HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-09-12; City Council; 10255; Campbell Planned Unit DevelopmentCl-” OF CARLSBAD - AGEN’-, BILL ”
\B# @; s 5 5 TITLE: ROBERT CAMPBELL - APPEAL
dTG. 9/12/89 CT 89-l/PUD 89-l
IEPT. W-N
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Planning Commission and staff are recommending that the City Council
direct the City Attorney to prepare documents UPHOLDING the decision of the
Planning Commission by APPROVING CT 89-l/PUD 89-l.
ITEM EXPLANATION
This is an appeal by a neighboring resident of the approval by the Planning
Commission of an eight unit Planned Unit Development and Tentative Tract Map
north of Levante Street west of La Costa Avenue. The appellant states that neighbors in the surrounding area do not accept that this project is
compatible with the existing community. Additional issues raised were a
percieved lack of usable yard area for each unit which would, in turn,
encourage the use of driveways as play areas; units which are too large
encouraging larger families and greater parking needs; and traffic safety
because the project is located across the street from a proposed Fire
Station. For these reasons the appellant is asking the City Council to
overturn the Planning Commission's decision.
The project, as approved, is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning;
complies with the requirements of Local Facilities Management Plan, Zone 6,
and conforms with the standards of the Planned Development Ordinance and
Design Guidelines. At 10 dwelling units per acre the project has been
designed with a single family character but with a multi-family density. It
is compatible within the context of its RMH (8-15 du/ac) General Plan
designation and provides a good transition from the adjacent RLM (O-4 du/ac)
General Plan designation.
In approving the project, the Planning Commission agreed that the applicant
had submitted a proposal which was within the guidelines of the Zoning
Ordinance and that issues raised by the Commission had been adequately
addressed.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Negative Declaration was prepared by staff and approved by the Planning
Commission at the August 2, 1989 meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT
There will be no increased need for City capital facilities or increased
operating expenses due to approval of this project.
EXHIBITS
1. Location Map
2. Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2869 & 2885
3. Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 2, 1989
4. Excerpts of Draft Planning Commission Minutes from August 2, 1989
5. Appeal from Nigel A. Bonny
City of carlsbad
Robert Campbell CT 89-1 PUD 89-1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2a ~
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2869
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A 9 LOT TENTATIVE
MAP AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LEVANTE
STREET WEST OF LA COSTA AVENUE.
APPLICANT: ROBERT CAMPBELL
CASE NO.: CT 89-l/PUD 89-l
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 5th day of July, 1989, and
the 2nd day of August, 1989, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed
by law to consider said request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information
submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning
Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as-
follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration
according to Exhibit "ND", dated May 19, 1989, and “PII”, dated February
28, 1989, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following
findings:
I Findinss:
1. An initial study was completed for the project and studies were required
as necessary. The results indicated that no significant impacts were
created by the project.
2. The site has been previously graded and the project proposes a minimal
amount of earth movement to accommodate building foundations.
3. The site plan has been designed to provide safe and adequate.on site
circulation for vehicles and pedestrians.
, 4. The 64 additional daily trips generated by the project are below maximum
service levels projected for Levante.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5. There are no known sensitive resources located on site or located SO as
to be significantly impacted by this project. Should the soils report
indicate the presence of any paleontological resources a two phased
mitigation project will be implemented.
6. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and compatible
with surrounding projects in architectural style and land use intensity.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day of August,
1989, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairman Hall, Commissioners: Schlehuber, McFadden &
Marcus.
NOES: Commissioners: McFadden & Schramm.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Erwin.
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RESO NO. 2869 -2-
EXHIBIT “ND”
L 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4659 TELEPHONE
(619) 436-l 161
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Lot 229 La Costa Vale #l - North of Levante Street
and west of La Costa Avenue.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed development of four (4) duplexes totaling
eight (8) units on .79 acres of land in the residential density - multiple zone,
Local Facilities Management Zone 6, APN: 223-170-20.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described
project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City
of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration
that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby
issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the
Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments
from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning
Department within ten (10) days of date of issuance.
DATED: May 19, 1989
CASE NO: CT 89-Ol/PUD 89-01 Planning Director
APPLICANT: Robert Campbell
PUBLISH DATE: May 19, 1989
CW:lh
A_ EXHIBIT “PII”
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CT 89-l/PUD 89-l
DATE: February 28, 1989
I. BACKGROUND
1. APPLICANT: Robert Campbell
2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1568 Hishland Drive
Solona Beach, CA 92075
(481-3235)
3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED:
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be written under Section III - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures?
Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil?
Change in topography or ground surface relief features?
The destruction, covering of modification of any unique geologic or physical features?
Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site?
Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel or a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
X
X
X
X
X
-
.
.
2. Air - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally?
3. Water - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a.
b.
C.
" d.
e.
f.
4*
h.
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters?
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff?
Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?
Change in the amount of surface water in any water body?
Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters?
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-2-
.
.
-
YES MAYBE NO
4. Plant Life - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? X
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? X
C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X
5. Animal Life - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? X c
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? X
C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat?
6. Noise - Will the proposal significantly increase existing noise levels? X
7. Liaht and Glare - Will the proposal sig- nificantly produce new light or glare? X
8. Land Use - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X
-3-
.
.
9.
a.
b.
10.
11.
12.
13.
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
Natural Resources - Will the proposal have significant results in:
Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources?
Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource?
Risk of Unset - Does the proposal involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions?
Pooulation - Will the proposal signif- icantly alter the location, distribu- tion, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area?
Housinq - Will the proposal signif- icantly affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing?
Transoortation/Circulation - Will the proposal have significant results in:
Generation of additional vehicular movement?
Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking?
Impact upon existing transportation systems?
Alterations to circulation or and/or goods?
Alterations to air traffic?
present patterns of movement of people
waterborne, rail or
Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
MAYBE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-4-
MAYBE NO
' 14. Public Services - Will the proposal have a significant effect upon, or have signif- icant results in the need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas:
Fire protection? a.
b.
C.
d.
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks or other recreational facilities? X . .
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e. X
X Other governmental services? f.
15. Eneray - Will the proposal have significant results in:
Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? a.
b. Demand upon existing sources of
energy I or require the development of new sources of energy?
16. Utilities - Will the proposal have significant results in the need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas? a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
17.
Communications systems?
Water?
Sewer or septic tanks?
Storm water drainage?
Solid waste and disposal? X
Human Health - Will the proposal have significant results in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? X
-5-
-
.
.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Aesthetics - Will the proposal have significant results in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in creation of an aesthetically offensive public view? X
Recreation - Will the proposal have significant results in the impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X
Archeoloaical/Historical/Paleontolo4ical - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure, object or building? X
Analyze viable alternatives to the orooosed oroiect such as:
a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site designs, c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the site, e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alter- nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative.
Proiect Descriotion:
The project proposes development of 8 duplex units on a .79 acre site. The site has been previously graded out to a pad intended for multiple density residential development. To the west of the site is an existing single family neighborhood. Vacant graded multi-family pads surround the site to the north, south and east. To the southeast is an existing multi-family development. The project will develop this graded pad in a manner consistent with the multi-family land use designations for this site.
a) Phasing of such a small scale development would not provide significant environmental enhancement.
b) Alternative site designs are somewhat limited given the physical dimensions of the site and the need to adequately provide for automobiles on the site.
cl Alternative scale of the development would be more intense to be in fuller conformance with the existing land use designations for the site. These more intense developments could be more environmentally detrimental than the proposed project.
d) Alternative uses for this site would be inconsistent with the General Plan and zoning designations for the site.
-6-
.
21 (Continued)
.
e) Development at some future time would continue the vacant nature of the area. This would be inconsistent with the land use and zoning designations for the site and would not provide additional housing opportunities.
f) Alternative sites for the proposed project can be found within the general area and in other locations of the City. These sites may not present environmental benefits.
9) The no project alternative would continue the vacant nature of the area inconsistent with the land use and zoning regulations for the site.
-7-
l 22. Mandatory findinas of sionificance -
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wild- life species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or en- dangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the dis- advantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.)
YES MAYBE NO
X
X
c. Does the project have the possible environmental effects which are in- dividually limited but cumulatively considerable? (llCumulatively con- siderable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) X
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X
III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
1. Earth - The site is currently graded to a flat pad. Significant amounts of earth movement are not being proposed.
2. a- The project will not emit particulates or odors. The project's low profile will not disturb air flows.
Rev. 12/88
-8-
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
* 3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16,
17.
18.
19.
20.
Water - The project does not interfere with any existing natural or man-made water courses. The project will not generate significant amounts of surface run off.
Plant Life - There is no existing significant vegetation.
Animal Life - There is no existing animal life on site.
Noise - A noise study has been completed and the project will not be subject to excessive noise levels.
Liaht & Glare - Low intensity lighting will be used within the parameters of the project for safety purposes.
Land Use - The project is consistent with the current designations of the General Plan and Zoning.
Natural Resources - N/A
Risk of Unset - N/A
Pooulation - The nature of the project will not generate a significant increase in population.
Housinq - The project will provide housing.
Transoortation/Circulation - Adequate facilities exist which can accommodate the project's projected traffic needs.
Public Services - The project is located in Zone 6 of the LFMP. Services will be provided through the implementation of that zone plan.
Eneruy - N/A.
Utilities - The project is located in Zone 6 of the LFMP. Services will be provided through the implementation of that zone plan.
Human Health - N/A.
Aesthetics - The site plan and proposed architecture are compatible with surrounding projects.
Recreation - The project will not reduce the quality or quantity of recreational opportunities.
Archeolouical/Historical/Paleontolouical - There is no evidence of significance on this site.
-9-
l IV. DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
IL I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative Declaration will be proposed.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
\
‘I ,‘/ .‘. 7
k,r/:L,i, if.1 .’ i !-
Date
:
!
‘/ ;. I ’
2’1, * /
f. *,* v
.,,d;” if\
I .,
I . L Y Signature
V.MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable)
-lO-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMSSION RESOLUTION NO. 2885
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NINE LOT TENTATIVE MAP AND PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF LEVANTE STREET
AND WEST OF LA COSTA AVENUE.
APPLICANT: ROBERT CAMPBELL
CASE NO.: CT 89-l/PUD 89-l
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to wit:
Lot 229 of La Costa Vale Unit No. 1, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof
No. 7457, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego
County, October 18, 1972,
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided by
Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 5th day of July, 1989, and
the 2nd day of August, 1989 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed
by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said
Commission considered all factors relating to the Tentative Tract Map and
Planned Unit Development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as
follows:
A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing,1 the
Commission APPROVES CT 89-l/PUD 89-1, based on the following findings and
subject to the following conditions:
Findinas:
1. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan since the proposed
density of 10 du's/acre is within the density range of 8-15 du's/acre
specified for the site as indicated on the Land Use Element of the
General Plan, and is at or below the growth control point of 11.5.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The site is physically suitable for the type and density of the
development since the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate
residential development at the density proposed.
The project is consistent with all City public facility policies and
ordinances since:
a. The Planning Commission has, by inclusion of an appropriate
condition to this project, ensured that the final map will not
be approved unless the City Council finds that sewer service
is available to serve the project. In addition, the Planning
Commission has added a condition that a note shall be placed
on the final map that building permits may not be issued for
the project unless the City Engineer determines that sewer
service is available, and building cannot occur within the
project unless sewer service remains available, and the
Planning Commission is satisfied that the requirements of the
Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met
insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project.
b. School fees will be paid to ensure the availability of school
facilities in the San Dieguito High School and Encinitas School
Districts.
C. Park-in-lieu fees are required as a condition of approval.
d. All necessary public improvements have been provided or will
be required as conditions of approval.
e. The applicant has agreed and is required by the inclusion of
an appropriate condition to pay a public facilities fee.
Performance of that contract and payment of the fee will enable
this body to find that public facilities will be available
concurrent with need as required by the General Plan.
The proposed project is consistent with the City's Planned Development
Ordinance and also complies with the Design Guidelines Manual.
The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses
since surrounding properties are designated for residential development
on the General Plan.
This project will not cause any significant environmental impacts and a
Negative Declaration has been issued by the Planning Director on May 19,
1989 and approved by the Planning Commission on August 2, 1989. In
approving this Negative Declaration the Planning Commission has
considered the initial study, the staff analysis, all required mitigation
measures and any written comments received regarding the significant effects this project could have on the environment.
PC RESO NO. 2885 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
26
-
7. The applicant is by condition,
facility fee, required to pay any increase in public
or new construction tax, or development fees, and has
agreed to abide by any additional requirements established by a Local
Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of
public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the
project.
8. This project is consistent with the City's Growth Management Ordinance
as it has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as
part of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6.
Conditions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Approval is granted for CT 89-l/PUD 89-1, as shown on Exhibits “A” and
” G ” , dated August 2, 1989 and Exhibits "B"-"F", dated June 14, 1989,
incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning Department.
Development shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in
these conditions.
The developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24" x 36", 100
scale mylar copy of the Tentative Map as approved by the Planning
Commission. The Tentative Map shall reflect the conditions of approval
by the City. The Plan copy shall be submitted to the City Engineer prior
to issuance of building permits or improvement plan submittal, whichever
occurs first.
A 500' scale map of the subdivision shall be submitted to the Planning
Director prior to the recordation of the final map. Said map shall show
all lots and streets within and adjacent to the project.
This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits
will not be issued for development of the subject property unless
assurances of the availability of sewer facilities have been given by the
Leucadia County Water District in writing.
This project is also approved under the express condition that the
applicant pay the public facilities fee adopted by the City Council on
July 28, 1987 and as amended from time to time, and any development fees
established by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code or other ordinance adopted to implement a growth
management system or facilities and improvement plan and to fulfil1 the
subdivider's agreement to pay the public facilities fee dated December
16, 1988, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk and is
incorporated by this reference. If the fees are not paid this
application will not be consistent with the General Plan and approval for
this project will be void.
The applicant shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the
approval of the final map as required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code.
PC RESO NO. 2885 -3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7.
8.
9.
10.
The applicant shall provide school fees to mitigate conditions of
overcrowding as part of building permit application. These fees shall be based on the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit
application.
Prior to recordation of the first final tract/parcel map or issuance of
building permits, whichever is first, the owner shall prepare and record
a notice that this property may be subject to impacts from the proposed
or existing Transportation Corridor in a manner meeting the approval of
the Planning Director and City Attorney (See form Noise 1).
Water shall be provided by the Olivenhain Municipal Water District.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation required by
the Zone 6 Local Facilities Management Plan approved by the City Council
on September 2, 1987, incorporated herein and on file in the Planning
Department and any future amendments to the Plan made prior to the
issuance of building permits.
Planninq:
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
If any condition for construction of any public improvements or
facilities, or the payment of any fees in lieu thereof, imposed by this
approval or imposed by law on this project are challenged this approval
shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 65913.5. If
any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be
invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the
condition complies with all requirements of law.
Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all sections
of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in
effect at time of building permit issuance.
All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be
architecturally integrated and concealed from view and the sound buffered
from adjacent properties and streets, pursuant to Building Department
Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the Directors of Planning and
Building.
The applicant shall establish a homeowner's association and corresponding
covenants, conditions and restrictions. Said CC&R's shall be submitted
to and approved by the Planning Director prior to final map approval.
An exterior lighting plan including parking areas shall be submitted for
Planning Director approval. All lighting shall be designed to reflect
downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property.
The applicant shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan
which shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior
to the issuance of grading or building permits, whichever occurs first.
PC RESO NO. 2885 -4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving
condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris.
Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed
in conformance with the City's Sign Ordinance and shall require review
and approval of the Planning Director prior to installation of such
signs.
Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed on all new and
existing buildings so as to be plainly visible from the street or access
road; color of identification and/or addresses shall contrast to their
background color.
The developer shall display a current Zoning and Land Use Map in the
sales office at all times, or suitable alternative to the satisfaction
of the Planning Director.
All sales maps that are distributed or made available to the public shall
include but not be limited to trails, future and existing schools, parks,
and streets.
Enqineerina:
22. The Subdivider shall prov ide separate sewer, water, gas, and electric
services with meters to each of the units.
23. No grading permits shall be issued for this subdivision prior to
recordation of the final map.
24. This project has been reviewed for conformancy with the grading ordinance and found to be a project for which a grading permit is required. Prior to any building permits being issued for the site a grading plan in
conformance with City Standards and Section 11.06 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code must be submitted, approved and grading work must be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. All slopes within
this project shall be graded no steeper than two horizontal to one vertical unless specifically approved otherwise .pursuant to these
conditions.
25. Landscape drains and roof gutters shall be used on all units within this subdivision.
26. Prior to approval of the final map the developer shall pay or enter into
an agreement with the City to pay for a proportional share of any drainage area fees established as a result of the forthcoming Master Drainage Plan Update.
27. Additional drainage easements and drainage structures shall be provided
or installed as may be required by the City Engineer.
PC RESO NO. 2885 -5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
Fire:
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
The developer shall be responsible for the reconstruction or repair of any public improvements along the frontage of this project found to be defective or in need of repair during the development of this project.
Unless a standard variance has been issued, no variance from City
Standards is authorized by virtue of approval of this tentative map.
The developer shall comply with all the rules, regulations and design
requirements of the respective sewer and water agencies regarding
services to the project.
This project is approved specifically as 1 (single) phase.
The developer shall be responsible for coordination with S.D.G.& E.,
Pacific Telephone, and Cable TV authorities.
Approval of this tentative tract map shall expire twenty-four (24) months
from the date of City Council approval unless a final map is recorded.
An extension may be requested by the applicant. Said extension shall
be approved or denied at the discretion of the City Council. In
approving an extension, the City Council may impose new conditions and
may revise existing conditions.
Additional public and/or onsite fire hydrants shall be provided if deemed
necessary by the Fire Marshal.
An all-weather access road shall be maintained throughout construction.
be
the
All required fire hydrants, water mains and appurtenances shall
operational prior to combustible building materials being located on
project site.
Brush clearance shall be maintained according to the specificat
contained in the City of Carlsbad Landscape Guidelines Manual.
ions
All fire alarm systems, fire hydrants, extinguishing systems, automatic
sprinklers, and other systems pertinent to the project shall be submitted
to the Fire Department for approval prior to construction.
Any additional landscape proposed for the driveway must be limited to the perimeter and entrance area. Traffic lanes at the entrance may be constructed to not less than 12' for a maximum distance of 30 lineal feet.
PC RESO NO. 2885 -6-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day of August,
1989, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairman Hall, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Holmes &
Marcus.
NOES: Commissioners: McFadden & Schramm.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Erwin.
MATTHEW HALL, Chairman
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RESO NO. 2885 -7-
c’
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 2, 1989
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION c /\
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: CT 89-l/PUD 89-l CAMPBELL
CT 89-l/PUD 89-l was continued from the July 5 Planning Commission meeting in order
to allow a concerned group of neighborhood residents more time to review the project
and to allow time for the applicant to address concerns of the Planning Commission.
The applicant has been in contact with staff to discuss revisions to the proposal.
The resolution of the issues are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
REFUSE COLLECTION: Coast Waste Management preferred curb side pick-up because
the site is not large enough for a truck to enter and turn around. Both Coast
Waste Management and City staff discourages trash trucks backing out onto
streets for traffic safety reasons.
PARKING: Guest parking at the north end of the site was modified to a 13 foot
separation which in turn increases the ease of maneuverability from the spaces
while exiting the site.
MAILING LABELS: Staff reviewed a large sample of the mailing label list
against the most current assessor's information on hand in the Planning
Department which indicated that the mailing list was current. New notices
were sent and all residents in attendance.of the July 5 meeting that spoke were
specifically noticed.
BUILDING HEIGHT: The height issue was discussed and it was determined that
to lower the buildings would require a complete redesign of the project, which
could eliminate some of the project's aesthetic appeal. Staff considers the
26 foot ridge height a lesser impact accounting for the varied 26-16 foot
setback from the top of the embankment. The setback from property line is 15
feet.
FENCE HEIGHT: The fence height along the north property line will be 6 feet
in those portions that enclose a private yard and will be dropped to 42 inches
at the common area. Low shrubs will also be planted along the common area
section.
Attachments:
1. Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2869 and 2885
2. Staff Report dated July 5, 1989 with attachments. 3,. Noise study data and results dated March 17, 1989
4. Soils Report Summary dated January 16, 1989
65: Exhibits Exhibits "A" "B" & - "G" "F" dated dated August June 2, 1989 1989 14, (previously distributed with July 5,
1989 packet)
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
_I.
-..
A, dICATION COMPLETE DATE:
Februarv 17. 1989
STAFF RFPORT
JULY 5, 1989
PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CT 89-l/W0 89-l - ROBERT CAMPBELL - A proposal to construct four
duplexes totaling eight units on .79 acres of land located on the north side of Levante Street west of La Costa Avenue in the RD-M
Zone, Local Facilities Management Zone 6.
RECOMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 2869 approving the Negative
Declaration issued by the Planning Direct.or on May 19, 1989 and ADOPT Resolution
No. 2885 approving CT 89-l and PUD 89-l based on the findings and subject to
the conditions contained herein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: AND BACKGROUND
The project consists of eight duplex units on individual lots. Open space is
primarily private with common space provided at the northerly portion of the
site. A common "viewpoint" is designated at.the north property line which
includes accent landscaping and pedestrian amenities such as enhanced paving,
seating, and a fountain. Each unit is two-story with an attached two car garage.
Circulation and guest parking areas have incorporated textured paving.
Existing lots to the north and south as well as the project site are graded and
vacant. Single family detached homes exist to the west, 20 to 30 feet below the
existing site pad.
