Ms. Vickie Robinson:
If that low-income housing was across the street, where the children would have much easier access to the school, it would
make so much more sense to me. When my children were small, I had a situation where both my husband and I worked. I could
have been considered in that category of a low-income housing and would have appreciated being, in my case I did, live in a
location where my children could get to and from school on their own without my assistance because they were latchkey kids.
Once they got to a certain age, they took themselves to and from school and had a key to get into the house. In the case of
affordable housing, it seems to me that a much larger majority of people are going to have families of that type where both
parents work. Therefore, the children are going to have to get themselves to and from school. The people who are going to live in
the $400,0000, $500,000, $600,000 and $700,000 are more likely to jump into their SUV and take the kids over to school.
Whereas, the people who live in affordable housing went to work an hour ago and the kids have to get themselves to and from
school on their own. So, just from that perspective, it would seem to make a whole lot more sense tor those kids to get to and
from school without having to cross a major thoroughfare. I think those were all the points that I had, but you know, none of this
personally effects me. I don't have small children. I'm not going to move into the affordable housing. I don't live on Alyssum. But,
I tell you what—I'm really upset with the attitude I've heard here tonight from the people who work for the City. Skip has said that
the only thing the Planning Department will support is for Alyssum to be opened up. We can go complain but the only thing the
Planning Department is going to support is that Alyssum be opened up. And he doesn't even want to hear about any alternatives.
The only thing that can happen is that Alyssum will be opened up.
COMMUNITY INFORMATION
AUGUST 17,2000
Page 14
15. I'M RENATA MULRY. I LIVE ON NUTMEG IN VISTA PACIFICA.
I don't think I can top the clarity of the remarks which were just made. I want to say first of all that I am very sorry that I have a
feeling our tract (Vista Pacifica) is going to be a part of your learning experience. If you didn't think 15 years ago that it was
necessary to put signs on roads, which you claim ultimately was always designed to be cut through, I don't see now why we
should take the results or the blunt of either your oversight, your lack of knowledge or your lack of initiative. The second point I
want to address is that every buyer in the State of California, and I hope this is true of other states also, is given a subdivision
report filed with the State of California. This report describes the property, the nature of the property, where the property is and
pertinent factors which effect our property. I have here the subdivision report for Vista Pacifica. It mentions Thompson/Rose. It
mentions Palomar Airport. Nowhere does it mention any roads being extended, cut through or whatever. Now please don't come
and tell me that as a buyer, I should have run to every City department checking on what is missing in this report. I have no duty
to perform such a task. The only part of this report which refers the potential buyer to seek more information is on the soils. I can
understand that because the composition of soils is something very specific and technical and probably would be too
complicated to put in the subdivision report. It seems to me, and I'm going to ask you directly, that there is not one reason why
Alyssum should be extended. When our tract was built, apparently circulation was considered completely adequate that you
could enter on Snapdragon and exit on Daisy. And certainly our tract at 196 homes is by no means that much smaller than the
tract that is being proposed to the east of us. The length of Alyssum from the new tract down to Snapdragon is such a short
distance. With a light, the traffic will not only be backed up on our streets, and Standard Pacific better take note of this, it will also
be backed up into their streets. That might not be an attractive feature for the high priced homes going in to the east of us. I
would now like to address the question of affordable housing. For many of you who I don't know and you don't know me, nine
years ago I stood almost alone before the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and the City Council itself and I vehemently
and strongly criticized the whole affordable housing ordinance. I'm not going to go back over that now, but I will say in this open
session that the way that the program is administered is 100% arbitrary. My feeling is reinforced even more tonight by what I
have heard and have seen on the slides that you have projected for us. What I saw was that the need for very low-income
housing seems to be a greater figure than any other category. I've also heard that the City is delighted when it can create more
of these types of units by placing them at a site where they can built, in other words where there's room. But if this is true, then
why are you not saying to Standard Pacific, 'Hey, we don't want 22 or 24 units, we need 50 to meet this non-existence State
requirement, which is not written in these figures any where." But no, I don't understand why sometimes it's off site, sometimes
it's onsite, sometimes it's dose to the site, sometimes as in the case of Aviara it's several miles away. These are very, very
unanswered questions I have. And therefore, I want to say again, there is no need to extend Alyssum. You have kept it secret
and obviously in a case where it's never been revealed, somebody is on the hook here and it certainly isn't the buyer. Thank you.
