The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCT 00-09; Charles Jacobs Property; Tentative Map (CT)CITY OF CARLSBAD LAND USE REVIEW APPLICATION 1) APPLICATIONS APPLIED FOR: (CHECK BOXES) (FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY) (FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY) • Administrative Permit - 2nd Dwelling Unit • Planned Industrial Permit • Administrative Variance • Planning Commission Determination • Coastal Development Permit • Precise Development Plan • Conditional Use Permit • Redevelopment Permit • Condominium Permit • Site Development Plan Environmental Impact Assessment • Special Use Permit • General Plan Amendment • Specific Plan • Hillside Development Permit • Tentative Parcel Mop Obtain from Engineering Department • Local Coastal Plan Amendment Tentative Tract Map • Master Plan • Variance • Non-Residential Planned Development • Zone Change • Planned Development Permit • List other applications not specified 2) ASSESSOR PARCEL NO(S).: 167-053-18 3) PROJECT NAME: _ 4) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: CHART.KS JArOR.'^ PROPFRTY SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL 5) OWNER NAME (Print or Type) CHARLES JACOBS 6) APPLICANT NAME (Print or Type) O'DAY CONSULTANTS MAILING ADDRESS 7725 HALEY DRIVE MAILING ADDRESS 5900 PASTEUR COURT SUITE 100 CITY AND STATE ZIP TELEPHONE GRANITE BAY. CA 95746 (916) 791-4610 CITY AND STATE ZIP TELEPHONE CARLSBAD. CA 92008 (760) 931-7700 1 CERTIFY THAT 1 AM THE LEGAL OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNoyoE. . jp^ -y; 1 CERTIFY THAT 1 AM THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CCjRljfEp'pro THE BBSir OF MY KNOWLEDGE. SIGNATURE /f DATE SIGNATURE' / DATE 7) BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION PORTION OF LOT 25. SEACREST ESTATES UNIT 1 NOTE: A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRING MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS BE FILED, MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 3:30 P.M. A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRING ONLY ONE APPLICATION BE FILED, MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 4:00 P.M. OevCOO^^ Form 16 PAGE 1 OF 2 8) LOCATION OF PROJECT ON THE 3465 RIDGECREST DRIVE SOUTH STREET ADDRESS SIDE OF (NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, WEST) BETWEEN CAMDEN AND (NAME OF STREET) 9) LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 10) PROPOSED NUMBER OF LOTS 13) TYPE OF SUBDIVISION 16) PERCENTAGE OF PROPOSED PROJECT IN OPEN SPACE 19) GROSS SITE ACREAGE 22) EXISTING ZONING RES 0 1.38 AC RA 11) NUMBER OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL UNITS 14) PROPOSED IND OFFICE/ SQUARE FOOTAGE 17) PROPOSED INCREASE IN ADT 20) EXISTING GENERAL PLAN 23) PROPOSED ZONING 10,000 45 RLM RA RIDGECREST (NAME OF STREET) SEACREST (NAME OF STREET) 12) PROPOSED NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS 15) PROPOSED COMM SQUARE FOOTAGE 18) PROPOSED SEWER USAGE IN EDU 21) PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION 10,000 RLM 24) IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING THIS APPLICATION IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR MEMBERS OF CITY STAFF, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEMEBERS OR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO INSPECT AND ENTER THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION. I/WE CONSENT TO ENT^ FOR 70IS PURBGSiE SIGNATURE FOR CITY USE ONLY FEE COMPUTATION APPLICATION TYPE TOTAL FEE REQUIRED FEE REQUIRED RECEIVED AP^;; 2 2000 DATE CEIVED RECEIVED BY: DATE FEE PAID RECEIPT NO. Form 16 PAGE 2 OF 2 City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 9200S Applicant: O'DAY CONSULTANTS Description CT000009 7\mount 91.74 Receipt Number: R0016141 Transaction Date: 10/31/2000 2967 10/31/00 0002 01 02 CGP Pay Type Method Payment Check Description Amount 31082 91.74 Transaction Amount: 91.74 '^4 City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 92008 Receipt Applicant: O'DAY CONSULTANTS Description Amount CT000009 91.74 2967 10/31/00 •3002 01 02 CGP 91 Not valid unless validated by Cash Register PLEASE RETAIN RECEIPT FOR REFUNDS OR ADJUSTMENTS Receipt Number: R0016141 Transaction Date: 10/31/2000 Pay Type Method Description Amount Payment Check 31082 91.74 Transaction Amount: 91.74 City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 9200S Receipt Applicant: O'DAY CONSULTANTS Description . nount CT000009 4,900.00 Not valid unvalidated i.-y Catjh P-jiH^-ir^^^^VOO ^^1 01 ^2 PLEASE RETAIN RECEIPT FOR REFUNDS OR ADJUSTMENTS ^ t^W'W Receipt Number: R0011730 Transaction Date: 04/24/00 Pay Type Method Description Amount Payment Check 2217 4,900.00 Transaction Amount: 4,900.00 CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 Las Palmas Dr., Carlsbad, CA 92009 (760) 438-1161 PROJECT DESCRIPTION (revised 4-17-2000): CHARLES JACOBS PROPERTY Background The Charles Jacobs property is located at 3465 Ridgecrest Drive. Its legal description is a portion of lot 25 of Seacrest Estates, Unit No. 1, Map No. 3906, recorded on June 10, 1958. A portion of the original lot was deeded to lot 24 in 1980. The remainder 1.38 acre property is surrounded by single-family homes to the east and west, and fronts Ridgecrest Drive to the north and Seacrest Drive to the southwest. The site has stuiming ocean and inland views. The existing residence has been owned and occupied by long- time resident Hilma Hill. She is the mother of Charles Jacobs and a year ago decided to move to an assisted living program, demolish the exiting house and subdivide the property. To better facilitate the project she enlisted the aid if her son to manage the subdivision process and placed the property in his name. Since then Mrs. Hill passed away at her home before she could move into a new facility. The zoning for this site is R-1-10,000 with a General Plan designation of RLM. The allowable density for this property is 3.2 dwelling units per acre. The site is located in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 1 of the Grrowth Management Program. Proposed Project This project proposes to create five lots that are compatible to the surrounding residences. The plan shows two lots fronting Ridgecrest Drive, two fronting Seacrest Drive, and one flag lot fronting Ridgecrest Drive . During the design of this layout careful attention was given to maximize the usable pad while maintaining as much of the inland and ocean views as possible. Lot sizes range from 10,100 SF to 15,400 SF. The plan cuts 4,800 cubic yards of dirt, exports 4,400 cubic yards and results in 3,478 cubic yards graded per graded acre. Constraints The entire site has been previously graded and developed as a single-family residence. The work was done in the late 1950's. It is expected that there will be few or no constraints to development, however, no formal studies have been conducted. Density The calculated density for this project is 3.6 units per acre which is slightly greater than the 3.2 units per acre listed as the growth control point. Justification for exceeding the growth control point is included in a letter to the City dated December 10,1999. Conclusion The proposed lot sizes are similar or greater than the surrounding lots. The existing zoning and general plan designations will remain in place. Adjustments have been made to the design to reduce impacts and better comply with City requirements. This project has also been through two Preliminary Reviews to gain staff input. These factors result in a project that is compatible with the neighborhood. G:\jobs\991021\DesCTip3.doc APR.19.2000 1:46PM CflRLSBRD UNIF DIST arlsbad Unlll^d 3c;.ho.,oS Oia'tnci 801 Pine Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008 ^^"tlf 729-9291 • FAX (760) 729-9685 . NO.284 P. 2/2 ,a world class district April 19,20Q0 State of Califonua Department of Real Estate 107 South Broadway, Room 7111 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Re: ProjectName: Developer: Address: APN: Uiaits: Seaaest Estates Charles Jacobs 3465 Ridgecrest Drive 167-053-18 Slots Carlsbad Unified School District has reviewed the above project and its impact on school attendance areas in this District At Ms time, the schools of attendance for this project are: Magnolia Elementaiy School (K-6) 1905 Magnolia Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 602-6120 VaUey Junior High School (7-8) 1645 Magnolia Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 602-6020 Carlsbad High School (9-12) 3557 Monroe Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 434-1726 The Goveming Board wishes to advise the Department of Real Estate and residents of Carlsbad Uiit at present the Carlsbad Unified School District elementary schools are operatmg at fiill capacity. It ia possible, therefore, that the students generated from this project may not attend the closest neighborhood school due to overcrowded oonditions and, in fact may attend school across town. You should also be aware that there are no school buses for regular student transportation from home to school. The Goveming Board wishes to also infonn you &at conditions imposed upon aew development within the City ofCarlsbad requires mitigation of school impacts. Sincerely, Gaylen Freeman Assistant Si^erintendeni, Business Services cc; John P. Shrohminger, 0*Day Consultants STATEMENT OF AGREEMENT TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP CITY OF CARLSBAD The Subdivision Map Act and the Carisbad Municipal Code sets a fifty (50) day time restriction on Planning Commission processing of Tentative Maps and a thirty (30) day time limit for Cit>' Council action. These time limits can only be extended by the mutual concurrence of the applicant and the City. By accepting applications for Tentative Maps concurrently with applications for other approvals which are prerequisites to the map; i.e.. Environmental Assessment, Environmental Impact Report, Condominium Plan, Plaimed Unit Development, etc.. the fifty (50) day time limits and the thirty (30) day time limits are often exceeded. If you wish to have your application processed concurrently, this agreement must be signed by the applicant or his agent. If you choose not to sign the statement, the City will not accept your appiication for the Tentative Map until all prior necessary entitlements have been processed and approved. The imdersigned understands that the processing time required by the City may exceed the time limits, therefore the undersigned agrees to extend the time limits for Planning Commission and City Coimcil action and fully concurs with any extensions of time up to one year from the date the applicalion was accepted as complele to properly review all of the applications. Signature /7 Date Name (Print) Relationship to Application (Property Owner-Agent) FRM003T 2/96 C D Transmittal Letter To: City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Attention: Engineering Department Dafe: 04/24/00 Job Wo; 99-1021 Project: Charles Jacobs Property Re: Submittal Package for Tentative Map TM: DWG: Transmitted Phone No: Email: Delivery (760) 602-2720 Fax No: Ext: (760) 602-8558 Enclosed, please find the following: Tentative Map submittal package: Ten Copies - Tentative Map One Copy - Constraints Map One Copy - Location Map One Copy - Land Use Review Application One Copy - Environmental Impact Assessment Form One Copy - Disclosure Statement Three Copies - Preliminary Title Report One Copy - Statement of Agreement One Copy - Drainage Study One Copy - Fee & Notice of Time Limits on Discretionary Applications One Copy - Project Description One Copy - School District Letter Remarks: 1^' Submittal of Tentative Map. The photo simulation wiii follow in the next day or two. CC; Charles Jacobs By: John P. Strohminger Project Manager G:\jobs\jps.com\991021\t000421a.doc Civil Engineering Planning 5900 Pasteur Court Suite 100 Carlsbad, California 92008-7317 Processing (760)931-7700 Surveying Fax: (760)931-8680 E-mail: oday@odayconsultants.com City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad CA 9200! Applicant: JACOBS CHARLES&CAROL REVOCABLE FAMILY TRUST 03-1 Description PRE99083 Amount 420.00 7063 12/'lQ/99 OQQl 01 02 C-PRMT 420-00 Receipt Number: R0008615 Transaction Date: 12/10/1999 Pay Type Method Description Amount Payment Check 2170 420.00 Transaction Amount: 420.00 City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad CA 9200! Applicant: CHARLES JACOBS 3362 08/26/99 ODOl 01 02 C-PRMT 420.00 Description PRE99061 Amount 420.00 Receipt Number: R0005985 Transaction Date: 08/26/1999 Pay Type Method Description Amount Payment Check 2132 420.00 Transaction Amount: 420.00 PLEASE NOTE: Time limits on the processing of discretionary projects established by state law do not start until a project application is deemed complete by the City. The City has 30 calendar days from the date of application submittal to determine whether an application is complete or incomplete. Within 30 days of submittal of this application you will receive a letter stating whether this application is complete or incomplete. If it is incomplete, the letter will state what is needed to make this application complete. When the application is complete, the processing period will start upon the datey0f.^e compl^ion letter. Applicant Signature: iMVan^ Staff Signature: Date: To be stapled with receipt to application Copy for file . FILECOPY Citv of Carlsba<d Planning Department NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 15, 2000, to consider a demolition of an existing single-family residence and subdivision of an existing 1.38 acre property into 5 lots generally located between Ridgecrest Drive and Seacrest Drive in Local Facilities Impact Zone 1 and more particularly described as: Lot 25 of Seacrest Estates Unit No. 1, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 3906, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, June 10, 1958. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after November 9, 2000. If you have any questions, please call Christer Westman in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4614. The time within which you may judicially challenge this Tentative Tract Map, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge the Tentative Tract Map in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: CT 00-09 CASE NAME: CHARLES JACOBS PROPERTY PUBLISH: NOVEMBER 2. 2000 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us ® *f r r- n "1 ns SITE CHARLES JACOBS PROPERTY CT 00-09 KEVIN & ANNA KELSO 3350 RIDGECREST DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2027 CAM CAMPBELL 3 3 60 RIDGECREST DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2029 LOIS A SHANAHAN 33 66 RIDGECREST DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2029 BROWNE 3424 RIDGECREST DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2030 VANDERBURG TR PO BOX 745 CARLSBAD CA 92018-0745 STILLWELL 3444 RIDGECREST DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2030 WILLIAM C SCHNEIDER 3448 CAMDEN CIR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2006 DONALD E WATTERSON 3450 CAMDEN CIR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2006 JAMES J DAGOSTINO 3456 CAMDEN CIR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2006 RICHARD A SHAFFER 3460 RIDGECREST DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2032 NICHOLAS C BANCHE 34 64 RIDGECREST DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2032 GLENN BRINEGAR 3484 RIDGECREST DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2032 THOMAS J Sc LYNN CONROY 3334 SEACREST DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2035 WALTER J Sc ETTA PARISI 3344 SEACREST DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2035 CHARLES H MITCHELL 3354 SEACREST DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2035 RONALD J KAYE 33 64 SEACREST DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2035 ROBERT P Sc MARY ED IE 34 00 SEACREST DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2037 HENRY Sc BELVA LABORD 3424 SEACREST DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2037 IRWIN & CYNTHIA OKUMURA 3434 SEACREST DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2037 LINDA S TOBIAS 34 85 RIDGECREST DR CARLSBAD CA 92 008-2 031 BRUCE G EDWARDS 344 5 RIDGECREST DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2031 COWAN A B 3425 RIDGECREST DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2031 GEORGE 33 75 RIDGECREST DR CARLSBAD CA 92 008-2 02 8 WESTMORELAND 33 65 RIDGECREST DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2028 JAMES W & AIL BEALL 3 3 55 RIDGECREST DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2028 BONDS NANCY P 3345 RIDGECREST DR CARLSBAD CA 92 0 08-2 02 8 HILMA M HILL 3445 RIDGECREST DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2031 SURVIVORS T HIRSCHBERG 3 3 55 SEACREST DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2036 STANLEY D HENDRICKSON 3 3 65 SEACREST DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2036 BARRY P COOPER PO BOX 2566 CARLSBAD CA 92 01! PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2010 & 2011 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Dlego I ann a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerl< of the printer of North County Times This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp .-rA Carisbad ,^1 formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been adjudged newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, for the cities of Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad, Solana Beach and San Diego County; that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: November 2, 2000 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. San Marcos ., California .day Proof of Publication of Notice of Public Hearing • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ^^^^^^ NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you^be^^ ^ ^ity be?s 200 Carlsbad V'llagp ^J^r 15 2000. ^ consider a MO P m on Wednesday, fcvembe^J^ g^bdi-demo°ition of a" e><isf„9aTere property into 5 lots generally KlcPorr^o?k^n%fSunty^ J-„e ^,0^^^^^ cor^ Those persons wishing to speak on inib^^^ df^iy in^vitedto attend Re public heannp^^^^P^^^ g „ report will be avaiiabte or^ and ane ^^^^^^ j you have any questions Please |aii^^ ^ KlDe^partmenTa.(7«^^^^ The time within you "^ay ludicialV cnaiien^ Tract Map, if aPPf°;'%d3'%''hort H you challenge the^T^^^^ citv ordinance, and is very snuiu . y |. ,o raising only ir- CHARLES JACOBS PROPERTY CT 00-09 Legal 68529. November 2, 2000 NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2010 & 2011 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of North County Times (L This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp Cartsbai formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been adjudged newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, for the cities of Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad, Solana Beach and San Diego County; that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: October 9, 2000 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. San Marcos Dated at , California 9th Proof of Publication of Negative Declaration ...l t )) 0! qu CASE NO: CT 00-09 ' Planning Director Legal 68319. October 9,2000 r I, . ,1- -ll nwot c S.",i8" , *.. no sto'- + omiX)P:. r.a.-.'SiP*' 11 .-ihO NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT) CASE NO: DATE RECEIVED: BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Charles Jacobs Property (To he complele by staff) 2. APPLICANT: O'Dav Consultants ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: sQnn v^t^t^ur r.nurt SnifP. inn. Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 931-7700 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: S Lot Subdivision on a 1.38 acre parcel. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: Please check any of the environmentai factors listed below that would be potentially affected by this project. This would be any environmental factor that has at least one impact checked "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" in the checklist on the following pages. I I Land Use and Planning [j^ Transportation/Circulation Public Services I I Population and Housing |^ Biological Resources Q Utilities & Service Systems I I Geological Problems Q Energy & Mineral Resources Q Aesthetics [ I Water Hazards Q Cultural Resources x] Air Quality Noise Q Recreation I I Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03/28/96 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 Envirorunental 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 Impacf 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 EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. • A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. Rev. 03/28/96 • 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 thain 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 Impacf 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. Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred id artd attached) LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): ( ) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? ( ) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? ( ) Potentially Significant Impact • • • • • Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incoiporated • • • • • Less Than Significan t Impact • • • • No Impact X X • H II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ( ) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) e) 0 g) h) i) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) Subsidence of the land? ( ) Expansive soils? ( ) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) • • a • • • • I] • • • X • • • a • • • n • • X • • • • • • • • X c • • • X • • • X • • • X IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattems, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) • • • • • • Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ( ) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body?( ) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) f) Changes 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? ( ) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) Potentially Potentially Significant Impact Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significan t Impact No Impact • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • B • • • Q AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an b) c) d) existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperatui any change in climate? ( ) Create objectionable odors? ( X • • • • • • X or cause • • X > • • • X VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? ( ) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) 0 Conflicts with adopted policies supporting altemative transportation (e.g. bus tumouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts? ( ) • • • • • • a • • • • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X X Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents mc^ be referredTtct t^nd attached) 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? ( ) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? ( ) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( ) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vemal pool)? ( ) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wastefiil and inefficient manner? ( ) 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? ( ) 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)? ( ) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? ( ) d) Exposure of people to existing soufces of potential health hazards? ( ) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable bmsh, grass, or trees? ( ) Potentially Potentially Significant Impact Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significan t Impact No Impact • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • 3 • • • • • • H • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govemment services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) b) Police protection? ( ) c) Schools? ( ) • • • • • • • • • X • • • III • • • • a Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) e) Other govemmental services? ( ) Potentially Significant Impact • • Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated • • Less Than Significan t Impact • • No Impact X 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? ( ) • • • b) Communications systems? ( ) • • • m c) Local or regional water treatment facilities? ( ) or distribution • • • X d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) • • • X e) Storm water drainage? ( ) • • • IxJ f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) • • • a g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) • • • XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? ( ) b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? ( ) c) Create light or glare? ( ) • a a a • a a X • a a a XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paieontological resources? ( ) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) c) Affect historical resources? ( ) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) a a a a a X a a a bd a a a