Each unit is three bedroom with two and a half bathrooms totaling 2054 square
feet. Two car attached garages are typical for each home and guest parking is
provided at one half space per unit. The proposed Southern California Style of
architecture (and use of stucco with heavy architectural shingle roofs) will be
compatible with neighboring development. As per the Design Guidelines there are
variations in building plane and roof configuration which add interest to the
building mass.
III. ANALYSlSs
Planninq
1. Is the project consistent with the RD-M Zone?
2. Is the project consistent with the General Plan?
CT 89-l/PUD 89-l ROBE.- CAMPBELL JULY 5, 1989
PAGE 2
3. Does the proposed project conform to the Development Standards and Design Criteria of the Planned Development Ordinance.
4. Does the project meet the requirements of the Local Facilities Management
Plan for Zone 6.
pISCUSSION
The project as proposed conforms to the development standards of the RD-M Zone.
Because garages do not face Levante Street a fifteen foot front yard setback is
allowed. The project proposes seven to fourteen foot sideyard setbacks and a
sixteen foot rear yard setback. Building-heights are approximately twenty-six
feet. The proposed density of 10 DU/AC is below the control point of 11.5 DU/AC
set by growth management.
The project also conforms to the Planned Development Ordinance. The overall plan
is comprehensive in its relationship to the Design Guidelines. Land Use and
architecture are in harmony with the general surrounding area. Buildings are
set twenty feet apart and the-common areas are landscaped.
The project has been reviewed by the appropriate City Departments which include
Fire and Police and the site plan has been revised to satisfy the requirements
of each as well as appropriate conditions in the resolution.
The subject property is located within Local Facility Management Zone 6,
Southwest Quadrant. The impacts on public facilities created by the proposed
project and compliance with the adopted performance standards are summarized
below:
PUBLIC FACILITIES
City Administrative
Library Wastewater Treatment Capacity
Parks
Drainage
Circulation
Fire
Open Space
Schools
Sewer Collection Water Distribution
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
In conclusion, since the proposed project complies with the requirements of the
RD-M Zone and Planned Development Ordinance and all public facilities impacted
by this project comply with City standards. Staff is recommending approval of
CT 894/PUD 89-l.
CT 89-l/PUD 89-1 ROBET-CAMPBELL
JULY 5, 1989
PAGE 3
.
IV. ENVIRONHWAL RFVIQ
Parts I and II of the Environmental Impact Assessment have been completed by the
applicant and staff. No significant environmental impacts were found as a result
of the review, therefore a Negative Declaration was issued by the Planning
Director on May 19, 1989.
ATTACHMENTS
::
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2869
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2885
::
Location Map
Background Data Sheet
2:
Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
Disclosure Form
7. Exhibits "A"- "F", dated June 14, 1989
CW:lh
May 15, 1989
I BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: CT 890l/PUD 89-k
APPLICANT: ROBERT CAMPBELL
REQUEST AND LOCATION: A DrODOSal t0 Construct four 14)
duolexes totalina eicht (81 units on .79 acres of land in the
R- o f D M Z ne. I,ocal F rlities Manaaement Zone 6, 1 ac' ocated north o
Levante Street and west of La Costa Avenue.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 229 of La Costa Vale Unit No. 1 in the Citv
of Carlsbad. Countv of San Dieuo. State of California, accordinq
to MaD No. 7457. filed in the office of the Countv Recorder of San
Dieao Countv. October 18. 1972 APN: 223-170-20
Acres .79 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 9 TOTS/8 UNITS
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation RMH
Density Allowed 8-15 DU/AC Density Proposed 10 DU/AC
Existing Zone RD-M Proposed Zone N/A
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: Zonina Land Use
Site RD-M VACANT
North R-l
South RD-M 0 VACANT
East RD-M VACANT
West RD-M VACANT
PUBLIC FACITJTIES
School District WCINITAS Water OLIVENHAIN Sewer LEUCADIA
EDU's Public Facilities Fee Agreement, Date DECEMBER 16, 1988
IRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Negative declaration, issued Mav 19. 1989 X
E.I.R. Certified, dated
Other,
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL PACILITIES IBfPACTS ASSESSMENT @OR&f (To be Submitted with Development Application)
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO.: ROBERT CAMPBELL CT 89-l/PUD 89-l
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 6 GENERAL PLAN: RMH
ZONING: RDM
DEVELOPER'S NAME: ROBERT CAMPBEJdt
ADDRESS: 1568 HIGHJAND DRIVE. SOLANA BEACH. CA 92075
PHONE NO.: 481-3235 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 223-170-20
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): .79 AC/8 DU
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE:
A. City Administrative Facilities; Demand in Square Footage = 29.65
B. Library: Demand in Square Footage = 35.82
C. Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer)
D. Parks: Demand in Acreage = .059
E. Drainage: Demand in CFS = $8 CFS
Identify Drainage Basin = DR (Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
F. Circulation; Demand in ADTs = 64
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
G. Fire: served by Fire Station No. = 2
H. Open Space: Acreage Provided - N/A
I. Schools: (Demands to be determined by staff) J. Sewer:
E/16 JH/.712 SH/1.4
Demand in EDUs - 8
Identify Sub Basin - L.C.W.D
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
K. Water: Demand in GPD - 1760
DISCLOSURE FORM
APPLICANT: Robert M. Campbell, an individual
Nam (individual, partnership, joint venture, corporation , syndicat,GGj- 1568 Highland Drive, Solana Beach, CA 92075
Business Address
619-481-3235
Telephone Number
AGENT: SAME AS ABOVE.
Name
Business Address
Telephone Number
MEMBERS: v, an indiviaual 20738 Deforest Street
1, partner, joint Home Address (OWNERS) venture, corporation, syndication) Woodland Hills, Ca 91364
Same as home address
Business Address
Telephone Number
818-888-5925
Telephone Number
Aaron Magidow, indiviaual 700-N. Beverly Glen Blvd
Name Home Address .
Same as home address Los Angeles, Ca 90077
Business Address
Telephone Number
213-275-7251
Telephone Number
(Attach more sheets if necessary)
I/We understand that if this project is located in the Coastal Zone, I/we will apply
for Coastal Commission Approval prior to development.
I/We acknowledge that in the process of reviewing this application, it may be
necessary for memkrs of City Staff, Planning Commissioners, Design Review Bard
members, or City Council members to inspect and enter the property that is the
subject of this application. I/We consent to entry for this purpose.
I/We declare under penalty of perjury that the information contained in this disclosure
is true and correct and that it will remain true and correct and may be relied upon
as being true and correct until amended.
Robert M. Campbell Agent, Owner, 7brtnrr
- ~_-__---~--.-_ -. ~. .~
LJ
$j ;&]:;
:+.. - :lais -._~_ .-_- __ -m-a---- .
llll WG-l ililT
ii.81 ( ‘m--j
j-id$igF F- 1 _ I r- :‘:“I lI!,l’[l’! [ij’i 1 !-. I L
S’ r 1 I . t- - , . _ _ _.-A - - J
‘\ ._, i 7”--- - i.----- -, .’ . . , (_.I --
‘1, ..__ --. -9 /’ i
f EXHIBIT “A”
CT 89-Ol/PUD 89-01
SITE PLAN
--
i
;
4
% I ?i-: ii p -,:I-- 1 ;;
24 i-4 ,‘*I. P .5, / ,’
L- ?k!E 1
i-, / \- P
IQI -,
q :
;.g / ~ , _ . / a j ; I
1
II I ‘1.: , IirJ Li“-
I
,
i L
EXHIBIT “6”
CT 89-Ol/PUD 89-01
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
_--- 3
t-
EXHIBIT “C”
CT 89-01 /PUD 89-01
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
/
EXHIBIT “0”
CT 89-01 /PUD 89-01
ELEVATIONS
I
EXHIBIT “El’
CT 89-Ol/PUD 89-t
ELEVATIONS
- \ I I i’ ! i LANDSCA
4 c
II F”
/PUD 89-01 ,PE PLAN
ATTACHMENT “B”
NOISE LEVEL CALCULATIONS
DATA AND RESULTS
- 13-
m ., ” s I) 8, 3 .I ; L_?, COST& [;OQ;:;:T’ A!:3;~ji,,!S”’ ‘I: ‘.;;re. !2<~..;;l>iw..”
‘1 II II :I ” ” IO ta . . * .a 1 I> il II n I, II L1 ” n FUTURE ~J$>f’“I’~X’~~!& .:‘i;;[;, i\i[:.j ,i: ;;E;, ;.-,‘{{~i;‘~ti,,, ii
I: II ; ; :: , s I, 3 :a ./ ” I ,a : : :: AL..L LANE:!3 C [j Iv! 13 :i c..j > 1:;
:.... i.. 3 1 ,s., j ;.;., ‘I”- ,,,, ,-. ,,;.r ;,..j *:;I; ;- ‘11 ;;;x I_..! “.” ,, j. j;:, ,..;
i:::’ ) ,___ [:I !,>,j $ 1:) ;.I’ ;,,j $5 -r y i_. : . ...: ! :_,,; :: 1:: j_/ ‘:‘.
7,: :!: 5 ‘... ..‘I, /i f !‘.I 7: r. ( .! ..,-. i- $ ,,;; -1 ;,; y< j i’.q i :: . . . . f (’ .i
1;:; ‘;I y ‘j: ; y:: &, i’“, (> ‘“\ ;,;: ,;=, %.j ‘^’ 5 : .‘. / !%,., ;= IT, : ..:’ .._ _ : , 1. i I ;.., ;L.! ;j :...: (:_ / j ,_ .I :
; ,i ‘.:,I .,‘. ‘-./ ,- ,._ ‘. r ‘1 A, .::. !“‘! .&i .9 is! :‘J \,,( $Lj ‘.r i’l !.:, ~j ‘./
i j ,,,: y: \,.,y r-! y <.+ :__: k.-! ‘.; .i( .: ;l / g:; ‘y- T r: ‘: / : ; >, i .,,.. .: . . . . . I ./. . . . L ‘I
il i-/y-. ):I; ;,i :‘r ,__ r:; (3 I-.:: “/: ,::j ,, ;’ ‘1. -.., .!I
.,,. ii’., .j c’i’::
,,. . . . . . :. 111.. ~!~l>\)p-$; - I>fiy
p,j ;:,j j: :i; j::,: I,,,. ;i 1 J E I- C; - NIGHT
NOISE STUDY
March 17, 1989
.i :.. : .: /j..’
(
.i ‘. f”,<‘, .i. . .
.:. ‘. ,: : ‘: ,j
. ..< ,.. :, ., ?‘\(.
: . . ‘L.’ .::. i .,.. :.,
,-. ..-.,. .:.: ,: I... ..j
i... . . .., j . ..-. i i . ..! ..-.I
&
-:.j ;.-’ ‘:‘.. : ,_,. :,I 1: i..i !v! i” E: AtJ \i
_ ,;.; I j.‘!““.:‘-> ; ;...! I L! :? i” !:; 1 j i’; L:’ i’; ._. .- / ._ L./ ..[. 6: i; c c::‘s i’
. . .._,. -.__ .-_- _....-.. - . ..-.--..-.. .._...” .--......-..--...- ---.;-. . - __-_,
,..... ..‘.,> <;I; ,
:L.. A.. L ./. :/ .i_.. _i. n ..,..: ._..
i::: ,, r’ -: .y:. ,.._,. <::,.:I> :, ;L ..‘,
7 -., ,. .;::. :: 4. it
i i..- ,I;’ ,::; j-j
/_.. i il U%L..
; :‘) ,/ ..r ::, .:j ,: 1. :.
;‘ <::. *. :_ /
-.- Li. /, -:L ,,. .‘? ,;I>
__ 2 ..( ,,: ,.-., ,, _ .A,: .,,.:
,,_ :: ii .c: ,-. . . .._. : _: ,.“., i ‘i ; I
. . . . . . . . ix ,I ‘:‘;: ‘:
..I .i. ,( .* >;j i..: ,, 1’ :,
,. ., . . . . ,. .,
.-” .,.I :, ,::: .;y
:;:::-,,:~j .i ..I :’ i..: ” .L “-i
i.-. I, .’ q. ,( .$ .::j. .A..
; . . . i, i.!. Li.
i ‘L.:> ‘72 !. :.i : .I ;.;-..:
? (.V . . . c:y ,.’ 7 ,j .Q. .,_,I
I, 1; ,j “.2 : ..-
.,.. ’ ‘::; .i : .I ;:,> <;‘:>
.*_ c;; ~ ,:;?, ‘:,‘;
,,_./ I.: . .I i... . ..)
i .‘) I._. .I ,J (:,:I
_.-, (j. I/ :,;.;-: . .
<:I. i, ,;,. ‘.:: .I L..% ._I
il. :I.:. ,_ 2:;; i.:j
‘73 I &Q w:
‘*B. ::-: L. /, -c; ‘j .-,. ” ._,: i _I!,_..., ;9’,...., i, i; ‘? ,I ..>I::)
,. . . . , p-i '.. .,.. ;"i i^ /I . . ..:
; ..,.. j’.‘.‘. _.. 1 .::I) ;::;
__, 1;. ;.;r 7:-q ,: . . .
.! .‘i ,, .: :, ,,,. .; .:.) * . . . .
c ,,,, lTj’.. z r .i ..,.
: i ,: ” ( 1:: ‘; i
,.. :: ‘.<‘., ,,. ,: .,,.: ..,..
r:: ._.i : Y .:.j. :;
:j ,./ L: . ..L _, .:: ( 1’.
$ !,:d 1-i ‘i’ i .: :‘%, f ,, ., : ._.: >-=xj”r N(-JIsj+ LEVEL .- cjA’.i’ :- ” / :: :: .._..:
!:.:\.^!i : j’ ..,,-‘$),ENT’ b1i-J 1 SE LEVEL - b.1 1 &I-.!“!’ I..%.i.l 2. CL.. ./ -.
‘r p ‘Z ! ‘-’ lL~L..!z .!.‘Z .i. ‘) ,__ “’
: : j: : : 1: : : :: : : LA CO%J-A CfJUF;;:‘j- &[y~<Ji-J’;.I”:‘~;: (;-;::~;,, .:~Ii’.,j(:;I-,~.f:~ ;: ‘sj :, (.:.:~C:; ,;j iyp4: j, 7;;:‘:::~
ii x 2 is ” ” $8 ” . ,. . 4 II El li ” ” ” n I m II FUTURE /JNATJ-E.,j~&-~~;;> i;..$ i: ;;[I i..,~j~‘,J:.:~;.., :::: ;,_‘;b‘ i..,;~~~~‘,,~~:~~..!~:i I;{>.“..,; j-g:.: : :: c+:-!;,~I~
.I 3s ” :I II _j :I I ” is . I 8. Y Y Y il ia . 3 8, ” AL-!, i,J$NES CgME I[ i5..;;i_:D
I NF”J’j- DA?&:
;-. :i [ _ j_., !,_,, i; !,,.j i-,, p i i , : ,: f.2 i’.,j i:; E ;Ij .Lj I_, “[’ Ii; :
yI_:D 1 iJl’+j HE#Jj’ i’ , i .i. < .i c. p: 9-j : i-.&J ‘i” g u c 1::: 2 yqJcp::s 5
--.--____...I_.____--._._.. - .,__.._____,-.- --.-- _-.. - ___._.______ h
i,; 5; i-1 j: c: Lm ii_ (2 El; 5 ;.j (.j i-i F;; ,,__ ,ie; i:..‘; ..-. ,.l {.
;,$z jii;_ y ‘7 I’-. i r- ‘. . ..> i.- il: ‘. i.::_ i:.> : i... . . ii._/ i ‘-: i 1 i2 ! .._ :.i 1k.i i_ i:,i.< i .a_ .-/ /
-2 i:::- K I:-’ 2 ;.: : i... I___ (1 t:‘: IyI ,,i’ 1.4 Fe ;!
:-‘i”<$ i ,, 2. I’:, : ..i, .- - i.i -.I .L -; :-: i. I . J - , $J < r; ;, :y.l. ; ,q !‘j I, ,.i.: :., iyi 5 ‘-r ;.E:: ;..: Ej j!
I:;: E; F:’ 1.:’ !,:;’ F: !:i f”’ CtY *, f f.7 ‘I_ <:; 1::: /.._ > I e ti I.... : . . ii _I_ >..< :.._ I,,__ ;; !+.j [:I j”” Lj
i.: j,___ [;j LJ.4 ,.2; Tj :; 1 J LI; “y ;‘fl .;I;_ y_, .‘F . ., ‘.! ,p, y :
f- [-, (j $.,J &L y-1 ,’ C i ! C r iv! ii: !Y I ‘.c s 4 .l .,.., .” 1%; ,. i ;; L, ./- : * _i, i&I ! ,
‘;; :j, :I ‘/ ;.;i !\j (2 !$f: !q i:j .;,J i.; :;;; .‘r ;yj 1;; j\! 7
c::’ 2: $,j 1: 1” ;::: I: (:“ a ‘f \ !*j , ‘, ‘.,,T ,.,, .~’ ..:. / ,-._ i.ii ).., II ! .1
i”.. .I / iv: v I :-7 3-1 !..,! ,J i! :> ! ;. j I=. i \! :
t;.: I:.!: i>, :‘i /:_.’ -y., .Ti ,,“““;~,‘.;. ( - : ‘i i... :*. L. :__ .I I, I : / ;:-.I / 1
I’ fJ j:2 i_; ,.,: ,Y, “‘? i’ 1”) A yr:, I._! “f g; ‘i” ‘1 x; ;,.I Q ;.:\ ‘1 _j: !,-j ;..,i
..-. . ‘7 \...,I 17: i:::’ ; ,_,, ;j [::) f,: r j (Ii ” : ‘y: r: ,-.j .‘.._ //..I
ft.; : :j ;; l..: ix i ._. i...E’JELS - iMY s
F.> i ; ‘-* : :,:; 1:” .. ..i I... *,.. LEVELS - t$IWiT . . ,:< : ..: .i , . . ;:::. !.i '..i ;, '.,/ ;;>I ; ,_,_ i‘y.- ?N-r NO I ;g: q&EL -- L,(c)\<
!.:,‘i’lj ! :’ ‘sT2;::zi - ,,.. i...,. i-i .,, iZjxJ I i_” ‘I” NO ISE?; l&VEL p,j 1 [;> !._j r 4
,y: f”, :.,< r., j 1; & I.., ‘j- “\1”7 1: :jjE Ie,.EVEL I :I pjj ,____(,
,.-: . . . . . :J + ai. p .a::_ ‘- .: ” 66 :y ,,.L ,112 ‘..,> ..:: 2 1-2 Li ij .i _. ” f .i,. :: ii.ib ,. .’
_f ,:;. :./ J. ..__? “.“’ .* .z ‘t., :‘-” ‘2
,. ,.“> ,>7 ;T, c A. ‘-.” : i
j -7,;;
3.:
,. : . . . . . .-- .A.]_ ” ;‘)
.,::, i
._.. ; : :.; 2. < : _. \_.. _I
,_, i i::;.. ” .,_.. ‘...i
..’ : ._’ ..I
: .,_.: ,: . . . . . ...1
. ..i . . . : -: .A_
.%‘.i. “:r : .i ‘1:)
8 .I ,,,, .-.
_ ; .J :, c;.-;
- 2, ‘7 L1 $ *is
.,... 1;. 5 11 Li. ;;‘;,
,.,_ j ‘::r:.‘r ./. c2 ,...:v
I .“, , ‘L ._: ” ‘... ....i
.::j :, [ j i’,?
.._ ^ 2 i.,f :, &.I:::
i. ., <.&..Li. ~ i.,’ ‘-7 .q
...7
..i i .’ ij ij.
.y ;’ il .:.:
.;:, ;, .j
.“,, I ., ‘.
. j, ,‘,.Y. ij i;&
.._ ‘1 :s ,L i: y 7::) ._“.I ‘.:: ;7..-r ~, __ :, ‘+?a!
i. :: ..,i’_i
.:In _ i,:) (“j
,’ “7 ,. .( ,.‘) I,,; ii i ,__. . . . i
-1,. ./ ,-; ,“> i Li. .A.
.:‘.i. .’ ,,.i ,p, .’ :, ‘.i’
. ..-_...-.....-I.-. . - --...- .__.” ..-....._.I.. ..,..~..............._......_..._._..._,....,.~....~..~~...~__.r.....,.___I.,_ - _-...- - _._- _--_.-...- .-..- - ..---.... -” ._......^..._.. ---.- ..-_--...._ ._.-.. ..- ---.“.-..--I
; i; j ,/\ / ., ,-- j . -.. i .i IL.! ! ., .j !, :.... / _I :. .! : j y., I’;i \j {A ; c-.. ij ik.j <j ‘I *ylj F; j- ,;- :..,:.! I_ :,. I[:) y i:_ “i f-) -j. ‘.cC ;> F :: l r;; : j i...; (Ji i__, i ;_ i+ $j 1;:: s ! _j ~-,: / / .> j- ( ..I ‘;;. ‘y)
?Y
;:::-I ./ ..ie:,: . . . ..I “? : ,.. . . ‘1 .::y . ...: E:’ I::. &-’ ;:- ‘j- rr ;;I (-; ;.c.I “r’ ii {; ,.... ~ :,. ,. j._, ,
....I...: .._. 1.: r:: .._ 2I:.: ___. ‘_..I .._ _I::” ..,..._, :x:..1..__: .___. I.... :._.I:..:_....‘:~.ii:i:.~~..1.._!-?:!-
r P%iE (3;::: .;‘!..!c: , ,,I, ,i,_
.A I’:
5: i’ in ‘- I ,,,I .:’ ..:
_ .,... -. . .._ ._.. ..” -., .._ ..” _ . _,. ._” _“. _... ^ ._. _.. . .._ ._,. -.
