HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP 155; Pacesetter Homes; Specific Plan (SP) (2)Agenda Bill #3100
DATE: MAY 31, 1974
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: SPECIFIC PLAN 155
PACESETTER HOMES (APPEAL)
This matter had been noticed on the assumption that
it would come forward from the Planning Commission.
However, the Planning Commission had a 3/3 vote, and
due to a technicality, will have to be heard again
by them for additional action.
The matter will be renoticed at the appropriate
time.
A short oral report regarding the matter will be
given at the Council meeting to clarify the situation
for the public who may be in attendance as a result
of the notice.
PAUL D. BUS'SEY
City Manager
PDB:ldg
By Telephone from Dept. of Fish ft Game - Bruce Eli as
January 3, 1973 L. Estel
Re: Specific Plan No. 155 Pacesetter Homes
No Specific Comments on project - Advises that no answer by
required date does not mean they endorse project.
Re: Master Plan No. 152 Loker Development
Possible alteration to be made to waterway, course, etc. indicated
on map by roadway would be in violation of Fish & Game Code
Section 1602 - Would suggest that sponsor contact the Fish and
Game office in this regard.
MEMORANDUM
May 21, 1974
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Director
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Vote on SP-155, CT 73-59
Pacesetter Homes, Inc.
The Planning Commission moved to adopt the Pacesetter application
during Public Hearing May 14, 1974. The resulting vote 3-3
prompted the Planning Commission Chairman to state the tie vote
constituted a denial.
The City Attorney has advised, the appropriate action for the
Planning Commission to take would have been a new motion re-
commending denial, continuance or return to Staff with in-
struction. Therefore, I would suggest the following action at
the Planning Commission meeting of May 28, 19Z4, under un-
finished business.
1. A motion to bring back (reconsider)
SP-155/CT 73-59 for Planning Commission
consideration.
2. A motion to deny, continue with reasons,
or return to staff with instruction.
The applicant has requested an appeal before Council. However
it is my opinion the Planning Commission did not take action,
therefore a firm action is necessary.
The Staff position recommending approval is still valid; a new
discussion may occur with concurrence of the Planning Commission.
DONALD A. AGATEP
Planning Director
DAA:mdc
cc: City Manager
City Attorney
MEMORANDUM
• January 17, 1974
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PAUL A WILLIAMS, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
SUBJECT: CONTINUANCE OF CASE NOS. SP-155 and CT. 73-59
The City Staff is in the process of meeting with the
applicant with regard to the impact of the recently-adop-
ted Open Space Zoning Ordinance on this proposed project.
The outcome of these meetings may result in revisions to
these requests. Therefore, it is requested that these
matters be continued to your meeting of February 13, -1974,
to permit these revisions to occur.
January 9, 197£.L
TO: Plan n i nq D i r ec t or
FROM: City Engineer
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for Planning Commission Meeting of
January. 22, 19
We have reviewed the following proposed projects and the following
requirements apply:
1. . V-235 - Liddle'- Butters Road .
a) No additional conditions.
S"^ -- ^ " • •-.-•.
2. CTf 73-59x-^ Pacesetter Homes (Canvino de las Ondas)
.
a) Developer shall obtain off-site public sewer easement as
necessary prior to any grading of project.
b) "A11 Street shall be constructed to 42' 1/2 width.
c) Developer shall participate in traf-nc signal installations
as determined by any future policy of City Council.
d) The following standard conditions shall apply: 1 through
20, i ncl us i ve.
e) Developer shall dedicate access rights to "A" Street,
f) Lots 8, 9, £- 10 shall be dedicated as open space lots on
final map. . .
g) Developer shall obtain off-site right of way -and develop
1/2 width 3--'r ' Camino cle las .Ondas to Lowcler Lane inter-'
sect i on . • .
h) Intersection of i!B!l Street shall line uo with Street in
CT 73-23.
entative Hap shall be revised to read 20 lots instead of
19 lots. . . '
CT 73-60 (La Costa Views)
a) Developer .shall submit a geologic report regarding
poL" ent ia 1 • 1 ands 1 i ctes as required \\\ standard condition /'Lic;.
b) All of standard engineering conditions ^s I tlirouoli 20
i nc ! us i ve sha 1 I app 1 y .
