HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-02-20; City Council; 10499; Ayers Senior Centerc
Cl’ * OF CARLSBAD - AGENL - BILL 43
4B#M?i? TITLE: APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION
VlTG. 2/20/90 DECISION DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
DEPT. PLN CUP 88-21 AND SUP 89-5 - AYRES SENIOR CENTER
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
DEPT. HD.L&d
The Planning Commission and staff are City Council ADOPT City Council Resolution No.
UPHOLDING the Planning Commission decision to DENY WITHO&
PREJUDICE CUP 88-21 and SUP 89-5.
ITEM EXPLANATION
On January 17, 1990 the Planning Commission denied without
prejudice Conditional Use Permit 88-21 for a 173 unit senior
citizen professional care facility on 5.92 acres and Special Use Permit 89-5 required by the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards. The project was proposed for property located at the southwest corner of El Camino Real and Alga Road. The Planning Commission initially considered the proposal on January 3, 1990. The Commission continued the project to the meeting of January 17, 1990 to enable the City Attorney to determine if it was feasible to include a condition on affordable housing for senior citizens as defined by City code and as included in the applicant's letter dated December
6, 1989.
The project applicant in his appeal takes issue with the Planning Commission re-opening the public hearing to discuss project design issues at the January 17th meeting. The appellant states that design issues were discussed at the January 3rd meeting and did not appear to be a significant issue. The project was continued specifically to receive a report from the City Attorney on the Commissions ability to include a condition regarding restricting the rent levels that could be charged for the units. At the January 17th meeting the Planning Commission approved a motion to reopen the public hearing for all issues. This action is reflected in the minutes of the meeting.
The Commissioners identified a number of concerns which they had with the project design. These included but are not limited to the following: insufficient parking, poor circulation, more direct access needed for emergency vehicles and moving vans, and the need for a fully enclosed walkway to reach the dining facility. The applicant indicated his agreement to an extension for redesigning the project to address the issues raised by the Commissioners. Staff did not recommend that the Commission grant the applicant a 90 day extension which would be necessary under the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Section 65957) as it would
have placed staff and the applicant under unreasonable time
constraints. The Commission failed to pass a motion to
continue the application for 90 days. As a result of the
design issues identified by the Commission the project was
denied without prejudice. This would allow the applicant to
redesign the project as necessary and be able to resubmit a
.
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. A? t(+v
substantially similar application without having to wait one year as specified in Zoning Ordinance Section 21.54.130.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Director has determined that the project could have a significant effect on the environment, however; there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the initial study have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative Declaration was issued on October 18, 1989. Since the Planning Commission denied the project, it did not adopt the Conditional Negative Declaration proposed for the project.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
EXHIBITS
1. City Council Resolution No. 2. %-x57 Excerpts from Planning Commission Minutes dated January 3, 1990 and January 17, 1990 3. Memorandum to the Planning Commission dated
January 17, 1990 w/attachments
4. Letter of Appeal
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
RESOLUTION NO. 90-37
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 173 UNIT SENIOR CITIZEN PROFESSIONAL CARE FACILITY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL AND ALGA ROAD. CUP 88-21/SUP 89-5 - AYRES SENIOR CENTER (APPEAL)
WHEREAS, on January 17,
Commission denied without prejudice Con
,88-21 and Special Use Permit 89-5; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of t of Carlsbad, on
February 20,
decision to
the City Council
considered Conditional Use
HEREBY RESOLVED by the City
California, as follows:
ations are true and correct.
of the Planning Commission that the esigned is detrimental to existing uses because of sufficient parking and poor on-site
circulatio also the findings of the City Council in
this matte
ncies exist with the project design which access for emergency vehicles and moving vans, a fully enclosed walkway to reach the dining and other functional problems identified by the Commission contained in the minutes of the January Planning Commission meeting which also constitute
indings of the City Council in this matter.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
2(
21
2:
21
24
2f
2t
2';
2E
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the ,I
2arlsbad City Council held on the day of I
1990 by the following vote, to wit:
i/; AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
,/
/
/
ATTEST:
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ALETHA L.
(SEAL)
JY ,i’ /’
2
MINUT 13
January 3, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 4
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2942 approving the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director, and adopt Planning Cosssission Resolution No 2943 and 2970 approving SDP 89-2 and SV 89-2 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
2) CUP 88-21/SUP 89-5 - AYRES SENIOR CENTJlR - Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a 173 unit Senior Citizen Residential Care Facility on 5.92 acres and a Special Use Permit required by the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards for property located at the southwest corner of El Camino Real and Alga Road in the Coastal Zone and Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 6.
Don Neu, Associate Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the applicant is proposing to develop '173 senior citizen residential care units on a 5.92 acre site located at the southwest corner of El Camino Real and Alga Road in the RD-H zone. Residential care facilities are allowed in the RD-M zone with a Conditional Use Permit. He showed a slide presentation of the project site and explained there is a 100 ft. wide SDG&E easement to the south which will also be a buffer. He stated that the "apartments" will be two and three story buildings clustered around a community center, pool, reflection pond, gazebo, walking course, and two underground parking garages with 103 parking spaces. A handicap ramp will provide access to El Camino Real and elevators will be provided throughout the project to facilitate ease of mobility. Because the individual units will not have kitchens, they are exempt from growth management restrictions. However, the project will require licensing from the State of California because the facility is classified as a residential facility for the elderly. Mr. Neu stated that staff recommends approval because the project meets all growth management requirements and the usage will
be compatible with adjacent uses.
Commissioner Marcus noted that Conditions 1118 and #22 in Resolution No. 2952 (pages 5 and 6) are duplicates and one should be eliminated.
Cozzuissfonet McFadden noted that the 6 ft. wall is not shown on the plans. Mr. Neu stated that the applicant has volunteered to build the wall but it is not a condition of approval but can be added, if the Commission desires.
Commissioner McFadden inquired if the housing is intended for low to moderate income citizens. Mr. Neu replied that there would be no rental restrictions as to clientele or rent structures. He is unaware of the proposed fee schedule.
Since the units do not have kitchens, Commissioner McFadden is concerned whether the project will comply with the growth control point should it fail as a residential care facility. She asked what the density would be. Mr. Neu replied that the conversion plan would establish 28 units out of the 173 or approximately 6 dufac.
Commissioner McFadden feels that with the heavy commercial
use going in across the street, she would like to see a condition restricting the parking to the residential care facility only. Staff has no problem with adding a condition.
Ervin Hall Holmes Marcus McFadden Schlehuber Schrannn
\ 7
January 3. 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 5 COMMISSIONERS
Cormnissioner McFadden would like to see a ramp rather than the stairway to Mansanita Street. She would also like to know if SDG&E approved the ramp to El Camino Real which falls in the easement area. Mr. Neu replied that staff has a letter from X%&E to allow improvements.
Colrrmissioner Erwin referred to Lynn Maudlin's letter dated January 2, 1990 and asked staff to show on the diagram where the commercial deliveries will be made. He inquired if there is a restriction on the delivery hours. Mr. Neu replied that no restriction has been proposed on the hours and that the deliveries would be made adjacent to the dining canter. Commissioner Erwin is concerned about the traffic impacts to adjacent single family homes and would like a restriction on the hours of delivery.
Chairman Hall opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak.
Douglas Ayres, 355 Bristol Street, Suite A, Costa Mesa, applicant addressed the Cossxission and stated that he'is attempting to create a high quality environment for the active seniors in this residential care facility. He has made every effort to meet all of the requirements and requested approval of the project.
Chairman Hall inquired if Mr. Ayres would agree to some of the conditions which have been proposed. He stated that he could accept: (a) a parking restriction to the care facility only; (b) a ramp rather than stairs to Manzanita; and (c) a condition restricting hours of delivery.
Cosxaissioner Holmes is concerned about the 450 ft. distance from the parking area to the dining facility because there may be difficulties for patrons during cold or inclement weather. Mr. Ayres replied that the facility is designed for active senior residents rather than persons using walkers, etc. and he does not foresee any problems because if it is raining persons can walk through sheltered corridors.
Commissioner McFadden inquired about Mr. Ayres letter of December 6, 1989 and the reference on page 2. item i, to "affordable housing for Senior Citizens"; she asked what he would consider to be affordable. Mr. Ayres replied that although the fee structure has not been established vet, he thinks that studios will run approximately $700 which includes meals and that outside cornparables would be approximately $1,200 to $1,400.
Consxissioner Erwin inquired what the wet bar would contain and how it would be used. Mr. Ayres replied that it would have a refrigerator and microwave for those who might want to
varm up a snack, etc.
Cormnissioner Erwin inquired if a receptionist or medical facilities would be provided and if he could accept a restriction on delivery from 8:OO a.m. to 7~00 p.m. Mr.
Ayres replied that there would be a receptionist but no medical services and that he could accept a restriction on delivery hours.
Commissioner Marcus is concerned about noise impacts to adjacent residents.
Conxnissioner Holmes inquired about the difference between the dining facility and the cafe. Mr. Ayres replied that the
\ ?
January 3, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6 COMMISSIONERS
dining facility would serve meals during regular meal times and that the cafe would be available for food during other hours.
Chris Hogan, 1856 Dooley Court, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that when the representative from Ayres Construction visited his neighborhood he was not home. He thinks the 6 ft. wall is a waste and would rather see some mature trees used instead. He noted that the proposed project density will be approximately 28 dufac which he feels is ridiculous and he would like to see the density reduced to lo-12 dulac. He also thinks that 107 parking spaces for 173 units is far too little parking because most active seniors in the 55 age bracket own and drive cars.
Mr. Ayres was given an opportunity to respond to Mr. Hogan's concerns. He replied that the number of parking spaces vas determined as a result of a survey taken at other similar facilities where they noted many unused parking spaces. He feels there is more than sufficient parking.
Commissioner Erwin thinks that many residents will probably use the public transit system and would like to see the waiting area enclosed to provide weather protection. Mr. Ayres replied that he could provide a roof and sides to the bus stop.
Commissioner Holmes inquired if employee lockers or a lunchroom will be provided. Mr. Ayres replied that an employee area will be provided but it does not show on the plans.
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.
Connnissioner Schlehuber thinks that parking is more than adequate and most people who live in these developments don't have cars. He thinks the project is needed and can support it.
Commissioner Marcus can support the project. She inquired if the 40X referred to in Condition //13f, page 5, Resolution No. 2952. has been factored in. Mr. Neu replied that 40% of the tenants will not be allocated a parking space. Staff has asked the applicant to include the parking in the leasing agreement as a means of keeping track of it.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if the age restriction in Condition 113e can be challenged and cited the recent litigation concerning age discrimination in mobile home parks. Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney, replied that there is a whole body of law on mobile home parks and there have been many challenges to the law. He does not see a problem and stated that laws change every day.
Conrmissioner McFadden sees no condition which ensures that this will provide affordable housing. She inquired If a condition could be added regarding the density. Mr. Ball replied that the applicant is not requesting a density bonus and the City is reluctant to get entwined by dictating a rent schedule because it has no authority.
Conxxissioner Schlehuber inquired if the Ayres letter of December 6, 1989 volunteering affordable housing could be
T January 3, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 7 COMMISSIONERS
considered to be authority. Mr. Ball sees no problem as long ae the Commission knows what the code states for affordable housing.
Chairman Hall asked the applicant to return to the podium and asked him to explain the comment in his letter regarding affordable housing. Mr. Ayres replied that his comment meant that he plans to make the rents affordable in comparison to the general market. If the price is too high, people will move out and he wouldn't want that to happen.
Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, commented that the project was not reviewed in terms of low-moderate income housing and that it was looked at in terms of senior housing. HUD's definition of affordable low-moderate income housing in San Diego County is 80-120X of the median income. In order to determine what would be affordable, staff would have to break down the rent structure in terms of rent and food . Mr. Ayres replied that part of the rent structure is also allocated to transportation and recreational activities.
Commissioner McFadden needs an assurance of affordability before she can support the project.
Cosmfssioner Schraaxs inquired where visitors are supposed to paxk since there is no designated guest parking. Mr. Neu replied that the code has defined this project as a residential care facility vhich is why there is no designated guest parking; however, the applicant is providing 107 regular spaces when only 62 are required. Staff feels this should be sufficient.
Commissioner Marcus thinks $700 is reasonable for a studio with meals. If he raises the rent too high, he vi11 lose tenants. She doesn't like rent control.
Mr. Ball commented that adding a condition to fix the fee schedule might be possible but it would have to ba revieved by the Legal Department to determine the feasibility and recosmendations for such a condition.
Conmissioner McFadden cannot support the project because she was under the impression that it would address affordable housing. She would like the item continued to enable the City Attorney to review vhether or not a condition would be feasible under the CUP.
Commissioner Schrasm likes the project but she vould like to see it continued to explore the feasibility issue since she also feels that affordable housing is an important issue.
Chairman Hall asked staff to comment on the need for a wall between the adjacent single family dwellings. Mr. Neu replied that staff does not foresee noise impacts due to the 100 ft. buffer and the fact that most of the single family homes have their owe fences.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and failed to adopt Resolution No. 2951 approving the Conditional Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and adopt Resolution Nos. 2952 and 2953, approving CUP 88-21 and SUP 89-5, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein with the following added items: (a) correction to Condition 1139; (b) add a condition for a bus stop enclosure subject to approval by the Planning Director; (c) provide ramps instead of steps on
Ervin Hall Holmes Marcus McFadden Schlehuber Schramm
MINUT,S
Manzanita; !d) add a condition to restrict parking to residents only; (e) eliminate Condition 1122 which is a duplicate: (f) add a condition to restrict deliveries between the hours of 8:OO a.m. and 7:OO p.m.; and (g) add a condition requiring an employee eating and locker facility to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to continue CUP 88-21/SUP 89-5 to enable the City Attorney to determine if it is feasible to include a condition on affordable housing for senior citizens as defined by City code and as included in the applicant's letter dated December 6, 1989.
