Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 96-04; Brookfield Meadows; Tentative Map (CT) (2)X O 1ST O 1VI August 3, 2000 Ms. Elaine Blackburn City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 ivn U 1ST Re: Brookfield Meadows CT96-04 PUD Recreation Lot Dear Elaine, Please find attached for your reference and files information sheets showing the park furniture that we will be using in the private recreation area. Included are : 1 - 44" diameter table and 3 benches 2 - 60" park benches 1 - park grill The table and benches are made of cast concrete so that the long term maintenance cost to the HOA will be minimal. Sincerely, on Williamson Keystone Communities 5333 MISSION CENTER ROAD, STE. 360, SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-1350 619/299-4855 • FAX 619/299-4845 TABLES •TS36R has 2 benches , Both Tables also available without benches TS,8-5pc TS6-5PC C. TSSrS^C TS6-9PC TS7-3PC U TS6-9PC E. Ill I TS7-3PC G. U u TS8-9pc F. TS7-3PCHC H. TS43FERN TS42SQ J. TS48FERN K. B2496ST1. University Bench (B2260U) B1572SH/B1596SH 5. 6. Stadium Benfiji (B2496TB) B1874MY 12. Backed Bench (B1972SD) B2S86 (W/O Back) 17. B2686WB 18.Wood-Backed Bench (B2686WB) •.n-7- .-V' - .-,j; Model Style 1451 Permanent Price 66 Ibs. (29.9ks) $95 Tough enough to List tor years! fin: box is nude of 3/16" steel plate and swivels 360° tor draft control. Cooking grate is made of 1 /2" and 5/S" steel bars with 293 square inches of cooking \ surface and is 4-way adjustable for cooking control. Features a 2-3/S" O.D. galvanized pipe the;t-resistant support post. ' Size 78"(1.9Sm) Weight 88 Ibs. (39.9kg) Ltiy-to-instoll unit features five openings and is made of 3" O.D. galvanized steel tubing. Available in your choice of paint color (see page 137). Shown in Red. Price $195 1 SteelSfceRadc. A ^^H Model Style 1641 Portable 1542 Attachable 1643 Portable 1544 Attachable Openings S S 18 IS Size 5' (1.52m) 5' (1.52m) 10' (3m) 10' (3m) Weight 82 Ibs. (37.2kg) 85 Ibs. (38.6kg) 137 Ibs, (62. 1kg) 140 Ibs. (63.5kg) Price 5239 S239 S419 S419 fp.ese attractive, e-iiv-to-assemble bike racks can be portable or !ayj;i-J or.to exist- .-.jhaal iurraces. Majnrrame-.vorkis 1-5/S"O.D.galvanized pipv«i[ii !-l/16"O.D. ;:ii'.\ini7.e.i pipe. .All t'asteners are plated. Available in your choice of paint color -ce page 137). 5' unit shoivn in Seafoam. «face Bike Rack A ^H S Model Wood ^ 1645 Pine 1646 Redwood Weight 83 Ibs. (37.6kg) 73 Ibs. (33. 1kg) Price $209 $229 Attractively designed for us>; in light traffic areas, each rack holds four bicycles. Made for perma- nent installation, each unit is made of 6" x 6" CCA. vacuum pressure-treated Southern Pine or F.O.H.C. Rod-wood. Pipe is 1-1 / lr>" O.D. gal- var.i/txl pipe weldixl to /inc pLitcs. All fasteners ,1 re plated. Eich rack is 35" f.-^ni) j«.|uan.' and 3V- I.-' 1" 11 r.1) liii;h. Individual unit can be shipped vi.i t/ix M-.imn in Kcd-A-iixl. f litter Receptacle A ^H SB Permanent •HE5 Model Volume 8000 32 gal. (121.1 liters) 8010 32 gal. (121.1 liters) 8020 32 gal. (1 21.1 liters) Free-Standing Model Volume 8030 32 gal. (I2LI liters) 8040 32 gal. (121. lliters) 8050 32 gal. (121. lliters) Replacement Container Model Volume 8060 32 gal. (121.1 liters^ Steel frame with 2x4 >Lit- in v< >i ;r A 'k •. Avaihbli: in either pern-Mr.! -r.t i >r i:\ -.—'.'.: with 32-c;.il!!.'n bl.ick pl.w:( ^ •r-.iMi-vr.ii-x Slats Redwood Pine Recycled Plastic Slats Redwood Pine Rccv-cied Plastic Material Plastic .-..fKcd'.Mx-vi.tre.iUxlP: \'''--' im\.V< All r\\;t-'lt. !;:d.l-'rn:-u!:-.di:^:i-.i<.!i Weight 56 Ibs. (25.4kg) 74 Ibs. (33.6kg) 96 Ibs. (43.5kg) Weight 5 libs. (23. 1kg) 69 Ibs. (3 1.3kg) 9 libs. (4 1.3kg) Weight 5 Ibs. (2.3kg) :v.orK.o.A-dP!jslic. icL-i <hipi-..A.Kv iupU- •Ijhri'.iiinKrtiwi.O. Price $215 $149 $235 Price $199 $169 $225 Price $19 K E o 1ST o u 1ST April 10, 2000 Ms. Elaine Blackburn City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Brookfield Meadows CT96-04 RV Parking Area / PUD Recreation Lot Dear Elaine, Thank you for your approval letter dated March 31, 2000 in regards to the above-referenced RV parking matter. Please find attached for your reference and files a colored schematic plan for the private park which includes the approved RV parking area, and shows the park revisions as I had conceptually represented to you in my submittal of March 24. Based on your March 31 approval, our landscape architect has revised the full-scale PUD Recreation Area plan that was originally part of the approved landscape plans for the project. A copy of that plan is enclosed for your files as well. If appropriate, we could "as-built" the park plan along with the project landscape plans when the project is complete, but please let me know if any other form of approval is required at this time. Again, thank you for your assistance in resolving this issue. Sincerely,„ I « m .VJocJta^—' Don Williamson Keystone Communities Attachments 5333 MISSION CENTER ROAD, STE. 360, SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-1350 619/299-4855 • FAX 619/299-4845 City of Carlsbad Planning Department March 31, 2000 Keystone Communities Don Williamson Ste 360 5333 Mission Center Road San Diego CA 92108-1350 SUBJECT: CT 96-04 - BROOKFIELD MEADOWS -RV PARKING AREA The Planning Department has reviewed your proposal to provide the required RV parking area on part of Lot 26 (per your letter and drawing dated March 24, 2000) and has determined that the proposed location and design satisfy the requirements. Consequently, I will be releasing any holds I have on your building permits which are based on non-compliance with Condition 11 (the RV parking area requirement). I know that you have one or more small construction changes/adjustments pending review also. When these items have been resolved, you will need to provide new mylars for both the Tract Map (CT 96-04) and the site plan (PUD 71 (B)) which reflect the construction changes and the new layout of Lot 26 for the RV parking area. If you have any questions, please contact me at (760) 602-4621. ELAINE BLACKBURN, AICP Senior Planner Dennis Turner Jeremy Riddle Building Department-Counter 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-46OO • FAX (76O) 602-8559 K E V S T CD IxT March 24, 2000 Ms. Elaine Blackburn City of Carlsbad RECEIVED Planning Department 163 5 Faraday Avenue MAP Carlsbad, CA 92008 MAR OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DFPTcr ' •Re: Brookfield Meadows CT96-04 Satisfaction of Tentative Map Condition No. 21 - Offsite RV Parking Dear Elaine: As you are aware, the Department of Real Estate has essentially denied our offsite contract for RV parking as a means of satisfying the Tentative Map Condition No. 21, indicating that an onsite provision of RV parking space would be a more reasonable arrangement (please reference the DRE letter addressed to you dated March 10, 2000). You have now placed a hold on the issuance of any building permits until another means of satisfying this condition is approved, which is a situation we must remedy immediately. We herewith propose to satisfy this condition by placing the RV parking area within the project. We have examined our site plans carefully, and find that at this point in our site development process the only feasible location for this parking area is Lot No. 26, the PUD Recreation Area. Please refer to the engineer's plan attached: 1. Lot 26 will be deeded to the Arbor Ridge at La Costa Owners Association as a private recreation site. Thus the site is already prepared for HOA ownership and permanent maintenance, which is already reflected in our CC&R's and HOA budget; both of those items are now halfway through the DRE approval process. 2. There is no other physically feasible location within the project that will accommodate the required RV parking area. 3. The RV parking area as proposed will encompass the required 580 square feet, and provide two parking spaces that can be accessed independently from the street. The actual parking area can be fully enclosed with a 6-foot security fence and locked gate, and then effectively screened with landscaping from the adjacent Lot 25 and the 5333 MISSION CENTER ROAD, STE. 360, SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-1350 619/299-4855 • FAX 619/299-4845 remainder of the recreation area on Lot 26. The parking area will be set back from the street 20 feet, and would be accessed by a driveway constructed of "grasscrete", so that it will appear to be substantially green and lawn-like, and can also be used as a play area. We are continuing to work with our engineer to refine the slope contours; we may be able to achieve a flatter, more rolling grass area and less slope area that would enhance the usable part of the park. We could also consider utilizing the sight distance setback at the corner for a patio and bench area. 4. Recreation Lot Square Footage Summary Required: 2800 sq. ft. (from approved park plan) Provided: • Overall lot area - 4952 sq. ft. • Slope area 1448 sq. ft. • RV parking area 580 sq. ft. • Driveway 344 sq. ft. • Remaining flat usable area 2580 sq. ft. Total 4952 sq. ft. The driveway area and remaining flat usable area added together equal 2984 sq. ft., which is in excess of the required minimum 2800 sq. ft. of common recreation area. Elaine, if this proposed solution to the RV parking issue meets with staff approval, I will have our landscape architect reconfigure the recreation area site plan (a copy is attached) to accommodate the parking area, and to provide the same amenities as previously approved. I feel we can achieve a reasonable and attractive park plan and resolve the RV parking issue by proceeding with this proposal. Please let me know as soon as possible if we can move forward and refine this plan to the satisfaction of the Planning Department staff. Your consideration is greatly appreciated; please call me at (619) 299-4855, ext. 312 if I can answer any questions or provide additional information. Sincerely, Don Williamson Keystone Communities Attachments 5 Y •^D 3A. ^^* -V PLAN &•&*£>* & 18,1?.OJ ?! <*/*-* Cn, /;/:*Nff CM-*x I??m r<0. ^P 6.0' .AN 3A W*3B4.d -384,5 v^ ^^^ - tt3S4:0 ^ \^ ^AU^|r-^__. :S ^ :l 1r J AD • <^ O tM" 2*.^?r^i^x i6i; w Kl ;^ PUN 3/1 JW>*38ZS 2-^*383.0 01 6.0' <±£3£2.5 ^01 o S^,' »^ ^r\^-^*r^? V/J y"ann^L An;3f ^ r-^; ^ «*»<j>'<=*•_ v^>. s^Li**v^^ ^<*>^=»^o^\<^_ H ^^.-^v_ :/5 f^^e//^ 4 his ^ v *fx -n V KEY MAP • MirnS^••• M&j%^'<. '-•• *?&.; v/*^^^v-t^-A-.'' ••.^•^li'^^fe-;. iA ^-sS^w ihJ^JsjT 5[CREATION LOT SITE AMENITIES ITEM TAKE HOOEL TABLE BENO€5 PLAriCRLD 6 FT. - 2XXWW SRia PLATUCRLD DELUXE PARK Of VERFT COCR W QO€R PBCR TO H ALL?CCE56ARTdPPURT*)CE5FCaNSTJlJJTICN RECREATION AREA PLAN BROOKFIELD MEADOWS KEYSTONE COMMUNITIES CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA ^f^f'" \ i-'-A v\ \Sk^iv--^ V-\ A. .,- PLANTING NOTE CCNCEPT UtfCSOPE P1.4N PLANTING PLAN 2 10 20 FT. NORTH . SCALE RECREATION LOT SUMMARY T AREA OVC5WU. SLCPE AREA AfFROXHATE BRgAKDOlN BT Ug LAW 1WL<5 < PATIOS 12575?. 138 5f. TOTAL FLAT, USABLE PARK AREA SITE A^EUTIES PATIO TABLE OVERALL PROJECT RECREATION AREA SUMMARY PRIVATE RECREATION AREA REOJIRED 300 5F. PES WT X 38 WTS • 5£0C SF. PROVIDED 6 X 5 FT. P-BVATE SPACE ,°RDV1DED X 28 tUffS • 63O0 SF. COMMON RECREATION LOT AREA nunr sen SEARED AREA PROVIDED USABLE PAD ASEA AT REC LOT Steven M Ahles LANDSCAPE ARWITrCT P.O. Box 6?.» Cardiff, Cafifotnia'^OO? PRELIMINARY PL/!>1 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION § o! 90. < Ol LUi rr % Oa§O X z Og O§3 §Q/ vi CE CQ g o A DRAWJ BY G^CKEC 3" RFjf FEVSON DESCF1PTMN •AS BUILT1 APPFOVED FOR PLANTING AND FHGAT1CN ONLY, INaUDNG PRECISE LOCATION OF PLANTING AREAS CITY OF CARLSBAD p5?5 PLANNNQ EJeyA""^"^ '' - PROJECT NOj CT 36 -W VAILECITOSUD.JOBNO.. SS-B35 K E "V S T O 1ST COMMUNITI March 22, 2000 Ms. Elaine Blackburn City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 VIA FACSIMILE (760) 602-8559 RECEIVEDRe: Brookfield Meadows CT96-04 Plan Check No's. PC 99-0153, 99-0154, and 99-0155 ? , CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPTDear Elaine, As a follow up from my correspondence to you of March 2, 2000, in which I requested your consideration of a plot plan change to resolve a fence/lot line encroachment problem, please find attached a revised plot plan exhibit which should answer your concerns from the March 2 submittal. We have been able to move the house plots on Lots 21, 22, and 23 forward within the allowable 10% substantial conformance guideline, and to eliminate all retaining walls at the rear of each of these three lots. This would allow us to avoid disrupting the landscape improvements and fence on Lots 221, 222, and 223 of the adjacent Brookfield project, but to still allow construction of our rear yard slopes and the drainage swale as designed on the approved grading plans. We would also enhance the rear yard depth of our three lots and maintain the 15' x 15' required private yard recreational areas. 5333 MISSION CENTER ROAD, STE. 360, SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-1350 619/299-4855 • FAX 619/299-4845 The table below shows again that we are within substantial conformance guidelines for the proposed front yard setback revision (please refer to the attached Site Development and Plot Plan exhibits): Lot 21 Lot 22 Lot 23 Front Yard Setback Original Approved Site Development Plan 30ft. 32ft. 32ft. Front Yard Setback Approved Substantial Conformance Site Development Plan 30 ft. (subsequently modified to 28.3 ft. on Plot Plans 31ft. 32ft. Proposed New Front Yard Setback 27ft. 29ft. 29ft. Difference from Original Approved Site Development Plan ft. % 3 ft. 10% 3 ft. 9.4% 3 ft. 9.4% Please consider this revised request independently from our recreational vehicle issue, so that we may proceed to an understanding with our Brookfield neighbors and be able to complete our grading operation prior to our need for building permits. We do still need to obtain the adjacent homeowners' signatures on our proposed encroachment easements to solve this overall issue, so your consideration of this request at your earliest convenience will be greatly appreciated. I will be submitting the full size revised plot plan (dated 3-16-00) into Plan Check in the next day or so, but I wanted you to have this "heads-up" submittal earlier. Please call me with any questions or if I can provide additional information at (619) 299-4855, ext. 312. Sincerely, Don Williamson Keystone Communities k^ Attachments * SLOPSMAIUTSNAi frt 138' STATE OF CALIFORNIA — BUSINESS, TRANSPOSITION AND HOUSING AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, Governor DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE 320 West Fourth Street, Suite 350 Los Angeles, California 90013-1105 (213)576-6980 March 10, 2000 City of Carlsbad Community Development 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Attn: Re: Ms. Elaine Blackburn Planning Department FAXED: (760^ 602-8559 ARBOR RIDGE AT LA COSTA, Tr. 96-04 (formerly, Brookfield Meadows) ORE No. 100808LA-FOO Developer: Mr. Don Williamson. Keystone La Costa LLC Dear Ms. Blackburn: This letter is a follow-up from my telephone conversation with Mr. Williamson on March 9, 2000 and with you on this day. In 1970 this project was originally designed to be a multiple residential development project. However, the previous Developer(s) failed to complete the remaining segment of the project which was ultimately purchased by Mr. Williamson. A current condition of the development approval required that the project provide "580 square feet of recreational vehicle (RV) storage area off site for use by the owners/residents ...". According to Mr. Williamson the "off site" is a City requirement and he submitted a copy of "City Council Resolution No. 97-595" (hereafter the "Resolution") in support of his position. (See "City Council Resolution No. 97-595" pg. 11). To satisfy Provision 21 of the Resolution, Mr. Williamson submitted a Storage Agreement effective "September 1, 1999 and ending March 1, 2000." (hereafter the "Agreement") See "Storage Agreement" attached. The City's position, however, is that the "(RV) storage area off site" was requested by Mr. Williamson. Furthermore, the indications are that it is not the norm to have City requirements not a part of the development's site. Discussion. The Department of Real Estate ("DRE") reviews the reasonableness of a proposed financial obligation imposed upon the Association. (See "Business and Professions Code Section 11018 and 11018.5") Here, Mr. Williamson proposes to comply with his obligation to the City by submitting a six (6) month Agreement which would be subject to "terms and rate [which] will be agreed upon in writing thirty days [prior to end of term]...". At first glance, this Agreement is too vague. There is no assurance that (1) new terms or rates can be agreed upon; (2) adequate financial disclosure to buyers can be determined; and (3) the uncertainty of "storage areas within a 5-miles radius" (per Mr. Williamson) appears to be too speculative. Ms. Elaine Blackburn March 10, 2000 Page 2 - ARBOR RIDGE AT LA COSTA The proposed development covers 28 residential Lots and a recreational Lot. The recreational Lot's area amounts to approximately 4800 square feet and appears capable of satisfying the City's "(RV) storage area" requirement. And it would be considered a more reasonable arrangement in so far as the Association is concern (i.e. location and control of costs). Conclusion. The Department respectfully requests that a response to this letter which clarifies the issue raised be submitted. Please ensure that it addresses DRE's concerns, Provision 21 of the Resolution, and the Storage Agreement. Thank you for your help in this matter. Please call me should you have any questions. Sincerely, >eph Aiu idget Review Unit cc: Ms. Martha Darko - Subdivisions Deputy Mr. Don Williamson - Keystone La Costa LLC Ms. Barbara Zarzan - Chicago Title Co. SEP 09 1999 11:26 FR KEYSTONECOWUNITIES 619 549 068? TO 6676616 P.02/03 WORLD RV SALES 1611 W. Vfete-Vfeta, CA 92083 Phone 760-724-5176« Fax 760-724-2967 SALES-CONSIGNMENT-STORAGE Storage Agreement World RV Sales hereby agrees to make available to Keystone La Costa LLC 580 square feet of recreation storage space for a period of six months beginning September 1,1999 and ending March 1, 2QOQ. The rent shall be $100 per month. If World RV Sales or Keystone La Costa LLC require new contract terms and rate will be agreed upon in writing thirty days prior to March, 1, 2000, or the current agreement will automatically renew for an additional successive six month period. By: Keystone La Costa LLC, a California Limited Liability Company :, Keystone Communities* LU$T)a California Limited Liability Company Donald L. Williamson X o 1ST o VI March 2, 2000 Ms. Elaine Blackburn City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Brookfield Meadows CT96-04 Plan Check No's. PC 99-0153, 99-0154, and 99-0155 Dear Elaine, You may recall during a recent conversation we had at the planning counter that we have discovered a fence/lot line encroachment that affects the plotting of our Lots 21, 22, and 23. In order to avoid disrupting the owners of the existing Brookfield houses on their Lots 221, 222, and 223, we would propose to give the existing homeowners an easement for their existing fence encroachment, and then to move the plots of our houses on Lots 21, 22, and 23 forward as indicated below. This would still allow us to construct our rear yard slopes and the drainage swale as designed on the approved grading plans, but to leave the existing fencing and landscape improvements undisturbed. We would not exceed the Substantial Conformance guideline of 10% difference for the new front yard setback. Moving these three plans forward would also serve to enhance the depth of the rear yard recreational areas to some extent. Lot 21 Lot 22 Lot 23 Front Yard Setback Original Approved Site Development Plan 30ft. 32ft. 32ft. Front Yard Setback Approved Substantial Conformance Site Development Plan 30 ft. (subsequently modified to 28.3 ft. on Plot Plans 31ft. 32ft. Proposed New Front Yard Setback 27ft. 29ft. 29ft. Difference from Original Approved Site Development Plan ft. % 3 ft. 10% 3 ft. 9.4% 3 ft. 9.4% 5333 MISSION CENTER ROAD, STE. 360, SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-1350 619/299-4855 • FAX 619/299-4845 Could you accommodate this unforeseen situation by approving this plotting change? As the attached exhibit shows, we would be within Substantial Conformance guidelines, we would be increasing the usable rear yard space of the three lots and we would avoid disruption to the existing homeowners' fence and yard improvements. If this change is acceptable, we will revise our plot plan accordingly and resubmit it for approval (the plot plan has been through plan check for building permits under the Plan Check No's, referenced above). We will appreciate your consideration of this request at your earliest convenience, as grading has already begun on the project and we will have to obtain the homeowners' signatures on our proposed encroachment easements. Please call me with any questions or if I can provide additional information, at (619) 299-4855, ext. 312. Sincerely, Don Williamson Keystone Communities Attachments \ \ r 1C E V S T O 1ST OMMUN November 23, 1999 Mr. Bob Wojcik City of Carlsbad Engineering Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 Re: Brookfield Meadows CT96-04 Final Map, Dwg. 381-5, Dwg. 381-5A Request for Advance Grading Permit Dear Bob: We herewith request your consideration for an advance grading permit for the above-referenced project when all mylar signatures are complete and the map, grading plans, and improvement plans are ready to move forward to the City Clerk. It is our understanding from Mr. Frank Jimeno that we will be scheduled for the City Council meeting of December 7, 1999. Just today we responded fully to the plan check items listed in your correspondence of November 10, 1999. Both Mr. Jimeno and Mr. Jeremy Riddle have reviewed our responses and Mr. Jimeno has been kind enough to move the corrected mylars forward for signatures and to work with us to attain a record map prior to our lender deadline of December 15, 1999. Again, thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Don Williamson Keystone Communities Cc Frank Jimeno, City of Carlsbad Elaine Blackburn, City of Carlsbad Ross Felber, Keystone Communities 5333 MISSION CENTER ROAD, STE. 360, SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-1350 619/299-4855 • FAX 619/299-4845 NOU 18 1999 16=12 FR KEYSTONECOMMUNITIES 619 549 0682 TO 17604380894 P.02/03 KEVSTOISTE C O M M tJ N T T I E 5 November 18, 1999 Mr. Bob Wojcik City of Carlsbad Engineering Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 By FAX (760) 431-5769 and US Mail Re: Brookfield Meadows CT 96X)4 Final Map, Grading Plan, Improvement Plans Dear Bob, I need to ask your immediate assistance. The above-referenced map and plans have been back at the City for at least two weeks now, having been through three plan checks and signed off by Ben Ellorin. My understanding on Monday November 8, 1999 when I spoke to Mr. Frank Jimeno at the counter was that the map and plans (mylars) were in for final signatures, City Attorney approval, and submittal to the City Clerk. He indicated that would take about one week, then about two weeks from that for scheduling with City Council and consent calendar approval. I estimated that we could get to our recorded map by about the first of December. Yesterday, November 17, 1999 our engineer, Bill James of Aha Consultants, was informed that no final City signatures had been obtained, yet another list of plan check items had been generated by your staff, a letter outlining these items had been generated but would not be released until you signed it, and the mylars would not be released until the letter was ready. My understanding from our engineer is that a number of those items are minor in nature or that we have already complied with some of them. ; t We are facing a significant interest penalty from our lender if we do not obtain a record map by December 15, 1999. I had not expected another set of plan check items at this late date. In fact, Mr. Jimeno represented to me that the map would be at the City Clerk's office by now, ready to 5333 MISSION CENTER ROAD, STE. 360, SAN OlCCO, CA 52108-1350 619/299-4855 • PAX 619/299-<I«45 NOU 18 1999 16=12 FR KEYSTONECOMMUNITIES 619 549 0682 TO 17604380894 P.03/03 move along to Council, ^e will be pleased to respond to your items, but we must be able to do this immediately and then resolve them over the counter with your staff, and complete the necessary signatures for City Clerk acceptance as rapidly as jgossible. Can you be'of help in expediting this matter? Please call me or have Mr. Jimeno call me at (619) 299-4855, cxt. 312, and our engineer, Mr. Bill James at (619) 581-6101. Sincerely, Don Williamson Keystone Communities Cc Ross Felber, Keystone Communities Bill James, Alta Consultants Frank Jimeno, City of Carlsbad Elaine Blackburn,' City of Carlsbad ** TOTPL PflGE.03 ** 1C E Y S X • O TXT COlVElvlUI-JIT November 4, 1999 Ms. Elaine Blackburn City of Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive R«CMJ p fcj W Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 ' CITY OF CARLSBAD Re: Brookfield Meadows, CT96-04xl PLAl^^'t^^ llJ;EFT0 Satisfaction of New Conditions for Tentative Map Extension, l(B-F), 1(G), and 1(A) Dear Elaine, Please find attached copies of the following items in regard to satisfaction of the new Conditions for the Tentative Map extension referenced above: 1. A copy of the draft CC&R's incorporating the new language required in Conditions l(C-F). 1 did receive your fax of 10-14-99 acknowledging deferral of recorded and DRE-approved CC&.R's until certificate of occupancy. 2. A copy of the letter from the San Marcos School District dated 10-22-99 indicating that our payment of the required school fees at building permit issuance will satisfy our obligation to provide school facilities. 3. It is my understanding that the new Condition 1(A) requiring a fee payment for short term improvements to the El Camino Real / Palomar Airport Road intersection is to be satisfied at building permit issuance. If there is anything else required in regards to this new Condition 1(A) prior to Final Map approval and recordation, please let me know so that we can reply quickly. Elaine, I need to request your assistance in reviewing these final submittal items as soon as possible, as we are now facing a significant time constraint with our lender in regards to the Final Map recordation date. I would be most appreciative if you could review and approve these items at your earliest convenience, as the map mylars and grading and improvement plans are all back into the City for signature and final approval. Please give me a call if I can answer any questions you may have or provide additional information. Sincerely, Don Williamson Keystone Communities Attachments 5333 MISSION CENTER ROAD, STE. 360, SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-1350 619/299-4855 • FAX 619/299-4845 MUK 4:30 PM FWS FAX NO.J6(43! 5902 FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION to: faoaimile number: from: facsimile number: phone number: pages <+ this): data: sub j : comments: cc: Don Williamson Keystone Communities 619-299-4845 Julie Vanderwier' U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 760-431-9618 (, 760-431-9440 ext. 103 one —J 27 (bctobel) 1999 de minimus letter for Brookfield Meadows project Here is a copy of what was faxed to me by the City Thursday, 9-23. It's not quite the letter we like to see sent out'but considering the timing, it'll do. What it should say is that, for purposes of your satisfying the condition of grading plan check, the loss of disturbed coastal sage scrub associated with the Brookfield Meadows project meets the criteria for a cte minltnus exemption to the 4 (d) special rule and, as such, no habitat loss permit is required. The justification for use of the de minimus exemption is that the impact is less than one acre (10,000 square feet), the habitat to be affected is not occupied by the coastal California gnatcatcher (demonstrated by protocol-level surveys conducted this year); and the loss will not compromise the ability of the City to prepare its NCCP subarea plan. Even habitat loss which is exempted pursuant to de minimus requires mitigation and/ in accordance with our letter dated September 26, 1996, this mitigation is to be in the form of off-site habitat acquisition at a ratio of 2:1. Your purchase of one-half acre at the Manchester Avenue Mitigation Bank is acceptable for this purpose. You should send a copy of the off-site purchase transaction to the City; I would also appreciate receiving one to include in my file. {Now go relax!] Michael Holzmiller, City of Carlsbad Elaine Blackburn, City of Carlsbad City of Carlsbad Planning Department September 23, 1999 Keystone Communities 5333 Mission Center Road, Suite 360 San Diego, CA 92108 Attention: Don Williamson SUBJECT: CT 96-04 - BROOKFIELD MEADOWS - 4d PERMIT Dear Mr. Williamson: This letter is in follow-up to our letter to you of September 13, 1999. We have had subsequent discussions with the wildlife agencies regarding your project and have determined that a 4(d) permit is not needed. The habitat loss resulting from your grading will be considered a de minimus impact, and no permit is required. The condition of approval on your tentative map relating to this matter is satisfied. By copy of this letter, we will inform the Engineering Department so that your grading plancheck can be completed. If you have any questions, please contact Elaine Blackburn in the Planning Department at (760) 438-1161, 4471. Sincerely, MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director MJH:DR:vd Gary Wayne Dennis Turner Elaine Blackburn Bob Wojcik File Copy 2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (76O) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-O894 FILE copy City of Carlsbad Planning Department PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF DECISION October 25, 1999 Don Williamson Keystone Communities Suite 360 5333 Mission Center Road San Diego, CA 92108 SUBJECT: CT 96-04x1 - BROOKFIELD MEADOWS At the Planning Commission meeting of October 20, 1999, your application was considered. The Commission voted 6-0 (Commissioner Welshons was absent) to APPROVE your request. The decision of the Planning Commission became final on October 20, 1999. The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day following the date which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the Planning Director, Michael J. Holzmiller, Secretary of the Planning Commission, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009. If you have any questions regarding the final dispositions of your application, please call the Planning Department at (760) 438-1161. Sincerely, Mh>t^ MICHAEL JTHOEZMILLER Planning Director MJH:EB:mh Enclosed: Planning Commission Resolution No. 4657 2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (760) 438-1161 • FAX (76O) 438-0894 i^ OCT 2 6 1999 San Marcos Unified School District 1 Civic Center Drive, Suite 300, San Marcos, CA 92069 (760) 744-4776 FAX (760) 471-4928 October 22, 1999 Ms. Kathy Katcher Keystone Communities 5333 Mission Center Road, Suite 360 San Diego CA 92108-1350 RE: Magnolia at La Costa (Brookfield Meadows) School Fees Dear Kathy: Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, Keystone Communities needs to pay school fees and obtain a Certificate of Compliance from the San Marcos Unified School District. Currently, your payment of $10,601 per single family dwelling unit will satisfy the need to mitigate the impact for providing school facilities for "Magnolia at La Costa", a 29 lot subdivision in La Costa, within the City of Carlsbad. Currently, the San Marcos Unified School District is beginning the process to adopt a School Facility Needs Analysis (SFNA) that will determine our Level II fee. When adopted, scheduled for the December 13, 1999, School Board meeting, this new fee of approximately $2.75 to $3.00 per square foot will be used in lieu of our current $10,601 per dwelling unit. If you have any questions please give me a call. Sincerely, Thorn W. Clark Director of Facilities TWC/ch cc: Ken Clark Governing Board: Pam Bancells Mary Boreultz Alan flroion Sharon Jenkins Mike Preston Larry B. Maw, Ed.D., Superintendent OCT 11 1999 16=34 FR KEYSTONECOMMUNITIES 619 549 0682 TO 17604380S94 P.02/03 S T O IsT C.' O ! tvl M U IM I T 1 October 11, 1999 Ms. Elaine Blackburn City of Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 Re: Brookfield Meadows CT96*04xl VIA FACSIMILE (760) 438-0894 (Planning) (760) 431-5769 (Engineering) Dear Elaine, On Friday October 8, 1999 we met with Mr. Chris DeCerbo from your department for the Development Coordinating Committee in regards to our tentative map extension. He directed our questions regarding the proposed new conditions of approval to you, hence this request. The new condition requiring an HOA and CC&R's, the specified language for the CC&R's, and submitting the CC&R's for approval prior to final map approval are all acceptable. We must object, however, to the requirement for submitting recorded DRE-approved CC&R's to the Planning Department prior to building permit issuance. DRE approval is a long process typically requiring 4-5 months from submittal to issuance of a White Report. Although we are about to submit our DRE package, that would put us to approximately next March for DRE-approved CC&R's. We would like to be in a position to complete plan check and to pull building permits by the first of the New Year. We would not want to record CC&R's until they had been through the DRE approval process, as changes and revisions typically occur in that process. . We would therefore like to request if this condition could be changed to read "Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit the Developer shall provide the Planning Department with a recorded copy of the official CC&R's that have been approved by the DRE and the Planning Director". We worked on another small project in Carlsbad, MS 98-03 (known as "Chinquapin Avenue") for which Mr. Van Lynch was our project planner. He was able to accommodate our similar request 5333 MISSION CitNTIJB KOAD. STE. 360, SAN UIEGO. CA 9210K-1350 6 1 <i I 299-.