(to i r;c 1 J^?-s i dews i-k and si. re^'-J iichr. i ; .
The driveway access shal i be perpendicular to La Cos>;y
Avenue and be no steeper than rive (5%) percent within
twenty (20) feet of the La Costa Avenue right-of-way lin
r» . .. • _ .. .- I „ 1 1 _ _ t. !_ _ _ 1 7 _ _I .(_ „. ,C 1 ,. . , . . _.._,! . • . ., ..C i ^. . ^ - . i. t _ • •. -ii.\^..,-,,^^^;»j4c^^V'«1^4^^.JU-.^.g, ,- ^ ^..-::r^;-; ' ^' -'j /.^i. L.,
CT 73-10 - La Costa Estates North
a) All of conditions of. Council Resolution #3152. shall reirain '
i n effect . ...
SP-152 (Shopper's World)-- S.W. corner. Poi-nsettia o- 1-5
a) All Standard conditions. 1 through 20 shall apply.
b) Developer shall provide a method' of site drainage accept-
able to both City of Carlsbad and the San D i ego'County '
Flood Control District prior to any grading.
c) Developer shall dedicate and improve Avenida Encinas to
a 50' 1/2 width street including median.
d) Developer' shal 1 participate i n traffic signals at inter-
section of Avenida Encinas and Poinsettia Lane as determined
by future Counci i pol icy. • . • .
e) Developer shal i dedicate ancl improve to center 1 i ne that
portion of Avenida Encinas that abuts the interstate 5
Freeway right-of-way to the- souther! y .] fm? t of the property.
(including the relocation of existing water lines)
f) Developer shall dedicate as required and improve Poinsettia
Lane to a 51' half -width street including median.
g) A final subdivision map shall be recorded for the project,
The number of lots created shall be as per approval of
C i ty Eng i neer .
h) Developer shall comply with all conditions of Council
Resolution No. 3130 approving the Tentative Map fo.r
Carlsbad Tract 71-2 and of 'Ordinance Mo. 924-5 regarding
specific plan approval on January 6, 1970;
i) Right turn in and out traffic movements _on_i_y_ \-; \ } } be
a 1 1 owed regarding Poinsettia Lane access.
j) Driveway locations and median open i ngs ' sha 1 1 be revised
per approval oP the City Engineer,
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
November 6, 1974
DON AGATEP
MIKE ZANDER
ANNEXATION OBLIGATIONS OF THE CITY (PACESETTER)
The recent withdrawal of Pacesetter's application, prior to completion
of the annexation, has raised certain questions. Pre-annexational zoning
(P-C) and Master Plan were approved and Specific Plan and Tentative Map
were about to receive second reading by the Council.
LAFCO had reviewed and approved the annexation request. City action on
the annexation is still pending. At the last moment, because of lack
of financing, Pacesetter requested withdrawal of their application.
I checked with LAFCO (Pete Detweiler) regarding the questions that you
asked me, and received the following responses:
a) Question: When LAFCO forwards their resolution recommending
annexation to the City, what must the City do?
Answer: LAFCO "approval" simply gives the City the right
to act on the annexation request. They can either
approve or deny the request. The only stipulation
is that if the City wishes to apply any additional
conditions to the annexation, those conditions
must be sent back to LAFCO for their approval.
b) Question: If the City can deny the annexation, what action
must be taken by the City?
Answer: If the City wishes to deny the annexation request,
they can simply do so in the same legal manner that
they normally approve an annexation. Notification
to LAFCO of the denial is not a legal requirement,
but a courteous gesture.
c) Question: Is there a statute of limitation on LAFCO recommendations?