Michael Holzmiller requested the applicant to provide a fee schedule as soon as possible so that staff can determine whether or not it fits into the affordable category.
Commission recessed at 7:55 p.m. and reconvened
3) c+Q39-17/PuD 89-8 - UNICORN10 PATIO HOME3 - Request for at&oval of a nine lot Tentative Tract Map and a Planned Permit to develop eight zero lot line single a separate lot, on in the RD-K Zone and
Cozsnissioner SC ehuber vas excused due to a possible He left the chambers.
car garage.
Commissioner McFadden inquired abo the condo's to the north and is concerned that second other. She would like to see a problem.
Commissioner Erwin inquired how much on Lot 114. Mr. Neu replied that the a gentle slope betveen Lots /I4 and 115.
Chairman Hall opened the public testimony and invitation to speak.
Leigh Zahn, 2810 Cazadero Drive, Carlsbad, representing the applicant, addressed the Commlssio stated that this project was designed to provide an project between the higher density projects would be happy to ansver questions.
Commissioner McFadden inquired if something can the windovs. Mr. Zahn replied that his client
\ 4
January 3, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION Page a COMMISSIONERS
Erwin Hall Holmes Marcus McFadden Schlehuber Schramm
MINUTES
\ 4
January 17, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 2 COMMISSIONERS
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
1) cup aa-211s~~ 89-5 - AYRES SENIOR CENTER - Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a 173 unit Senior Citizen Residential Care Facility on 5.92 acres and a Special Use Permit required by the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards for property located at the southvest corner of El Camino Real and Alga Road in the Coastal Zone and Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 6.
Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, reviewed the background of the request and stated that CUP 88-2l/SUP 89-5 is a request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a 173 unit professional care facility on six acres as well as a Special Use Permit required by the El Camino Real Scenic Corridor Overlay for property located at the intersection of El Camino Real and Alga Road. This item was continued from the January 3, 1990 meeting in order to allow the City Attorney to determine whether the Planning Cosznisrfon could add a condition of approval regarding the rent structure to be charged to future residents. The City Attorney's report was included in the Commissioner meeting packets as well as a fee schedule for the proposed units which was provided by the applicant, Douglas Ayrea.
The City Attorney has determined that the proposed facility is not a "residential care facility" but would be more appropriately defined as a "professional care facility" per the Zoning Ordinance and the State of California Community Care Licensing Division. The proposed findings are still applicable and the use is permitted in the RD-H Zone by Conditional Use Permit. The City Attorney did recommend adding a discrimination condition to conform to the Unruh Civil Rights Act and proposed the wording for a condition regarding fair market rents, should the Commission choose to require one. However, the City Attorney did mention that other senior housing projects in Carlsbad do not have a rent control requirement and it may require additional staff time to monitor enforcement of such a condition. The City Attorney also recommended that the proposed conversion plan be backed by adequate security to ensure that the project will be brought up to the standards of the zone.
Counnissioner McFadden inquired which professional services would be provided at this project. Mr. Wayne replied that the applicant should be able to provide this information although he understands that some limited medical will be provided as well as dietary and exercise programs.
Conmissioner HcFadden inquired about the parking requirements for professional care facilities. Mr. Wayne replied that the parking requirement is the same as that of a residential care facility. The applicant is proposing more parking than is required.
Comissioner McFadden inquired if there are excess dwelling units in this quadrant to accolmnodate a conversion. Mr. Wayne replied that he could not ansver since all of the zone plans have not yet been received.
Commissioner McFadden asked the City Attorney why his proposed condition named the Planning Coxunission to approve the annual rent schedule. Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney, replied that the same body granting the condition is normally required to review it later.
B \ r
, MINUTES
January 17, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION Page
Commissioner McFadden cemented that the condition does not establish a penalty for noncompliance. Mr. Ball replied that enforcement would be handled the same as any other condition. The alternative would be to follow due process and request a hearing to show cause as to why the CUP should not be
revoked. Cosnxissioner McFadden would like to see a penalty for noncompliance included in the condition, i.e. a bond, an automatic reduction in the number of units available for rent, or a fee.
Commissioner Schlehuber asked the City Attorney if bonds had ever before been required for conversion plans. Mr. Ball replied that if the Planning Cosxnission determines this to be a senior housing project, then it would be appropriate to require a bond; otherwise it would be irrelevant.
Commissioner Erwin asked staff to clarify a semi-private suite. Mr. Wayne felt that the applicant should respond to this question.
Cowissioner McFadden inquired how much time is left in the CUP process for this project. Mr. Wayne replied that the deadline is January 28, 1990 unless the applicant requests an extension, which has not yet been received. Extensions are normally granted by staff if they are requested.
Cosxeissioner Schlehuber inquired if tonight's public hearing vould be confined to new issues not discussed at the last meting.
TAfter discussion; motion vas duly meda, aeconded,'and carried "to reopen the publiC'hearing for all issues. T
Chairman Schrasxx opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak.
Douglas Ayres, 355 Bristol Street, Suite A, Costa Mesa addressed the Cosxaission and, in response to questions by Commissioners, stated that:
. His company has never built or operated this type of project before so he does not have a wealth of experience to draw on and is. therefore, basing the rent schedule on a market survey of other similar projects in the surrounding area.
. To fulfil1 the definition. the professional services his project will provide would be an activities coordinator for tours/special events, medical services on-site by an outside facility, exercise programs, dietary counseling, and perhaps an “assisted living" ving, if needed (however the State of California vould require a special license for this).
. His project is larger and vi11 provide more amenities than other similar projects.
. A semi-private suite is similar to a one bedroom but it has a permanent divider to accommodate two persons.
Erwin Hall Holmes Marcus McFadden Schlehuber Schrasss
MINUTES
If two persons share a one or two bedroom unit, there would be an additional charge of $350/mo. for the extra person.
It has not yet been decided whether a satellite dish will be provided and that presumably cable will be sufficient.
The resident can choose which tvo meals they would prefer, however most people would probably choose lunch and dinner. Breakfast could be eaten in the individual units since microwave ovens will be provided.
Video movies would be provided within the facility but not outside movies.
Laundry service would be provided and would not be coin-operated; clothing is included.
Sidewalks, with railings at various points, would be provided from within the facility to public transportation areas.
He could accept conditions to provide a covered walkway to the dining room and a security guard at night, subject to approval by the Planning Director.
~Comirsioners voiced reveral-concwns to Hr. Ayresr- -t
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Insufficient parking.
Poor circulation.
Better access needed for emergency vehicles and moving vans.
Many design problems which cannot be easily corrected.
A better apartment project than a place for elderly people.
Project does not meet needs of elderly.
Microwave ovens are harmful to pacemakers.
There should be one way for residents to reach the dining room by a fully enclosed walkway.
It would be advisable to have the future management company involved in any redesign.
Fencing around the project would keep stray animals, etc. off the premises.
Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, stated that staff has already reviewed the project and feels that it meets the requirements. However, if the Commission thinks the project should be redesigned, it should be sent back.
Cindy Ward, 937 Begonia Court, addressed the Commission and stated that she worked for eight months at La Vida De1 Mar. She observed many problems there and thinks that some type of stove is needed in the units so that residents can prepare their own special diets; otherwise they will bring in electric skillets and hot plates. She also feels that (1) there is insufficient visitor parking nor is there any
January 17, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 4 COMMISSIONERS
MINUTES ’
\ B
January 17, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION Paw 5 COMMISSIONERS
I
place to park a mini-bus which most facilities have; (2) poor emergency access; (3) drop off area too narrow--only 24 ft. wide; (4) underground parking is not a good idea; (5) 173 units are too many. She would like to know what kind of phone service would be provided and where the mail boxes would be located.
Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer, replied that the drop-off point is 24 ft. wide, which meets the standards, and the underground clearance is 9 ft., which will accoamodate emergency vehicles.
The applicant responded to Ms. Ward's questions by stating that the mail boxes would be located near the dining room and that there would be telephones and outside lines in each unit, with the ability to call a receptionist.
There being no other persons desiring to address the Coxxsission on this topic, Chairman Schraxxe declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members.
I .-. . _ _ . 'Chairman Schrolrm'~d<is6dw'&iii'ssioner~that‘if'thay'"want~thi"~ project rederigned,~i%?neede'to"bo"sent~back~"
rCowissioner%hlehubex+'feelsTthat~ there’ha\n-~-,-e:::lot-of^‘.’ ““irrelev~t-co~~g~~~ing aperational ‘activttie! of the ‘.. ('project whfcb do not fall within the purview of the Planning ~-Commission. He feels that staff has don? a,go,od job of ” rreviewing thm-profect%nd'*he"'cm'support it.
Cosxaissioner Hall asked the applicant if he would prefer an extension for redesign, denial without prejudice, or an appeal to the City Council. “lWqAyr~s::replied- tha\t’his”“-.’ "preference-would be’~an~extenslon for redesign.
Mr. Ball commented that the applicant is entitled to a one time continuance of 90 days but the request for continuance must be in vriting from the applicant and received by the Planning Director prior to expiration of the six month deadline.
Commissioner McFadden asked the applicant how he felt regarding the City Attorney's response to the conditions regarding fair market rents. Mr. Ayres feels it is difficult for the City to regulate rents for this type of facility since the rate includes many extra things.
Conmissioner McFadden asked the City Attorney how the motion could be made for continuance if the applicant has not yet requested a continuance. Mr. Ball replied that a motion for continuance could be made contingent on receiving the written request and if it is not received, the project would be considered to be denied.
Mr. Wayne commented that if all of the coxxxents made by Cornmissioners are incorporated in the redesign, it would become a different project entirely. If the project changes significantly to warrant further environmental reviev, it could not be accomplished,,.within 90 days. He feelr“that a 90 .-day extension vould-piece staff and the applicant under ' serious constraints.- rOther alternatives would be for (1) the applicant to withdraw.the application, or (2) denial without prejudice. The applfcant'would have to pay fees again."' -- because the original'fees vere expended by staff during the original review. '
I
\ ?
January 17, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6 COMMlSSl0NERs
Motion was duly made, seconded, and failed to continue Erwin CUP 88-21/SUP 89-5 for 90 days , contingent upon receiving a Hall vritten request from the applicant for said extension, to Holmes allow the applicant to redesign the project in accordance Marcus with the comments made by the Coakrtission; in the event McFadden that the uritten request is not received, the project Schlehuber would be considered to be denied. Schranxn
Motion was duly made,.seconded,.and.catried to.deny .LI ,-without prejudice CUP 88-21/SUP_89-5. ..__ .- _.*-.
Christer Westman. te Planner, reviewed the background of the request and s that the request is for 42 air space condominium un ocated adjacent to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon at the intersec of Park and Marina Drives. Using a wall diagram he descr the layout of the project and stated that there are t en space/view corridors each approximately 100 ft. in v in addition to a 100 ft. buffer parallel to the shor which has been identified
with two car attached garages Amenities onsite include a swiass some man-made ponds within the v 4.7 acres has been designated as open space which is approximate1 The applicant has requested a st to 5 ft. for the easterly right- effect this would have is that 1 private property rather than in Special Use Permit is being requ a flood plain. Since the site c potential archaaological site, a during the grading process. Staf
rivate patios.
ate cormnon
Drive. The
Mr. Westman noted that several modifications resolutions have been provided by staff memo January 17, 1990.
Chairman Schraake inquired what Modification 113 is fo Wayne replied that 7a is the same as Condition 113 excep there is an incorrect referral to the Costa Real Water District which should correctly refer to the City Engine
Erwin Hall
Holmes Marcus McFadden Schlehuber Schranun
MEMORANDUM
JANUARY 17,199o
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: CUP 88-21/SUP 89-5 - AYRJZS SENIOR CENTER - Request for approval
of a Conditional Use Permit for a 173 unit senior citizen residential care
facility on 5.92 acres and a Special Use Permit required by the El Camino
Real Corridor Development Standards for property located at the southwest
corner of El Camino Real and Alga Road in the Coastal Zone and Local
Facilities Management Plan Zone 6.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 2951 APPROVING the
Conditional Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director, and ADOPT Resolutions
2952 and 2953, APPROVING CUP 88-21 and SUP 89-5, based on the findings and subject
to the conditions contained therein.
II. PROJECX DESCRWTI ON AND BACKGROUND
CUP 88-21/SUP 89-5 was continued from the January 3, 1990 Planning Commission
meeting in order to allow the City Attorney to determine whether the Commission could
add a condition of approval regarding the rent structure to be charged future residents.
The City Attorney’s report is attached as Exhibit 1. The applicant, Douglas Ayres, has
provided a fee schedule for the proposed units which lists services and facilities included
in the monthly rental fee as requested by the Commission. The letter from Mr. Ayres is
attached to Exhibit 1.