*S5.'i • I'AX ft I <J / 2W-.1H4.=> OCT 11 1999 16=34 FR KEYSTONECOMMUNITIES 619 549 0682 TO 17604380894 P.03/03 at that time to change the proposed condition for CC&.R submittal to occupancy permits in lieu of building permits. Your favorable consideration of this request is appreciated. Sincerely, Don Williamson Cc Michele Masterson, Engineering Department Bob Wojctk, Engineering Department W ** TOTflL PflGE.03 ** s x o nsr E 1ST I T I E S % c o M: jvi September 30, 1999 Ms. Elaine Blackburn City of Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 Re: Brookfield Meadows CT96-04 / PUD 7 KB) / HDP96-04 / SDP96-07 Satisfaction of Tentative Map Conditions No. 10 &L 17 Dear Elaine, Please find attached copies of the following items in regard to satisfaction of Tentative Map Conditions No, 10 & 17: 1. Superceding letter dated 9-23-99 from the Planning Director indicating that our de minimus exemption from the 4(d) rule was granted and that our condition is therefore satisfied. 2. A follow-up fax from the U.S. Fish &_ Wildlife Service still requiring the offsite mitigation acquisition from the Manchester Avenue Conservation Bank. 3. The signed Conservation Credit Purchase Agreement. 4. The signed Acknowledgment of Sale of Conservation Credits. 1 believe these items should now fully satisfy our conditions of approval relating to the environmental matters. Sincerely, Don Williamson Keystone Communities Attachments Cc Don Rideout, City of Carlsbad Julie Vanderwier, U.S. Fish &. Wildlife Service 5333 MISSION CENTER ROAD, STE. 360, SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-1350 619/299-4855 • FAX 619/299-4845 SEP 2 5 1999 City of Carlsbad Planning Department September 23, 1999 Keystone Communities 5333 Mission Center Road, Suite 360 San Diego, CA 92108 Attention: Don Williamson SUBJECT: CT 96-04 - BROOKFIELD MEADOWS - 4d PERMIT Dear Mr. Williamson: This letter is in follow-up to our letter to you of September 13, 1999. We have had subsequent discussions with the wildlife agencies regarding your project and have determined that a 4(d) permit is not needed. The habitat loss resulting from your grading will be considered a de minimus impact, and no permit is required. The condition of approval on your tentative map relating to this matter is satisfied. By copy of this letter, we will inform the Engineering Department so that your grading plancheck can be completed. If you have any questions, please contact Elaine Blackburn in the Planning Department at (760) 438-1161, 4471. Sincerely, MICHAEL J.HOLZMILLER Planning Director MJH:DR:vd Gary Wayne Dennis Turner Elaine Blackburn Bob Wojcik File Copy 2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (76O) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-0894 . SEP-2-7-99 MON 4:24 PM FWS FAI NO. 760 431 5902 P. 1 FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION to: facsimile number: from: facsimile number: phone number: pages (+ this): date: sub j : comments: Don Williamson Keystone Communities 619-299-4845 Julie Vanderwier U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 760-431-9618 760-431-9440 ext. 103 one tt&&&-21 «e£«l»«* 1999 de minimus letter for Brookfield Meadows project Here is a copy of what was faxed to me by the City Thursday, 9-23. It's not quite the letter we like to see sent out but considering the timing, it'll do. What it should say is that, for purposes of your satisfying the condition of grading plan check, the loss of disturbed coastal sage scrub associated with the Brookfield Meadows project meets the criteria for a de minimus exemption to the 4 (d) special rule and, as such, no habitat loss permit is required. The justification for use of the de minimus exemption is that the impact is less than one acre (10,000 square feet), the habitat to be affected is not occupied by the coastal California gnatcatcher {demonstrated by protocol-level surveys conducted this year) ; and the loss will not compromise the ability of the City to prepare its NCCP subarea plan. Even habitat loss which is exempted pursuant to de minimus requires mitigation and, in accordance with our letter dated September 26, 1996, this mitigation is to be in the form of off-site habitat acquisition at a ratio of 2:1. Your purchase of one-half acre at the Manchester Avenue Mitigation Bank is acceptable for this purpose. You should send a copy of the off-site purchase transaction to the City; I would also appreciate receiving one to include in my file. [Now go relax! ] cc:Michael Holzmiller, City of Carlsbad Elaine Blackburn, City of Carlsbad P7 760 431 5902 PflGE.01 CONSERVATION CREDIT PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT THIS CONSERVATION CREDIT PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT ("Agreement") is entered into this ffi^ay of<,EPT . 1999 by and between Tech-Bilt, Inc., ("Seller") and Keystone La Costa LLC ("Purchaser"). A. Pursuant to that certain Manchester Avenue Conservation Bank Implementation Agreement (the "Implementation Agreement") dated September 30,1997 by and among Seller, as "Property Owner", The California Department of Fish and Game ("CDFG"), and The United States Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS") (CDFG and USFWS are referred to collectively hereinafter the "Wildlife Agencies"), the Wildlife Agencies have acknowledged the creation of the Manchester Avenue Conservation Bank (the "Conservation Bank") and the right of Seller to sell southern maritime chaparral and multispecies "Conservation Credits" as provided further therein. B. Purchaser desires to mitigate the loss of certain natural habitat values on real property located in San Diego County California commonly known as Brookfield Meadows (the "Purchaser's Property"). C. Purchaser has agreed to purchase from Seller, and Seller has agreed to sell to Purchaser 0.5 multispecies Conservation Credits (the "Conveyed Credits") from the Conservation Bank on the terms and conditions set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the agreements and acknowledgments set forth herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Seller and Purchaser hereby agree and acknowledge as follows: 1. The purchase price for the Conveyed Credits shall be $12,500.00 (the "Purchase Price"). 2. Purchaser has deposited with Seller, or shall deposit with Seller on or before October 1, 1999 (the "Closing Date"), immediately available funds in the amount of $12,500.00. 3. Upon satisfaction of the conditions set forth in Paragraph 2 above, Seller shall execute and deliver to Purchaser the Acknowledgment of Sale of Conservation Credits attached hereto as Exhibit A. 4. Purchaser acknowledges and agrees that: (a) the purchase and sale of the Conveyed Credits shall be made on an "AS IS, WHERE IS, WITH ALL FAULTS" basis as provided for in the Implementation Agreement; and (b) no representations or warranties have been made or are made and no responsibility has been or is assumed by Seller or by any officer, agent, affiliate, or representative acting or purporting to act on behalf of Seller as to: (i) the conservation value of the property conveyed to the Wildlife Agencies in establishing the Conservation Bank, (ii) the conservation value or mitigation requirements of the Purchaser's Property, (iii) the acceptance of Purchase Agreement Manchester Avenue Conservation Bank Page 1 of 4 v.091697 the Conveyed Credits by the Wildlife Agencies or any other governmental agency as mitigation for the loss of habitat values associated with the Purchaser's Property, or (iv) any other fact or circumstance which might affect the Conservation Bank, the Purchaser's Property, or the Conveyed Credits. 5. Purchaser acknowledges and agrees that the purchase and sale of the Conveyed Credits shall be made with the Purchaser having no further responsibilities for the Property as described in the Implementation Agreement. 6. Time is of the essence in this Agreement. In the event the conditions set forth in Paragraph 2 above have not been satisfied by the Closing Date, at Seller's election in its sole and absolute discretion, upon written notice to Purchaser, this Agreement shall terminate and neither party shall have any further obligations hereunder except as provided in Paragraph 7 below. 7. Seller and Purchaser each represent to the other that it has not had any contract, agreement, or dealings regarding the Conveyed Credits with, nor any communication in connection with the subject matter of this transaction through, any consultant, broker, agent, finder, or other person who can claim a right to a consultant fee, commission or finder's fee in connection with the sale contemplated herein, other than the Seller's consulting contract with McCollum Associates ("McCollum"). The Seller shall be solely responsible for any consulting fee owed to McCollum and agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Buyer harmless with respect thereto. In the event that any other consultant, broker or finder perfects a claim for a consultant fee or commission or finder's fee based upon any such contract, agreement, dealings or communication, the party through whom such claim is made shall be solely responsible for and shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the other party from and against said commission or fee and all costs and expenses (including without limitation reasonable attorneys' fees) incurred by the other party in defending against such claim. The provisions of this Section 7shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 8. Purchaser and Seller agree that all understandings and agreements heretofore made between them or their respective agents or representatives are merged in this Agreement and the Exhibits attached hereto, and alone fully and completely express their agreement with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersede all prior agreements and understandings between the parties relating to such subject matter. Purchaser and Seller further agree that Purchaser has no responsibilities or obligations whatsoever regarding the "Conservation Credits" except as are expressly stated in this Agreement. 9. All deposits and any notice required or permitted to be made or given under this Agreement shall be made and delivered to the parties at the addresses set forth below each party's respective signature. All notices shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been given when delivered by courier, when transmitted by facsimile (upon confirmation of successfully completed transmission), or upon the expiration of two (2) business days after the date of deposit of such notice in the United States mail, registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt required. Purchase Agreement Manchester Avenue Conservation Bank Page 2 of 4 v.091697 10. This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. In the event a dispute arises concerning the meaning or interpretation of any provision of this Agreement, or in the event of any litigation arising out of or related to this Agreement, the party not prevailing in such dispute or litigation shall pay any and all costs and expenses incurred by the other party in establishing or defending its rights hereunder, including, without limitation, court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. 11. This Agreement may be executed and delivered in any number of counterparts, each of which so executed and delivered shall be deemed to be an original and all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. Purchase Agreement Manchester Avenue Conservation Bank Page 3 of 4 v.091697 WHEREUPON, this Agreement has been executed as of the date first-above written. SELLER: TECH-BILT, Inc., By: Name: Its: P.O. Box 80036 San Diego, CA 92138 Attention: Mr. Ted Tchang Fax No. (619)223-2865 PURCHASER: By: KEYSTONE LA COSTA LLC, a California Limited Liability Company By: KEYSTONE^COMMUNITIES LLC, A California Limited Liability Company 1&/SS M. Ee'lber, Member 5333 Mission Center Road, Suite 360 San Diego, CA 92108 Attention: Mr. Don Williamson Fax No. (619)299-4845 Phone No. (619) 299-4855 x312 Purchase Agreement Manchester Avenue Conservation Bank Page 4 of4 v.091697 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SALE OF CONSERVATION CREDITS The undersigned Seller hereby acknowledges that it has sold and conveyed to Keystone La Costa LLC ("Purchaser") zero point five (0.5) Conservation Credits from the Manchester Avenue Conservation Bank for the biological mitigation of multispecies impacts in connection with the project known as Brookfield Meadows. All terms of this conveyance shall be governed by the provision of the Conservation Credit Purchase Agreement and Acknowledgment between Purchaser and the undersigned dated September 29, 1999. SELLER: By: Tech-Bilt, Inc. Ted Tchang, Vice President Date City of Carlsbad Planning Department September 28, 1999 Attn.: Don Williamson Keystone Communities 5333 Mission Ctr. Rd., Ste. 360 San Diego, CA 92108 SUBJECT:CT 96-04X1 - BROOKFIELD MEADOWS The preliminary staff report for the above referenced project will be mailed to you on Friday, October 1, 1999. This preliminary report will be discussed by staff at the Development Coordinating Committee (DCC) meeting which will be held on October 8, 1999. A twenty (20) minute appointment has been set aside for you at 11:30 a.m. If you have any questions concerning your project you should attend the DCC meeting. It is necessary that you bring your required unmounted colored exhibit(s) with you to this meeting in order for your project to go forward to the Planning Commission. If you do not plan to attend this meeting, please make arrangements to have your colored exhibit(s) here by the scheduled time above. If you need additional information concerning this matter, please contact your Planner, Elaine Blackburn at (760) 438-1161, extension 4471, or you may contact your Engineer, Bob Wojcik at (760) 438-1161, extension 4333. CITY OpICARLSBAD \. WAYNE Assistant Planning Director GEW:EB:eh c: File Copy 2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (760) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-O894 SEP 20 1999 11=24 FR KEYSTONECOMMUNITIES 619 549 0682 TO 17604380894 P.01/03 :EC :E o E S TO: TELEFAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET DATE: FAX Pi AlQJO t AO G>VOICE #: ATTN:CC: PROJECT: COMMENTS: NUMBER OF PAGES TRANSMITTED INCLUDING COVER SHEET: THIS INFORMATION(WiLp WILL NOT BE SENT OVER MAIL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL 619.299-4855 FAX 619.299-4845 Ext BY: 5333 Mission Center Road, Suite 360, San Diego, Ca 92108 5333 MISSION CENTER ROAD, STB, 360, SAN DIEGO, CA 9Z108-13IO 619/299-4855 • FAX 619/29»-48*5 SEP 20 1999 11-'25 FR KEYSTONECOMMUNITIES 619 549 0682 TO 17604380894 P.03/0309/18/99 15:10 -a . vvi-»jw"."«/*~«.o Proposed Revised (9-17-991 Text of Section in Project CC&R's Re: Item No. 21 of Conditions of Approval of City of Carlsbad City Council Resolution No. 97-595 September 2,1997 (Red-Lined Comparison to Earlier Version printed on Sept. 10, 1999) OFF-SITE STORAGE - RECREATIONAL VEHICLES. Pursuant to Item No. 21 of the Conditions of Approval of City of Carlsbad City Council Restitution No. 97-595 passed, approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California on September 2, 1997, for so long as the Project shall exist as a Common Interest Development, the Association shall be obligated to provide or cause to be provided, a minimum of 580 square feet of recrea- tional vehicle (RV) storage area off-site and vyithin a maujm^m ten {10) yyiite radjus of the Project, for use by Occupanto Residents on a first come, first serve basis e:\toraoWield meadow«W *tor*g« ofr-6lte4_99-Q917.doc SEP 13 1999 15:13 PflGE.03 ** TOTflL PPGE.03 ** 1 V a 1««3»94 P.B, Proposed Revised (9-17-99) Text of Section in Project CC&R's Re: Item No. 21 of Conditions of Approval of City of Carlsbad City Council Resolution No. 97-595 September 2,1997 *•*# OFF-SITE STORAGE - RECREATIONAL VEHICLES. Pursuant to Item No. 21 of the Conditions of Approval of City of Carlsbad City Council Resolution No. 97-595 passed, approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California on September 2,1997, for so long as the Project shall exist as a Common Interest Development, the Association shall be obligated to provide or cause to be provided, a minimum of 580 square feef of recrea- tional vehicle (RV) storage area off-site and within a maximum ten (10) mile radius of the Project, for use by Residents on a first come, first serve basis. e:\brooMleld meadowsW storage off-site4_99-0917.doc FQPiP 0O City of Carlsbad Planning Department September 16, 1999 Keystone LaCosta LLC 5333 Mission Center Rd., Suite 360 San Diego, CA 92108 SUBJECT: PRE 99-65 - BROOKFIELD MEADOWS ARCHITECTURAL SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE APN: 223-021-18,223-353-27 The Planning Director has completed a review of your application for a Substantial Conformance determination,-(APN: 223-021-18, 223-353-27). After careful consideration of the circumstances surrounding this request, the Planning Director has determined that the application qualifies for substantial conformance with the approved permit and therefore, approves the changes to the project based on Planning Director Administrative Policy No. 35. Please submit two (2) blueline copies (24" X 36") of all applicable exhibits for the project file and a reproducible 24" X 36" mylar copy of the amended site plan. The mylar must be submitted, stamped "Substantial Conformance", and signed by the Planning Director prior to issuance of any building permits for the project. CITY OF CARLSBAD MJH:EB:eh Principal Planner, Dennis Turner Bobbie Hoder Project Engineer, Ken Quon File Copy Data Entry 2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (76O) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-0894 From: Craig Ruiz To: Elaine Blackburn Date: 9/14/99 8:03AM Subject: Keystone - CT96-04 I received a new signed affordable housing agreement with the signatures of the current owners • » City of Carlsbad Planning Department September 13, 1999 Don Williamson Keystone Communities 5333 Mission Center Road, Suite 360 San Diego, CA 92108 SUBJECT: CT 96-04 - BROOKFIELD MEADOWS - 4d Permit This is in response to your letter of September 1 (and later discussions with staff) regarding satisfaction of Condition of Approval No. 17 of City Council Resolution No. 97-595 (required mitigation measures and take permit). As a general rule the City does not issue a grading permit for a project until a final map has been approved. Therefore, in effect, all conditions of approval which are to be satisfied for your final map and for your grading permit must be satisfied before a grading permit can be issued. This sequence also applies when one of the conditions of approval requires implementation mitigation measures and/or issuance of a "take permit". Therefore, the City could not approve the necessary take permit (e.g., City 4d Permit) until all conditions of approval for the necessary grading permit and the final map had been satisfied and until the final map had been approved. The City has only 4.17 acres remaining of its 5% allocation, and all of this has been reserved for City projects. To reallocate any of the 4.17 acres to any private project would require approval by the City Council. Therefore, two options are available to you. 1. When all conditions of the final map have been satisfied, request City Council consideration of reallocation of the necessary acreage from the City projects to your project. Please be advised that there is no assurance that such a request would be approved. 2. Wait until the Habitat Management Plan is approved, which will eliminate the 5% cap that now exists. Please contact your staff planner, Elaine Blackburn, at (760) 438-1161, extension 4471, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, V l/\A^^^ MICHAEL HOLZMtlLER Planning Director MJH:EB:eh Gary Wayne Bob Wokcik Dennis Turner File Copy Don Rideout 2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (760) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-0894 MEMORANDUM September 13, 1999 TO: SENIOR PLANNER - ELAINE BLACKBURN FROM: Associate Engineer - Land Use Review PRE 99-65: BROOKFIELD MEADOWS - PRELIMINARY REVIEW (SCE FOR SDP) Engineering Department staff has completed a preliminary review of the above referenced project. There are no engineering issues associated with this project and no engineering conditions of approval will be placed on the project. If you or the applicant have any questions, please contact me at extension 4501. FRANK J.JIMENO Associate Engineer Principal Civil Engineer- Land Development o September 10, 1999 Ms. Elaine Blackburn City of Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 RE: Satisfaction of Tentative Map Condition No. 21 Brookfield Meadows CT 96-04 / PUD 71(B) / HDP 96-04 /SDP 96-07 By Fax: (760) 438-0894 Dear Elaine: Please find attached revised proposed text for inclusion in the project CC&R's that will create the obligation for the Homeowner's Association to maintain the offsite RV storage area. Also attached is a red-lined comparison of the revised text with the earlier version, as well as another copy of the contract with World RV for your reference. I believe that the revised text should satisfy the requirements of Condition No. 21, as well as any further concerns regarding the sole obligation of the HOA to maintain the offsite space, as we discussed in our meeting of September 8. We will appreciate your prompt consideration of this item. Sincerely, Don Williamson Keystone Communities Attachments 5333 MISSION CENTER ROAD, STE. 360, SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-1310 619/299-4855 • FAX 619/299-4845 • 09/10/99 13:03 © CCI-BROWN&FARMER @) 002/003 Proposed Revised (9-10-99) Text of Section in Project CC&R's Re: Item No. 21 of Conditions of Approval of City of Carlsbad City Council Resolution No. 97-595 September 2,1997 #.## OFF-SITE STORAGE - RECREATIONAL VEHICLES. Pursuant to Item No. 21 of the Conditions of Approval of City of Carlsbad City Council Resolution No. 97-595 passed, approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California on September 2, 1997, for so long as the Project shall exist as a Common Interest Development, the Association shall be obligated to provide or cause to be provided, a minimum of 580 square feet of recrea- tional vehicle (RV) storage area off-site of the Project for use by Occupants on a first come, first serve basis e:\brookfield meadoweW storage off-site3_99-0910b.doc SEP 10 1999 13=05 PPGE.02 •09/10/99 13:03 ® CCI-BROWN&FARMER 0003/003 Proposed Revised (9-10-99) Text of Section in Project CC&R's Re: Item No. 21 of Conditions of Approval of City of Carlsbad City Council Resolution No. 97-595 September 2,1997 (Red-Lined Comparison to Earlier Version printed on August 25, 1999) #,## OFF-SITE STORAGE - RECREATIONAL VEHICLES. Pursuant to Item No. 21 of the Conditions of Approval of City of Carlsbad City Council Resolution No. 97-595 passed, approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California on September 2, 1997, for so long as the Project shall exist as a Common Interest Development, the Association shall fe§ obligated to provide or cause to be provided, a minimum of 580 square feet of recrea- tional vehicle (RV) storage area {yRV-Stofagety off-site of the Project for f&rHaJ ygg by Occupants on q first come._first serve basis. Each Occupant who so rente RV Storage pursuant to this Section, hereby acknowledges and agroes-that the cost of any RV Storage shall bo his or her sole obligation and hereby indemnifies and holds the Association harmless-against any such costs or iiabilities-that-may arise as a result of such Occupant's rental of RV Storage. The foregoing notwith standing, in the event that any cost or expense relating to an Oeeupant's rental of an- RV Storage Area-is-assossed against the-As&o€4ation-rathcr than against the Occupant renting -such RV Storage Aroa, such cost or expense shall be allocated as a Single-Benefit Assessment agamst-any-Guch Occupant. e:\brookfield meadows\rv storage off-site3_99-0910b.doc SEP 10 1999 13=05 PflGE.03 RV SALES 1611 W. Vista-Vista, CA 92083 Phone 760-724-5176- Fax 760-724-2967 SALES-CONSIGNMENT. STORAGE Storage Agreement World RV Sales hereby agrees to make available to Keystone La Costa LLC 580 square feet of recreation storage space for a period of six months beginning September 1,1999 and ending March 1, 2000. The rent shall be $100 per month. If World RV Sales or Keystone La Costa LLC require new contract terms and rate will be agreed upon in writing thirty days prior to March, 1, 2000, or the current agreement will automatically renew for an additional successive six month period. By: Keystone La Costa LLC, a California Limited Liability Company By:t Keystone Co/nmpfiitie^L^la California Limited Liability Company By: Donald L. Williamson Elaine Blackburn - CT960£new conditiiJK _ _,_ ' ^fc. _..p§9§ From: Elaine Blackburn To: Bob Wojcik, Kenneth Quon Date: 9/7/99 11:01 AM Subject: CT9604 new conditions My error: The last 3 sub-categories of the new condition no. 1 can be deleted as they don't apply in this case. They are "Landscape Maintenance Responsibilities", "Balconies, trellises and decks", and "Anything else special". Sorry. From: Elaine Blackburn To: Bob Wojcik, Kenneth Quon Date: 9/7/99 10:49AM Subject: CT9604 TM Extension Brookfield Meadows I am attaching two new conditions of approval and an explanation for each. Just in case, I am also putting the file on the Community drive for your use.The file name is: CT9604ext.mem ^^^ The following are new conditions to be applied to the TM Extension for CT 96-04 Brookfield Meadows. I have also added some wording about why they are being added. I understand that you have already added the PAR/ECR condition. New condition No. 1 is being added because it is the "latest and greatest" minimum wording for HOA's being required by the Assistant City Attorney. It is now standard minimum wording on all projects which have HOA's/CC&R's. The Developer shall establish a homeowner's association and corresponding covenants, conditions and restrictions. Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to final map approval. Prior to issuance of a building permit the Developer shall provide the Planning Department with a recorded copy of the official CC&Rs that have been approved by the Department of Real Estate and the Planning Director. At a minimum, the CC&Rs shall contain the following provisions: General Enforcement by the City. The City shall have the right, but not the obligation, to enforce those Protective Covenants set forth in this Declaration in favor of, or in which the City has an interest. Notice and Amendment. A copy of any proposed amendment shall be provided to the City in advance. If the proposed amendment affects the City, City shall have the right to disapprove. A copy of the final approved amendment shall be transmitted to City within 30 days for the official record. Failure of Association to Maintain Common Area Lots and Easements. In the event that the Association fails to maintain the "Common Area Lots and/or the Association's Easements" as provided in Article , Section the City shall have the right, but not the duty, to perform the necessary maintenance. If the City elects to perform such maintenance, the City shall give written notice to the Association, with a copy thereof to the Owners in the Project, setting forth with particularity the maintenance which the City finds to be required and requesting the same be carried out by the Association within a period of thirty (30) days from the giving of such notice. In the event that the Association fails to carry out such maintenance of the Common Area Lots and/or Association's Easements within the period specified by the City's notice, the City shall be entitled to cause such work to be completed and shall be entitled to reimbursement with respect thereto from the Owners as provided herein. Special Assessments Levied by the City. In the event the City has performed the necessary maintenance to either Common Area Lots and/or Association's Easements, the City shall submit a written invoice to the Association for all costs incurred by the City to perform such maintenance of the Common Area Lots and or Association's Easements. The City shall provide a copy of such invoice to each Owner in the Project, together with a statement that if the Association fails to t Elaine Blackburn - CT9604ext.mem.do pay such invoice in full within the time specified, the City will pursue collection against the Owners in the Project pursuant to the provisions of this Section. Said invoice shall be due and payable by the Association within twenty (20) days of receipt by the Association. If the Association shall fail to pay such invoice in full within the period specified, payment shall be deemed delinquent and shall be subject to a late charge in an amount equal to six percent (6%) of the amount of the invoice. Thereafter the City may pursue collection from the Association by means of any remedies available at law or in equity. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, in addition to all other rights and remedies available to the City, the City may levy a special assessment against the Owners of each Lot in the Project for an equal prorata share of the invoice, plus the late charge. Such special assessment shall constitute a charge on the land and shall be a continuing lien upon each Lot against which the special assessment is levied. Each Owner in the Project hereby vests the City with the right and power to levy such special assessment, to impose a lien upon their respective Lot and to bring all legal actions and/or to pursue lien foreclosure procedures against any Owner and his/her respective Lot for purposes of collecting such special assessment in accordance with the procedures set forth in Article of this Declaration. Landscape Maintenance Responsibilities. The HOAs and individual lot or unit owner landscape maintenance responsibilities shall be as set forth in Exhibit [Click Here]. Balconies, trellis and decks. The individual lot or unit owner allowances and prohibitions regarding balconies, trellis and decks shall be as set forth in Exhibit [Click Here] Anything else special New Condition No. 2 is being added for the same reason as No. 1. It is now a standard condition added to all residential projects. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the Planning Director from the School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to provide school facilities. ^^ "•" City of Carlsbad Public Works — Engineering September 2, 1999 Mr. Don Williamson Keystone La Costa LLC 5333 Mission Center Road, #360 San Diego, CA92108 APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE MAP EXTENSION BROOKFIELD MEADOWS, CT 96-04x1 The City is in receipt of the tentative map extension application for the above referenced project. The Engineering Department has reviewed your application as to its completeness for processing. The application is complete, as submitted. Although the initial processing of your application has begun, the official acceptance date of the application is the date of this letter. Additionally, the timely application of this tentative map extension request automatically extends this tentative map, CT 96-04, for a maximum of 60 days, or until the application is approved, conditionally approved, or denied, whichever occurs first. In the course of processing the application, the City may 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, which are to be addressed before decisions for approval or denial can be made. If you have questions or wish to schedule a meeting to discuss the application, please contact me at (760) 438-1161, extension 4380. To better assist you in this process, please include a reference to the above listed application number in all correspondence with the City. KENNETH W. QUON, P.E. Associate Engineer c: Public Works Director Bob Wojcik, Deputy City Engineer VEIaine Blackburn, Senior Planner 2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (760) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 431-5769 COMMUNITIES September 2, 1999 Ms. Elaine Blackburn City of Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 RE: Preliminary Review / Substantial Conformance Brookfield Meadows CT 96-04 / PUD 71(B) / HDP 96-04 /SDP 96-07 Dear Elaine: Please find attached our submittal for Preliminary Review/Substantial Conformance for our proposed changes to the Site Development Plan and the concept architectural plans. Site Development Plan • Lot Lines - there are no lot line adjustments proposed. Lot lines have been hard calced for final mapping purposes, however. • Setbacks - Refer to Exhibit A (the comparison chart). No setbacks have been changed greater then the allowable 10%, with the exception of Lot 10. The left setback of that lot has increased by 8 feet (greater than 10%) but the side yard has thereby increased giving more usable yard space. • Lot coverage - Refer to Exhibit A (the comparison chart). Lot coverage has not increased by more than 10% on any individual lot, and has only increased on the average by 1. 21%. • Unit Square Footage - Refer to Exhibit A (the comparison chart). Unit square footage (the actual ground floor + garage coverage) used to calculate lot coverage has not increased by more than 10% on any individual lot, and has increased on the average by 4.05% • Building Height - Refer to Exhibit A (the comparison chart). Building height has not changed on any lot, remaining at 25 '-4". • Plotting - Please refer to Exhibit B. All plotting remains the same, with the same plan type on each lot, with these exceptions: • Lot 26 has been designated as a -private park, per Condition of Approval No. 20. 9683 TIERRA GRANDE ST., STE. 201, SAN DIEGO, CA 92126 619/549-1195 • FAX 619/549-0682 • Lots 10, 14, 20 and 21 remain designated for the attached second dwelling unit per Condition of Approval No. 18, so there is no change here. • Lots 7 and 11 have been designated to use the second dwelling unit plan, but slightly modified to provide a second master suite instead. This represents a change from an original Plan 3 to the new Plan 2X on both lots. While this represents a change of 20.14% in overall living area, it is only a change of 0.6% and 0.4%, respectively, in lot coverage. These two modified Plans 2's were plotted on Lots 7 and 11 because they were larger lots and could accommodate the larger plan without increasing any setbacks beyond the allowable 10%. • Lots 5, 13 and 15 represent the only other proposed plotting change, from the original Plan 1 to the new Plan 3 in each case. While this represents a change of 33.7% in overall living area from the original plan on each lot, lot coverage only increases 1.4%, 0.9% and 1.6%, respectively. These lots were able to accommodate the larger plans without increasing any setbacks beyond the allowable 10%. • As shown in Exhibit B, overall we have decreased the Plan 1 's by 3 units, increased the Plans 2's by 2 units, and kept the Plan 3's at the same number. While this change significantly increases the project marketability in our view, it does not change the project plotting in terms of setbacks and lot coverage beyond the allowable maximum. • As shown in Exhibit C, other then the five lots discussed above (Lots 7, 11,5, 13 and 15), overall unit square footage (living area) does not increase beyond the allowable maximum. Architectural Plans We have been working with the Dahlin Group Architects to modify the original architectural plans. Our objective was to stay within the allowable bounds of the original plans, increase square footage within the allowable parameters, and to freshen the elevations with a more contemporary appearance that enhances their competitive stature in the marketplace. We believe that we have achieved a more attractive overall neighborhood appearance which blends with the existing neighborhood but offers enhanced product marketability. • Floor Plan Types - We have retained the original plan designations: • Plan 1 - proposed 1921 square feet (the smaller plan) • Plan 2 - proposed 2553 square feet (the second dwelling unit plan) • Plan 3 - proposed 2337 square feet (the larger plan) The second dwelling unit plan (Plan 2) is identical to Plan 3 with the exception of the addition of the attached living unit on the forward portion of the house. Floor Plans - Square Footage Exhibit D shows how the proposed square footage of each plan remains within the allowable 10% deviation: Plan 1 - proposed increase 9.9% Plan 2 - proposed increase 7.0% Plan 3 - proposed increase 9.9% Floor Plans - Overall dimensions The width of each floor plan remains the same as the originals at 30'-0", which facilitates retaining setbacks within the allowable deviation. The lengths of Plan 2 and Plan 3 are increased by 3'-0" and l'-2", respectively, but not to the detriment of any setbacks on the plotting. Elevations - We are proposing two elevations each for Plan 1 and Plan 3, a traditional theme utilizing wood siding, shutters, and other trim; and a Spanish/Mediterranean theme with arches, stucco accents, and tile roofs. The second dwelling unit Plan 2 utilizes the Spanish/Mediterranean theme. We have been able to achieve some additional relief on the rear elevations through the use of projecting planes. The exterior stairway to the second dwelling unit has been moved to the interior courtyard area, thus improving the side yard setback areas and achieving more space between houses where those units are plotted. We will appreciate your favorable consideration of this substantial conformance submittal. Sincerely, Don Williamson Vice President, Project Management Enclosures LOT # 1 ^ i 4 5 6 1 8 g 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S 26 27 28 29 APPRV'D PLAN# 3 1 ?> / IR ? 9R / 3R 2 5K ?> /£ 2K / IR. *> IR. / 2 2R IK I 3> 3 3R / 2 1 PRPS'D PLAN# 2 / 1R 1 3R 3 2X I 1R 2 2X ? 3Z 2K ? /R ? /£ / 2 2R 3Z / ? ^fi&y&'ipfyfe/ AI/^'V. - / ? 3 TOTAL APPROVED Frt Stbk 20 24 20 24 20 20 20 20 24 20 25 47 51 20 17 20 2( 20 32 20 22 24 Left S(bk 20 5" 7 /4 /7 Rl Stbk 7 7 5 6 7 Rear Slbk $7 52 52 4-9 52 48 40 36 42 /<$ /<$ /9 20 7 Bldg Ht 285% WY* ft& 24.3% 25.2% 227% x GROUND FLCG& INCLUDING AVZRAGZ Lot Cvrg 26.2% 26.9% 325% 363% 31.6% 16.1 357% 31.1% 25.3% 30% 394% GARA Unit 3,f 139? '39? J39? 1545 2S.651487 A, PROPOSED Frt Stbk 20 20 20 2d 20 20 20 20 20 20 17 45 5G 20 17 20 20 21 20 21 20 20 20 20 Left Slbk 13 /O 20 7 J7 Rt Stbk 7 10 9 27 Rear Stbk 53 SI 51 49 48 46 44 4 13 23 (5 18 27 /9 Zd Id 15 Bldg Ht 5'4'"\ GROUND /AJCLU0M AVZRAG& Lol Cvrg 24.1% 1593 m% /4$9 30.3% 159$ 2bfl% 1459 26>.l%&93 27.3% /6& 20ni459 15.1% GGA mi Unit s.f* /4S9 /593 H*.8%/6W Z22%/577 ZAGZ 1545 %DIFFERENCE Frt Stbk — — — — —— — — +B.O -4.3 -2.0 — — — — — -3./ — — —- — —— Left Stbk — — —- — '' — — +8$&. — —• — + 9./ — — — — — — — — — — Rt Stbk — —— — — — — — *7,7 — — — — +8.0— — — — —— —- — Rear Stbk — -/.? -f.9 -7.-S +Z.O -7.7 —-Z.5 -4.8 -S.o "2.t +83— — — — +3.3 — — — - — —— • — — Bldg Ht - — — — — — — — — — —— — — —• — — — — —_ —— —•# GffWMP fLWg /MCLVDM Lot Cvrg +M +/.0 +6.(o +1.0 •**/.4 +1.2 +0.& +(.7 +0.9 +1.8 +0.4 +6.7 +0.9 +1.5 +/,& +/.4 -4.1 +1,2. +/.I +4.7 +/J +3.Z +Z.9 +J.5 +6.1 —+Z.5 +2..Z + I& **A +I.ZI Unil s.f* +3J +4.7 +3J +4,7 +4,7 -+3.I 1-t.l +3J +3J +7.0 +2J +3J +4.7 +7-0 +4-J +V.7 ±3.1 + 4.7 + 4.7 +7.0 +2.3 +3J +4.7 +3.1 +1,1 —+¥.7 +3.1 +?•/ ZAte +4.4$ / KZMARKS /NCKZASe OF 8 'OFUSeABLESIDSYARD WITH NEW FLOW Pt-AU If3/ \SA7~f" /"W/3 'A*"j^> *^' *'** ' 'r 1V -" \<? X^EC^g 11 -h11 1^ IkaCBB^E- / 8/4/99 qpOOKFIELD LOT1 LOT 2 LOTS LOT 4 LOTS LOT 6 LOT 7 LOTS LOT 9 LOT 10 LOT 11 LOT 12 LOT 13 LOT 14 LOT 15 LOT 16 LOT 17 LOT 18 LOT 19 LOT 20 LOT 21 LOT 22 LOT 23 LOT 24 LOT 25 LOT 26 LOT 27 LOT 28 LOT 29 TOTALS PHASE I ^ • * * V* * * * * «/ * * * * * */ * 17 II v' N/ V> * * * * * * * * * 12 R=reverse PLANS X=DBL Master 1 * </ «/ "R *R ^ • ;rx; N/ 8 2 'X * 'X <R * ^R 7^><C 6 3 * ^R 'R * ^R V* ^R ^ >/ ^R ^/ ^ ^XC^ «/ «/ 14 COMMENTS Parking Model Model DBL Master Affordable Housing Unit DBL Master Affordable Housing Unit Affordable Housing Unit Affordable Housing Unit Passive Park Original Site Development Plan 11 14 9/2/99 LOT n 1 2 3 4 5 & 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 APPRV'O PLANS 3 I 2 1 IR 1 1K I •1K. Z W ?> /£ 2R I IR ? [R. 1 2 2R 1Z / 3 3 IK 3 3 PRPS'D PLAN# ^/ ?*/ ?R 3 2X / 1R Z 2X ? ?K 2K ? /£ 3 /£ / 2 2R ?Z / ? 3 PAZK / ^3 APPRO/ED UNIT SQUARE FOOTAGE (Total Living Area) 2125 1748 2125 1748 I74B 2/25 2/25 1748 2125 2Mb 2125 .2125 J748 23&t> I74B 1746 2125 1746 1748 ZWb 2186 2125 174-2 2125 2125 2125 I74B , 2125 2125 PROPOSED UNIT SQUARE FOOTAGE (Total Living Area) Z317 1921 2337 mi 2337. 2337 2553 /9ZI 2137 2553 2553 2331 Z3?7 2553 2337 !92f Z337 192! mt 2553 2553 2337mi Z331 2337 —mi 2337 2331 % DIFFERENCE + 9.98 +9.9d + 9.98 +9.96 +33.70 +9.98 +2 C.I 4 + 9.9J +9.98 +7.00 +20.14 +9.98 +33.70 +7.00 +33.70 + 9.96 <-9.9d +9.90 W<? +7.00 +7.00 + 9.93 +9.96 +9.98 +9.98 —+9.90 + 9.98 +9.98 \ RBVWRKS p BROOKFIELD MEADOWS Keystone La Costa L.L.C. Preliminary Square Footage Summary PLANl First Floor Second Floor TOTAL PLAN 2 First Floor Second Floor SUBTOTAL Living Suite TOTAL PLANS First Floor Second Floor TOTAL Approved Square Footage 1747 SF 1993 SF 393 SF 2386 SF 2125 SF Proposed Square Footage 864 SF 1057 SF 1921 SF 1032 SF 1100SF 2132 SF 421 SF 2553 SF 1032 SF 1305 SF 2337 SF % Change 9.9% 7.0% 9.9% Conformance Max. SQ. FT. /VU-CNVABU£ 1921 SF 2192 SF 432 SF 2624 SF 2337 SF Preliminary Building Height Summary PLANl PLAN 2 PLAN 3 Approx. Approved Building Height 25'-4" Abv. T.O.S. 25'-4" Abv. T.O.S. 25'-4" Abv. T.O.S. Approx. Proposed Building Height 25'-4" Abv. T.O.S. 25'-4" Abv. T.O.S. 25'-4" Abv. T.O.S. % Change 0% 0% 0% Conformance Max. Height 27'- 10" 27-10" 27-10" 8/26/1999 Sep-Ol-99 O1:O7P Randall Marketing . ' • E V S X 619 693 1382 P . O2 o ixr rvi LJ September 1, 1999 TO: Elaine Blackburn City of Carlsbad Planning Department FROM: Don Williamson Keystone Communities RE: Brookfield Meadows CT96-04 1 apologize to you and Mr. Rideout for any misunderstanding that may have arisen in our various discussions over this offsite mitigation issue. I certainly never intended to suggest that any one agency was mistrustful of another, but merely that you could not proceed with only a verbal understanding that our 10,000 sq. ft. mitigation requirement was an infinitesimal take from the City's 5% allocation and that it would not be a future issue with Fish &. Wildlife. We have little first-hand knowledge of this particular interagency relationship, and in our limited experience here we have found Julie Van dcr Wier at Fish & Wildlife to be most helpful and courteous. Please understand that we have a potential $6'7 million project at stake here, with the tentative map expiring tomorrow, and we are still mired over this one remaining condition to be satisfied. We have been working quietly for months with Fish 6k Wildlife and the City to satisfy all the various agency requirements, and we are ready to execute the contract for the offsite mitigation purchase. It has always seemed somewhat inequitable that we are required to mitigate an offsite area that will be further mitigated by the adjacent HCP, but that is the nature of the game and we are willing to comply according to the rules, 1 hope that we can resolve this matter quickly, and expeditiously gain your approval of this mitigation requirement in satisfaction of the condition. With the map expiring, even though we have filed for an extension, you can understand our extreme anxiety and desire to bring this matter to an immediate resolution. Again, 1 apologize for any misunderstanding, and sincerely hope that we can move ahead. >>6K.-I TM-'RKA t.KANLH- ST.. STF.. 2111. SAN DIE-CO, C A 9212(< (> 1 9 f 5 4 cl - 1 1 9 5 • TAX f> 1 >.'/ 544-0682 SEP 01 1999 17:35 FR KEYSTONECOMMUNITIES 619 549 0682 TO 17604380894 P 02/02 ECEYSTOIST " ~ci o iv M u rsf i T i s September 1, 1999 Mr. Michael Holzmiller City of Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 BY FAX: (760) 438-0894 RE: Brookfteld Meadows CT 96-047 PUD 7KB) / HDP 96X34 / SDP 96-07 Dear Mr. Holzmiller: The approved Tentative Map for the above-referenced project expires tomorrow, September 2, 1999. We applied for an extension to the map on August 9, 1999, and at the same time have continued to diligently process our Final Map, the grading plans, and the improvement plans. We have completed all plan checks and are now gathering signatures on the map. We have one remaining Condition of Approval to be met, which is Condition No. 17, regarding permits and mitigation measures required by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Their requirements are set forth in their .correspondence dated September 26, 1996 and May 14, 1999, copies of which have been previously provided to the Planning Department. We are ready to proceed with our purchase of the offsite coastal sage scrub credits that is required by the Service, We hereby formally request that you initiate proceedings for the de minimus exemption to the NCCP 4(D) rule, as prescribed in the above-referenced USFWS correspondence. The Service has noted in that correspondence that "As the City has exhausted its five percent allocation, this is now the only mechanism to expeditiously process such habitat loss. Impacts are less than one acre, the habitat in question is not occupied by the coastal California gnatcatcher, and the loss would not preclude the ability of the City to complete its Habitat Management Plan (HMP)". If that is not the correct process, then please inform us of the process that you will require. Time has become critically short, and we are ready to proceed. Please direct us. . Williamson Vice President, Project Management Cc Elaine Blackburn Don Rideout TIERRA GRANDE ST., STE. 201, SAN DIEGO, CA 9ZT26 619/549-1195 • FAX 619 /549-0682 ** TOTPL PAGE.02 ** o 1ST o 1ST August 27, 1999 Ms. Elaine Blackburn City of Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 920094576 Re: Brookfield Meadows CT96-04 / PUD 71 (B) / HDP 96-04 / SDP 96-07 Satisfaction of Tentative Map Condition No. 21 Dear Elaine, Please find attached a copy of our contract with World RV providing for 580 square feet of offsite recreational vehicle storage in satisfaction of Condition No. 21 of Tentative Map CT96-04. Also attached is a proposed text for inclusion in the project CCckR's which will give the Homeowner's Association the right and obligation to maintain the offsite RV storage area for the benefit of the of the homeowners. Please be aware of the following issues, however, in relation to the satisfaction of this condition: 1. The contract with World RV is for a period of 6 months, automatically renewable for additional 6 month periods. We solicited proposals from the only three RV storage providers in the nearby market area. No one would offer a contract term beyond one year. We chose World RV because they are readily accessible to the project, their rental cost was the least expensive, we felt comfortable with their physical setup (i.e. fenced and gated security compound, well-lighted, etc.), and the contract term provides the equivalent of a one-year lease, which is the longest term available at any location. 2. Our counsel for DRE-related matters is now preparing the HOA budget and the CC&_R's for the project. Although the CC&R's are not required as a Condition of Approval for the Final Map, we are attaching a proposed text of the section to be included in the CC&R's that will provide for the long-term maintenance of the off-site RV storage area. 3. Please be aware, as we have discussed by phone, that our counsel has advised us that the DRE may refuse to issue a Public Report for the sale of units in this project because of the potential unacceptability of this condition. A copy of our counsel's opinion is attached which explains the "precarious nature of this condition". When we make our submittal to the DRE for the Public Report, we will request an opinion letter from them on this subject. If the DRE concurs with our counsel's opinion, and we are 9683 TIERRA GRANDE ST., STE. 201, SAN DIEGO, CA 92126 619/549-1195 • FAX 619/549-0682 unable to indemnify the HOA to the DRE's satisfaction, we may have to request from the Planning Department some form of administrative relief from this Condition or we may have to submit for an amendment to the Conditions of Approval. 4. As you are aware, our Tentative Map is about to expire on September 2, 1999. We are diligently processing the Final Map, and we have applied for an extension to the Tentative Map to allow the sixty day statutory period in which to complete the processing and approval of the Final Map. We will therefore appreciate your prompt consideration of this RV storage contract and proposed CC&R text in satisfaction of Condition No. 21 of the Approval for Tentative Map CT 96-04. Again, thank you for your favorable consideration of these items. Please give me a call at (858) 549-1195 ext. 305 if I can answer any questions you might have or provide additional clarification or information that may be required. Sincerely, Don Williamson Keystone Communities Attachments RU SALES 1611 W. Vista-Vista, CA 92083 Phone 760-724-5176- Fax 760-724-2967 SALES-CONSIGNMENT, STORAGE Storage Agreement World RV Sales hereby agrees to make available to Keystone La Costa LLC 580 square feet of recreation storage space for a period of six months beginning September 1, 1999 and ending March 1, 2000. The rent shall be $100 per month. If World RV Sales or Keystone La Costa LLC require new contract terms and rate will be agreed upon in writing thirty days prior to March, 1, 2000, or the current agreement will automatically renew for an additional successive six month period. By: Keystone La Costa LLC, a California Limited Liability Company By: Keystone CojTimu|iities^L^r)a California Limited Liability Company By: (fjPJLAtic L. Donald L. Williamson (T E V S T O ' IM JuneS, 1999 Re: Brookfield Meadows - La Costa 29 Lots To Whom It May Concern: The following is a list of individuals authorized to sign all necessary documentation and perform all business tasks for processing the Brookfield Meadows, La Costa project: Gary S. Copson Ross Felber Donald L. Williamson Kathy Katcher Steve McCawley If you need any further information please feel free to call me at (619) 549-1195 x304. Sincerely, By: Keystone La Costa LLC, a California limited liability company By: Keystorre Communities LLC, a California limited liability company By: /^^Tfe r, Member 9683 TIERRA GRANDE ST., STE. 201, SAN DIEGO, CA 92126 619/549-1195 « FAX 619/549-0682 Proposed Text of Section in Project CC&R's Re: Item No. 21 of Conditions of Approval of City of Carlsbad City Council Resolution No. 97-595 September 2,1997 #.## OFF-SITE STORAGE - RECREATIONAL VEHICLES. Pursuant to Item No. 21 of the Conditions of Approval of City of Carlsbad City Council Resolution No. 97-595 passed, approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California on September 2, 1997, for so long as the Project shall exist as a Common Interest Development, the Association shall pro- vide or cause to be provided, a minimum of 580 square feet of recreational vehicle (RV) storage area ("RV Storage") off-site of the Project for rental by Occupants. Each Occu- pant who so rents RV Storage pursuant to this Section, hereby acknowledges and agrees that the cost of any RV Storage shall be his or her sole obligation and hereby indemnifies and holds the Association harmless against any such costs or liabilities that may arise as a result of such Occupant's rental of RV Storage. The foregoing notwith- standing, in the event that any cost or expense relating to an Occupant's rental of an RV Storage Area is assessed against the Association rather than against the Occupant renting such RV Storage Area, such cost or expense shall be allocated as a Single Benefit Assessment against any such Occupant. Don Williamson/ Key Stone Communities Re: Brookfield Meadows August 20, 1999 Page 2 CAVEAT!!!; The requirement by the City of Carlsbad for the Developer (actually, the Association) to pro- vide off-site storage areas of the owners/residents of the subdivision, holds extremely^danger- ous implications for a homeowners association and its members. Because the obligation is to provide such storage area in an off-site location, there is no guarantee that the landlord of that off-site location RV Storage space property will even permit the Association to allow anyone other than the Association to maintain an RV in that space - Why? because the "agreement" would be between the landlord and the Association. However, presuming that the landlord did allow an RV owner other than the Association to store his or her RV in the landlord's off-site space, the Association could, then, conceivably be held dangerously liable for any damage or [worse!] injuries that might be sustained to the landlord's property or to a person as a result of items stored inside the non-Association-owned RV and, therefore, beyond the control of the Association. These are but two examples of the precarious nature of this "condition." Based on this scenario, I believe that the California Department of Real Estate will not permit this City requirement to be a "condition" to this Project; and thus the DRE may refuse to issue its Public Report for the sale of the lots to the public until this condition is removed. Jeffrey L. Brown, Esq. :ser cc: Larry Grove August 23, 1999 TO: BOBBIE HODER PLANNING DEPARTMENT - GRAPHICS TRAFFIC ENGINEER RAENETTE ABBEY, BUILDING DEPARTMENT STEVE RUGGLES, STATION #3 FIRE DEPARTMENT GREG CLAVIER, COMMUNITY SERVICES LORI ALLEN, POLICE DEPARTMENT KARL VON SCHLIEDER - GIS FROM: Planning Director SUBJECT: STREET NAMES FOR CT 96-04, BROOKFIELD MEADOWS The following street names have been approved as a part of the final map processing for CT 96-04. A map delineating street locations is attached. Public Streets: Via Borregos Corte Terral Attachment PG:eh H:\Admin\Streets4 LEGEND INDICATES F/RE HYDRANT.. 0 200 400 800 1200 1600 SCALE: 1'= .400' O 1ST MMUIST August 18, 1999 Ms. Elaine Blackburn DC^Eli/errx n. r o i u j KtutlVEDCity or Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive AUG t 8 1999 Carlsbad, CA 920094576 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPTRe: Brookfield Meadows " CT96-04 / PUD 71 (B) / HDP 96-04 / SDP 96-07 Satisfaction of Tentative Map Condition No. 20 Dear Elaine, Please find attached three copies of our Recreation Area Plan in satisfaction of Tentative Map CT 96-04 Condition No. 20. Also attached are three copies of the approved Concept Landscape Plan which is referenced on the Recreation Area Plan for tree and plant types. As you are aware, the previous property owner/subdivider who processed the project, Edgecrest Investments/Okon Development, was unable to accomplish the annexation of the subdivision into the existing Brookfield Homeowners' Association. Thus we are now complying with the provision to locate the required recreation area on site, subject to the approval of the Planning Director. The required recreation area will be located on Lot 26, which was a standard building lot situated at the intersection of "A" and "B" Courts (recently approved to be named Via Borregos and Corte Terral, respectively). Lot 26 is centrally located within the project; it will be highly visible at the corner location and will provide a visually attractive amenity to the overall neighborhood. The recreation area will be situated directly across from our planned model complex (Lots 1, 2, and 3) and will be fully installed at the time of the sales opening and available for use by residents at the start of escrow closings. The recreation lot will be deeded to the homeowners' association concurrent with the close of the first residential lot escrow, and will be owned and maintained by the homeowners' association. The CC&.R's will establish the maintenance responsibility for the association. As noted on the plan, the overall lot area is 4,952 sq. ft., of which 3,502 sq. ft. (71%) is flat, usable area. The passive park plan will include attractive, curving walks and patios, a children's sand lot play area, and a broad lawn area for sunning and romping. Site amenities will include park benches, a patio picnic table, and a BBQ grill. We are investigating a children's climber apparatus for the sand play area, subject to safety and insurance requirements. We are enclosing a color copy of some of the proposed site amenities (or equivalents) for reference only, as we are continuing to research other manufacturer's products and would like to hold in abeyance a final decision on product type, style, quality, and maintenance requirements until we reach the installation stage prior to model opening. 9683 TIERRA GRANDE ST., STE. 201, SAN DIEGO, CA 92126 619/549-1195 • FAX 619/549-0682 A summary of the overall project recreation area requirements is also noted on the plan. We are providing 6,300 sq. ft. of private yard area (from 28 lots), which is 700 sq. ft. more than the minimum requirement. We are providing 3,502 sq. ft. of flat usable common recreation area, which is 700 sq. ft. more than the minimum requirement. Thus we area providing in total 1,402 sq. ft. of private and common recreation area in excess of the minimum required area. We will appreciate your prompt consideration of this recreation lot park plan in satisfaction of Condition No. 20 of the Approval for Tentative Map CT 96'04. As you are aware, we are diligently processing the final map for the project, and we are about to resubmit plans for third plan check in that regard. We are facing a September 2nd expiration date for the Tentative Map, although we have filed for an extension to the map and that is now being processed. Again, thank you for your favorable consideration of this park plan. Please give me a call at (858) 549-1195 ext. 305 if I can answer any questions you might have or provide additional clarification or information that may be required. Sincerely, Don Williamson Keystone Communities Attachments SEP 08 1999 17:48 FR KEYSTONECOMMUNITIES 619 549 0682 TO 17604380894 P.02/04 City of Caflsbadtf ••^^^•••MBXXPJ^Mi^M^^^^Mm^MagMMaBMi^a^^M^aPublic Works — Engineering May 19,1999 &< CokJlXTlOfo C&- Don Williamson KEYSTONE COMMUNITIES Fax: (619)549-0662 BROOKFIELD MEADOWS: CT 964)4 This is in response to your question about the sewer availability and the condition of approval placed upon the project. We have the copy of the letter from the Vallecitos Water District that we consider a will-serve letter. Unless the Vallecitos Water District rescinds the will-serve letter, the City of Carlsbad will consider the condition requiring sewer service availability as being met. If you have any questions, please contact me at (760) 438-1161, extension 4333. Sincerely, ROBERT J.WOJCIK,P,E. Principal Civil Engineer RJW:jb c: Associate Engineer, Ken Quon 2075 LAS Pa(ma« Or. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (760) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 431-5769 ,- .«„« ...^ TOTPL P.01 SEP 08 1999 17=48 FR KEYSTONECOMMUNITIES _619 549 0682 TO 17604380894 P 03/04JAY o 7 VALLECITOS WATER DISTRICT A PUBLIC AGENCY 201 Vallecitos de Oro • San Marcos, California • 92069-1453 Telephone (760)744-0460 May 6, 1999 Mr. Don Williamson Keystone Communities 9683 Tierra Grande Street, Suite 201 San Diego, CA 92126 RE: WATER AND SEWER AVAILABILITY FOR APN'S: 223-021-18 & 223-353-27 SW OF XANA WAY AND ALGA ROAD (BROOKFIELD MEADOWS PROJECT) The property is within the boundaries of the Vallecitos Water District. Water and sewer service will be provided under the rules and regulations of the District, under normal operating conditions, and after all required fees have been paid and all conditions of the District have been satisfied. The property is within a pressure zone which maintains a hydraulic gradeline of 664 feet above sea level (msl). The highest elevation of the proposed project appears to be 392 feet, this would give the property a static pressure of approximately 117 psi at that elevation. Currently there is an existing 12-inch ACP water main in both Xana Way and Corintia Street with an existing stub-out for future connection in Xana Way fronting the property. The Fire Department should be contacted to verify fire flow requirements and fire control facilities needed to serve the project. A hydraulic analysis will be required to determine available fire flow and if the current water distribution system can adequately serve the project. Depending on the results of the hydraulic analysis, a water main looped connection may be required from the end of "A" Court and back to Corintia Street thru lot 13. All costs associated with the hydraulic analysis will be the responsibility of the owner. The closest sewer main is an 8-inch Ductile Iron Pipe (DIP) main that crosses Xana Way with an existing stub-out for future connection in Xana Way fronting the property. The District also maintains facilities in Corintia Street south of the property. This includes a 16-inch sewer force main, a 12-inch reclaimed water main and a 12-inch potable water main. Based on the submitted site plan, locations of water and sewer mains are not shown fronting lots 20 thru 23 and the proposed water and sewer main pipe materials (PVC) are not acceptable per the current District Standard Specifications. District Standard Specifications requires steel or ductile iron pipe for water mains and ductile or clay pipe for sewer mains. Additionally, District policy requires that each lot FAX numbers by Department: Administration (760) 744-2738; Engineering (760) 744-3507; Finance (760) 744-5989; Meadowlark Water Reclamation Facility (760) 744-2435; Operations/Maintenance (760) 744-5246 e-mail vwd® cts.com http://www.vwd.org SEP 08 1999 17=48 FR KEYSTONECOMMUNITIES 619 549 0682 TO 17604380894 P.04/04 Water and Sewer Availability APN's: 223-021-18 & 223-353-27 May 6, 1999 Page 2 have frontage on a District main for service to be available, Water and sewer main extensions to serve lots 20 thru lots 23 will be required along with appropriate easements granted to the Vallecitos Water District. The District maintains a Wastewater Reclamation Facility adjacent to the proposed development. This facility has been in operation since 1961 and should be clearly disclosed to future homeowners of the proposed development. It should be noted that Corintia Street just south of the project is the main access road to the Wastewater Reclamation Facility. This road must be accessible at all times for large equipment and truck deliveries that occur on a daily routine. Any water or sewer facilities not in the public right-of-way will require a 20-foot easement granted to the Vallecitos Water District. Additional easements across the proposed project may be required to serve properties adjacent to it. All cost associated with the easement acquisition shall be the responsibility of the owner. This letter is issued for planning purposes only, and is not a representation, expressed or implied, that the District will provide service at a future date. The Vallecitos Water District relies one hundred percent on imported water supplies, although the District may have available capacity at this time, due to inadequacy of water supplies, water may not be available at the time the project is built. Commitments to provide service are made by the District's Board of Directors and are subject to compliance with District fees, charges, rules and regulations. If there are additional questions, please contact me or Cheryl Brandstrom. ! Sincerely, VALLECITOS WATER DISTRICT Larry Gastar Engineering Technician cc: Dennis Lamb, Director of Engineering and Operations Cheryl Brandstrom, Engineering Supervisor ** TOTflL PflGE.04 ** flUG IS 1999 17:08 FR KEYSTONECOMMUNITIES 619 549 0682 TO 17604380894 P.02/05 US Fish & Wildlife Service Carlsbad Field Office 2730 Loker Avenue, West Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760)431-9440 FAX (760) 431-9624 CA Dept. of Fish & Game 1416 Ninth Street PO Box 944209 Sacramento, CA 94244-2090 (916) 653-9767 FAX (916) 653-2588 Mr. Fred Arbuckle Villages of La Costa P.O. Box 9000-683 Carlsbad, California 92108-9000 MAY 1 4 1999 Re: Brookfield Meadows Project (Keystone Communities) Dear Mr. Arbuckle: On May 5,1999, you sent a letter to Mr. Kenneth D. Polin of Zevnik Horton Guibord McGovern Palmer & Fognani, L.L.P. in which you requested that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), California Department of Fish and Game (Department), and City of Carlsbad (City) prepare letters to address the issue of early disturbance of lands covered under the Habitat Conservation Plan/Ongoing Multi-Species Plan for Properties in the Southeast Quadrant of the City of Carlsbad, California (FLCHCP). This letter is intended to serve as our response and we understand that the City will be preparing its own response. Keystone Communities seeks approval to recontour approximately 10,000 square feet of slope as part of their construction of the Brookfield Meadows project located on the southern corner of Xana Way and Corintia Street in the City of Carlsbad. As this land disturbance would occur prior to the completion of requirements set forth in the Implementation Agreement (IA) for the FLCHCP, Real Estate Collateral Management (RECM) has concerns that this action would trigger additional requirements outlined in the FLCHCP I A. The Service received a request in 1996 from Site Design Associates regarding the mechanism to go forward with development of this site prior to the implementation of conditions set forth in the FLCHCP FA. At that time, the Service responded in a letter (September 26, 1996; attached) which stated that if mitigation was provided in a manner reviewed and approved by the Service, impacts associated with off-site grading for the Brookfield Meadows project could go in advance of the fulfillment of requirements of the FLCHCP IA. The activities would not start the clock for such requirements. We still believe this to be the case. Impacts associated with the recontouring of approximately 10,000 square feet of manufactured slope which provides substrate for moderate-quality, unoccupied coastal sage scrub qualifies as a "minor activity" and, as such, can go forward without triggering other requirements (see Section A (I), page 30, of the FLCHCP IA). These impacts to coastal sage scrub would, however, still require conformance with NCCP guidelines. In our letter dated September 26, 1996, the Service stated that it seemed appropriate for Brookfield Meadows to use the de minimus exemption to the 4(d) special rule if all criteria could be met. As the City has exhausted its five percent allocation, this is now the only mechanism to expeditiously process such habitat loss. Impacts are less than one acre, the habitat in question is not occupied by the coastal California gnatcatcher, and the loss would not preclude the ability of the City to complete its Habitat Management Plan (HMP). RUG 16 1999 17=09 FR KEYSTONECOMMUN I T I ES 619 549 0682 TO 17604380894 P. 03/05 MAY 1 9 Mr. Fred Arbuckle 2 Protocol-level surveys were performed on March 22, April 8, and April 16, 1999. No gnatcatchers were identified using the site or immediately adjacent habitat. In order for the Service to concur with the use of the de minimus exemption for the Brookfield Meadows project, we would require that the following be made conditions of the grading permit issued by the City of Carlsbad (City): Keystone Communities demonstrate that it has purchased off-site coastal sage scrub lands or credits at a ratio of 2:1 for those impacts incurred and that grading activities be restricted to that period outside of the breeding season (which is considered to be from February 15 though August 30, annually). The amount of habitat loss and mitigation lands acquired should also be reported to SANDAG for use in its regional tracking system. Additionally, Condition 17 set forth in City (of Carlsbad) Council Resolution No. 97-595 requires that prior to the approval of a final map for CT 96-04/PUD 71(B)/HDP96-04/SDP 96-07 (Brookfield Meadows), the developer shall consult with the Service regarding the impact of the project on the gnatcatcher, obtain any permits required by the Service, and implement any mitigation measures which may be required by the Service. If all of the requirements discussed in the previous paragraph are met, it seems that Condition 17 will have been met as well. I hope that the contents of this letter address your concerns but if you do please contact Julie Vanderwier (Service) at (760) 43 1 -9440 or David Lawhead (Department) at 6 1 9-467-42 1 1 . Sincerely, Sheryl L. Barrett Assistant Ffeld Office Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service William E. Tippets Habitat Conservation Supervisor California Department of Fish & Game Attachment cc(with attachment):Don Williamson, Keystone Communities Michael Holzmiller, City of Carlsbad Ms. Elaine Blackburn, City of Carlsbad RUG 16 1999 17=09 FR KEYSTONECOMMUNITIES 619 549 0682 TO 17604380894 P.04/05 »^£|1 I U : .f\c I J rvilL. Wl'llftum I icy ' •• «• «a « I V ; I t/1H| I y-.0uv vi • IWV^WIOUI '. Kenneth J. Dlsce u a. te Design AssocUft s, Inc. I63 La Mesa. Blvd., LL Me*a, California R s: Brookfield Meado-v« Tentative Map, Carlsbad, California r. Di»cer«ft: T tie U.S. b mslng project. SerVi Ifrjited States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ecological ServtccaCarlsbad Held Office 2730 Lokcr Avenue West Carlsbad, CaHfornI* 920Q8 S lite 201 &1941 Fish and W|k)Ufe Service (Service) has reviewed the proposed Brookfield Meadows e staff have visited the 4,39 acre she located In the City of Carlsbad on e southern corner of Kana and Corintia Street The proposed project consists of 29 single redd et tialft mily detached v here the existing m in s tuthern side of the flr T he southern side t abitat ConscrvatioH I Company. The habitat on the B djrsl G ccur in the next 3 s ope within the \lrUdUfb values. County rbcommend that you p irsue bianlc l>ecause of the U ocr 2 September 26.1996 lots. The entire site has been graded except for the southern edge ifactured slope will be recontoured. The reeontoured slope on Che perty will impact approximately 10,000 square feet of coastal sage scrub. jcct site Is adjacent to the approvedBank of America Ian area (BofAHCP) formerly created and owned by the Heldstone >f \!HCP site adjacent to the proposed Brookfield Meadows project she is ligOBted for future- development However, the development of this area Is not proposed to The loss of coastal sage scrub due to a recootouring of the southern constitute a long term degradation of the habitat and associated Thcileibre. the Service recommend* that the proposed impacts to the hlflh quality y an next y «r would c oastal aa&e scrub1R I dfleated ofMte at a 2:1 ratio In a coastal area of northern San Diego 1 Communities Conservidon! the purchase ?^;^TT7T?n^f?T^Ti[-^^!<'j*^-:'ffl'Ji^--i.-¥i'W]: Altemative^acorol for the reuuuu Once the mitigation i uy apply for an t ic proposed proj I Ian. no gnatcatch pe less than one acre tion of offiritc acquisition and a monetary contribution towards a specific jld be discussed furftiery1 the proposed impacts to coastal sage scrub is approved and firmflard. you don of the NCCP 4(d) rule for the impacts to costal sage scrub because not preclude tho ability of the City of Carlsbad to complete its aubarea . on the proposed project site, and the loss of coastal sage scrub would nds will avoid a 30 day public review period. \ ,. Mr.IDisceoza fit&Se contact Ken CJoijey if you have toy questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, cc: CDFG (attn: Bill -6-96-HC-317 RUG 16 1999 17=10 FR KEYSTONECOMMUNITIES 619 549 0682 TO 17604380894 P.05/05 v._... ^. .,_. ... ^, , -_«•" i«iwia«mj . -J«yUQO£-' («v *j| ogio,* , pets) Field Office Supervisor ** TOTRL PnGE.05 City of Carlsbad Planning Department June 24, 1997 Edgecrest Investments Mr. Irving Okavita PO Box 577 Del Mar, CA92014 SUBJECT: BROOKFIELD MEADOWS - CT 96-04/PUD 71(B)/HDP 96-04/SDP 96-07 Staff has forwarded the approving conditions for the above-referenced project to the City Manager's office for scheduling on the City Council agenda. You will be notified when a tentative hearing date has been scheduled. However, for this to occur, you must submit the additional items listed below. The required items should be received in the Planning Department by July 15, 1997. In the event the scheduled hearing date is the last available date for the City to comply with the Permit Streamlining Act, and the required items listed below have not been submitted, the project will be scheduled for denial. 1. As required by Section 65091 of the California Government Code, please submit the following information needed for noticing and sign the enclosed form: A) 600' Owners List - a typewritten list of names and addresses of all property owners within a 600 foot radius of the subject property, including the applicant and/or owner. The list shall include the San Diego County Assessor's parcel number from the latest equalized assessment rolls. . B) Mailing Labels - two (2) separate sets of mailing labels of the property owners within a 600-foot radius of the subject property. The list must be typed in all CAPITAL LETTERS, left justified, void of any punctuation. For any address other than a single family residence, an apartment or suite number must be included but the Apartment, Suite and/or Building Number must NOT appear in the street address line. DO NOT type assessor's parcel number on labels. DO NOT provide addressed envelopes - PROVIDE LABELS ONLY. Acceptable fonts are: Swiss 721, Enterprise TM, Courier New (TT) no larger than 11 pt. Sample labels are as follows: UNACCEPTABLE Mrs. Jane Smith 123 Magnolia Ave., Apt #3 Carlsbad, CA 92008 UNACCEPTABLE Mrs. Jane Smith 123 Magnolia Ave. Apt. #3 Carlsbad, CA 92008 ACCEPTABLE MRS JANE SMITH APT 3 123 MAGNOLIA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 C) Radius Map - a map to scale, not less than 1" = 200', showing all lots entirely and partially within 600 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property. Each of these lots should be consecutively numbered and correspond with the 2O75 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-O894 )TO-BROOKFIELD MEADOWS^CT 96-04/PUD 71(B)/HDP 96-04/SDF^B-07 JUNE 24, 1997 PAGE 2 property owner's list. The scale of the map may be reduced to a scale acceptable to the Planning Director if the required scale is impractical. D) Fee - a fee (check payable to the City of Carlsbad) shall be paid for covering the cost of mailing notices. Such fee shall equal the current postage rate times the total number of labels. Cash and credit cards are also accepted. Sincerely, ELAINE BLACKBURN Associate Planner EB:kr Attachment c: Ken Discenza I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS LIST AND LABELS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD ON THIS DATE REPRESENT THE LATEST AVAILABLE INFORMATION FROM THE EQUALIZED ASSESSOR'S ROLES. APPLICATION NAME AND NUMBER APPLICANT OR APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE BY: DATE: RECEIVED BY DATE: SITE DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC 7863 LA MESA BLVD., STE. 201 LA MESA, CA 91941-3657 (619) 464-8467 FAX: (619) 469-9465 Hand delivered February 3, 1997 City of Carlsbad FEB 3 - 1997 Planning Department 2075, Las Palmas Drive CHIT ©F Carlsbad CA 92009 Attention: Elaine Blackburn Re: Brookfield Meadows (CT 96-04/PUD-71(b)/HDP 96-04/SDP 96-07) Dear Elaine, As a result of the City Council's action taken on this project at their January 28, 1997 meeting, you and I have discussed the following re-submittals: 1. Four sets of folded plans revised to reflect the City Council's decision: a. Tentative Map dated October 31, 1996 b. Site Plan dated October 31, 1996 c. Site Development Plan dated October 31, 1996 d. Landscape Concept Plan dated March 21, 1996 e. Project Cross-Sections Plan View dated August 27, 1996 f. Project Cross-Sections Profiles Dated August 29, 1996 and g. Floor Plans, Elevations and renderings for the fronts of the houses for all three unit types (8 sheets) dated May 13, 1996 and sheets 6 and 7 of 8 dated October 28, 1996. 2. One copy of the Architectural Guideline Compliance Summary revised January 31, 1997 to match all floor plans. 3. One originally signed Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Part I revised January 31, 1997. These items are submitted at this time for you to have complete packages for the re- advertising of the environmental documentation and preparation of the Conditions of Approval. Elaine Blackburn City of Carlsbad Page two February 3, 1997 It is my understanding that the environmental advertising will begin this week and will be completed in 21 days. If this is not the case, please let me know immediately. Please call me as soon as the Conditions of Approval are available for our review. Also, please notify me when the next City Council meeting is scheduled. Sincerely, KJD/lls Enclosures cc: Irving Okovita - OKON Development (with enclosures) 01-496-1.170 V 't QIUlOKON DEVELOPMENT CO. LJIUII OKO INVESTMENTS, INC. December 23, 1996 Members of the City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California 92009 Re: Brookfield Meadows CT 96-04/PUD71(b)/HDP96-04/SDP96-07 Dear Council Members: The following summary of the above-referenced project is provided to assist the Council in its deliberations of the Brookfield Meadows Project. We thank you for your consideration. Introduction The site of the proposed Project received discretionary approvals for a 104 unit apartment project per Site Development Plan SDP 84-8. Subsequently, the SDP was amended in 1986 to reduce the Project to 100 apartment unit. The site was originally Phase VI of a master development plan, PUD-71, which consisted of a 43.6 acre subdivision with 220 single-family residences and the 104 apartments. The proposed Project, Brookfield Meadows, evolved as a result of deliberations with City staff (Staff) and members of the adjacent Brookfield community, who both preferred a less intensive development on the site. Since early 1995, the applicant has worked with Staff and the Brookfield Owner's Association (BOA) to design a single-family home project that would be in conformahce with the City's general plan, PUD ordinances, architectural guidelines, and still be compatible with the existing community. After several preliminary Staff reviews and redesigns, the Project was reduced from 35 to 29 single-family detached homes with four affordable second dwelling units and formally submitted for City approval in early 1996. Because the site was part of PUD-71, both the applicant and BOA (who endorsed the Project and invited its annexation into the master association) applied to amend the PUD for the apartment portion to provide for the single-family homes. After submission, the applicant continued to revise the Project in response to additional issues raised by Staff. All issues were resolved with the exception of the two raised in Staffs report to the Planning Commission. P.O. Box 577 • Del Mar • California 92014 • (619)755-7005 • Fax (619) 755-6080 Members of the City Council City of Carlsbad Page two December 23, 1996 On November 6, 1996, the Planning Commission voted 4 to 3 to approve Staffs recommendation of denial without prejudice. The split vote was representative of the difficulty that existed in interpreting the PUD regulations and design guidelines with respect to the two areas of the Project that Staff considered to be in non-compliance. Minimum Distance Between Structures on "A" Court PUD regulation 21.45.090(D)(5) (see Exhibit "A") establishes a minimum distance between one- and two-story and between two- and three-story structures in cases where there are more than ten structures in a row on a street. Since the PUD regulation did not establish a minimum distance between two- and two-story structures when there are more than ten in a row, Staff relied on Administrative Policy No. 16 (Policy 16), (see Exhibit "B"), in determining a minimum distance of twenty feet. Additionally, since the PUD regulation did not define the term "in a row", Staff utilized Council Policy No. 44 (Policy 44), (see Exhibit "C"), to define its meaning. As a result, Staff determined that the number of structures along "A" Court was greater than ten in a row and did not comply with the minimum distance. While Policy 44 defines "in a row" to include curves and terminate at a 90 degree intersection, Policy 44 provides guidelines for architectural elements of structures when there are three two-story structures in a row of less than 15 feet apart, and between 15 and 20 feet apart. This issue first arose in one of the applicant's early designs, which resulted in the applicant totally redesigning the Project to its current design. While Staff initially concurred that the redesign would satisfy the intent of the "more than ten in a row" policy on "A" Court, they later deferred the final interpretation to the Planing Commission, who were unable to reach a consensus. It is the applicant's belief that the intent of PUD Regulation 21.45.090(D)(5) is to deter the appearance of row-like housing which is crowded along a street. The proposed Project specifically incorporated several design features to limit such an appearance. While the majority of structures on "A" Court are between 10 and 15 feet apart, the structures were designed to provide the greatest setback on the entryway side, which exceeds 20 feet, in most instances. To further reduce a row appearance, the front yard setbacks were staggered, and the 13 foot elevation difference between Lots 1 and 13 provided additional visual relief. Additionally, by severely curving the road, the distance between structures on Lots 9 and 10 was increased to 22 feet at the front, and 38 feet at the rear. This offset the structures on Lots 9 to 13 from the first nine units. Members of the City Council City of Carlsbad Page three December 23, 1996 Furthermore, Lots 11 through 13 are technically on a cul-de-sac and not on the street. As a result, a reasonable interpretation can be made that there are not over ten structures in a row on the street. Architectural Guideline Compliance Policy 44 was adopted to encourage the quality development on lots of less than 7,500 square feet. The Guidelines Compliance Summary included in the Staffs report describes the Project's conformance with the guidelines. The Project's original architectural design met or exceeded the minimum policy requirements on three of the six applicable guidelines and was in partial compliance with a fourth. The applicant has since redesigned the rear elevation to comply with Guideline item 5, (see building type 3), which was presented to Staff at the DCC meeting and is included in this packet. As a result, the Project fails only to meet Guideline item 1 in its entirety. The single-story edge requirement cannot be achieved without compromising the interior living space and the loss of one bedroom, space which is essential in the family neighborhood. The Project's overall design and topographical features ensure a quality development. An important consideration of BOA was that the Project be designed to be consistent with the architectural character of the adjacent community and to be of the size and quality that would enhance values of the existing development. We believe the Project, as designed, fulfills these goals. Staff's position that compliance with every guideline must be met before they could recommend approval was deliberated by the Planning Commission, who questioned, without conclusion, as to whether or not the guidelines were merely guidelines or standards. However, with the Council's adoption of Policy 44 as "architectural guidelines", it would seem to support the fact that the Council recognized that all sites are not similar in shape or utility, and that the architectural design will vary given the character of the site, lot dimensions, and the needs of the local market. In the case of this Project, the triangular shape, slopes, and reduced access points from those previously approved with the apartment site, required a design that would fit the physical constraints as well as economic considerations. Summary This Project is consistent with the policies of the General Plan, with all requirements of the PUD regulations, and in substantial compliance with Policy 44. While Policy 16 may be considered in determining the PUD regulation on minimum distance between structures, the applicant believes that the Council can determine that there are not ten Members of the City Council City of Carlsbad Page four December 23, 1996 structures "in a row" on "A" Court. Also it can be determined that the Project conforms to Policy 16's intent and is consistent with the neighborhood. Respectfully submitted, OKON DEVELOPMENT, INC. Irving Okovita, President lO/lls 01-487-1.170 EXHIBIT "A1 21.45.090 (3) Comer Lots. Comer lots shall have a ten foot side yard setback from the street, unless the garage faces onto the street side yard; in this instance a twenty-foot setback shall be maintained to the ga- rage. (4) All setbacks shall be measured from the property line, or in the case where individual prop- erty lines are not present, at the edge of the street curb or sidewalk, whichever is closest to the struc- ture subject to the setback. (5) The distance between single-story structures shall not be less than ten feet. When more than ten structures in a row front or back on a street, the distance between two and three-story structures shall not be less than twenty-feet and the distance be- tween two-story and one-story structures shall not be less than fifteen feet. Fireplace structures, cornic- es, eaves, belt courses, sills, buttresses, and other similar architectural features projecting from a build- ing may intrude up to two feet into the required distance between buildings. Second and third-story open balconies or eave projections over driveways are allowed if such intrusions do not inhibit traffic circulation, provision of safety, sanitary or other services, or are not compatible with the design of the project. (c) Resident Parking. All units must have at least two full-sized covered residential parking spaces, except for studio units which shall be provided with a ratio of 1.5 spaces per unit, for which one space per unit shall be covered, and second dwelling units which shall be provided with one space (covered or uncovered) per second unit The parking space for the second dwelling unit may be provided through tandem parking (provided that the covered parking spaces for the primary dwelling are located within a two-car garage and the garage is set back a mini- mum of twenty feet from the property line) or in the front yard setback. In cases where a fractional park- ing space is required, the required number of spaces shall be rounded to the nearest highest whole num- ber. (d) Visitor Parking. (1) Visitor parking shall be provided as follows: Amount of Visitor No. of Units Parking 10 dwelling units or less 1 space for each 2 dwelling units or frac- tion thereof Greater than 10 dwelling units 5 spaces for the 10 units, plus I space for each 4 dwelling units above 10 or fraction thereof. (2) Up to forty-five percent of the visitor p?.rkmg may be provided as compact spaces (eight feet by fifteen feet). No guest parking credit shall be given for tandem parking in front of garages except for existing duplex lots. These existing lots may provide their required guest parking space as a tandem park- ing space in front of the garage if the garage is set back a minimum of twenty feet from the front prop- erty line. (3) Credit for visitor parking may be given for frontage on adjacent local streets for detached single-family or duplex projects subject to the ap- proval of the planning commission: not less than twenty-four lineal feet per space exclusive of drive- way entrances and driveway aprons shall be provid- ed for each parking space, except where parallel parking spaces are located immediately adjacent to driveway aprons, then twenty lineal feet may be provided. Streets used for on-street visitor parking must meet or exceed the city's minimum width requirements. (e) Building setbacks from open parking areas shall not be less than five feet. (0 Screening of Parking Areas. All open parking areas shall be screened from adjacent residences and public rights-of-way by eidier a view-obscuring wall or landscaping subject to the approval of the plan- ning director. (g) Recreational Space. (1) Open space areas designated for recreational use shall be provided for all residential develop- ments at a ratio of two hundred square feet per unit. All projects except for those in (CufefaMI-94)714 EXHIBIT "B1 Policy No. 16 Effective Date: 11/28/88 Planning Department Administrative Policy Separation Between Two Story Structures - PD Ordinance - On an interim basis, until Section 21.45.090(D)(5) of the Planned Development Ordinance is formally reviewed by the Planning Commission, the distance between two story structures shall be 20 feet. Approved By: MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director EXHIBIT "Cw OF CARLSBAD COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT General Subject: SMALL LOT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES Specific Subject: ESTABLISHING GUIDELINES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SMALL LOTS L!icy No. A4 Date Issued 10/10/89 Effective Date 10/10/89 Cancellation Date Supersedes No. Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads, Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File PURPOSE To provide guidelines to encourage the quality development of small-lot (less than 7500 sq.ft.) single family projects. The intent of the guidelines is to ensure that units have building articulation on all four sides and will not appear as "row" housing. They are primarily designed to apply to projects where there is a predominance of two-story units. POLICY Guidelines for Small-Lot Single Family Projects 1. In projects where there are three 2 story units in a row situated less than 15 feet apart, at least one of the three units shall have a single story building edge. The depth of the single-story edge shall not be less than 10' and shall run the length of the building pad. The roof covering the single story element shall be substantially lower than the roof for the 2 story element to the unit (this is not intended to preclude long shed-type roofs falling to a single-story element). 2. In projects where there are three 2 story units in a row situated between 15 and 20 feet apart, at least one of the three units shall have a single story building edge with a depth of not less than 5 feet running the length of the building pad. The roof of the single story element shall be substantially lower than the roof for the two story element of the building (this is not intended to preclude long shed-type roofs falling to a single- story element). 3. On a project basis, thirty-three percent (33%) of all units shall have a single story edge for forty percent (40%) of the perimeter of the building. For the purpose of this guideline the single story edge shall be a minimum depth of three feet (3'). The units qualifying under the 33% shall be distributed throughout the project. The main purpose of this guideline is to ensure some building relief on the front and sides of each unit. 4. For at least 50% of the units in a project, there shall be at least three separate building planes on street side elevations of lots with 45 feet of frontage or less, and four separate building planes on street side elevations of lots with a frontage greater than 45 feet. The minimum offset in planes shall be 18 inches and shall include but not be limited to building walls, windows and roofs. The minimum depth between the faces of the forward-most plane and the rear plane on the front elevation shall be 10 feet and a plane must be a minimum of 30 sq. ft. to receive credit under this section. CITY OF CARLSBAD COUN^L POLICY STATEMENT General Subject: Specific Subject: Policy No. 44 10/io/89 Effective Date 10/10/89 Cancellation Date Supersedes No Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads, Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File 5. Rear elevations shall adhere to the same criteria outlined in number 4 above for front elevations except that the minimum depth between front and back planes on the rear elevation shall be 3 feet. 6. At least 50% of the units in a project shall have one side elevation where there are sufficient offsets or cutouts so that the side yard setback averages a minimum of 7 feet. 7. Projects with an average lot size of 5,000 sq. ft. or less shall limit the number of units with three car garages to 75% of the plans in the project. Project units with three car garages shall be a mix of two door garages, three door garages, and offset (2 planes min. 12") two door garages. 8. Fifty percent (50%) of exterior openings (doors/windows) shall be recessed or projected a minimum of 2" and shall be with wood or colored aluminum window frames (no mill finishes). 9. The predominant roof framing for each floor plan in a project shall exhibit directional variety to the other floor plans and to the street. Notes: a) For the purpose of these guidelines a single story element shall be defined as a plate line maximum of 12 feet (10 feet preferred). b) In addition, when a percentage of units is described in the guidelines the intent is to have that percentage spread throughout the entire project. c) "In a row" shall include curves and shall terminate at a 90 degree street intersection. GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATIONS STREET SCENE/ALL TWO STORIES STREET SCENE/WITHIN DESIGN GUIDELIHBS /i c> STANDARD 2-STORY BOX 3 FEET MINIMUM SINGLE STORY ELEMENT *SJill777/77777771 LOT WIDTH 45 FEET OR LESS I I LOT WIDTH GREATER THAN 45 FEET' iUIDELIM 4 «• 4<£i ; 7 FEET AVERAGE GUIDELINE 6 2 DOOR 3 DOOR 2 DOOR, OFFSET TTTDFIINK 2 ROOF LINE'VARIATION GUHHUJNH ifi!z.? " SIrs *< HI O 01 5 00 00 1 5 'Si!II s CO O cd<D g SECOND FLOOR 876 SE FIRST FLOOR 871 Sf. TYPE1 m.8 CT 96-04 / PUD 7KB) / HDP 96-4 / SDL3S.-07 RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION g^a^-;^slIgfeR§^BsB^eSssQRSfev^ LEFT SIDE ELEVATION tan izja FRONT ELEVATION 1A 0 • SECOND FLOOR 1,102 SF. FIRST FLOOR 1,023 SR TYPE 3 2,125 SF. 5*3 1115 *< u o „ 00<D s•*^ Nca ; .£2bcd CO O cd OO CT 96-04 / PUD 7KB) / HDP 96-4 / SDEJG.-07 RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION LEFT SIDE ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION 3A •i SECOND FLOOR PRNCPALDWBiJNGUWr 970 &F. SECOND DWaiJNCiUMT 393SR TOTAL SECOND FLOOR 1,363 SF. fill ! ti! $4,53 I «D CO 3 1cd ; CO COg'"Ucd 0 FIRST FLOOR PRNCPAL DWBJJNG UNTT 1,023 SF. TYPE 2 TOTALLING AREA 2,386 SF. "o O CT 96-04 / PUD 7KB) / HDP 96-4 /SDRJ5J7 RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION — ~ ~:r.7 — 111 1LI — — — — n REAR ELEVATION LEFT SIDE ELEVATION O O TENTATIVE MAP CT 96-04 / PUD 7KB) / HDP 96-4 / SOP 96-07 BROOKFIELD MEADOWS r MKin. nan *cClt r ©c/i. io- HSIKMI 10f.O.G.C (. *IC. M'lt'l4s t.f M). n-tnin ®c/t, ro- C«M-*-.I TO s« •>»(DS m.* i» :^N^\\ V v» '\ \ •. > _V 4 'i : I A • tNIKANCt HtWtNIS °<?IVATE YARDS HS- APFWIA'ELY s TOTAL TREES iUXt I- LUSH ENTRANCE MONUMENT SIGN PtMTtTER SLOPES TREE}- Aff30X » TOTAL TREES SIGN ON i p. -w sncco BAIL ASVJAL C.C3K ACCEN" LG-"!S5(«B5- A(=f=«OX. M TOTAL SH8BS ACACIA R£Sa.EVI5 >&«. ACACU• eox ic« K.H •>n J*' eox APORDX !V5 TOTAL SHRJBS E5CALLCMIA *<WE5II' "EC'JWTUS iw WOK4 DO^ES'ICA CI$TU56P. KM. KXXNQSE DEL05PEBTM ALEU FUIS 0»PU«) CEFUWT",".SAGH!A V.OLACEA •a*. vxima«.c XYL06MA COH&ESTIM ><•* PE1A6CW PELATIT "J'S 6ALWIA WTSIA TBUWLIA >UtS 1>TS 8IW M91K ZONE;MAJOR ARTERI E5- AP"<?OX. » TOTAL TREES OFANIOPSI5 ANACARDOOES URRDtlOCO ZCSE 3 ?ER:V!ETErlSLOPE ZONE 3 PERIMETER SLOPE LAN95CA°E5 ^R CITY STANDARDS B3JSH «A^A6P^JT ZONE LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN LUATER CONSERVATION PLAN BROOKFIELD MEADOWS 1 t - • 3 £iiII - - "5I " o S0 SCO 5 A! S Vv 1 8^ i U s 1 < .2 ! 