II ,, :1 // . / .C I...; i+>i (1 y’; [I) 2; $... i. .._ ” i: z u E x :, if ; > u n 8; ,: u .; I/ *:I ~i-.!~~,,~.;;i.~.~--.~,:D.- ,,.. .,. .- ,- ,_, ,,,, j i .i ,‘.‘.; ::; .., i, .: ” ., ,z !.\,i (Cf y i ,l ** _1 ij. : ‘, jl ;: :: ” /: :: ” ;: :: : :‘, :: : :
f’?, ,:,.. i ,: ; .- -, .; .,; .I 8, .I 5; .I > ,* i, ..i _. ” ___. . . :.i “” :::_ *1 ., ‘1; b. i ;’ \ .?.i. . :. : 7 I . . . . . . y : ..,; : - >: .i..%.. .:::. 5 .;. x . . . . :.., i I r-y. .,. ; ..i : !. ‘., ! ... .! ., a. c. iz..... 5 ‘,,/. ; c* :...f 8 .~“.A...L.. .;>;c,. ‘,J ;-Jv{; ‘y y ( !::” .I 8, - :* n n I ” II I2 : .I. ;--i-k .I ii I /I ,I Y 8. il En II
: _ ,. : i j.;,:.: “.i ‘y .- :-‘!... ..“:!,,, by-. ,$ : _ ,... ,,, ,._: ..~. ! ,,cfi,,;.e,: ..’
: ,,. (/ / ::Ys...! / i... ‘...I iI::’ 1::: /I..’ 1 ‘: . . . . 3 .,_ L”. b,. 7; ,. ;:x ,.-: .._.. -y;.,: 3, . ..__ : : _... ;- ,.. : ;,..-. . ..! :_i
‘i’/ i:;: :I) I_ / : k,’ .-/ ‘,,? : : i--, i,, ..I I - i .i : ,.:g ,,,. i:;.::;i:, v,: ‘: : ..,, j__i i “: ! j ..> ; .-.. .._ A.. ? 2. _ I I k .‘!.._ ..;: .._ ,. _i ;
..j ?;I. ::, ;,; ‘..{ ‘:__ :, t,,; :,,.: L: :,.,l!:.Le ;zi- ; :.,.I : .c..... 7 T” ., ..,.. L .i.: / ;y.2;” : ! r:>’ ‘1 .:- /__ I ! : : __,, ?-. : L I
:,; “,(( i ::) .‘, ‘L:’ .‘.: “i f2: ‘i c:::- “..’
y- .,-., :.. :::,:p ,I, :,.. :.::. {, j::: [Ii; --< .... .;..p.,.i I” j . . . . L_ I
-‘\ : :... .,., ;‘- j ; /:I. .:I. - i I * .t : ._.:_._
\ : 1 +.. ‘; ; j:.: ;,’ .^ .i... . . ;,:ji: ,... ‘;; 7.. j /..Y I’< ._. .: _... i.:
-. .Y j i: . . ..!-I.-. _..i... !L..?i ,:\ -i- .I. /.. : !I.> ,,.. 1. :: .; ,,; , 2. . ...” s...._. i i._..I__ : : I
f!.‘!, i-i .r 1::; ;$:
i i L- i .; 1 i ! !;,l %.I: +. I St.... L,l HEAVY j- I..., I ,.-.; _. ,.... j h. t,! !., I’.. .z “;-F:U(--~::S
; .:;y: ;,.j c ,. , :;,. .(. i. ‘-;i”‘, ;;.. I . . I 3.“. / ‘ .i. !,..; L. A.... p.. !:‘:, ‘.i ,__ : / : ._i IT,! 5.:: ‘y .. ic” i ‘:3 .!. !! _i .I. li II .:: .q ,.I, ,,, i2a .-*. 3 II .i I 0 rn b 1
:.; ;::z, j..! ;; j;; / ,,,, .‘f i-~i.::“.:,’ .__/ i“:’ ::.,: -.. “‘? 2 .I. i . . : . .: / ., ii ;: ;,:.:;;...z i. : .i- -i L’ _j : rz, ii Li c:,; .:j . . .“.S 2. Al4 ;:; fj ::I:_ y,,. I.... <: i.:,‘::‘{ ,; I...; ,:,’ : .,. ..- ,... ..,. i.i ,,.I ii ,i., ” .!I/. .il. .-,r i... it .I’. i .i:. . , I & “1 ,, ::j 3
-, .,, /.I
$> $1: 1:: &: ;; j::: )., / i-: ;I: .i_ ::: . , ... ... .:/. .... .-. I... .! L._. .._. 8 .I ._ y;i [,y; i iz; i_: ! i:.‘_ ,;:I’; .,:L; .. 1_ _ : .._ if, ‘-.* .. . .. 8.. .. ; .. . &.i .-. I_ .... .: , 1’ .... ,y ,: i:i.L:‘.; ._.i :> . ...’ ,/ !..I!” >
EC- !,.. t,,, ;-i-ji>,i ,<); j; ,J \..j i, ‘I” t..G! ::I:’ >..i r .._ !,I) <:.:: ..:j ,_,_ .! ‘.VT’ ) : ,.. ::::j .” rL .:k., ,‘j ./ / ,__. I ., : I -:.; ,_,,,.. .y .I i-., -7 .:.. .:. 3 .: ..’ / $ _...,, .‘. ! .._ :i i.i;! /; .,v.i .i j , ‘,:I ; : .A..: ..i ‘/’ i.,:j .:.:‘& ‘:’ .,. .>._,:’ ; ,.,. i;i .’ ;‘,[,-i 7 __ ‘1:’ ‘yi:, _. ._> iI, i ..- IL-1 :<‘;;I ,, c 5 -2 ; ,j ;. 1;
I’ .:. I.. , ;.? .:_ .X) : ;pp,!:“i:: .,.,, .: “‘;:. :. “’ i .-’ ,.._ .)
: i ii & I:) ;j / ,,,_! z.7: _.,. / ” ‘-, \fi: [ .,,; ! I. .a::.* i .d .._ i, .‘Z ,, ,,.?“;.z’
4 :. _j: I:../ ‘y :j:::, ;I> (.‘i /i .,Y , .A 3 i... j L.;, !;,J (...‘I ,.” ,,.> .,.’ .; i .._. :::-: ..y. / .,..! (I-:_ !- ; ..r i ..,. , I xc_ i- i.i ..i I ,: i ‘7 ,,,,, ‘; .::I..-; I .- ‘j :.:; ,.-: _. .._. m /.. i _. .I. .i .._.l,...
(... ,.__, ,., ,I ,..., :-; p.<: ; . ..! 2 i:‘:, ;1, rj ;j >,J 3 ! “’ i i i’.” ““’ II ids j’;,j i .c., ..\ i ,? : : .: : _ ;“! ,,, ,, ,“.,< ‘> i.. .?. . . ._ .J ,, I.-!! .._. i
j-p j...- ! “‘i.,;i,,nI::: ;\ >. -2 ._..., ,. .: I”/ T i:.? “y .{..,::~;., i! : ,,.., . . . . . r- ;, j j , / : _;, !,:J y<.:.1 :‘.- .,.” ... -i .-,, :j. ” (1:: f.’ “‘.’ .:j:; ,, 8 .,_. I .,..!
/ .: i.1: f.:: ‘7.:‘;. ,::.,i a,,,,; ;.‘i j , .-. :. : .I ! <-., .i ,-,_ + .a_ -2 :.
..,; j .‘., .,- (.’ ,-..
. . ..I i :..lil. iLEVEL - DAY 4 ;? ( .c;. .i;. ,y, (’ ‘T.7 .-:.. ii .,_,: /;, ,.:. :j, .’ I ” :>::“ .., ;<... r ..i/,. x..! ;. ::,E.. !.,,,Et,iF’L S - N1;Gtj-f’ .<,j. , .! .! ,y ..:? .:j .:. [...: ,<.. “, - ” .,, ,‘ 2.‘. .i i:: .I ._.: . . . . . . -i I_ i.:.,..
c:’ j’,: ? : i !,. ii.>, j ._. i.X 8 ..: i L~i_:~%jl- N(-JISE $&!,qzL -- ]D#qy ;: 4 i:., : a ,,...
;:,I, i ;I :,..i i’ ic>.: ‘; j,_( if; pI”r !k.ifJ 1 SE, LE’JEL - b] 1 I-; ‘1. .<.yl .j / ., /: “t
Ii,, i,:, v .._ :‘.. : .; ;,y; i__.j ‘-I F> / (‘7 ‘7 .:::) y /. ;_ ..\ ./ .I. .,i /___ EZ ?/ E_‘: c.. ,, I j.,_ 17 I‘\; ‘:
..- ..-. -... ..- .__ .._ . . ..- .._ _“. ._” .._, .,_. ,,_ ___. ..- .__ _,.. ,.,_ .._ _- -_ .._ .._ I_, .,,.. ._.. _... _.. _,_ .__ .___._ -.. .__ ,“_ ..,., __. .-.. .-. ._.. ._- .._ .._ _... ._.. .._ .._ -_ ._ __. .“.. ,.,_ ..., .._ ._. _,.. .____
! : /.‘.I & ; j /,,_’ ‘., / ! I_,,_ : .* : ,.,. I q -j 1:;;: I) t, / ;-) ... ..I: ;,;. i,.. !;I :. ,; /:.: 1 I’ / ; j;:: 1.. j .i : . ..i ..[. i ::’ ,.-- 1: (., I I j 7, , !- i .., - i”; i ; ;7. t .?’ - i-l I... ‘.>i ._i *, . . . . i.__ .___ ,._ ..i .,., 2 L. .-., ‘I : ..I i.... / I ‘-! / ‘: : . . . . a.,: i,.j ,Yj y,.j ?.,i f::: ‘,‘! , 1 _... ._. ., : :‘ ,.., : .r : : ._ : .... = 2 ‘. .“i ..; :,-! :, .” .:-; ~~ i.’ : ‘2 i.. i__ : I., / $‘.; (’ ..‘..,.. i’...l ,., , t’ i:; ( ‘i gi ;..: jl r-4 ;- ,_._. r:-: t< 1%; , iz e-. , ;,..!Y ! ,.__ .;: i&E: :::“c i : ,j .:::. ?%;: .‘A: ,;,,L ,,_i ,‘;:h; :,. I . , ;:
..- . --. .._ __. ..,_ ._, -.. ,_. ,._. ._... _. ..,,. .., ._. ._. _... __.. . ..- .._ -... .._. _.” _... ..” ._. .._ ..^ ..,. . . . ._.. .-.. .._. __, ,_.
:: : :: : ‘: :: : :: ;: ;/ ;: :: ); ;: I: : r-) , ;.., , :...s :,..L>> y, I”( ;:j i:) !:(;I im i: F:’ j_.! !~i k _._ 1:~ i.! _... .:~~ 7 _._ :t ::‘i ~3 :; ‘..j $t+ y ~ .<.l. ,, .L/. ” :. .a >l ii :; ;j I: : :: ” : ” ” : j, ” ,, :
,; /, ,, ,, ~ ., ,, ., I! y,;::” : ‘.““.“““’ :.-‘..... ‘/ !:::. I ._.. i.; if’. j.::. j...: /.,, i’.~ . . . . . /., . . . . . . 1.., i fi: I i , ., ,. , .i. .,. ? .:. ! . .i. . ..., ,.“..‘,, . . . . .- .I ,/ ,I , ., 1 .; /$ ,. ‘4 i ; I..~ .__, >. . . . ; .,..! i i. ::::. .!.“! __. :’ , ,,.f :. ;> y;:<1:; (‘y:(:,:~,.,j:;:. ‘Y !_ i ;1..:’ .. ,: > /: ; .; I :, i ,, 1 .L 8 . ..i.... I / 2 ” /I i‘ /I ,I .I
..d --. <.J[ 72 ;-. i:_ y i:.
; : :: 1: ; :: :: : :: : : LA Q7JCJ.A (“‘-JJITT ;q~;‘,,!!Jffj”:” 1; (,,:c.:~:~,, ;. ,. ;s, : 1 -. ,;I: ,... j: ‘/;...f i,,,, ” ;,j .,l ,. ..I i !,, _... :_ :
:: ‘I il II n %i I, I, ,* n e, il *i 0: :a :a li II I, II ‘2 /I F:IJTUE ur,]FITTEr~IuH.-i.::::::, j’...lb;. ,!: :i,;sx:: :..,;_~..,:~~; .,_ .:-; 7~:’ ;,.i-::
I :. ., s : :, .I m 1 . >l i, . . .: ., .I I >, /I * :, I‘ fA!.mL UWJES C-J pl y ‘[ k%,i j.:. ..’ : ,L * < ,.._a..
‘v ,
‘!: i’j p ;j .‘j DfiTA:
,.z.; ‘L,;:F”.::’ .c,g,,;:’ .__/ ., F-: __ c ..,. ::‘;‘::; Y_ j ,_,, ‘..(’ ‘;_ ;::: . ..?.Y :,Y ;; 1.:.
j-2 5: j:.,: c p: i\; “/ ;y I:-’ i’%, ‘g ! 1 r+! 1 > ._,, i. i.: , I ‘i_ ;; ;, j ;.,.: t..’ ;,;; !:I: r:/ i.x ,y i_ / -; : I_._ i . ..l _.I_ :. I ‘.! ! j .‘i I ; <J .,, ; ‘i. : i :_ : , TIr,z, < i/.. L .-i ?.. ;:::. 8 : ‘.i .i ,. ,.,,.i .!. 1:. .’ ..I- .::- I..’ I . ..i I . . . . . 1::; j.:: E.. g-1 ‘1) : : i :__. ._.:. :..f ;y; :, .; f:’ :. / .,..: !:-:‘y ., .‘..$ .;. .,, ! .,: .-:; j:_: j.: /_ : >. .il ,. i .. . . ,. i ._.. . . ...’ i. ._ : , / .: .k.,. ;. ,.._.: ‘3 :: :; . . . . 4 : I., :.._ 1 I_,/ ‘. ;..i i’; j ; Y-T. : I .-- ,.,.. I i s.._[ I:.: ;;; !. : ..,. “i? j I : Yi ..I: ._i i’ i.’ ::> . . . ,I...“’ is..... I . . . ._,,. : . .._L..._._~ ;: -: ; :,,_ ,:j: ‘;..i ,’ + :::::,.c /__s . . i f i ,-: .., / ..__, a : .._ . . ..J. ,
;: ._i ,:, i.Y ::. >.. i..,: .- L - : . .
':.,.; y,;. pi E iii: ( 1.2 j..; ;.::' i.; E:' i\j i j
+.,<<:, y, 'i g:,p,i :_. .._/ i : "' "' , /"r'r 'i j _." / ., : : , b.. -.> . . . . 5.. . . . . /,_, i , :,., :-:, i.; ..J !_- ,'.J; ,'..1 >i: ?I;';
;: ;.Lc j_,_ 7:; i,.,j I_,, j:, (, 13” / t ‘; :: 1:: c; ! ! 1 ‘!” CL; ;: . :_.. ;,_. :._.
(‘__>/ i i‘c’iT:! : > .,_/ i i,. s.,
.- _... ,,.,. _ “... .-. .._ .__r_.. _,_ _.. _.”
._ , -.. r. g...: L. I._. !_. ! .f,:.:jkj”!:: : ‘._ i-. I I ..,. I ,.-.. L .:i., .- :‘, (j, ,; xz, :r I,,_ g: !vi LX. /_,- c, ..<:,, ;:i ,<Zi, “‘j?
! ! If -f d I- ,J ,.; I.. ?..d I : / ._.I ‘.I i ,.... j ,‘, .;.; ~rr:-y.iyI.i:,i .y 0; i .! .,..< _,.” .y’<.. .A. ” ..-s
,c:’ i “7 4 n r”, ~1_ j ii.;:’ !_ hl ;_’ “.~.i “’ 2 _i \,i ..d . . . . i I . \I,._ ,,_, !\j ~ i.‘~ &( “i- ._L .“5’ .-.. i I , : .i .I_ ..__i r I I ‘I? c-7
.rs, . . !,,i ,;_ $j “I <.j t.J 1”’ 7 nr.., .-; , Ic:‘“;‘.jv,g pi:-. :.. .-. .i. .-. / .a \i x.... i /L., i.. L., ..: i ~z.... ? ! -” :. -1. i /
r !., j .j_ ..:- I:: :7 i. I5.i I ,“,. ;:;I cj (.‘!! Ij \.A; $, ‘%.( (!., ‘y-, .“T j ,,,,I .;; ‘I pj EY ;\I *r .__ : i j__ .- -. 2, .“.i J
<; ;::z (.bi 7-j 1::: j “) -,‘i i j::;“i’,v!i;.;;,! ‘I . ;..; .,,. , ,, .-., <. ., L_ ..d ._, I ,L”i .I I . :I ‘_i’..:
.:. (“’ ,::; ,- ,.,,: i 1.1 f;! 1.1: (:j [:: i-i ‘; $,:( r ‘-f-F‘ 1\ i / ! g.! j- 1 i-j fq (.., :-. : -.. I id :, !.i ,!
;:: ;,:-F,I 1:::; f”!(-;Q .. I_> /.. I 4 0 /, : .“i ___I A! i :..I
i;j f-j :j: 1; j;j:: ~-;;Z’+IELf~ _ DJ!+Y ,y; r;, il. .<::. ..I ..:_. .I
p., ; ‘I ; .:: j:.: .,. : . ;.J A. . ..i i...E'V'EL..S '-- NIGHT Li. 6: ,, !i. :j ,j I :, c.'i:ii ; f i 3 .i >._ . . . . . . L, ." ‘i k ! I-.. iiir 1 q1- IiJQ 1 se &EL .- DAy c::;;,;! ,__, 1 : ~.,,z~;~~,;,wzpjT fqf-~ 1 SE 'L_E~EL -. tq 1 ~t.j.f
iI) .:.y; v..... j;,! '[ <y, I._., y- p.1 c; I 1;; $2 iwE I.$.! !_I km ( Le. f) j'...J j
!_ ,. . . /_/ .~ i..... :_ .< ; ‘-,,J .A.,. ‘. .a,:_ ;_ _’ .:
‘. .. .‘. ..: .i . i ; ..,, I 5.1 i’..,, j ‘,J ;-;
-r 4 ,.: (. (, 8 i\ :i c:i q &) 1
::
. . . . . j :, .:? y __I 2.i54 -7 :-.; j ,,;_ * .q il. &; .q. ,, -5 $ .! r”;,/. ii,:. :: s. . ..JL. II !‘-I- :j, f::; b ~ 5 .q.
‘1’ q il E:; ,“i - ,. ,: "I i., c, -2. ,, f-3 i-i .-. ._
il. j.’ . . 8 . ..> z: .._. 5 i ‘,. “7 , :, f:&
,, ,_ , .L ,::, ,, ..::_ .> .ij. :j, ,i &:;~
_, ti i’... ,...( ,... .> . . .._.
“.<A: /, L!.
!:.. i:: i:.:,
.,... _” .._...... ..,.. ,._._.... ..,_ .._. ,._. ..__. _,“. ..“, ..., “._ __ .__.. ___. _... ,,_ .._,. .._ .__ ._. . .._ .,... .._ ..” .__, ,-.. .-. __ .._ .._ ._.. .,... ._.. .._ - ._..... ._. _ _ .
j il.<,,;\ ‘I. y’f:...;,.,!, ,.2’j-.“‘%, ‘,-. : :” , . . . / ., _. ., j ,-; , // ;-! / -. r 1 .._, : ! i i:::. .A-. j’ij 0 :j; ‘lij +y f”.‘T /!” ! !.,” r: L.j ;::L I ,.._ .A.! j i 8:::. , , : ,, , *. ,.. ,._ : .“’ p.>,i- i_-. j, ; ,_,,. : :_,_ : I./ $-“; i,,., :.. j ,,,, g:, “j [I: cz; ;-: ,:; Y 7::. ” :\i fz.’ y: ., a”_. h.. _ ,. .i. 33 :...I p ..., ,.:j : ,...iI...! ..I.> 1. . . . . ,.i*_.: , ._....__ :. ‘.~.‘,~ .i. ..y. /::, ,..., /I:,. ;:-y 1:: .?. . ..^ >.-: ,..I ,.,;( ‘V !.. 11:: > / .._.,. 1’... : L.., / ‘-‘;“:.I..!:L I.-i ;. A .i... ;I; i:: I\; -j- /:y $; f t..., _/, !i!/“__ ,,:,:; ;: ‘i 1. : ;::;, i:,* j,::; (C., ‘y) ;,,:,,,; ,;$* ‘:.
. ..-.. .._. .._......_....._._.. ___..._......__._,._...__.__..._.. ._,._.. .._ ,.....__...., ,... ..__...._..-...-.-...-..... .-..... -.. ._..-.
-
-3-
Boring Sample
No. No.
: :
3 2
Depth 'of
Sample
in Feet Soil Description
f*Fi
Fine Sandy Clay
Silty Clay 4:o Silty Clay
SOILS REPORT SUMMARY
January 16, 1989
Percent Expansion
Under Unit Load of
500 Pounds Per Sq.
Ft. from Air Dry
to Saturation
3.49
10.11
9.04
In order to establish compaction criteria, compaction tests were performed
on representative samples of the subgrade soils. These were tested in accordance
with ASTM D 1557-78, which requires 25 blows of a lo-pound rammer falling
from a height of 18 inches on each of 5 layers in a cl-inch diameter 1/30th
cubic foot mold. The results of these tests are presented below:
Maximum Optimum
Dry Moisture
Boring Bag Depth Density Content
No. Sample in Feet Soil Description lb/cu ft X dry wt
1 2 5.0- 6.0 Clayey Fine to Medium 115.7 13.9
Sand
: 3 1 9.0-10.0 l.O- 2.0 Clayey Clayey Fine Fine Sand Sand 114.8 115.0 12.6 13.4
The general procedures used for the laboratory tests are described briefly
in Appendix B.