Answer: Yes, one year from date of LAFCO approval. If no action
is taken to record the annexation within that year, the
LAFCO approval expires. There are provisions in the State
law to extend that time limit.
RECOMMENDATION:
As I understand the situation, the City does not wish to force an issue
opposed to the property owners. I contacted Dr. Kramer and Mr. Kostelany
to determine their wishes. The first response came from Dr. Kramer requesting
that the application be withdrawn. However, after talking to Mr. Kostelany,
who in turn called Dr. Kramer, they decided to request that the annexation
hearing be continued to allow them time to discuss the pros and cons of
such action with the Staff. One of .them will appear at the City Council
meeting tonight to request this extension.
I would recommend that the City grant that continuance.
MZ/br
MEMORANDUM
May 21 ,1974
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Director
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Vote on SP-155, CT 73-59
Pacesetter Homes, Inc.
The Planning Commission moved to adopt the Pacesetter application
during Public Hearing May 14, 1974. The resulting vote 3-3
prompted the Planning Commission Chairman to state the tie vote
constituted a denial.
The City Attorney has advised, the appropriate action for the
Planning Commission to take would have been a new motion re-
commending denial, continuance or return to Staff with in-
struction. Therefore, I would suggest the following action at
the Planning Commission meeting of May 28, 1974, under un-
finished business.
1. A motion to bring back (reconsider)
SP-155/CT 73-59 for Planning Commission
consideration.
2. A motion to deny, continue with reasons,
or return to staff with instruction.
The applicant has requested an appeal before Council. However
it is my opinion the Planning Commission did not take action,
therefore a firm action is necessary.
The Staff position recommending approval is still valid; a new
discussion may occur with concurrence of the Planning Commission.
DONALD A. AGATEP
Planning Director
DAA:mdc
cc: City Manager
City Attorney
MEMORANDUM
May 21, 1974
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Director
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Vote on SP-155, CT 73-59
Pacesetter Homes, Inc.
The Planning Commission moved to adopt the Pacesetter application
during Public Hearing May 14, 1974. The resulting vote 3-3
prompted the Planning Commission Chairman to state the tie vote
constituted a denial.
The City Attorney has advised, the appropriate action for the
Planning Commission to take would have been a new motion re-
commending denial, continuance or return to Staff with in-
struction. Therefore, I would suggest the following action at
the Planning Commission meeting of May 28, 1924, under un-
finished business.
1. A motion to bring back (reconsider)
SP-155/CT 73-59 for Planning Commission
consideration.
2. A motion to deny, continue with reasons,
or return to staff with instruction.
The applicant has requested an appeal before Council. However
it is my opinion the Planning Commission did not take action,
therefore a firm action is necessary.
The Staff position recommending approval is still valid; a new
discussion may occur with concurrence of the Planning Commission.
DONALD A. AGATEP
Planning Director
DAA:mdc
cc: City Manager
City Attorney
MEMORANDUM
May 21, 1974
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Director
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Vote on SP-155, CT 73-59
Pacesetter Homes, Inc.
The Planning Commission moved to adopt the Pacesetter application
during Public Hearing May 14, 1974. The resulting vote 3-3
prompted the Planning Commission Chairman to state the tie vote
constituted a denial.
The City Attorney has advised, the appropriate action for the
Planning Commission to take would have been a new motion re-
commending denial, continuance or return to Staff with in-
struction. Therefore, I would suggest the following action at
the Planning Commission meeting of May 28, 1974, under un-
finished business.
1. A motion to bring back (reconsider)
SP-155/CT 73-59 for Planning Commission
consideration.
2. A motion to deny, continue with reasons,,
or return to staff with instruction.
The applicant has requested an appeal before Council . However
it is my opinion the Planning Commission did not^ take action,
therefore a firm action is necessary.
The Staff position recommending approval is still valid; a new
discussion may occur with concurrence of the Planning Commission.
r -^
DONALD A. AGATEP |\
Planning Director (]
DAA:mdc
cc: City Manager
City Attorney
MEMORANDUM
May 21, 1974
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Director
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Vote on SP-155, CT 73-59
Pacesetter Homes, Inc.