1i_cc t 5 1 r » E SUJ CD Sil^ r*: cs 5 30 60" I SITE DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC 7863 LA MESA BLVD., STE. 201, LA MESA, CA 91941-3657 (619) 464-8467 FAX: (619) 469-9465 December 16, 1996 City of Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 Attention: Re: Dear Elaine: Elaine Blackburn Brookfield Meadows CT 96-04/PUD 71(B)/HDP 96-04/SDP 96-07 This letter is in response to your letter of December 2, 1996 regarding the above-referenced project. The Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Part 1 was completed on March 18, 1996. At that time, all statements made on the form were believed to be true and correct. The original apartment project site was graded in the late 1980's. The slope along the westerly property line was created at that time and drainage facilities were installed at the top of the slope. Areas on both sides of the property line were disturbed in this construction. A letter of permission to grade was issued on April 7, 1986 by Fieldstone Company, who owned the Bank of America (BofA) property at that point in time. This letter was issued to Brehm Communities, the property owner during that period. This permission allowed grading along the full length of the west property line and into the BofA property approximately fifty feet. This work was proposed as part of CT 84-23, SDP84-8 and PUD 71, previously approved by the City of Carlsbad. In the March 1996 time period, we had discussions with the BofA representative, Fred Arbuckie, for the renewal of a letter of permission to grade onto their property. {Sea attached transmittal letter dated March 14, 1996.) In these discussions, Mr. Arbuckie indicated that the area to be graded would be in future development and not in the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and therefore, no permits or mitigation were required. Copies of the original grading plan and our current proposed grading plan were sent to Mike McCollum, a consultant to BofA, for use in discussing the matter. (See attached transmittal letter dated May 9, 1996.) This project and others were discussed at a La Costa HCP Advisory Committee Meeting on June 25, 1996. This meeting was attended by representatives of the Department of Fish and Game, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, City of Carlsbad and BofA. (See attached meeting report faxed to me on August 7, 1996.) After this meeting, we were told to meet directly with the U.S.Fish & Wildlife Services to discuss our project. City of Carlsbad: Elaine Blackburn Page two December 16, 1996 On August 20, 1996, I met with Kennon Corey of the Fish and Wildlife Service and walked the site. At this meeting, it was pointed out by Mr. Corey that coastal sage scrub does occur on the adjacent property and would be disturbed by the project's off-site grading. On September 26, 1996, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service documented this information in a letter. A copy of this letter is also attached. In further phone conversations with Mr. Corey, it was discussed that no permits or mitigation were required until actual grading of this subject area occurred. If this work is not scheduled to be started until after the BofA HCP is in place, no permit or mitigation would be necessary. I trust that this provides you with the information you requested which we believed was available through Mr. Rideout. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Kenneth J. Discenza KJD/lls Attachments cc: Irving Okovita, Okon Development Co. 01-486-1.170 MOTES:, Per your request MCCOLLUM ASSOCIATES FAX MESSACF T-//70 TO: Number of Pages. Date: Ken Discenza 5 including this cover sheet. 7, 1996 FROM; Address; Fax Number: Vuiwc N Limber; Internet: Quote of the Month: Michael D. McCollum EftvirpfmtcitUt Put icy Consultant i.efl-,:iluen! & (.ovi-rmtivnii] RvLiIiOn-t 7722 Rio Burco Way, Sacramento. California 95831 (916)422-2177 (916)422-1039 niccollum@pacbell.net http://Qurworld.compu.serve.com/liomepagi.-s/mdmccollum Badges? We ain't get no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't hive to show you any stinking badges -Golden Hat MCCOLLUM ASSOCIATES MEETING REPORT DATE: July 1, 1996 MEETING DATE: June 25, 1996 PARTICIPANTS: Larry Hng, Department of Fish am1 Game; Gail Kobdieh, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Donald Rideuul, Megan Shortall, City of Carlsbad: Fred Arbucklc, Morrow Development; Michael McCollum, Kent Smith (via phone), McCollun. Associate*. SUBJECT: Second La Costa RCP Advisory Committee Meeting Michael Beck was unable to attend. Mr. McCollum will update him upon his return from vacation. An agenda was passed out before the meeting. The discu.-.sion observed the agenda as follows: 1. Interim Management. Draft copies of the Villages of 1 ,a Costa (VLC) Interim Management Plan were passed out to the meeting participants and Mr. Smith explained the document. Most of the proposed interim management is focused on passive maintenance to maintain the status quo of the habitat. Options involving possible impacts to the habitat in advance of IK'P implementation are discussed in the draft plan; however, Mr. Arbuckle stated that VLC had no plans to impact the property before formally implementing the MCI' Dr. Rng and Mr. ICobetich said they would coircnent on the draft .interim plan after conferring with staff. 2. Status of the- 10(V) Assignment Document. Dr. Kng said that the 10(a) assignment document was approved by the Departments le.-ial division and forwarded to the Director. It should be signed soon. Mr. Koheiich indicated that he ha* not heard McCotlum Associate; 7722 Rio Barco Way, Sacfiimumo, (.'A 95831 Phone (9Ki)422-1039* P;« (9I6)<I2:-2177 Meeting Report July 1, 1996 Page 2 from the Solicitor's office since the document was submilted. 3. CSS Impacts By Adjacent Property Owners. One of the more important issues to VLC is how the State and federal agencies expect to deal with CSS impacts caused by adjacent property owners, VLC desires to he a good neighbor by accommodating adjacent property owners' needs; however, VLC does not want to run the risk of triggering the HCP as a result 01 this cooperation. Two examples were discussed. The first, Ok on Development asked VLC lu convey an easement that would result in impacts to approximately .30,000 square feet of disturbed CSS for construction of a road slope The proposed impact is 5n an area designated for development in the HCP. The second example is a sewer pipeline proposed by Rancho Carrillo. The pipeline will impact an existing pipeline alignment with re-established CSS and southern maritime chaparral. Each of these impacts could be characterized as "minor" under the terms of the HCP; however, no criteria is described in the HCP to define "minor". Mr. Kobetich and Dr. Eng will provide VI .C with published or unpublished NCCP documents that characterize the term. In any event, once the agencies and the city agree upon a habitat take authorization, and the mitigation rtquirement is settled, any easement subsequently given by VLC to facilitate such impacts would not impact VLC's HCP obligations. Further, these impacts would not he cumulative. If the impacts are mitigated, additional impacts by the same or other adjacent property owners would be resolved separately on a case-by-case basis. None of these impacts would cause acceleration of the terms of the HCP. During the discussion, it was pointed out that, even though minor impacts would eventually be mitigated when the HCP was implemented, the time between the impact and HCP implementation could be bi^nificunL, thus requiring immediate mitigation for the specific impact. Mr. Rideoul asked how the 5% limitation on take would be handled for minor impacts on La Costa. Mr. McCoilum asked if the La Costa HCP. as a final plan, is not subject to the 5% limitation, shouldn't any impacts by adjacent landowners on La Costa also be exempt? The issue was tabled for further consideration. Regarding the example of the sewer pipeline proposed by Rancho Carrillo, Mr. Meeting Report July I, 1996 Page 3 Kobetich said that the impacts on the La Costa property needed to he analyzed in conjunction with the overall Rancho Carrillo project. Mr. Rideour agreed, stating, further, that if these additional impacts are not currently identified, additional CEQA review may be necessary. However, none of these issues are VLC's responsibility. Once the issue is worked out between the landowner and the agencies, VLC's only action would he to grant permission to do the work on VLC's propcily. 4. Proposed Fire Station Relocation. Mr. Arhucklc noted that ongoing discussions with the city fire Marsha! may result in the city asking VI.C to relocate one of the fire Station sites within the proposed plan. The move would likely result in fewer impacts to habitat compared to the current location. Dr. Eng and Mr. Kobetich said that based upon this verbal information, an accommodation would likely be worked out. Mr. Arbuckle said no final decision is made yet. Me will raise the issue again when and if it is necessary. 5. B&x_C_anyon Trespass Impacts. Mr. McCollum explained that frequent trespassers iu Box Canyon creates legal liabilities and impacts 10 the surrounding habitat, including a recent brush fire. Frequent and expensive access control are ineffective. The only feasible way to reduce the problem i.s to eliminate the attractive nuisance. Several ideas were discussed, including exploding the rock sidewalls lo fill the hole. Mr. Kobetich and Mr. Ken Corey will di^-.u^s the issue with Dr. Eng and recommend an option to VLC. Most everyone in (he meeting expressed a desire to meet on the site for a first-hand look in July. ACTION ITEMS: Mr. Kobetich Follow up on status of 10(a) assignment Mr. Kobetich Coordinate a site visit to Box Canyon. Dr. Eng and Mr. Kobetich Provide recommendation on dealing wild trespassers in Box Canyon. Dr. Eng and Mr. Kobetich Provide VLC with documents relating to definition of minor impacts. Meeting Report July 1,1996 Page 4 Dr. Eng and Mr. Kohetich Provide written comments on the interim management plan by July 8lh. Mr. McCollum Brief Mr. Beck: on the meeting upon his return from vacation. United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ecological Services Carlsbad Field Office 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, California 92008 fifc,CB¥£D OCT 21996 September 26, 1996Mr. Kenneth J. Discenza Site Design Associates, Inc. 7863 La Mesa Blvd., Suite 201 La Mesa, California 91941 Re: Brookfield Meadows Tentative Map, Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. Discenza: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the proposed Brookfield Meadows housing project. Service staff have visited the 4.39 acre site located in the City of Carlsbad on the southern corner of Xana and Corintia Street. The proposed project consists of 29 single family detached residential lots. The entire site has been graded except for the southern edge where the existing manufactured slope will be recontoured. The recontoured slope on the southern side of the property will impact approximately 10,000 square feet of coastal sage scrub. The southern side of the proposed project site is adjacent to the approved Bank of America Habitat Conservation Plan area (BofA HCP) formerly created and owned by the Fieldstone Company. The habitat on the BofA HCP site adjacent to the proposed Brookfield Meadows project site is designated for future development. However, the development of this area is not proposed to occur in the next 3-5 years. The loss of coastal sage scrub due to a recontouring of the southern slope within the next year would constitute a long term degradation of the habitat and associated wildlife values. Therefore, the Service recommends that the proposed impacts to the high quality coastal sage scrub be mitigated offsite at a 2:1 ratio in a coastal area of northern San Diego County consistent with the Natural Communities Conservation Planning Guidelines. We also recommend that you pursue the purchase of offsite mitigation lands or credits from a mitigation bank because of the relatively small offsite mitigation needs. Alternatively, a combination of offsite acquisition and a monetary contribution towards a specific task for the management of the BofA HCP preserve area could be discussed further. Once the mitigation for the proposed impacts to coastal sage scrub is approved and finalized, you may apply for an exemption of the NCCP 4(d) rule for the impacts to costal sage scrub because the proposed project does not preclude the ability of the City of Carlsbad to complete its subarea plan, no gnatcatchers occur on the proposed project site, and the loss of coastal sage scrub would be less than one acre. This will avoid a 30 day public review period. Mr. Discenza Please contact Ken Corey if you have any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, Gail C. Kobetich Field Office Supervisor cc: CDFG (attn: Bill Tippets) #l-6-96-HC-317 City of Carlsbad Planning Department December 2, 1996 Mr. Ken Discenza Site Design Associates 7863 La Mesa Blvd., Suite 201 La Mesa, CA 91941-3675 SUBJECT: CT 96-04/PUD 71(B)/HDP 96-04/SDP 96-07 - BROOKFIELD MEADOWS The Planning Department staff has recently been made aware of some new information regarding the above-referenced project site. It is important that we clarify this matter promptly as it is likely to affect the processing of the project application. The Environmental Impact Assessment Part I, which was prepared by the applicant and submitted to staff, indicated that the project would not impact any sensitive species or habitat and that the site contained only previously disturbed non-native grasses. On the basis of this information, staff prepared a Negative Declaration (i.e., a statement of "no impact") for the proposed project. New information indicates that there is some sensitive habitat (Laurel Sumac, artemisia, and buckwheat) at the edge of the property adjoining the Bank of America property, and that the grading for the proposed project would impact this habitat, possibly resulting in a "taking" which would require mitigation. Staff has been informed that the property owner (Mr. Okavita) may have been involved in some discussions with Fish and Game and/or Fish and Wildlife regarding possible mitigation requirements for the project. If there are previously unidentified impacts to sensitive habitat which must be mitigated, then the Negative Declaration prepared by staff would no longer constitute an adequate environmental review for the project. At a minimum, the Negative Declaration would have to be revised, possibly to a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the revised document would have to be renoticed in accordance with all legal requirements. Based upon the recent Planning Commission hearing, staff has prepared an agenda bill for City Council to hear the pending Negative Declaration and PUD Amendment and the appeal on the Tentative Map, Hillside Development Permit, and Special Use Permit. As we indicated previously, should the City Council support the proposed project, Council would have to send the project back to staff to prepare conditions of approval for the project. However, if the environmental document is inadequate or inaccurate, staff would also have to revise and renotice that document. This would require additional time beyond that required for drafting conditions of approval. 2O75 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-O894 CT 96-04/PUD 71(B)/HtW96-04/SDP 96-07 - BROOKFIELD^ADOWS DECEMBER 2, 1996 PAGE 2 In order to assist you in this matter, staff will need to have full disclosure of all information relevant to the situation. We, therefore, request that you provide us with copies of any correspondence which may exist relevant to this topic and the names of the persons who were involved in any discussions, meetings, etc. regarding possible mitigation requirements. Staff will also be happy to meet with you to discuss the matter. If you have any questions, please contact me at (619) 438-1161, extension 4471. ELAINE BLACKBURN Associate Planner EB:kr c: Mr. Irving Okavita Gary Wayne Chris DeCerbo file 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 Office of the City Clerk DATE:rw n. FROM: RE: TELEPHONE (619) 434-2808 THE ABOVE ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. According to the Municipal Code, appeals must be heard by the City Council within 30 days of the date that the appeal was filed. (REMINDER: The item will not be noticed in the newspaper until the agenda bill is signed off by all parties.) Please process this item in accordance with the procedures contained in the Agenda Bill Preparation Manual. If you have any questions, please call. The appeal of the above matter should be scheduled for the City Council Meeting of . Signature Date •City of Carlsbad^ ••••••••• ' i • • »• •»Mn—»«'™-»«^g^ <«•••••—ii«.».j ...11 ——,*^»g^p^^|MM^^^^^^^^^^jMMaMJMft|^^^MMMMMpBMMM^^^^iBMM>BBB|^M|^^M APPEAL,FORM 1 (We) appeal the following decision of the r/Anrunc; Losnrr\\S5/an —^Project Name and Number (or subject of appeal}: M & y/«Ol/C f'T *?/ to the City Council: 7/(t)HbP ft-W/Mf?{,- Date of Decision: Reason for Appeal: A-»g)./>tf o -f g>Ki s ;i a Date Print) Address Telephone Number 1POO Crirlsbnd Villnge Dnvn • Ctirisb.nd, Cnlifoi-nin 02008-1969 • (619) \ CITY, pj= CARLSBAD ^ 1200 CARLSBAD VLLAGE DRIVE CARLSBAD, dPLlFORNIA 92008 434-2867 REC'D FROM DATE ACCOUNT NO.DESCRIPTION AMOUNT L -l A) Al > 7876- 11/12/96 0002 01 05 HISC 491) .00 l RECEIPT NO. © Printed on recycled paper. NOT VALID UNLESS VALIDATED BY CASH REGISTER TOTAL BROOKFIELD OWNER'S ASSOCIATION STEVE WESTON, PRESIDENT 6830 VIA MARINARO CARLSBAD, CA 92009 November 1,19% Members of the Planning Commission 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 Members of the City Council 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: BROOKHELD MEADOWS CT 96-04/PUD 71 (B)/HDP 96-041SDP96-07 Dear Commissioners/Council Members: The Board of Directors of Brookfield Owner's Association have had the opportunity to review the proposed development plans of Brookfield Meadows. This project represents the final phase of PUD-71 which also encompasses our community. As a natural extension of the Brookfield neighbourhood, we are extremely pleased with the proposed project's design and its compatibility with the existing Brookfield community. We consider this single family home project to be superior to that of the original apartment project and have passed a resolution supporting the project and its annexation into our Homeowner's Association. We believe that the project as designed would be an asset to our community. We would like to express our support and encourage its approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. Sincerely, Steve Weston President Brookfield Homeowner's Association • City of Carlsbad Planning Department October 16, 1996 Ken Discenza Site Design Associates 7863 La Mesa Blvd., Ste 201 La Mesa, CA 91941-3675 SUBJECT: CT 96-04/PUD 71(B)/HDP 96-04/SDP 96-07 - BROOKFIELD MEADOWS The preliminary staff report for the above referenced project will be available for you to pick up on Friday, October 18, 1996, after 8:00 a.m. This preliminary report will be discussed by staff at the Development Coordinating Committee (DCC) meeting which will be held on Monday, October 28, 1996. A twenty (20) minute appointment has been set aside for you at 10:30 a.m. If you have any questions concerning your project you should attend the DCC meeting. If you need additional information concerning this matter, please contact Elaine Blackburn at (619) 438-1161, extension 4471. CITY/6F CARLSBAD GARY E. WAYr Assistant Planning Director GEW:EB:bk c: Okon Development, P.O. Box 577, Del Mar CA 92014 2O75 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-O894 City of Carlsbad Planning Department September 24, 1 996 Ken Discenza Site Design Associates 7863 La Mesa Blvd Ste 201 La Mesa CA 91941-3657 SUBJECT: CT 96-04/PUD 71{B)/HDP 96-04/SUP 96-07 - BROOKFIELD MEADOWS Dear Mr. Discenza The preliminary staff report for the above referenced project will be available for you to pick up on Friday, September 27, 1996, after 8:00 a.m. This preliminary report will be discussed by staff at the Development Coordinating Committee (DCC) meeting which will be held on Monday, October 7, 1996. A twenty (20) minute appointment has been set aside for you at 10:00 a.m. If you have any questions concerning your project you should attend the DCC meeting. If you need additional information concerning this matter, please contact Elaine Blackburn at (619) 438-11 61, extension 4471. CITY OF CARLSBAD GARVE. WAYNE Assistant Planning Director c: Irving Okovita 2O75 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-0894 City of Carlsbad Planning Department September 9, 1996 Ken Discenza Site Design Associates 7863 La Mesa Blvd., Suite 201 La Mesa, CA 91941-3675 SUBJECT: CT 96-04/PUD 71 (BJ/HDP 96-04/SDP 96-07 - BROOKFIELD MEADOWS Your application has been tentatively scheduled for a hearing by the Planning Commission on October 16, 1996. However, for this to occur, you must submit the additional items listed below. If the required items are not received by September 25, 1996, your project will be rescheduled for a later hearing. In the event the scheduled hearing date is the last available date for the City to comply with the Permit Streamlining Act, and the required items listed below have not been submitted, the project will be scheduled for denial. 1. Please submit the following plans: A) Eleven copies of your (site plans, landscape plans, building elevation plans, floor plans) on 24" x 36" sheets of paper folded into 8Vz' x 11" size. B) One SVi" x 11" copy of your reduced site plan, building elevation and floor plans. These copies must be of a quality which is photographically reproducible. Only essential data should be included on plans. 2. As required by Section 65091 of the California Government Code, please submit the following information needed for noticing and sign the enclosed form: A) Owners List - a typewritten list of names and addresses of all property owners within a 600 foot radius of the subject property, including the applicant and/or owner. The list shall include the San Diego County Assessor's parcel number from the latest equalized assessment rolls. B) Mailing Labels - two (2) separate sets of mailing labels of the property owners within a 600 foot radius of the subject property. The list must be typed in all CAPITAL LETTERS, left justified and void of all punctuation. For any address other than a single family residence, an apartment or suite number must be included but the Apt. #, Suite # and/or Bldg # must NOT appear in the street address line. DO NOT TYPE ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER ON LABELS. DO NOT provide addressed envelopes - PROVIDE LABELS ONLY. Acceptable fonts are : Swiss 721, Enterprise TM, Courier New (TT) no larger than 11 pt. Sample labels are as follows: 2O75 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 • (619) 438-1161 - FAX (619) 438-O894 CT 96-04/PUD 71(B)/HDP September 9, 1996 Page 2 »TO-04/SDP 96-07 - BROOKFIELD MEADOWS UNACCEPTABLE Mrs. Jane Smith 123 Magnolia Ave., Apt #3 Carlsbad, CA 92008 C) D) Sincerely, UNACCEPTABLE Mrs. Jane Smith 123 Magnolia Ave. Apt. #3 Carlsbad, CA 92008 ACCEPTABLE MRS JANE SMITH APT 3 123 MAGNOLIA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 Radius Map - a map to scale, not less than 1" = 200', showing all lots entirely and partially within 600 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property. Each of these lots should be consecutively numbered and correspond with the property owner's list. The scale of the map may be reduced to a scale acceptable to the Planning Director if the required scale is impractical. Fee - a fee (check payable to the City of Carlsbad of cash only) shall be paid for covering the cost of mailing notices. Such fee shall equal the current postage rate times the total number of labels. ELAINE BLACKBURN Associate Planner EB:kr Attachment I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS LIST AND LABELS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD ON THIS DATE REPRESENT THE LATEST AVAILABLE INFORMATION FROM THE EQUALIZED ASSESSOR'S ROLES. APPLICATION NAME AND NUMBER APPLICANT OR APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE BY: DATE: RECEIVED BY DATE: SEP-10-96 TUE 14:06 CARLSBAD FIRE DEPT FAX NO. 6199290256 P.01 City of Carlsfed 96247 Fire Department • Bureau of Prevention Plan Review: Requirements Category: Fire Conditions Date of Report: Tuesday, September 10, 1996 _ Reviewed by: Contact Name Elaine Blackburn Address 2075 Las Paimas City, State Carlsbad CA 92009 Bldg. Dept. No. Planning No. CT96-04 Job Name _Brookfield Meadows Job Address . Xana Wy/Corintia Ste. or Bldg. No. Approved - The item you have submitted for review has been approved. The approval is based on plans; information and/or specifications provided in your submittal; therefore any changes to these items after this date, including field modifica- tions, must be reviewed by this office to insure continued conformance with applicable codes. Please review carefully all comments attached, as failure to comply with instructions in this report can result in suspension of permit to construct or install improvements. Disapproved - Please see the attached report of deficiencies. Please make corrections to plans or specifications necessary to indicate compliance with applicable codes and standards. Submit corrected plans and/or specifications to this office for review. ^ U ^ D For Fire Department Use Only Review 1st, 2nd 3rd Other Agency ID CFD Job# 96247 File# 2560 Orion Way • Carlsbad, California 92008 - (619) 931-2121 SEP-10-96 TUE 14:06 CARLSBAD FIRE DEFT FAX NO. 6199290256 P. 02 Requirements Category: Fire Conditions 96247 Deficiency Item: Satisfied 01 Building Permits Prior to the issuance of building permits, complete building plans shall be approved by the Fire Department. Pjojaosed language: Prior to issuance ifofmance with Rnf and life sarety requiremer ! building plans for Deficiency Item: Satisfied 02 Hydrants Additional on-site public water mains and fire hydrants are required. £iQp_osedchangefor Industrial and multifamily: of 300 feet along public streets and private driveways. Hydrants «^h.^uH-I^T^WTTH5*«»oMntaK!or>innc; whftn possible, but should be positionepLno-etoSefthan 100 feet from terminus of a street or driveway. P7b^o^d-ehangfijp^_sjnglefamily residences: __^~- Provide additionalpulaiiclireTiyaYaTrts^^ streets and/or private driveways. HydrantsshjJijldjDeJeeaW^ but should be feet from terminus of a street or driveway. Deficiency Item: Satisfied 03 Site Plan/Hydrants Applicant shall submit a site plan to the Fire Department for approval, which depicts location of required, proposed and existing public water mains and fire hydrants. The plan should include off-site fire hydrants within 200 feet of the project. Deficiency Item: Satisfied 04 Site plan/access Applicant shall submit a site plan depicting emergency access routes, driveways and traffic circulation for Fire Department approval. Deficiency Item: Satisfied 05 Access during construction An all weather, unobstructed access road suitable for emergency service vehicles shall be provided and maintained during construction. When in the opinion of the Fire Chief, the access road has become unserviceable due to inclement weather or other reasons, he may, in the interest of public safety, require that construction operations cease until the condition Is corrected. Deficiency Item: Satisfied 06 Combustible construction materials on site All required water mains, fire hydrants and appurtenances shall be operational before combustible building materials are located on the construction site. Deficiency Item: Satisfied 08 Fire lanes Prior to building occupany, private roads and driveways which serve as required access for emergency service vehicles shall be posted as fire lanes in accordance with the requirements of section 17.04.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Page 2 09/10/96 SEP- 10-96 TUE 14:07 CARLSBAD FIRE DEPT FAX NO. 6199290256 P. 03 Requirements Category: Fire Conditions 96247 Deficiency Item: Satisfied 09 Brush clearance Native vegetation which presents a fire hazard to structures shall be modified or removed in accordance with thQ specifications contained in the City of Carlsbad Landscape Guidelines Manual. Applicant shall submit a Fire Suppression plan to the Fire Department for approval. ProROsedtew condition - ' Te_bjjnding permit, the applicant shall obtairvfire ippoval of a methods proposed to mitigate and manage fire risk associated shall reflect the stano^da-pTgsented in the fire suppression element of theCity~oTC5fl5 Prior to occupancy of buildings, all wildland fuel mitigation activities must be complete, and the condition of all vegetation within 60 feet of structures found to be in conformance with an approved wildland fuel management plan. Deficiency Item; Satisfied 12 Emergency response maps The applicant shall provide a street map which conforms to the following requirements: A 400 scale photo-reduction mylar, depicting proposed improvements and at least two existing intersections or streets. The map shall also clearly depict street centerlines, hydrant locations and street names. Page 3 09/10/96 June 19, 1996 TO: ELAINE BLACKBURN, ASSOCIATE PLANNER FROM: Associate Engineer Quon PROJECT ISSUES STATEMENT BROOKFIELD MEADOWS, CT 96-04/PUD 71(B)/HDP 96-04 The Engineering Department has completed its review of the resubmitted project application for completeness and/or engineering issues. The project application is now or was previously found complete for the purpose of continued engineering review. The project application does contain some engineering issues or concerns which remain to be resolved by the applicant. All engineering issues should be fully resolved or addressed prior to resubmitting the project for our review. The outstanding engineering issues or concerns are as follows: 1. The tentative map plans should clearly indicate the boundaries of the proposed improvements and where they will join the existing improvements. 2. Consistent with the conditions of approval for the adjacent subdivision, CT 84-23, improvements for this project to Corintia Street are to be full-width along the project frontage. Please modify the cross section of Corintia Street to reflect full-width improvements. 3. Please have the applicant submit a letter from their soils engineer indicating their concurrence with the proposed drainage design for units to drain less than 5' away from the face of building. If you have questions regarding any of the comments above, please contact me at extension 4380. KENNETH W. QUON Associate Engineer April 22, 1996 TO: ELAINE BLACKBURN, ASSOCIATE PLANNER FROM: Associate Engineer Quon VIA: Principal Civil Engineer VIA: Assistant City Engineer COMPLETENESS REVIEW AND INITIAL ISSUES STATEMENT BROOKFIELD MEADOWS, CT 96-04/PUD 71 (B)/HDP 96-04 The Engineering Department has completed its review of the subject project for application completeness. The application and plans submitted for this project are incomplete and unsuitable for further engineering review due to the following missing or incomplete items: 1. Typical street cross sections of Corintia Street and Xana Way. 2. The limits of existing and proposed street improvements. A field check shows that street improvements have yet to be constructed on Corintia Street south of Xana Way. The street improvements to Corintia Way required by this project will be half-street improvements plus 12' of additional paving. 3. Location and method of maintaining access to the adjacent parcel occupied by the water reclamation plant. 4. An updated geotechnical, or a letter from the soils engineer stating that the site has not changed since publishing the April, 1986, report. Please note that there have been reports of groundwater problems within certain areas of the adjacent subdivision. The applicant may want to contact the homeowners association of this subdivision for further related information. In addition, the Engineering Department made a preliminary review of the project for Engineering issues. Engineering issues which need to be resolved or adequately addressed prior to preparing conditions for the project are as follows: 1. Please show a discharge point for the brow ditch located on the west side of Lot 21 and a discharge point for the existing storm drain outlet on Corintia Street. 2. Note no. 13 of the tentative map indicates that typical lot drainage will be in accordance with City standard drawing GS-15. This drawing requires that finish grading provide a positive drainage of 2% to swale a minimum 5' away from the face of building. However, it appears that several buildings on this project will drain less than 5' away and hence, will not meet this standard. This concern may be resolved by having the applicant's soils engineer provide a letter indicating their approval of the proposed drainage design. 3. It appears that an easement is required for the sewer line coming off of Lot 1. 4. Please provide a letter from the adjacent property owner indicating their approval of the proposed offsite grading. 5. Since the interior streets are proposed as private, the streets are to be designated as lots with assigned lot numbers. Alternatively, the street area fronting each residential lot can be included as part of that lot accompanied by general access easements. 6. The typical cross section of the private streets should include a general access and utility easement. 7. Please note on the tentative map the maintenance responsibilities for all slope areas, whether it be a homeowners association or individual property owners. For those areas to be maintained by a homeowners association, please provide a note indicating a maintenance easement over these areas. 8. Please be advised that an updated soils report for this project will be required when filing for a final map. 9. At the intersection of "A" Court and "B" Court, a triangular area measured 25' from the end of the curb return, and free of any obstructions in excess of 30" in height, must be maintained for sight distance purposes. Please outline this triangular area on the tentative map. 10. The plans are to show pedestrian ramps at street corners. Attached is a redlined check print set of the project. Please forward this plan set to the applicant for corrections and changes as noted. The applicant must return this plan set with the corrected plans to assist us in our continued review. If you have questions regarding any of the comments above, please contact me at extension 4380. KENNETH W. QUON Associate Engineer filag. 