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOWENDATIONS
Soil Strata
Benton Engineering, Inc. inspected the placement of compacted filled
i
ground for Lots l! to 107, 210 to 218, 226 to 231, 247 and 248 of La Costa
I
Vale Unit 1. Major grading was completed on June 7, 1973. A final compacted
filled ground report dated February 28, 1974 was issued for La Costa Vale
i Unit 1.
Fill soils were encountered to depths of 20.0, 14.7, 1.0, and 6.3 feet,
respectively, in Borings 1 to 4. The log of Boring 1 indicates that the
fine sandy clay fill is loose for the upper 0.7 foot and compact to 3.5
feet. Compact clayey fine to medium sand fill which is mixed with 20-30
BENTON ENGINEERING. INC.
J -4-
percent silty clay begins at 3.5 feet and ends at 8.0 feet. Compact clayey
fine sand fill mixed with 20-30 percent silty clay soils were found between
8.0 and 20.0 feet, the extent of exploration.
Fill soils were observed at Boring 2 to a depth of 14.7 feet below
the ground surface and consisted of clayey fine sand which was loose in
the upper 0.7 foot and compact between 0.7 foot and 12.0 feet and also compact
clay was located between 12.0 and 14.7 feet. Underlying the fill soils
was very firm fine to medium sandy clay to 17.5 feet and very firm clay
located between 17.5 and 20.0 feet, the limit of exploration.
The soils encountered in Boring 3 consisted of silty clay fill which
was loose within the upper 7 inches and compact to 1.0 foot. Underlying
the fill soils was very firm silty clay with lenses of clayey fine sand .
between 1.0 foot and 2.5 feet, and no lenses observed from 2.5 to 15.0 feet,
the extent of exploration.
The log of Boring 4 indicates that clayey fine to medium sand fill
was loose within the upper 0.7 foot and compact from 0.7 foot to 6.2 feet,
the extent of fill soils. Natural, very firm silty fine sand underlies
the fill soils to a depth of 12.0 feet. Very firm clay begins at 12.0 feet
and ends at 17.0 feet. Located between 17.0 and 20.0 feet, the limit of
exploration, is very firm silty clay.
The relative compaction of the filled ground sampled below one foot
in depth as part of this investigation, varied from 90 to 95 percent of
maximum dry density. Nofreewaterwasencounteredintheseboringsdrilled12/28/88.
Conclusions and Reconmendations
Based on the findings in the field investigation and the results of
laboratory tests, it is concluded that the existing compact fill soils below
0.7 foot and natural soils will provide adequate support for the proposed
two-story buildings. The moderately to highly expansive fine sandy clay
and silty clay soils require special design and precautions for footings
C)E,.,TO," ENGINEERING. INC.
J
-5-
and concrete slab support.
The,following conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions
that are based upon the site investigation, laboratory test results, and
engineering analyses and calculations. These opinions have been derived
in accordance with current standards of practice. No warranty is expressed
or implied.
Allowable Bearing Value
Due to the presence of moderately to highly expansive soils, it is
recommended that only continuous interconnected reinforced concrete footings
be used throughout. One foot wide continuous footings placed 24 inches
into highly expansive soils may be designed using an allowable bearing value
of 2500 pounds per square foot. Reinforce and interconnect continuously ':
all interior and exterior footings with at least one #5 bar at 3 inches
above the bottom of all footings with at least one X5 bar placed 1.5 inches
below the top of the stems of the footings. Shallow depth isolated square
footings should not be used.
The estimated settlements of a one foot wide continuous footing supporting
a uniform load of 2500 pounds per lineal foot are on the order of l/8 inch.
The allowable bearing value presented is for dead plus live loads and
may be increased for combined dead, live, wind, and seismic loads.
It is our opinion that the use of a raised wood floor system is the
best solution to span between the continuous interconnected footings.
; A second alternative to the special design for expansive'soil conditions
I is to grade the building pads in such a manner as to remove all expansive
! soils within the upper 3 feet in the building areas and place and compact
nonexpansive soils within the upper 3.0 feet of subgrade.
If this was accomplished within the entire building area, plus 5 feet
beyond the perimeter footings, then minimum depth footings could be designed
RENTON ENGINEERING. INC.
-
J
-6-
using nonexpansive requirements and an allowable bearing value of 2500 pounds
per square foot.
Another possible third alternative for foundation design is to use
structurally designed post-tensioned concrete slabs or a thickened reinforced
concrete mat that will adequately resist differential expansion of the upper
expansive soils.
Expansive Soils
The results of the expansion tests indicate that the fine sandy clay
and silty clay soils are classified as moderately to highly expansive with
respect to volumetric change with change in moisture content. Design requirements
for,concrete slabs on grade for the expansive soils are presented on page 8
under "Concrete Slabs on Grade."
Site Gradinq
For Alternative One, existing loose fill which was encountered in the
upper 9 inches of Borings 1 to 4, should be removed and recompacted where
it exists below proposed finished subgrade. For the second alternative,
all expansive sandy clay and silty clay soils should be removed from the upper 3
feet of building areas plus 5 feet beyond the perimeter and either stockpiled or
hauled off site. The excavated areas should then be filled with either
select nonexpansive import silty sand and clayey sand soils or select on-site
clayey sand soils from Borings 2 and 4. Prior to placing any additional
fill above existing suitable soils, it is recommended that the upper 6 inches
of soil be scarified and moistened as necessary to achieve above optimum
moisture content, and shall be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum
dry density, in accordance with the "Standard Specifications for Placement
of Compacted Filled Ground" in Appendix AA.
Either select import or on-site soils should be placed at 2 to 4 percent
above optimum moisture content in layers of 6 inches in thickness and should
RENtON ENGINEERING. INC.
..-
J
-7-
be uniformly compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density as
determined by the ASTM D 1557-78 method to the proposed finished subgrade.
All compaction shall be done under continuous engineering inspection
with reliable field density tests taken at intervals not to exceed one foot
vertically and 100 feet horizontally.
Active and Passive Pre~ures
Cantilever-type retaining walls may be designed using an equivalent
fluid pressure of 35 pounds per cubic foot for level backfill provided soils
similar to the on-site clayey sands are used as backfill. An equivalent
fluid pressure of 53 pounds per cubic foot should be used for 2 horizontal
to 1 vertical slope backfill conditions with a maximum backfill height of
15 feet above the wall for the same type soil backfill. This assumes provisions
are made to prevent hydrostatic pressures from developing by allowing free
drainage to a perforated pipe subdrain placed at the base of the rear of
the wall or weep holes.
If any retaining walls are adjacent to occupied areas, the walls shall
be waterproofed and the perforated pipe shall be placed at a one foot minimum
below an adjacent interior concrete slab on ground and shall be encircled
with Mirafi 140 thatenvelopes a 1 foot width of pea gravel by 2 feet in
vertical height. The concrete slab on ground shall be protected from both
capillary and.free moisture by at least 4 inches of 3/4 inch crushed rock
or sand, a lO.bil polyethylene moisture vapor barrier and then 2 inches
of sand beneath the concrete slab.
For lateral resistance, an allowable passive pressure of 500 pounds
per square foot may be used at a depth of one foot in the compacted filled
ground and this may be increased at a rate of 200 pounds per square foot
for each additional foot below one foot. A coefficient of 0.42 is recommended
for the frictional resistance between the soil and the bottom of the footing.
RENTON ENGINEERING. INC.
i
-8-
The friction value should be reduced to 0.21 when combined with the allowable
passive pressure to determine the total allowable resistance to lateral
movements for seismic loading conditions.
Concrete Slabs on Grade
The results of the expansion tests on the more clayey soils within
the upper 4 feet below proposed finished grade indicate the soils to be
moderately to highly expansive. It should be understood that it is not
possible to design slabs on moderately to highly expansive soils, and prevent J
all movement. Therefore, it is our opinion that either raised wood floors
or post-tensioned concrete slabs be used if the expansive soils are allowed
to remain in the upper 3 feet.
If slabs on grade are placed on the expansive soils the following specis't
design and precautions have been used successfully in the past in the La Costa area
and are recommendedinorderto minimizethe possible detrimental effects:
1) A nominal welded wire fabric reinforcement in the center of the.slab
such as 6" x 6" by #lo/#10 is recommended. Provide a minimum lower
layer of 4 inches of 3/4 inch to 1 inch crushed rock, then a moisture
vapor barrier, then 2 inches of sand placed beneath the concrete slabs
on grade.
2) Separate garage slabs from perimeter footings by + inch thickness of
construction felt or equivalent, to allow independent movement of garage
slabs relative to perimeter footings. Assure complete separation by
extending the construction felt over the full depth of the front thickened
edge of the garage slab. Cut off garage door stops at least % inch
above the garage slab.
3) Presaturate the upper 3 feet of soils to 80 percent or greater saturation
for a week to 10 days prior to placing the foundations and slabs.
BEWON ENGINLLRING. INC.
-J
-9-
4) Provide positive drainage away from all perimeter footings'to a horizontal
distance of at least 6 feet outside the house walls.
If the expansive soils are left in place, the specific final design
of footings and concrete slabs on ground should take into account
these conditions.
Respectfully submitted,
BENTON ENGINEERING, INC.
BY Steven B. Richev
EIT No. 04034 "
Reviewed by
PhiliD H. B#nton
RCE No. 10332 and Geotechnical Engineer No. 138
Distribution: (3) Mr. Robert Campbell
SBR/PHB/jer
BENtO,” ENGINEERING. INC.
- ROB~TCAMPBELL &Co. . .
DEVELOPMENT
1568
HIGHUND
DRIVE
-
SOLANA
BEACH
CA 92075
619481-3235
.
July 26, 1989
SUBTECT: CT 89-1, PUD 89-l
To: Planning carmission
Iattmdedaseminar on Fkbrwry 23, 1989 titled "Grawth Expectatians '89" atwfiichMichaelwOlzmiller, Plannin gDirectorfortheCityof Carlsbad, spokeregamngcarlsbad'splanningstandal&. BecauseIwasworkingon thisprojectthatisbeforeyounow,his speechwasofparticular interest to IE. IwassoimpressedthatIsenthimaletter,whichIhaveenclosed for you.
I~Mr.Holpnillertellingthea~thathehasgoodnewsand badnews caningfrantheCityofCarlsbad. Tkegocdnewsisthatthe ~~Planhasalreadybeenestablishedandthatdlthaughtheplanning standamkareveryrestrictive,theordinanr=esareclear. Thebadnewsis thattheCitycounCilwillnatbudgeaninchf~thesestandards.
1tmademe feel securethatthenlleswerewell4efinedbecauseIamthe type of individual who follows the rules. As John F. Kennedy said on Sew 30, 1962: "~natianisf~antheprinciplethatobsenmnce ofthelawistheeternalsafeguardofliberty,and defiance of the law is the surest mad to *any." ~~arerules~ifI~natagreewiththemIcaneither+rvtohavle ~changedviathedemocraticprocessor~ldhanesinareaswherethe rules aredifferent.
I have followed all the rules, and based on old-fashioned Amrican fairness, Ikelievethatmyprojectshouldbeapproved. Ifthereareumrittenrules thatareaFplicable,IbelievethatitismlyfairthatIbead5&edof suchrulespriortomyplblichearingsothat1 canke sureqproject -lies. Ignoranceofthelaw (rules) iscextainlyno excuse;hmever, if the laws are not defined I do not believe it is proper to hold me liable.
Itisny intentiantodesignaprojectthatcarplieswithallthe rules. Ifanyruleshavertcrtbeencarpliedwith,itis~becauseIamattenpting tocircurmrenttheruleslxltbecauseIhavlenatbeenmade~of~
R~JHEHT CAMPBELL & Co. _ REAL
ISTATE
~E~ELcWMENT
.- 1568 Dl%+thl-3235 HIGHLAND ,
DRIVE CA 92075
‘_
.
Febntary 25, 1989
Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director CityofCarlsbad 2075 Las Palms Drive carlsbd, CA 92009
DearMr.m1zInille.r:
ItwaswithgreatinterestthatIlis~toyour~~ti~~ Ekbruaq 23, 1989 at the "m EXPECIRTI~ '89" seminar. '
I currently have a project 0X89-1) inprocesswiththeCityof . CarlsbadandIappreciateymrczcmmnts~ thefactthatthe
pmst=dards areveryrestrictiveandthattheCityCb.mcil Willnotbudgeaninch" franthesehighstandards. SUChClear . cmmmicationto~loperscanhopefullyavoidrrpst~ astowhattherulesare. Inmyopinion,ifadevlelaper cn@ains thit "the rules are not fair", heshouldeitherdevelophisprojectsin otherareasorwxkonhavingtheruleschangedviathedemcratic
process=
* -
- ROBERTCAMPBELL & Co. REAL
ESTAYT - - DE~TLDPMFM
. .
:I. rid J ) ,,i ./ J ,,I ;. !. , ,‘,:j
,. ‘,
; tcjl’ :
! JtiLy 26, 1989 I;/ ,,i
f’i: a
1568 HIGHLMJP
DRlvE
SOLANA
RFAC-H CA 92075
SUBJECT: CJ! 89-1, PUD 89-l. Interactionof Robe.rtcarrpbell,builder, and nei~residentsregardingproposedproject.
X3: Planningoomnis!3ion StaffPlanning StaffEbgineering
The purpose of this letter is to docmentanddescribemyactivities in ~~andmeetingwiththenei~~residentsinordertoexplain nyprwpsedpncojectmre fullyandlistentoanysuggestions/concems that theymyhave. EVents inchmnolcgicalo&er.
1) On July 8, 1989, a letter (Exhibit A) was sent to John Jensen who resides at 3314 Azahar Place, Carl&ad, CA.
2) On July 14, 1989, a letter (Exhibit B) was sent to all residents who live within the 600 foot radius oftheproposedpmject.
3) On Ably 17, 1989, I mat with John Jensen (3314 Azahar Place), Prank Dixon (3112 Ievante Street), and Nigel Bonnie (3311 La Costa Avenue) at the site. I anSeredtheirquestions regardingtheproject, lccatedthepropertylines, ~~thearientatianofthelxlildings,balconies,anddriveway, showed locaticnof -walls, identified fenceheights, anddiscussed set-backs. Ialsopointed~tthatthe~tchesalongthenorthernslape~reclogged Withd&risandvegetaticmandmybe thecauseof slopeerosionthatwas mnticmedatthepublichearing. Ishow&theneighbxshowneighbring pmpertymhadusedslope landscapingtocreateprivacy for their yards and hams. Frank Dixm was given a set of plans to help at future neighborhood ~~~~~~ly4houronsite,~~ttorrank Dixon'shome
.
lbeitgibjof m-as follatss: 1) heightof fencing: 2) that landscaping alongImanteStxeetbed.nWi.nedbythe Hammmer's Association; 3) height of buildings; 4) square footageofbuildingsandthenmberofbedroorrrs (mre bedroonrsneans~carsandwhere~dthecarspark);5)hanes~ldbe convertedtorentdlsafter2years ofcwmxccupancy(John Jensen wmldprefer thatrenterS~liveabovehim);6)thatfuture~l~ton~four(4) ~j~t~cantprapertiesbedrrnesimilarto~praposedprojectversusthe 1Otlnitccsldaniniumprojecttothescuth;7)thatthecamnn area 'View Point" willaffectthepriMcyofthehQnestothenorthatthebottanofthe slope; 8) the sizeof the trees thateillbe pl.an~alongLevante Street.
610 491.1,‘15
Page 2
Theitmsofneritwreas follows: 1) decreasing the density of the project from,9 units to 8 units; 2) theattractivenessof the landscaped islandat theentrancetotheproject;3) thenmberofbuildings (fmr)creaWa mre interestingproject; 4) varyingthebuildingheightscreates acre interesting project.
In~,ourrrreetingwasaneoflrreproviding~o~~aboutthe specifics of the project. Thethreeresidentsaskedmanyquestionsand theirconcemswereofageneralnature. I askedthemthatany suggestims beofaspecificnature,inwriting,andbeprovidedtomeas~yas possible (becauseof timconstra*ts). I statedthatanypotential c$ngqm&dbe subjflctto~reviewas~l!.asthea~oftheCity FrankDixon~thata2ndneigNxlrfiood meetlngwasscheduled for July 20,' 1989 and that he muld try% have specific ConcerM and/or suggestions for me the next day.
4) ch July 21, 1989, I called John Jensen, Frank Dixon, and Nigel Bonnie requestingwrit~concerm and/orsuggestionsfmnthsmwhichresultedfrvn theneighborhoodneetings. Ileftmssagesontheiranqmringmzhines.
5) Qn July 24, 1989, John Jensen returned my call of July 21, 1989. He infofirred~thataletterwasbe~draftedbyFrankD~regardingthe neighborhocdconcems. AftertalkingwithJohn Jensen, IcalledF%ankDimn tiseewhenIcouldexpecttmreceivetheirletter. HewasnothcmsoI 1eftanmsageanhi.s answeringmachine. I also called Nigel Ekmnie requesting information. I3ewasnothcsesoIleftamessageonhismachine.
6) CXJuly24,1989, I receivedacallfmnS~eDixon. shesaidthather husbandFrankhadbeenextremzlybmyandwasnotableti ansmr Ily calls.
She informdme that another neighborhcodnrsetingwas set for July 26, 1989.
7) Ca July 25, 1989, I received a call fmn Nigel Bonnie. He said that hewuldbring scsething inwriting tony ham at 11:00 AMWednesday, July
26. In~tele~oonversati~,hetold~hisletterwcruldbepraposing that less harres be built on the site, specifically four instead of eight. His~wasthattheproj~wastoodenseal~~l~liedwiththe developmental~ts. Mr.Bonniesaidthathewasawareofthezoning and~~densityofthefivevacantlats~heplrchasedkis~; ~,hebelievesthatal~densitywouldbe~ccmpatiblewiththE! ,, smmmdiqneighborhood. I j I,0 i "I:,, ,,, ; , I ,. ';: , I
Inconclusion,Ihaveattenptedtonreetand cxamunicatiwiththenei~r- :' hoodresidentstohear,understand,and~iderthleirsu~ti~. Asof July 25, 1989 I have not received anything in writing fran them The only specific concernwasverbally camunicatd to me by Nigel Bonnie, as describedinparagraph #7 above. ,' I.,! ' I( ,t, -
.
Page 3
Although I amnotopposedto receivingandreviewingany future in@ franthe nieghborhodresidents, I amwritingthisletteratthisdate fortimconsiderations. Staffhasinfonredmethatallitemstobe suhnittedtothePlannin g Cmmission prior to the August 2, 1989 hearing, nustberecei.vedbyStaffnolaterthat Wednesday morning, July 26, 1989.
~abjectiveistonot~ybuildaresidentidlprojectthat~~dll the developtEIl~ staradards ,of$heCityofCarlsbad,buttobuilda project that* canallbeproudof. Ink0rkingdiligentlywithStaff PlanningandStaffEngineering,Ibelievethatwlehavedesignedsuch aproject.
Sincerely,
enclosures
c
k~ iIs1 It’1 ~AhlI’WiLL & CC,
-_. __._ -
KI .I
12,.*1t
‘tLtl< I’LltNr
d
I xl.3 SOlANA
tik.llL.~hll -. BEACH
1klk.t CA92075
L‘X ,h, I?>>
.- Ej(f-g~ [ T- “A”
July 8, 1989
Mr. John Jensen 3314 Azahar Place , Carlsbad, CA 92008 '
Dear Mr. Jensen:
I am writing this letter to you personally because it appears that you have taken the responsibility of organizing any neighborhood meetings that might take i! place for the purpose of discussing and analyzing my _:- proposed project (PUD 89-1, CT 89-1). i. .z :.
I would like to tell you that I would be happy to.' -. attend any neighborhood meetings and help explain the proposed project and listen to the group's concerns. I would like to hear any suggestions that are voiced, and whenever possible, I will try to work with the * ;.
neighbors to make this an even better project.
Please understand that our interests are mutual. We both want a nice project that we can all be proud of for years to come.
I would look forward to meeting with the neighbors to discuss the merits of the project as well as the concerns that you have.
If you are aware to any meetings that you have not personally organized, I would appreciate you notifying them of the offer I am making to you. I;( :
Sincerely,' !, !I!,
:‘:..I-. (, .f,’ j’ 1.
-1 i
‘{;A:
I I :
I’ Robert Campbell ,',,j .fi ! ! ;.: ,. . '.
cc: Carlsbad Planning Commission Carlsbad Planning Department Carlsbad Engineering Department
ROBERTCAMPBELL&CO. RML -* ‘STAlE J!ZVELOPMENT
1568 -. SOUNA
HIGHUND BEACH
DRIM CA 92075
- -EXtiIBIT “6” _-
July 14, 1989
SUBJECT: An eight home Planned Unit Development (PUD 89-1, CT 89-l) on Levante Street in Carlsbad. Parcel No: 223-171-20
Dear Neighbor:
My name is Robert Campbell and I am planning to build eight homes in your neighborhood. .'
I am writi& this letter to encourage you to call me with any questions, suggestions, or concerns that you may have regarding these homes.
Our interests in this proposed project are to our mutual benefit. As a North County resident for 38 years as well as a second generation builder, my roots go deep in this area. It is my objective to build ,homes that we can all be proud of for years to come.
If you and any other local residents would like to meet as a group, it would be my pleasure to attend such neighborhood meetings.
I look forward to talking and/or meeting with you to discuss both the merits of the project as well as any concerns or suggestions that you may have.