The Planning Commission moved to adopt the Pacesetter application
during Public Hearing May 14, 1974. The resulting vote 3-3
prompted the Planning Commission Chairman to state the tie vote
constituted a denial.
The City Attorney has advised, the appropriate action for the
Planning Commission to take would have been a new motion re-
commending denial, continuance or return to Staff with in-
struction. Therefore, I would suggest the following action at
the Planning Commission meeting of May 28, 1974, under un-
finished business.
1. A motion to bring back (reconsider)
SP-155/CT 73-59 for Planning Commission
consideration.
2. A motion to deny, continue with reasons,
or return to staff with instruction.
The applicant has requested an appeal before Council. However
it is my opinion the Planning Commission did not take action,
therefore a firm action is necessary.
The Staff position recommending approval is still valid; a new
discussion may occur with concurrence of the Planning Commission.
DONALD A. AGATEP
Planning Director
DAA:mdc
cc: City Manager
City Attorney
MEMORANDUM
May 21, 1974
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Director
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Vote on SP-155, CT 73-59
Pacesetter Homes, Inc.
The Planning Commission moved to adopt the Pacesetter application
during Public Hearing May 14, 1974. The resulting vote 3-3
prompted the Planning Commission Chairman to state the tie vote
constituted a denial.
The City Attorney has advised, the appropriate action for the
Planning Commission to take would have been a new motion re-
commending denial, continuance or return to Staff witih in-
struction. Therefore, I would suggest the following action at
the Planning Commission meeting of May 28, 197/4, under un-
finished business.
1. A motion to bring back (reconsider)
SP-155/CT 73-59 for Planning Commission
consideration.
2. A motion to deny, continue with reasons,
or return to staff with instruction.
The applicant has requested an appeal before Council. However
it is my opinion the Planning Commission did not take action,
therefore a firm action is necessary.
The Staff position recommending approval is still valid; a new
discussion may occur with concurrence of the Planning Commission.
DONALD A. AGATEP
Planning Director
DAA:mdc
cc: City Manager
City Attorney
MEMORANDUM
June 19, 1974
The Planning Commission
The Planning Departmenfrjjl^
Redesign of Pacesetter Project
CT 73-59 and S
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
At the May 28th meeting, the Planning Commission recommended that the
Pacesetter specific Plan and Tphrarive Map appllr.at.i'nn«; hp retmfneci
to Staff for redps'icm "f th|3 rirrulatinn system. Members of the
Planning and Engineering Staff have subsequently met with the appli-
cant and have redesigned the street layout to accomplish the
following:
(1) Create an additional point of access/egress on to Camino
de las Ondaj;.~ '. ~
(2) Eliminate the cul-de-sac "G" which was in excess of 500
feet i n 1 ength^
(3) Create a T intersection at the point where "C" and "G"
Streets fntersectT""
Staff felt that these changes would best solve the concerns for adequate
aqcess/egress and circulation expressed by the Commission.btarr nas
aTso concluded that the private drives serving the fourplex units would
best be left as proposed by the applicant for the reasons that a 24 foot
drive with landscaping bays abutting parking entrances would be aestheti-
cally superior to a 36 foot residential collector street. Turning move-
ments from the drive into parking spaces should be adequate.
taff is continuing with its previous recommendation that CT-73-59 and
BE APPROVED for the reasons as expressed in the May 28th staff
report.
A copy of the justifications and recommended conditions of approval has
been attached for your convenience.
S. DANA HIELD
On the Specic Plan :, Staff re command PPROVAL o f
S.p-155 based on the following justification:*»
1. The Specific Plan conforms to the Approved
faster 'P.Ian for the project
2. The requirements and intent of the Planned
Community Zone h.ave been met..
3 The Plan conforms to-the General Plan and
M u n i c 1 p a 1 C o d e .
~~he applicant has nef; the':
requirements and all other
time.