16. MY NAME IS JACK RAY. I LIVE ON IVY.
I came here for the information mainly. And what I've heard is that some community members received notification on planning,
prior to others. I've heard that the higher density low-income community or housing is going to be moved from one cul-de-sac to
another cul-de-sac. I've heard that the trouble with the lights and problem with the traffic is going to be such a problem on
Snapdragon and Poinsettia that a light is going to be warranted, that it also might be one on the other new road. It seems to me
that you're placing most of the burden on people in my community on their safety of the people and the children. You're placing
more burden on us that doesn't seem to be warranted here. It seems that you have a bunch of little squiggly lines that can easily
be redrawn a little bit to accommodate those people who have been in the community for a number of years and have chosen to
come here long before any new houses have been built. I don't see why the burden has to be put on people in, this community
when you can easily resolve this and be opened minded to do so. This is very uncomfortable. I'm quite disturbed by this and I
know you have plans that you want followed, but when you buy a home in this area that we bought homes in, that's a problem
now for the road to go through. You bought that home because it's a safe situation. When you bought that home, that (Alyssum)
was considered a cul-de-sac. We bought this place because it was a very safe place and it was in the community of Carlsbad,
which we chose to be in. I think it would be a good idea to redraw those little lines and put in another street right up along side
the development. That solves a lot of problems. I don't understand why one cul-de-sac is better than another. This is so
uncomfortable. I'm quite displeased by actions from you folks. I wish you would change.
17. HELLO. MY NAME IS BOB SMITH. I LIVE IN VISTA PACIFICA.
I bought my home in Vista Pacifica 15 years ago. All there was east of me was a cul-de-sac that we're talking about and arguing,
rolling hills, no Aviara, none of this except Spiniker Hills. And it seems to me that Spiniker Hills has voting rights over me
because they've been here longer. I don't seem to have any rights at all because I am a Citizen of Carlsbad and no matter what I
do or what I say, I don't believe is going to change any body's mind here. But why doesn't Carlsbad pay more attention to the
COMMUNITY INFORMATION
AUGUST 17,2000
Page 15
people that are tax payers, have been paying taxes. Many of us have lived there for 15 years. And why isn't consideration given
to the people in this cul-de-sac. I don't live in the cul-de-sac, but have they no rights? They've been paying taxes here for many,
many years. I say this as a member of this community, not because I live in the cul-de-sac. However, I do live on Alyssum Road.
I'm going to have to leave my house, go out Snapdragon to Poinsettia. It seems to me that this increased traffic from this new
area is just going to increase traffic for me and for everybody and I venture to say even for Spiniker Hills. But I know a lot of
people who live over there take either Ivy or Snapdragon to get out to Poinsettia. I would if I lived over there. And right now, there
is plenty of traffic there for a signal. What's it going to be like when you put this new community in there? Isn't that going to
increase the traffic on Snapdragon? Isn't that going to increase the traffic on Alyssum? Isn't that going to increase the traffic on
the intersection of Poinsettia and Snapdragon? Won't there be more people coming from Spiniker Hills over to that signal,
increasing the traffic on Ivy, increasing the traffic on Snapdragon? And why was Daisy stopped at the upper end and not run
through to the new area, the new development south of Spiniker Hills? That stops there. That does not run through.
Unidentified Audience Member:
Because we complained to the City and they listened to us.
Mr. Bob Smith:
Well, who is it you complained to, cause I'd like to know?
Unidentified Audience Member:
We complained to the City and they listened that time and changed the plans.
Mr. Bob Smith:
Anyhow, my main concern is this. Why isn't more attention paid to the present tax payers that live in these communities, when
they put a new community in? I don't understand that We don't seem to have a voice. And I have to agree with what was said
here before about Alyssum Road. It doesn't matter what happened 15 years ago, whether it was supposed to go through or
wasn't supposed to go through. This is impacting a whole community. It should be obvious by the number of people here.