Very truly yours,
619481.3235
Robert Campbell
-_
MINUTES
-
DRAFT
August 2. 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 2 COMMISSIONERS ’
DRAFT \ \ 5 ?A - “0 %
f Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney, noted that Alan S. Rich, attorney for the applicant, has written a letter to the Planning Director dated August 2, 1989 requesting withdrawal of the item from the agenda. A copy of the letter is on file with these minutes.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to accept the request for withdrawal from the agenda of PCD 89-4.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
1) CT 89-l/PHD 89-1 ROBERT CAMPBELL - Request to construct four duplexes totaling eight units on .79 acres of land located on the north side of Levante Street, west of La
Costa Avenue, in the RD-M Zone, Local Facilities Management Zone 6.
Commissioner Erwin requested to be excused due to a conflict of interest. He left the room.
Commissioner Schlehuber requested that the record show that although he was not in attendance at the July 5, 1989 meeting to hear the original presentation of this item, he has read the entire package, listened to the tapes of the meeting, and
is familiar with the subject matter.
Mike Howes, Principal Planner, gave a slide presentation of
the site and reviewed the background of the request. He stated that CT 89-l/PULl 89-l was continued from the July 5 Planning Commission in order to allow a concerned group of neighborhood residents more time to review the project and to
allow time for the applicant to address concerns of the Planning Commission. The applicant's resolution of the issues are:
(a) Refuse Collection - Coast Waste Management does not
want a trash receptacle and would prefer pickup of trash at the curb.
(b) Parking - Guest parking was modified to 13' to allow better maneuverability.
(c) Hailing Labels - After staff review of the mailing
label list, it was determined to be current. New notices were sent out, including notices to those residents who spoke at the July 5 meeting.
(d) Building Height - Due to the 15' setback, staff has
determined that the building height is satisfactory.
(e) Fence Height - The fence height along the north
property line will be 6' except for the common area which will be 42". Low shrubs will be planted along the fence in the common area.
Staff recommends approval since this project complies with
all applicable ordinances. Mr. Howes noted three minor
corrections which needed to be made to the resolutions:
. Resolution 62869, page 1, line 16, to read I, . . . Commission hereby approves the Negative...".
Erwin
Hall Holmes
Marcus McFadden Schlehuber
Schramm
_-
MINUTES
DRAFT
. Resolution //2885, page 1, line 2, to read II . ..California. approving a nine lot...".
. Resolution 112885, page 1, line 23. to read I, . ..Commission approves CT 89-l/PUD 89-l...".
Chairman Hall inquired if the bank falling away from the
property belongs to someone else. Mr. Howes replied that it does.
Chairman Hall opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak.
Robert Campbell, 1568 Highland Drive, Solana Beach, addressed the Commission and stated that he agrees with staff's findings and that his project will provide a nice transition
between R-l to the north, east, and west, and the higher densities and commercial parcel to the south. He added that the "village" appearance will be an appealing addition to the neighborhood. providing more affordable family housing in the
area. To his knowledge, he has met all ordinance requirements. In addition, he has attempted to meet with the neighbors to answer questions and respond to their concerns.
Commissioner Holmes inquired if Mr. Campbell is familiar with the soils report regarding site grading and slabs on grade.
Mr. Campbell replied that he was.
Commissioner McFadden inquired about the price range of the units and Mr. Campbell replied that they would be in the
$250,000 range, depending on market conditions.
Commissioner McFadden inquired if Mr. Campbell was successful in meeting with the other residents in the area. He replied
that he had met with three neighbors but was not invited to the neighborhood meetings.
Frank Dixon, 3112 Levante, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission
and stated that a group of the neighbors had met weekly since the July 5th public hearing to discuss the consequences of
the proposed project. Mr. Dixon stated that he had been
designated the spokesperson for 17 persons in attendance. Mr. Dixon stated that the major objections of the group are that (1) the homes are designated for families but do not provide adequate rear yard space for children to play thereby
causing them to play in the front yards, (2) the entrance to the project is opposite the entrance to a proposed fire station, (3) the size of the units are too large for the space allotted, and (4) the neighborhood elementary school is
currently overbrowded. He concluded by stating that approval
of the project will set a negative precedent for the area.
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if staff had received documentation from the school district indicating whether or not they could accommodate additional children as a result of
this project. Mr. Howes replied that each time an application is received, the school district is sent a letter as required by the Local Facilities Management Plan. The school district has responded that there are adequate facilities to support Mr. Campbell's project.
Andrew Solonie, 3105 La Costa Avenue, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he started out as an opponent of the project until he met with Mr. Campbell, and is now a proponent. He is impressed with the tasteful design of the
August 2, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 3 COMMISSIONERS
MINUTES
FT
project and the thought behind it, especially due to the fact
that zoning would permit a g-unit apartment project.
Nigel Bonnie, 3311 La Costa Avenue, Carlsbad, addressed the
Commission and stated that the neighbors agree with the previous speaker regarding the design, however they feel it is being put in the wrong location, that the $250,000 price
tag does not address affordability, and there is a potential danger to children. They are also concerned about inadequate parking.
Vern Pollack, 7595 Dehesa Court, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he knows none of the people in the
audience but is concerned that if the adjacent four lots are permitted to also construct eight homes, it will result in 40 homes on four acres.
Rich Barnes, 2417 Levante, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he has reviewed the plans and is in favor of the project. He likes the design and feels it is designed better than most of the surrounding homes. He stated that
the major objection seems to be a loss of privacy but suggested that those homeowners down below had to assume when they purchased their homes that something would be built in
the future on the lots above them.
In rebuttal, Mr. Campbell stated that (1) parking conforms to
all ordinances and standards; (2) neighbors should not be able to dictate how many bedrooms a home should have as long as it conforms to the requirements; (3) the sales price of
the homes will be determined by the costs incurred; (4) his architect has informed him that the drawings provided by the opponents are not to scale; and (5) he does not feel the area is unsafe to children. He added that he has no control over vehicles speeding on Levante Street.
There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman Hall declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the
Commission members.
Chairman Hall inquired about the size of the homes in
relationship to the back yards. Mike Howes replied that all
back yards meet the minimum requirements of the PUD ordinance which is that at least one portion of the yard must have a useable area of 15 sq. ft.
Chairman Hall inquired if the parking meets the code. Mike Howes replied that four guest parking spaces are required for eight units and this project does meet the code.
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired about the density of the project across the street. Mike Howes believes it has a higher density than the proposed project because it was built several years ago and the units are all attached.
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired about a project in the area that resembles a motel. Mike Howes replied that an applicant would not be able to build a similar structure today, but that it met the ordinance at the time it was built which was
prior to 1980.
Commissioner McFadden inquired about the court ruling on
5/l/89 regarding discretionary permits which states that planning commissions do have the discretion to decide on the aesthetics of a project even though they meet all codes and
August 2, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 4 COMMISSIONERS
MINUTES FT \ \. %
-
DRAFT
August 2, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 5 COMMISSIONERS ’
regulations. Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, replied that this commission had previously denied projects based on compatibility to surrounding area. The important issue is being able to make the findings and if a project is denied,
there must be valid reasons.
Commissioner McFadden noted that this project is the first of five and since the lots are located primarily in an R-l area, it is difficult to determine compatibility.
Commissioner Holmes feels that Mr. Campbell has researched the area and is responding to the market. He has responded to all of the Commission's concerns.
Commissioner Schlehuber feels that trees can be planted on
the back slope if that owner desires more privacy, although he would have to plant them himself. Since Mr. Campbell has met the requirements, he does not feel we can require a redesign. Regarding the fire station, he noted that his
family, with seven young children, originally lived across from the Chestnut Street fire station and there was never a safety problem. He can support the project.
Commissioner Marcus stated that she had no problems with the project last time and she appreciates the fact that Mr. Campbell has met the concerns which were raised by the Commissioners. She is happy that the parking is now better
and that perhaps the owners of the other lots will conform to the tone that Mr. Campbell is attempting to provide. She can support the project.
Connnissioner McFadden feels that the applicant has only complied with the minimum standard. She cannot support it because she is concerned about the future. She thinks it
should be stepped back which would require a reduction in the square footage of the units.
Commissioner Schraxxa agrees with Commissioner McFadden. She does appreciate the fact that Mr. Campbell will only build eight units when the zone would permit nine; however, she would like the project stepped back from the slope. Even
though the project is exempt from the hillside ordinance, she doesn't feel it meets the intent of the ordinance.
Commissioner Holmes does not believe the Planning Commission
should dictate what a developer can build if he meets all of the requirements, nor can they determine the price tag. He can support the project since the applicant has answered the
original concerns of the Commission.
Chairman Hall thinks the applicant has done an adequate job and that this project is better than an apartment unit would
be on the site. He can support it.
Commissioner Schlehuber noted that although the City does not dictate the actual product placed on a parcel, the ordinances all dictate the quality of the product and this project meets those ordinances.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2869 approving the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2885 approving CT 89-l/PDD 89-l based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein, with three minor corrections to the resolutions as noted in the verbal staff presentation.
Erwin Hall
Holmes Marcus McFadden Schlehuber
Schramm
--
DRAFT
,
.-
MINUTES
\\\\\
\ ?
August 2, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6 COMMISSIONERS
Commissioner McFadden requested that the record show she could not support the project because she cannot make Finding 115, that the project is compatible with the future land uses.
RECESS
The Planning Cormnission recessed at 6:55 p.m. and reconvened
at 7:Ol p.m.
2) SDP 89-10 PACIFIC JEEP/EAGLE - Request for approval of a Site Development Plan to construct an auto dealership for the sales and service of Jeep/Eagle automobiles in the Car Country Expansion, in the C-2-Q Zone, Local
Facilities Management Zone 3.
Gary Wayne, Principal Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that a site development plan for the
proposed project was heard before the Planning Commission on June 21, 1989 and subsequently denied without prejudice. At that time the Commission expressed concerns regarding architectural detail of the west elevation, height of the
proposed structure, and size of the equipment penthouse. The applicant has revised his plans in response to the Commission's concerns.
(f > West Elevation - The applicant has now added a mission tile roof element along the west elevation.
(g) Building Height and Penthouse - The applicant has lowered the showroom floor and basement by 1' and the
showroom ceiling by 2' resulting in a net reduction of 3' to
the height of the building. The equipment penthouse has been replaced with a low screen wall that further reduces the building mass.
In addition to the above, the applicant has included a female
employee's locker room and a slumpstone wall between the transformer and employee eating area. The parts storage in the basement was increased by 1.000 sq. ft. and one parking space was added. All requirements have been met and staff recommends approval.
Commissioner Erwin inquired about the overall reduction in grade; he thought it was originally 5' above grade. Gary
Wayne replied that the original project was actually 33' (3' above grade) which has now been remedied.
Cormnissioner Erwin inquired if this means that they will not be at street level. Gary Wayne replied that the revised structure will actually sit on the same level as the lowest point of Car Country Drive adjacent to the site.
Commissioner McFadden inquired about the height of the west facing wall with the new facade. Gary Wayne replied that the architect could probably respond to this question.
Chairman Hall opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak.
Ronald Sakahara, 3190-K Airport Loop, Costa Mesa, a partner in the architectural firm of Lee & Sakahara Associates,
representing the applicant, addressed the Connnission and in answer to Commissioner McFadden's question stated that the revised service building from the slab to the top of the clay tile roof is now 19' and 26.5' to the top of the crown of the parapet. There was no change in the actual height of the
west building but there is a net drop of 3' in the front
Office of the City Clerk
APPEAL FORM
I (We) appeal the following decision of the d LAiwbld-
l?4mwGad to the City douncil:
Project Name and Number (or subject of appeal): Ro c&T C&fkfYLL Pwpti‘ l
e UPJr’TT (Is x bvfLe3crr) (P-J &M-rJx- ww7,r!4 Laft-4 ,
@q -I /pod 8‘4 - 1,
Date of Decision: Awhq~. 2 p3 /q S"'I o
Reason for Appeal: k-l%S It4 ~v*%wG- ?f-Rtf+ a0 iv87 tici1"7
'i2jfj5. 7-lq-l s flcO3& 'T_- f.J Gfd-mM fi1n-l cxKJ7d~ Ctiwplr
Date Signature
bm5-L. A. &uNy
Name (Please Print)
3311 LA f-ST/l Avefv"5
Address
b- cos; , q2-bdq
cl43 m-fly- .
Telephone Number
SILLDORF,BURDMAN,DUIGNAN & EISENMXRC
I
/ ,
HOWARD J. SILLDORP
SCOT A. BURDMAN”
LAWRENCE D. DUIGNAN’
JAY R. EISENBERG
DEBORAH M. KORNHEISER
THERESA M. FlLlClA
WILLIAM C. KURIMAY
*A PROFES*,ON*L CORPORATION
“ALSO IDMITrED TO THE OHIO BAR
A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
A’l-l-ORNEYS A-l- LAW
1610 STATE STREET
SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92101-2514 -
(619) 239-59’30 FAX (6191 239-1633
REPLY TO FILE
September 12, 1989
787/l
Mayor Bud Lewis
Mayor Pro-Tern Ann Kulchin
Council Member Eric Larson
Council Member Mark Pettine
Council member John Mamaux
Carlsbad City Council
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Re: ROBERT CAMPBELL, CT 89-l/PUD 89-1
Dear City Council:
I am writing to you in regard to the approved Planned Unit Development
referenced above, which has been appealed and set for hearing on Tuesday,
September 12, 1989. As counsel for Mr. Robert Campbell, I have reviewed the
Carlsbad Planning Commission’s reports and approval resolution, applicable zoning
regulations and case law, and have met with a group of La Costa residents associated
with the appeal in order to examine the facts and issues affecting this matter. Pursuant
to that review, I urge you to uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of CT 89-
l/PUD 89-l and to deny the appeal.
The project approved by the Planning Commission as CT 89-l/PUD 89-l will be
private community of eight 3 bedroom duplex patio-homes located on Levante Street
near the intersections of La Costa Avenue and Centrella Street. Designed to be a
medium-high density resident-owned project, it will be an attractive complement to the
existing community and the future homes in the area surrounding it, which is also
zoned for multi-family projects.
The objections made by neighboring residents regarding Mr. Campbell’s patio-
home project center around a contention that the project is not “compatible” with the
community (See Exhibit A, attached hereto). At a neighborhood meeting on September
-
clarification of the residents’ objections. At that time, issues relating to the size of the
*,‘units, the perceived lack of useable yard space, and possible parking and/traffic
problems were raised, and an outline of the objections was presented to us (See
Exhibit 8, attached hereto). Below, I have summarized the objections and provided
responses to them:
1. The planned patio homes are “not the average-sized three bedroom
attached homes...” The result is to reduce the total yard space...”
This objection is simply incorrect. Examination of real estate listings for
three bedroom duplex units in the la Costa area show the average size to be
2,047 square feet, and the average size of all duplex units in La Costa to be
2,380 square feet (See Exhibit C, attached hereto). The planned duplex patio-
homes for Levante Street will be 2,054 square feet each, clearly compatible with
the average size of other patio-homes in La Costa. Further, the lower density
design of this project provides greater open landscape area, including 21 foot
wide open landscape between the patio homes, than would otherwise be
available;
2. The planned development will negatively impact traffic and parking
on Levante Street due to “less than average area available for off
street parking...”
Parking for residents of the proposed project is provided for by
personal two-car garages and dedicated guest-only parking. This clearly
provides ample off-street parking for the complex. Further, through the
use of the CC&R’s for the complex, parking and garage use will be
regulated to maintain standards that not only preserve property values but
control off-site parking (See exhibit D, attached hereto). Notwithstanding
any internal regulation of parking and/or garage use, City planners found
that the proposed project would not have significant impact on traffic or
parking on Levante Street (See exhibit E, page 4, attached hereto).
3. The proposed project is not “consistent with the specific location
proposed” and “ignores” the “relationship” between the zoning
density regulations and size of individual units.
With these complaints, the homeowners seem to be suggesting that
the Campbell project is of a greater density than would be consistent with
its zoning. Actually, the project “density of IO d.u.‘s per acre is within the
density range of 8 to 15 d-u’s per acre specified for the site...” (See
Exhibit F, Page I, attached hereto), and is below th growth-control point
of 11.5 d.u. per acre. Recognizably, the Appellant’s complaints have
been to the extent that the units’ scale is to large for the area. However,
it is clear that the large units provide for a lower density design than would
I / a greater number of smaller units. To wit, the City planners have noted
that “alternative scale of the development would be more intense to be in
fuller conformance with -land use designations...” (Exhibit E, p.6).
The Campbell project on Levante Street will be an attractive addition to the La
Costa Community. Although the residents bringing appeal to the City Council may be
sincere in their concerns regarding development in the community, the objections they
raise are not valid when considered in the light of the project’s conformance with all
zoning and Planning Commission regulations.
I look forward to answering any questions you may have on Tuesday, September
12, 1989.
Best Regards,
SILLDORF, BURDMAN, DUIGNAN
& EISENBERG, A Partnership
of Professional Corporations
Howard J. Silldorf /
Attorney at Law
hjs/erb/tls
>cmbl-prj.let
1200 ELM AVENUE
CAdLSBAD, CALtFORNlA 92008 _’
Ofllce of lhe Clly Clerk
Mitu LJf clklrlfibrtEt
FORM APPEAL
I (We) appeal the following decision of the _
.ClT) m&-j pco rELEPtiONE .cu. I’ Cl ERE(‘S eFf,(, (619) 434-2808
03nuG 1s P/I /: 44
C’Ty OF m-s/J&) flQ-\ bl,( (Jo. y r4.Ty, \ ’ ‘- ’ .I- - .._. r;l <‘I, ;” 4 4p - G\ x4. ~,.,J~&’ y ‘-* c , \
? ? L-/1wtit Al li- L4wtit Al li-
03nuG 1s P/I /: 44
CITY OF (-a-.
flQ. n 1
c.4 Pw 1 ~c?-l old to the City Council:
Project Name and Number (or subject of appeal): /70 YL Q.7 C'fpdAk'L L /'At\ j if---l.- 7‘ '
8 VP-Jr .P (+ x 9vfct3crs ) b--J Lt‘wrm- $7-Q&5- / 14 L.o.n.-fl ,
f&q - 1 / pJb 8.~1 - I,
Date of Decision: fluL1q T' a rrl /y c! "'I , -~
Reason for Appeal: ?qc?~~~ Id Sul..l.JV.Q&rti(i /lml bo I\b? fl-crc~[~'i~
Date Signature
h&L jj. k&W7
Name (Please Print)
Address
“I43 m-/-I y- .
Telephone Number
EXHIBIT A
Presentation by La Costa Residents
Planning Commission Hear!ng
August 2, 1989
Ref : PUD 89-1 Parcel 223-171-20
Applicant : Mr. Robert Campbell
Contents :
1) Outline of Presentation
2) Graphic - Proposed Relationship No. Bedrooms vs.’ Units
3) 3)
4) 4)
51 51
6) 6)
Graphic - Average size of Attached Family Homes in La Costa Graphic - Average size of Attached Family Homes in La Costa
Graphic - Total Home Area on Lot Avg. vs. Proposed Graphic - Total Home Area on Lot Avg. vs. Proposed
Graphic - Plot Plan and Elevations Showing all Units : Graphic - Plot Plan and Elevations Showing all Units :
Graphic - Detail of Plot Plan Showing Back Yards’ Graphic - Detail of Plot Plan Showing Back Yards’ ‘.’ ‘.’
‘. ‘. ‘. ‘.
.j . .j . ‘( i $..‘.t!it ‘( i $..‘.t!it i, al i i i, al i i
,, :.‘I>‘*, :, ; ,I%
- . . . .~ ,~,“.
EXHIBIT B
Outline of Presentation to Planning mmission
Ref : PUD 89-1, CT 89-1, Levante St. Parcel 223-171-20
I Thank the Commission for giving us the time to review the proposed development and Mr. Campbell for
.tieeting wilh us. -
A. Identify the group for whom we are speaking ( number 01 people all residents oi the area, stand).
B. We feel that we can make a constructive contribution because our concerns extend beyond narrow
self interest to that of the satety and character of the neighborhood.
II. We have used the additional time to put together materials that would allow us to understand and analyzc
the effects of the proposed development. From this analysis we have developed two major points that we
would expect to receive consideration. We believe that both of these points can be addressed within the
framework of the existing zoning regulations if the size of these units were to be reduced.
A. THESE ARE CLEARLY HOMES FOR FAMILIES WITH CHILT.~REN, HOWEVER, DUE TO THE LARGE SIZE
AND NUMBER OF UNITS ON THIS ONE LOT, THERE IS NOT AN ADEQUATE AND SAFE AREA IN
WHICH THESE CHILDREN CAN PLAY. ADD THIS TO THE LOCATION ON LEVANTE ST. AND AN
ADDITIONAL NUMBER OF CARS AND WE CAN NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THIS DEVELOPMENT
MAKES SENSE AT THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION.
8. WE UNDERSTAND AND AGREE WITH THE ZONING OF 8 TO 15 UNITS PER ACRE; HOWEVER, WE
SUBMIT THAT THERE IS A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SIZE AND TYPE OF UNITS AND THE
NUMBER OF UNITS. BASED UPON NUMBER OF BEDROOMS AND SQUARE FOOTAGE THIS
DEVELOPMENT IGNORES THIS RELATIONSHIP AND THE RESULT IS INADEQUATE TO MEET THE
NEEDS OF IT’S FUTURE OCCUPANTS AND WILL EFFECT THE COMMUNITY.
1. Assuming a linear relationship between number of units and type of units (that is to say
number of bedrooms), 8 three bedroom homes of average size is not far off the mark of 8.16
units on this lot (graphic).