The City Attorney has determined that the proposed facility is not a “residential care
facility” as defined in Section 21.04.300 of the Zoning Ordinance. In comparison, the State
of California Community Care Licensing Division has a type of facility called a “Residential
Facility for the Elderly.” The state classifies a “Residential Facility for the Elderly” as a
facility at which a licensee will provide care and supervision for a number of well-aged
adults age 60 or older in their own home or in another residential setting. Given the City
Attorney’s opinion and the state’s requirements, the project may be more appropriately
classified as a “Professional Care Facility” which is also permitted in the RD-M Zone by
Conditional Use Permit. Therefore, the proposed findings are still applicable. Professional
Care Facility is defined in Section 21.04.295 of the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
-
,
CUP 88-21/SUP 89-5 - Ayres
January 17, 1990
Page Two
“professional care facility” means a facility in which food, shelter, and some
form of professional service is provided such as nursing, medical, dietary,
exercising or other medically recommended programs. Not included in this
definition are hospitals and mental hospitals. (Ord. 9455 s 1 (Part), 1976:
Ord. 9060 3 258)
ATTACHMENTS
1. Exhibit 1, Memorandum from the City Attorney dated January 10, 1990
2. Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2951, 2952, and 2953
3. Staff Report dated January 3, 1990 with attachments
DN:af
January 10, 1990
EXHIBIT “1”
TO: Chairman and Members Planning Commission
FROM: City Attorney
AYRES SENIOR CENTER - CUP 88-21/SUP 89-5
The above referenced project was continued from the Commissionts hearing of January 3, 1990 to the meeting of January 17, 1990 in order to receive a report from this office regarding whether or not the Commission could add a condition of approval regarding the rent structure to be charged future residents. The project is recommended for approval and conditioned, among other things, for rental to seniors only. According to the staff report, the site is zoned RD-M which permits residential care facilities. Since the facility will not care for the handicapped or provide 24 hour per day care, it is not a "residential care facility" as that term is defined in Section 21.04.300 of the zoning code, namely:
"Residential care facility means a state authorized, certified or licensed family care home, foster home or group home serving mentally disordered or otherwise handicapped persons or dependent or neglected children where care is provided on a 24-hour a day basis."
However, the zone does permit senior citizen housing by conditional use permit. (CMC 521.24.025). Provided this project is determined to be a senior citizen housing project, it must be approved by conditional use permit by the City Council pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.18.045, If the Planning Commission determines that the project is not a senior citizen housing project, then it should specify which of the permitted or conditional uses allowed in the RD-M zone applies. If Section 21.18.045 applies, the Planning Commission can forward the project on to the City Council with recommendations of approval. If that section does not apply, then the Planning Commission may directly add the suggested conditions if it determines them to be reasonably related to the impact created by the project and furthers the health, safety or general welfare. Since the project is restricted to residents based on age, it must comply with the Unruh Civil Rights Act. (Civil Code 551 et seq.). Under that Act, no business may discriminate in the sale or rental of housing based on age except where accommodations are designed to meet the physical and social needs of senior citizens. For purposes of this Act, a senior citizen means a person 62 years of age or older, or 55 years of age or older in a senior citizen housing development. A senior citizen housing development is defined in the Act to mean a
I
residential development consisting of at least 150 dwelling units . . . . in a standard metropolitan statistical area. Turning our attention to Condition 13, it is apparent that the proposed project satisfies the requirements of this Act. However, a condition 13(c) to read: I would recommend adding
."This project is specifically conditioned on its conformance with the Unruh Civil Rights Act and shall not discriminate on the basis of age except as provided for senior citizens in the Act."
On January 8, 1989 the applicant provided rental information in his letter to City staff. (Copy attached as Exhibit A). According to that letter, the applicant has based his unit rent fees on the fair market rent schedules released by the City of Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Office. That rental schedule is computed annually by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. Its latest rent schedule for fiscal year 1990 is attached to this memorandum as Exhibit B. If the Planning Commission wishes to adopt a condition implementing these fair market rents, suggested wording would be:
"Rents for this project shall be the same as those published by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, fair market rent schedules for the San Diego metropolitan statistical area. These rents may be increased for additional house-keeping, social, recreational, entertainment, laundry, and utility service as shown on Exhibit A. That portion of the rent for house keeping, social and recreational, and other services may be adjusted annually by the same percentage as allowed by the HUD fair market rent schedules from year to year. Upon a proper showing of economic necessity, the applicant may apply to the Planning Commission to increase the latter portion of the rental schedule."
I have checked with the Housing and Redevelopment Department and none of the existing senior housing projects contain such a condition. It has informed me, however, that all of the senior housing projects in Carlsbad voluntarily comply with these guidelines. Monitoring of this condition by Planning Department staff may require additional significant time.
Finally, the staff report refers to Exhibit "J" which is the conversion plan for the project. In order to insure that a senior citizen housing project is constructed, operated and maintained as one, its conversion plan must meet the requirements of Section 21.18.045(g) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Such a plan will ensure that the senior housing project is operated as such or, if
it is not, that the conversion plan, backed by adequate security, will ensure that the project will be brought up to the standards of the zone.
Should you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me.
.
RONALD R. BALL Assistant City Attorney
attachments
c: Planning Director
January 8, 1989
City of Carlsbad Atta: Don Nue 2075 Las Palaas Drive Carlsbad. Ca. 92899
Dear Don,
Per the city’s request I have written a fee schedule for the Active Senior Residence Center. I have also enclosed the iteas and activities included in the rent fee. Based on a survey of the facilities in the area of Carlsbad our price per square foot is the lowest of any center I have located.
It is also important to note that the cost of building this facility is expensive in it’s present layout (IE. unattached buildings, numerous elevators, underground parking, vast green belts and landscaping, street improvements, etc.).
I have based our unit rent fees on the fair market rent schedules released by the City of Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment off ice.
If you have any questions please contact me. If you have any questions please contact me.
SINCE 1905
355 Bristol Street, Suite A, Costa Mesa, California 92626-9667
(714) 5406060 l FAX (714) 540-5408
$:, g9(\
. ’ ‘-.. ,.,(.._l .i . . . . . .‘- _ I, ..I
t..%..--. I
EXHIBIT “A”
January 5, 1989
To: Hr. Don blue, City of Carlsbad
From: Douglas Ayres
Re: Carlsbad Senior Center The following is a approximate fee schedule if we were to open in January 1998.
Honthly Rental Fees
Studio Apartment (475 Sq. Ft.) ( 3-Heals 1 From $ 758.89
One Bedroom ( 2-Heals 1 (681 Sq. Ft.) From $ 1,259.W
Two Bedroom (2-Reals) (858 Sq. Ft.) From $ 1,95f#.gP
Included in monthly rental fee:
Housekeeping Services
Social and Recreational opportunities with a full time social director.
-In house Hovies -Live entertainment -Residents council h comai tees
-Hovies and theater +roup minibus tours and travel -community events
Scheduled Transportation -Shopping Center Trips -Scheduled Doctor Apt.
Laundry Services -Weekly Laundering of towels and linens which are provided by resident
Haintenance service
Utilities included in monthly rental fee
SECURITY AND LIFE SAFETY FEATURES
Smoke alarms in common areas and apartment
Emergency lighting
Receptionist and facility staff seven days a week
Emergency call system and intercom from all apartments monitored 24 hours a day.
*
*
l
*
*
*
1
*
*
*
_ COHHUNITY FEATURES
Elegant living room with l Shuf fleboard fireplace
Cafe, Soda Parlor *Horseshoes
Activities R6om Barbecue in outdoor area
Hul t i-Purpose Room *Elevators to all floors
Centralized mailbor area *Community Dining with private mailboxes
Laundry rooms *Pool
Beauty and barber shop *Vegetable garden
Library with reading area *Nature walking area
TV lounge which includes a wide screen TV and wetbar
Secured Parking
SENT BY: HSG DND F?EDEUELOPFIENT- ’ I- g-90 2:38PM ; - ‘-037+ 619 720 9461;ft 2 -... .a . . 1~ -I~W Y~YY~I uwuwlupm~nf
:. ‘) ‘1 a\ 1
sy
Lm k At.8 atm, RoQlorl IX
-9 ‘* p 1. ~+H10o’l’wl~*a’@
‘m I # tam L.’
I OS AWhINe CA ~OOlb8goI
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 4, 1989
EuaL
lrrir Market Rant lohodulea for Uro In the Lxfrting touring
Coztifitmtr megram, L4an Hanaqanant l nd lroparty Dirporftion
?mgraam, Modaratr Rehabilitation aad lowing Vouoher P:4graa8r
Sffeotivr Oatar Ootobor 1, 1989
Mmtta~ ttrg&&eal Army
Anahmin-8antr An& WOA
Drkoraf iold #MA
Imi Ang8lrr-Long Eeach PWA
Oxnard-Ventura PMlA
Rivarribr-Ban Bernardino PH6A
\/ San Piago MUA
Smta Earbarr-Santa M8rir-
Lompcm WA
-ima
Imprtirt County
I nyo County
Mono County
fi.n Lui8 Obfrpo County
!u
$578
390
513
493
419
463
482
370
390
390
441
m
$701
473
615
600
494
$69
btigl. Doubla Uida Wide
m >-AA m m m
6636 $1,032 $1,156 8374 $374
ssa
718
706
377
666
586 690
697 781 145 222
916 1,035 la2 301
862 9.9 233 352 *
746 640 154 213,
a34 933 267 292
864 %7 183 279
449 419 661 740
473 bll 697 781
473 838 697 78L
136 632 791 881 212 250
NOTE: The orltorir urod by HUD in dewloping ?Mll’r l rm: (1) tha 45th pmrarnt~ls rant
(that ia the rrnt balow whiah 49 percent of thm rtandard quality rantal homing units arm
dimttibutad), (2) rrntr lamed on unit8 ooouphd by reoant novora (hourohordr who moved within two yrrtr bafora thr drto of the rurvry data wad In there arloulationrl~ and 131 ~xulurion frm tha d&U b&s4 on publio hawing unit8 and romntly oomphtad houring lunitu
bui I t within two yrrra of the rurvay Uator) . (mm 24 cFI mi8.113.) Thr FMR'r for rwrr~lb)lcturad hoam spaam ara braad on tha Jlth ptomtllo rat for manufroturad homm
SpXlO,
Lm ,- -t I@11 w.~:‘wm8lo BwIord LOB Akumw, orlllornl& OOQl(=)IOl EXHIBIT 0 :
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2951
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAO, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR A CONDITIONAL AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO
DEVELOP A 173 UNIT SENIOR CITIZEN RESIDENTIAL CARE
FACILITY.
CASE NAME: AYRES SENIOR CENTER.
CASE NO.: CUP 88-21/SUP 89-5
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of January, 1990
and on the 17th day of January, 1990, 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 Conditional 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 Conditional Negative
Declaration according to Exhibit "ND", dated October 18, 1989, and “PII”,
dated August 3, 1989, and the mitigation monitoring program outlined in appendix "P", attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findinaz:
1. The initial study shows that the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, however, there will not be a significant impact in this case because the mitigation measures described in the initial study have been added to the project.
2. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier environmental analysis.
3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed project according to the traffic report provided that mitigating conditions of approval are complied with.
I
I 1 4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be ( significantly impacted by this project provided that mitigating conditions
2 of approval are complied with.
3 Conditions:
4 1. This project if approved is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2952 and 2953 plus compliance with the following
5 mitigating conditions: !
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 PC RESO NO. 2951
A. Earth and Water - Runoff from this project is conveyed to environmentally sensitive areas. The developer shall provide adequate means of eliminating grease and oils from drainage prior to discharge. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any building permits for the
site.
B. Noise - The following requirements shall be noted on the building plans:
I. The required glazing for the project to meet the State and City interior noise criteria of 45 dB CNEL is as follows:
a. Standard single strength glass, or windows with a Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 22 or greater for all windows on all elevations of all units of the project.
b. All sliding glass doors (SGD) shall be 3/16 inch glass.
C. All entry doors shall be 1 3/4 inch solid core.
II. Since windows and doors must be closed to meet the interior noise standard, mechanical ventilation which meets the air
change requirements of the UBC must be provided in units
shaded on the site plan of the project attached to the initial
study. Where windows are required to be unopenable or kept
closed in order to meet the interior noise standards,
mechanical ventilation and cooling, if necessary, shall be provided to maintain a habitable environment. The system
shall supply two air changes per hour to each habitable room
including 2O%.(one-fifth) fresh make-up sir obtained directly
from the outdoors. The fresh air inlet duct shall be of sound
attenuating construction and shall consist of a minimum of ten
feet of straight or curved duct or six feet plus one sharp 90
degree bend.
C. TransoortationKirculation - Participate in the re-construction of the Alga Road/El Camino Real Intersection as required by the Zone 6 Local Facilities Management Plan.
-2-
,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2e
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of
January, 1990, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
SHARON SCHRAMM, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
MICHAEL 3. HOLZMILLER PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RESO NO. 2951 -3-
Exhibit "ND"
CONDITIONAL NEGATfVE DEClARATfON
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Southwest corner of El Camino Real and Alga Road.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 173 unit Senior Citizen apartment project with a community center
building, pool, reflection pond, tea house, walking course and two underground parking
garages on 5.92 acres.
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
Conditional 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 Conditional 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 thirty
(30) days of date of issuance.
DATED: October 18, 1989
CASE NO: CUP 88-21/SUP 845 Planning Director
APPLICANT: Robert J. Royce, A.I.A.
PUBLISH DATE: October 18, 1989
DN:kd
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 l (819) 438-l 181
I
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR GEORGE OEUKMEJIAN, Govwmr
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
1400 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
November 16, 1989
Don Meu
City of CarLsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Subject: Ayres Senior Citizen Apartments
SCH# 89010039
Dear Mr. Meu:
The State Clearinghouse sulnaitted the above named environmental document to
selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and none of
the state agencies have comaents. This letter acknowledges that you have
complied With the State Clearinghouse review requirements. for draft
environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
Please call Garrett Ashley at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions
regarding the envfroomental review process. When contacting the Clearinghouse
in this matter, please use the eight-digit State Clearinghouse number so that
we may respond promptly.
