HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-06-05; Planning Commission; ; CT 95-05|SDP 95-11|HDP 95-12 - EMERALD RIDGE EASTt. City of CARLSBAD Planning Departmel ~fuJ
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
P.C. AGENDA OF: JUNE 5, 1996
ItemNo. @
Application complete date: November 3, 1995
Project Planner: Anne Hysong
Project Engineer Mike Shirey
SUBJECT: CT 95-05/SDP 95-11/HDP 95-12 -EMERALD RIDGE EAST -Request for
approval of a Site Development Plan and recommendation of approval for a
Tentative Map, and Hillside Development Permit, to: (1) subdivide the property
into 60 single-family lots and 3 open space lots; (2) create a 28.9 acre remainder
parcel; (3) provide 9 future second-dwelling units; and (4) deed restrict one three
bedroom home to be affordable or purchase one Affordable Housing Credit in
Villa Loma; all on property generally located east of future Hidden Valley Road,
north of Camino de las Ondas, and south of Palomar Airport Road, within the
Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP-203) and Local Facilities Management Zone 20.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3937
APPROVING SDP 95-11 and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 3936 and 3938
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of CT 95-05 and HDP 95-12, based on the findings and
subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
The applicant is requesting approval of various permits to subdivide the 56.3 acre parcel into 60
standard single-family lots and three open space lots on 27.4 acres, and a 28.9 acre remainder
parcel. (The City Council approved a tentative map, Emerald Ridge West -CT 95-03, for 61
single family homes and 9 second dwelling units on the 28.9 acre remainder parcel on April 2,
1996.) Nine (9) second dwelling units and the reservation of one three bedroom home or the
purchase of one credit in Villa Loma are proposed to satisfy the project's inclusionary housing
requirements. Architectural elevations and floor plans are provided for the second dwelling
units. As designed and conditioned, the project is consistent with the General Plan, Zone 20
Specific Plan (SP-203), Mello II LCP, the Subdivision Ordinance, and the relevant Zoning
Chapters of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The Emerald Ridge East project is located within the boundaries of Area B of the Zone 20
Specific Plan and the Mello II segment of Carlsbad's Local Coastal Program (LCP). The site is
0
CT 95-05/SDP 95-11/HD.-12 -EMERALD RIDGE EAST •
JUNE 5, 1996
PAGE2
designated RM by the General Plan allowing residential medium density (6-8 dwelling
units/acre) development. The project consists of 60 standard single family lots and 9 second
dwelling units resulting in a proposed project density of 3.05 dwelling units per acre which is
well below the density permitted by the RM land use designation. The second-dwelling units
would have exterior access, be incorporated into the second-story of the primary home, and
utilize a portion of the three-car garage for parking.
A zone change (ZC 94-04) from Residential Density Multiple with the Qualified Overlay Zone
(RDM-Q) to the One Family Residential with the Qualified Overlay Zone (R-1-7500-Q) for the
parcel was approved by the City Council on April 2, 1996. The Qualified Overlay Zone requires
the approval of a site development plan, including architectural elevations. However, the project
has been conditioned to require Planning Commission approval of a site development plan with
architectural elevations, floor plans, and building locations for the 60 single family lots prior to
the issuance of building permits. The zone change requires Coastal Commission approval of a
Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCP A); therefore, the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval and City Council approval would be contingent upon the Coastal
Commission's approval of the LCPA.
The proposed subdivision would include three open space lots located along the northern,
southern, and eastern boundaries which provide substantial separation between the project and
existing and future land uses on adjacent properties. In accordance with the provisions of the
Zone 20 Environmental Impact Report (EIR 90-03), the southern open space lot (Lot 62) will be
preserved due to the presence of coastal sage scrub habitat and the California gnatcatcher, and the
eastern open space lot will be preserved due to the Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use
Plan (CLUP) residential land use restriction for areas subject to 65+ dBA CNEL noise levels.
These open space lots will be dedicated as permanent open space and maintained by the
Homeowner's Association.
The site consists of 27.4 acres of vacant, previously cultivated land which is surrounded by
vacant land to the north, the Sudan Interior Mission to the northeast, Hidden Valley Road and
Emerald Ridge West to the west, and agricultural uses to the southeast. The parcel rises in
elevation from west to east approximately 100 feet and from north to south approximately 200'.
The majority of the site consists of hillside topography with 25% or less gradient. Steeper slopes
(25%+) existing along the parcel's northern, southern, and western boundaries, and within two
small, centrally located finger canyons will be preserved. The site conditions described above
require compliance with the Hillside Development Ordinance development standards and design
guidelines regulating grading and architecture, however, as specified above, architectural
elevations are not included as part of the project at this time. The proposed grading design
preserves ocean views to the north and consists of balanced grading to create terraced hillside
lots which generally follow the existing topography, i.e., rising in elevation from west to east.
Vehicular access to the site will be provided by Hidden Valley Road, a non-loaded collector
street, which is currently rough graded, and extends from Camino de las Ondas to Palomar
Airport Road. The major project improvements would include the following:
CT 95-05/SDP 95-11/HD •. -12 -EMERALD RIDGE EAST •
JUNE 5, 1996
PAGE3
1. The construction of local public streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and drainage facilities
necessary to service the new lots; and
2. The construction of Hidden Valley Road including a traffic signal at the intersection of
Palomar Airport Road.
The project site is located within the boundaries of Specific Plan 203 which covers the 640 acre
Zone 20 Planning Area. Specific Plan 203 was approved by the Planning Commission and City
Council in 1993. The specific plan provides a framework for the development of the vacant
properties within Zone 20 to ensure the logical and efficient provision of public facilities and
community amenities for the future residents of the planning area.
The proposed project is subject to the following adopted land use plans and regulations:
A. General Plan with RM and OS Land Use Designations;
B. Specific Plan 203;
C. Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program (LCP);.
D. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 21 (Zoning Ordinance), including:
1. Chapter 21.10 One Family Residential Zone;
2. Chapter 21.06 Qualified Development Overlay Zone;
3. Chapter 21.85 Inclusionary Housing, and Chapter 21.53, Site Development Plan
required for affordable housing project;
4. Chapter 21.95 Hillside Dev~lopment Regulations.
E. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 20 (Subdivision Ordinance);
F. Habitat Management Plan (in process);
G. Growth Management Ordinance, (Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 20); and
H. Environmental Protection Procedures (Title 19) and the California Environmental Quality
Act(CEQA).
IV. ANALYSIS
The recommendation of approval for this project was developed by analyzing the project's
consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. The following analysis
section discusses compliance with each of the regulations/policies utilizing both text and tables.
CT 95-05/SDP 95-11/HD.-12 -EMERALD RIDGE EAST •
JUNES, 1996 .
PAGE4
A. General Plan
The proposed project is consistent with the policies and programs of the General Plan.
The table below indicates how the project complies with the Elements of the General Plan
which are particularly relevant to this proposal.
Land Use Proposed residential density of 3 .05 du/net acre is below the GP designation of RM
4-8 du/net acre and growth control point of 6 du/net acre.
Housing Provides a combination of second dwelling units, deed restriction of 1 three-
bedroom home or the purchase of 1 Affordable Housing Credit in Villa Loma.
Open Space City Wide Trail Link No. 31 to be aligned along an existing dirt road thereby
avoiding impacts to Encinas Creek.
Circulation Required roadway and intersection improvements, including Hidden Valley Road
from Camino de las Ondas to Palomar Airport Road, are shown on the tentative map
and included as conditions of approval.
Noise 1. Exterior traffic noise levels do not exceed 60 dBA CNEL;
2. Noise study required to evaluate interior noise levels as part of the future Site
Development Plan for the homes; and
3. Residential land use is conditionally compatible with land uses designated
within the 60-65 dBA CNEL noise contours of the airport land use plan
(CLUP).
Park & Rec Proposed project is required to pay Park-in-lieu fees.
Public Safety Proposed project is required to provide sidewalks, street lights, and fire hydrants, as
shown on the tentative map, or included as conditions of approval.
B. Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 203)
The Zone 20 Specific Plan requires project compliance with all applicable land use plans,
policies, and ordinances, except as modified by the Specific Plan. The following·
discussion describes the proposed project's conformance with the relevant Specific Plan
regulations which include Affordable Housing, Land Use (General Plan, Zoning,
Development Standards, and the Mello II LCP), and Open Space Preservation.
Affordable Housing
The Zone 20 Specific Plan requires consistency with the City's Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance, requiring that 15% of the total number of proposed units are made affordable
to low income households. The project's 15% inclusionary requirement is 10.58 dwelling
units. The proposed project includes a request for approval of a site development plan for
9 second dwelling units dispersed throughout the subdivision and the reservation of one
three bedroom home or the purchase of one credit for an affordable three bedroom unit in
CT 95-05/SDP 95-11/HD.-12 -EMERALD RIDGE EAST •
JUNE 5, 1996
PAGES
Villa Loma to satisfy this requirement.
Land Use
The project is located within Area B of the Specific Plan. The project site is designated
for medium density residential development to be implemented by the One Family
Residential and Qualified Overlay Zones (R-1-7500-Q) which allow single family
development. The Qualified Overlay zone requires approval of a site development plan,
which includes architectural elevations, floor plans, and building footprints. The Zone 20
Specific Plan development regulations require compliance with the R-1 zoning
regulations, Specific Plan architectural design criteria, and require consistency with
landscape guidelines for collector streets, slopes and project entries. Since architecture for
the single family units is not proposed by the applicant at this time, the project has been
conditioned to require Planning Commission approval of a Site Development Plan (SDP)
prior to the issuance of building permits. The SDP will be required to demonstrate
consistency with both the City's Hillside Ordinance architectural guidelines and the Zone
20 Specific Plan architectural design criteria. As shown on Exhibit "L", the conceptual
landscape design for project slopes along the Hidden Valley Road corridor, project entry,
and internal slopes is consistent with the Zone 20 Specific Plan and the City's Landscape
Design Manual.
As shown on the zoning compliance table under section D below, the project meets or
exceeds the R-1 (single family) zone standards.
Open Space Preservation
The project is consistent with the Open Space provisions of the Zone 20 Specific Plan in
that Lot 62, which contains steep slopes possessing coastal sage scrub habitat and the
California gnatcatcher, will be preserved in open space; slopes exceeding 40% will not
be developed; mitigation measures that establish a physical barrier between residential
and agricultural uses will be provided; Citywide Trail Link No. 31 will be dedicated; and
the northern portion of the site located within the 65+ CNEL airport noise contour, where
residential uses are an incompatible land use, will be preserved as permanent open space.
Mello II Local Coastal Program -See the discussion under item C below.
C. Mello II Local Coastal Program
The project is located within and subject to the Mello II Local Coastal Program segment
and is designated for residential medium density (RM) land use and RDM-Q zoning.