"ublic !-acv! itiss Policy
oolicies.in effect at this
B. Recommended Conditions of Approval for Specific Plan No. 155.
1. Dedication of Lots 19 and 21, satisfying the
Park Dedication Ordinance shall occur at the
of final map approval. The applicant shall
rezone lots 19 and 21 (Park Lots) and lots
and 10 (Recreation Areas) to Open Space
(0-S) prior to final map approval.
2.
time
al so
8, 9,
Zone
The approval is qranted for the land described in the application
and any attachments thereto^and as shown on the plot plan submitted
beled Exhibit "A"/^fne location of all buildings, fences, signs,
roadways, parking areas, landscaping, and other facilities or
features shall be located substantially as shown on the plot plan
labeled Exhibit A,/^^e]pt or unless indicated otherwise herein.
All buildings and structures shall be of the design' s'hown on the
elevation plans labeled Exhibit B.
All outside storage a'reas shall be
property and streets.screened from adjacent
An incombustible trash enclosure shall be
provided of a size and location acceptable
to the Planning Director, and said area shall be
enclosed with a fence and/or wall of sufficient
height to adequately shield the area. Said fence .
and/or wall shall include a s'olid gate.
A detailed landscape and sprinkler plan shall be
submitted to the City of Carlsbad for consideration
and approval .
All utilities including electrical, telephone and
cable television, shall be installed underground
and/or shall be completely concealed from view.
All public improvements shall be made in conform-
ity with the Subdivision Ordinance and other City
Standards, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer,
without cost to the City of Carlsbad and free of
all liens and encumbrances.
C. Recommendation^n The Tentative Maps
i
Staff recommends APPROVAL of- CT 73-59 based on the (
following justification;. i
|
1. Conformance to the Subdivision Map Act
2. Compliance with local statutes and General Plan
D. Recommended Conditions of Approvalfor CT 73-59:
1. The developer must obtain off-site public
sewer easements prior to any grading of the
project. .
2. "A" Street shall be constructed to 42 foot half \
width. ' [
3. The developer shall participate in traffic signal installation
as determined by any policy of the City Council in effect at
the time of the recordation of the Final Map.
4. . The Developer shall dedicate access rights to "A" Street.
5. Lots 8, 9, and 10 shall be dedicated as open space lots on the
final map.
6 The Developer shall obtain off-site right-of-way and develop
one-half width (341) of Camino de las Ondas to the Lowder Lane
intersection. . . . ,:
7. "B" Street shall be aligned with the Street in CT 73-23 at their
intersection with Camino de las Ondas. , j
8. The recorded restrictions for the subdivision shall include the
minimum lot size and width requirements, evidence of which shall be
submitted to the City Planning Director prior to approval of the Final
Map. v
9. The development of the property described herein Shall be subject
to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in
addition to all the requirements, limitations and restrictions of all
municipal ordinances and State and Federal statutes now in force, or
which, hereafter, may be in force for the purpose of preserving the
residential characteristics of adjacent properties.
10. The C.C.&R's for this development shall be submitted to the Planning
Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of any building
permits.
11. In order to provide for reasonable fire protection during the
construction period, the subdivider shall maintain passable vehicular
access to all buildings and adequate fire hydrants with required fire
flows shall be installed as recommended by the Fire Department.
.12. All public improvements shall be made in conformity to the City of
Carlsbad Engineering Design Criteria and Standard Plans, the Subdivision
Ordinance and other City Standards, to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer, without cost to the City of Carlsbad, and free of all liens
and encumbrances. Improvement plans for water and sewer systems shall
meet the requirements of the respective service districts.
13. Phnsinn of the proposed development will nccur in the following
'manner'. »
Time Schedule for Phases
Begin
Phase
Phase
Phase
Phase
I
II
II
IV
- 54
- 64
1-48
-160
d
d
d
.u.
.u.