Sincerely,
. David C. Nunenkamp
Deputy Director, Permit Assistance l
,
I.
1.
2.
3.
II.
- -- . Exhibit "PII"
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CUP 88-21/SUP 89-5
DATE: Auaust 3. 1989
BACKGROUND
APPLICANT: Robert J. Royce, A.I.A.
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2956 Roosevelt St., #3
Carlsbad. CA 92008
(619) 434-6529
DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be written under Section III - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
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?
MAYBE NO
X
X
X
X
X
n
YES MAYBE NO
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. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patters, 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?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-2-
4.
a.
b.
C.
d.
5.
a.
b.
C.
d.
6.
-7.
8.
.
Plant Life - Will the proposal have significant results in:
Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)?
Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants?
Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species?
Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?
Animal Life - Will the proposal have significant results in:
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)?
Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals?
Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals?
Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat?
- Noise Will the proposal significantly increase existing noise levels?
Lisht and Glare - Will the proposal sig- nificantly produce new light or glare?
Land Use - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area?
YES MAYBE NO
X
-3-
9.
a.
b.
10.
11.
12.
13.
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
.
YES MAYBE
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?
Population - 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?
Transnortation/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 present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods?
Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-4-
14.
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
15.
a.
b.
16.
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
17.
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?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks or other recreational facilities?
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
Other governmental services?
Enerav - Will the proposal have significant results in:
Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
Demand upon existing sources of
energy I or require the development of new sources of energy?
Utilities - Will the proposal have significant results in the need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas?
Communications systems?
Water?
Sewer or septic tanks?
Storm water drainage?
Solid waste and disposal?
Human Health - Will the proposal have significant results in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)?
-5-
MAYBE NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
18.
19.
20.
21.
YES MAYBE NO
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?
Archeoloaical/Historical/Paleontoloaical - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure, object or building?
X
X
X
Analyze viable alternatives to the nronosed nroiect 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.
The project proposes development of 173 senior citizen apartments on a 5.92 acre site. The project includes an on-site community center building, a pool, reflection pond, tea house, a walking course, and two underground parking garages containing a total of 107 parking spaces. The site has been previously graded out to two pads with a slope of 15 feet between them. The site is lower in elevation than El Camino Real and Alga Road. To the north of the site is Alga Road and the future Plaza Paseo, Real (Von Der Ahe) Commercial/Governmental Center approved by the City Council on March 21, 1989. To the south are single family residences and to the west is the 36 unit Seaport Villas Condominium project. To the east is El Camino Real and Multiple Family Units. The project will be developed to be compatible with adjacent developments as it is surrounded on three sides by public streets and a 100 foot buffer will be
a)
b)
provided from properties-to the south due to an S.D.G.&E. easement.
Phasing of the project would not be a significantly environmentally superior alternative as on-site infrastructure and amenities would need to be constructed in their entirety for even a portion of the project reducing any benefits derived from phasing. In addition the entire site has been previously graded and contains no significant natural resources.
Alternative site designs have been considered including an original proposal for 206 units and later 188 units. The present design which consists of 173 units provides a superior site design including a
-6-
- -
greater percentage of open space on-site in addition to a reduction in traffic generation.
cl The present scale of development proposed is less than previous proposals which are mentioned in category lb1 above. The proposed project design and scale of development complies with or exceeds all city requirements and can be accommodated on the site as no significant unmitigatible environmental impacts will be created.
d) Alternate uses for the site would typically consist of medium density residential uses such as small lot single family homes or townhouses, duplexes, triplexes and low density apartment developments pursuant to the RM (Medium Density) land use classification of the General Plan. The General Plan Housing Element provides policy direction and proposed actions that encourage the city to provide senior citizen housing through the CUP process in conjunction with the RDM Zone. For this reason senior citizen housing is considered a desirable use.
e) Development at some future time rather than now would continue the vacant nature of the site. This would be inconsistent with the General Plan and zoning designations for the site as well as the residential land use guidelines which encourage mu.lti-family uses to locate near commercial centers where public facilities and infrastructure will be available to accommodate the proposed use. Development at some future time would not provide additional housing opportunities to meet the goals of the Housing Element.
f) Alternative,sites for senior citizen housing can be found within the city as it may be permitted by Conditional Use Permit in the R-P, RD- M, R-W, R-3 and in the PC zone if- a Master Plan provides for it. These sites may not present environmental benefits or have the advantage of being in close proximity to a future commercial/governmental center.
9) The no project alternative would retain the previously graded lot in a vacant condition which is inconsistent with the General Plan and Zoning designations for the site.
-7-
.
YES MAYBE NO
22. Mandatorv findinas of sianificance -
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. X
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? (88Cumulatively 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.)
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
X
X
-8-
111: DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
1. Earth - The site was previously graded into two flat pads. The Soils Report submitted for the project indicates that a large amount of fill was required to create this lot in 1977. Approximately 20,000 cubic yards of earth will be cut and filled on site to level out the pads which differ in elevation by up to 15 feet and create the two underground parking garages. Runoff from this project is conveyed to environmentally sensitive areas. The developer is required to provide adequate means of eliminating grease and oils from drainage prior to discharge.
2. a- The project will not create objectionable odors or produce emissions that will significantly deteriorate ambient air quality. The project's finish grade elevation below El Camino Real and Alga Road combined with the proposed open corridors will not disturb air flows.
3. Water - The project provides significant perimeter landscaping and an onsite drainage system with numerous catch basins to reduce the amount and rate of surface water runoff. Approximately 60 percent of the site will be landscaped so as to not significantly affect absorption rates. As stated under section 1 on earth the developer is required to provide adequate means of eliminating grease and oils from drainage prior to discharge.
4. Plant Life - There is no environmentally significant plant life on site as it has been previously graded. Existing vegetation consists primarily of weeds and grasses.
5. Animal Life - Due to the disturbed nature of the site as well as its location adjacenttomajor roadways and surrounding development little or no animal life exists on site.
6. Noise - An acoustical analysis has been prepared for the project. The project traffic will not significantly increase existing noise levels. Outdoor areas of the project will be impacted by projected noise levels of 65 to 67 dB CNEL and less from adjacent roadways. The principle outdoor living areas within the project are setback significant distances fromadjacentroadways and benefit frombuilding shielding so that projected noise levels will be mitigated to 56.8 db CNEL for future roadway noise sources, less than the 60 dB CNEL maximum permitted.
The required glazing for the project to meet the state and city interior noise criteria of 45 db CNEL is as follows:
a. Standard single strength glass, or windows with a Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 22 or greater. (All windows on all elevations of all units of the project)
b. All sliding glass doors (SGD) should be 3/16" glass.
C. All entry doors should be 1 3/4 inch solid core.
-9-
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
Interior noise levels with these recommendations are calculated to be less than 45 dB CNEL with doors and windows closed. Since windows and doors must be closed to meet the interior noise standard, mechanical ventilation must be provided in Units shaded in th8 attached site plan of the project which meets the air change requirements of the UBC. Where windows are required to be unopenable or kept closed in order to meet the interior noise standards, mechanical ventilation and cooling, if necessary, shall be provided to maintain a habitable environment. The system shall supply two air changes per hour to each habitable room including 20% (one-fifth) fresh make-up air obtained directly.from the outdoors. The fresh air inlet duct shall be of sound attenuating construction and shall consist of a minimum of ten feet of straight or curved duct or six feet plus one sharp 90' bend.
These requirements have been made mitigation measures for the project.
7. Liaht & Glare - The project topographic and site design reduces light and glare impacts to surrounding areas. Low intensity lighting will be used within the project for safe and convenient nighttime use.
8. Land Use - The density of the proposed project is significantly higher than that allowed by the RM (Medium density, 4-6 DU/AC) General Plan designation. The Zoning Ordinance however, allows Senior Citizen Housing up to 75 dwelling units per net acre through City Council approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). In addition the Housing Element of the General Plan encourages the provision of senior citizen housing through the CUP process in conjunction with the RD-M, PC, RW, and R-3 zones. The project design provides adequate perimeter setbacks to provide a buffer from adjacent uses. The proposed density is 29.22 DU/AC when utilizing the entire acreage of the site or 38.10 DU/AC when excluding the S.D.G.&E. easement form the total acreage of the site. In addition 60% of the site will be landscaped which provides evidence that the requested density is justifiable.
9. Natural Resources - The site has been previously graded. No natural resources exist on site.
10. Risk of Unset - The project will not store or require the use of hazardous substances in the daily operation of the facility.
11. Ponulation - The proposal will not alter the distribution or growth rate of the human population for the area. The population density for the site however will increase from 68 persons under the existing General Plan designation, utilizing a factor of 2.471 persons per unit, to 206 persons (1 person/studio apt., 1.25 persons/l bedroom apt-, 2 persons/2 bedroom apt.). This increase is permitted pursuant to the Housing Element for the provision of Senior Citizen Housing.
12. Housinq - The project will provide Senior Citizen Housing to help satisfy the polices and actions of the Housing Element.
-lO-
DISCUSSIbN OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
13. Transnortation/Circulation - The project will generate additional vehicular trips over what the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6 provided for the site. A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared for the project focusing on the intersection of Alga Road and El Camino Real. The additional trips generated by the Senior Citizen Apartment project will be offset by projects in the zone that were approved for fewer units than anticipated by the Zone Plan. To mitigate traffic impacts caused by the project the developer will be required to participate in the reconstruction of the Alga Road/El Camino Real intersection as required by the Zone 6 Local Facilities Management Plan.
14. Public Services - The project is located in Local Facilities Management Zone 6. Services will be provided through the implementation of that zone plan.
15. Enerav - The project will not use substantial amounts of fuel or energy. Food will be provided and served at a common facility. The project will be in close walking distance of commercial/governmental facilities and has access to public transit.
16. Utilities - The project will be required to improve the North Batiguitos Pump Station and make improvements to the trunk line along the North Shore of Batiguitos Lagoon. Other utilities exist within the public right-of-way adjacent to the site and will be able to provide service to the project.
17. Human Health - The project will not create any health hazards. Noise levels within the units and in the outdoor recreation areas will be within acceptable levels with the implementation .of the mitigation measures for noise.
18. Aesthetics - The project's topographic, architectural and landscape site design results in a sensitive aesthetic treatment of the site which is compatible with surrounding projects including the approved Plaza Paseo Real commercial/governmental center. In addition the project complies with the development standards of the El Camino Real Corridor.
19. Recreation - The project will not reduce the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities. On site recreation facilities are proposed including a pool, reflection pond, community center building, tea house, croquet court, and a health walk course.
20. Archeoloaical/Historical/Paleontolooical - There is no evidence of significance on this site as it has been previously graded and the soils report provided indicates that the present site elevation is the result of a significant amount of fill.
Rev. 12/88
-ll-
IV.' DET'ERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
'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 X 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.
/ii-//- 89‘
Date
t ol&q D&td
Signature
V.MITIGATING MEASURES (.If Applicable)
All submittals to the City of carlsbad to fulfil1 the conditions of this mitigated Negative Declaration shall reference: 1) the project file No. CUP 88021/SUP 89-5; b) This Negative DeclarationIs State Clearinghouse No. and c) the specific mitigation number listed below.
1. Earth and Water - Runoff from this project is conveyed to environmentally sensitive areas. The developer shall provide adequate means of eliminating grease and oils from drainage prior to discharge. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the City Engineerpriorto issuance of any building permits for the site.
2. Noise - The following requirements shall be noted on the building plans:
I. The required glazing for the project to meet the State and City interior noise criteria of 45 dB CNEL is as follows:
A. Standard single strength glass, or windows with a Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 22 or greater for all windows on all elevations of all units of the project.
B. All sliding glass doors (SGD) shall be 3/16 inch glass.
C. All entry doors shall be 1 3/4 inch solid core.
-120
.
MITIGATING MEASURES (Continued)
II. Since windows and doors must be closed to meet the interior noise standard, mechanical ventilation which meets the air change requirements of the UBC must be provided in units shaded on the attached site plan of the project. Where windows are required to be unopenable or kept closed in order to meet the interior noise standards, mechanical ventilation and cooling, if necessary, shall be provided to maintain a habitable environment. The system shall supply two air changes per hour to each habitable room including 20% (one-fifth) fresh make-up air obtained directly from the outdoors. The fresh air inlet duct shall be of sound attenuating construction and shall consist of a minimum of ten feet of straight or curved duct or six feet plus one sharp 90" bend.
3. Transnortation/Circulation - Participate in the re-construction of the Alga Road/El Camino Real intersection as required by the Zone 6 Local Facilities Management Plan.
VI. APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE
DN:kd
-13-
‘.o# - --. _
_ -- - .. < c1 -- / --- -‘Li
_,
.>a;3
.A L
w
I+&----+~ *W-f .._
-.._
L--Al., :
y-=~:~--~;J --q-Y-.:. - j-- . .
c
-- I
MANIA * 1 / .i _--. *k -’ .a** (2” _k ,- IaD tm i/ I
uire Mechanical
FIGURE 6: Shaded Building Areas Ventilation
APPENDIX P
ENVIRON’-YTAL MITIGATION MONITORIF CHECKLIST
w m S” mo L m.r .F 0 s4++ .r .r m-r
g E.:g
z3zE
(EIL ‘E *
w c ‘2 w-0 VC, r L a-v- I-owv
z:: %I; f.Z -F SC
g.:
“: s OC -I- +
tfl
2: *- UY
s 0.