Although the Mello II Land Use Plan is consistent with the subject parcel's RM General
Plan designation, the implementing zone specified by the Mello II LCP is not consistent
with the new R-1-7500-Q zone until the Coastal Commission has approved a Local
Coastal Program Amendment (LCP A). A Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCP A
94-04) is currently being reviewed by the Coastal Commission to change the
implementing zone on the subject property to R-1-7500-Q.
CT 95-05/SDP 95-11/HD.-12 -EMERALD RIDGE EAST •
JUNE 5, 1996
PAGE6
Development Regulations
The project is consistent with Mello II LCP policies requiring the preservation of steep
slopes (25%+) possessing chaparral and coastal sage plant communities ("dual criterion"
slopes) since the proposed grading will preserve the majority of the 1.47 total acres of
dual criterion slopes. If the application of this policy would preclude any reasonable use
of the property, an encroachment not to exceed 10% of the steep slope area may be
permitted. The· site contains two isolated finger canyons which are approximately .5
acres in area and contain dual criterion slopes. While the project will preserve the
majority of these canyons (.47 acres) through an open space easement, minimal
disturbance will result due to grading .03 acres for the purpose of creating building pads
on adjacent lots. This 2% disturbance represents less than 10% of the 1.47 total acres of
dual criterion slopes. Development of the site requires the preservation in open space of
approximately 7.063 acres along the northern and southern property boundaries, or 26%
of the 27.4 acre site, as mitigation for biological, noise, and visual impacts. Development
of the site is thereby limited to the central portion of the site where the finger canyons are
located. The City's Hillside Development Ordinance further restricts development of the
parcel through grading regulations which require grading to be consistent with existing
hillside topography. The application of the above numerous development restrictions
results in a project density of 3.05 dwelling units per acre which is well below the
maximum of 8 dwelling units per acre allowed by the General Plan. The minor .03 acre
encroachment into dual criterion slopes is therefore necessary to allow a reasonable use of
the property without further reducing the project density.
Mello II policies also provide for the preservation of all 25% slopes unless:
1. the findings of a soils investigation determine that the slopes areas are stable and
any corrective grading necessary for the project will be completed;
2. grading is essential to the development design and intent;
3. slope disturbance will not result in substantial damage or alteration to major
wildlife habitat or native vegetation areas;
4. no more than one third of the area of parcels exceeding 10 acres shall be subject to
major grade changes; and
5. north facing slopes shall be preserved.
The above findings can be made for the project which contains approximately 6.8 acres of
25%+ slopes. A geotechnical analysis has been prepared for the project by GeoSoils,
Inc. The conclusion of the report is that "based on our field exploration, laboratory
testing, engineering and geologic analyses, it is our opinion that the project site is suited
for development from a geotechnical engineering and geologic viewpoint. The
recommendations presented .... should be incorporated into the final design, grading, and
construction phasing of development." The project will be conditioned to comply with
the recommendations of this report thereby ensuring stable earth conditions for the life of
the project. Since the west-facing hillside parcel consists of gentle to steep slopes which
have been disked for agricultural use, it is necessary to grade a portion of the 25% slopes
to create a terraced grading design for the single family lot subdivision, however, slopes
exceeding 40% grade are almost entirely avoided. The proposed grading design results
CT 95-05/SDP 95-11/HD.-12 -EMERALD RIDGE EAST •
JUNE 5, 1996
PAGE?
in major grade changes to less than one third of the 27.4 acre parcel and will preserve
north facing slopes along the northern project boundary. The project will avoid major
wildlife habitat or native vegetation areas existing along the northern and southern
property boundaries since these areas will be preserved through an open space easement.
Hydrology standards of the Mello II segment of Carlsbad's LCP require that post
development surface run-off from a 1 0-year/6 hour storm event must carry any increased
velocity at the property line. Drainage from the project will be provided through storm
drains beneath Hidden Valley Road which will flow into a drainage course located
adjacent to the west of this roadway. In accordance with the provisions of the PEIR,
energy dissipation facilities (i.e. rip-rap) have been provided along the drainage course in
addition to a permanent regional basin west of future Hidden Valley Road, adjacent to
Encinas Creek at the 67 foot elevation. The project will be conditioned to provide
adequate drainage, siltation and erosion control facilities as part of the approved grading
permit, and the grading operation will be limited to the summer construction season,
April 1 to October 1.
The project contains vacant non-prime agricultural land containing Class III and IV soils
and is located in the Coastal Agricultural Overlay Zone (Site II). The Mello II LCP
requires mitigation when non-prime coastal agricultural land is converted to urban land
uses. The project has been conditioned to comply with the LCP mitigation option
provided when projects are located in Site II. This option requires the payment of an
"Agricultural Conversion Mitigation Fee" to the California Coastal Conservancy.
D. ZONING ORDINANCE
1. One-Family Residential Zone (R-1-7500):
The developer is proposing to subdivide the property into single-family lots, therefore,
the following table summarizes the project's compliance with the standards of the R-1-
7500 Zone:
Lot Size (Min.) 7,500 Square Feet 7,630-36,876 SF
Lot Width 60 Feet 60+ Feet
2nd Dwelling Unit 640 Square Feet 640 Square Feet
Size
Garage Size Two Car Garage -20'X 20' Two & Three-Car Garages
2nd Unit Parking One Additional Space Space in Three Car Garage
Lot Coverage 40 Percent To Be Determined w/Future SDP
Building Height 30 Feet & Two-Story To be Determined w/Future SDP
Panhandle Lot:
Combined Access 200 Feet Max. 160 Feet
CT 95-05/SDP 95-11/HD.-12 -EMERALD RIDGE EAST •
JUNE 5, 1996
PAGE8
Length -
Combined Access
Width -
Buildable Area -
Setbacks:
Front -
Street Side -
Side -
Rear -
30 Feet Min.
8,000-10,000 SF
20 Feet
10 Feet
10% of Lot Width
20% of Lot Width
30 Feet
10,370 -38,876 SF
To Be Determined with Future SDP
The developer is also proposing Lots No. 44 and 45 as panhandle type lots. The two lots
are justified based on the environmental constraints of the buildable area of the overall
parcel. The panhandle lots are located between areas proposed for open space
preservation due to the presence of sensitive habitat on steep slopes. This results in
developable land that cannot be served adequately with a public street. The panhandle
lots are located along the eastern perimeter of the site, between two cul-de-sac bulbs,
where they will not adversely affect public street access to surrounding properties. The
project has been appropriately conditioned to ensure that the panhandle lots comply with
the access, parking, setback, and drainage provisions of the code.
2. Qualified Development Overlay Zone:
The property contains the Q-Overlay Zone which requires the submittal and approval of a
Site Development Plan. At this point in time the developer is not planning to construct
homes on the lots, therefore, the project does not include a site development plan.
However, the project has been conditioned to require that a Site Development Plan (SDP)
be approved by the Planning Commission prior to approval and issuance of building
permits for the homes. The SDP would show the floor plans, placement of the homes on
the lots, building height, and the architectural elevations of the homes.
3. Chapter 21.85 Inclusionary Housing, and Chapter 21.53, Site Development Plan:
The project includes 60 single-family lots and an inclusionary housing requirement of
10.58 dwelling units which must be affordable to lower income households. In addition,
10 percent of those units, or 1 dwelling unit, must be a three-bedroom unit. The
developer is proposing to satisfy the housing requirements by designating, onsite, 9 lots
for future second-dwelling units. As shown on Exhibit "J", the second-dwelling units
would have exterior access, be incorporated into the second-story of the primary home,
and utilize a portion of the three-car garage for parking. Since the project also requires
the provision of 1 three-bedroom unit which is infeasible to accomplish with second
dwelling units, staff has conditioned the project to deed restrict one of the future three-
bedroom homes as affordable to lower income households. In addition to this condition,
the developer has been provided an option of providing 9 second dwelling units on-site
and purchasing 1 Affordable Housing Credit in Villa Loma. The offsite purchase of 1
credit in Villa Loma is conditioned subject to compliance with City Council Policies No.
CT 95-05/SDP 95-11/HD.-12 -EMERALD RIDGE EAST •
JUNE 5, 1996 ..
PAGE9
57 and 58, Specific Plan 203, and the final approval of the City Council as part of the
project's Affordable Housing Agreement. The remaining .588 fraction of an inclusionary
dwelling unit would be satisfied through the payment of a fee equal to the fraction (.588)
times the average subsidy needed to make affordable to a lower-income household, one
newly constructed typical housing unit.
If at a future date it is determined to be infeasible to provide any of the affordable
housing <;msite, the developer has also requested a second option to satisfy the affordable
housing requirements by either purchasing 10 credits in Villa Loma or participating in an
offsite combined affordable project. In the event of this option, the project has been
conditioned to require future compliance with City Council Policies 57 and 58, and
Specific Plan 203 prior to City Council approval of an Affordable Housing Agreement to
allow the offsite option.
The Carlsbad Municipal Code requires a Site Development Plan for any affordable
housing project of any size. The Site Development Plan for this project indicates which
lots would be designated and deed restricted for second-dwelling units. The plans also
include prototypical preliminary floor plans and building elevations to illustrate the
parking arrangement and how the second-dwelling units integrate into the primary homes.
If, at a later date, the developer desires ·10 build a different type of primary home/second-
dwelling unit or change the designated lots, a Site Development Plan Amendment must
be approved by the Planning Commission.
The project has been conditioned to require an Affordable Housing Agreement that would
be submitted for review and approval by the City prior to final map approval. The
Affordable Housing Agreement is a legally binding agreement between the developer and
the City which provides the specific details regarding the phasing and implementation of
the affordable housing requirements of this project.
4. Hillside Development Regulations:
The project site contains slopes of 15% or greater and an elevation differential greater
than 15 feet, therefore, a Hillside Development Permit is required. The table below
indicates how the project complies with the requirements of the Hillside Development
Regulations:
Slope Height 30 Feet 38 Feet Max.*
Grading Volume 8,000 -10,000 cubic yds/acre -8,835 cubic yds/acre**
potentially acceptable
Contour Grading Variety of Slope Direction & Manufactured Slopes have been
Undulation contoured to follow the adjacent
road and open space alignments
Slope Screening Landscaping Combination of trees, shrubs, &
CT 95-05/SDP 95-11/HD.-12 -EMERALD RIDGE EAST •
JUNE 5, 1996
PAGE IO
*
**
Slope Setback
Architecture
Roadways
Not Quantified -15 Foot
Recommended
Roofline, Building Bulk & Scale
Follow Contours
To be determined with future
SDP
To be determined with future
SDP
Curvilinear streets that follow
contours and provide access to
terraced lots.