Nobody is happy with this road going through. That is all I have to say. Thank you.
18. HI. THIS IS STEVE WOLKENSTEIN AGAIN. I LIVE ON THE END OF ALYSSUM.
This is a question directed to Skip. In addressing the prior woman's comments about picking one of the two end roads to go
through to Poinsettia versus opening it (Alyssum) up. What in your opinion makes that any worse than what it already is? Or why
was that not considered as a viable option?
Skip Hamman:
Well, the reason that was not considered as a viable option is that Poinsettia Avenue is classified as a major collector or major
arterial rather. There are intersection spacing requirements because of the high volume of traffic. As one of the gentlemen said
earlier in the presentation, the traffic volume there for the capacity of this road is probably 30% of what it may be in the future. So
we've taken long-range planning into consideration and we can't have a number of direct access points along Poinsettia. You
could only get two intersections spaced in this area. You can see in the picture that the proposed accesses are fairly evenly
spaced. They barely meet the minimum spacing requirements as is. So that's why we did not consider making another
connection in that area.
Mr. Steve Wolkenstein:
What about making it a right turn only? It is not a full intersection. You already have two. You have one major intersection, you
have another exit in the lower end. That would be a right turn only. They could then make a u-tum at the stop light at Rose?
We're only concerned (with) in and out And that would certainly allow access in both from the Emergency Vehicles as well as
anybody who lives there. It would also allow for exit at least going into the easterly direction.
Skip Hammann:
Again, we consider that an intersection and we want to control the number of intersections along a major road like this. When
people are traveling down Poinsettia, we want the traffic to flow as freely as possible. We made our decision based on
engineering and highway standards.
COMMUNITY INFORMATION
AUGUST 17,2000
Page 16
Mr. Steve Wolkenstein:
Is Poinsettia designed to be two lane for each way or is there a design to go further? Or to be expanded to three lanes.
Skip Hammann:
It's designed to be two lanes in each direction and it is going to go easterly from here to connect with El Camino Real. It
continues easterly from El Camino Real and then eventually will join up with Melrose. It will terminate at Melrose on the eastern
boundary in the Carrillo Ranch area.
Mr. Steve Wolkenstein:
Thank you.
19. LARRY STAPLETON.
I've got one more question: We have two entrances in the Vista Pacifica, one from Daisy and one from Poinsettia. Why is it that
the new development needs three entrances?
Skip Hammann:
Again, this project is an infill project. As Mike stated earlier, this is going to complete the last phase of the development in this
area. When Sea Pines (Vista Pacifica) was designed, Alyssum was intended to be extended to provide the Thompson/Tabata
site with another future connection point so that we can have multiple points of access to distribute the traffic as evenly as
possible. I'm not going to argue that it won't increase the traffic on Alyssum and that short segment. It clearly will. I understand
that it (the road) is an issue for the folks that live there.
Mr. Larry Stapleton:
Well, the thing that comes to mind is that the property is used to grow com or tomatoes or strawberries or something andftow did
somebody have the infinite wisdom 15 years ago that there was going to be a wall there to knock down and put that street
through? It just baffles me. We can't seem to understand from day to day what goes on and yet somebody 15 years ago knew
that somebody was going to have to punch a hole through a wall and get out into the middle of an empty field because there was
a housing development going to be there. It doesn't make sense to me. Ladies and gentlemen, you've got an issue on the table
and a lot of people that are very concerned about it. I urge you to take this to the City or wherever you take it to your teams or
whatever, the business of managing a community is just like managing a business. You've got guidelines that you go by. You've
got City codes that you go by. You're paid to look at those City codes and abide by them as clearly as you can. But, in some
cases, as in business, you have to look at whether or not you are going to hide behind the book or are you going to look at the
people involved and make a rational, logical decision with the people that are effected in mind. I urge you to take this message
forward to wherever you have to take it.