. c\1
A5.e g
g *-- E
WEE
&iGLE (c-P& P W & 7 s m-0 P occ, .C .C
.tis,mOv, we w-0 3 > Err .r L -0 a zOgE$
- r.0C
PLANNING COMHISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2952
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO DEVELOP A 173
UNIT SENIOR CITIZEN RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL AND ALGA ROAD. CASE NAME: AYRES SENIOR CENTER CASE NO: CUP 88-21
WHEREAS, a verified application 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, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning
Commission did, on the 3rd day of January, 1990, and on the 17th day of
January, 1990, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider said application
on property described as:
Lot 1 of Carlsbad Tract 72-34 (Ranch0 La Cuesta) Unit No. 1, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof No. 8350, as recorded in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County dated July 28, 1976.
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 CUP 88-21.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
0) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission APPROVEQ CUP 88-21, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findinqq:
1. That the requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of
the community, is essentially in harmony with the various elements and
objectives of the general plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses
or to uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use
is to be located;
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use;
3. That all of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to adjust the requested use to existing or permitted
future uses in the neighborhood will be provided and maintained;
4. That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use providing that
mitigating conditions of approval are complied with. 51 (part), 1970: Ord. 9060 51401). (Ord. 9252
5. The Planning Commission has, by inclusion of an appropriate condition to this project, ensured building permits will 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.
‘6. All necessary public improvements have been provided or will be required
as conditions of approval.
7. The applicant has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an apprqpriate 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.
8. The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since surrounding properties are designated for residential and commercial 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 October 18, 1989 and approved by the Planning Commission on January 3, 1990. 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. 2952
9.
10.
11.
The applicant is by condition, required to pay any increase in public
facility fee, 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.
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.
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
2c
21
22
22
24
25
26
27
2&
Conditions:
1. Approval is granted for CUP 88-21, as shown on Exhibit(s) "A - "K", dated December 6, 1989, incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning Department. Development shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these conditions.
2. The developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24" x 36", my1 ar
copy of the site plan as approved by the Planning Commission. The site plan 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.
3. This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the City Engineer determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of application for such sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of occupancy.
4. 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 March 29,
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.
5. Water shall be provided to this project pursuant to the Water Service
agreement between the City of Carlsbad and the Carlsbad Municipal Water District, dated May 25, 1983.
6. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which may be required as part of the Zone 6 Local Facilities Management
Plan and any amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
7.
a.
PC RESO NO. 2952
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.
-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
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not
issued for this project within one year from the date of project approval.
Approval of CUP 88-21 is granted subject to the approval of SUP 89-5.
This conditional use permit is granted for a period of five (5) years. This conditional use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Director on a yearly basis to determine if all conditions of this permit have been met and that the use does not have a significant detrimental impact on surrounding properties or the public health and welfare. If the Planning Director determines that the use has such significant adverse impacts,
the Planning Director shall recommend that the Planning Commission, after
providing the permittee the opportunity to be heard, add additional conditions to mitigate the significant adverse impacts. This permit may be revoked at any time after a public hearing, if it is found that the use has a significant detrimental affect on surrounding land uses and the public's health and welfare, or the conditions imposed herein have not been met. This permit may be extended for a reasonable period of time
not to exceed ten (10) years upon written application of the permittee
made no less than 90 days prior to the expiration date. In granting such extension, the Planning Commission shall find that no substantial adverse
affect on surrounding land uses or the public's health and welfare will result because of the continuation of the permitted use. If a substantial adverse affect on surrounding land uses or the public's health and welfare is found, the extension shall be considered as an original application for a conditional use permit. There is no limit to the number of extensions the Planning Commission may grant.
Prior to the issuance of the building permits there shall be a deed restriction placed on the deed to this property subject to the
satisfaction of the Planning Director notifying all interested parties
and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a
Conditional Use Permit by Resolution No. 2952 on the real property owned by the declarant. Said deed restriction shall note the property description, location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the deed restriction. Said deed
restriction(s) may be modified or terminated only with the approval of the Planning Director, Planning Commission or City Council of the City of Carlsbad whichever has final decision authority for this project.
The following requirements shall be made part of the lease agreement
executed for all rentals at this project and be included in the deed restriction:
a. The minimum age of at least one occupant of each unit shall be sixty (60) years of age except for the manager's unit.
b. The minimum age for any occupant of any unit shall be fifty-five (55) years of age.
PC RESO NO. 2952 -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
,
I
1
I
,
,
I
I
,
I
I
,
I
L
i
I
There shall be no more than three people residing in any two-
bedroom unit, and that two of the three will be at least sixty (60)
years of age, and the third person over fifty-five (55), except that if the third person is a live-in nurse or attendant required for medical reasons.
Forty percent (40%) of the units shall be limited to occupancy by tenants who do not have automobiles as parking is provided at the
rate of .6 spaces per unit.
Prior to any rentals the lease shall be sumnarized to the City for
approval.
Prior to the issuance of anv nermits for the project the applicant shall present evidence that he has obtained !icensing of the facility as a
Residential Facility for the Elderly from the State of California, Community Care Licensing Division.
Trash receptacle areas shall be enclosed by a six-foot high masonry wall
with gates pursuant to City standards. Location of said receptacles
shall be approved by the Planning Director. Enclosure shall be of
similar colors and/or materials to the project to the satisfaction of the
Planning Director.
e.
f.
9.
14.
15.
16.
17.
ia.
19.
20.
PC RESO NO. 2952
All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in substance as provided in
Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the Directors
of Planning and Building.
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.
All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving
condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris.
The developer shall install street trees at the equivalent of 40-foot
intervals along all public street frontages in conformance with City of
Carlsbad standards. The trees shall be of a variety selected from the approved Street Tree List.
C.
d.
There shall be no more than one person residing in any studio unit. :
There shall be no more than two people residing in any one-bedroom unit.
-5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
10
11
12
.13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be desioned
A) Earth and Water - Runoff from the project is conveyed to
environmentally sensitive areas. The developer shall provide
adequate means of eliminating grease and oils from drainage prior
to discharge. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any building permits for the site.
PC RESO NO. 2952
B) Noise - The following requirements shall be noted on the building
plans:
I. The required glazing for the project to meet the State and City interior noise criteria of 45 dB CNEL is as follows:
-6-
in conformance with the City's Sign Ordinance and shall require re;iew
and approval of the Planning Director prior to installation of such signs.
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.
The project shall provide bus stop facilities at locations subject to the satisfaction of the North County Transit District. Said facilities shall at a minimum include a bench, free from advertising, and a pole for the
bus stop sign. The bench and pole shall be designed in a manner so as to not detract from the basic architectural theme of the project and said design shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director and North County Transit District.
As part of the plans submitted for building permit plan check, the applicant shall include a reduced version of the approving resolutions on a 24" x 36" blueline drawing. Said blueline drawing(s) shall also include a copy of any applicable Coastal Development Permit and signed approved site plan.
Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever comes first, a soils report shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Carlsbad. If the soils report indicates the presence of potential fossil bearing material then a standard two phased program, on file in the Planning Department, shall be undertaken to avoid possible significant impacts on paleontological resources under the direction of the Planning Department.
The applicant shall be responsible for implementing the required mitigation measures. All submittals to the City of Carlsbad to fulfil1 the conditions of the Mitigated Negative Declaration shall reference: 1) the project file No. CUP BB-21/SUP Bg-5; 2) This Negative Declaration's State Clearinghouse No. and 3) the specific mitigation number listed below.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2c
21
22
2z
24
25
26
27
28
a. Standard single strength glass, or windows with a Sound
Transmission Class (SIC) rating of 22 or greater for all windows on all elevations of all units of the project.
b. All sliding glass doors (SGD) shall be 3/16 inch glass.
C. All entry doors shall be 1 3/4 inch solid core.
II. Since windows and doors must be closed to meet the interior noise standard, mechanical ventilation which meets the air
change requirements of the. UBC must be provided in units shaded on the site plan of the project attached to the initial study. Where windows are required to be unopenabl e or kept closed in order to meet the interior noise standards, mechanical ventilation and cooling, if necessary, shall be provided to maintain a habitable environment. The system shall supply two air changes per hour to each habitable room including 20% (one-fifth) fresh make-up air obtained directly from the outdoors. The fresh air inlet duct shall be of sound attenuating construction and shall consist of a minimum of ten feet of straight or curved duct or six feet plus one sharp 90
degree bend.
C. Transportation/Circulation - Participate in the reconstruction of
the Alga Road/El Camino Real intersection as required by the Zone
6 Local Facilities Management Plan.
27. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits the project applicant shall receive a Coastal Development Permit from the California
Coastal Conmission that approves development that is in substantial
conformance with the City approval. Evidence that the permit has been
received shall be submitted to both the Planning and Engineering Departments.
Enoineerins Conditions:
28. The developer shall obtain a grading permit prior to the commencement of any clearing or grading of the site.
29. The grading for this project is defined as "controlled grading" by
Section 11.06.170(a) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Grading shall be performed under the observation of a civil engineer whose responsibility
it shall be to coordinate site inspection and testing to ensure
compliance of the work with the approved grading plan, submit required reports to the City Engineer and verify compliance with Chapter 11.06 of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
30. No grading shall occur outside the limits of the project unless a letter of permission is obtained from the owners of the affected properties.
PC RESO NO. 2952 -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
31.
32.
All slopes within this project shall be no steeper than 2:1.
Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to any proposed construction site within this project the developer shall submit to and receive approval from the City Engineer for the proposed haul route. The developer shall comply with all conditions and requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the hauling operation.
33. The developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase
of this project to prevent any offsite siltation. The developer shall provide erosion control measures and shall construct temporary
desiltation/detention basins of type, size and location as approved by the City Engineer. The basins and erosion control measures shall be shown and specified on the grading plan and shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the start of any other grading operations. Prior to the removal of any basins or facilities so constructed the area served shall be protected by additional drainage facilities, slope erosion control measures and other methods required or approved by the City Engineer. The developer shall maintain the temporary basins and erosion control measures for a period of time satisfactory to the City Engineer and shall guarantee their maintenance and satisfactory performance through cash deposit and bonding in amounts and types suitable to the City Engineer.
34. Additional drainage easements and drainage structures shall be provided or installed as may be required by the City Engineer.
35. This project is located within the Batiquitos Lagoon management plan. All development design shall comply with the requirements of that plan.
36. Runoff from this project is conveyed to environmentally sensitive areas.
The subdivider shall provide adequate means of eliminating grease and
oils from drainage prior to discharge. Plans for such improvements shall
be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading or building
permit.
37. The developer shall make an offer of dedication to the City for all
public streets and easements required by these conditions or shown on the
Site Development Plan. The offer shall be made prior to the issuance of
any building permit for this project. All land so offered shall be
granted to the City free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and
without cost to the City. Streets that are already public are not
required to be rededicated.
38.
PC RESO NO. 2952
The developer shall obtain the City Engineer's approval of the project improvement plans and enter into a secured agreement with the City for completion of said improvements prior to issuance of any building permit within this project. The improvements shall be constructed and accepted
for maintenance by the City Council prior to issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy for any unit within the project. The improvements are:
-a-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
39.
40.
41.
42.
A.
B.
C.
D.
El Camino Real widening and bus turnout including guardrail along Alga Road and El Camino Real, as required by City Engineer.
Alga Road widening as required to provide dual left turn lanes.
Full width median in El Camino Real from Alga Road to the south end of the project frontage including dual left turn lanes at Alga
Road.
Reconstruction of the Alga Road/El Camino Real intersection as
required by Zone 6 and Zone 19 Local Facilities Management Plan (Primarily Signal and Is1 and Traffic Reconstruction).
Improvements listed above shall be constructed within 12 months of improvement plan approval, Item "C" may be deferred by the City Engineer provided appropriate bond or cash deposit be filed. Item "En may be constructed by others. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits
an approved agreement of responsibility between adjacent developers shall be filed with the City of Carlsbad.
Unless a standard variance has been issued, no variance from City Standards is authorized by virtue of approval of this Site Plan.
Prior to issuance of any building permit for the project, the developer shall submit a detailed report prepared by a registered civil engineer acceptable to the City on the existing condition of the Ayres sewer trunkline. The report shall be based upon a video inspection of the trunkline adjacent to the project site and extending to the sewer pump station. The video tapes shall be submitted to the City Engineer with the report and shall become the property of the City. The report shall detail the condition of the pipe and recommend any remedial measures necessary to bring the sewer line into conformance with City standards. If any repairs are necessary the developer shall submit a proposed schedule of repairs and a method of financing such repairs acceptable to the City Engineer. This condition may be satisfied by adjacent developers with similar conditions.
Repair or reconstruction of the Ayres sewer trunkline shall be completed prior to occupancy of any portion of this project unless it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Planning Director that:
* Adequate capacity is available to accommodate the sewage flow from this project, and
* An agreement and appropriate security (bond) is accepted by the City of Carlsbad. The agreement shall guarantee the proportionate
share of this project (by equivalent dwelling unit) for the repair or reconstruction of the Ayres sewer main, pump station or force main, including but not limited to; manholes, laterals, trunk line facilities, pump station and force mains.
PC RESO NO. 2952 -9-
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
43. The developer shall comply with all the rules, resulations and desiqn :
requirements of the rdsPective sewer and water" agencies regarding
services to the project.
44.
45.
This project is approved specifically as 1 (single) phase.
Thedesign of all private streets and drainage systems shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any grading or building permit, for this project. The structural section of all private streets shall conform to City of Carlsbad Standards based on R-value tests. All private streets and drainage systems shall be inspected by the City, and the standard improvement plan check and inspection fees shall be paid
prior to issuance of any grading or building permit for this project.