In accordance with Section 21.95.070 of the Hillside Ordinance, justification is required
for the modification of the 30' maximum manufactured slope height standard. As
proposed, the only slope on the project that exceeds 30 feet in height is along the east side
of "C" Street within open space Lot 63. The slope height goes to 38 feet for about 75
lineal feet and transitions back to 30 feet and less in each direction over a total length of
200 feet. The increased slope height is necessary due to constraints which include the
preservation of 26% of the site in open space. the vertical alignment set for Hidden
Valley Road along the project's western boundary, the terraced grading design which is
consistent with the Hillside Development Ordinance, and compliance with the City's
street design standards.
Due to the preservation of significant open space along the northern and southern
property boundaries impacted by the 65 CNEL airport noise levels and coastal sage scrub
habitat, the preservation of 40%+ slopes and the LCP requirement to preserve dual
criterion slopes, the area of grading is limited to the central portions of the site. Grading
quantities in the potentially acceptable range are therefore necessary to create terraced,
single family building pads and access streets which follow the natural hillside contour.
The project density resulting from this grading design (3.05 du/acre) is well below that
permitted by the medium density (4-8 du/acre) land use designation.
E. Subdivision Ordinance
The proposed tentative map complies ":ith all the requirements of the City's Subdivision
Ordinance, Title 20. Currently there are no public roads or intersections to serve the
project site, therefore, the developer must extend public off-site street improvements to
connect to the existing circulation network. Primary access to the property would be
provided by future Street "F" which connects to Hidden Valley Road.
The proposed project is required to provide sidewalks, street lights, and fire hydrants, as
shown on the tentative map, or included as conditions of approval. The local streets have
adequate public right-of-way and connect to Hidden Valley Road which is a non-loaded
collector street. All the local, collector, and major streets within this area would be
constructed to full public street width standards, and have curb, gutters, sidewalks, and
underground utilities. · The proposed street system is adequate to handle the project's
pedestrian and vehicular traffic and accommodate emergency vehicles.
CT 95-05/SDP 95-11/HD.-12 -EMERALD RIDGE EAST •
JUNE 5, 1996
PAGE 11
To mitigate drainage impacts from the project site, the developer is required to provide
adequate drainage, erosion control, and urban pollutant basins. The drainage
requirements of Specific Plan 203, City ordinances, and Mello II have been considered
and appropriate drainage facilities have been designed and secured. In addition to City
Engineering Standards and compliance with the City's Master Drainage Plan, National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards will be satisfied to prevent
any discharge violations.
The subdivision will not conflict with easements of record or easements established by
court judgment, or acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property
within the proposed subdivision. The project has been designed and structured such that
there are no conflicts with any established easements. In addition, the property is not
subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Land Conservation Act of 1965
(Williamson Act).
F. Habitat Management Plan (Draft)
The project is not located within any of the Preserve Planning Areas (PP As) defined by
the City's draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP) dated July, 1994, Although
disturbance to .64 acres of coastal sage scrub will result from implementation of the
project, it will not preclude connectivity between PP As nor preclude the preservation of
CSS habitat. Moreover, this project provides mitigation in the form of offsite
preservation because it will result in the purchase for preservation of . 78 acres of habitat
in an offsite habitat mitigation bank.
Since completion of a subregional NCCP/HMP, has not occurred, prior to the issuance of
a grading permit, the City may have to authorize this project to draw from the City's
165.7 acres (5%) CSS take allowance (4d rule) to ensure that the project does not
preclude the City's draft HMP. The take of .64 acres of CSS habitat will not exceed the
5% allowance, nor jeopardize the HMP since it is located outside the HMP preserve
planning areas (PP A) and/or linkage planning areas (LP A) and therefore makes no
contribution to the overall preserve system, and will not significantly impact the use of
habitat patches as archipelago or stepping stones to surrounding PP As. Since mitigation
for the habitat loss will result in the preservation of equal or better habitat in an offsite
location, the project will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and
recovery of the gnatcatcher. The habitat loss is incidental to otherwise lawful activities.
The development of the Emerald Ridge East property is a legal development which is
consistent with the City's General Plan and all required permits will be obtained.
G. Growth Management
The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 20 in the
Southwest Quadrant of the City. The impacts created by this development on public
facilities and compliance with the adopted performance standards are summarized as
follows:
CT 95-05/SDP 95-1 l/HD.-12 -EMERALD RIDGE EAST •
JUNE 5, 1996
PAGE 12
CITY ADMINISTRATION Yes
LIBRARY Yes
WASTE WATER TREATMENT Yes
PARKS .48 acres Yes
DRAINAGE Basin No. 3 Yes
CIRCULATION 654 Yes
FIRE Station No. 4 Yes
OPEN SPACE 7.063 acres Yes
SCHOOLS CUSD Yes
SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM 69 EDUs Yes
WATER 15,180 GPD Yes
The project is 66.36 dwelling units below the Growth Management Dwelling Unit
allowance of 135 dwelling units for the property as permitted by the Growth Management
Ordinance. Surplus dwelling units (66.36) that are not used by the developer are placed
into a City bank of excess dwelling units. The City can allocate these dwelling units for
affordable housing or other special housing needs within this quadrant.
H. Environmental
The project site is located within the boundaries of the Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 203)
which covers the 640 acre Zone 20 planning area. The direct, indirect, and cumulative
environmental impacts from the future development of the Zone 20 planning areas have
been discussed in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR 90-03) for the specific
plan. Additional project level studies have been conducted including soils investigation,
biological analysis, noise report, and a traffic study. These studies provide more focused
and detailed project level analysis and indicate that additional environmental impacts
beyond what was analyzed in Final EIR 90-03 would not result from implementation of
the project. This project qualifies as subsequent development to both the Zone 20 EIR
and the City's MEIR as identified in Section 21083.3 of the California Environmental
Quality Act; therefore, the Planning Director issued a Notice of Prior Environmental
Compliance on May 3, 1996. The recommended and applicable mitigation measures of
Final EIR 90-03 a,re included as conditions of approval for this project. Conditions
include specific mitigation for impacts to coastal sage scrub habitat identified by the Zone
20 EIR through the purchase of .64 credits at a 1: 1 and 2: 1 replacement ratio in the
Carlsbad Highlands in accordance with the recommendation of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. With regard to air quality and circulation impacts, the City's MEIR found that
the cumulative impacts of the implementation of projects consistent with the General
Plan are significant and adverse due to regional factors, therefore, the City Council
adopted a statement of overriding consideration. The project is consistent with the
General Plan and as to these effects, no additional environmental document is required.
CT 95-05/SDP 95-11/HD.-12 -EMERALD RIDGE EAST •
JUNE 5, 1996 .,
PAGE13 •
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3936
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3937
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3938
4. Location Map
5. Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance dated May 3, 1996
6. Environmental Impact Assessment, Part II
7. Background Data Sheet
8. Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
9. Disclosure Form
10. Reduced Exhibits, dated June 5, 1996
11. Full size Exhibits "A" -"L", dated June 5, 1996.
AH:bk
• •
EMERALD RIDGE -EAST
CT 95-05/SDP 95-11 /H DP 95-1 2
• • City of Carlsbad
■:;;e;;;,.;a-1-1@-e1;;;,t@oa
· PUBLIC NOTICE OF PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
Please Take Notice:
The Planning Department has determined that the environmental effects of the project
described below have already been considered in conjunction with previously certified
environmental documents and, ·therefore, no additional environmental review will be
required and a notice of determination will be filed.
Project Title: EMERALD RIDGE EAST
Project Location: South of Palomar Airport Road, East of future Hidden Valley Road,
and North of Camino de las Ondas
Project Description: A tentative map for 60 standard single family residential lots
ranging in size from 7,630 to 36,876 square feet in area and three
open space lots, and a site development plan for 9 onsite second
dwelling units and one offsite affordable housing credit to satisfy
the project's inclusionary housing requirement. Onsite and offsite
project improvements include local public streets, curbs, gutters,
sidewalks, and drainage facilities to serve the lots, the construction
of Hidden Valley Road between Camino de las Ondas and
Palomar Airport Road, and alignment of a trail segment along the
project's northern boundary.
Justification for this determination is on file in the Planning Department, Community
Development, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within
thirty (30) days of date of publication.
DATED:
CASE NO:
CASE NAME:
PUBLISH DATE:
AH:bk
· MAY 3, 1996 ~~I~ ICHAEL J. HoLZITR
Planning Director
CT 95-05/SDP 95-11/HDP 95-12
EMERALD RIDGE EAST
MAY 3, 1996
2075 Las Palmas Dr.• Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-0894
-• ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM -PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CT 95-05/SDP 95-11/HDP 95-12
DATE: December 3, 1996
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Emerald Ridge East
2. APP LI CANT: Ladwig Design Group, Inc.
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 703 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 300,
Carlsbad, CA 92009, (619) 438-3182
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: October 3 1995 --------------------
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A tentative map for 60 standard single family residential lots ranging
in size from 7,630 to 36,876 square feet in area and three open space lots, and a site development
plan for 9 onsite second dwelling units and one offsite affordable housing credit to satisfy the
project's inclusionary housing requirement. Onsite and offsite project improvements include local
public streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and drainage facilities to serve the lots, the construction of
Hidden Valley Road between Camino de las Ondas and Palomar Airport Road, and alignment of
a trail segment along the project's northern boundary.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact", or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
X Land Use and Planning .x Transportation/Circulation Public Services
Population and Housing X Biological Resources Utilities and Service Systems
Geological Problems Energy and Mineral Resources X Aesthetics
Water I:Iazards Cultural Resources
X Air Quality .x Noise Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 3/28/95
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
•
I. find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. □
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. □
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. □
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least
one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed. D
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have
been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been
prepared. Ix!
Date
.
Pia~ Date
2 Rev. 3/28/95
• • ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an
Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the
environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a
checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by
the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to
.prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved
EIR or Negative Declaration.
• A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No
Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact
simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained
when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as
general standards. ·
• "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact
is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies.
• "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than
Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the
mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
• "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant.
• Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the
environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances
requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures
required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no
additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
• When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare
an BIR if the significant · effect has been analyzed adequately in an. earlier BIR pursuant to
applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations"
has been made pursuant to that earlier BIR.
• A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the
project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 3/28/95
-• • If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if
there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation
measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate
"Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated
Negative Declaration may be prepared.