a a a a a a a XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) a a a a a a X X Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) XVI. MANDATORY FrNDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaming 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 Califomia 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 coimection with the efifects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable ftiture projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact a a a Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated a a a Less Than No Significan Impact t Impact a B a a XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: 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. Rev. 03/28/96 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Please use this area to discuss any of the environmental factors that were checked "No impact" yet lack any information citations and any factors that were checked "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." The City has adopted a "Statement of Overriding Consideration" with regard to air quality and circulation impacts resulting from the normal buildout according to the General Plan. The following sample text is intended to guide your discussion of the impacts to these environmental factors. AIR OUALITY: 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 resuh 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 altemative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of 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. CIRCULATION: 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 9 Rev. 03/28/96 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 altemative 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 Resolufion No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) 10 Rev. 03/28/96 EIA PART I FOR THE CHARLES JACOBS PROPOERTY I. LAND USE PLANNING a) No Impact: The project will be in compliance with the General Plan designation and Zoning. The Zoning for the site is RA-10,000, with a General Plan designation of RLM. The proposed project is a single-family subdivision consisting of 5 lots. b) No Impact: The proposed plan will comply with the applicable environmental plans or and poUcies adopted by the agencies with jurisdiction over the project. c) No Impact: The site is surroimded by residential development and is proposing residential development. d) No Impact: The proposed plan will not affect agricultural resources or operations. e) No Impact: The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community. II. POPULATION AND HOUSING a) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project will not cumulatively exceed official or regional or local population projections. The proposed number of lots is only slightly over the Growth Management Control Pomt, 3.6 units/acre versus 3.2 units/acre. However, the proposed lots meet or exceed the zoning minimum of 10,000 SF and are comparable in size to the surrounding lots. b) No Impact: The proposed project will not induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly. c) No Impact: The project will not displace any existing housmg, with the exception of the one vacant house now existing on the site. III. GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS a) No Impact: The site is not located near active fault lines. b) No Impact: The site is not located near active fault lines, therefore, this project should not expose people to seismic ground shaking. c) No Impact: The project will not expose people to seismic ground failure, including liquefaction. d) No Impact: The site is not located in an area of seiche, tstmami, or volcanic activity. e) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project will not result in exposing people to landslides or mudslides. f) Less Than Significant Impact: The minimal amount of erosion which may take place will be adequately handled by the Erosion Confrol Plan during construction. The proposed project will not expose people to unstable soil conditions due to grading. g) No Impact: The site is not located in an area known for subsidence of the land. h) No Impact: The minor subdivision will not expose people to expansive soils. i) No Impact: No imique geological or physical features are known to existing on the site. IV. WATER a) No Impact: The changes in absorption rate, drainage pattems, and the rate and amount of surface runoff are not significant enough to quantify a change at the project site or surrounding areas. b) No Impact: The project will not expose people or property to water related hazards such as flooding. c) No Impact: The discharge into surface waters will not be altered and surface water quality will not be affected by the development of this subdivision. d) No Impact: The proposed project will not cause a change in the amount of surface water in any water body. e) No Impact: The proposed project will not cause a change in currents, or the course or direction of water movement. f) No Impact: The proposed project will not cause a change in the quantity of ground water, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability. g) No Impact: The proposed project will not alter the direct or rate of flow of the groundwater. h) No Impact: The proposed project will not knpact the groimdwater quality. i) No Impact: The proposed project will not reduce the amount of groundwater available for public water supplies since the project will not use ground water nor impact a significant area otherwise available for ground water percolation. V. AIR QUALITY a) Potentially Significant Impact: Although the project will confribute to cumulative air quality impacts, as vutually any development within the San Diego Air Basin will, a statement of overriding consideration was adopted in the City of Carlsbad's Final Master EIR for this cumulative impact. (1) b) No Impact: The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. c) No Impact: The project will not alter air movement, moisture, or temperatiu-e, or cause any change in climate. d) No Impact: The project will not create objectionable odors. VI. TRANSPORTATION CIRCULATION a) Less Than Significant Impact: This project only consists of the addition of 4 residential units (1 existmg unit, proposed 5 residential units). This small number of units will not produce significant vehicle frips or create fraffic congestion. b) No Impact: The project will not create hazards to safety due to design features or incompatible uses. c) No Impact: The project will not create inadequate emergency access or access to incompatible uses. d) No Impact: The project will not create an insufficient parking capacity on or off site. Parking requirements for the site will comply with the R-l and Parking standards of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. e) No Impact: The project will not create hazards or barriers for pedesfrians or bicyclists. f) No Impact: The project will not conflict with adopted policies supporting altemative fransportation. g) No Impact: The project will have no rail, waterbome or air fraffic impacts. VII. BIOLOGICAL RECOURCES a) No Impact: The project will not impact endangered, threatened or rare species or thefr habitat. b) No Impact: This site does not contain locally designated species. c) No Impact: The project will not impact locally designated natural communities. d) No Impact: The project is not located on wetland habitat, so it will not impact wetland habitat. e) No Impact: The project will not impact wildlife dispersal or mitigation corridors. This site is entirely surrounded by single family houses. VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RECOURCES a) No Impact: The project will conform with the adopted energy conservation plans. b) No Impact: The project will not use non-renewable resources in a wasteful or mefficient manner. c) No Impact: The project will not result in the loss of the availability of a known mineral resource that would be of fiiture value to the region. IX. HAZARDS a) No Impact: The project has no risks of accidental explosions or the release of hazardous substances since there will not be any storage of hazardous materials. b) No Impact: The project will not interfere with an emergency response or evacuation plan. c) No Impact: The project will not create health hazards or potential health hazards. d) No Impact: The project wili not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards. e) No Impact: The project will not increase the possibility of a fire hazard. X. NOISE a) No Impact: The project will not increase existing noise levels. b) No Impact: The project will not expose people to severe noise levels. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Less Than Significant Impact: The project will not effect fire protection. The project is only proposing 5 lots. b) Less Than Significant Impact: The project will not effect police protection. c) No Impact: The project will not effect schools. d) No Impact: The project will not effect the maintenance of public facilities. e) No Impact: The project will not effect other govemmental services. XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS a) No Impact: The project will be serviced from an existing power supply, so it will not impact power or natural gas supplies or create a need for a new system. b) No Impact: The project will not create a new demand for communications systems. c) No Impact: The proposed project is in conformance with the City's General Plan EIR for the site and no impacts are anticipated. d) No Impact: The proposed project is in conformance with the City's General Plan EIR for the site and no impacts to the City's sewer or septic tanks are anticipated. e) No Impact: The proposed project is in conformance with the City's General Plan EIR for the site and no impacts to the City's storm drainage systems are anticipated. f) No Impact: The proposed project is m conformance with the City's General Plan EIR for the site and no impacts to the City's solid waste disposal system are anticipated. g) No Impact: The proposed project is in conformance with the City's General Plan EIR for the site and no impacts to the City's local or regional water supplies are anticipated. XIIL AESTHETICS a) No Impact: The project will not affect a scenic highway or vista. b) No Impact: The project will not have a negative aesthetic effect. c) No Impact: The project will not create light or glare. XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES a) No Impact: The project will not disturb paieontological resources. b) No Impact: The project will not disturb archaeological resources. c) No Impact: The project will affect historical resources. 0^ d) No Impact: The project will not affect any unique ethnic cultural values. e) No Impact: The project will not restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. XV. RECREATIONAL a) No Impact: The project will not increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. b) No Impact: The project will not effect existing recreational opportunities. XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) No Impact: The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality ofthe enviroimient, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal commimity, reduce the number or resfrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Califomia history or prehistory. b) Less Than Significant Impact: The project is only proposmg a 5 lot residential subdivision on a site that is surrounded by smgle family residential. c) No Impact: The proposed site will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. XVII. EARLIER ANALYSIS a) Source documents are on file in the Planning Department located at 2075 Las Pahnas Drive, Carlsbad, Phone (760)438-1161. 1. "Final Master EIR for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update," March 1994. MITIGATION MEASURES: V. AIR QUALITY a) Violate any air quality standards or confribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. Although the project will contribute to cumulative air quality impacts, a statement of overridmg consideration was adopted with the approval of the City of Carlsbad's Final Master EIR for this cumulative impact (see p.2.0-4). Citv of Carlsbad Public Works - Engineering August 9, 2001 O'Day Consultants John Strohminger 5900 Pasteur Court, Suite 100 Carlsbad CA, 92008 SUBJECT: JACOBS MINOR SUBDIVISION (MS 01-07, APN 167-053-18) The City Engineer has made a preliminary decision pursuant to Section 20.24.120 of the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code, to approve the tentative parcel map of the proposed minor subdivision, subject to the conditions listed below. The preliminary conditions are: Note: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following conditions, upon the approval of this tentative parcel map, must be met prior to approval of a final parcel map, building permit, or grading permit, whichever is first. General 1. Prior to issuance of any building permit. Developer shall comply with the requirements of the City's anti-graffiti program for wall treatments if and when such a program is formally established by the City. 2. Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, a reproducible 24" x 36", photo mylar of the tentative parcel map reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making body (including any applicable Coastal Commission approvals). The reproducible shall be submitted to the City Engineer, reviewed and, if acceptable, signed by the City's project engineer and project planner prior to submittal of the building plans, final map, improvement or grading plans, whichever occurs first. 3. Unless a standards variance has been issued, no variance from City Standards is authorized by virtue of approval of this tentative parcel map. 4. Developer shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, agents, officers, and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claim and costs, including court costs and attorney's fees incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this tentative parcel map, (b) City's approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-2720 • FAX (760) 602-8562 Jacobs Preliminary Conditions August 9, 2001 Page 2 of 6 contemplated herein, including an action filed within the time period specified in Government Code Section 66499.37 and (c) Developer's installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. 5. Developer shall ensure that storm run-off for each lot is routed around the residential structures via vegetated (grass) swales to increase percolation and ensure that storm run-off is not increased as a result of this development. There shall be no increase in storm runoff quantity for a 10- year, 6-hour storm event. If rain gutters are installed on the structures. Developer shall ensure that roof downspouts discharge onto splash pads. A tight-line storm drain system shall not be permitted on any of the proposed lots within this subdivision. Developer shall be responsible to construct the lots as described in the project hydrology report. 6. There shall be one final parcel map recorded for this project. 7. The project is approved with the express condition that building permits will not be issued for the development of the subject property unless the City Engineer determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of application for such sewer permits and will continue to be avaiiabie until time of occupancy. This note shall be placed on the non-title sheet of the final parcel map. Plannina 8. Developer is required to pay all required fees and deposits prior to approval of the final parcel map. 9. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and regulations in effect at the time building permits are issued. 10. If any condition for construction of any public facilities, or payment of any fees in- lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid, this approval shall be invalid unless the City Engineer determines that this Project without this condition complies with the requirements ofthe law. 11. Developer shall provide proof to the Director from the Carlsbad Unified School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to provide school facilities. Jacobs prelim CONDITIONS.doc Jacobs Preliminary Conditions August 9, 2001 Page 3 of 6 12. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required as part of Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that Plan prior to issuance of building permits. 13. Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy #17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.030 and CFD #1 special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 1, pursuant to Chapter 21.9. All such taxes/fees shall be paid at issuance of building permits. If the taxes/fees are not paid, this approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void. 14. Developer shall display a current Zoning and Land Use Map, or an alternative, suitable to the Planning Director, in the sales office at all times. All sales maps that are distributed or made available to the public shall include but not be limited to trails, future and existing schools, parks, and streets. 15. Developer shall post a sign in the sales office in a prominent location that discloses which special districts and school district provide service to the project. Said sign shall remain posted until ALL ofthe units are sold. 16. Developer shall pay to the City an inclusionary housing in-lieu fee as an individual fee on a per market rate per dwelling unit basis in the amount in effect at the time, as established by City Council Resolution from time to time. FeesMgree/wente 17. Developer is required to pay all required fees and deposits prior to approval of the final parcel map. 18. Developer shall pay the Local Drainage Area Fee prior to approval of the final parcel map. 19. Developer shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City prior to approval of the final parcel map as required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. 20. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for recordation the City's standard form Drainage Hold Harmless Agreement regarding drainage across the adjacent property. 21. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project. Developer shall cause Owner to give written consent to the City Engineer to the annexation Jacobs prelim CONDITIONS.doc Jacobs Preliminary Conditions August 9, 2001 Page 4 of 6 of the area shown within the boundaries of the subdivision into the existing City of Carlsbad Street Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1, on a form provided by the City Engineer. Grading 22. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site within this project. Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the City Engineer for the proposed haul route. 23. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the tentative parcel map, a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall apply for and obtain a grading permit from the City Engineer. A Grading Permit cannot be issued until the final parcel map has been recorded for this project. Improvements/Dedications 24. Developer shall comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Developer shall provide improvements constructed pursuant to best management practices as referenced in the "California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook" to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be submitted to and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Said plans shall include, but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of the following: A. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and hazardous waste products. B. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil, antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective containers. C. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements. Jacobs prelim CONDITIONS.doc Jacobs Preliminary Conditions August 9, 2001 Page 5 of 6 25. Prior to issuance of building permits. Developer shall install separate sewer services to each lot proposed by this tentative parcel map. Sewer services shall be provided to the Satisfaction ofthe City Engineer. Final Parcel Map Notes 26. Developer shall show the gross and net acres for each parcel on final parcel map. 27. Note(s) to the following effect(s) shall be placed on the final parcel map as non- mapping data: A. Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the appropriate agency determines that sewer and water facilities are available. Carlsbad Municipal Water District Conditions 28. Prior to approval of improvement plans or final parcel map, Developer shall meet with the Fire Marshal to determine if fire protection measures (fire flows, fire hydrant locations, building sprinklers) are required to serve the project. Fire hydrants, if proposed, shall be considered public improvements and shall be served by public water mains to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. 29. Developer shail install a combination meter to serve both potable and fire flow demands required for Lot 2 (panhandle lot) to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. Developer shall install the meter and approved backflow preventer in a location that is not subjected to damage from vehicles. 30. Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall pay all fees, deposits, and charges for connection to public facilities. Developer shall pay the San Diego Countv Water Authoritv capacitv charge(s) prior to issuance of Building Permits. 31. The Developer shall install potable water services and meters at a location approved by the District Engineer. The locations of said services shall be reflected on public improvement plans or on approved construction revisions to existing as-built improvement plans. Developer shall pay all fees associated with processing said construction revisions. Code Reminder The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to the following: Jacobs prelim CONDlTIONS.doc Jacobs Preliminary Conditions August 9, 2001 Page 6 of 6 32. The tentative parcel map shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date of the letter containing the final decision for tentative parcel map approval. 33. Developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The applicant may request a review of these preliminary conditions within ten (10) days of the date of this preliminary approval. The request must be submitted in writing to the City Engineer in accordance with Section 20.24.120 through 140 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The City Engineer has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer contained in the conditions of approval and hereby finds that the exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused or reasonably related to this project, and the extent and degree of the exactions is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project. If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact the Project Engineer, Jeremy Riddle at 760-602-2737. If you have any planning related questions, please contact Christer Westman at 760-602-4614. Sincerely, Bob Wojcik Deputy City Engineer c: Skip Hammann, Senior Civil Engineer Jeremy Riddle, Project Engineer Christer Westman, Project Planner Charles Jacobs, Owner (mail to 5995 Via Madrid, Granite Bay, CA 95746) Jacobs prelim CONDITIONS.doc City of Carlsba<d Planning Department PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF DECISION January 9, 2001 John Sfrohminger O'Day Consultants 5900 Pasteur Court, Ste. 100 Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: CT 00-09 - CHARLES JACOBS PROPERTY At the Planning Commission meeting of January 3, 2001, your application was considered. The Commission voted 6-1 (Nielsen) to RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. The decision ofthe Planning Commission is advisory and will be forwarded to the City Council. If you have any questions regarding the final dispositions of your application, please call the Plaiming Department at (760) 602-4600. Sincerely, MICHAEL J. HOL^^VnLLER Plaiming Director MJH:CW:mh Enclosed: Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4859,4860 c: Charles Jacob 7725 Haley Drive Granite Bay, CA 95746 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us Citv of Carlsbad Planning Department July 17, 2000 Charles Jacobs 7725 Haley Drive Granite Bay CA 95746 SUBJECT: CT 00-09 - CHARLES JACOBS PROPERTY Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your Tract Map, application no. CT 00-09, as to its completeness for processing. The application is complete, as submitted. Although the initial processing of your application may have already begun, the technical acceptance date is May 25, 2000. The City may, in the course of processing the application, request that you clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise, supplement the basic Information required for the application. In addition, you should also be aware that various design issues may exist. These issues must be addressed before this application can be scheduled for a hearing. The Planning Department will begin processing your application as of the date of this communication. Please contact your staff planner, Christer Westman, at (760) 602-4614 or staff engineer Jeremy Riddle at (760) 602-2737, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director MJH:CW:mh c: Adrienne Landers Jeremy Riddle File Copy Data Entry Planning Aide John Strohminger - O'Day Consultants 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 ^ ••• 'S ISSUES OF CONCERN No. CT 00-09 - CHARLES JACOBS PROPERTY Planning: 1. As an infill property, special noticing will be required. The concern is that the surrounding property owners are aware early in the process that an application is submitted and pending. 