46. Additional onsite fire hydrant is required for this project. The developer shall prepare water system improvement plans and a public water
easement to the satisfaction of the Water District Engineer prior to the
issuance of a building permit for the project.
47. All private driveways shall be kept clear of parked vehicles at all
times, and shall have posted "No Parking/Fire Lane Tow Away Zone"
pursuant to Section 17.04.040, Carlsbad Municipal Code.
48. The developer shall be responsible for coordination with S.D.G.&E.,
Pacific Telephone, and Cable TV authorities.
49.
50.
51.
The applicant shall agree to utilize reclaimed water, in Type I form, on
the subject property in all common areas as approved by the City Engineer.
Irrigation systems to accommodate future reclaimed water shall be designed consistent with Title 17 of the California Administrative Code. Offsite future reclaimed water distribution systems should be anticipated by the installation of adequately sized sleeves at crossing points to minimize street excavation.
The developer shall offer for dedication right of way along El Camino Real to accommodate an additional south bound lane. Specific dimension
shall be determined by City Engineer.
Fire Conditions:
52. Prior to the issuance of building permits, complete building plans shall
be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department.
53. Additional public and/or onsite fire hydrants shall be provided if deemed
necessary by the Fire Marshal.
54. The applicant shall submit two (2) copies of a site plan showing locations of existing and proposed fire hydrants and onsite roads and drives to the Fire Marshal for approval.
PC RESO NO. 2952 -lO-
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
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
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
proj.ect site.
Proposed security gate systems shall be provided with "Knox" key operated
override switch, as specified by the Fire Department.
All private driveways shall be kept clear of parked vehicles at all times, and shall have posted "NO Parking/Fire Lane - Tow Away Zone"
pursuant to Section 17.04.040, Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Fire retardant roofs shall be required on all structures.
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.
All roof-top appurtenances shall be architecturally integrated into the design of the building and shielding to prevent noise and visual impacts,
subject to approval before issuance of permit.
All buildings other than Group "M" occupancies shall be protected by
automatic fire sprinklers.
Applicant shall disclose to Fire Department intent to provide any service
requiring a license.
Carlsbad MuniciDal Water District Conditions:
64. The entire potable and non-potable water system/systems for subject
project shall be evaluated in detail to ensure that adequate capacity and
pressure for domestic, landscaping and fire flow demands are met.
65. The developer's engineer shall schedule a meeting with the District
Engineer and the City Fire Marshal and review the preliminary water system layout prior to preparation of the water system improvement plans.
66. The developer will be responsible for all fees and deposits plus the major facility charge which will be collected at time of issuance of building permit.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
PC RESO NO. 2952 -ll-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
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 17th day of 1 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of 1
January, 1990, by the following vote, to wit: January, 1990, by the following vote, to wit: I I
AYES: AYES:
NOES: NOES:
ABSENT: ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
PLANNING DIRECTOR PLANNING DIRECTOR
SHARON SCHRAMM, Chairperson SHARON SCHRAMM, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
PC RESO NO. 2952 PC RESO NO. 2952 -12-
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2953
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO DEVELOP A 173 UNIT ;
SENIOR CITIZEN RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ! /
EL CAMINO REAL CORRIDOR STANDARDS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON
THE.SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL AND ALGA ROAD. CASE NAME: AYRES SENIOR CENTER CASE NO: SUP 89-5
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to wit:
Lot 1 of Carlsbad Tract 72034 (Ranch0 La Cuesta) Unit No. 1, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof No. 8350, as recorded in the office of the
County recorder of San Diego County dated July 28, 1976
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 3rd day of January, 1990,
and on the 17th day of January, 1990, 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 Special Use Permit; and
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, the
Commission APPROVED SUP 89-5, based on the following findings and subject
to the following conditions:
Findinas:
1. The project enhances the scenic qualities of the El Camino Real Corridor consistent with the corridor's development standards by providing an attractive development reflecting an "Old California/Hispanic" architectural theme, fifty to seventy foot building setbacks along El
Camino Real, and landscaping which incorporates the theme trees for the corridor.
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
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
The project protects scenic views and traffic safety along El Camino Real
by providing attractive buildings within extensively landscaped grounds *
and by contributing to a landscaped median in El Camino Real. / I
Conditions:
1. Approval is granted for SUP 89-5, as shown on Exhibit(s) "A" - "K", dated
December 6, 1989, incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning
Department. Development shall occur substantially as shown unless
otherwise noted in these conditions.
2. Approval of SUP 89-5 is granted subject to the approval of CUP 88-21.
PC RESO 2953 2
The Planning Commission has, by inclusion of an appropriate condition to
this project, ensured building permits will 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.
All necessary public improvements have been provided or will be required as conditions of approval.
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 compatible with the surrounding future land uses since surrounding properties are designated for residential and
commercial 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 October 18, 1989, and Approved by the Planning Commission on January 3, 1990. 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.
The applicant is by condition, required to pay any increase in public
facility fee, 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.
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.
-
1
'* E
9
1c
11
12
.12
14
II
U
l'i
1t
1s
2c
21
2x
2:
24
2f
2E
25
2E
.
P ,
i
L
i
i
I
8
)
1
I .
> ,
5
L
i
i
I
1
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning :
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of
January, 1990, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SHARON SCHRAMM, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RESO 2953
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
JANUARY 3, 1990
PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CUP 88-21/SUP 89-5 AYRES SENIOR CEN’IER - Request for approval
of a Conditional Use Permit for a 173 unit Senior Citizen Residential Care
Facility on 5.92 acres and a Special Use Permit required by the El Camino
Real Corridor Development Standards for property located at the southwest
corner of El Camino Real and Alga Road in the Coastal Zone and Local
Facilities Management Plan Zone 6.
I. RJXOMMENDATION
APPLICATIC, . COMPLETE DATE: GM/
JULY 28. 1989
0 2
STAFF REPORT
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 2951 APPROVING the
Conditional Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director, and ADOPT Resolutions
2952, and 2953, APPROVING CUP 88-21 and SUP 89-5, based on the findings and subject
to the conditions contained therein.
II. PROJECI’ DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The applicant is proposing to develop 173 senior citizen residential care units on a 5.92
acre site. The site is zoned RD-M and residential care facilities are allowed in this zone
by conditional use permit. Individual units do not include kitchen facilities. The Zoning
Ordinance defines dwelling unit as, one or more rooms in a dwelling or apartment house
designed for occupancy by one family for living or sleeping purposes, and having only one
kitchen. Because the individual units do not have kitchens they are not considered
dwelling units and are exempt from growth management and general plan density
requirements, and the project is technically not considered a Senior Citizen Housing
Project. The project will however, require licensing from the State of California
Community Care Licensing Division as the facility is classified as a residential facility for
the elderly.
The proposal also consists of an on site community center building, a pool, a reflection
pond, teahouse (gazebo), a walking course, and two underground parking garages
containing a total of 103 parking spaces. The community center building consists of two
’ CUP 88-21/SUP 89-5 A-1 L<ES SENIOR CENTER
JANUARY 3, 1990
PAGE 2
floors and is approximately 10,280 square feet in area. The first floor contains a kitchen,
the common dining area, a cafe, fireplace, lounge, office and restroom facilities. The
second floor includes a recreation area, television room, lounge library, office, restroom
facilities, and balconies which surround the entire floor. An additional recreational amenity
proposed is a croquet court. Pedestrian access is provided for throughout the site by
minimum of five (5) foot wide sidewalks. Connections offsite are proposed to the north
and to the southwest where a handicap ramp will provide access to El Camino Real.
Along with the sidewalks numerous sitting walls, benches, and raised planters are provided
to facilitate further passive outdoor use of the site and social interaction.
Two and three story buildings are proposed. Three story buildings do not exceed a height
of thirty (30) feet measured from finished grade to the midpoint of the roof. Roofs are
designed to include a mechanical well with a depth of up to five and one-half (5-l/2) feet
to screen roof top equipment from view. All buildings nearest to the exterior property
lines are two stories, not exceeding a height of twenty (20) feet measured from finished
grade to the midpoint of the roof. The majority of the buildings are connected by
archways which complement the Old California/Hispanic Architectural theme specified by
the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards for Area 5. Elevators are also
provided throughout the project which will facilitate ease of mobility for future residents.
The site was previously graded to create the two existing undeveloped pads which differ
in elevation approximately ten (10) to twelve (12) feet. The northern pad is higher in
elevation. The applicant proposes a balanced site grading concept requiring 20,000 cubic
yards of cut and 20,000 cubic yards of fill. The quantity proposed results in part from the
need to excavate for the two underground parking garages. When finished grade is
achieved, the site will be approximately fifteen (15) feet below street level adjacent to the
intersection of El Camino Real and Alga Road, fourteen (14) feet below street level at the
southeast comer of the site, and eleven (11) feet below street level adjacent to the
intersection of Alga Road and Manzanita Street. Finish floor elevation for proposed
structures range from approximately ten (10) feet below existing grade to five and one-
half (5-l/2) feet above the existing grade.
The proposed project is subject to the following standards and policies:
t :
C.
d.
F.
g-
Medium Density (RM) General Plan Designation
Residential Density - Multiple (RD-M) Zone
Conditional Uses Chapter 21.42.010(8) of the Zoning Ordinance
El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards for Area 5
Scenic Corridor Guidelines
The Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program
Local Facilities Management Zone 6
\
’ CUP’ 8%21/SUP 89-5 AYKB SENIOR CENTER
JANUARY 3, 1990
PAGE 3
To the north of the site is Alga Road and the future Plaza Paseo Real (Von Der Ahe)
Commercial/Government Center approved by the City Council on March 21, 1989. To the
south are single family residences and to the west is the 36 unit Seaport Villas
Condominium project. To the east is El Camino Real and Multiple family units. The
project will be compatible with adjacent uses due to project design and it is surrounded
on three sides by public streets. A 100 foot wide buffer will be provided from properties
to the south as the result of an S.D.G.& E. easement.
III.
1.
ANALYSIS
Can the four (4) findings required for granting a conditional use permit for a
residential care facility be made? Specifically:
a.
b.
C.
d. That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly
handle all traffic generated by the proposed use.
2. Is the project in conformance with the El Camino Real Corridor Development
Standards for Area 5?
3.
4.
Does the project comply with the Scenic Corridor Guidelines?
Is the proposed project consistent with the Mello II segment of Carlsbad’s Local
Coastal Program?
5. Is the project in conformance with the Local Facilities Management Plan for
Zone 6.
That the requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the
community, is essentially in harmony with the various elements and objectives
of the general plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses or to uses
specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located;
That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the use;
That all of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features
necessary to adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in
the neighborhood will be provided and maintained;
_-
CUP 88-21/SUP 89-5 AYKES SENIOR CENTER
JANUARY 3, 1990
PAGE 4
DISCUSSION
FINDINGS REQUIRED TO GRANT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY
The proposed use is necessary and desirable for the development of the community and
is in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the general plan. The senior
citizen residential care facility will be located near a commercial/governmental center
which is presently under construction to the north of the site. Therefore, housing will
be provided in close proximity to commercial facilities for the highest number of people
possible as recommended by the General Plan. The project will not be detrimental to
existing uses as adequate buffers have been provided from adjacent properties and the
project’s architecture has components similar to the Plaza Paseo Real Project and other
. structures in the immediate vicinity. A management plan has been provided and is
attached to the staff report. The proposed operation of this use does not appear to
have the potential of causing negative impacts to surrounding properties.
The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the intended use. The
proposed buildings will meet or exceed all required setbacks. The project proposes a
building coverage of twenty (20%) percent of the lot whereas the zone provides for up
to a maximum of sixty (60%) percent. Considerable recreation facilities are also
provided on site.
All of the features necessary to adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future
uses in the area will be provided and maintained. Proposed buildings will be setback
one hundred (100) feet from the southern property line. This area will be landscaped
and used as a walking course which will provide a buffer for adjacent single family
residences. The remaining three boundaries of the site front onto public streets and
adequate setbacks have been provided. Sixty (60%) percent of the site will be
landscaped and all but four (4) parking spaces are provided in underground parking
garages.
The street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic
generated by the use. A traffic report was prepared for the project focusing on the key
intersection of El Camino Real and Alga Road. With mitigation consisting of
intersection improvements which this project and others have been required to
complete, the intersection will operate at LOS C during the AM peak hour and at LOS
D during the PM peak hour. These levels of service were calculated by including
existing, plus opening day , plus project, plus committed project traffic generation. Only
one access is proposed to the site and is from Manzanita Street.
1 ’ CUP 88-21/SUP 89-5 AY &ES SENIOR CENTER
JANUARY 3, 1990
PAGE 5
More than adequate parking has been provided as the project includes 107 parking
spaces or .6 spaces per living unit. If parked at the rate of one space for every three
beds, plus two employee spaces which are required for residential care facilities, 62
spaces would be needed. Senior Citizen Housing projects require one space for every
two units. If that standard is applied, 87 spaces would be required.
Staff was concerned that this project be able to be converted to another residential use
and comply with the allowable density for the site should it not be viable as a senior
citizen residential care facility. For that reason a conversion plan was required for the
project and is included as Exhibit “J”. The plan illustrates how the residential care
facility could be converted to apartments and comply with the general plan, growth
management, and existing codes. Any conversion of this project should it be approved
and constructed, would require an amendment to this conditional use permit or
processing of another type of discretionary permit. Through the discretionary review
process, the City has the ability to assure that the project complies with all applicable
codes.