• An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not
limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed
or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree
to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of
Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier
EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4)
through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a
potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a
potentially significant effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form
under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to
discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
4 Rev. 3/28/95
-Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or
zoning? (Sources #1 and 8:)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? (Sources #1 and 8)
c) Be incompatible with existing lanp use in the
vicinity? (Source #1 and 2)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations ( e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)? (Source # 2)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of
an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)? (Source #2)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (Source #1)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly ( e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (Source #2)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (Source #2)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (Sources #2 and 3)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (Sources #2 and 3)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(Source #3)
5
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
Rev. 3/28/95
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
(Source #3)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (Source #3)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
Source #3)
g) Subsidence of the land? (Source #3)
h) Expansive soils? (Source #3)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (Source
#3)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
(Source #2)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? (Source #2)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration
of surface water quality ( e.g. temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (Source #2 )
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? (Sources #2)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? (Source #1)
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability? (Sources #2
and 3)
6
Potentially
Significant
Impact
., -Potentially
Significant
Unless Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
..x..
X
..x..
Rev. 3/28/95
..x..
..x..
..x..
..x..
X
..x..
X
X
..x..
-Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater? (Source #2 and 3)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (Source #2
and 3)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public
water supplies? (Source #1)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation?
(Source #1)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (
Source #1)
,c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,
or cause any change in climate? (Source #1)
d) Create objectionable odors? (Sources #1 and 2)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
(Source #1)
b) Hazards to safety from design features ( e.g.
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
(Source #2)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? (Source #2)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(Source #2)
7
Potentially
Significant
Impact
.x..
_, • Potentially
Significant
Unless Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
.x..
.x..
.x..
X
.x..
X
.x..
.x..
.x..
Rev. 3/28/95
-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(Source #1 and 2)
t) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation ( e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (Source #1 and 2)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (Source
#1 and 2)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants,
fish, insects, animals, and birds? (Sources #2
and 7)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(Sources #2 and 7)
c) Locally designated natural commumt1es (e.g.
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Sources #2
and 7)
d) Wetland habitat ( e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)? (Sources #2 and 7)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (
Sources #2 and 7)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would
the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? (Source #1)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (Source #1)
8
Potentially
Significant
Impact
-Potentially
Significant
Unless Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
X
X
_x
_x
X
X
X
_x
_x
Rev. 3/28/95
-Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value
to the region and the residents of the State?
(Source #1)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation?
(Source #1)
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
(Source #1)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? (Source #1)
'.d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? (Source #1)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees? (Source #2)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Sources #2
and 5)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
(Sources # 2 and 5)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (Sources #1 and 2))
b) Police protection? (Source #1)
c) Schools? (Sources #1 and 2)
9
Potentially
Significant
Impact
-Potentially
Significant
Unless Less Than
Mitigation Significant
Incorporated Impact
X
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
.x.
X
.x.
X
Rev. 3/28/95
-Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? (Source #1)
e) Other governmental services? (Sources #1 and 2)
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (Source #1)
b) Communications systems? (Source #1)
c) Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities? (Sources #1 and 2)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Sources #1 and 2)
e) Storm water drainage? (Sources #1 and 2)
t) Solid waste disposal? (Source #1)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (Sources #1
and 2)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
(Source #2)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect? (Source #2)
c) Create light or glare? (Source #1)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
(Source #2)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (Source #2)
10
Potentially
Significant
Impact
-Potentially
Significant
Unless Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
X
Rev. 3/28/95
..x_
..x_
X
X
X
..x_
X
X
..x_
X
..x_
X
..x_
-Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
c) Affect historical resources? (Source #2)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? (Source #2)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? (Source #2)
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
(Sources #1 and 2 )
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
(Source #2)
11
Potentially
Significant
Impact
-Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
_x
X
_x
Rev. 3/28/95
-Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wild life species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
..x..
-
Potentially
Significant
Unless Less Than
Mitigation Significant
Incorporated Impact
..x..
No
Impact
X
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on
attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the
. earlier analysis. "
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier
document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
12 Rev. 3/28/95
-DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Project Background and Environmental Setting:
The project is located south of Palomar Airport Road, east of future Hidden Valley Road, and north
of Camino de las Ondas in the City of Carlsbad. Canyon de las Encinas, an ephemeral stream, is
located along the property's northern boundary and a small residential development is located along
the parcel's northeastern boundary. Agricultural and undeveloped parcels surround the property to the
west, north and south. Earth materials encountered onsite include the Eocene age bedrock Santiago
Formation and surficial soils. The property rises in elevation from west to east approximately 100 feet
and from north to south approximately 200 feet.. The majority of the site consists of hillside
topography with 25% or less gradient. Steeper slopes exist along the parcel's northern and southern
boundaries, and within two small east-west finger canyons. Although the majority of the property is
disturbed by past agricultural activities, the property supports. two native habitat types: Diegan coastal
sage scrub and wetland vegetation. There is a drainage channel near the southern property boundary
which supports some upland plant species. Three sensitive bird species (turkey vulture, northern
harrier, and California gnatcatcher) were observed onsite during field surveys.
Vehicular access to the site would be provided by a local street leading from Hidden Valley Road, a
non-loaded collector street, which extends from Camino de las Ondas to Palomar Airport Road.
Although the project would be conditioned to improve Hidden Valley Road, the alignment of this
roadway from Palomar Airport Road to Camino de las Ondas has already been environmentally
reviewed and approved by two previous projects and rough grading of the roadway has occurred. The
previous projects are the City's Poinsettia Community Park project (CUP 92-05) and the Sambi Vesting
Tentative Map (CT 92-02). Subsequent to the submittal of this project, the California Department of
Fish and Game, the California Coastal Commission, and the Army Corps of Engineers in a Section 7
Consultation with the USFWS have all issued permits or approvals for the construction of Hidden
Valley Road from Palomar Airport Road to the project's southern boundary. The environmental
documents for these projects are on file in the Planning Department.
The project site is located within the boundaries of the Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP-203) which covers
the 640 acre Zone 20 Planning Area. The certified Final Program EIR 90-03 (PEIR) for SP 203
addresses the potential environmental impacts associated with the future buildout of the Zone 20
Specific Plan area and is on file in the Planning Department. Use of a Program EIR enables the city
to characterize the overall environmental impacts of the specific plan. The Final Program EIR contains
broad, general environmental analysis that serves as an information base to be consulted when
ultimately approving subsequent projects (i.e., tentative maps, site development plans, grading permits,
etc ... ) within the specific plan area. The applicable and recommended mitigation measures of Final
EIR 90-03 will be included as conditions of approval for this project. This subsequent expanded Initial
Study is intended to supplement the Final EIR and provide more focused and detailed project level
analysis of site specific environmental impacts, and, if applicable, provide more refined project level
mitigation measures as required by Final EIR 90-03. Through the aid of the required additional project
specific biological, soils/geological, noise, slope, and viewshed analyses performed for this project, no
additional significant environmental impacts beyond those identified by the Final EIR 90-03 have been
identified. · Mitigation measures that are applicable to the project and already included in Final EIR
90-03 will therefore be added to the tentative map resolution.
13 Rev. 3/28/95
-e
In addition to the Final EIR for Specific Plan 203, the City has certified a Final Master Environmental
Impact Report (MEIR) for an update of the 1994 General Plan. The certified MEIR is on file in the
Planning Department. The MEIR serves as the basis of environmental review and impact mitigation
for projects that are subsequent to and consistent with the General Plan, including projects within the
Zone 20 Specific Plan area.
I. LAND USE
A. Zoning
A zone change from the RDM-Q (multiple family) zone to the R-1-7500-Q (one family) zone has been
approved by the City and is pending Coastal Commission approval for the subject property. Since the
property currently contains the Residential Medium (RM) density land use designation allowing 4-8
residential dwelling units/acre, the single family lots and product type proposed with this project at a
density of 3.05 dwelling units/acre and designed in accordance with the R-1-7500 zone standards are
consistent with the RM General Plan designation and the R-1-7500-Q zoning. Therefore, no
significant environmental impacts will result from the development of the single family project.
B. Mello II LCP
The project is also subject to the Mello II LCP segment of Carlsbad's Local Coastal Program. Mello
· II Policy 4-3 requires the preservation of slopes exceeding 25% grade which possess coastal sage scrub
habitat (dual criterion slopes). If the application of the policy would preclude any rea~onable use of
the property, an encroachment not to exceed 10% of the steep slope area may be permitted. The site
contains two isolated finger canyons which contain "dual criterion" slopes and are approximately .5 acres
in area. While the project will preserve,the majority of both of these finger canyons (.47 acres) through
an open space easement, minimal disturbance will result due to grading .03 acres for the purpose of
creating reasonable building pads on lots adjacent to these canyons. This 2% disturbance represents
less than 10% of the 1.47 total acres of dual criterion slopes. Development of the site requires the
preservation in open space of approximately 7.063 acres along the northern and southern property
boundaries, or 26% of the 27.4 acre site; as mitigation for biological, noise, and visual impacts.
Development of the site is thereby limited to the central portions where the two isolated finger canyons
are located. The City's Hillside Development Ordinance further restricts development of the parcel
through grading regulations which require grading to be consistent with existing hillside topography.
The application of the above numerous development restrictions results in a project density of 3.05
dwelling units per acre which is well below the maximum of 8 dwelling units per acre allowed by
General Plan. The minor .03 acre encroachment into dual criterion slopes is therefore necessary to
allow a reasonable use of the property without further reducing the project density.
Mello II Policy 4-3 also provides for the preservation of all 25% slopes unless:
1. the findings of a soils investigation determine that the slopes areas are stable and any
corrective grading necessary for the project will be completed;
2. . grading is essential to the development design and intent;
3. slope disturbance will not result in substantial damage or alteration to major wildlife habitat
or native vegetation areas;
4. no more than one third of the area (> 10 acres) shall be subject to major grade changes;
5. north facing slopes shall be preserved.
14 Rev. 3/28/95
,, I
-• The above findings can be made for the project which contains approximately 6.8 acres of 25 % +
slopes. A geotechnical analysis has been prepared for the project by GeoSoils, Inc. The conclusion
of the report is that "based on our field exploration, laboratory testing, engineering and geologic
analyses, it is our opinion that the project site is suited for development from a geotechnical
engineering and geologic viewpoint. The recommendations presented .... should be incorporated into the
final design, grading, and construction phasing of development." The project will be conditioned to
comply with the recommendations of this report thereby ensuring stable earth conditions for the life
of the project. Since the west-facing hillside parcel consists of gentle to steep slopes which have been
disced for agricultural use, it is necessary to grade a portion of the 25% slopes-to create a terraced
grading design for the single family lot subdivision, however, slopes exceeding 40% grade are almost
entirely avoided. The proposed grading design results in disturbance to less than 25% of the steep
slopes and will preserve north facing slopes along the northern project boundary. The project will avoid
major wildlife habitat or native vegetation areas existing along the northern and southern property
boundaries since these areas will be preserved through an open space easement.
Hydrology standards of the Mello II segment of Carlsbad's LCP require that post development surface
run-off from a 10-year/6 hour storm even must carry any increased velocity at the property line.