20. TOM JUDD FROM MARINERS POINT.
I have a general question—I actually work in Irvine, so when I leave for work, I go north. My wife goes south and her drive
although it is a little shorter, it takes longer because of the traffic. When you started out on all the check points you have to go
through, I didn't see one that's overall San Diego County traffic plan as such. Right now traffic in the morning kind of stops near
Leucadia or La Costa around there. In the morning, and I can see adding something like the traffic from this project to bring it up
to Poinsettia or something. Do you guys have guidelines you follow for that kind of traffic flow? I think the overall impact of this
development is going to put more people in the community. I think that is what the people are complaining'about is the traffic
impact in their local area. And also, I guess my question is, what is the guideline for overall traffic in San Diego or in Carlsbad?
Skip Hammann:
Generally we use the SANDAG standards and guidelines. SANDAG stands for San Diego Association of Governments.
SANDAG reviews regional traffic needs. Poinsettia is one of the roads which SANDAG has identified as a major link to satisfy
some of the regional traffic needs. I'm not sure if that answers your question or not.
Mr. TomJudd:
Well, I see this as a problem. I'm just wondering how it is addressed. I do not have an answer to the problem. I just want to know
if it is addressed.
COMMUNITY INFORMATION
AUGUST 17,2000 V
Page 17
Mike Grim:
It is. When we updated our General Plan about six years ago, we prepared a new environmental document. That environmental
review document showed that even without any further development in Carlsbad, we were both below the standards in air quality
and traffic circulation. Traffic is a regional issue and it is a very complex one. Palomar Airport Road is a great example. A lot of
traffic on Palomar Airport Road is not traffic that's coming from or going to Carlsbad. People cut through from other cities to get
to 1-5, and we have to live with the regional aspect of that road providing regional traffic. So on one hand, you 've got the people
living in the Carlsbad community who look out and say we've got to control traffic. On the other hand, you've got SANDAG and
the regional board saying, "millions of people are coming to San Diego County, and you Cities have to accommodate them." And
so it is a bad struggle and believe us, Carlsbad and other jurisdictions are at SANDAG saying if you guys want us to accept all of
this extra traffic, then you need to provide funding. The cities are also asking: where is the State transportation fund? How much
is Caltrans participating in the problem? Where is their (Caltrans) expansion plans? What about regional commuter facilities and
services? Everyone is kind of pushing and pulling on where the traffic should or shouldn't go. So if s a very complicated. If you
want more information on how to find out about the regional issue, I can refer you to a lot of resources at SANDAG that might
help.
Mr. Tom Judd:
It sounded like what you were saying is, if Carlsbad wants to participate in regional solutions to traffic, you're asking for funds
from the State or something like that to mitigate the impact to the community. What is the mitigating factor or requirement for the
traffic the proposed development will add to the problem?
Mike Grim:
In the traffic modeling for this project, we require that all the trips leaving the property be identified. What you then do is track
those trips until they are an insignificant portion of the existing traffic on the roadway. As soon as you track the traffic leaving this
project, as soon as it gets on interstate 5, then the significance of this project virtually disappears because of the orders of
magnitude of traffic volumes on 1-5 compared to this traffic. So the only way to really look at it is in a cumulative effect Well, the
only way to look at it through a cumulative effect is not in a small scale, but in a larger scale. I guess the best thing I could offer
would be the litany of studies and experts that SANDAG will have on staff and as consultants. We can refer you to find out more
information about that. I think that would answer a lot of your questions.
21. I'M JIM HICKS AGAIN.
Hey, how do I get a copy of this here tape? I'm sorry I forgot.
Marty Orenyak:
We'll give you a copy of whatever she (minutes clerk) gives us.
Mr. Jim Hicks:
Is she going to give you what she is writing up?
Marty Orenyak:
Yes.
Mr. Jim Hicks: •
Ok. Do you guys have my name and address? Are you going to mail it to me or call me?
Marty Orenyak:
We'll contact you and call you to come and pick it up. I don't know how long it's going to take.
Mr. Jim Hicks
You all have my home phone number?
Marty Orenyak:
Yes, I think we already have it via a letter you sent us.
Mr. Jim Hicks:
COMMUNITY INFORMATION
AUGUST 17,2000
Page 18
Ok. Alright, I just wanted to make sure, because no one ever told me about when you dealt with those folks. I was supposed to
be called. That's what the mayor told me. He said, we'll get in touch with you and let you know what is going on, when we have
these meetings. And no one ever did. Should I call in two days or does this normally take three business days to get done until I
can get a copy of it?