EL CAMINO REAL CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The project is in conformance with the El Camino Real Corridor Development
Standards for Area 5. The project architecture reflects the “Old California/Hispanic”
theme. The buildings include a great deal of articulation in addition to archways, tile
roofs, window box planters, shutters, and columns. The project exterior has a number
of similarities to the Plaza Paseo Real Project of which a copy of the building elevations
is attached. Building heights will comply with the corridor standards and roof
equipment will be screened by the roof top mechanical wells proposed. Because the
project site is downslope from the roadway, a minimum setback of 45 feet from the El
Camino Real right-of-way or minimum 15 feet from toe of slope, whichever is greater is
required. The building setback proposed from El Camino Real ranges from a minimum
of 50 feet to 70 feet.
SCENIC CORRIDOR GUIDELINES
The project complies with the Scenic Corridor Guidelines. The theme tree, London
Plane, has been incorporated into the project’s Landscape Plan for the El Camino Real
Corridor. The Alga Road theme tree, Canary Island Pine and the specified support
trees are also proposed. As mentioned previously the project complies with the goal of
enhancing the historical heritage of El Camino Real by contributing to the “California -
Spanish - Mission” theme for the corridor.
’ CUP’ 88-21jSUP 89-5 AY KES SENIOR CENTER
JANUARY 3, 1990
PAGE 6
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
The project as proposed is consistent with all development and resource preservation
policies of the Mello II Local Coastal Program. The property carries the same LCP
designations ‘as the City’s General Plan and zoning. Therefore the proposed use is
allowed through a conditional use permit. The project site has been previously graded
and contains no steep slopes or natural vegetation. Runoff from this project is
conveyed to environmentally sensitive areas. Because of this the developer is required
to provide adequate means of eliminating grease and oils from drainage prior to
discharge. Such improvement plans shall be approved by the City Engineer. This
requirement was an environmental mitigation measure for the project. The project will
require a Coastal Development Permit issued by the California Coastal Commission.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
The subject property is located within Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 6. The
impacts on public facilities created by the proposed project and compliance with the
adopted performance standards are summarized below:
FACILITY IMPACTS COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARD
City Administrative N/A
Library N/A Wastewater Treatment Capacity 38,060
Parks N/A
Drainage N/A Circulation 692
Fire Fire Sta. No. 2
Schools N/A
Sewer Collection 129.32 EDU’s
Water Distribution System 38,060 g.p.d.
Open Space N/A
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
“See Discussion Below”
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
CIRCULATION
The Zone 6 Plan, adopted on September 2, 1987 identified improvements needed for
existing plus committed traffic necessary within l-3 years or the intersection of El
Camino Real and Alga Road will operate at Level of Service F during morning and
afternoon peak periods with existing plus committed traffic volumes. The improvements
required for El Camino Real at Alga include adding a free right turn lane northbound
to westbound and restripping of the intersection. The project has been conditioned to
CUP 88-21jSUP 89-5 AE. <ES SENIOR CENTER
JANUARY 3, 1990
PAGE 7
participate in the reconstruction of the Alga Road/El Camino Real intersection as
required by the Zone 6 Local Facilities Management Plan. A traffic report was
required for the project to determine project related impacts as the site is estimated to
generate more trips than the zone plan assumed. The additional average daily trips
(ADT) that the project will generate over the Local Facilities Management Plan is off-
set by an ADT reduction in approved projects in the vicinity. With the required
intersection improvements the adopted performance standard will be met.
SUMMARY
The project will provide a necessary use in close proximity to commercial/governmental
facilities as recommended by the General Plan and is consistent with the zoning
ordinance. In addition, the project complies with the El Camino Real Corridor
Development Standards, Scenic Corridor Guidelines, Mello II, and Growth Management;
therefore, staff recommends approval of CUP 88-21/SUP 89-5.
ENVIRONMENTALREVIEW
The Planning Director has determined that the project could have a significant effect on
the environment, however; there will not be a significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measures described in the initial study have been added to the project. A
Conditional Negative Declaration was issued on October 18, 1989. This decision was
based on findings of the Environmental Assessment, Traffic Study, Noise Study, and a
field survey by staff. The site consists of two previously graded pads which are presently
undeveloped. The Conditional Negative Declaration for the project was sent to the
State Clearinghouse and no comments were received during the public notice period.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 295 1
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2952
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2953
Location Map
Background Data Sheet
Disclosure Form
Local Facilities Impacts Assessment Form
Management Plan
Plaza Paseo Real Elevations
Exhibits “A” - “K”, dated December 6, 1989
DN:lh
December 7, 1989
(RMH)
RP-Q / R-l-
(RLh,
“O”m Yer Ahe lz Comme@l Center \
5; L , “p
C-2-Q
(Cl \ It7
5
II
AYERS SENIOR CENTER CUP 88-21
SUP 89-5
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: CUP SS-21/SUP 89-5
FILE NAME: AYRES SENIOR CENTER
REQUEST AND LOCATION: 173 UNIT SENIOR CITIZEN RESIDENTIAL CARE
FACILITY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL AND ALGA
ROAD.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 1 OF CARLSBAD TRACT 72-34 (RANCH0 LA CUESTAl
UNIT NO. 1.
APN: 215-504-11 Acres 5.92 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 173 UNITS
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation RM
Density Allowed 28 Density Proposed N/A
Existing Zone RD-M Proposed Zone N/A
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:
Zoning Land Use
Site RD-M VACANT
North C-2-Q SHOPPING CENTER UNDER CONSTRUCTION
‘South R-l SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES
East RD-M MULTIPLE FAMILY UNITS
West RD-M coNDoMmIuMs
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District CARLSBAD Water CARLSBAD Sewer CARLSBAD
EDU’s 129.33 Public Facilities Fee Agreement, Date MARCH 29, 1988
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
x Negative declaration, issued OCTOBER 18. 1989
E.I.R. Certified, dated
Other,
DISCLOSURB FORM
APPLICANT:
A-:
-:
Donald 13. Ayres Jr.
Nme (individual., partnership, joint venture, corporation, mication)
Drawer A, IIuntin$on Beach, Ca. 32548
Business Dress
(714) 962-6533 Tele&one NUI'+J
.I.. Robert‘ 3. Royce A.I.A. -2 1 -1'
~. .-+
2956 Rooseveti. St. #3 Carlsbad i J‘” Ca. F@,OO~ : .I Business Add ress _’ ..“. Y . . ,a.&.
yslg) 434-6259:.
a .;.: - 2.
Telephone Nubr ,
.- *
(individual, ptner, jbirrt venture, corporation, sy&ication)
2
Barn? Mdress
Business ZJddress . _- *
TelephoneNunber -eNutter
Name. Balm wdress
Business Address
Telephone Nuder Telephone Nuder
(Attruch more sheets if necessary)
The applicaot ia required to apply for C0a8tal Comiarrion Approval if located in the Co-al sane,
I/We declare under penalty of pxjurythatthe infomation contained in this disclosure is true and correct ard that it will remain true a& correct ard my be relied upon as being true and correct until snended.
hlzzix went, Omer, Partner
.,-
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FA- JMPACIS ASSESSMENT FORM
(To be Submitted with Development Application)
.:
PROJECT IDENmTY AND, @$I’ACT AS&SSMENT:
. .’ . . . . FILE NAME AND NO.: E -
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGElklENT ZONE: h GENERAL PLAN: RM
ZONING: BB-M *
DEVELOPER’S NAME- W&d R Ayes, Try
ADDRESS: v A, ~&ikaXes~, CA Q7676
PHONE NO.: (714) ~7-MiR ASSESSOR’S PAWET, NO . 3.15 5fi4 11 - _
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FI-., DU): m-k&-
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
City .Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage =
Library: Demand in Square Footage =
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer)
Park: Demand in Acreage =
Drainage: Demand in CFS =
Identify Drainage Basin =
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: Demand in ADTs =
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. =
Open Space: Acreage Provided -
Schools:
(Demands to be determined by staff)
Sewer: Demand in EDUs -
Identify Sub Basin -
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
Water: Demand in GPD -
N/A
-N/A
MA
N/A
N/A
3
N/A
N/A
13933
6A
The project is units the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.
ATTACHMENT “8”
- To: City of Carlsbad Xr. Don Neu - Plansng Department
. . . , .‘ii {
v=
_ *.r--
,-T.,~
+
From: Douglas Ayres .._ Ayres Construction
Date: December 6, 1989 .:
RE: CUP.88-21 and SUP 8&5
a.
b.
C.
d.
Active Senior Residential Facility .,Item 6 (revised), Management/Operation Plan
We are operating an active residence center catering to enhanc,e a modern senior citizen life style. We will not have p'rovisions for an onsite medical staff though each unit will have a monitored call system active 24 hours a day.
We will have numerous daily activities for the residents. They will be supervised by a staff member including day tours and other offsite activities with a shuttle service available to take advantage of community sports, educational and cultural events, as well as shopping needs. We provide an onsite pedestrian circulation link to public transportation via secured pathways. Onsite activities will include a bridge club, exercise room, library, T.V. lounge, gardening area, crafts center and amphitheater. Onsite pedestrian circulation is provided barrier free to all buildings, parking, and community center with covered walks throughout.
We will have an onsite eating facility serving three meals per day. Meals will be served: Breakfast 7:00 AM to 9:OO AM Lunch 11.45 AM to 1:30 PM Dinner 6:oo PM to 8:oo PM
Meals will be included in the rents as a pay per meal option. Family members and friends will be welcomed to join the residents at meal times. Dining area seating capacity: 180 persons
The facility will maintain a full time janitorial and maid service, including trash pickup. I t
SINCE 1905
355 b’iSt0~ %+?tY, Suite A, Costa Mesa, California 92&@6Q
Cn4)5406060°FAx(714)54w408
, Carlsbad Planning Department, December 6, 1989 CUP 88-21 and SUP 89-5, Ayres page 2
e.
f.
Q*
h.
I.
A portion of the facility will have furnished rooms. The style shall be French County.
The pool will=be an exercise tupe (4' deep). We will have a video camera with audio to monitor the pool area. The TV moni~t.o~,-w$~l be viewed from the front desk area.
There shall be secured parking available per City code plus additional parking spaces for guests and staff.
There shall be a full time experiences staff working during the day hours' catering to the residents' safety, comfort and needs in a friendly, secure atmosphere.
Our facility'%ill be designed to accommodate affordable housing for Senior Citizens ae defined by City code. Our activity center will have programs and outdoor facilities to meet the needs and desires of the senior community in a private, serene environment.
Other items: _
A dense lancI%cape buffer and 6’ wall will be provided adjacent to single family residences and a lush landscape will be provided to surround the "campus area". All onsite landscape will be continuously maintained by the management.
Low level security lighting will be provided to avoid offensive glare to surrounding neighbors.
’ i. ’
j ;
Iby i’ -I 1
1 ‘1 B&u.!. ,\ 5 1 , ’ ‘u t-.\ _, :(// _-- ., p ‘\ 1: 'r--\ \
!ir j’li
‘i’t f
$ .i
1.11 I*
P
d
- /
.
ii 4 1 !I!! ka? f 2
I? ii
m m m m II
-_ .iii*e ,.l.’ hY%ILR . -J-U! *: .‘“G .“-1 “-a..? “at ,trs, ui,e*b, 1,“’ .,,i tu,<a. llDIy ‘m .I”, a-““+ u.+I I.1 *ml\ ..,
Al-
f c i5 i .
3 ! ZI
f
em* 1 ma N .,1,,, I.. .
i
I ‘I
1 s
J
f
ti l .
r;
Y
I TI c F--$+L= ( II ” L-I’ I I
r-1' II II iI
i II
I 1
II I 1
; II I 1
IF A; I/
9; /i
t \I It
=- I? II II $ I’ ‘I ‘I II iI ii
L 4-t
,.:A .w.*, w 1/a . . . .,I) _., ,/11,.. . I.<. I ‘.“,,. .11..,,.. *pl-.’ I.,......, AJJIUI . %WUPld . JJni>.,lt!,>Jy s3~ g wAp31zN-m :
)”
I P
I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I 1
f” I I ,I
I I I I I I I 1
.
.,,,,5, IL’ wQ,,u:6 1) -5-t ,li *II -yII “WI1 II* !~-m
2x- dOUW( . ffUlUUF(d . ,“,,:i:;;,n
Ea)ppo56tl LB l=e!lmJNMYW
0 0
8 (I
a3
a 0
CL a
D
4 0‘
h a
r . 1
.
/ OJ?! . . k . . .
.
I * I I
f i i
,
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Office of fhe City Clerk
APPEAL FORM
I (We) appeal the following decision of the Planning Commission
to the City Council:
Project Name and Number (or subject of appeal): Awes Senior Center
CUP 88-21/SUP 89-5
Date of Decision: Januray 17, 1990
Reason for Appeal: See attached letter
.
January 22, 1990
Douglas R. Ayres
Name (Please Print)
Date
355 Bristol St, Costa Mesa, Ca. 92626
Address
714-540-6060
Telephone Number
Mayor Lewis and City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Ave
Jan 25, 1990
Carlsbad, CA. 92008
RI?,: Ayres Construction Co/ CUP 88-211 SUP 89-5, Senior Citizens Housing
Mayor Lewis'and Members of the City Council;
We respectfully request the City Council to consider our appeal of the Planning Commission's January 17, 1990 decision on CUP 88-21/ SUP 89-5. The Commission "Denied Without Prejudice" Ayres request for approval of a senior residential center on our site at the south-west corner of Alga Rd. and I31 Camino Real.