21 '96 21:51 0000 OKON TEL 6197556080 P. 2 OKON DEVELOPMENT CO. UIUII OKO INVESTMENTS, INC August 22, 1996 SENT BY FACSIMILE City of Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Us Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 Attention: Elaine Blackburn Re: BROOKFIELD MEADOWS CT 96-04/PUD 71 (B)/HDP 96-047 SDP96-07 Dear Elaine: In our conversation this afternoon we discussed all of the items that were raised in your letter dated August 16,1996. The following provides a summary of the discussion and identifies the actions required to complete staffs processing of the project. 1. The signatures of the corporate secretaries or corporate seals of the corporations on the PM' agreement will be provided. An updated preliminary title report will also be provided. 2. The project plans will be revised to incorporate the second dwelling units in the density calculations. 3. A maintenance easement on the slopes along Corintia will be provided to the Homeowner's Association. 4. Recreational areas will be met through the proposed project's private areas and common area in the Brookfield Community which the proposed project will annex into. 5. 'Ilie proposed project will provide for 580 square feet of offsite RV storage. 6. During the preliminary review process the distance between structures along "A" Court was specifically addressed with staff. With support of staff, the proposed project was designed to limit the number of "in a row" 2-story structures along "A" Court to nine structures. The four remaining structures along "A" Court were offset ftx>m the first nine units by curving the road, increasing the distance between structures and the staggering of front yard setbacks. Staff concurred that the proposed design met the intent of PUD regulations and Planning Department policy. Accordingly, you expressed your intent to confirm staffs prior support on the proposed design. In regards to compliance with Small Lot Single Family Guidelines, Ken Discenza agreed to provide you with another copy of the Architectural Guidelines Compliance Summary dated March 18, 1996 that was previously submitted on P.O. Box 577 " Del Mar • California 92014 • (619)755-7005 • Fax (619} 755-6080 _. TPI CICTW^KI/IRI/I P- 321 '96 21:52 0000 OKQN ltu March 26,1996. While the proposed architectural design does not meet all of the minimum policy standards, it does comply with some of the design criteria and is consistent with the architectural character of the Brookfield community. You indicated that you will need to review the project's compliance summary prior to having further discussion with us on this matter. 7. The driveway extension off "B" Court will be revised to a 30 foot minimum width. 8. Lots 25 and 26 will be redesigned to achieve a 20 foot minimum front yard setback, 9. All lots have the minimum street frontages as provided for in the PUD regulations. Lot 21 has the minimum 35 foot street frontage as required. All guest parking are provided on streets or private driveways as required. 10. The second dwelling unit will be eliminated from Lot 26 which resolves the additional resident parking space requirement. 11. Proposed grading is within acceptable range of Hillside Development Regulations. No revision required. 12. Proposed slope heights are within acceptable range of Hillside Development Regulations. No revision required. 13. A note will be placed on the project plans that all walls will not exceed 6 feet in height In the event a wall along lots 13 & 14 is required that exceeds a height of 6 feet, this type of revision can be processed at the staff level providing it meets code requirements. Asa result of the above issues, you have informed us that the project can no longer make the September 17,1996 planning commission hearing. Accordingly, you will be notifying us as to the next available hearing date and submitting the environmental report for public notice by the end of this week. Thanking for your cooperation. Michael Holtzmiller Ken Di seen za City of Carlsbad Planning Department August 16, 1996 Ken Discenza Site Design Associates 7863 La Mesa Blvd., Suite 201 La Mesa, CA 91941-3675 SUBJECT: CT 96-04/PUD 71(B)/HDP 96-04/SDP 96-07 - BROOKFIELD MEADOWS Per our recent telephone conversations, this letter is intended to summarize the status of the above-referenced project with regard to compliance with applicable City codes, outstanding issues, and/or corrections required. These items have been discussed in our prior telephone conversations/meetings and were identified in previous correspondence, e.g. preliminary review letters dated July 5, 1995, October 13, 1995, and November 14, 1995. Documents 1. The PFF agreement requires corrections, and an up-to-date title report is required. To correct the PFF agreement, you must do one of the following: 1) Include the signature of the secretaries of the two corporations (Edgecrest Investments, Ltd. and Okon Development Co.) on page 6 of the PFF in the signature blocks; or 2) Incorporate the corporate seals of the two corporations on page 6 of the PFF. In either case, a new title report will be required to accompany the corrected PFF. As we discussed previously, the title report originally submitted was more than four months old when the original project application was submitted and has now expired. The new title report must be dated within the last 6 months. Density 2. Per our recent discussions, staff has considered the density for this project in combination with the density of the existing Brookfield development. Utilizing this approach, the density for the current project is within the density range allowed by the General Plan (4-8 du/ac) and is below the growth control point (6 du/ac). Therefore, staff can support the proposed density. The project plans should be revised to show the correct density calculation. (Note: The second dwelling units must be included in the calculations of the proposed density.) The correct proposed density of the overall project with 2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 • (619) 438-1161 - FAX (619) 438-O894 CT 96-04/PUD 71(B)/hW 96-04/SDP 96-07 - BROOKFIElWvlEADOWS AUGUST 19, 1996 PAGE 2 the current design would be 5.91 du/ac (34 dwelling units on a 3.70 net acre site). If you choose to eliminate one of the second dwelling units, as we have discussed, the density calculation would need to be revised accordingly. Subdivision Requirements 3. The City's subdivision regulations require that, whenever practicable, side and rear lot lines be located at the top of manmade slopes rather than at the toe or at intermediate locations. The Engineering Department has reviewed the application and supports the location of lot lines at the toe of the slopes for those lots along Corintia Street as the preferred design is not practicable in this case. There will be a maintenance easement to the Homeowners' Association for the slopes. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Requirements 4. Current PUD regulations require provision of recreation area at a ratio of 200 sf/du. This area must be provided in both common and private areas. The total recreation area required for this project combined with the existing Brookfield project would be 49,800 sf. The Brookfield project provides approximately 49,500 sf in private yards and 27,630 sf in common areas (a pool and several pocket play areas). The proposed new residential development will provide a minimum of 5,800 sf in private yards and no common area. Staff supports this aspect of the proposed project, pending annexation into the existing HOA, on the basis that the total overall recreation area requirement can be met. 5. The PUD regulations require that the project provide RV storage area in the amount of 580 sf (20 sf/du for the 29 primary dwelling units; none required for the second dwelling units). The plans do not include the required RV storage area. Should the project be recommended for approval, it would be conditioned to provide the required RV storage area off-site. 6. The project design does not provide the minimum distance between structures required by the PUD regulations. The PUD regulations and Planning Department Policy No. 16 require a minimum 20' distance between 2-story structures when there are ten or more structures in a row (e.g., along "A" Court) and a minimum of 10' between structures otherwise (e.g., along "B" Court). The current proposal provides only 10-15' between all structures. The majority of the structures are only 10' apart. In addition, this project must comply with the Small Lot Single Family Guidelines as required by City Council Policy #44. The proposed project design does not comply with any of the design criteria of this Policy. 7. The PUD regulations require that private streets/drives be a minimum of 30' wide. The proposed project includes a "driveway" extension off of "B" Court W 96-04/SDP 96-07 - BROOKFIELTOtCT 96-04/PUD 71(B)/HDP 96-04/SDP 96-07 - BROOKFIELTOEADOWS AUGUST 19, 1996 PAGE 3 _ which does not meet this requirement and would need to be revised to be a minimum of 30' wide. 8. The minimum front yard setback requirement for this project is 20'. Per our discussions, Lots 25 and 26 do not meet this requirement. 9. As identified in our previous preliminary review letters, the minimum required street frontage on linear streets is 40' and on curved streets is 35'. The PUD regulations further allow a reduced street frontage down to 25' if guest parking is located near the end of the cul-de-sac and such parking does not back out directly onto the street. The proposed design incorporates street frontages of as low as 21' (Lot 21). All lots must have a minimum frontage of 25' to meet the minimum frontage requirement. In addition, if you wish to rely upon this reduced frontage requirement, you must show the proposed guest parking spaces on the plans in order to demonstrate compliance with code requirements. (The proposed project must provide a total of 10 guest spaces.) 10. The required resident parking space for the second dwelling unit on Lot 26 cannot be provided "tandem" since the front yard setback is not a minimum of 20'. You will need to show where the required parking space for this unit will be provided. Hillside Development Regulations 1 1 . The proposed grading volume (2,935 cu/ac) is within the acceptable range. 12. Proposed slope heights are all less than the allowed maximum of 30'. The maximum shown is 16'. Walls and fences 13. All of the wall top and bottom elevations shown indicate a maximum wall height of 6' However, top and bottom elevations are not shown for all areas as required (the endpoints of each wall and at least one intermediate point for each wall). Please note that no walls above 6' in height will be allowed. (This maximum height allowance would also prohibit the possibility of a 1 2' high wall discussed as an alternative design should the desired off-site grading permission not be obtained.) Sincerely, ELAINE BLACKBURN Associate Planner c: Irving Okovita / File Copy OKON DEVELOPMENT CO. LJILJII OKO INVESTMENTS, INC. August 5, 1996 SENT BY FACSIMILE Elaine Blackburn City of Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 Re: CT 96-04/PUD7 IB/HDP 96-04 BRQOKFIELD MEADOWS Dear Elaine: In our meeting on Wednesday, July 31, 1996, you described some major issues with the project's design. The critical issues consisted of project density and conformance to small lot design guidelines including building separation. As you are aware, our position is that these issues among others were addressed with Michael Holtzmiller and Marty Orenyak and subsequently resolved during three preliminary staff reviews that were concluded on November 14, 1995. During our meeting it was discovered that essential correspondence between the City and ourselves were not located in the City's project file. Pursuant to your request, I provided you with copies of all the correspondence from October through November 1995 and directed Ken Discenza from Site Design Associates to provide you with copies of the site plans that were the subject of the above documentation. As noted in the correspondence, our responses since early October 1995 were directed to resolve all issues identified in the City's required preliminary reviews. It was our understanding that staff supported the current design as being consistent with the intent of all applicable ordinances and policies. After your review of the additional documentation, I trust that the staff can support the project as designed and proceed to the Planning Commission hearing in September. We have invested a great deal of time and expense since early 1995 in designing and processing a project the City preferred and the Brookfield community endorsed. We have acted in good faith in reliance on the City staffs direction and believe the project should not suffer any further delay. Thank you for your consideration and cooperation, ery truh Irving Qkovita President cc: Michael Holtzmiller Marty Orenyak Site Design Associates, Inc. Ken Polin, Esq. P.O. Box 577 • Del Mar • California 92014 « (619)755-7005 • Fax (619) 755-6080 City of Carlsbad Planning Department June 27, 1996 Site Design Associates Attention: Ken Discenza 7863 La Mesa Blvd., Ste 201 La Mesa, CA 9 194 1-3675 SUBJECT: CT 96-04/PUD 71(B)/HDP 96-04 - BROOKFIELD MEADOWS Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development Amendment, Hillside Development Permit, Site Development Plan, application nos. CT 96-04/PUD 71(B)/HDP 96-04/SDP 96-07, as to its completeness for processing. The items requested from you earlier to make your Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development Amendment, Hillside Development Permit, Site Development Plan application nos. CT 96-04/PUD 71(B)/HDP 96-04/SDP 96-07, complete have been received and reviewed by the Planning Department. It has been determined that the application is now complete for processing. Although the initial processing of your application may have already begun, the technical acceptance date is acknowledged by the date of this communication. Please note that although the application is now considered complete, there may be issues that could be discovered during project review and/or environmental review. Any issues should be resolved prior to scheduling the project for public hearing. In addition, the City may request, in the course of processing the application, that you clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise, supplement the basic information required for the application. Please contact your staff planner, Elaine Blackburn, at (619) 438-1161, extension 4471, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director MJH:EB:kc Gary Wayne Team Leader Bobbie Hoder Bob Wojcik File Copy Data Entry 2O75 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-O894 ISSUES CT 96-04/PUD 71(B)/HDP 96-04 - BROOKFIELD MEADOWS Planning Issues: 1. The proposed project is required by the City's Inclusionary Housing regulations to construct all required affordable unit on site. Based on the calculations provided, the required number of affordable units would be 4.35. However, this number may change as a result of revisions to the plans or the number of units ultimately approved by the final decision maker (City Council). Staff has determined that you may be allowed to satisfy your inclusionary housing requirements through provision of second dwelling units, as you have requested, without having to await a zone code amendment to the Inclusionary Housing regulations. You will be required to enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement for the inclusionary second dwelling units. Engineering Issues: 1. The Tentative Map plans should clearly indicate the boundaries of the proposed improvements and where they will join the existing improvements. 2. Consistent with the conditions of approval for the adjacent subdivision, CT 84-23, improvements for this project to Corintia Street are to be full-width along the project frontage. Please modify the cross section of Corintia Street to reflect full-width improvements. 3. Please submit a letter from the soils engineer indicating their concurrence with the proposed drainage design for units to drain less than 5' away from the face of building. August?, 1996 TO: ELAINE BLACKBURN, ASSOCIATE PLANNER FROM: Associate Engineer Quon VIA: Principal Land Use Engineer VIA: Assistant City Engineer _ PROJECT REPORT AND CONDITIONS TRANSMITTAL BROOKFIELD MEADOWS, CT 96-04/PUD 71(B)/HDP 96-04 The Engineering Department has completed its review of the subject project. The Engineering Department is recommending that the project be approved subject to the following conditions: 36. There shall be one final subdivision map recorded for this project. 39. NOTE: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following engineering conditions upon the approval of this proposed major subdivision must be met prior to approval of a final map. 40. The developer shall provide an acceptable means for maintaining the private easements within the subdivision and all the private: streets, sidewalks, street lights, storm drain facilities and sewer facilities located therein and to distribute the costs of such maintenance in an equitable manner among the owners of the properties within the subdivision. Adequate provision for such maintenance shall be included with the CC&R's subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 41. All concrete terrace drains shall be maintained by the homeowner's association (if on commonly owned property) or the individual property owner (if on an individually owned lot). An appropriately worded statement clearly identifying the responsibility shall be placed in the CC&Rs. 42. The developer shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void or null an approval of the City, the Planning Commission or City Engineer which has been brought against the City within the time period provided for by Section 66499.37 of the Subdivision Map Act. 43. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site within this project, the developer shall submit to and receive approval from the City Engineer for the proposed haul route. The developer shall comply with all conditions and requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the hauling operation. 44. Rain gutters must be provided to convey roof drainage to an approved drainage course or street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 45. The developer shall provide for sight distance corridors at all street intersections in accordance with Engineering Standards and shall record the following statement in the project's CC&R's: "No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object over 30 inches above the street level may be placed or permitted to encroach within the area identified as a sight distance corridor in accordance with City Standard Public Street-Design Criteria, Section 8.B.3. The underlying property owner shall maintain this condition." The above statement shall be placed on a non-mapping data sheet on the final map. Fees/Agreements 46. Prior to issuance of a building permit for any buildable lot within the subdivision, the property owner shall pay a one-time special development tax in accordance with City Council Resolution No. 91-39. 47. The developer shall pay all current fees and deposits required. 48. The owner of the subject property shall execute an agreement holding the City harmless regarding drainage across the adjacent property. 52. The owner shall execute a hold harmless agreement for geologic failure. 57. Upon completion of grading, the developer shall ensure that an "as-graded" geologic plan is submitted to the City Engineer. The plan shall clearly show all the geology as exposed by the grading operation, all geologic corrective measures as actually constructed and must be based on a contour map which represents both the pre and post site grading. This plan shall be signed by both the soils engineer and the engineering geologist. The plan shall be prepared on a 24" x 36" mylar or similar drafting film and shall become a permanent record. 58. No grading for private improvements shall occur outside the limits of the subdivision unless a grading or slope easement or agreement is obtained from the owners of the affected properties and recorded. If the developer is unable to obtain the grading or slope easement, or agreement, no grading permit will be issued. In that case the developer must either amend the tentative map or modify the plans so grading will not occur outside the project site in a manner which substantially conforms to the approved tentative map as determined by the City Engineer and Planning Director. • The developer shall pay their prorated share of the cost to construct Rancho Santa Fe Road from La Costa Avenue to Melrose Drive. If prior to final map approval, the City has not adopted a financing mechanism for the construction of said Rancho Santa Fe Road improvements, the developer shall enter into ah agreement to prepay their fair share cost of said improvements and further agreeing to consent to the formation of a Community Facilities District or other funding mechanism required to finance the construction of said improvements. Dedications/Improvements 64. Direct access rights for all lots abutting Corintia Street shall be waived on the final map. 67. The developer shall comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The developer shall provide best management practices as referenced in the "California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook" to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer. Said plans shall include but not be limited to 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. 68. Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all public improvements shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In accordance with City Standards, the developer shall install, or agree to install and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, improvements shown on the tentative map and the following improvements: Half width plus 12' street improvements to Corinitia Street along the project frontage from Xana Way to the western boundary of the subdivision. Improvements shall include curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lights, and paving. A list of the above improvements shall be placed on an additional map sheet on the final map per the provisions of Sections 66434.2 of the Subdivision Map Act. Improvements listed above shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the secured improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement. 73. The design of all private streets and drainage systems shall be approved by the City Engineer. The structural section of all private streets shall conform to City of Carlsbad Standards based on R-value tests. All private streets and drainage systems shall be inspected by the City. The standard improvement plan check and inspection fees shall be paid prior to approval of the final map for this project. Code Reminder The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to the following: 78. The developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance with the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the City Engineer. Also attached is a final Land Use Review project report for inclusion in the staff report for this project. If you have questions regarding any of the comments above, please contact me at extension 4380. KENNETH W. QUON Associate Engineer LAND USE REVIEW DIVISION PROJECT REPORT PROJECT ID: CT96-04/PUD 71 (B)/HDP 96-04 PREPARED BY: Kenneth Quon PROJECT NAME: Brookfield Meadows APPROVED BY: V LOCATION: South of Xana Way and west of Corintia Street. BRIEF DESCRIPTION: 29 single family units on 30 lots. ENGINEERING ISSUES AND DISCUSSION Traffic and Circulation Projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 29 units x 10 ADT/unit = 290 ADT The circulation system for the project consists of two private cul-de-sac streets, each with a paved width of 32' and sidewalk on both sides. Parking will be limited to one side of these streets. Primary access to the project will be off Xana Way. Sewer Sewer District: Vallecitos Sewer District Sewer EDU's Required: 29 units x 1 EDU/unit = 29 EDU's Sewer lines from this project will connect to an existing 8" sewer main on Xana Way. No additional sewer improvements are required. Water Water District: Vallecitos Water District EDU's Required: 29 EDU's x 220 Gallons Per Day = 6,380 GPD Water lines from this project will connect to an existing 8" water main on Xana Way. No additional water improvements are required. Grading Quantities: Cut: 13,470 cy Fill: 10,160 cy Export: 3,310 cy Permit required: Yes Offsite Approval required: Yes Hillside Grading requirements met: Yes Preliminary geotechnical investigation performed by: Geocon, Incorporated, dated 1986. The geotechnical report submitted with this application was initially performed for an apartment project previously proposed for this site. The report indicates that the site contains documented fill material placed during the grading of the adjacent subdivision, and highly expansive uncontrolled fill material, which requires removal, capping, or a special foundation design. Since the report is 10 years old, the applicant will be required to provide an updated report prior to approval of the final map, which identifies the current geologic and geotechnical condition of the site, Drainage and Erosion Control Drainage Basin: Erosion Potential: Batiquitos Watershed Low Surface runoff from this project will flow to the existing storm drain system, which was installed during construction of the adjacent subdivision, and meets the City's Master Drainage Plan. Land Title Conflicts with existing easement: Easements dedication required: Site boundary coincides with Land Title: No No Yes There are no land title issues associated with this project. Improvements Offsite improvements: Standards Waiver required: No No A condition of approval of this project requires the installation of half width plus 12' street improvements to the portion of Corintia Street fronting this subdivision, including curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lights, and paving. SITE DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC 7863 LA MESA BLVD., STE. 201 LA MESA, CA 91941-3657 (619) 464-8467 FAX: (619) 469-9465 May 24, 1996 City of Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 Attention: Elaine Blackburn Re: Brookfield Meadows CT 96-04/PUD 71(B)/HDP 96-04 Dear Elaine: This letter and the attached submittal package are in response to the letter from Michael J. Holzmiller dated April 26, 1996 and our meeting of May 6, 1996 with Irving Okovita. The following items correspond to the April 26, 1996 letter: List of Items Needed to Complete Application Planning 1. Attached is a letter from Edward S. Wallace, General Counsel to the Brookfield Owners' Association dated May 17, 1996, reflecting the Association's Board of Directors' approval and intent to recommend the annexation, which would allow Brookfield Meadows the use of common area facilities. 2. The total on-site gross area of 4.39 acres is shown on the Tentative Map, the PUD Site Plan, the Site Development Plan and the Slope Analysis. The Slope Analysis also indicates the off-site grading area which accounts for the larger gross "project" area. 3. & 4. The density analysis is shown on the PUD Site Plan. This shows both the gross and net developable acreage. Because the existing Brookfield project did not have the net developable acreage requirement, there is no data available to compute the net developable acreage density of the full PUD-71. However, this information is computed for the proposed Brookfield Meadows project and is shown on the Tentative Map, the PUD Site Plan and the Site Development Plan. The Slope Analysis indicates the net developable area in accordance with Section 21.53.230 of the Municipal Code. City of Carlsbad Planning Department Re: Brookfield Meadows Page two May 24, 1996 5. Information relating to the PUD requirements can be found on the PUD Site Plan. Attached is a PUD Regulations Summary Table showing density, parking, recreational areas, RV storage and private storage. All PUD requirements have been met with the exception of RV Storage. The Developer is requesting a waiver of the RV Storage requirement since it was not a requirement in the original PUD. If the City denies the waiver, offsite RV Storage would be requested. 6. Attached is a Site Development Plan as requested. Except for the title, this plan is identical to the PUD Site Plan. Also attached is a letter from the Developer protesting the fee requirement and requesting the City to consider a refund. 7. The private streets have been assigned Lot 30 as shown on the Tentative Map. 8. Rear setbacks have been shown on the PUD Site Plan for all lots. 9. Storage areas, including the square footage, are shown on the floor plans for all units. All units contain 400 square feet of storage in the garage and Unit 2 provides an additional 126 square feet under the outside stairway. 10. The scale is now listed on all floor plans and architectural elevation sheets. 11. The building elevations now show building height limits measured to the peak in compliance with the Carlsbad Height Ordinance 21.04.065. 12. The architectural elevations have been revised to show additional detail relating to pop- out/recess areas and window treatments. 13. The required slope profiles are included in this submittal package. 14. Attached are three copies of the Noise Technical Report for Brookfield Meadows as dated May 21, 1996, prepared by RECON, along with the Noise Report Submittal Form. This Report indicates that no noise reduction mitigation is required. 15. A copy of the Disclosure Statement from the Brookfield Owners' Association is attached. The previous Disclosure Statement submitted for Edgecrest Investment, Ltd. and Okon Development Co. will be revised at the counter upon submittal of this package. 16. The proposed grading quantities are shown on the Tentative Map, including the proposed 2,935 C.Y./Acre calculation required by the Hillside Development regulations. This quantity is in the acceptable range in accordance with Sec. 21.95.060(j)(3) of the Hillside Development Regulations. City of Carlsbad Planning Department Re: Brookfield Meadows Page three May 24, 1996 17. Attached is a copy of the Tentative Map highlighting the cut/fill lines as requested. Engineering 1. Typical street cross sections for Corintia Street and Xana Way are shown on the Tentative Map. 2. The typical street cross section for Corintia Street shows the required half-street improvements plus twelve feet of additional paving. 3. The Tentative Map shows the existing driveway to the water reclamation plant and indicates that the driveway will remain. 4. The project site has not changed since the publishing of the soils engineer's report dated April 1986. Additionally, GEOCON indicated that there are no groundwater problems in the adjacent subdivision. There were drainage problems resulting from improper grading which have since been mitigated. In accordance with our conversation with Ken Quon, the updated geotechnical report will not be required until the Final Map stage. Issues of Concern Planning 1. An updated Title Report will be submitted in the event of expiration. 2. All completeness items are addressed by this letter and submittal package. It is our assessment that the project as submitted is in compliance with density regulations. Hillside Development Permit regulations, and Planned Unit Development standards. 3. The Architectural Guideline Compliance Summary dated March 18,1996 compares the subject project to the Small Lot Single Family Guidelines. While all the guidelines are not achieved, the project is architecturally compatible with the existing neighborhood. This was requested by the Brookfield Owners' Association in their letter dated January 17, 1996. As we discussed, attached are photographs of the existing Brookfield homes showing typical front, side and rear architectural treatment. City of Carlsbad Planning Department Re: Brookfield Meadows Page four May 24, 1996 4. The Developer is requesting that the compliance with the City's Inclusionary Housing regulations be accomplished either through the on-site construction of the second dwelling units as shown on the plans, or by payment of the Impact Fee, at the Developer's option. 5. All private yards meet the minimum dimensions of fifteen feet by fifteen feet outside of fifteen percent slopes. Additional dimensions have been added to the Site Plan to illustrate the portion of the yards that meet this requirement. In cases where these dimensions fall in the side areas of the lot, floor plans provide for direct access from the family room to the private yard area. 6. Project numbers have been added to all Plan sheets, with a space left for an SDP number to be assigned upon this Submittal. Engineering 1. Additional existing storm drain information was added to the Tentative Map for the drainage systems on the West side of Lot 21 and on Corintia Street. 