.u.
d.u
's -
's -
's -
.'s
- Nov.,1974
- Feb., 1975
- May, 1975
-August,1975
Complete
March 1975
June, 1975
Sept., 1975
Jan.,1976
14. Street lighting shall be provided for as required by Municipal-
Ordinance Code. The developer shall post a bond and/or cash in the
amount necessary to energize said street lights for an eighteen month
period after construction, to permit the incorporation of the subdivis.ion
into a maintenance district.
15. All land and/or easements required by this Ordinance shall be '
granted to the City of Carlsbad without cost to the City, and free of
all liens and encumbrances. No easements shall be recorded prior to '
recordation of the final map unless approved by the City Engineer. !.
16. All facilities provided, other than public easements, to adequately
control drainage on the subject property, shall be maintained by the '•
property owner(s) in perpetuity. . ;'
17. Street names shall be subject to approval and shall be designated |
in accordance with the standards and policies adopted by the Planning ;
Commission on files in the Planning Department. Said names shall be ;
approved by the Planning, Fire and Police Departments prior to re- ;
cordation of the Final Map. •
18. The improvement plans shall include a report of a geological in-
vestigation and a complete grading plan for the entire site when
required by the City Engineer. The report and plan shall be prepared
by civil engineers licensed by the State of California, and experienced
in erosion control who shall be acceptable to the City Engineer,
and they shall certify that they have investigated the site and pre-
pared data with full consideration of the consequences to the included
and neighboring properties and conform to the standards of the Geological
Safety Element of the .General Plan.
•MRS. CHARLES J. KRAMER • ^jS56d&^SfcM • CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
6798 Lowder Lane
Hov. 6th, 197U
Planning Commission of Carlsbad
Carlsbad
California
Gentlemen:
We hereby request to delay
our hear lag uatil the next meeting.
lours truly,
NOV 6 1974
CITY Or CARLSBAD
Planning Department
SCEIVEI
DEC 1 1 1974
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Planning Department
HOMES, INC.
454O CAMPUS DRIVE • NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA • PHONE 546-88OI
December k, 1973
Mr. Paul Williams
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
CEIVE
'7Q
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Planning Department
Re; Filing Fee - Tract 73-59
Enclosed please find a check in the amount of $756.00 for
filing fees on Tentative Map 73-59 and Specific Plan.
Cordial ly ,
PACESETTER HOMES, INC.
Terry Ir. Crowther
Manager - Project Development
TLCrdb
Enclosure: Check #2253
COUNTY OF^JN DIEGO
PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
Department of Sanitation & Flood Control
C. J. HOUSON "* J
'rec or County Operations Center, 5555 Overland Avenue, San Diego, California 92123
565 5325
27 December 1973 KBCJSIVBD
Mr. Donald Agatep, Director
Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue fiffX ®|? CARtSSAD
Carlsbad, CA yzuoo rlUHHiftjl D&ftftrtmpin11
SUBJECT: Flood Hazard Report for SP-155
We acknowledge your letter of 17 December 1973 with request for comment.
This subdivision is located somewhere between Poinsettia Lane and
Palomar Airport Road and easterly of Interstate Highway 5-
It appears that the property is within the boundaries of the San Diego
County Flood Control District. However, subject specific plan does not
provide sufficient data to evaluate it with respect to the Flood Control
District's areas of concerns and responsibilities. The plan lacks a
specific method to locate it on County topographic, or U.S.G.S. quadrangle
maps. In addition, contour intervals, proposed and existing drainage
systems are not shown; pad elevations are unknown and the extent of grading
is unknown.
Consequently, our comments are generalized.
The general legal description would indicate the property is located within
the vicinity of a natural swale that drains into the Batequitos Lagoon.
The canyon slopes range from very steep at the northerly edge of Section 21
to very mild at the southerly end. The soils in this general area appear
to be susceptible to erosion. Grading operations, if continued into the
storm season, could accelerate erosion and siltation. The Board of
Supervisors is concerned with siltatipn into our remaining natural lagoons.
Erosion control and desilting measures may be necessary to mitigate grading
and urbanizing processes.