Debbie Fountain:
It will be available probably at the end of next week.
Mr. Jim Hick (speaking to the minutes clerk):
Are you a subcontractor? Are you a subcontractor or do you work for the City?
Debbie Fountain:
She works for us and we'll get it (the written record) to you as soon as it is ready.
Mr. Jim Hicks:
Is she a subcontractor?
Debbie Fountain:
She's a City employee.
Mr. Jim Hicks:
Oh, she is a City employee? Ok. Thanks. I would just like to have a copy of it if I could please.
Debbie Fountain:
We promise to give it to you.
Marty Orenyak:
Is there anyone else who would like to make a comment or ask a question? (No one raised a hand or came forward to the
podium at this time) If not, thank you very much. Again, we'll take your comments and bundle them up and carry them forward to
the Planning Commission and City Council meeting.
This meeting was completed at 8:30 p.m.
JUDY KIRSCH
Minutes Clerk
o
Attachment 1 - Minutes of Information Forum 8/17/00 - Photographs submitted by Jim Hicks
Attachment 1 - Minutes of Information Forum 8/17/00 - Photographs submitted by Jim Hicks
Attachment 1 - Minutes of Information Forum 8/17/00 - Photographs submitted by Jim Hicki
Q
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROCESSING OF A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
INFORMATION SHEET
The following provides a brief explanation of how major development projects (specifically
residential developments) are processed within the City of Carlsbad:
Step One:
Developer or property owner (or other applicant) submits a formal application with all of the
required plans and exhibits/attachments to the City of Carlsbad. The City is then required to
process this development application.
Step Two:
Staff within several city departments, including Planning, Engineering/Public Works and Fire,
complete a comprehensive, detailed review of the proposed project and related application
materials. This review is completed to determine whether or not the proposed project meets all
applicable development standards, City requirements and other building regulations.
Often there are several options a development applicant may have to meet city standards and
other requirements. Staff works with the developer to identify the project design which best
meets the applicable development standards and other City requirements.
Step Three:
Once staff has completed its comprehensive review of the project and determines that the project
meets all applicable development standards and other City requirements, and the environmental
review is complete, the project is scheduled for public hearings before the Planning Commission
and City Council as appropriate. As an example, the Thompson/Tabata project proposed by
Standard Pacific is a project that requires City Council approval. Therefore, the project will be
presented to the Planning Commission for a recommendation from that body. The project, with
the Planning Commission recommendation, will then be forwarded to the City Council for final
consideration and action. Large residential developments (over 50 units) will require Council
approval. Projects under 50 units may be approved by the Planning Commission.
Generally, if staff determines that a project meets all applicable development standards and other
City requirements, staff will recommend approval. If the project does not, staff will recommend
denial. There is no action taken by Planning Commission or City Council to approve or deny a
development project until the item is presented and the public has an opportunity to comment on
the project during a public hearing.
(Please See Other Side for More Information)
Attachment 2 - Minutes of Information Forum 8/17/00 - Handout Distributed during Forum
r^V'
Step Four:
Once staff has developed its recommendation, a written report is prepared which outlines the
project features, conditions of project approval, and other important information such as the
environmental review. This report is forwarded to the Planning Commission and ultimately to
the City Council for consideration prior to action on a development application. This report is
available to the public for review prior to the scheduled public hearing.
Step Five:
Public Hearings are held before the Planning Commission and City Council as appropriate. All
public hearings are noticed in the local newspaper, North County Times. In addition, property
owners within 600 feet of the proposed development receive an individual notice of the public
hearings(s) via first class mail.
Public hearings allow residents and other interested parties the opportunity to present their
arguments for or against a project.
Agendas for all of the various Boards, Commissions and the Council can be found on the City's
Website at www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us. The Planning Commission is scheduled to meet on the lfl and
3rd Wednesday of each month. The City Council is scheduled to meet on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4*
Tuesday of each month.
Step Six:
The City Council's approval or denial of a development project is final. In some cases, the
Planning Commission approval of a project may be final. A Planning Commission's denial of a
project is final but is appealable to the City Council.