2. Note No. 13 on the Tentative Map was revised to reference the Soils Report, which will address the individual on-lot drainage control. 3. The sewer line at Lot 1 is an existing private lateral which is not intended to be used. 4. We are currently working with the new adjacent property owner in renewing a prior Letter of Permission to Grade on their property. This Letter would be presented at the time of the Final Map processing, however, as an alternate condition, the off-site grading can possibly be replaced by an on-site retaining wall. Attached is a copy of this section of the Tentative Map showing the alternate design with a retaining wall. We request that the approvals be granted with an either/or condition. 5. We have designated the on-site private streets and driveway as Lot 30 on all plans. 6. The general access and utility easement has been shown in the typical street cross- section. 7. On the Tentative Map, we have noted the slopes along Xana Way and Corintia Street as well as the slopes along the West side of Lots 13, 14, 20 and 21 will be maintained by the Homeowners' Association, and that a slope easement will be provided. The proposed cross-gutter at the intersection of Xana Way and "A" Court will also be maintained by the Homeowners' Association. City of Carlsbad Planning Department Re: Brookfield Meadows Page five May 24, 1996 8. The updated Soils Report will be submitted when a Final Map is filed. 9. The sight distance triangles are shown on the Tentative Map as requested. 10. Pedestrian ramps are shown at all street corners on the Tentative Map as requested. 11. The marked-up Tentative Map and supporting documents by your Engineering Department is attached and returned as requested. The additional comments shown in red have all been addressed on the revised Tentative Map. I trust that the information submitted herewith satisfactorily responds to the April 26, 1996 letter. If there are any further questions, please contact the undersigned at 464-8467. Sincerely, Kenneth;J. Discenz KJD/lls Attachments cc: Irving Okovita, Okon Development Co. 01-444-1.170 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS BROOKFIELD MEADOWS CT 96-04/PUD 71(B)/HDP 96-04 May 24, 1996 Document Description Document Date 1. Edward S. Wallace Letter 2. Tentative Map (ten copies) 3. Site Plan (ten copies) 4. Site Development Plan (ten copies) 5. Slope Analysis (ten copies) 6. Landscape Plan (ten copies) 7. Project Cross-Sections (Plan View) (ten copies) 8. Project Cross-Sections (Profiles) (ten copies) 9. Architectural Floor Plans and Elevations (ten 8-sheet sets) 10. PUD Regulations Summary Table 11. OKON Development Letter 12. Check for $5,530.00 SDP Submittal fees 13. Noise Technical Report by RECON (three copies) 14. Disclosure Statement from the Brookfield Owner's Association 15. Highlighted copy of Tentative Map with cut/fill lines 16. Photographs of the existing Brookfield Project (six photos) 17. West Property Line Exhibit 18. Engineering Department check set May 17, 1996 May 13, 1996 May 13, 1996 May 13, 1996 May 13, 1996 March 21, 1996 May 13, 1996 May 13, 1996 May 13, 1996 May 13, 1996 May 23, 1996 May 24, 1996 May 21, 1996 May 24, 1996 May 13, 1996 March 30, 1996 May 13, 1996 March 26, 1996 03-274-1.170 OKON DEVELOPMENT CO. UILIII OKO INVESTMENTS, INC. May 24, 1996 City of Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Paimas Drive Carisbad,CA 92009-1576 Attention: Elaine Blackburn Re: Brookfield Meadows CT 96-04/PUD 71(13)/HDP 96-04 Dear Ms. Blackburn: Attached is the $5,530.00 processing fee for the Site Development Plan which was required by the City's letter dated April 26,1996. Please be advised that payment of this fee is hereby made under protest. As you are aware, all information on the Site Development Plan is identical to the PUD Site Plan which was sumitted and for which proceesing fees were paid. With the Site Development Plan not providing any additional information or requiring extra staff time to process, this fee is redundant and unwarranted. Therefore in light of the facts, we request the City to consider this fee excessive and issue an appropriate refund. OPMENTCO. IrvinglOkovita, President lO/oo Encl. P.O. Box577 • Del Mar - California 92014 • (619)755-7005 • Fax (619) 755-6080 LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD S. WALLACE PHONE (619) 296-6800 FAX (619) 220-8112 May 17, 1996 Ms. Elaine Blackburn Associate Planner CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009 Re: Brookfield Meadows / Application Amending Brookfield PUD Dear Ms. Blackburn: This office is general counsel to the Brookfield Owners' Association ("Association"). On behalf of the Association's Board of Directors, I have been instructed to forward this letter to your attention for consideration regarding the above referenced matter. It is the intent of the Association's Board of Directors to recommend to the members of the Association that they approve, by vote, to annex into the Association the proposed Brookfield Meadows project being developed by Okon Development Co. Please feel free to contact me should you or your staff require additional information on behalf of the Association in connection with your consideration of this matter. Sincerely yours, Edward S. Wallace ESW/dk cc: Board of Directors Okon Development Co. 2120 W. WASHINGTON STREET • SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92110 PUD REGULATIONS SUMMARY1 PUD 71(B)May 13, 1996 Brookfield Brookfield Meadows Total Density required provided Parking required provided Recreational required provided RV Storage required provided Private Storage required provided 4 to 8 5.612(gross) 500 786 44,000 S.F. 77,130 S.F. 0 O3 0 O4 4 to 8 7.84 (net) 73 145 5,800 S.F. 22,452 S.F. 580 S.F. 0 392 C.F./Unit (min) 400 C.F./Unit (min) 4 to 8 5.712(gross) 573 931 49,800 S.F. 99,852 S.F. 580 S.F. 0 392 C.F./Unit 400 C.F./Unit 1Refer to the Site Plan and Architectural Plans for further details. 2Brookfield was not required to compute net acreage at the time of approval therefore density is based on gross acreage. 3Brookfield did not have an RV Storage requirement. Brookfield did not have a Private Storage requirement. 03-273-1.170 NOfSc REPORT SUBMITTAL FORM Exhibit VI-4 Acoustical Analysis Report No.: 2802N Project Address: (Street Address/Tract No.) Tract 96-4 Project No. Carlsbad Tract #86-. Type of Acoustical Analysis Report ( ) Feasibility Noise Report ( X ) One-Step Complete Noise Report ( ) Phased Noise Report No report necessary. The project will satisfy all City of Carlsbad noise exposure limits without a formal analysis and report. Explanation: This submittal is for:Noise Reduction X Tentative Tract/Parcel Map Approval Issuance of Grading Permits: Mass/Precise Final Map Recordation Issuance of Building Permits < X ) Topography Modification Berming Berm/Wall Combination Freestanding Sound Wall Patio Walls Balcony Walls Upgraded Windows Mechanical Ventilation None required 3 copies of Noise Report (one with computer calculations ; copy of project floor plans (1" = 40' minimum scale) copy of project plot plan (1" = 40' minimum scale) folded in 8% x 11 or 8% x 14 format. Contact for Information/Clarification: at CON Date: 5/21/96 Submitted bv: Charles Bull at (619) 270-5066 (Phone No.) STATEMENT OF ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANT All information and calculations contained herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The project is designed to meet existing acoustical requirements as determined by the City of Carlsbad. I have supervised the preparation of this noise study ./I am acuity/County Certified Acoustical Consultant. Date: 5/21/96 Signed: FOR CITY USE ONLY Submittal received and accepted for review: Date:By: Acoustical Report reviewed and additional information requested: Date: By: Acoustical Report accepted as complete and adequate: Date:By: J-1 * t City of Carlsbad April 26, 1996 Planning Department Site Design Associates Attn: Kenneth J. Discenza 7863 La Mesa Blvd., Ste 201 La Mesa, CA 91941-3657 SUBJECT: CT 96-04/PUD 71(B)/HDP 96-04 - BROOKFIELD MEADOWS Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development, and Hillside Development Permit, application nos. CT 96-04, PUD 71 (B), and HDP 96-04, as to its completeness for processing. The application is incomplete, as submitted. Attached are two lists. The first list is information which must be submitted to complete your application. This list of items must be submitted directly to your staff planner by appointment. All list items must be submitted simultaneously and a copy of this list must be included with your submittals. No processing of your application can occur until the application is determined to be complete. The second list is issues of concern to staff. When all required materials are submitted the City has 30 days to make a determination of completeness. If the application is determined to be complete, processing for a decision on the application will be initiated. In addition, please note that you have six months from the date the application was initially filed, March 26, 1996, to either resubmit the application or submit the required information. Failure to resubmit the application or to submit the materials necessary to determine your application complete shall be deemed to constitute withdrawal of the application. If an application is withdrawn or deemed withdrawn, a new application must be submitted. Please contact your staff planner, Elaine Blackburn, at (619) 438-1161 extension 4471, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director Attachment MJH:EB:vd Gary Wayne Brian Hunter Bobbie Hoder Bob Wojcik File Copy Data Entry Marjorie/Rich 2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-1576 • (619) 438-1161 LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE APPLICATION: No. CT 96-04/PUD 7KBVHDP 96-04 - BROOKFIELD MEADOWS PLANNING; 1. Your application is for an amendment to an existing PUD (PUD 71(A) - The Meadows). Staff agrees that this is the appropriate way to process the proposed changes. Typically, the City requires that all property owners who are a part of a PUD must sign the application documents as co-applicants of any amendment. Staff believes this requirement would be infeasible in the current situation due to the number of individuals involved. Therefore, staff believes the signatures of The Meadows Homeowners' Association officials as co-applicants will satisfy this requirement. The signatures should be on a statement of the intent of the Association to annex the subject project into the Association to allow use of the common area facilities and to be co- applicants on the proposed project. The actual annexation need not occur prior to approval of the proposed project. If the annexation does not occur in the near future, any project approval will be conditioned upon receiving such approval within a specified time period. 2. The submittal sheets contain conflicting information regarding the size of the subject property. The Tentative Map and the Site Plan indicate a total gross area of 4.39 acres. The Slope Analysis indicates a total gross site area of 4.52 acres. One of these figures must be incorrect. Please correct the appropriate sheet(s). 3. The Tentative Map and the Site Plan show a proposed density of 6.6 du/ac for the subject site. This figure is apparently based upon a gross site size of 4.39 acres. As indicated in staff's previous correspondence (PRE 95-20 letter dated July 5, 1995), the density must be calculated based upon the net developable acreage of the site, rather than the gross site size. Attached you will find a copy of Section 21.53.230 of the Municipal Code, which identifies areas which may not be included as net developable acreage. 4. Comment No. 3 (above) also applies to the density calculation of the existing related project, The Meadows. The Site Plan indicates a density of 5.61 du/ac for The Meadows. This density figure is also apparently based upon the gross site size of the project. The information in the Density Analysis section of the Site Plan should be expanded to show both the gross site size and the net developable acreage of both sites involved in this proposal. The Slope Analysis sheet should also indicate the net developable acreage figure. 5. Since this project is intended to be an amendment to the existing PUD 71(A), and is proposed to share some facilities, you must provide more detailed information regarding the existing Meadows development. Specifically, you must indicate how the existing project meets or exceeds its requirements under the PUD regulations for density, private and common recreation areas, RV storage, private storage areas, etc. Staff suggests you provide this information in a table which calls out the "required" and "provided" private rec areas, common rec areas, RV storage, private storage, etc. for both the existing and the proposed developments separately. 6. You must process an application for a Site Development Plan to address Inclusionary Housing requirements. The SDP application must be processed concurrently with the applications already submitted. 7. The private street lots shown on the Tentative Map should have lot numbers assigned to them. 8 Please provide rear setback dimensions for all lots. 9. Please call out the locations and sizes of required storage areas. The floor plans provided for models 1 and 3 do not call out the locations of storage areas, and none of the floor plans provided call out the sizes of the storage areas. 10. You must provide a scale on all floor plan sheets and architectural elevations sheets. 11. All building elevations must include an indication of compliance with Carlsbad Height Ordinance 21.04.065. Current building height limits are measured to the peak of the proposed structures. 12. The amount of detail called out on the architectural elevations is limited. Please call out the amount of popout/recess areas and window treatments, etc. 13. The plans call out locations of cross-sections. However, the associated slope profiles were not included in the submittal package. Please include the slope profiles in your next submittal. 14. A Noise study is required due to the fact that the subject property appears to be within 500' of a Circulation Element Roadway (Melrose/Rancho Santa Fe Road). 15. The Disclosure Statement should be revised and clarified. Because this project is an amendment to an existing PUD, the Disclosure Statement should contain the signatures of the Meadows HO A officials as co-applicants on the project. Also, please elaborate on the information on the Statement to indicate any relevant titles applicable to individuals. 16. Please indicate on the plans the proposed grading volume per cubic yard as required by the Hillside Development regulations. This is calculated by dividing the larger volume of the total cut or total fill volume by the total area in acres that is cut and/or filled (i.e., graded). 17. Please identify specific "cut" areas and "fill" areas on the Tentative Map. ENGINEERING; 1. Typical street cross sections of Corintia Street and Xana Way. 2. The limits of existing and proposed street improvements. A field check shows that street improvements have yet to be constructed on Corintia Street south of Xana Way. The street improvements to Corintia Way required by this project will be half-street improvements plus 12' of additional paving. 3. Location and method of maintaining access to the adjacent parcel occupied by the water reclamation plant. 4. An updated geotechnical, or a letter from the soils engineer stating that the site has not changed since publishing the April, 1986, report. Please note that there have been reports of groundwater problems within certain areas of the adjacent subdivision. The applicant may want to contact the homeowners association of this subdivision for further related information. ISSUES OF CONCERN PLANNING; 1. The required title report must be dated within the last 6 months. The title report provided is dated November 13, 1995, satisfying the requirement. However, if problems occur with processing and recording of the PFF, the title report may expire and a new one may be required for recordation due to necessary processing times. Staff will notify you should a new report be required. 2. Due to the fundamental nature of the some of the incomplete items, detailed analysis of some potential issues cannot be provided at this time. Please note that, when all incompleteness items are submitted and reviewed, issues may be identified relating to compliance with density regulations, Hillside Development Permit regulations, and Planned Unit Development standards. 3. The proposed project will be required to comply with the Small Lot Single Family Guidelines as directed by City Council Policy #44. 4. The proposed project is required by the City's Inclusionary Housing regulations to construct all required affordable units on site. Based on the calculations provided, the required number of affordable units would be 4.35. However, this number may change as a result of corrections made to correct incompleteness items. Staff is aware that you are requesting to provide all affordable units through the use of second dwelling units. You will have to enter into an affordable housing agreement. 5. The plans indicate that private yards are being used to satisfy the private rec area requirements. However, a few of the yards do not appear to meet the requirements for a minimum 15'xl5' dimension outside of 15% slopes. 6. Please add the project numbers (as shown at the top of this letter) to the upper right hand corner of the plan sheets when you make a resubmittal. ENGINEERING; 1. Please show a discharge point for the brow ditch located on the west side of Lot 21 and a discharge point for the existing storm drain outlet on Corintia Street. 2. Note no. 13 of the tentative map indicates that typical lot drainage will be in accordance with City standard drawing GS-15. This drawing requires that finish grading provide a positive drainage of 2% to swale a minimum 5' away from the face of building. However, it appears that several buildings on this project will drain less than 5' away and hence, will not meet this standard. This concern may be resolved by having the applicant's soils engineer provide a letter indicating their approval of the proposed drainage design. 3. It appears that an easement is required for the sewer line coming off of Lot 1. 4. Please provide a letter from the adjacent property owner indicating their approval of the proposed offsite grading. 5. Since the interior streets are proposed as private, the streets are to be designated as lots with assigned lot numbers. Alternatively, the street area fronting each residential lot can be included as part of that lot accompanied by general access easements. 6. The typical cross section of the private streets should include a general access and utility easement. 7. Please note on the tentative map the maintenance responsibilities for all slope areas, whether it be a homeowners association or individual property owners. For those areas to be maintained by a homeowners association, please provide a note indicating a maintenance easement over these areas. 8. Please be advised that an updated soils report for this project will be required when filing for a final map. 9. At the intersection of "A" Court and "B" Court, a triangular area measured 25' from the end of the curb return, and free of any obstructions in excess of 30" in height, must be maintained for sight distance purposes. Please outline this triangular area on the tentative map. 10. The plans are to show pedestrian ramps at street corners. Attached is a redlined checkprint set of the plans for your use in making corrections and changes as noted. You must return this checkprint plan set with the corrected plans to assist us in our continued review. City of Carlsbad Planning Department Decembers, 1994 Wingfield Venture Partners VI L P % Wingfield Companies 650 Carlifomia Street, Suite 1410 San Francisco, CA 94108 SUBJECT: SDP 84 - 8(A) - PARK (BREHM) APARTMENTS Dear Sir: The purpose of this letter is to formally notify you that the above-referenced project is no longer tolling (temporarily suspended from expiring). For some time now, the project referenced above has been tolling pending a financial guarantee for improvements to Rancho Santa Fe Road from La Costa Avenue to Melrose Drive. It was anticipated that the guarantee for these improvements would be some form of assessment district in which all the owners of vacant, undeveloped properties surrounding Rancho Santa Fe Road would participate. However, on September 14, 1993, the City Council approved an alternative for individual property owners which allowed them to sign an agreement to prepay a fee for the assessment district rather than waiting until a district is formed. What this meant is that any individual property owner or applicant of an approved project like yours could go forward with the project by signing the agreement and having it approved by the City Council. For this reason, the tolling of your project technically ceased on September 14, 1993 and the approval of the project expired on September 14, 1994 since the original approval was valid for one year. When applicable in the past, the City has notified a property owner or developer that their project has come off tolling. This is done more as a formal curtesy as we are not aware of any legal requirement that the City provide this type of notice. Due to an oversight, the City failed to provide you with a notice that your project was no longer tolling as of September 14, 1993 and was subject to the one year expiration date. For that reason, a decision has been make that the one year expiration period for your project will start from the date of this letter notice. Therefore, if you do not obtain building permits for the project bv December 9. 1995 the project will expire. If you have any questions concerning this matter, I can be reached at (619) 438-1161 extension 4430. Sincerely, MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director c: Irv Okovita 2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad. California 92OO9-1576 • ^6191 438-1161 JANUARY 22, 1997 TO: CITY COUNCIL VIA: City Manager FROM: Planning Department CT 96-04/PUD 71{B)/HDP 96-04/SDP 96-07 - BROOKFIELD MEADOWS The above-referenced project was recommended for denial without prejudice by staff, and the CT, HDP and SDP were subsequently denied without prejudice by the Planning Commission. If City Council decides to approve the project, it will be necessary to send the project back to staff to have conditions of approval prepared and to revise the environmental document previously prepared for the project. Because the applicant did not disclose to staff the potential for certain environmental impacts, the current environmental document would not be adequate. If the Council decides to deny the project and uphold the Planning Commission decision, it would not be necessary to revise the environmental document. DEUELOPNENT '9e LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD S.WALLACE - 1'IIONK (<>l'ii 2.;2-s!64 )\x «il9) 2535757 January 17, 1996 Mr. Irving Okovita, President OKON DEVELOPMENT CO. OKO INVESTMENTS, INC, l^fl 2 § 13ES P.O. Box 577 r Del Mar, California 92014 Re; Bjookiled_Me_adoWS Dear Mr. Okovita: This office is general counsel tor the Biookfield Owners' Association ("Association"). On behalf of the Association, I have been asked to respond to your letter dated November 7, 1995 concerning your proposal to annex the Brookiield Meadows development into to Urookilcld Owners' Association The board oi'directors lor the Brooklield Owners' Association is 'very interested in exploring opponunities towards that end. One of the primary concerns of the Association as it considers your proposal of annexation is the ability to maintain architectural consistency with the existing ;uchitectura! scheme of the neighborhood. Please contact me at your convenience so that we can discuss this matter in more detail. Once again, the Association would hke me to emphasize that they are very interested in your proposal of annexation, and providing that the opportunity is still feasible, J look forward to working with you to accomplish that goal Sincerely yours, Edward S. Wallace HSVV/dk cc. Board of Directors it)] W:ST HKOADW • stilTK M(iO • SAX BROOKFIELD MEADOWS SITE DATA Site Components Building Coverage Private Streets Private Driveways Private Backyards Front and Side Yards On-Site Slopes Total Area (acres) 0.96 0.71 0.36 0.56 1.25 0.55 4.39 % of Total Site 21.90 16.20 8.20 12.70 28.50 12.50 100.00 DENSITY ANALYSIS WITH PUD-71 AMENDMENT Density Calculations Brookfield - Existing Brookfield Meadows Total Number of Dwelling Units 220 29 249 Dwelling Number of Units Acres Per Acre 5.61 6.60 5.7143.60 RECREATION ANALYSIS WITH PUD-71 AMENDMENT Recreation Calculations (sq.ft.) Existing Brookfield Private Areas - Backyards (a) 49,500 Common Areas (b) 27,630 Brookfield Meadows 22.452 0 Total PUD-71 61.952 27,630 Required PUD-71 56,025 24,900 Notes: (a) Minimum dimensions of 15 feet x 15 feet. Brookfield shown at the minimum 225 square feet/unit. (b) Lot 136 and portions of Lot 135 and Lot 86 of Map No. 11241 Common Areas calculated at 100 square feet/unit (50% of required 200 square feet/unit). 03-265-1.170(3) San Marcos Unified School District 1 Civic Center Drive, Suite 300, San Marcos, CA 92069 (619) 744-4776 FAX (619) 471-4928 November 27, 1995 Irv Okovita Okon Development 14755 Caminito Lorren Del Mar, CA 92014 RE: APN 222-353-27 and APN 223-021-18(Brookfield Meadows) Gentlemen: The San Marcos Unified School District serves the educational need of students from kindergarten through high school. The District currently has seven elementary schools. Your project is located in the school attendance boundaries of La Costa Elementary, 6889 El Fuerte, Carlsbad, CA 92009. However, school attendance boundaries are subject to change. Due to large enrollment, attendance at the elementary school closest, or most convenient to your home, cannot be guaranteed. San Marcos Middle School is located at 650 West Mission Road and serves the entire District in grades seven and eight. San Marcos High School is located at 1650 San Marcos Boulevard and serves the entire District in grades nine through twelve. Twin Oaks Continuation High School and Foothills Independent Study School are located at 158 Cassou and serve the alternative education needs of students. Questions regarding the education programs and school facilities can be answered by calling the District Office at 744-4776. Sincerely, Lettie Boggs Facilities Director Business Services Governing Board: Mary Borevitz Alan Brown Lucy Gross James Poltl Seena Trigas Larry B. Maw, Ed.D., Superintendent VALLECITOS Water District FAX (619) 744-350? (619) 744-0460 A Public Agency 788 San Marcos Boulevard San Marcos, California 92069 November 27, 1995 L]..C _,7^^ County of San Diego .^ _ - a Department of Planning and Land Use " '•• ^ l Q '^° 5201 Ruffin Road, Suite B C. ., San Diego, CA 92123 RE: WATER AND SEWER AVAILABILITY, APN 223-021-18, 223-353-27 Owner: Edgecrest Investments, Inc. Project Description: Nursery; Greenhouses, 4200 SF The above-referenced property1 lies within the boundaries of the Vallecitos Water District for water and sewer service (Improvement Districts 1, 2, & 6). Water and sewer stub-out connections exist for the proposed project. Water and sewer service will be provided under the rules and regulations of the District under normal operating conditions, after all required fees have been paid and all conditions of the District have been satisfied. Any water or sewer facilities not within the public right-of-way will require a 20-foot-wide- minimum easement granted to the Vallecitos Water District. Obtaining any easements is the responsibility of the owners of this project and any expenses incurred is their responsibility. This letter is issued for planning purposes only, and is not a representation, expressed or implied, that the District will provide service at a future date. The Vallecitos Water District relies 100 percent on imported water supplies, and although the District may have available capacity at this time, due to the inadequacy of water supplies, water may not be available at the time the project is built. Commitments to provide service are made by the District's Board of Directors and are subject to compliance with District fees, charges, rules and regulations. Thank you for submitting your request. If there are any additional questions please contact me or Dennis Lamb at the District. Sincerely, VALLECITOS WATER DISTRICT Ra/fael Gutierrez Engineering Technician III cc: Dennis Lamb, Engineering Manager File O Printed on i to yWD's systems map 2A-Q19. H: \DATA\WP\AVAIL\ 1995\EDGECRST. AVL PROJECT FACILITY AV(^LABILITY FORM Please type or use pen EDGECREST'-INVESTMEJSITS, INC. 619-755-7005 Owner's Name Phone 14755 CAMINITO LORREN Owner's Mailing Address Street DEL MAR, CA 92014 City State Zip WATER ORG. ACCT. ACT_ TASK. DATE.AMT$ DISTRICT CASHIER'S USE ONLY SECTION 1J1PROJECTIDESGRIPTION TO BE COMPLETED 1BY APPLICANT A.Major Subdivision (TM) I I Specific Plan or Specific Plan Amendment Minor Subdivision (TPM) I I Certificate of Compliance: Boundary Adjustment Rezone (Reclassification) from to Major Use Permit (MUP), purpose: Time Extension... Case No Expired Map... Case No Other Assessor's Parcel Number(s) (Add extra if necessary) .zone. B.Residential Total number of dwelling units . Commercial Gross floor area Industrial Gross floor area Other Gross floor area 29 2 2 2 2 3 3 0 3 2 5 1 3 1 2 8 7 4 ^Q AP 9QC. Total Project acreage^ •-}J "*- -Total numhar of Intg ^J D. Is the project proposing the use of groundwater? D Yes [3No Is the project proposing the use of reclaimed water? D Yes El No Thomas Bros. Page 1128 Grid A5 XANA WAY Project address LA COSTA Street 92009 Community Planning Area/Subregion Zip Owner/Applicant agrees to pay all necessary construction costs, dedicate all district required easements to extend service to the project and COMPLETE ALL CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY THE DISTRICT. Applicant's Signature:.IRVING OKOVITA Address:.14755 CAMINITO LORREN, DEL MAR, 92014 Date:. 