2. Subsequent to subdivision approval, the architectural design of future homes should have some connection to the surrounding neighborhood. Engineering: 1. Revise the general notes on sheet 1 of the tentative map to callout the maximum anticipated water demand from the project. 2. Revise the legend to include symbology for new and existing water and sewer services. 3. Address how water and sewer service will be provided to Lot 2 and Lot 3. Clarify if a new sewer lateral will be installed along the driveway or along the side yard with a private sewer easement to serve lot 3. 4. Revise the typical street sections to indicate the location of fire hydrant placement. 5. Revise the TM to identify the relocation of the fire hydrant behind the sidewalk or revise the new sidewalk to include the appropriate transitions that meet ADA clearances with this obstruction. 6. Revise the TM to depict the driveways (or future driveways). Provide verification that the driveways can be installed without exceeding maximum slope approaches. 7. Revise the tentative map to depict the location of existing adjacent streetlights and revise the plans (and typical street sections) to include their installation, if required per City street light spacing standards. 8. Revise the tentative map to callout "CT 00-09" at the upper right hand corner. Delete the reference to "PRE 99-83". 9. Revise the tentative map to include spot elevation at the property comers of each lot (typical). 10. Provide a preliminary Geotechnical investigation that addresses the feasibility of the project. c z FILECOPY Citv of Carlsbad Planning Department August 8, 2000 John Stohminger O'Day Consultants 5900 Pasteur Court Suite 100 Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: CT 00-09 - CHARLES JACOBS PROPERTY Dear John: Review of the CT 00-09 files show that the fee for the Environmental Impact Assessment has not been paid. Please remit $1,030.00 as soon as possible. If you have any questions, please call me at (760) 602-4614. Sincerely, CHRISTER WESTMAN Associate Planner CW:mh 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 ^ Sity of Cai-lsbad Planning Department January 7, 2000 Charles Jacobs 7725 Haley Drive Granite Bay CA 95746 SUBJECT: PRE 99-83 - CHARLES JACOBS PROPERTY APN: 163-053-18 A preliminary review of your project was conducted on January 6, 2000. Listed below are the issues raised by staff. Please note that the purpose of a preliminary review is to provide you with direction and comments on the overall concept of your project. The preliminary review does not represent an in-depth analysis of your project. Additional issues of concern may be raised after your application is submitted and processed for a more specific and detailed review- Planning: 1. The proposed density may be supported by the Planning Department, however, an analysis of the surrounding lot areas must be submitted providing justification for exceeding the growth control point. 2. The proposed export necessary to develop the site has been substantially reduced, however, 4,400 cubic yards of export still equates to 220 truck loads. This has the potential to create noise and safety impacts to the existing neighborhood. The disturbance could be a significant environmental impact without mitigation. Therefore a mitigation plan that reduces these impacts must be proposed. 3. No walls exceeding 3.5' are permitted in the front yard setback. It appears that the front slope on lot 2 would require a wall higher than 3.5' for the driveway. 4. Panhandle driveways in existing single family neighborhoods are supported by staff when it is determined that the property cannot be adequately served with a public street without panhandle lots due to unfavorable conditions resulting from unusual topography, surrounding land development, or lot configuration. It appears that topography and surrounding land development preclude development in the center of the parcel without the creation of a panhandle lot. Staff may support the panhandle lot since the property, which is a through lot with frontage on two streets, is approximately 320' in length and no access alternatives are available. Support is dependent on the lot area analysis mentioned above. 2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (760) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-0894 ^ PRE 99-83 - CHARLES JACBS PROPERTY Q January 7, 2000 Page 2 Engineering: 1. Rolled curb exists along Ridgecrest Drive and Seacrest Drive and throughout the Seacrest Estates Community. Current City standard requires 6 inch high curb. Replacing the rolled curb with standard 6 inch curb will not be necessary, however, if a standards variance is processed which the City can support. Sidewalk must be installed, however, and no standards variance will be granted for this requirement. Relocation ofthe utility poles within the alignment ofthe sidewalk will be required. 2. In accordance with improvement plans DWG 116-10 and DWG 125-4, on file with the City, sewer laterals exist for each newly created lot except parcel 3. These plans do not, however, have as-built signatures so verify their availability for service with the Carlsbad Municipal Water District. 3. Drainage of the pads must comply with City Standard GS -15. 4. Is the 8 foot public utility easement currently used, and if so, by what companies? What utilities, if any, exist within this easement? This information is pertinent since you are proposing to vacate both 8 foot P.U. easements. Check with all utility companies to determine if they have issues with vacating the easement. 5. The utility lines and poles on Parcel 1 must be placed underground and the easement (#6 on the plan) will either need to be quitclaimed or obtain a letter of permission from the easement holder to develop/grade within the easement. In addition, if poles or overhead wires exist along the easement described as #3 on the site plan, then these facilities must also be placed underground. 6. Wherever possible, the amount of cut soil shall be reduced in order to lessen the gap behveen cut and fill amounts but not at the expense of creating additional fill. Fill shall be kept to only that necessary to provide adequate drainage, driveway grades, etc. In addition, it appears that several ofthe 2:1 slopes are illustrated at a higher elevation than the existing grades and proposed pads dictate (i.e. the fill slope at the southwest corner of Parcel 4 is scaled at 5 feet high but the difference between the existing grade and proposed pad indicates that it should only be 3 feet high). Please recheck all slopes and revise accordingly. 7. A tentative tract map followed by a final map will need to be processed. 8. Corner site distance needs to be established for all driveway locations. At a design speed of 30 miles per hour, a driver must be able to see an approaching vehicle 330 feet away, not 150 feet as shown. Please revise accordingly. 