Drainage from the project will be provided through storm drains beneath Hidden Valley Road which
will flow into a drainage course located adjacent to the west of this roadway. In accordance with the
provisions of the PEIR, energy dissipation facilities (i.e. rip-rap) has been provided along the drainage
course in addition to a permanent regional basin west of future Hidden Valley Road, adjacent to
Encinas Creek at the 67 foot elevation.
D. Agriculture
The site is located in the Coastal Agricultural Overlay Zone (Site II) of the Mello II segment of
Carlsbad's Local Coastal Program. Section 3.0 of Final EIR 90-03 evaluated impacts created by the
conversion of agricultural land use to urban land use in the overlay zone. The PEIR concluded that
the cumulative loss of agricultural land could be offset with the mitigation measures established and
required by the Mello II segment of the LCP; therefore, the tentative map will be conditioned to
require the payment of an agricultural mitigation fee prior to approval of a final map.
As detailed by the PEIR, Zone 20 is comprised of agricultural uses which are typically incompatible
with residential uses due to physical and operational characteristics such as tilling and
pesticide/herbicide spraying. The Emerald Ridge East tentative map will be conditioned to include
the applicable mitigation measures required by the PEIR to reduce impacts to agricultural resources.
Since the project is buffered by open space along the northern and southern boundaries, Hidden Valley
Road along the western boundary, and landscaped slopes along the eastern boundary, the required 25'
wide open space easement between open field agricultural operations and onsite developable areas is
incorporated into the project. PEIR mitigation requiring the notification of to all future residential
land owners that this area is subject to dust, pesticide, and odors associated with adjacent agricultural
operation and the provision of temporary road connections to maintain continued access to adjacent
agricultural properties will be conditions of map approval.
15 Rev. 3/28/95
" ' -• II. POPULATION AND HOUSING
B. Growth Inducing
As specified by the Zone 20 PEIR, the development of projects including transportation routes, public
services, and land uses within the Zone 20 Planning Area is not growth inducing since the area has been
previously planned and designed for residential development by the City's General Plan, Growth
Management Program, and Zone 20 LFMP. Although the project will be conditioned to construct
Hidden Valley Road, it is a planned north-south collector already approved to provide access to
projects located to the south within Zone 20. Development already exists or has been approved to the
south, north, west and east; therefore, urbanization of the area is inevitable.
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS
Consistent with the Zone 20 PEIR, These recommendations will be incorporated as project conditions
in accordance with the PEIR.
IV. WATER QUALITY
As anticipated by the water quality discussion in Section 5.2 of the Master EIR (MEIR) 93-01 and the
Zone 20 Program EIR (PEIR), sedimentation impacts to Encinas Creek due to the creation of
impervious surfaces onsite, the reduction of absorption rates, and an increase in surface runoff and
runoff velocities would result without mitigation. As required by the PEIR, previously approved
projects were required to install energy dissipation facilities (i.e. rip-rap) along the drainage course in
addition to a permanent regional basin located within the drainage course approximately 250' south of
Encinas Creek. The remaining appropriate PEIR and MEIR mitigation measures which include
requirements for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and consistency
with the City's Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan will be added to the
project as conditions of approval.
V. AIR QUALITY
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994
General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled.
These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases,
oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors
to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a
"non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore,
continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative
significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of
mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for
roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce
vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3)
provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions
to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth
management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality
16 Rev. 3/28/95
.. . -e
mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as
conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within
a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant
Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not
required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246,
included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air quality impacts. This "Statement Of
Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Final
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts
is required. This document is available at the Planning Department.
VI. CIRCULATION
-The project would increase local traffic in the area, however, a Traffic Study prepared for the project
by WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. dated Se.ptember 13, 1995, and a Traffic Impact Analysis conducted
as part of the Zone 20 Specific Plan indicates that compliance with the circulation mitigation of the
Zone 20 Specific Plan PEIR and the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 20 would mitigate
any significant local traffic impacts (Section 3.5, Page 111-58, Final EIR 90-03). The project will
therefore be conditioned to construct and/or improve all roadways necessary for or impacted by this
development. These include Hidden Valley Road from Camino de las Ondas to Palomar Airport
Road including a traffic signal at the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and all internal streets to
City standards.
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994
General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to
accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by
regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all
freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the
implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City's
adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to
ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative
modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and
commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The
diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates
impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate
General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the
project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of
intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the "Initial
Study" checklist is marked."Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General
Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final
Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding
17 Rev. 3/28/95
-• Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all
subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no
further environmental review of circulation impacts is required.
VII. BIOLOGY
The Biology Section (3.4) of the Zone 20 Specific Plan PEIR provides baseline data at a gross scale
due to the large size of the specific plan area. Given the large number of property owners and their
differing development horizons and the inevitable change in biological conditions over the long-term
buildout of the area, it is riot possible to mitigate biological impacts from the buildout of the entire
specific plan under one comprehensive open space easement that crosses property lines or a habitat
revegetation/enhancement plan sponsored solely by the property owners. The implementation of the
biological section of the EIR is based on future site specific biological survey studies that focus on the
impacts created by individual subsequent development projects. These additional biological studies are
required to consider the baseline data and biological open space recommendations of the PEIR and
provide more detailed and current resource surveys plotted at the tentative map scale for each property.
The range of future mitigation options specified by the PEIR may include preservation of sensitive
habitat onsite in conjunction with enhancement/revegetation plans, payment of fees into a regional
conservation plan, or the purchase and protection of similar habitat offsite.
To satisfy these PEIR mitigation requirements, a biological field survey was prepared for the project
by Brian F. Mooney, Associates, dated September, 1995. This subsequent biological study provides
more focused, current, and detailed project level analysis of site specific biological impacts and provides
more refined project level mitigation measures as required by the Zone 20 PEIR. The property was
surveyed and three sensitive bird species (turkey vulture, northern harrier, and California gnatcatcher)
were observed onsite in the southern portion of the site during the field surveys in an area containing
.97 acres of mid to high quality coastal sage scrub. This area is proposed to be dedicated in open space.
The biological report indicates that a total of .64 acres of sage scrub would be impacted by the project
which represents a significant environmental impact without mitigation.. In accordance with the PEIR
biological mitigation requirements, the tentative map will be conditioned as follows:
1. .83 acres of coastal sage scrub within an 1. 78 acre area will be preserved by open space
easement in substantial conformance with the PEIR biological mitigation map (Figure 3.4-3);
2. a total of .14 acres of sage scrub habitat, which will be disturbed along the northern edge of
the open space easement for the purpose of providing a 60' fire suppression buffer between
the natural vegetation and single family units, will be mitigated through the purchase of .28
acres of equal quality habitat to be preserved in an offsite habitat mitigation bank;
3. .5 acres of unoccupied and isolated CSS habitat located within two small finger canyons
generally identified by the PEIR and specifically by the Mooney biological study, which
although not directly disturbed will be indirectly impacted due to the proposed development,
will be mitigated through the purchase of .5 acres of equal quality habitat to be preserved in
• an offsite habitat mitigation bank; and,
4. possible construction noise impacts to breeding gnatcatchers and other potential bird species
will be avoided by prohibiting heavy construction adjacent to CSS habitat during the breeding
season (March 1 to July 31).
18 Rev. 3/28/95
I. • ,_ \, • • NCCP/HMP, 4D RULE
The project is not located within any of the Preserve Planning Areas defined by the City's draft Habitat
Management Plan (HMP) dated July, 1994, Although disturbance to .64 acres of coastal sage scrub
will result from implementation of the project, it will not preclude connectivity between PPA's nor
preclude the preservation of CSS habitat. Moreover, this project provides mitigation in the form of
offsite preservation because it will result in the purchase for preservation . 78 acres of habitat in an
offsite habitat mitigation bank.
Since completion of a subregional NCCP/HMP, has not occurred, prior to the issuance of a grading
permit, the City may have to authorize this project to draw from the City's 167.5 acres (5%) CSS take
allowance ( 4d rule) to ensure that the project does not preclude the City's draft HMP. The take of .64
acres of CSS habitat will not exceed the 5% allowance, nor jeopardize the HMP since it is located
outside the HMP preserve planning areas (PPA) and/or linkage planning areas (LP A), makes no
contribution to the overall preserve system, and will not significantly impact the use of habitat patches
as archipelago or stepping stones to surrounding PP A's. Since mitigation for the habitat loss will result
in the preservation of equal or better habitat in an offsite location, the project will not appreciably
reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the gnatcatcher. The habitat loss is incidental to
otherwise lawful activities. The development of the Emerald Ridge East property is a legal
development which is consistent with the City's General Plan and all required permits will be obtained.
X. NOISE
Section 3.8 of the Zone 20 PEIR evaluated potential noise impacts for future projects located in the
Specific Plan area and recommended that noise studies be prepared for projects impacted by traffic and
airport noise. A portion of the site is located within the 60 to 65 dBA CNEL airport and Palomar
Airport Road noise contours, therefore, noise from existing Palomar Airport Road and the airport
would create a potential impact on the homes in this project. In the Comprehensive Airport Land Use
Plan, residential development is considered conditionally compatible within the 60 to 65 CNEL contour
area. A Noise Study was prepared for the project by Pacific Noise Control dated September 26, 1995.
Noise levels on the project site are projected to be significant since they exceed the City's 60 CNEL
noise standard on Lots 8, 9, and 26 due to future noise generated by traffic on Palomar Airport Road.
Therefore, in accordance with the Zone 20 PEIR mitigation requirements, the tentative map will be
conditioned to comply with the noise study recommendations requiring the construction of a 5' high
masonry noise barrier wall at the top of slope on Lots 8, 9, and 26 to attenuate the exterior noise level
to 60 dBA CNEL or less, the provision of interior noise mitigation, if necessary, and legal notification
to future homeowners of potential airport noise impacts.
XI and XII. PUBLIC FACILITIES
The project is located within the Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Zone. Public facilities and
financing have been accounted for in the Zone 20 LFM Plan to accommodate the residential
development. The residential land use would be consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
project would not significantly impact the provision of public facilities. In addition, a condition will
be added to the project to require that the developer enter into an agreement with the appropriate
school district to ensure that there are adequate school facilities available to serve the residential
subdivision -(Section 3.11, Page III-112, Zone 20 PEIR).
19 Rev. 3/28/95
.... , >
-• XIII. VISUAL AESTHETICS
Section 3.13 of the Zone 20 PEIR analyzed potential visual impacts created by development within the
Specific Plan area. It was determined that visual impacts to the Palomar Airport Road Viewshed
(Vantage Points 7 and 8, Figure 3.16-6) could be potentially significant. To reduce these potential
impacts to below a level of significance, the PEIR mitigation measures include additional visual analysis,
landform-contour grading and landscaping, and compliance with visual design guidelines.