Mr. Donald Agatep, Director
Sf-155
27 December 1973
Page 2
With respect to the plot plan, if storm drains are necessary, they should
meet the District's minimum design and easement requirements and should
be provided with access from a public street.
C. J. HOUSON
G.
Princ/pal Civil Engineer
HS.-kk
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Cartebafc
TELEPHONE:
(714)729-1181
December 2k, 1973
DEC 2 7 1973
PITV nsr /•>
n GARLS8ADPfenning Department
Mr. Donald A. Agatep
Director of Planning
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Dear Mr. Agatep:
This is to acknowledge receipt and review of the following plans and
variances :
, . V-235/and -'"~^.~.~*~~ .. .j
We find no objections to the proposals provided all structures are
connected to a system of public sewers and a public water supply.
Very truly yours,
3. B. ASKEV?, M.D.
Director of Public Health
JBA:GQ:sd
By Telephone from Dept. of Fish & Game - Bruce Eli as
January 3, 1973 L. Estel
: Specific Plan No. 155 Pacesetter Homes
No Specific Comments on project - Advises that no answer by
required date does not mean they endorse project.
Re: Master Plan No. 152 Loker Development
Possible alteration to be made to waterway, course, etc. indicated
on map by roadway would be in violation of Fish & Game Code
Section 1602 - Would suggest that sponsor contact the Fish and
Game office in this regard.
RECEIVEDocciDemraL iano, inc.
JAN 2 8 19744201 BIRCH STREET - P.O. BOX B • NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 • (714) 540-2550
CITY OF CARLSBAD
January 2|3lanrtng Department
Mr. D. Agatep
Director of Planning
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Subject; Tentative Tract No. 73-59 and 73-23
Gentlemen:
As owners of the property shown on Tentative Tract No. 73-23, which
has been approved by the planning commission, we agree to the relocation
of the entrance road at Caminos De Los Ondas as shown in red pencil,
on the attached sketch.
It is our understanding from conversations with William G. Church
Consulting Civil Engineers, Inc. , that a 10 foot jog in the alignment of
our entrance street and "B" Street of Tract No. 73-59, will be acceptable
to the City. To accomplish this, our street will have to move approx-
imately 40 feet, which has little effect on the design of our tentative map.
It is also our understanding that this change will in no way effect prior
approvals given Tract No. 73-23, and that additional planning commission
hearings will not be required.
Very truly yours,
OCCIDENTAL LAND, INC.
Jannes E. Dulebohn
Director of Engineering
cc: T. Flanagan, Director of Public Works
City of Carlsbad
T. Crowther
Pacesetter Homes, Inc.
William G. Church
Church Engineering
HOMES, INC.
454O CAMPUS DRIVE • NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA • PHONE 546-88O1
January 24, 1974 iiv^ g ,8
Mr. Paul Williams
Planning Department
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California
Re: SP-155 and Tentative Map 73-59
Dear Mr. Williams:
After our meeting last Friday I met with our Engineer
and Architect to analyze a reduction in land coverage
of our development. After reviewing the site plan and
tentative map we believe it is appropriate to continue
with the approval of the project as presently designed
for the following reasons:
1. The zoning and master plan with circulation
and open space elements have been approved.
2. We have reduced the density from the approved
351 units to 328 units.
3. We have utilized two story structures in order
to maximize the open space and at the same time
provided an ample number of one story units to
assure an aesthetic variation in the street scene.
4. We believe the development as planned will preserve
and create an open space aesthetic value that will
maintain community identity.
Mr. Paul Williams
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
RECEIVED
JAN 3 8 1974
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Planning Department
Page -2-
January 24, 1974
If a resource management permit or variance is required
on this development, .please include it as part of the
above referenced item..
Enclosed herewith please find four prints of the revised
tentative map showing an additional parcel to be didicated
to the City as a park to assure the connection of the
park in our development to the park in tentative map 73-23.
Very truly yours,
PACESETTER HOMES, INC.