2. The issue is that these are not the average sized 3 bedroom attached homes. Based upon
real estate blue book listings for the La Costa Area, single family attached homes, the average
size is 1722 sq. ft. If we multiply the hypothetical 8.16 3 bedroom units by 1722 sq ft. we get
a total area of the homes of 14,057 sq. ft. This development proposes 16400 sq. ft. (graphic).
The result is reduce the total yard space of the units by more area than the average 3
bedroom home.
3. “r’he result is less than average area available for offstreet parking and safe play area tor
children. While there are locations, such as cul-de-sacs, where this could be accommodated,
we are convinced that Levante St. is not such a location. The existing mixture of pedestrian
children and traffic makes it absolutely necessary that at least average offstreet parking and
safe play areas exist within this development.
III. In the interest of saving time and not repeating ourselves, we have designated another speaker to detail our
findings as to the inadequacy of the development as proposed on the present site.
We have other concerns for which this one development can not be held accountable :
- the precedent it sets for the adjacent 4 vacant lots
the effect on our schools (one is less than 3 years old with as many as 32 children in one classroom,
another not yet opened and 100 students over expected class load) - down to what will 16 to 24 garbage cans look like when lined up along the sidewalk in front of this
development.
We can hold this development resoonsible for orovidincl adequale offstreet aarkinq and.s.kplav ares..&
the intended occupants. In closing, we are not opposed lo the number of units, provided they can provide
at least the average requirements necessary lo accommodate the families that will live In them.
I-- .-.
.A’ VI.-
.: ,.’ _
.J
For reasons of safety and quality of life, we object to the placement of 8 larqe familv hQmes on thlg_particular
lot because of it’s small size and location on a street 8lreadv 0~s~ with children and traffic;.
A.,./, These 2050 sq. ft., 3 bedroom homes are clearly designed for families with children. The size of tl~t! I’ area around these homes that is not driveway clearly does not provide a safe area for these children
to play (see yraphic).
1) Due to the slope on the right side and the angle of the property line on Ihe loft side, the averayti
depth of the level backyards is 10 feet. In some places this narrows to as little as 7 feet.
2) The common central area is entirely concrete and consists of the driveways for 8 double garayc)s
and 4 off street parking places. It is this area and the area along Levante St. that will become the
children’s play area.
B. The inadequacy of the guest parking will cause on street parking. This will have an effect on the
visibility at the entrance to the development. The location of this entrance is at a location of periodic
bursts of traffic and pedestrian children.
1) Given the fact that there are only 4 offsite parking places, it is reasonable to assume that there could
be as many as an additional 4 cars parked along Levante St. This would reduce visibility at tht!
entrance and increase the danger to small children.
2) The immediate proximity includes several features that generate bursts of traffic, pedestrian children
and some unusual traftic features. The traffic pattern caused by these features can not !ully
understood by considering the “average number of daily trips” (see graphic).
A fire station on the lot directly across from the entrance of the development.
The Presbyterian Church
The Boys and Girls Club on Centralla St.
The Elementary School, La Costa Heights
e) The La Costa Day School
In conclusion, the large family homes on small lots without a safe area for the children of the future
occupants of these homes is not consistent with the specific location proposed. It is our position that smaller
homes with larger back yards and more off street parking are a necessity given the context of this
development.
I ,4/ I : 1. . .-. _
-_
ZT- ---~- _-.---- __lll_._
,.‘I
/ I’ No. of Units vs No. Bedrooms per Unit on 0.79 Acres at 8 to 15 Units / Acre
Unlfs on 0.78 Acres 14
0 1 2 3 4 I Unlfrr on 0.78 Am?8 m ll.85 10.01 8.16 6.32
X Axis - Number of Bedrooms
Average Sq. Ft. vs. Number Bedrooms
Single Family Attached Home La Costa
Avg. No. Sq. Ft. per Home 2500
2000
1 2 3 4 1_-.-.--,
1018 7350 1722 1870 I X Axis - Number of Bedrooms
dourcs : aoat Eatelo alus Book
-.- _. ---_- ~__---- ---_ .__-.-___- ___ --_ --______- - ---
--
%
. a; qj K Qj 6 * Fj G L (j ~hhw.hhhl.-+Fh * 2: s?
l z
sji
*s”
z-
0:
,.
T::
w?
-x:
3 ‘?I<, *!.
---_--_- . ..-- -_---- I--------: -_----. ._...-. ---
.-.
,
i <T ,. .’ - (*
/”
Fk
Y” LL+ ‘-J-c 0
2%
a3 LJ’-L
a_ \ \\ \ z
7
f I
I
I
I
I
I
-
\ -
8 Y 2 I’
Q I u ,I,‘,‘;
,l,l)~l~l,
I
;
I I I I
‘-+ ’
‘I’I’I’I’I’
‘I’I’A’I’ I I]I,I,I,I
::1 I: ‘I55
h
% I’ c.3
I \ e
Q 2
III 5
I’ A WA Wf Ial I
1’1’1’1’1’1’1
I’I’l’I’I’I’I
1’1’I’I’l’I’I
r+++-‘+
,I,I,I,I I I
A’ ’
I’ ?
I % c.3
@
.,I 4;
, .I4 .._
\ x-
-
T
;i );t:
B
;: I 1 ;: ‘,‘,‘~I,
,I$ I’I’I’I’I
I I I I I I
G
,I I I I I I
I I I
L
I
I’I
‘I’I’I’I’I’
Ls
I’I’I’I’ c3 I I,I,I
lIlI!Tk
2
5
‘I’
0 Ii
I i,: :- : 1 __I
:: (8 :i I?
14:
J
smr : Size of "Twin-horn" typz properties on the mrkct in the Iil CQsta area
SOURCE: San Diquito Multible Listing Service, dated July 20, 1989
1. 6704 Antilop Street 3/2 1369 2. 2741 Abejorro 3/2 1370 3. 6839 Urubu Street 3/2 1370 4. 2503 I~vante Street 3/2 1756 5. 2449 Ibz37ant.e Street 3/2 1859 6. 6829 El Fuerte Street 3/2 2450 7. 2810 Cazadero Street 3/2 1975 8. 2816 Cazadero Street 31% 2200 9. 2468 Tbrrejon Place 313 2520 10. 7409 Via De Fortuna u& 3357 11. 7477 Via De Fortuna x35 3357 12. 7408 Via De Fortuna mki 3357 13. 7429 Via De Fortuna 3/3 3600 14. 7439 Avenida De Palais x35 2775
Property address Size in Square feet
Average square footage of al.1 3 BR 'Win hms" (10 total.) = 2047 square fwt
Average square footage of all "Twin homes" (14 total) = 2380 square feet
Comparison
Square footage of proposed "lhn hcxws" on zlevante Street = 2054 square fwt
EXHIBIT C
PROPOSED CC&R AMENDMENT
H. VEHICLES AND PARKING: Residents and guests are required to use caution when
operating motor vehicles on common area streets within the complex. No person shall
operate a motorized vehicle within the private streets without proper licensing. A speed
limit of 15 miles per hour shall be observed at all times on the private streets in the
community. The following restrictions apply to vehicles and parking:
(1) Vehicles shall be maintained in proper operating condition so as not to be a
hazard or nuisance by noise, exhaust emissions or appearance.
(2) No vehicle shall be parked in such a manner as to impede or prevent ready
access to another owner’s driveway, garage, or guest parking spaces.
(3) Parking areas shall not be used for any purpose other than to park passenger
vehicles, excluding all other motor vehicles, i.e. no inoperative or junk vehicles,
commercial vehicles, recreational vehicles, trucks larger or longer than a regular
pick-up or equivalent, tractors, buses, trailers, campers, motor homes, mobile
homes, off-road motorcycles, boats, fresh-water or sea-going vessels, or
equipment of any kind; except that such other motor vehicles may be parked
by occasional visitors and in connection with deliveries and/or service performed
at the property.
I. GARAGES: Storage in garages which does not permit normal vehicular parking is
prohibited. All residents shall use their garages and/or parking spaces for the parking
of passenger vehicles, No garage shall be converted to any use which prevents the
storage of two(2) standard automobiles therein, and no garage shall be converted or
used for living purposes. Vehicles should be parked inside garages whenever possible,
rather than on driveways or private streets within the complex. Garage doors shall be
kept closed at all times, except for normal ingress and egress.
A cc&r-l .amd
EXHIBIT 0
-/
i- I- /* I ,, /”
I.
1. .
') i. .
3 .
Il.
:1 *
iixt-ill31 I “~‘1’” - .-
/ I’
ENVIRONME’NTAL IMPACT AS8ES8MENT FOR&j - PART II
(TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CT 89-l/PUD 89-1.
DATE: Februarv 28, 1989
BACKGROUND
APPLICANT: Robert Campbell
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1568 Highland Drive
Solona Beach. CA 92075
(481-3235)
DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be written under Section III - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
YES MAYBE NO
Earth - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures?
Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil?
Change in topography or ground surface relief features?
The destruction, covering of modification of any unique geologic or physical features?
Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site?
Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel or a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
-x
x -
X
X --
x 11, .::,. I
, ,... . x . ----.
EXHIBIT E
f -2. Ad’ f- t - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
C. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally?
3. Water - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff?
C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?
d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters?
g- Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
h . Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies?
YES MAYBE NO
X
-x--..
X
X
X
X
x _
--L--
X _- ,I’ I”
X --.
-2-
4. Plant Life - Will the proposal 'have significant results in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of plants?
C . Introduction of new species of plants
into an area, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?
5. Animal Life - Will the proposal have
significant results in:
a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals
(birds, land .animals including reptiles,
fish and shellfish; benthic organisms,
insects or microfauna)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals?
C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals?
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat?
6. Noise - Will the proposal significantly increase existing noise levels?
7 . Light and Glare - Will the proposal sig- nificantly produce new light or glare?
8. Land IJse - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an
area?
i
YES MAYBE NO
x
X
X
X
X
X
x
X -- ‘,./ f. I I
x
6 00, .
-3-
,
/
i- !’ - 4. Niltural Resources - Will the proposal 'have significant results in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources?
b. Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource?
MAYBE m
X --
X
10. Risk of Upset - Does the proposal
involve a significant risk of an
explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? X
11. Pooulation - Will the proposal signif- icantly alter the location, distribu- tion, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? x .
12. Housinq - Will the proposal signif- icantly affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? X
13. Transportation/Circulation - Will the
proposal have significant results in:
a. Generation of additional vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking?
c. Impact upon existing transportation
systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
X
X --_-
-X
x _
X
:, ’
X
. . .“I
.-._.
-4-
- -
YES --
J 14. Pub1 ic Services c - Will the proposal have
..I - ;/"'a significant effect upon, or have signif- icant results in the need for new or
altered governmental services in any of
the following areas:
a. Fire protection? x
b. Police protection?
C. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
f. Other governmental services?
15. Enerqy - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy?
b. Demand upon existing sources of
energy, or require the development
of new sources of energy?
16. Utilities - Will the proposal have
significant results in the need for new
systems, or alterations to the following
utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
C. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
17. Human Health - Will the proposal have
significant results in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)?
MAYBE NO
X
x
X
X
x -
X
X
X
X ~___
x-
X
x -
X
x -
-5-
’
!’
/
*
i / -18. 1 I
19.
20.
21.
-
..L
.-
.i’, ; Aesthetics - Will the proposal have significant results in the obstruction
of any scenic vista or view open to the
public, or will the proposal result in
creation of an aesthetically offensive
public view?
Recreation - Will the proposal have
significant results in the impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities?
Archeolosical/Historical/Paleontoloqical
- Will the proposal have significant
results in the alteration of a significant archeological, paleontological or
historical site, structure, object or building?
--
Analyze viable alternatives to the proposed proiect such as:
X _I-..
X
a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site designs,
c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the site,
e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alter- nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative.
IJKoiect Description:
The project proposes development of 8 duplex units on a .79 acre site. The site has been previously graded out to a pad intended for multiple
density residential development. To the west of the site is an existing
single family neighborhood. Vacant graded multi-family pads surround
the site to the north, south and east. To the southeast is an existing
multi-family development. The project will develop this graded pad in
a manner consistent with the multi-family land use designations fo.r
this site.
a)
b)
Phasing of such a small scale development would
significant environmental enhancement.
Alternative site designs are somewhat limited given dimensions of the site and the need to adequately automobiles on the site.
not provide
the physical
provide for
Alternative scale of the development would be more intense to be in fuller conformance with the existing land li'ke'designations for the site. These more intense developments could be more
environmentally detrimental than the proposed project.
Alternative uses for this site would be inconsistent with the
General Plan and zoning designations for thesite. ._ .
-6-
I
) (Continued) ' '
I.
e) . ,,&evelopment at some future time would continue the vacant nature
of the area. This would be inconsistent with the land use and zoning designations for the site and would not provide additional
housing opportunities.
f) Alternative sites for the proposed project can be found within the general area and in other locations of the City. These sites may
not present environmental benefits.
Y 1 The no project alternative would continue the vacant nature of the
area inconsistent with the land use and zoning regulations for
the site.
, ,’
-7-
! i . I
.- / T .
J YES MAYBE fJ0
# 22. Mandatorv findings of siqnificance -
a*"'/' . Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wild-
life species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or en- dangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
III.
1.
2.
Rev.
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the dis-
advantage of long-term, environmental
goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, definitive period of
time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.)
C . Does the project have the possible environmental effects which are in- dividually limited but cumulatively
considerable? (f‘Cumulatively con-
siderable" means that the incremental
effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current project.s, and
the effects of probable future projects.)
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALIJATION
X
x
Earth - The site is currently graded to a flat pad.
amounts of earth movement are not being proposed.
Air- The project will not emit particulate.!% or project's low profile will not disturb air flows.
12/88 , ,, , 0, ,._.
Significant
odors. The
-8-
SCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATTON (Continued)
Water - The project does not interfere with any existing natural
/* or man-made water courses. The project will not qenerate
4.
5.
significant amounts of surface run off.
Plant Life - There is no existing significant vegetation.
Animal Life - There is no existing animal life on site.
6. Noise - A noise study has been completed and the project will not
be subject to excessive noise levels.
7. Liqht & Glare - Low intensity lighting will be used within the
parameters of the project for safety purposes.
8. Land Use - The project is consistent with the current designations
of the General Plan and Zoning.
9. Natural Resources - N/A
10.
11.
Risk of Unset - N/A
Population - The nature of the project will not generate a * significant increase in population.
12. Housinq - The project will provide housing.
13. Transportation/Circulation - Adequate facilities exist which can
accommodate the project's projected traffic needs.
14. Public Services - The project is located in Zone 6 of the LFMP.
Services will be provided through the implementation of that zone
plan.
15.
16.
Enerqv - N/A.
Utilities - The project is located in Zone 6 of the LFMP.
Services will be provided through the implementation of that zone plan.
17. Human Health - N/A.
18. Aesthetics - The site plan and proposed architecture are
compatible with surrounding projects.
19.
20.
Recreation - The project will not reduce the quality or quantity of recreational opportunities. III
Archeolosical/Historical/Paleontoloaical - There is no evidence of significance on this site.
,b.., , 34.
-9-
i i . - . 1 . DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department)
i: _
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
0 /Ll!"find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on - the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
---,-I find that although the proposed project could have a significant
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative
Declaration will be proposed.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I
I ’ ,
,, >-. / ‘,, 1 ’ ‘.# I , , -; I L , ‘, ’ I” .+‘..,I,\, , , I I Date - , Signature
7 :: c-. it Y I
' Dite
. ,.
,.& &z-&,!(,~~&;: ,
Planning Di!rkctor
\1. MTTTGATING MEASURES (If Applicable)
.w,Ilt!,il.I~ 01, .2.
-lO-
I
.
; .
/ .’ ” 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2885
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NINE LOT TENTATIVE MAP AN0 PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF LEVANTE STREET
AND WEST OF LA COSTA AVENUE.
APPLICANT: ROBERT CAMPBELL
CASE NO.: CT 89-l/PUD 89-l
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to wit:
Lot 229 of La Costa Vale Unit No. 1, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof
No. 7457, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San ,Diego
County, October 18, 1972,
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided by
Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 5th day of July, 1989, and
the 2nd day of August, I989 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed
by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and 'arguments, i.f any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said
Commission considered all factors relating to the Tentative Tract Msp arid
Planned Unit Development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission ds
follows:
A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing,1 the
Commission APPROVES CT 89-l/PUD 89-1, based on the following findings and
subject to the following conditions:
Findinqs:
1. The project is consistent with the City's Genera? Plan since the prupo~d
density of 10 du's/acre is within the density range of 8-15 du'lir/‘ic')‘e
specified for the site as indicated on the Land Use Element CJf thr!
General Plan, and is at or below the growth control point of 11.5.
EXHIBIT F
‘, ’
.
1 -
/” 1
2
3
4
5
G
7
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The site 'is physically suitable for the type and density of the
development since the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the density proposed.
The project is consistent with all City public facility policies dnd
ordinances since:
a. The Planning Commission has, by inclusion of an appropriate
condition to this project, ensured that the final map will not
be approved unless the City Council finds that sewer service
is available to serve the project. In addition, the Planning
Commission has added a condition that a note shall be placed
on the final map that building permits may not be issued for
the project unless the City Engineer determines that sewer
service is available, and building cannot occur within the
project unless sewer service remains available, and the
Planning Commission is satisfied that the requirements of the
Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met
insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project.
b. School fees will be paid to ensure the availability of school
facilities in the San Dieb,,;ito High School and Encinitas School *
Districts.
C. Park-in-lieu fees are required as a condition of approval.
d. All necessary public improvements have been provided or will
be required as conditions of approval.
e. The applicant has agreed and is required by the inclusion of
an appropriate condition to pay a public facilities fee.
Performance of that contract and payment of the fee will enable
this body to find that public facilities will be available
concurrent with need as required by the General Plan.
The proposed project is consistent with the City's Planned Development
Ordinance and also complies with the Design Guidelines Manual.
The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses
since surrounding properties are designated for residential developmtillt
on the General Plan.
This project will not cause any significant environmental impacts and a
Negative Declaration has been issued by the Planning Director on May 19,
1989 and approved by the Planning Commission on August 2, 1989. 1 n
approving this Negative Declaration [he.,Planning Commission hds
considered the initial study, the staff a'n;\l$'sis, all required mitigation
measures and any written comments received regarding the significant
effects th is project could have on the environment.
PC RESO NO. 2885 -2-
.p 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7. The applicant is by condition,
facility fee,
required to pay any increase in public
or new construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional requirements established by a Local
Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of
public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the
. project.
8. This project is consistent with the City's Growth Management Ordinance
as it has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as
part of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6.
Conditions:
1. Approval is granted for CT 89-l/PUD 89-1, as shown on Exhibits "A" and ‘%” , dated August 2, 1989 and Exhibits "B"-"F", dated June 14, 1989,
incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning Department.
Development shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in
these conditions.
.
The developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24" x 36"‘, ‘100
scale mylar copy of the Tentative Map as approved by the Planning
Commission. The Tentative Map shall reflect the conditions of approval
by the City. The Plan copy shall be submitted to the City Engineer prior
to issuance of building permits or improvement plan submittal, whichever
occurs first.
A 500' scale map of the subdivision shall be submitted to the Planning
Director prior to the recordation of the final map. Said map shall show
all lots and streets within and adjacent to the project.
This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits
will not be issued for development of the subject property unless
assurances of the availability of sewer facilities have been given by the
Leucadia County Water District in writing.
This project is also approved under the express condition that the
applicant pay the public facilities fee adopted by the City Council on July 28, 1987 and as amended from time to time, and any development fees
established by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code or other ordinance adopted to implement a growth
management system or facilities and improvement plan and to fulfil1 the
subdivider's agreement to pay the public facilities fee dated December
16, 1988, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk and is
incorporated by this reference. If ,,the ,fees are not paid this
application will not be consistent with the General Plan and approval for
this project will be void.
6. The applicant shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the
approval of the final map as required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code. , 1.8 I, 1, ., I.. ..-
PC RESO NO. 2885 -3-
,p 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2:
24
25
26
27
28
7.
8.
9.
10.
The applicant shall provide school fees to mitigate conditions of
overcrowding as part of building permit application. These fees shall
be based on the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit
application.
Prior to recordation of the first final tract/parcel map or issuance of
building permits, whichever is first, the owner shall prepare and record
a notice that this property may be subject to impacts from the proposed
or existing Transportation Corridor in a manner meeting the approval of
the Planning Director and City Attorney (See form Noise 1).
Water shall be provided by the Olivenhain Municipal Water District.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation required by
the Zone 6 Local Facilities Management Plan approved by the City Council
on September 2, 1987, incorporated herein and on file in the Planning
Department and any future amendments to the Plan made prior to the
issuance of building permits.
Planning:
11. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or
facilities, or the payment of any fees in lieu thereof, imposed by this
approval or imposed by law on this project are challenged this approval
shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 65913.5. If
any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be
invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the
condition cornplies with all requirements of law.
12. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all sections
of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in
effect at time of building permit issuance.
13. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be
architecturally integrated and concealed from view and the sound buffered
from adjacent properties and streets, pursuant to Building Department
Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the Directors of Planning and
Building.
14. The applicant shall establish a homeowner's association and corresponding
covenants, conditions and restrictions. Said CC&R's shall be submitted
to and approved by the Planning Director prior to final map approval.
15. An exterior lighting plan including parking areas shall be submitted for
Planning Director approval. All lighting.,shall be designed to reflect:,
downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent'homes or property.
16. The applicant shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan
which shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior
to the issuance of grading or building permits, whichever occurs first.
. . .
Pc fwo ~0. 2885 -4-
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 26.
23
24
25
26 . . . . , .4.. .,I ‘, y 1
27 PC RESO NO. 2885 -5-
28
17.