The Emerald Ridge East project includes a hillside development permit application (HDP 95-12) which
requires compliance with hillside architectural and grading standards. The project is in compliance with
these standards which are consistent with the PEIR mitigation requiring landform grading and
contouring. Additional visual analysis performed by the applicant has identified that units will be visible
from the Palomar Airport Road viewshed and ·future structures will therefore require compliance with
the PEIR visual design guidelines including combination of one and two story homes, a variety of roof
heights and roof massing, a variety of ·earth tone roof and wall materials and colors, and enhanced
fenestration. The proposed project is a residential lot subdivision, and at this point in time, no
residential structures are being proposed. Due to the visual sensitivity of the site from Palomar Airport
Road and its location adjacent to a future public park, the property's zoning contains the Qualified
Overlay (Q) Zone. The Q-Overlay zone requires approval of a site development plan, including
architectural elevations. Therefore, to avoid visual impacts , the tentative map will be conditioned
to require that prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant must amend the site development
plan by submitting architectural elevations for Planning Commission approval which ensure that future
structures are consistent with the PEIR visual design guidelines and hillside architectural guidelines.
SOURCES
1. MEIR -1994 General Plan Update of the Carlsbad General Plan.
2. Final EIR 90-03 -Zone 20 Specific Plan.
3. Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment prepared by GeoSoils, Inc., dated September 6, 1994, and
supplemental letter dated December 6, 1995.
4. Preliminary Pesticide Residue Survey prepared by GeoSoils, Inc. dated July 25, 1994.
5. Pacific Noise Control, Noise Assessment, dated September 26, 1995.
6. WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc., Traffic Study for Emerald Ridge East, dated September 13, 1995.
7. Biological Survey and Report for Emerald Ridge East prepared by Brian F. Mooney, Associates
dated September, 1995.
8. Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum for Mar Vista (ZC 94-04/CT 94-
11/HDP 94-09/SDP 94-10/LCPA 94-04) dated October 3, 1995.
20 Rev. 3/28/95
,., ,. . \
·--• LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
NIA
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
NIA
21 Rev. 3/28/95
-• APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
22 Rev. 3/28/95
-BACKGROUND DATA SHEET • CASE NO: CT 95-05/SDP 95-11/HDP 95-12
CASE NAME: EMERALD RIDGE EAST
APPLICANT: LADWIG DESIGN GROUP INC.
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Request for approval of a Site Development Plan and recommendation of
approval for a Tentative Map, and Hillside Development Permit, to: (1) subdivide the property into 60 single-
family lots and 3 open space lots; (2) create a 28.9 acre remainder parcel; (3) provide 9 future second-dwelling
units; and (4) deed restrict one three bedroom home to be affordable or purchase one Affordable Housing
Credit in Villa Loma; all on property generally located east of future Hidden Valley Road, north of Camino de
las Ondas, and south of Palomar Airport Road, within the Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP-203) and Local Facilities
Management Zone 20.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: All that certain parcel of land delineated and designated as "Description No.
1,103.91 Acres" on Record of Survey Map No. 5715, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego
County, December 19, 1960, being a portion of Lot G of Rancho Aqua Hedionda, according to Map thereof No.
823, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 16, 1896, a portion of which
lies within the City of Carlsbad, all being in the County of San Diego, State of California. Excepting therefrom
that portion lying within Parcels "A", "B", "C" and "D" of Parcel No. 2993 in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August 23,
1974 as File No. 74-230326 of Official Records.
APN: 212-040-32 36 ----~~~~--Acres -~5_6~.3'--_ Proposed No. of Lots/Units _6~0~/~69~------
(Assessor's Parcel Number)
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation __ RM ___ Density Allowed 6 Density Proposed -~3_.0_5 __
Existing Zone __ R=--=--=-1=----"'Q __ Proposed Zone __ _
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad's Zoning Requirements)
Zoning Land Use
Site R-1-7500-Q Vacant
North PM Vacant
South RDM-Q Vacant
East R-1-10-Q Sudan Int Mission
West R-1-7500-Q Hidden Valley Road
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District CUSD Water District CMWD Sewer District Carlsbad __ ..;::....;:;...==;c___ --=~'-'--=--
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity) ---=69'-----------------------
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated ~O=--c~to""-b"""e""r"""3........ccl~9~95'--__________________ _
ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT ASSESSMENT
_ Negative Declaration, issued ___________________________ _
_ Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated _____________________ _
Other, Prior Environmental Compliance, dated May 3, 1996
• CITY OF CARLSBAD •
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
(To be Submitted with Development Application)
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMP ACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: CT 95-05/SDP 95-11/HDP 95-12 -EMERALD RIDGE EAST
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE:_--=-20"'--_ GENERAL PLAN: ---=RM-==------
ZONING: -~R'--'-1'---7"-"5---'-0-"--0-~O ______________________ _
DEVELOPER'S NAME: --"'M=S=P:........=C=al=i£=om=ia;:..::L=L=..;C=-----------------------
ADDRESS: 650 Cherry Street, Suite 435, Denver, CO 80222
PHONE NO.: _ _____._("'""'30=3-"-') 3~9...a...9-"--9""'--80'--'4 __ ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: --=2~1=2--"--04~0~-3~2~-~36~-----
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 27.4 ACRES/ 69 DU
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: --=UN=KN=--'-'O'--WN~----------------
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage=
Library: Demand in Square Footage=
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer)
Park:
Drainage:
Demand in Acreage =
Demand in CFS =
Identify Drainage Basin =
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: Demand in ADT =
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
Fire:
Open Space:
Schools:
Served by Fire Station No.=
Acreage Provided -
(Demands to be determined by staff)
Sewer: Demand in EDU -
Identify Sub Basin -
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
Water: Demand in GPD -
239.9 sq. ft.
127.9 sq. ft.
69EDU
.48 acres
Basin No. 3
660 ADT
Station No. 4
7.063 acres
CUSD
69EDU
Basin No. 3
15,180 GPD
L. The project is 66.36 units below the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.
--City of Carlsbad
■ =d%hi 111 U· I •l4 •6i ii, ,t§ ,i I
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
APPUCANT'S STATEMENT Of DISCLOSURE Of CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPUCA TIONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE
DISCRETIONARY ACT\ON ON THE PART Of THE CfTY COUNCIL, OR ANY APPOINTED BOARO, COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE.
(Please Prim)
The following information must be disclosed:
1 . Applicant
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
MSP CALIFORNIA, L.L.C. MSP CALIFORNIA, L.L.C.
Marcus S. Palkowitsh _D~a_v_i~d ___ M_, ____ B=en=t=l=e=y.__ ______ _
650 South Cherrv Street, Suite 435 3523 East Suuri se Urtve, Suite 221
Denver, Colorado 80222 Tucson, Arizona 85718
2. Owner
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
MSP CALIFORNIA, L.L.C. MSP CALIFORNIA, L.L.C.
Marcus S. Palkowitsh
650 South Cherry Street, Suite 435
Denver, Colorado 80222
David M. Bentley
3573 East Sunrise Drive, Suite 221
Tucson, Arizona 85718
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names and addresses
of all individuals owning more than 1 0% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the
partnership.
4. If any person Identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above Is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names and
addresses of any person serving as officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of
the trust.
FRM0001 12/91 _______________ ...:_.....:...------------:-~:-:--:-::--:---:--:--::-:-
2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161
-(Over)
Disclosure Statement Page 2
5. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards,
Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes _ No .K_ If yes, please indicate person(s) __________________ _
Person it defined u: 'Any individual, firm, coP«rtnet'lhip, joint venture, aMOCiation, aoclal club, fraternal organization, corporation, Ntate, tru.t. receive ,
syndicate, thi• and lf'IY other county, city and county, city municipality, district or other political 1ubdlvwon, or 1f1Y other group o, combination acting u •
unit'
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.)
s·gnature of applicant/date
Marcus S, Palkowitsb Marcus s. PaJkawitsb
Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant
FRM0001 12/91
TYPICAL SECTIONS -PUBLIC STREETS
se· eo'ee'
111" 20· 24'
MINIMUU ROAD sccnON
TO 8( OEltRMIHtO a.-.sco
Uf'ON R VALVE ltSTS
HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD
AND STREETS: A,B,D, & E
STREET "F'
STREET "C"
-----7 -~~~°:, __ l _______ r---
'
A
PLAN -TYPICAL LOT GRADING PER ESP-3
TENTATIVE MAP
EMERALD RIDGE EAST
CARLSBAD TRACT CT 95-05
GENERAL NOTES:
I.TOTl\lAAEA: 27.4AC
l. £'(1Sm«; ZOMIMC: ROWO
J. PROPOSED ZONING: R•l-0
4. GWERAL PL"N DESIGNATION·
RM EXISTING It PROPOSED (60U'S/AC)
5. LOCAL rACIUTIES MANAGEMENT ZONE: 20 [LHIP 87-lO(A)]
6. SP[ClflC PlA"' NUMBER· lOJ
1. UR: 90-0J {f~ SP 203)
l!I. Sffl[[T RICHT-or-w ... v 'MOTHS: AS SHOMI
9. CtJT .-.NO nLL SLOPES NOT TO [)(C[EO:
10. PREUMINARY SOILS REPORT BY:
GEOSO!LS INC. 5741 PALME:lf WAY CARLSBAOCA.92008 (1!119)4.38-J155 r,,,.11 (819)931-0915
11.TOPOGRAf>liY: GENERATED BY
ztN1n-1 M:RIAL,INC. DATED" 0$/28/94
12. CONTOUR INTERVAL: 2'
13. [STll,IATtD GRADING QUANTITIES (TOTAL PRO..ECT}·
Cl.IT: 176,700 CY
fll.l.: 176,700CY
(H.V.R. PERCT.95-0J) 0
TOTAL 176,700CY
GRADING QUANTITIES PER ACRE: 176,700/20 • 8,8J5.0 C.Y. / ACRE
14. PU8t.1C S[R-..,C£S & OISTRICTS:
GAS&ELECTIC ....•. SO.G.&E TELEPHONE.. ........ PAanc BELL
WA'ltR .................. CAALS8"11 WIJI-IICIPM.. WA"!tR O\S1. S[W(R ...................... CARLS8AD MUN!OPAI. WAT[R 01ST.
STORM ORAIN ...... [ASMENTS ANO IMPROVEMENTS AS
R[OUIREO BY Tl-1E CITY OF CARLS8AD FIR[ PROll:CTION .. CITV OF CARtS8AO
SCHOOL.... , •..•... CARLSBAO UNlrlEO SCHOOL DIST.