//
Terry'L. Crowther
Manager - Project Development
TLC/mel
enclosures
WRITE IT 'T SAY IT INTER-DEP/SPfMENT MEMORANDUM
TO
REPLY ON THIS SHEET
DATE 19
fo &*-&,;£$<&& v%£
A. M.
P. M.
7
W1LMER "SERVICE" IJME STANDARD INTER DEPT. MEMO. FORM 11-24
HOMES, INC.
4S4O CAMPUS DRIVE " NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA " PHONE 546-88O1
May 15, 1974
RECEIVED
MAY 1? 1974
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Planning DepartmentCity Clerk
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California
Re: SP-155 and CT-73-59
Gentlemen:
We would like to appeal the Planning Commission action of
May 14, 1974 on the above referenced items and have them
placed on the next available City Council Agenda for their
consideration.
Very truly yours,
PACESETTER HOMES, INC.
Terry/L/ Crowther
Manager of Project Development
TLC/ew
1200ELMAVENUE ' • PI ?ST • H •"" ' ' TELEPHONE:
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 Wfr$M $ ii (714)729-1181
Citp of Cartebab
April 8, 1974
Mr. Terry L. Crowther for Pacesetter's Homes
4540 Campus Drive ,
Newport Beach, Cal. 92660
Re: ' Status of Specific Plan No. SP-155 and
Tentative Map No. CT 73-59
Dear Mr. Crowther:
As you are aware, the Planning Commission, on February 13,
1974 did table Specific Plan No. SP-155 and Tentative Map
No. CT 73-59 until compliance to the interim Open Space
Ordinance was completed. Your company subsequently filed
a request for a variance to the applicable sections of the
interim Open Space Zoning Ordinance. Said variance was
denied by the Planning Commission and an appeal to the
City Council was withdrawn, by yourself, before it was
considered by the Council.
Said cases will remain tabled until one of the following
occurs:
1. Plans are revised to conform to the requirements
of the applicable sections of the interim Open
Space Zoning Ordinance.
2. Relief is obtained from these requirements.
3. The Open Space Zoning Ordinance is no Tonger in
effect. Since the interim Open Space Zoning
Ordinance, unless extended, will expire on April
28, 1974, this office assumes that you are waiting
for this to occur before requesting reconsideration
of these matters by the Planning Commission. Once
the ordinance expires, you may initiate a recon-
sideration of these matters by letter to this office
If the Open Space Ordinance does expire and a letter from
you is forthcoming, it is invisioned that these matters
would be before the Planning Commission May 14, 1974.
Prior to the May 14, 1974 meeting, you should look into
the applicability of the recently created zone district
of Scenic Preservation Zone which the staff will probably
recommend be attached to your property by the Planning
Commission. Sa;id zone district is one of the zones created
to supplant this interim Open Space Zoning Ordinance.
If you have any questions regarding this matter please
feel free to contact this office.
Respectfully submitted,
DONALD A. AGATEP
Planning Director
PW:mdc
cc: SP-155
454O CAMPUS DRIVE B NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA a PHONE 546-88OI
HOMES, INC. RECEIVED
FEB g 1 1974
February 19, 1974 CITY OF CARLSBAD
Planning Department
City Clerk •
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California
Re: V-237, SP-155, CT-73-59
Gentlemen:
We would like to appeal the Planning Commissions action
on. Variance 237 and have the above referenced items placed
on the next available City Council Agenda for their
consideration.
Another item of concern is the annexation of this property
to the City.
The annexation has been approved by L.A.F.C.O. However, the
original application was based on developing under your P-C
Ordinance. Since the adoption of your open space emergency
ordinance and the possibility of having to conform to said
ordinance, which would drastically change the proposed
development, we are requesting that this annexation be held
until the City Council makes a finding on the above referenced
item.
Very truly yours, . : : .
PACESETTER HOMES ,' INC. ' ' ' '-.'''' ''"'
Terry Jj^Crowther
Manager, Project Development
TLC/cm