18.
19.
20.
23.
All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving
condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris.
Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed
in conformance with the City's Sign Ordinance and shall require review
and approval of the Planning Director prior to installation of such
signs.
Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed on all new and
existing buildings so as to be plainly visible from the street or access
road; color of identification and/or addresses shall contrast to their
background color.
The developer shall display a current Zoning and Land Use Map in the
sales office at all times, or suitable alternative to the satisfaction
of the Planning Director.
All sales maps that are distributed or made available to the public shall
include but not be limited to trails, future and existing schools, parks,
and streets.
Enqincerinq:
22.
23.
24.
25.
27.
The Subdivider shall provide separate sewer, water, gas, and electric
services with meters to each of the units.
No grading permits shall be issued for this subdivision prior to
recordation of the final map.
This project has been reviewed for conformancy with the grading ordinance
and found to be a project for which a grading permit is required. Prior
to any building permits being issued for the site a grading plan in
conformance with City Standards and Section 11.06 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code must be submitted, approved and grading work must be
completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. All slopes within
this project shall be graded no steeper than two horizontal to one
vertical unless specifically approved otherwise pursuant to these
conditions.
Landscape drains and roof gutters shall be used on all units within this
subdivision.
Prior to approval of the final map the developer shall pay or enter into
an agreement with the City to pay for a proportional share of any
drainaqe area fees established as a result of the forthcoming Master
Drainage Plan Update.
Additional drainage easements and drainage structures sha
or installed as may be required by the City Engineer.
11 be provided
,r’ / .’ - ‘. .,’ I;’
.$ *
i- , ,’ / / ” 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
Fire. A
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
The developer shall be responsible for the reconstruction or repair of
any public improvements along the frontage of this project found to be
defective or in need of repair during the development of this project.
Unless a standard variance has been issued, no variance from City
Standards is authorized by virtue of approval of this tentative map.
The developer shall comply with ali the rules, regulations and design
requirements of the respective sewer and water agencies regarding
services to the project.
This project is approved specifically as 1 (single) phase.
The developer shall be responsible for coordination with S.D.G.& E.,
Pacific Telephone, and Cable TV authorities.
Approval of this tentative tract map shall expire twenty-four (24) months
from the date of City Council approval unless a final map is recorded,
An extension may be requested by the applicant. Said extension shall
be approved or denied at the discretion of the City Council. In
approving an extension, the City Council may impose new conditions-and
may revise existing conditions.
Additional public and/or onsite fire hydrants shall be provided if deemed
necessary by the Fire Marshal.
An all-weather access road shall be maintained throughout construction.
All required fire hydrants, water mains and appurtenances shall be
operational prior to combustible building materials being located on the
project site.
Brush clearance shall be maintained according to the specifications
contained in the City of Carlsbad Landscape Guidelines Manual.
All fire alarm systems, fire hydrants, extinguishing systems, automatic
sprinklers, and other systems pertinent to the project shall be submitted
to the Fire Department for approval prior to construction.
Any additional landscape proposed for the driveway must be limited to the
perimeter and entrance area. Traffic lanes at the entrance may be
constructed to not less than 12' for a maximum distance of 30 lineal
feet. ) ,, :: : % ,
PC RESO NO. 2885 -6-
,I .‘,‘hl, t #‘.I
. .
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day of August,
1989, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairman Hall, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Holmes &
Marcus.
NOES: Commissioners: McFadden & Schramm.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Erwin.
/?qL& &
MATTHEW HALL, Chairman
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RESO NO. 2885
r’vl,I .
1,. ;qr,;y ,
-7-
LAND USE
HEIGHT
FRONT SETBACK
REAR SETBACK
SIDE SETBACK
PARKING
PRIVATE
YARDS
DRIVEWAY
LA COSTA COURT
COMPATIBILITY ISSUE
RDM ZONE
PERMITTED PROPOSED
MULTI-FAMILY - 9 UNITS DUPLEX - INDIVIDUAL SINGLE FAMILY OMNER- SHIP - 8 UNITS
35 FT. - 3 LEVEL 23 FT. - 2 LEVEL
10 FT. 14 FT.
10 FT. 15 FT.
5 FT. 6- 12 FT.
2 l/2 SPACES/UNIT -
UNCOVERED
2 l/2 SPACES/UNIT - 2 COVERED
NONE MINIMUM 15 FT. WIDE
24 FT. WIDE 30 FT. WIDE
ip --
SUBJECT: Apxalof proposed 8 hme project (CT 89-1, PUD 89-l) to City Council by neighbors.
Dear Mayor Lewis and Wn-bers of the City Council:
Asapropertyownerand/orresidentinLaCosta, Iwouldlike togo on record as being in suppxt of Mr. Robert Carqbell's project on Levante street.
The fact that Staff Plamxin g strongly supports the project and the fact that the Planning Cmmission has approved the project indicates thatMr. Caqbellhas ccmpliedwith all the r@em.nts of the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinances, and all applicable develomtal standards.
The project has been carefully designed to offer a "village-like a&msphere" which is a nice transition frcun the lower density h-s to thenorthto thehigherdensityprojects to the east and
SOUth.
I feelthatif an applicantmrks in gocd faithwith the City of Carlsbadandit's stafftomeetalltechnicalanddesignrequiremnts, theCityCmn4.l shouldapprave theproject.
Although I can synpathize with the concerns of the neighbors, the decision is not theirs to make. The law should prevail, which was enactedtomettheneedsof the neighkorhoodandthecmxtunityat large.
Fkqectfully E3Jkmlitted,
SEPTEMBER 12, 1989
THIS IS A PETITION IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL AGAINST THE
RoBERT CAMPBELL PROJECT ON LEVANTE STREET IN LA COSTA I
26.
27.
r< . SEPTEMBER 12, 1989
THIS IS A PETITION IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ROBERT CAMPBELL PROJECT ON LEVANTE STREET IN LA COSTA.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
15.~yJafixsb~
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
/’ ,
c. .“/, Lqf 1,
August 30, 1989
TO: City Attorney, City Manager, City Council
SUBJECT: CT 89-1, PUD 89-l - -3
Due to the fact that we will be on vacation on September
12, 1969, we would like to go on reoord as being in support of Robert Campbell's proposed 8 home project referenced above.
Aside $rom the merits of the project, we would like to say that we respectfully request you approve the project because it meets all of the City of Carlsbad's ordinances and developmental
standards. The rules have been set and if an individual follows the rules approval should not be denied.
The fact that the neighborhood appeal was allowed to be filed one day after the appeal period expired does not seem fair. We understand spokesmen represented the opposing
nerighbors at the August 2, 1989 Public Hearing. At this mcet-
ing, surely, they were properly noticed with the correct infor- mation.
In conclusion, not only do we approve of Mr. Campbell's project but we firmly stand behind his opinion that the
appeal is unfair.
Thank you for your consideration. We hope that you find in favor of Robert Campbell's project.
Respectfully submitted,
I ,, /’ _ - L ,
‘/-Jr.-. -1 i- ;I.. s ,‘,,l’+ i L._ 2.. - 7 ‘-
Jerry’ L.
/
Corder Betty L. Corder
3512 Carlsbad Blvd.
Carlsbad, CA 92008 (619) 434-8567
^ . 3 &gQ5fLA
SEPTEMBER 12, 1989 * THIS IS A PETITION IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL AGAINST THE '
ROBERT CAMPBELL PROJECT ON LEVANTE STREET IN LA COSTA.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8. \ 9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
September 12, 1989
TO: City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Street Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: CT 89-1, PUD 89-l. Robert Campbell project.
Dear Mayor Lewis and Members of City Council:
My name is Jim Tung and I am a property owner in La Costa.
I am writing this letter because I am in support of the above referenced project.
The property was already down-zoned in the past two years. Mr. Campbell's project offers a nice transition from Rl to the condominium project with a higher density directly across the street. Today, there are many single family projects designed and built on small lots; therefore, the neighbors have no basis for complaining about the small back yards.
This project complies with the General Plan, Zoning, and all other standards that the City of Carlsbad requires and therefore should be approved.
In conclusion, today it is politically popular to oppose any new development; however, it is legally and morally wrong to violate the property rights of land owners.
Sincerely,
Jim Tung ‘)/ 3093 Race Track Way De1 Mar, CA 92014 619-481-3182
.-----.-
September 12, 1989
SUBJECT: Appeal of proposed 8 home project (CT83-1, PUD 89-l)
to City Council by neigbbors.
Dear Mayor Lewis and Members of the City Council:
As a property owner in Carlsbad (3150 Ocean St. 1 I would like to go on record as being in support of Mr. Robert Campbell's project
on Levante Street.
The fact that Staff Planning strongly supports the project and the
fact that the Planning Commission has approved the project indicates
that Mr. Campbell has complied with all the requirements of the
General Plnn, the Zoning Ordinances, and all applicable developmental
standards.
It appears the project has been designed 50 offer a "village-like
atmosphere" and fits in nicely with the both higher and lower density
projects that surround the site.
I feel that if an appl icant works in good faith with the City of
Carlsbad and it's st,aff to meet all technical and design requirements,
the City Council shoald approve the project.
Although I can sympathize with the concerns of the neighbors, the
decision is nut entirely theirs to make. The law should prevail,
which was enactedto meet the needs of the neighborhood and the
community at large.
,
tl L d 1, ,,k.-
September 10, 1989
Scott and Pam Linton
14891 De La Valle Place
De1 Mar, CA 92014
481-3071
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Street
Carlsbad, CA 92008
SUBJECT: CT 89-1, PUD 89-l. Pobert Campbell's proposed eight
home planned development on Levante Street.
Dear Mayor Lewis and Members of the City Council:
As a property owner in La Costa (I own an interest in 1.1 acres on
El Fuerte Street), I would like it to be known that I strongly
support the above referenced project.
It is gratifying to see someone take such dedicated interest in
the design of a project. The project will be an asset to the community and I appreciate the high standards that are being set.
I cannot believe that the opposing neighbors do not support the
project. The size and character of Mr. Campbell's homes are in
keeping with the standards of the Rl homes, yet at a higher density
that complies with the General Plan.
I urge you to support this project.
Very truly yours,
Scott Linton
.,.,;i.;j ., .1 I/, I1.,
1, ;
~:,;.?,~?,I
‘I /
.\,, ,k.Y> $.,. ;
-. ? 3 ’ ,-., : l. ,. c t fC
September 11, 1989
Bon Kimura
1834 Glasgow
Cardiff, CA 92007
TO: City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Street
Carlsbad, CA 92008
SUBJECT: CT 89-1, PUD 89-l. Proposed eight home project on
Levante Street in La Costa, CA.
Dear Mayor Lewis and Members of the City Council:
As a property owner in La Costa, I want you to know that I
am in support of Mr. Robert Campbell eight home project in
La Costa.
I have had the opportunity to review the project and I find
that it has been well-designed and will definitely be an
asset to the community'and neighborhood. The "village-like"
atmosphere is extremely appealing.
I urge you to support this fine project.
Sincerely,
Pan Kimura
! ,I I’, I
ill’ ‘,V : *l “,‘,‘, a ._ ._ ., .,
,,,
: L..i
.,;, ;,#!w.‘,
._
-
September 10, 1989
Jack and Chris Smith P.O. Box 8961 Ranch0 Santa Fe, CA 92067 619-756-3510
City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Street Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mayor Iewis and M.rr$xrs of the City Council:
This letter is concerning Robert Cmpbell's proposed eight hme project on Ievante Street in La Costa (Cl? 89-1, PUD 89-l).
As apropertyowner inLaCosta,mywifeand I are in support of the above referenced project. We wish all builder's took such a conscientious approach to their housing projects. Mr. Caqbell has taken a site that requires mditan-high density hcmas anddesigned aprojectthatlookslike a single-family village.
I understand that Staff Planning approves this project and the the Planning Cmmission voted to approve this project. Being that the development maets all planning, zoning, General Plan, and design requirerrents, I see no reason that this should not be approved.
With regards,
/
.4
f, d ,I; ( i[ if -4yi + /
Jack !3nith ‘,
i il,.,,; 1,.
, ‘,I‘ ‘I ,‘,W ., .: _ __. : .,! : ‘9 ,
Sm: Appeal of proposed 8 hem project (CT 89-1, PUD 89-l) to City Council by neighbors.
Gear Mayor Lewis and h&hers of the City Council:
A-Property- and/or resident in La Costa, I muld like to go on record as being in support of Mr. Robert Caqbell's project on Levante street.
The fact that Staff Planning strongly supports theprojectandthe fact that the Planning comnission has approved the project indicates that Mr. Ciqbellhas ccr@iedwithallthe requiremnts of the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinmces, and all applicable developrwtal standards.
The project has been carefully designed to offer a "village-like aQmsphere"" which is a nice transition fran the lower density banes to the north to the higher density projects to the east and SOUth.
I feelthatif an applicantworks in good faithwith the City of Carlsbad and it's staff to~tdlltechnical~designrequirements, the City Council shmld approve the-proje&.
Although I can swthize with the concerns of e neighbors, the decision is not theirs to make. The law should prevail, which was enacted tomettheneeds of the neighborhoodard the camunity at large.
Respectfully sukfnittzd, n.
ADDRESS ;r,
5.
6.
1L-i : :,j I- hYA~1 :5,HEiR I W PHOPERT I ES TO
411 A? Ccntra.1 Am, Suits COO, Glendab. Ccltf WCWO~O * Td. (818) Lo74840 6 F’AX: (818) 80~~508
SABRINA PROPERTIES. INC,
RIP atate 2irvelbnmarzt G meHaasmmf ,
Se- 7, 1989 i
:. . . I . , 1, be I,, . . . ..a ....,r.,*h,*.r. -.-
sU~hmT: J!umal of CT W-l. PUD 89-1 to Ci.ty cz.cmcil
Dear Mayer Lewis and w&ers of tie citv council:
Asap~y~e~~fa~sta,Iwant~gaCar~~ars~~g in k3uppxt of Mr. l%zkst c2qbell~s pro=@t on .&vmte iStreet* . I p?les3my am two vacmt lots an thrloomio street,
The fact that saff plmd.nq saqly suvm3 the mject imrm rOm? ehatthe~jectmeet;salfthe~~~fehe~~l
:x.zmm ' N, and all agplioedfe develogrtIm~l
If an q3plicant w&b vdth the City of WliJbaa ta nraet all‘bf theirra~ts, theCitv(Joun~ilshauJdapprovethopj~.
Al- I cm svimatize with t&3 caolcernsoftieneighborzsr, the
deciaian is not thei. to m&e.
S: Citv A-
CitJs m=g= Micnaa nohzn~uer, ~umnJrxj blxector *
City Clerk
September 7, 1989
Marc Rose Karen Karen 2323 Caringa Way Ranch0 La Costa, CA. 92009
(619) 931-6535
City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Street Carlsbad, CA. 92008
Re: Appeal of CT 89-l. PUD 89-l
Attn: Mayor Lewis and Members of the City Council
s
Dear Sirs:
As concerned residents of Ranch0 La Costa, we want you to know we support Mr. Robert Campbell's eight-unit project on Levante Street.
Mr. Campbell has more than met all city planning and zoning requirements. Staff Planning supports the project. This project will be an attractive addition to our community.
We see no reason under current law to deny approval.
Sincerely yours, 1:
Marc Rose
/a&.* G$ e&+&Y, r+“-+ c.+ +y
August 30, 1989
TO: City Attorney, City Manager, City Council c\ry QF Ciw.+S~~~
SUBJECT: CT 89-1, PUD 89-1 . -/
Due to the fact that we will be on vacation on September
12, 1589, we would like to go on record as being in support of Robert Campbell's proposed 8 home project referenced above.
Aside from the merits of the project, we would like to say that we respectfully request you approve the project because it meets all of the City of Carlsbad's ordinances and developmental standards. The rules have been set and if an individual follows
the rules approval should not be denied.
The fact that the neighborhood appeal was allowed to be
filed one day after the appeal period expired does not seem
fair. We understand spokesmen represented the opposing
nei ghbors at the August 2, 1989 Public: ?-iearing. At this meet-
ing, surely, they were properly noticed with the correct infor- mation.
In conclusion, not only do we approve of Mr. Campbell's
project but we firmly stand behind his opinion that the
appeal is unfair.
Thank you for your consideration. We hope that you find
in favor of Robert Campbell's project.
Respectfully submitted,
i’-- A-,‘- ‘- L.. I -’ c L - ---i ---
Betty L:' Corder
1200 ELM AVENUE
_ CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Office of the City Clerk UliQ ITf Ularlsbnb
APPEAL FORM
TELEPHONE
I (We) appeal the following decision of the 7 m-l-wt Ah+
CdWW%Wd to the City Council:
Project Name and Number (or subject of appeal):
Date of Decision: A--wqT ar' /q?y I
Reason for Appeal: '~czs$bcL~ Iti -lv&71'J% /f-h+ & /Q'i M<H'i'
Signature
mr-E= A L 4*fw
Name (Please Print)
Address
14 lLcLrrA , 9~~~
743 09/y- .
Telephone Number
CITY OF CARLSBAD t 1200 ELM, AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
438-5821
I, / 4 ;u * i’:> ;‘; u
I j J ii2LI.,.ilj ii,.
REC’D FROM { ) ‘: I i 1 J, ;/ * f
DATE / i
-f
ACCOUNT NO. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
c- l .j ; i .) 1 ) ) ) .) j ,J’ J i -.z j ,’ 2 i .’ . 1 j +] I i ) , \ ( ,:’ ., ,-;; - 1.. L J’ ./’ ) I..) ) /I _I/ I I
RECEIPT NO. (--t 0 ;I C) ,; ,m.“, r :‘! , I,* TOTAL
t- D
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA .92008
O/lice 01 the City Clerk
TELEPHONE
.(6 19) 434.2808
TO:
FROM:
Mitg Ilf c!hrlabnb
August 15, 1989
)$i: yf!!<,..,. i .,**3’ ‘;\I1 _ : \, ( ‘1, :“* ,.!I.- ,/ Q\ ! CJ\ I ty,i, \~$.? u 1 1 ’ Bobbie Hoder - Planning Department .,;:,
. . ._ Lee Rautenkranz - City Clerk's Office i',‘ .u ;
RE: Appeal - PUD 89-l Campbell
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.) A
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
Meeting of
-_ -
(Form A)
TO: CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
FROM: Planning Department
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice
CT89-1 /PUD89-1 Robert Campbell - APPEAL
for a public hearing before the City Council.
Please notice the item for the council meeting of 9112189
.
Thank you.
Assistant City Man-- -
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CT 89-l/PUD 89-l
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public
hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 P.M.,
on Tuesday, September 12, 1989, to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission approval
of a nine lot Tentative Map and Planned Unit Development to construct four duplexes
totaling eight units on .79 acres of land on property generally located on the north side
of Levante Street west of La Costa Avenue in the RD-M Zone, Local Facilities Management
Zone 6, and more particularly described as:
Lot 229 of La Costa Vale Unit No. 1, in the City of Carlsbad, County
of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 7457,
filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, on
October 18, 1972.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call the Planning Department at
438-1161.
If you challenge the Tentative Tract Map in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,
or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, City Clerk's Office,
at or prior to the public hearing.
APPELLANT: Nigel A. Bonny
PUBLISH: September 1, 1989 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
//
Robert Campbell
cii, II Calbbr
I
CT 89-l PUD 89-1
-
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will
hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad,
California, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 5, 1989, to consider approval of a
nine lot Tentative Map and a Planned Unit Development to construct four duplexes
totaling eight units on .79 acres of land on property generally located on the
north side of Levante Street west of La Costa Avenue in the RD-M Zone, Local
Facilities Management Zone 6 and more particularly described as:
Lot 229 of La Costa Vale Unit No. 1, in the City of Carlsbad, County
of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof No.
7457, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego
County, October 18, 1972,
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend
the public hearing. If you have any questions, please call the Planning
Department at 438-1161.
If you challenge the Tentative Tract Map in court, you may be limited to raising
only those issues you or someone else raised at the public*hearing described in
this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at
or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: CT 89-l/PUD 89-l _.~ ..-
APPLICANT: ROBERT CAMPBELL
* 1. :: 2 3 1 4 0 27
2.
3.
4.
I- 3.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Il.
fI42;tllnl:J I?. & tictdttler E. bC!tJen
L-~L.Al H Garboso St.
~3ilrI,sbad, Ca 9 2 0 0 N
i2. 2'3 140 45
FL tit\-1 & -.1 r111a ta1lc.i~
3.3 Cl 2 I .har Place
Cdrlubad, Ca 92008
" '-J '1 Cd L. ~_I 1 .q " 2 6
I< i. c: h il 1: cl PI c C I a i. rh
:i,l.J%O (;.irbo:;o Street
lJ.0. L3ox 18'70
(:iJ I.i,.StJ;lii, Ca 92OOt3
I ‘.I -2 a.. . . . .) ‘1 ‘1 (J 2 5
litit.Jir1.t 7' 6; ii 1l.Y.lti?ly D tiaWlL:y
3lJ-.L L,rtLJt I,.. I ,I :; t I- e t? t
(~IsiL’12,jbsd, Ca 52009
13. 223 1.40 55
tloward & Doris Eirowr~e
:3303 La Costa Avenue
Carlsbnd, Ca 52OOH
. 1 223 1.50 26 14. Rutus 6; Brunette Purdic
3013 Garboso Street
Carl.sIqad, Ca 92008
222 140 24 15. 223 140 29
l)<~ri~.e?l. T 6i Ca~.ol A Aczhord Jcrhrl William 6( Pamela I-l.,rr~.y Y.j t I Z! 4 (; ..A 1‘ t, 0 s 0 S t r e e t: 301 5 tiarbouo Street
i.11. l.t<bitd, C:a 92009 Carlsbad, Ca 52OOfll
’ 5 ‘3 14 t3 2 3 . . a. .