9. Illustrate the transitions between slopes which meet at 90 degree angles. . PRE 99-83 - CHARLES J^CoBS PROPERTY Q January 7, 2000 Page 3 Please contact Anne Hysong at (760) 438-1161, extension 4477 if you have any questions. Since; GARYE. WAYf As^stant Planning Director GEW:AH:cs Michael J. Holzmiller Chris DeCerbo David Rick Mike Smith • Bill Plummer Bobbie Hoder File Copy Data Entry O / c CONSULT A XN T S December 10, 1999 J.N.: 991021A5 Ms. Anne Hysong CityofCarlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, Califomia 92009 Re: PRE 99-61 Charles Jacobs Property APN: 167-053-18 Dear Arme: We have reviewed the comments from the Preliminary Review referenced above and in response have revised the proposed site plan. Per your suggestion, we are submitting this new plan for an additional Preliminary Review. Several changes have been made that bring the site into better compliance with City requirements. They include revisions that facilitate meeting the minimum lot width of 75 feet, reducing the amount of export from 6,300 cubic yards to 4,400 cubic yards, and better adherence to infill design criteria. The most notable change is the introduction of a flag lot in the middle of the property. We understand that City staff rarely supports flag lots but in this case, we feel it is justified. The following outlines some of the underlying reasons: • Using a flag lot allows the existing hill in the center of the property to be preserved. The current lay of the land is such that the center of the site is from 8 to 17 feet higher than Seacrest Drive and Ridgecrest Drive. This plan retains that relationship. • The grading quantities are reduced resulting in less truck trips to export dirt and less onsite grading. These changes translate into less noise and less neighborhood disturbance. • This plan facilitates the creation of 5 lots that meet the zoning code. The loss of the flag lot would result in a 5 lot subdivision that does not meet lot width requirements or the reduction to a 4 lot subdivision. • Also of value are the dramatic views from the flag lot both to the ocean and to the inland valleys. In the comments from the City, there was concem about the proposed density slightly exceeding the growth control point. The proposed 5 lot scenario matches very well with the existing neighborhood. The minimum allowed per the zoning is 10,000 square feet. The average proposed is 12,200 square feet. The average of the surrounding lots is 11,900 (exclusive of lot ,5900 Vaslem Ct. Civil Engineering Suite 100 Planning Carlshad, California 92008-7317 Processing 760-931-7700 Surveying Fax: 760-931-8680 E-mail: oday@odayconsuhants.coni Ms. Anne Hysong December 10,1999 Page 2 24). We will provide an exhibit showing more detail at a later date if staff decides to support the 5 lot plan. Also of concem were the high slopes in the front yards of the four normal lots. A drive through the neighborhood revealed that this is a common occurrence throughout. This design also contributes to keeping the cut quantities and export quantities down. We appreciate your input on this project. Please call if you have questions or comments. Very truly yours, O'DAY CONSULTANTS, INC. John Strohminger Project Manager W:\MSOFFICE\WINWORD\991021\Hysong.ltr City of Carlsbad Planning Department September 20, 1999 Charles Jacobs 7725 Haley Drive Granite Bay, CA 95746 SUBJECT: PRE 99-61 - CHARLES JACOBS PROPERTY APN: 167-053-18 A preliminary review of your project was conducted on September 16, 1999. Listed below are the issues raised by staff. Please note that the purpose of a preliminary review is to provide you with direction and comments on the overall concept of your project. The preliminarv review does not represent an in-depth analvsis of vour project. Additional issues of concern mav be raised after vour application is submitted and processed for a more specific and detailed review. Planninq: 1. The proposed subdivision would require Planning Commission approval of a tentative tract map for the 5 lot subdivision. 2. The density for the project is calculated by determining the developable acreage exclusive of property already dedicated for public right of way. Assuming the entire 1.38 acres are developable, the proposed density of 3.41 dwelling units (du)/acre is slightly above the growth control point of 3.2du/acre. Prior to exceeding the growth control point. It must be shown that the proposed lots are compatible. An exhibit identifying the lot area and pad elevation of surrounding lots should be submitted with any future application. 3. The parcel is zoned RA-10,000 requiring a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 75 feet. 4. The proposed grading design will require export through an existing single family neighborhood. This is a potentially significant impact under CEQA. Please attempt to reduce the amount of export through your grading design and be aware that mitigation to reduce noise and other nuisance impacts will be necessary. 2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (760) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-0894 ^ PRE 99-61 - CHARLES JACOBS PROPERTY September 20, 1999 Page 2 5. The proposed development is considered "infill" development. The City Council is currently reviewing public disclosure procedures for infill development to better disclose to neighborhoods what the proposed development will look like. These procedures include a requirement to submit a photo simulation of the development in the context of the existing neighborhood. This would provide scaled pictures of the proposed development that are more understandable than grading plans. Additionally, a neighborhood workshop to be presented by the developer and attended by staff may also be necessary. Staff recommends that a photo simulation of the proposed development be prepared and submitted with any future application. Enqineerinq: 1. Rolled curbs exist along Ridgecrest Drive and Seacrest Drive and throughout the Seacrest Estates Community. Current City standard requires 6 inch high curb. Replacing the rolled curb with standard 6 inch curb will not be necessary, however, if a standards variance is processed which the City can support. Sidewalk must be installed, however, and no standards variance will be granted for this requirement. Relocation of the utility poles within the alignment of the sidewalk will be required. 2. In accordance with improvement plans DWG 116-10 and DWG 125-4, on file with the City, sewer laterals exist for each newly created lot except parcel 3. These plans do not, however, have as-built signatures so verify their availability for service with the Carlsbad Municipal Water District. 3. Show additional new contour lines on the site plan. The single contour line on each pad makes it difficult to determine the proposed grade of the entire pads. All of the new contour lines indicate that the pads are approximately 4 to 6 feet higher in elevation than their respective street frontage yet no slope is shown between the transition from street grade to pad. 4. The top and toe of the proposed slopes which abut the subdivision boundary must be set back from these boundaries in accordance with City standard GS- 14. The set backs vary dependent upon the height of the slope and whether the boundary adjoins the toe or the top of the slope. The proposed slopes cannot exceed a grade of 2 horizontal units per every 1 vertical unit. 5. Drainage of the pads must comply with City Standard GS -15. 6. Is the 8 foot public utility easement currently used? What utilities, if any, exist within this easement? None of the proposed slopes will be allowed in the easement. \m'' s ^ PRE 99-61 - CHARLES JACOBS PROPERTY September 20, 1999 Page 3 7. The utility lines and poles on Parcel 1 must be placed underground and the easement (#6 on the plan) will either need to be quitclaimed or obtain a letter of permission from the easement holder to develop/grade within the easement. In addition, if poles or overhead wires exist along the easement described as #3 on the site plan, then these facilities must also be placed underground. 8. Per the City's standards for grading of "infill" lots, efforts should be made to balance the grading on-site as much as possible. Narrow the gap between the proposed 7,300 cys of cut and 1,000 yards of fill so that the amount of export is reduced. Be aware, however, that fill shall be kept to a maximum of three vertical feet at any point on the lot. Any fill exceeding this amount must be accompanied with a letter justifying the additional fill. 9. A tentative tract map followed by a final map will need to be processed. Water 1. There are existing water and sewer pipelines in Ridgecrest Drive and Seacrest Drive. Separate water services and sewer service laterals shall be constructed to each lot created from this project. Lots 1, 2, & 3 shall extend there service lines to Ridgecrest Drive. Lots 4 & 5 shall extend there service lines to Seacrest Drive. Please contact Anne Hysong at (760) 438-1161, extension 4477 if you have any questions. Sincere r. WAYNE Assistant Planning Director GEW:AH:eh Attachment c: Michael J. Holzmiller Chris DeCerbo David Rick, Project Engineer Mike Smith Bill Plummer Bobbie Hoder File Copy Data Entry