11/13/95 . Phone:755-7005 (On completion of above, present to the water district to establish facility availability, Section 2 below) SECTION 2. FACILITY1AVAIL.ABILITY TO BEICOMPLETED BY1DISTRICT District name Vallecitos Water District .Service area Meadowlark 815 A. E Project is in the district. D Project is not in the district but is within its Sphere of Influence boundary, owner must apply for annexation. D Project is not in the district and is not within its Sphere of Influence boundary. D The project is not located entirely within the district and a potential boundary issue exists with the.District. Facilities to serve the project 1X1 ARE EH ARE NOT reasonably expected to be available within the next 5 years based on the capital facility plans of the district. Explain in space below or on attached _L. (Number of sheets) D Project will not be served for the following reason(s): _ C. District conditions are attached. Number of sheets attached:_aae District has specific water reclamation conditions which are attached. Number of sheets attached:. District will submit conditions at a later date. How far will the plpeline(s) have to be extended to serve the project? Date: 11/27/95 Authorized signature: _ _ •' 'T'" Print title: Engineering Technician III JOne year from date of issuance unless district indicates otherwise.) Print name: Rafael Gutierrez ' Phone: (6191 744-0460 NOTE: THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT A COMMITMENT OF SERVICE OR FACIUTIES BY THE DISTRICT On completion of Section 2 by the district, applicant is to submit this form with application to the Zoning Counter at the Department of Planning arid Land Use, 5201 Ruffin Road, San Diego, CA 92123 'L*399W(Rev.4/l2/91) PROJECT FACILITY AVM-ABILITY FORM SEWER Please type VKise pen EDGECREST INVESTMEOTS, INC. 619-755-7005 Owner's Name Phone 14755 CAMINITO LORREN Owner's Mailing Address Street DEL MAR, CA 92014 City State Zip ORG » fexi ACCT ^^/ ACT TASK DATE AMTS DISTRICT CASHIER'S USE ONLY SECTION liiPROJECTlDESCRIPTION TO iBElCOMPLETED :BYJAPPLICANT Major Subdivision (TM) I I Certificate of Compliance:. Minor Subdivision (TPM) I I Boundary Adjustment Specific Plan or Specific Plan Amendment Rezone (Reclassification) from to Major Use Permit (MUP), purpose: Time Extension... Case No Expired Map... Case No Other Assessor's Parcel Number(s) (Add extra if necessary) .zone B.Residential.. .Total number of dwelling units 29 Commercial.. .Gross floor area . Industrial Gross floor area. Other Gross floor area. 2 2 2 2 3 3 0 3 2 5 1 3 1 2 8 7 Thomas Bros. Page.1128 .Grid A5 C. Total Project acreage 4. .39 AC. Total number of lots 29 Project address XANA WAY YM No D. Is the project proposing its own wastewater treatment plant? CD Q9 Is the project proposing the use of reclaimed water? I I IX! LA COSTA 92009 Community Planning Area/Subregion Owner/Applicant agrees to pay all necessary construction costs and dedicate all district required easements to extend service to the project. OWNER/APPLICANT MUST COMPLETE ALL CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY THE DISTRICT. Applicant's Signature: _*IRIVING OKOVITA nate- 11/13/95 14755 CAMINITO LORREN, DEL MAR, 92014 Phone: 755-7005 (On completion of above, present to the sewer district to establish facility availability. Section 2 below) SECTION 2. FACILITY AVAILABILITY TO BE COMPLETEDJBYIDISTRICT District name Vallecitos Water District Service area I.D. 1, 2, & 6. A. 13 Project is in the district. D Project is not in the district but is within its Sphere of Influence boundary, owner must apply for annexation/ D Project is not in the district and is not within its Sphere of Influence boundary. \ D The project is not located entirely within the district and a potential boundary issue exists with the District. B.B Facilities to serve the project SARE DARE NOT reasonably expected to be available within the next 5 years based on the capital facility plans of the district. Explain in space below or on attached. Number of sheets attached: 1 D Project will not be served for the following reason(s): C.3 District conditions are attached. Number of sheets attached: one D District has specific water reclamation conditions which are attached. Number of sheets attached:. D District will submit conditions at a later date. D.D How far will the pipeline(s) have to be extended to serve the project? Date: 11/27/95 Expiration date: Authorized signature: Print title: Engineering Technician III [One year from date of issuance unless district indicates otherwise) Print name: Rafael Gutierrez Phone: (619) 744-0460 NOTE: THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT A COMMITMENT OF FACILITIES OR SERVICE BY THE DISTRICT On completion of Section 2 by the district, applicant is to submit this form with application to the Zoning Counter at the Department of Planning and Land Use, 5201 Ruffin Road, San Diego, CA 92123 DPUZC*399S(Rev.4/91) TEL 61975560B0 P. 9 ."tv Pug. 1 '96 15:33 0000 C|DN JUL-31-]996 1G t 23 p.16 _City_ol Carlsbad'nn)r " 'Jilli'iJtirtjMUkMil^ttf^iit^aMM^tl^fca^am^Mytti'i'jiiriitMhfci '. i ' ni»iii tfRiarm»na November 14,1995 Irving Okovita, President Okon Development Co. OKO Investments, Inc. P.O. Box 577 Del Mar, CA 92014 JIE; BttOOK FIELD MEADOWS PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN Dear Mr, Okovita: The Planning and Engineering Departments have reviewed your latest site plan, dated November 8, 1 995, for the preliminary project entitled Brookfield Meadows located on Xona Way, and have the following comments: 1 , The project's reliance on the existing Planned Unit Development (PUJ>71) for purposes of density calculations and the satisfaction of recreational open space requirements creates the uc'cd for an analysis that illustrates this. PIea.sc include this analysts with the formal application. 2. It is correct to state that the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires en-site construction of housing affordable to lower income households. However, before a project of this size (29 unite) would be eligible for payment of the "in lieu fee" to satisfy inchmonary housing requirements the City Council must approve an amendment to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. 3. A Hillside Development Permit is still required because the proposed grading impacts manufactured 40% slopes, 15 fc«t or higher, and there is an elevation differentiid of 15 feet or greater across (he property. <1. Tlif siihruittal of a proposed application to replace the approved apartment project with a single-family subdivision «nd amendment to the existing Planned Development Permit would not continue to toll the project's Site Development Plan (SDP) for the apartments. To prevent the SDP from expiring the developer must either amend the Site Development Plan's conditions of approval or apply for a building permit \iy submitting building plans for the apartment project prior to the expiration date. 5. PUD 71 was originally approved by the City Council, therefore, the amendment of PUD 7J must also be approved by the Ciry Council. 6. Sec the attached marked-up site plan for additional comments. 2O7!» (as P*almas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92OO9-1576 • (619)430-1161 flug. 1 '96 15:34 0000 N TEL 6197550 P- JUL-3J-1996 16:24 P. 17 I PRE 95-20 . THE PARKE November 14, 1995 Page % ____ Engineering; 1 . Thank you for redesigning the site in accordance with prior comments. At this stage in the process, Engineering Department staff can support the current design if Nome additional issues of concern fan be resolved in accordance with the following items. 2. Realigning "A" Court midway between Corintia Street imd Via Marincio seems feasible. Staff siill does have two concern* over this configuration, however, as follows: ». Currently it seems that approximately 200 feet of Stopping Sight Distance (&SD) can be achieved. At a minimum, staff will require 250' SSD. This should be tible to be achieved by pulling the proposed grading and retaining wall back somewhat at proposed lot's 27 and 28. Also, AS previously requested, submit a profile for sight distance determination. b. In discussions with staff is was determined that the horizontal radius on "A" Court should be increased to greater than 100'. This also should not create »ny difficulties with the site design to obtain a greater radius at this locution. (The attempt should be made to achieve a 200' minimum radius). 3. Is the retaining wall which is proposed along Corintia Street correct? Also, a design for two 3' 'split" retaining walls should be investigated to minimize the visual impacts of one solid 6* foot wall. This option should be discussed with Planning Department Uaff. •1. Again, as previously staled in the first and second preliminary reviews, and, as the applicant previously responded to, all of the engineering issues identified in the first preliminary review must be addressed/submitted at formal applicant submittal (i.e.. Preliminary Title Report (PR), easement disposition information, site boundary information, etc.). 5. Please he advised that this third preliminary review still does not constitute a full comprehensive review of the project and that upon formal application subniittaL, additional items of concern may become evident. If you have any questions please contact Jeff Gibson in the Planning Department at 438-1161, extension 4455, or Mike Shirey in the Engineering Department at extension 4388. Sincerely, MICHAEL Planning Director CT Community Development Director Assistant Planning Director Assistant City Engineer Chris Deecrbo Bob Wojcik Pug. 1 '96 15:32 0000 ^N TEL 6197556^N JUL-31-19% l7-'05 P. 013 i OKON DEVELOPMENT CO. LJIUI I OKO INVESTMENTS, INC. November?, 1995 City of Carlsbad Planning Department 7075 Us Palmas Drive '' Carlsbad. C A 92009- 1 576 ; Attention; Michael Hohzmiller, Planning Director Re: PRE. 95-20- THE PARKE ! APN: 223-02- 18, 223-353-27 I ' Deai1 Michael;i i '.After our conversation regarding possible revisions to the revised site plan, Ken Discenza conducted additional design studies 10 bccter address staffs comments. We subsequently met with Jeffrey Gibson and Roben Wojctk of the City on October 23, 1995 and reviewed several revisions thai appeared to resolve ihc issues raised in stalTs October 13, 1995 memorandum. Based upon these discussions, we have now completed the redesign which incorporates the resolutions as summarised below. While we trust this latest plan will meet the City's requirements, please let me know if there are any other issues that the attached site plan has not addressed. Planning: Plan; 1. The proposed project would be processed as an amendment to PUD-71 ("The Meadows") which would reduce the density ol1 ihe sits from 1QO apui'uncm units 1029 Dingle family homes. The density of the proposed project, would then meet the current General Plan Land Use Designation and the site's control point; Inclusioimry Housing Ordinance; 2. The City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires on-sue construction of affordable housing. The City Council can exempt the project from this requirement by imposing an in lieu impact fee. Tyherefore, our request for an impact fee similar to that of the current approved upa«mcm project must go before the Council; Planned Development Ordinance: Common recreational facilities are required per Section 21.4 5.090. ' nicreationul facilities existing in PUD-71, of which this project is a pa towards satisfying me project's requirements with Brooktield's HOA at The common . . 4 „_ pari,. can couni towards satisfying me project's requirements with Brooktield's HOA approval and it P.O. Box 577 • DPI Mar • California 9?01 4 • (6 1 9J755-V005 • Fax (6 I 9) 755-6080 P . 04 JIJL-31-19'36 17=06 be demonssianed that the existing common recreational facilities exceeds Brookfield's requircmenis. 2. Lots wore redesigned «o mee-i the lot frontage! requiretnenis; 3. The project will either provide on she Recreational Vehicle Storage or proof of piirtic-ipiuion in ,'m off-siie sionige location acceptable u> the Ciiy; A. Lois have been redesigned to provide appropriate slope and side yard set backs; Engineering: 1. Peking on one side of the street can ttf provided as per Section 21.45.090 and spaces musi be shown on the plans. A wuwrourn 32 ft curb to curb can be utilized and cul de sacs can have a 301't curb radius; 2. The redesign provides for a more linear street with one standard intersection; 3, The intersection of Xana Way and the interior stitrti has been redesigned and relocated to midway between Via Marinero and Corintia Sireeu A standards variance for the cross-street gradient would be supported due to the preferred intersection location; 4. All engineering issues in the July 5, 1995 initial preliminary review will be incorporated in the formal application submiUai; Miscellaneous: 1 . Lot lines in » Planned Development are not required to be perpendicular or radial U> 2. A Tentative Map condidoned on the City Council's approval of the amendment lo PUD 7 1 far the project can be approved by the Planning Conuttissiofi; 3. A Hillside Development Permit will not be required based upon the redesigned uniding- Th« project is required to submit Uie following applications and respective fees; - Environmental Impact A«ses$mfcni - Notice Fee - Planned Development Amendment/Revision - Public Facilities Fee Agreement Tentative Tract Map Wilh the project now a potentially viable alternative to that of the apartments, and with Brookfield's Board of Directors recent endorsement, we are preparinu to move the project forward through the formal application process. We understand tl\at upon tcniative map P. 5TEL 619755™jj.1. '96 15:30 .TUL-31-1996 37:08 P.07 MEMORANDUM October 13, 1995 TO: ASSOCIATE PLANNER - JEFF GIBSON PROM: Associate Engineer - Land Use Review PRE 95-20; THE "PABKE" 130 UNIT SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION* SECOND PRELIMINARY REVIEW Engineering Department staff have conducted a second preliminary reviuw of the above referenced proposed project. Prior to a formal application submittal, the following items must be resolved/addressed: 1. Since the proposed interior street is loaded on both sides, parking must be available on both sides of the street. To facilitate parking on both sides of the street, a 36' minimum curb to curb width must be utilized, To minimize impacts on the lot si/.eu, if a private street is proposed, a 46' easement width can be used. Also to minimize impacts on the lot sizes, private cul-de-sacs can be designed to the following specifications: Radius = 30', Easement Line Radius ^ 40'. 2. Thank you for redesigning the interior street to take access off of Xans Way; however, staff still has some concerns over the proposed street configuration. The proposed Interior street is too circuitous and does not meet minimum City standards. Staff has concerns over the operational safety of this proposed street and cannot support this design. Staff recommends designing a more linear street with standard interactions (on« potential preliminary configuration is indicated on the attached red lined check print. Staff recommends that the applicant produce a number of different sketched overlay "flimsy" alternatives for staff to be abla to review.) Additionally, the interior street intersection with existing Xana Way must be a standard intersection design (it*, with curb returns.) The proposed intersection can be further off set slightly to facilitate a design which will meat City standards, The potential may exist for creating a new lot adjacent to the existing oft-sit* lot to the west. At a minimum the westerly curb return should begin approximately 5' away from the existing residential lot property fine. This will allow deletion of the proposed retaining walls adjacent to the existing neighboring single-family lots, 3. Again, as previously requested, the applicant should investigate designing the interior street 10 intersect Xana Way midway between Existing Corintia Street and Via Marinero, at approximately proposed Lot No. 4. Although the intersecting cross-street gradient is at approximately 9%, an intersection at this location couid still be a viable option, provided thst acceptable site distances are maintained, (City Standards can allow up to an 3% gradient through an intersection and if a design at this location is deemed to b« a better alternative than what is currently shown, a potential standards variance could be investigated.) i 'qp, 15-31Rug. 1 yb 13.01 TEL 6197556080 •JLL-31-1996 17: 08 P. 6 P. 08 PRE 95-20; THE PARKE (30 UNIT SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION) SECOND PRELIMINARY REVIEW J. GIBSON MEMO; OCTOBER 13, 1995 PAGE: 2 Again, as previously stated in the first preliminary review, and, as the applicant previously responded to, all of the engineering issues identified in the first preliminary review must be addressed/submitted at formal application submittal (ie, Preliminary Title Report (PR), easement disposition information, site boundary information, etc.) Please be advised that this second preliminary review still does not constitute & full comprehensive review of the project and that upon formal application yubmittal, additional items of concern may become evident. Attached for th<;> applicants use in making The requested revisions is a red lined check print of the project. If you or the applicant have any questions, please either see or contact me at extension 4388. Associan«rtnyine«r-"~L~and Use Review Attachment c: Principal Civil Engineer • Land Use Review TOTAL P.08 P. 06 JUL- 31- l'5"j >. ^^ General Plan: Compliance with Qeneral|^n. Indus ioiiarv Housing, and PD Sta General Plan: I, When analyzed us a stand alone project separate from PUD 71, the project's net density of 8.45 tlus/acre exceeds the lop range of the General Plan Land Use. Designation of Residential Medium (RM 4*8 dus/acres, with a 6 dus/acre GCP); 7.. If the project is considered an amendment to PUD 71 ("The Meadows") then the density of the proposed 30 unit single-family project ("The Parke") along with the existing 220 unit single-family project ('The Meadows") would be 5.7 dus/acre, and would meet the site's Growth Control Point of 6 dus/acre. Note: The Meadows Project of 220 single-family homes (CT 84-23/PUD 71) and the Brehm ProJLx-t of 100 apartment imfte (SDP 84*8(A)) were both approved (1984 and 19815) prior to the adoption of Growth Management When combined, the two project* result in rt gross density of 7.33 dus/acre which exceeds thft Growth Control Point by 1J4 dus/acre, Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, Chapter 21.85: 1. The proposal to pay inclusionary housing "iivlieu" fees does not comply with Title 21, Chapter 21.85.040, "Construction of required inclusionary units". Any residential ptojcct (i.e. tentative map, site development plan, planned unit development) of seven (7) or more dwelling units, for which the application for the project was deemed complete on or after the elective date of the Inclusionary Ordinance (May 21,1993) must construct affordable housing units onsite. This project has not been deemed complete because it 1m not been officially submitted to the City. Planned Development Ordinance, Chapter 21.45: 1. The pioject does not provide common recreational facilities (If 15' X 15' rear yards are provided then 3,000 $q. ft. of common is required) per Section 21.45,090(g)(l); 2. Nine (9) of the proposed lots do not meet the lot frontage requirements of 35 feet for lots located on a sharply curved street or cul-de-sac per Section 2l.45.09Q(o)(3); .}. The project does not provide oiisite Recreational Vehicle Storage and proof of participation in a oftsite RV storage location has not been provided with this preliminary review application, per Section 21.45.Q9Q((k)(3); 4. Lot 30 is too narrow to provide adequate slope and side yard setbacks and develop a home wider than 20 feet. Note: Compliance with these standards will most likely result in a reduction of lots to less than 30, Pug. 1 '96 15:28 0000 «ON TEL 6197556080 P- 2 • • "" .HJL-31-J.996 17=14 . p. 01 OKON DEVELOPMENT CO. UIUII OKO INVESTMENTS, INC. October 4, 1995 /, s City of Carlsbad Community Development ^} -/^t/,, - • ••" • '™j 2075 Liiii Palmas Drive • -.-fi'T' Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 A,j <-'._.._. .£* * - Attention: Many Orenyak, Community Development Director f<2£*' T^'<•' Michael Hoimnillcr, Planning Director -; // ? / *,, /c<; 5t, .-,,/^c_/ *v i * I* ' ^\* C* _/ * ' .v ' Re: PRE 95-20 - THE PARKE APN: 223-021-18, 223-353-27 Dear Many: In our last meetuig between ourselves, Michael Holuuniller and Ken Disceiu;!, wereviewed the City's July 5, 1995 Preliminary Review response for the single family lot subdivision designed to potentially replace the currently approved 100 unit apartment project. As a resuli, you requested that we address certain issues as best we could and resubmli a revised development plan directly to you. We have now completed this plan which Is enclosed herein, and believe ii accomplishes both what would be acceptable to the City and appealing to the local community. In order K> facilitate iu review, ihc following items refers to each of ihe issues raised in ihe City's July 5, 1995 letter and our discussion. l: The current design accommodates the recreutinmil facility requirements by providing two hundred square feet of recreation area on each loi. Tlie recreation vehicle storngc aiua is proposed to be contracted for off-site. Site plans and building elevations will be provided ai ihe formal project application. Item #2: We arc requesting this project be considered an amendment to ihe existing PD permit so that n comparison between the proposed project and ihe currently approved one hundred unit apaiimcnt project can be made. In Ljjzht of the City's position regarding ihe previous affordable income housing proposal for the apann-v^ni site, we are tU&o requesiing exemption from the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance as it pertains to the on-siie construction of affordable housing and thai in lieu impact fcxis be limiied to those currently imposed under the apartment project. Item #3; All manufactured slopes exceeding a height of thirty feet hove been eliminated. Grading on nil slopes in excess of 40% has also been culminated with the exception of the slope on the western boundary which is ut the n?ar of the project. This is similar to ihe slope shown on the apartment grading design. No decks urn proposed over the slopes and maximum retaining walls heights are limited to 6 feet. P,O. Box 5?y • Drl Mar - California 9201 4 • {619)7^5-7005 • Fax (6 1 9) 75K-6080 , ,96 15:29 0000 ™ TEL 619755S^80 ..rUL-'51--'1996 17:14 item #4: All rcai- and side ]ot lines are now proposed at the top of slopes with the exception of those lots bordering along Coriniia Street. Item #5: The proposed project of ttiirty lots yields a density 6.83 dwelling units per gross acre and 8.45 per net acre which is greater than the 4-8 units per acre density designated by the General Plan for the site. Based upon the Growth Management Control Point of 6 units per net acre, the project would only achieve 21 lots which would not be economically feasible. However, you have indicated that the City should be able to make the findings for the greater density based upon the fact that ihe property is currently approved for one hundred apartment units with facilities irt place to support that number of units, Engineering; Item # 1: A current Preliminary Tide Report will be submitted with the Tentative Map application. Hem #2: Easements and encumbrances will be handled at Tentative Map submiual Item #3: A complete Tentative Map with bearings and distances will be provided upon swbmittal. Item ://4: The City Standard OS-15 will be followed and shown on the Tentative Map. Item #5: Jt is our understanding thai any deficiency in the Circulation Performance Standards will be mitigated through impact fees. item #6; Front loading of Coriniia Street has been removed. Item #7: The proposed en-site street and Coriniia Street will include sidewalk as required. Item #X; Coriiitia Street will be a 60740' typical section with improvements of one-hall' width plus eight feet as currently shown on Drawing No, 200-2. Item M>: The- minimum sweet frontage, at the right of way between property lines which are radial to die cul-de-sac is twenty-five feet in accordance with Section 21.45.090 (o)(4). Item #10; The .storm drain system shown in Corimia Sircct does exist at this time, This will ull be properly shown on the Tentative Map, Item #11: Access off Corintia Street has been eliminated and relocated to Xana Way. We have proposed an intereseciion in the same location as the hundred unit apartment project which i$ off-set east of the interesection with Via. Marinero by anprox, Six foci. Please refer to Project No. CT84-23, Drawing No.252-4, sheer, i of 15, for the current design on Xana Way. This is a safer solution than one on Xana midway between Via Marinero and Coriiitia which posed flu g. 1 '96 15:29 0000 Q£ON TEL G>19755& P.QZJUL-31-1996 \"' IS problems with ihe cross-slope of the street exceeding nine percent and creating site distance problems to the WCSL Item #12: The sewer design wiJl he shown on the Tentative Map at ihe time of submiital. Ju:m #13: The interior concentration of drainage has been eliminated on the proposed site study. iu;m#M: The proposed off-site grading along the westerly boundry is similar to the approved apartment project. A letter of permission to grade will be provided from the affected property owner. At this lime we crust that the revised development plan fuid above information is sufficient for your review. We have expended « great deal ol time and ai'fort, along with resources in developing a pJ*wi which we believe the City can support and (he community desires. We would appreciate a timely response given the issues regarding development rights to the apartment project. Thanking you for your continued co-operation, ...Since lo/oo End. cc: Michael Holtzmiller Ken Discenza City of Carlsbad Planning Department JulyS, 1995 Post-it* Fax Note 7671 tX»-w Phone # Fax* From— ^- CC f ,\— *-? iT -sovi Co.O\T \ex\n. n Fax# Edgecrest Investments Ltd. c/o Okon Development Inc. 14755 Camin'rto Lorren Del Mar, CA 92014 SUBJECT: PRE 95-20 - THE PARKE APN: 223-021-18 Preliminary review of your project was conducted on June 28, 1995. 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 project is required to meet all the development standards of the Planned Development Ordinance including recreational facilities and recreational vehicle storage. Small lot single-family subdivisions with lots less than 7,500 square feet in size are required to meet City Council Policy # 44 (see attached policy). In order to comply with the policy and to ensure that the building pad sizes are large enough to accommodate the homes, the individual homes must be site planned on the lots, and floor plans and building elevations must be submitted with your formal project application. 2. The subdivision of the parcel into single-family lots is not considered an amendment to the existing Planned Development Permit for the adjacent Meadows project, therefore, a new Planned Development Permit is required. The project is subject to all new fees, processing, and ordinances, in addition to the requirement to construct affordable housing, on-site, per the standards of the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. >• 3. The project's preliminary grading plan does not meet the requirements of the Hillside Development Ordinance. Manufactured slopes exceed a height of 30 feet. In addition, Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code prohibits development or grading on 40% slopes (see attached ordinance). The ordinance does not differentiate between a manufactured or natural slope, therefore, re-grading of the lot's manufactured 2:1 slopes is prohibited. The Planning Department's Administrative Policy # 32 restricts retaining walls to a height of 6 feet (see attached policy). For rear and side yard privacy and to minimize the visual impacts of the development, the Planning Department does not support the encroachment of decks out and over manufactured or natural slopes in single-family subdivisions. 2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-1576 • (619)438-1161 PRE 95-20 - THE PARKE JULYS, 1995 PAGE 2 4. Title 20 of the Subdivision Ordinance, requires, when feasible, that all newly created rear and side lot lines be located at the top of slopes to ensure adequate maintenance of slope areas (see attached ordinance). 5. The project exceeds the allowed General Plan density for the lot. The project's Residential Medium (RM) General Plan designation permits up to 6 dwelling units per net developable acres based on the Growth Management Control Point - (see attached ordinance). The net acreage is calculated by subtracting out the lot area that contains steep slopes that equal a slope percentage of 40% or more. Engineering; 1. A Preliminary Title Report (PR) must be provided, issued within 6 months of formal application submittal. 2. Please indicate all easements and encumbrances for this property in accordance with the PR. Indicate the future disposition of all easements and encumbrances. 3. Please provide the bearings and distances of all property lines. 4. Please add a typical plan view of City Standard GS-15 to the tentative map to indicate the surface runoff from each lot. 5. Please be advised that the Zone 6 Local Facility Management Plan (LFMP) indicates that the Circulation Performance Standards are not being met for this zone. Subsequently, in accordance with LFMP criteria, no development can take place within this zone unless these deficient performance standards are mitigated. 6. Since future development can occur west of this proposed project and will take access off of Corintia Street, no portion of Corintia Street is eligible for street vacation purposes. Additionally, due to future traffic operation considerations, with regards to Corintia Street accessing future development, front loading of Corintia Street will not be permitted. 7. Regarding the request to delete sidewalks on "A" Street, any public or private roadway that front loads the street with residential units is required to include sidewalks. Since this proposal front loads both sides of "A" Street, sidewalks will be required on both sides of the roadway. Additionally, to accommodate an adequate circulation system, with regards to accessing the existing development to the north and the Rancho Santa Fe Road (RSF) corridor, sidewalks will be required along Corintia Street also. 8. Please provide a 60740' typical section for Corintia Street. 9. Minimum lot frontage, at the right of way, between property lines which are radial to a cul- de-sac is 33'. 10. Does the storm drain system which is shown in Corintia Street exist or is it proposed? Please label all facilities as existing or proposed. 11. The proposed "A" Street intersection with Corintia Street is unacceptable. The intersection is located on the inside of a curve, rather than the optimum outside of a curve, does not PRE 95-20 - THE PARKE JULY 5, 1995 PAGE 3 have tangent sections prior to the curb returns and does not meet minimum sight distance requirements. Therefore, please delete this intersection and access the site from existing Xana Way midway between Corintia Street and the first intersection to the west, at approximately Lot No. 4. 12. Please indicate what sewer facilities will be required for the project. The preliminary plan indicates an 8" VCP pipe "teeing" off of a sewer line within Xana Way. Where is this pipe leading to? The manner in which it is being shown indicates the requirement for a public easement. 13. Please indicate how the concentrated drainage from the proposed brow d'rtch is going to be picked up and discharged at "A" Street (at Lot No. 17.) 14. All proposed grading should be kept within the site boundary. Any off-site grading will require permission from the affected property owner and will subsequently be a condition of approval for the project. 15. Please be advised that this preliminary review does not constitute a full comprehensive review of the project and that upon formal application subm'rttal, additional items of concern may become evident. Attached for the your use in making the requested revisions is a red lined check print of the project. Please contact Jeff Gibson at (619) 438-1161, extension 4455 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Y GARY E. WAYNE Assistant Planning Director Attachment GEW:JG:vd c: Bobbie Hoder File Copy Data Entry City of Carlsbad Planning Department November 4. 1993 Joe Holasek Nogle Onufer Associates Architects 2398 San Diego Avenue San Diego. CA 92110 SUBJECT: BREHM APARTMENTS - STATUS OF SDP 84-08(A) Thank you for your request regarding the status of the 100 unit apartment Site Development Plan located east of Conntia Street and west of Rancho Santa Fe Road. SDP 84-08(A) was approved with the condition that the permit would be void if building permits were not issued within one year of the date of approval. However, since the project was closely tied to the improvement of Rancho Santa Fe Road, the beginning of the one year timeline was postponed. As stated in the November 21. 1991 letter from Marty Orenyak. Community Development Director (copy attached), the Site Development Plan is tolled until financing for Rancho Santa Fe Road can be guaranteed. Once the tolling ends, the one year time limit for pulling building permits would begin. There are currently two methods by which financing for Rancho Santa Fe Road could be considered guaranteed for this project. The first would be the establishment of Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 2. now under formation. The second would be to request for pre-payment of the CFD one-time taxes. Should the City Engineer and City Council approve pre-payment for the project, the tolling of the Site Development Plan would cease at that time. Therefore. SDP 84-08(A) is still tolling until either of these two actions occurs. Please feel free to contact me at (619) 438-1161. extension 4499. if you would like additional information regarding the site development plan or the pre-payment process. Sincerely. MICHAEL GRIM Assistant Planner*- Attachment *-^a c:Marty Orenyak Michael Holzmiller Gary Wayne Dave Mauser Bob Wojcik Don Rideout Don Neu File Copy Data Entry Q MG ir> SDP848A MG 2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-1576 • (619)438-1161 *• City of Carlsbad Community Development November 21, 1989 Bill Hofman Hofman Planning Associates 2386 Faraday Avenue, Suite 120 Carlsbad. CA 92008 BREHM APARTMENTS, SOP 844(A) Dear Bill: I have looked into the question of the tolling stefus of SDP 84-S(A) as discussed in your letter of November 9, 1989. The following information is offered in response. The site development plan is tolling and will continue to toll until the financing of Rancho Santa Fe Road is guaranteed. The tolling status began at the time the site development plan was amended and the condition to finance the road was applied to the project. Therefore, the full time limit for the site development plan is still available. Plans were submitted for Plan Check on December 5, 1988 and one extension has been made which will expire on December 5, 1989. There are no provisions for any further extensions to be granted. I would suggest tf»af Brehm Communities resubmit plans for Plan Check when the Rancho Santa Fe Road condition /j>as been satisfied and they can pull building permits. Sincerely, MARTY Community Development Director M0:bjn c: City Manager Assistant to the City Manager Planning Director 2O76 Las Palmas Drive •Carlsbad. California 92OO9-4859»(619) 438-1161