~~t>llIl G. V:incerl L 3l')Z!tj (;art~u:so .i;i:ret:tt
(:<iI l.sbad, Ca 92009
16. 223 140 30
LOILS W Or t 1 .i e b
3lUl'/ Garboso Street
Carlsbad, Ca 92uu9
,:..:I3 1.40 22 140 31 l'!t:~~~ny H h Jti;lu L Boyd 17. 223
Gregory 6; Cr?Lestifle FCAL.I~S~~ ,I I tI
'JI.j%8 Garboso Street 3U19 Garbo250 Street'
(:d r .lsbad, c a 52009 La Cbsta, Ca 9 2 0 0 9
') ', 'j *. ._ ._ 1 4 0 2 ,I
l~.‘ce,rla3.d K 6: Kdren L Miely
3C3u Girbosio Street
C';iZ l.sbhad, Ca 92005
18. 223 140 32
Stiyed M. Akhavan
'7701 Garboso Place
CarlL;bad, Ca 9 2 0 0 8
2 ;! 3 .I 4 0 1. 5
l:tll‘t:hold & Frclrrcrs SchLLlz
321.7 Azahar Place
Cal- Lsbad, Ca 920813
19. 223 14u 33
'I'homao & Carolyri Er- Wlli
7'703 Garboso Place
Carlubad, Cd 92009
2 L? :3 1 4 0 2 0
1; u q cz II d 6; C 0 1-1‘ 1 n e S t e v e 11 s 0 I I
3215 Azahar Place
Cal-lsbad, Ca 9200.9
20. 223 141) 35
Jac:k & Car.ola Harwood
77112 Garboso Place
La Costa, Ca 52009
” ’ ” ,....I 1 -j(J .1 6
LL er1a E. Du11cat1
A 2 I R A z a ha I‘ p 1 ace
L'4r.l 5 bild , c a 92008
21. ,I 2 .A 140 34
A.L.irl & Vedor-a 5ctrutsd.1;~
'7.7 iJ d (; ;i r bos c) P 1 ace
Lh Costa, ca cJZU(J')
" ' ; . . . 1 4 0 5 4
liclr~?Ct"il 11 O.l.;>or~
'Cifl I r.,a c.:cj:3iea Ave
:I t 1 i :-;t);111, 1:: <:I 'i 2 0 1) ij
22. I!‘!3 14lJ Ab
M lctiael Koz:lewic:z
>U;l.:, f:;arboYc) Street
Cdl- LsLlad, il;, 9 2 LilJ h
23. ;; 2 j 1 4 0 3’/
i;er~f~cth & Frallcine Hubbard
L :i,s27 Gnrboso Street
r:;irlsbad, Ca 92008
“4 2 2 3 1. 40 4 4 __ . - l,i.l.lian Rrose
'1304 Azahar Place
I:arl.fjbad, Ca 92008
25. ,123 140 St;
liorlald & Constance Borodach
3305 La Costa Ave
Ca.rlsbad, Ca 92009
X6. 223 140 43
bebra Thorne
3306 Azahar Place
i:arlYbad, Ca 92008
27. 223 140 57
Iirrrest &ii Lila Souza
3307 La Costa Avenue
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
28. L!23 150 24
Bill G Angeliki Kavadeles
77116 Morada Street
(7 s r I s b a cl , c a 92008
29. 223 170 01
James & Barbara Morrison
'7770 Far01 Place
t:ar-lsbad, Ca 92008
30. 223 170 02
Joseph & Mrrry Hr-iggs
7712 Far01 Place
C a 1: :L Y b a d , c a 92009
31. 223 150 23 40. 223 140 58 Mtsdesto & Elena Mederov Danny & Olga Stojic 7709 Morada Street 3309 La Costa Ave
(':ar‘lYbad,' Ca 92008 Carlsbad,. Ca 92008
12. 223 170 03 41. 223 140 41 I<icherd Blue Paul Peterson, Edna Pete1 :~<JII Jt+nni.fer Paterson Kenneth Peterson
‘7 7 3.4 F ;A L’ 0 I P 1 ii i: e 3310 Azahar Place
r;'arlsbad, Ca 92008 Carlsbad, Ca 92008
J3. -! 2 3 1. 7 0 0 8
iiOtJk;?I‘ & Diane Williams
'/'/OS Garbouo Place
( - . i I‘ 1. 'i I:1 (1 cl , c a 92OOt3
34. 223 I'/0 UY
Ronald & Dbnita Kot~arhan\
770' ;arboso Plac&
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
35. 223 170 13
Thomas & Carolyn Erwin
7706 Garboso Place
Cdrlsbad, Ca' 92008
223 170 12 36. Roger & Livid Faure-Gault:
7708 Garboso Place
Car&sbad, Ca $2008
223 140 38' 37. Marion C Davis
A) P.O. Box 424
El Toro, Ca 92630
3h 223 140 38
Resident
3316 Azahar Place
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
223 140 39 38. Nitin & Asha Parikh
A) c/o A G Parikh .
7781 Rocio Street
La Costa, Ca 92008
223 140 39 38. Resident
B) 3314 Azahar Place
ilarlsbad, Ca 92008
39. 223 140 42
Christopher & Barbara YC,IIIIIJ
Robert & Jean Young
3308 Azahar Place
Carlsbad, Ca 92009 ,
42. 223 140 59
A) Dan & Nancy Chapel.
2.181 Racyuet Hill
Santa Rni, Ca 9 2 70 5
42. ‘223 140 59
B.9 I<esident
3311 La Costa Ave -
Carlshad, Ca 92009
43. 223 140 40 -
A) John & Patricia Horvatich
1519 148th Place SE
Mill Creek, Wa 9t3012
43. 223 140 40
B) Resident
3312 Azahar Place
(:arl.sbad, Ca 92009
44. 223 170 04
*Joseph & Ruth Schneider
7716 Far01 Place
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
45. 223 170 10
Edward 6; Phi.l.omena Hodapp
7709 Garboso Place
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
46. 223 170 11
Harold & Joyce Gotschall
7710 Garboso Place
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
47. 223 160 17
LUCii3110 6: Fail Veosichelli
7724 Far01 Place
Carlsbad, Ca 132008
48. 223 170 07
James & Marlerle Carter
7722 Far01 Placa
Carlubad, Ca 92ooa
49. 223 1.70 06
Lli-,yd & Deborah Trimble
7720 Far01 Place
CarlsLad; Ca 92008
50. L!23 7.70 05
Steven & Linda Armstrong
7718 Far01 Place
Carlsbad, Ca 92000
51. izP.3 170 14
(':r.arlt & Nancy Morris
3 11 06 'I,cvar~tct Street
(Yiir- 1.Ylr13d, Cd 92009
52. 223 1.70 15
Claire -I?. Rictley "
3100 L ante Street '
P.O. Box 3083
Carlabad; Ca 92008
53. 223 170 16
Donald G Wilson
Ardola E Wise
3110 Levante Street
La Coata, Ca 92009
223 170 17
54. Frank & Stevie Fate-Dixon
3112 Levante Street
Carlsb;td, Ca 92008
55. 223 170 18
LjCE Development Inc.
5150 Avenida Encinav
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
56. 223 170 19
bCE Development Inc.'
S15u Avenida Encinas
Car lsbad, Ca 92008
. 1 223 170 20 5dNp-~
57. Solovy Myer & Aaron Magidow
c/o Goldbert & Solov'y Foods
P.O- Box 58007
Vernon, Ca 90058
223 170 21
58. l.evante Associates
1457 Highland Drive
Solar~a Beach, Ca 92075
223 170 22
59. Levante Associates
1457 Highland Drive
Solana Beach, Ca 92075
. I
223 170 30
60. Anthony J Farace Jr.
3109 Levante Street
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
61. 223 I.70 29
A) Shar.011 Milligan
613 N. Harne Street '
0c:ean:;idu. Ca 92054
61. 223 170 29
B) Ke:.;iden t
X.111 Levanto Street
c a I- 1 3 I-, ad , c 'a 92008
62. ?23 170 28
Don & Muriel Isenbe -
X115 Lavante Street
La Costa, Ca 92009
63‘. 223 170 26
James & Barbara Picker
7U02 Estancia Street;
Caclsbad, Ca 92008
64-l 223 170 25 01
Stephen Oggel,Frederick Martin
** Perry Christison
-150 B Street Suite 1500
San Diego, Ca 92101
223 1'70 25 01
l 7801 Centella St Ul
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
il 2 3 17 0 2 s 0 2 64-2 Connie Hall
7801. Centella Street #2
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
64-3Z23 170 25 03
A*Poser Investment Inc.
150 N Santa Anita Ave #300
Arcadia, Ca 91006
223 170 25 03
64-30ccupant
B.7801 Centella Street #3
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
223 170 25 04
6iW4Virgil & Mavis Cowing
l Danny & Katherine Litton
P.O. Rox 1081
Torrance, Ca 90505
64-4223 1'70 2s 04 B. Occupant
7801 Centella Street #4
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
64-5~23 170 25 05
Carolyn Tucker
7801 Centella Street #5
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
64-6~23 170 25 06
A* Cuatro Enterprises Inc
I207 E Ash Street
l'ull.erton, Cd 92031
64-61.23 170 25. 06 1 B. Cc'-,pant
78,* Centella Street (16
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
223 170 25 07
64-7 Karen Johns
Poser Zrivestment Inc.
7tiOl Centella St, #7
Carlsbad, Ca 92.008
64-8 223 170 25 08
A. c. Thieman
C. ,Thieman '
150 S Monaco Parkway #502
Denver, Co 80224
64-8 223 170 25 08 B. Occupant
78Op Centella Street #U
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
64-9 223 170 25 09 .
Linda Bliler
7801 Centella St #9 -
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
64-10223 170 25 10
Stephanie Malkewicz
7801 Centella Street #IO
La Costa, Cd 92009
65. 223 170 32
Ronald & Claudette Laro.;_t<
7804 Estancia Street
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
66. 223 1'70 24
Robert Helmuth
2243 Via Pravia
La Jolla, Ca 92037 1
66-1.223 170 24
Occupant
7803 Centella St #1
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
66-2.223 170 24
Occupant
7803 Centella St #2
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
66-3223 170 24
Occupant
7803 Centella St #3
Carl:3bad, Ca 92008
bb-4 '223 170 24
,C?ccupant . '7803 Centella St #4 :
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
66-5 223 170 24
Occupant
7803 Centella St #5
Carlshad, Ca 92008 .
66T6 223 170 24
Occupant
7803 Centella St #6
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
66-7233 170 24
Occupant
7803 Centella St #7
Carlshad, Ca 92008
66-8223 170 24
Occupant
7803 Centclla St #8
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
66-g223 170 24
Occupant
7803 Centella St #9
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
67. 255 061 01
Allen & Kathleen Dziuk
7805 Estancia Street
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
68*~~~no~2J~~nne Wright
7806 Estancia Street
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
69 l 255 061 02
Jacek & Tamara Persidok
7807 Estanci.a Street
Carlsbad; Ca 92008 8
70 '25s 062 02
David & Doris Kerr
7008 Estancis Street
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
71 '255 062 17
Presbytery of San Diego
U825 Aero Drive Suite #22cJ
:;an Di t?go, Ca 92123
722ss 062 03
Willj?m & Mdrcedes Tokorcheck
7810 atancia Street
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
73. 255 062 04 Richard & Eve Salony
7812 Estancia Street
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
74. 255 062 25
Presbytery of San Diego
8U25 Aero Drive #200
San mego, Ca 92123
75. 223 170 33
BCE Development Corp
995 s. Hastings Street
Vancouver, 8C VGC2W
76-l 223 200 16 47
Eugene R. Nakonechriy
3343 Vivienda Circla
La Costa, Ca 92009
76-2 223 200 16 48
Arthur & Hilda Mack,ie
3341 Vivienda Circle
Carlshad, Ca 92008
76-3 223 200 16 49
*I Pierce Smith
454 Gentry Street
Hermoss. Beach, Ca 90254
76-3 223 200 16 49
-. Occupant Bl 3339.Viv,ienda Circle
La Costa, Ca 92008
76 4 223 200 16 50
Susan Riley
3337 Vivienda Circle
Carlobad, Ca 92008
76-5 223 200 16 51
Thelma Brown 3335 Vivienda Circle
Carlobad, Ca 92008
76-6 223 200 16 52
*) Art Yeager
1573 Pacific Ranch Drive
Encinitas, Ca 92024
76-6-223 200 16 52
B) Clccupant . 3333 Vivienda Circle
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
76:7 223 200 16 53
Anthony & Linda Schumacher
3331 Vivienda Circle
Carlsbad, Ca 92008 I
76-8 223 200 16 54
A) Vi.r'ginia Lee
I.374 Evergreen Drive
Cardiff, ca 92007
76-8 223 200 16 54
B) Occupant
3329 Vivienda Circle
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
76-9 223 200 16 55
Marc & Deidre Price
3327 Vivienda Circle
Carlabad, Ca 92000
76-10223 A) 200 16 56
Patrick Sheehy
048 University Ave
Palo Alto, Ca 94301
76-1%!23 200 16 56 B) Occupant
3325 Vivienda Circle
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
T6-11223 200 16 57
Robert Ouerido
3323 Vivienda Circle
Carlsbad, Ca 92000
76;12223 200 16 58
Steven & June Souris
7955 Represa Circle
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
76-13223 200 16 59
Sandra Churchill
3319 Vivienda Circle
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
76-14223 201~ 16 tjo
JefPrey Montag & Helen Purcell
3317 Vlvienda Circle
P.rrl ?1hd, ct.3 92008
223 200 16 61 76-15 Linda-Nearing
~
A) Antal dotics
1414 Brett place '#129
San Pedro, Ca 90732
76-15 223 200 16 61
B) Occupant
3315 Vivienda Circle
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
76-16 A) 223 200 16 62
Lawrence Dwoskl.n,M. Markowitz
c/o Malsel Properties
2590 Sunrise Highway
Bellmore, NY 11710
76-16 'B) 223 200 16 62
Occupant
3313 Vivienda Circle
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
76-17 223 2200 16 63
James & Millicent tiarner
3311 Vivienda Circle * Carlsbad, Ca 92008
76-18 223 200 16 64 A) Christorpher & Margaret Davis
3315 Bedford Circle
Carlsbad, Ca 92oot4
76-18
B)
223 200 16 64
Occupant
3309 Vivienda Circla
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
76-19 223 200 16 65
Scott & Carol Lane
3307 Vivienda Circle
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
76-20 223 200 16 66 Geraldine Collins
3305 Vlvienda Circle
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
76-21 223 200 16 67
Lavonne Hasheider
Marjorie Hasheider
3303 Vivienda Circle
La Costa, Ca 9200H
223 200 16 68 76-22 Alfred De Benedictis
3301 Vivlanda Circle
CiiI-l:3hd, %a 92008
76-23
1
.
76-24
76-25
76-26
77-l
77-2
77-3
77-4
77-5
77-6
77-7
223 200 16 69
Robert; & Catherine Saxton 3344 Vivienda Circle
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
77-8 223 LUU I> u&3
IsadoEe Horowitz !I
A) P.0. x S916 '
Shrcveport, La 71135
223 200 16 70
James & Susan Hancock
3342 Vivienda Circle
Carlsbad, Ca 92008 .
223 200,15 08 77-8
B)
0cc:upan t
7585 Dehesa Court
Ccrrlsb,ad, Ca 92008
223 200 16 71
Alan Martin
Dallas King
3340 Vivienda Circle
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
77-9 2::3 200 15 09
J Michael & Carol Thomption
'7583 Dehesa Court
Carlabad, Ca 92008
223 200 16 72 77-10223 200 15 10
Thomas & Genevieve Grateful Bonnie McBride
3338 Vivienda Circle 7581 Dehesa Court
Carlsbad, Ca 92008 Carlsbad, Ca 92008
223 200 15 01 77-11 223 ,200 15 11
John & Jere Blair Joe & Leslie Corona
7599 Dehesa Court '7579 Dohesa Court
Carlobad, Ca 92008 Carlsbad, Ca 92000
223 200 1.5 02
Andrew 6; Frances Oddi
7597 Dehesa Court
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
77-12 223 200 1s 12
Jack Smyer
Susan Murphy
7577 Dehesa Court
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
223 200 15 03 77-13 223 200 15 13
Bernard & Sonia Pollack Linda Swenson
7595 Dehesa Court 7580 Dehesa Court
Carlsbad, Ca 92008 Carlsbad, Ca 92008
223 200 15 04 77-14 223 200 15 14
Donna Deering Jay & Joan Woods
7593 Dehesa Court 7582 Dehesa Court
Carlsbad, Ca 92008 Carlsbad, Ca 92008
223 200 15 05
Charles McCord
7591 Dehesa Court
Carlsbad, Ca 92008 I
77-15223 200 15 15
Robert & Wana Ladd
7584 Dehesa Court
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
223 200 15 06
Maureen Colvin
Kenneth Taylor
7589 Dehesa Court
Carlsbad, Ca 92008 !
77-16223 200 15 16
Genevieve Young
7586 Dehesa Court '
Carlsbad, Ca 9200G
'23 200 15 07 77-17223 200 15 17
Wil.liam & Sheryl Kale Mickey & Jacqueline Sparks
7587 Dehesa Court 7588 Dehesa Court
Carlsbad, Ca 92008 Carlsbad, 'Ca 92008
* 11-18223 200 15 18
A) .Frank & Eri Bales
- 7520 Bryant Street
Westminister, Co 8u330
77-18
B) 223 200 15 18
Occupant
7590 Dehesa Court
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
77-19
A) 223 200 15 19
Douglas & Patricia Simmons
13054 Old Sycamore Drive
San Diego, Ca 92028
77-19
B)
77-20
77-21
77-22
77-23
77-24
77-25
Ai
77-25
B)
223 200 1.5 19
Occupant
'7592 Dehesa Court
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
223 200 15 20
Richard Cimicate
7594 Dehesa Court
Carlsbad, Ca 92000
223 200 15 21
.James & Maureen Kasselmann
3338 Cuesta Place
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
223 200 15 211
Charles & Madeline Moore
3340 Cuesta Place
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
223 200 15 23
Glenn & Marla Wright
3342 Cuesta Place
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
223 200 15 24
Carol Husted
Brian Cortright
3344 Cuesta Place
Carl.sbad,'Ca 92008
223 200 15 25
Dill & Shirley Artz
5303 Chelsea St
La Jolla, Ca 9 2 0 3'7
223 200 15 25
~k;clI~>a nt.
3.346 cuc?stil I'l;4c:t3
c431'1stsa~I, C.3 92008
77-26223 200 15 26 Ir
Hchart Chaffin
3 7 Cuesta Place
Carlsbad, Ca '92008
77-27223 200 15 27
Ladelle Wells 1 3345 Cuesta Place
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
77-28 223 200 1S 28
Ida Brinegar
3343 Cuesta Place
La, Costa, Ca '92009
77-29223 200 15 29
Charles Beason
Kar,la Beason
3341 Cuesta Place
La Costa, Ca 92009
77-30 223 200 15 30
A) Robert 6; Jennifer Poppleton
2920 Capazo Court - Carlsbad, Ca 92009
77-30
B) 223 200 15 30
Occupant
3339 Cuesta Place
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
77-31 223 200 15 31
Katherine Dominick
3337 Cuesta Place
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
77-32223 200 15 32
A) Robert & Linda MacKay
2608 La Duela Lane
La Costa, Ca 92009
f
77,32223 200 15 32
B) Occupant
3335 Cuesta Place
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
78. 223 060 2L3
Union Oil CQ of Califorrlia
Tax Division
P.O. Box 7600
Los Angeles, Ca 90051
79. 223 060 29
La Costa Funding
c/o Vistar Financial I IIC:
1.3456 W'ctshinyton Blvd
Marin;* de1 Rev. Ca 4O;:Ci:!
_ I
$0. 223 060 31 .M;lg Properties
c/o J.C. Mabee , 5075 Federal Blvd 0 s San Diego, Ca 92102
81; 223 060 32
Mag Properties
c/o J.C. Mabeo
5075 Federal Blvd
San Diego, Ca 92102
.
Cadsbad Journal
Decreed A Le‘Jal Nernppr by the SLlpemr Cauf of San kg0 covlty
Mail all cwnspndence regarding public notice advertising to
North Co& Publishers. Inc. mrpomte offices: P.O. Box 878, Encinitar, CA 92024
(619) 753-6543
Proof of Publication
I om o citizen of the Unlted States and o resident of the county oforesold;
I am over the age of eighteen years, and not o porty to or Interested in the oboveentitled matter.
I om princlpol clerk of the pnnter of the Carlsbad Journal q newspaper of general clrculotion
publIshed twice weekly in the City of Corlsbad, County of Son Diego, State of Colifornlo, and whi&
newspoper is published for the dlsseminotion of local news ond intelligence of o general chorocter, and
whrch newspaperatall times hereln mentioned hod ondstill hoso bonofidesubscription llstof paying
subscribers, ond which newspaper hos been established, printed and publlshed ot regular intervals in
the sold City of Carlsbod, County of Son Dlego, State of Colifornia, for o period exceeding one year next
preceding the dote of publicotlon of the notice
hereinafter referred to; and that the notice of
which the annexed IS o printed copy, has been
publIshed meach regulorondentireIssueof sold
newspaper and not In any supplement thereof on
the followng dotes, to-wit:
September 1 89 19..
. . . . . . . . 19
19..
19.. _.
. . . 19..
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
coco;ct.x;e$tcuted at Carlsbad, ER$n?[fiSan Diega, State of
September, '9-g