SECTION 'A -A'
15 AOOIT10NAL EASEMENTS MAY B'E REOUIREO BY CITV ENGINE:tll
\&. FIRE 1-\'lt)IU,NTS AS R[ll\JUl;EO 8Y Cll'I ENCIN{[R .-.1110 fUU: MARSHAL
17. [)(!STING UTIUTIES ON-Silt TO 8E RELOCATED AS R[QIJIRED
18 PROJECT SIGNAGE TO BE [STABUSHEO
19. TYPICl,L LOT DRAINAGE PER CITY OF CARLSBAD STD. owe. NO. GS-15.
RESIO[NTIAtR-1-7500: 60
<.;CCONO OWE.LUNG UNITS·. 10
OPEN SPACE: J
21. PROPOSEO DENSITY : J.11 OWE.LUNG UNITS/ACRE
22.A.VERAGEDAILYlRAmC:
MARKET RAT[ UNITS ., 60 • 10 ., 600 SECOND OWELtlNG UNITS ., 10 • 6 ., 60
TOTAI.AOT
2J. SETllACll'S:
BUILDING S(TllACKS FOR SINc:t.E-FAMI\.Y RESIO[NTS ARE PER ZONING OROINANCE FOR ZONE R-1--0
24. 11-1[ ,l,.LIGNMENT OF HIDDEN VAUEY ROAD (FROM CHERRY
BLOSSOM ROAD TO CAMINO OE LOS ONOAS) SHOv.t,1 ON THESE PLANS IS TAKEN FROM 11-1[ CITY OF CARl.58A0 owe. J.Jl-4.
25. GRADING FOR HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD 'MU BE CONSfflUCTEO PER TM. 95-0J (SAME Ql',t,l(RSHIP)
211. Tl-1E [AS£MENTS SH0¥11-1 ARE PER PRtuMINARY TITLE REPORT AFFECTING THIS PROJECT ONLY. ITEMS 7, 1J, & 14 ARE
OFFSITE[AS[M[NTSANO'MLLBCVACATEDWITHnNAL SUBDIVISION MAP.
VICINITY MAP
OWNER/SUBDIVIDER
MSP CALIFORNIA I.LC. 850 S. CHERRY STREET ST., 435 DEN'>tlt, COLORADO 110222 (JOJ) 331-1804
-----SUBDl'v1SION BOUNDARY
-S---0--SANITARY SEWER
--.W--------WATER MAIN
=O=so= STORM DRAIN
-_'{_ y __ CUT/FILL SLOPE
~ PAO (Lt.W-.TlON
35 LOT NUMBER
_LL CROSS GUTTER
--a STREET UGHT
-~ rlRE H'l'ORANT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
AU Tl-1AT CERTAIN PARCEl OF LAH!l DELINEATED ANO OESIGNATED AS "DESCRIPTION NO, 1,103.91 ACRES" ON RECORD OF S~VEY MAP
NO. 5715, FILEO IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, OECf.:M8ER 19, 1960. 8EING A PORTION or LOT ·c· or RANCHO AGUA KEDIONOO, ACCORDING TO M,\P Tl-1EREOF NO. 82J.
f"ll.[D !N THE OF"Flct OF THE camrv RECOflD(~ or SAN D1(00 COUNTY. NOVEMBER 18, 18\M, A PORTION OF 'M-IICH l'IHICH LIES 'Mll-llN Tl-1t C1TV OF CARLS8AD, All BEING IN THE COUNT"( OF SAN DIEGO. STATE OF CALIFORNIA
EXCEPTING Tl-lER(FROM Tl-1AT PORllON LYING ~Tl-llN PARCELS "A",
"B'. ·c· AND "D" Of PARCEL NO. 299J. IN Tl-1E CIT"( Of' CARLSBAD. COUNTY or SAN DIEGO, STATE or CALIFORNIA, ffiED IN THE orncE
OF "n-lE COIJNT1' RECORDER Of S-'M DIEGO COU11lT1". AUGUST 2J, \974 AS FILE NO. 14-2JOJ28 Of ornCIAL RECORDS.
A.PN: 212-040-32, JS
A LANO SPACE ENGIN££RING Pl.ANNING -CML OONEfJllHG ~ SUOO'ING 201fAST(;lt.V()K,SU![J-f,DCOIIIIXl.~'2015 (119)7◄1•NI """""' "'"'' TEHTAJM: Ill." EMERALD RIDGE -EAST
NO""' BY ' })/ ~~ ,<l, \/ .J~ -CARI.SIW) TRACT 95-05
"" ~ ,.....,_"'
~~lt,$•ff M-'RCUS S. PA.U(O'MTSH eos.onrr5!1111,l'lt.d ~
IUIWIWI IQ'J27lt
""''~ GIit: ll•»-11 """'
-
~)>
C-f
Z-f
m)>
V1 (') -:r: .... s::
ID m
ID z en -I ....
0
~ ...... ~ E.lSCIIENT
,o'
TRAIL SECTION A-A
SCALE H. k V. 1• • 20'
TENTATIVE MAP EMERALD RIDGE -EAST
NOTE, * L.O.S.E. = LANDSCAPE OPEN SPACE EASEMENT
MAINTENANCE BY H.O.A.
PROPERTY UNE DATA
OJR',{ RADIUS LENGTH 00.TA
C1 1 44 C2 1'4" GRAPlfC SCAlf ,. • 100'
50' 100' 200' l'.Xr 400'
l'IAl'lf: lOOAJM WP
EMERAW RIDGE -EAST
,.,.,_"" tllOS.OOIIYSIIIIT,SltUi IIOMII.OJ.a:lm (JU).,,._IIICH
-
• l
N
f-w w I (/)
• w \&53.48'
og·5s•,1 --7 ~-----
~ ./'
(/)
i c ••
i I
I 1 u , .. 1~
"~t_ ____ _
TENTATIVE MAP EMERALD RIDGE
CARLSBAD TRACT CT 95-05
A.P.N. 2·!,H40-07
(SAMSI CT. 02-02)
F'UTURE POINSETTIA PARK
AF.N. 214-300-00
SEE REFER~CE ORA WING 331-4 SHE'.E'.TS 3, 4 & 5, H!ODE:N VALL£ Y ROAD, CffY OF CARLSBAD.
HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD
EAST
A.P.N. 2·14--J40-42
(MAFIIN£RS POINT)
A.P .N.' 2·J4-·J40-40
(COST A DD SOL)
-
,O' 100' 100' XlO' tOO'
Ol·OM•· twlHPSI
DRAINAGE n:!Al. [ASC'M[NT [AS[wo,IT
TRAIL SECTION A-A
SCALE H, & V. 1'' = 40'
A.P.N. 212-040-48
(KELLY)
-
_...,
ZI' 50' 100' 150'
EMERALD RIIlGE TENTATIVE MAP -TRAC-T--<3-T-9b-05 CARLSBAfL-
-
w·•·•!;> 25:!
toNl•~~()4o:.O)ll
-2•_...,~~)flv:;Oilll
loNl•---0~1.0IN:.(IJ'I)
27::E~-=:!:=::-~
Wat•COfU9fVaion:
-~..!oc.~=1=·•Ga.1
~qi.~
I, c.--.,,...i,.._,"'°""""-""""4f..-y.........-.-,•fflOl'IM>_d_Ol....,,~-G-OII.CX:O--.,OI ... ~-MwllM>-I0--•·--...-41~. 2 .... _l>Q'llr.Q-lholO.--OOI-IO~--OOI,-.. l "'-'r-.-,..,--.. ~.-.QIHOl\o~--tlCll>""-0.-IOl•---cur,glnalo.lgP"I. 4. l'lartff'Ol-.k:1-0l'IP'a>are--,1•~°"1' ~-•---l<lf..____,_,__ .. _ Q,•1<>0.-t>rb'QcQPl_., __ p.-Cly-
11. n...-po,-----~<a-1',W-Clfy~--• l"""'°'Ol,ru;:t,...tlO.<Mdr,,,,...__.,.lo-..C•--<a J, """""·-... .,....., ... i....1 .. __ _
~=.~..:;,..,ea-.~ w.---"'""' l<.-.,a~~ylOoffia
Sh\.Cll.(1/2l!SF,!ill'l,·~GOl-•!ill'l,·lGa.) ~-.~ =:-f=.~~c,-
--11>1),,Plrl<>ll>O•-~ncllC0.--
~.~.1007.-flalt) ~-NCN ~--IC.,,.,,,. Gaiai<l_.,,~-""""""""'-·NCN
-/!/JIDSF;!04•~GOl-l!ill'l,•!r-:,,J ~-:=.~~-_.,.,r-.aphla_~
ci.-:..-CQS<>Onkl-O<III ... nlo,g,II-._....,
-~.!aJI.-> C-\-.NCN -pa.joll.C,,,,O,•-C-~lq.o.~ ~-•'mlnl1~
LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN
EMERALD RIDGE EAST Owner I SubdMdef: MSP Ccllomla, U.C VICINITtt:,1~ srJLJ
// i1
Plannln = ' ADL 1 ..
Assoc1a9es = ·---
Ii
/ 810H)GIO,j SVR\lfr Al,I(} RtPORf 8) (JRW. f. U()()N(Y ASWC.-11{~. O.,,!l"O UPrlMCl[!'I l'l<lS
1R)fflC ~ll'OY BY ltl:i/00 PRING1i A.SSOCJA/l~ 1RAJHC flf(;JNURS JHC. R[PQHI, LWIO SfPf[I.IUI.H I l. lll9!i
C{O/LUIMCAL lf'MS1J0.IK)N l)Y (,[O',.();i~, INC. 0,lffD SlPl(I.IJJLR 6, 199f WIIH Uf'fJ,O,r( JI.It r' 16 J9~~
PflHll.l\l-lARVPlSIICtO(RtS<t>l!f SVil'JLVlll' C,f0::-.0.$, INC. i:,,.no .UJI y 1~. ,~,,,
N06,I rccnmCA/. fl{f'()Hf 8t 1-'A.clflC N()6l CON/1/0t.. DUW
5JPJIMBlR 26. 1995
/WUIM,w.HY /Jilt /,/tf-'(JIIT ilY IJIISI IWfRK,NJ IH!( l.lAll()
'.,[f'I/WIJ{k 10. 19~~-OI/IJ{f/ /.IO I I /{r.,l]-12
(tNPUrJ
i l.odwl1 Desl9n Group. Inc. I IA~· • 100 f\
./
i
JE H JE Iffi. .& 1L ID
Iffi. JI ID@ JE
JE.&~T
C[)Q)f::f§'lI'lRU!·dTN'lI'§ ™1AJF'
CT %-05
( r) MA.J(JH 1//[}Gf IINfS -N/A,
( I) IJ/S/#11 1-f[lr:. -SIHJ,m
{J) w1rnw.. ww:, _ ,./,1
( f) Rlf'Af<W. /)ti IKIOOIJWOS -Stl()Wr,/
( 5) <NltHMHr!NI f!RMW.,t CUU/?5f -$11(.IWN
( 6/ 2~ iO't Si(W'l~ SHOWN
(l)SWf'hfLJ-fANOAf!c();I[-',IIOWN
( IJ) .w..,u<t HOO ()(JIU,'(11-'f'!J,j[S -N/A ( 9/ f,\",[1/[N/~ ':,JIOWN
(IO) (L()(){)p[_/,Jf,~ -N/A
(It) M'CIIA(OJ.(){;/C."1. SI/IS -~l{,"W>/
{ll) 'J'tU'-l l'IANNINC AA'{A~ -N/A
{U) OK)LOl:it.AI. tWJIIAlS ~ Stll)'#t>
{If) 1Jt,1CllfS -N/A
{15) PfRw.Nf_NI IJOOllS Of WA/tH N/A
(r6) '"1.ILWVS -~IIOWN
-
{17} UWO ~!!UICI lo) w.<JUR f'OW111 JRA,NSU/551<.JN {A'.A.UtNI~ N/A { JllJ RAJ! HlW) J/W'~ 6(0<; -N/A
U'J' CA/.~OOMA I IC C/0 4L'.H!:VS s r,,u/)Wi/'.,H
6'-0 C,q1111r Slllitr WII[ •n O[NH/1. W fJO}lJ
(J()J} l9~-9NH
AGrNT ~:01( APPL ICANr
1/(J/.ltlllCl...WWI<;
IA(>"'IG Df.',JCN Gf«!UI'. II;(: ~~:rt~.WI M:l't,!l! Rl...v
(ARl.~li-1,iJ 0,1.1f0/?Nl'-9lOIJll (619}•Jff-JltJJ
A POOJ~,oi 01 UW (!11!.Yi P"11C!l lJf L'J,,!) DCl<Nf,.110 /WlJ
DLSK,N,\/[/) A~ -Df':,(R/l'IKW NO r.!OJ~I N.:Hl> ON 1/f(ORO or SURV[Y 1W' N() ~717. IUD IN fl!{ oo,u or I/If 1-0UNlr
RfCOROU/ OI WI MW COl!Nn. DlCiUIJl./i 19. 19t,O. IJIING ,I
P(1IWONOI /Ol 0C"OI /W-K"H0,1(.(1'-/IIDKINC\4,liCCOIW/l'/G!OMAP 111rnw1 NO trlJ fQW/N lf,f/Jlf/Ct OI 1/j[(/Jl..m/YRffOH(){ROI
WI l>llGO (OUNl'r MMUIJIR J6. ,.,~(,-,1 f'ORl!()N /JI !Ol-Jl("/j on lfl111/N 1/lfCJl'rfXCARl<;w,o -',LL fJi0l'/GW THI (OUNIY(XSAII
Ol£GO. SIA!( Of" 0.U-Oll!M
Hctrrwc /l,t/111/WI.I II«/ f>Olllf()N tr.WC ll'J!Hrt/ f'AHCf!S -.,:. ·rr. ·c-ANO ·o-or PARCH 1W' oo 19111.,,., 111t arr or
CARIS&.0. COUNIY OI ~ Dll.GO. SIAI[ Of v.L/fOWIIA. Ill.LO IN -~'!}{/ICf or /Ill COUNIY RtllJffl)l.R OF SAN OU.GO O)tJNlr.
lJ 1974,tSf/itNO 7•-lJO!JbOIOIIICIAI.R[(Ol,'/JS
A POHi/OH OF PARCH IJ OI PARCfl WJ' NO l'J'JJ IN IHl 0/Y 0,
CARISU..O. COt!NrY Of~ OCGO. sun ()I CN.IFOliHIA. IUD IN
TII[ IJHIC[ or TIO[ Wl!Nff RfC(Jt,'l)l/1 OI SAN OtfW COl_#,/l'r. MJCu~r 1J. ,~,. AS flU NO 7•-JJOJl6 OF Off/CW HlCOROS
r~,
A.P.N. 212~040r48 '·\
(KELLY) '
THI PURPOS1! Of TtUS SfTI Dn'llOPMBT IMUALD lll>GI IIAST TO SATISPY TH• nouaa,mff AS O!FINl!D lN IIUIOCIPA&.
ANO ORDINANCI NS-:J:85 ISICONO DWBL
,,.oc.50!1; Ill TO IIOlnll HCHATIONAL
PROVIPI! Fm N01Se ATTBIUATION; IOI TO ll!QUI
PLAN, 9R AND LFMP FOA ZONI 20.
• SB! An ACHED Al:CHITKTURAl PROTOTYPE UNITS.
/' \
SHOWtl TO DBIOMSTRATI: TKA.T SKOMI) DWEU.nte
BUT DOES NOT Rl:STIICT THI BWLDER FROM UODIF
• THI! SUILDP Will HAVI! ntl! OPTION TO Bl.NLD SK
01ltBt Lon WfTHlN HIDDBll \l'AU.h' l!SJAns !AST OR HOUSHIG RIQUIHMBfT AS AU.OWeP IY an COD■ .
•. ~.IHttl.leMKJNO • 29'K Of 1'HI LOTS II TICtS SUSDMSIOIII SHAU .. DISH.Na) TO ACCOlalOOATI A HCHATIONAL Vl!HICLI' PAl:klNG SPACI IN A HOUlfll!O SID■ YARD. nus 5'01!
YARD SHAU HAVI A UINIIIUII Lnl!L AHA OP ,00 SOUAl:I. Rn WITH A IIINIIIUM WIOTM OF 10 FHT.
• SIOlYNtOSIMVBl AOSUSTIDTO ACCOUMOl)AUR., PMIIONe AS AU.OW!D8'1
COOi S!CTION 21.10.040. .......
• NOt51 LEVELS ARI! TO III MmGAHD AS SPKIRED IN EUr 90-03 AND THI!
ATTACHED STUDY BY PACIAC NCNSI CONTROl.
o. 2KI.Bc.AM..lSe.Jg})..fQl,ZQU..20~.Lfll2_.8clQA
• DtYB.OPIIENT 01" !MEl:AU> IIDCI! l!AST SHAU CONFOIM SUBSTANTIAU Y WITH
SP 205, IBR 90-09 AND LFIIP 17•20A OI ANY APnOVl!D AMSCOIQ!NTS.
fHtS Tm'TATIVI MAP WAS PlfrPAftD IY LAND SPAa &IGlN<lNC, THIS NOn AND
OTHBS lD!NTIRl!D WrTH A .11. HAYI REN ADDl!D IIY LADWIG DQIGN C.OUP, INC.
Tl~NTAT/VE MAP
CARLSBAD
70~l'alomalft\TportPtood
Sulte300
(a,tsbod. CA 92009 (619) 436-3182 FAX (619) 43&-0173
LOG JOB ll-1017" 01/25/90" 'JJ1&/'lf.-4/oS/1•
,oo·
LANO SPACE [NC/NffRINC
PI.At,Nrl/C CMttNCIN[[RING-!.IJRV[YINC
]IJIUSfGRNILl~'1: SUr/f2•f !'iCONt:MOOCA9102)
/619)'11-?6d9
i--==,,.c=---~•~t . .B£~---· MOf· lfNl41JVf MAP
EMEIUW Iil/JGE -EAST
>----C~Afl~.LS_SAl.2_ JR.\Cf 9:J-05
r,r5PC,.!l(ljll,M(tC 6~S Cl(ll!!TSl.Q(II.Slt IJ!I
txMfR. CO lllllll fJO.i)m-~!l(M
r------r----------+ I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
tj
I
L1 W o<'~•
L-----l=l :
I
••• Secoad sto,v Floor flloa
0 8" Front Elevation
L------------l
••· flnl sto,v Aoor PIM
l"RIMAlY D'wELLING UNrT • t.e00 5P,
Gl\1./0E.•48&5F,
5£COND D'IYELLIMG UNIT • 640 SF.
GAY-GE • ~I~ &F,
•A" Front Elevotlon
~
L
•a• Second ltllf\l Roor Pion
r-------------,
□
D
f,.rf.;)rl~ ~" u:d
WIN((f.M,
!s-6 II
,t-;'.,e,'
"R" Flnt Sto,v Aoor PIM
nrMAltY cr.YELLIMG UNIT• 2.1!52 SF,
GAll:AGE •486SF.
5ECONDDWELLIMGUNIT • 6405F.
GAV..OE • Z&? &f,
J 0 ' • ~wo
z~ • ~ . ~r ~J ;ii ~~ "~ ~
: =1= •--.. . ~
HH ... . ""'= jP: ·f~ _,; = llii
Oollt 'f,,;,,1t-
·••l/eflo11.,•
.. -
-
-
,-------_;-------7
I
I I
I
I
I I I
I
I
I
1
I I I I
I
I
I
I I
I I
r-1 : ~± j __ ~---~ i
t1 r---J
I I
I I ➔
r-., I
J...------11 ..
"""""~ •-~• I
---7 I
/ I
>-7
I ~~'1 :
I
I
I _.J
,---------------, I I
I , ..
I I
I ~-
r I
I
I
I-
,,.,.
I
I I I
I
I I I
_r---t_ _ __r,:J
I ""!,_ I _____ _]
, __ I
• ,_l__ --=-=,
NOTE, OCHEltlC ElCAMP'LE i,tT'E l't.AH, ~e-
i,nn:,t,1..0,,tiEET'10f 1PfTA'Ol'l MN".
'tET/Jt-rlMG WAI.LS 111:NTA~ M..V SHALL Of: STAND.UP
5LUMl'9TONE OI: COHO:Ell: m.OCJ.. WITI-1 5n.rcco FINISH. COlo«&~ETOMATCHMCHnl:CTU'tE,1,SHALL~
5UOMITTED / J::EVIEW llY CITY AT TIME Of' mllLDING rt.AN .. .,.,._
,._ ·1· ~-
&u1'dl"fCovcr.-g,,•1.&?.0~~ltlclu.i111fpr~
l'rlnulrydwe!AllfUlllt•2.t52fl.
2 Car G•r• • 466 ,,t.
Second e>w.,llll'lf Unit • 640 ef.
1carG•l"Af(I •2fi1-'· .... ···-DI.JIWtneC-,-.,•UJ78ef .. lllCWJneear.,e rrtm.ry 4'M,lllnt Unit• 1,&00 .t.
2Wl"G~•'4615.,.
s«-.ond Dwofflnt Ul'lt • &40.t.
I ur Gar11,e • 515 et.
D"" 1,U/•'1&
..... )'ei.l•t~p•
;.\?.