The project was initally considered at the scheduled Planning Commiss- ion Hearing, Jan. 3, 1390. The Planning Commission closed the public hearing and continued Commission action to Jan. 17,191$0 to consider an City Attorney's report on the Planning Commissions ability to in- clude conditions relating to "affordable senior rent".
The Ayres conclusion, therefore, was that the public hearing had then closed; and a report from the City Attorney was required on affordable housing prior to final vote.
Jan. 17, 1990, The Commission received the City Attorney's report and Ayres rental information, then re-open the public hearing to discuss the project and design. The project design while discussed Jan. 3, did not appear to be a significant issue. The City's staff recomm- ended aporoval with conditions, The Planning Commission Denied the project 'Without Prejudice" (5-2). Applicant, Ayres, indicated a willingness to adjust the project design to satisfy the Planning Commission's concerns.
We and the City's Staff agree that the subject project is desirable for the development of the community and there is a need for this type of housing in southern Carlsbad. The project is designed to be in harmony with the various elements and objectives of Carlsbad's General Plan, Growth Management Program, and The El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards. Surrounding elements such as the shopping center, golf courses, and the on site walking path, putting green, swimming pool and additional amenities makes this an ideal location for the proposed Ayres Senior Center.
Mayor Lewis, your consideration of our appeal would be appreciated.
Agent for Ayers Co,lstruction Co.
cc : Doug Ayres, Ayres Construction Co. Don Agatep, Planning Consultant M. ?Iolzmiller, Planning Director
.,
ROBERT J. ROYCE ALA.
ARCHITECTURE/PLANNING~lNTERlORS
Mayor Claude A. Lewis & City Council
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Ave
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Feb 14, 1990
Re: AYRES- CUP 88-21, Seniors Residential Center-Alga Rd & El Camino Real.
Mayor Lewis and City Council;
I am submitting this letter for your consideration as an explanation and clarification
of the Ayres Senior Residential project, CUP 88-21/SUP89-5, which will be heard on
Appeal at the Feb 20,199O City Council meeting.
Ayres Construction originally submitted an application and plans for condominiums on
the site in 1987. The Condominium project was denied. Ayres subsequently began work
on a Senior Residential concept in Jan 1988, which emphasized and cative, open
campus-like facility containgin generous green belts and recreational facilities.
Working with City Staff, Ayres filed an application for a Senior Residential project
Mar 3, 1988. in August, 1988 we were notified by our staff planner that our project
processing would be delayed as a result of priority processing being considered for the
Carltas Company project. City Council approved the Carltas priority processing on Aug
23, 1988. Ott 28,1988 we were notified by City Staff that our application was being
withdrawn because a time limit required of the City to process our Seniors project had
expired.
Dee 19,1988, Ayres resubmitted a new application for 176 units vs 206, revised plans,
paid additional filing fees and were assigned our second Staff Planner. Again after
working with staff, providing requisite Noise and Traffic Studies, we were notified
July 28,1989 that our application was finally complete. (Refer attached letter from M.
Holzmiller dtd Jul 28,89). During the next month, our second Staff Planner resigned,
and we were then assigned our third and current Planner. Since his August 1989
assignment,
Mr. Neu has provided us very clear, constructive direction regarding the proposed
project.
The Ayres Senior Residential project was considered at the Planning Commission
hearing Jan 3, 1990. It appeared that the Planning Commission supported the project,
closed the Public Hearing, but then delayed final decision until Jan 20,90 by requesting
the City Attorney/City Staff to submit a report to the Commission which would
2956 Roosevelt St. Suite 3 l Cartsbad, CA 92006 l (6191 434-6259
MayorLewis/Ayres Appeal-Royce
PC? 2
Feb 14,199O
provide direction astothe Commission's ability to add 8n additonal condition that
addressed provisions for"8fford8ble housing".
Jan 20,90,ourproject ~8s again presentedtotheP?anning Commission. The
Commission accepted the City Attorney's report,"Re-Opened",over objections,the
Public Hearing to discuss detailed design issues which were notissues duringtheJan
3,90 Public Hearing. After lengthy discussion regarding various new "fin81 design"
issues,the Commission by 8 vote of 5-2, Denied the project'Without Prejudice".
Consequently,efter2 l/2 years of work,we are now appertlingtothe City Coucil to
approve our project 8s submitted,and permit the'detailed"designissuesto be resolved
with City Stsff during the Fin81 Design ph8Ses,or8s conditions of approval.
The Ayres Seniors Residential project hes been recommended for approval by the City
Strtff;and, appeared to be supported by the Plenning Commission. We feel,however,
that the design issues discussed by the Commission can be accomplished by applying
conditions Of 8pprOV8? in ?ieU Of completely re-designing 8nd submitting 8"new'
application for the project.
I feel the project location 8s 8 Seniors Residential Community offerstheingredients
for 8n exce\lentSeniors Residential facility..Theprojectsatisfies City of C8rlSb8d
locationa? criteria for Seniors projects because the proposed project is adjacent to
existing 8nd proposed Public Transportation fucilities,including our own shuttle
service;Community facilities 8nd Shopping facilities-Von der Ahe Shopping Centerand
City Library. Additionally,we 8re of the opinion that the project will provide for
Senior Citizen Residential f8cilities lacking within the South Eest Quadrant of the
City.
Mayor& City Council,on behrtlf of Ayras Construction 8ndthe proposed Ayres Seniors
Residential Futility, I respectfully request that the City Council approve the project.
Thank you for your time 8nd consideration.
cc:Council MemberA.Kulchin
Council MemberJ.Mamaux
Council Member-E-Larsen
Council MemberM.Petine
City Clerk
July 28’, 1989
Mr. Robert J. Royce, A.1.A
2956 Roosevelt, Suite 3 Carlsbad, CA 92008
This is to inform you that the items previously requested to make your
Conditional Use Permit and Special Use Permit, application no. CUP 88-21 and SUP
89-5, complete have been received and reviewed by the Planning Department. It
has been determined that the application is now complete for processing.
Although the initial processing of your application may have already begun, the technical acceptance date is acknowledged by the date of this communication.
Please note that although the application is now considered complete, there may be issues that could be discovered during project review and/or environmental review. Any issues should be resolved prior to scheduling the project for public
hearing. In addition, the City may request, in the course of processing the
application, that you clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise supplement the
information required for this application.
The Planning Department will begin processing your application, as of the date
of this communication. Please contact Don Neu, at (619) 438-1161, if you have
questions or wish additional information.
Sincerely,
Planning Director
MJH: DN/lh
cc: Charles Grimm John/Crystal
Erin Letsch
Bob Wojcik
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad. California 92009-4859 - (619) 438-l 161
ISSUES OF CONCERN
PLANNING:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Specify the location and size of storage areas. The summary table on the
title sheet indicates that a total of 55,014 cubic feet of storage space is being provided.
Pedestrian circulation on site.
a. Suggest that sidewalks have a minimum width of 5 feet.
b. Provide handicapped access to the proposed bus stop on El Camino
Real. Proposed stairs would be a barrier to use of public transit by handicapped persons.
Additional outdoor sitting areas should be provided along the on-site
pedestrian circulation system. Suggest providing benches, tables, raised
planters with sitting walls, fountains, etc., to accommodate outdoor usage of the site.
An exterior lighting plan should be provided. Suggest the use of ground
lighting where appropriate and/or hooded lighting to reduce light dispersion onto units.
Provide elevations and a floor plan for the proposed Tea House.
Description of a management/operation plan for the facility to address the
following:
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
9.
h.
i.
Provision of on-site medical staff.
Supervised activities.
Food service operation. Staff required, hours meals to be served,
whether meals are included in the monthly rent, and dining area
seating capacity.
Janitorial/facilities maintenance service to collect trash from individual units for deposit in dumpsters.
Furnished units.
Supervision of pool area.
Allocation of parking spaces should demand exceed available supply.
Staffing required and typical hours.
Profile of persons facility is designed to accommodate. The zoning ordinance requires that the minimum age of at least one of the
occupants of each unit shall be sixty-two years of age.
2
ISSUES OF CONCERN - (CONTINUED):
7. Building architecture.
a. Are all two-story building edges facing the exterior of the project with three-story edges oriented to the interior? Please specify on plans.
b. Consider providing additional architectural relief on the building particularly on the three-story building face. Possible solutions
might be the use of trim molding, flower boxes, exterior shutters,
or awnings.
a. A redlined checkprint is enclosed for your use: Please return the redlined checkprint with any revised plans.
ENGINEERING:
1. Entrance to project and parking garage is considered an intersection, 6%
maximum grade (3% desired).
2. Show sewer, water and utility meters/laterals to each building.
3. Show required guard rail on Alga and El Camino Real where height of slope
exceeds 12 feet.
4. Enclosed is a redlined check point of the grading plan. Please return the redlined print with the corrected grading plan to assist us in our review.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPEAL
CUP 88-21/SUP 89-5
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public
hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive (Elm Avenue), Carlsbad,
California, at 6:00 P.M., on Tuesday, February 20, 1990, to consider an appeal of a
Planning Commission denial of a Conditional Use Permit for a 173 unit Senior Citizen
Residential Care Facility on 5.92 acres and a Special Use Permit required by the
El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards on property generally located at the
southwest corner of El Camino Real and Alga Road in the Coastal Zone and Local Facilities
Management Zone 6 and more particularly described as:
Lot 1 of Carlsbad Tract 72-34 - (Ranch0 La Questa), Unit 1/l
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call the Planning Department
at 438-1161.
If you challenge the Conditional Use Permit or Special Use Permit 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: Douglas R. Ayres
PUBLISH: February 9, 1990 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
AYERS SENIOR CENTER I
CUP 88-21 SUP 89-5
-.
i200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Office of the Cify Clerk
DATE: January 26, 1990
TO: Bobbie Hoder
TELEPHONE
(619) 434-2808
FROM: Karen Kundtz
RE: CUP 88-21/SUP 89-5 - Ayres Senior Center
THE ABOVE ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
According to the Municipal Code, appeals must be heard by the City Council
within 30 days of the date that the appeal was filed. (REMINDER: The item
will not be noticed in the newspaper until the agenda bill is signed off by
all parties.)
Please process this item in accordance with the procedures contained in the
Agenda Bill Preparation Manual. If you have any questions, please call.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the above matter should be scheduled for the City Council
Meeting of .
Signature Date
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Office of the City Clerk
APPEAL FORU
I (We) appeal the following decision of the Planning Commission
to the City Council:
Project Name and Number (or subject of appeal): Ayres Senior Center
CUP 88-21/SUP 89-5
Date of Decision: Januray 17, 1990
Reason for Appeal: See attached letter
.
January 22, 1990
Date
Douglas R. Ayres
Name (Please Print)
355 Bristol St, Costa Mesa, Ca. 92626
Address
714-540-6060
Telephone Number
Mayor Lewis and City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Slm Ave Carlsbad, CA. 92008
Jan 25, 1990
RE: Ayres Construction Co/ CUP 88-211 SUP 89-5, Senior Citizens Housing
Mayor Lewis and Members of the City Council;
We respectfully request the City Council to consider our appeal of the Planning Commission's January 17, 1990 decision on CUP 88-21/ SUP 89-5. The Commission "Denied Without Prejudice" Ayres request for approval of a senior residential center on our site at the south-west corner of Alga Rd. and Xl Camino Real.
The project was initally considered at the scheduled Planning Commiss- ion Rearing, Jan. 3, 1990. The Planning Commission closed the public hearing and continued Commission action to Jan. 17,1390 to consider an City Attorney's report on the Planning Commissions ability to in- clude conditions relating to "affordable senior rent".
The Ayres conclusion, therefore, was that the public hearing had then closed; and a report from the City Attorney was required on affordable housing prior to final vote.
Jan. 17, 1930, The Commission received the City Attorney's report and Ayres rental information, then re-open the public hearing to discuss the project and design. The project design while discussed Jan. 3, did not appear to be a significant issue. The City's staff recomm- ended approval with conditions, The Planning Commission Denied the project ?'Without Prejudice" (5-2). Applicant, Ayres, indicated a willingness to adjust the project design to satisfy the Planning Commission's concerns.
We and the City's Staff agree that the subject project is desirable for the development of the community and there is a need for this type of housing in southern Carlsbad. The project is designed to be in harmony with the various elements and objectives of Carlsbad's General Plan, Growth Management Program, and The El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards. Surrounding elements such as the shopping center, golf courses, and the on site walking path, putting green, swimming pool and additional amenities makes this an ideal location for the proposed Ayres Senior Center.
Mayor Lewis, your consideration of our appeal would be appreciated.
Agent for Aykrs Coxitruction Co.
cc : Doug Ayres, Ayres Construction Co. Don Agatep, Planning Consultant M. FIolzmiller, Planning Director
. % . . - CITY OF CARLSBAD -
REQUEST FOR REFUND ,
Accouni No. 001-810-0000-8813 Vendor No.
Amount of Refund $3o.o0 Fee Paid For: Appeal of CUP 88-21
Date Fee Paid: l/26/90 Fee Paid By: Dowres
Facts Supporting Request: Mr. Ayres sent in a check to pay the appeal fee for the above-
referenced item. The appeal fee is $450. not $480 which was the wunt
of the check. The appeal was accepted, but the fee was overpaid. (The appeal was filed on the deadline, there was not time to get another check)
Name of Applicant: Douglas Ayres
Address: 355 Bristol St., Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (7141 540-6060
Street City State Zip Telephone
Signature of Applicant: Date ./- 2 7-40
Dept. Justification:
Ret: IZl Approve 0 Disapprove
Finance investigation:
Ret:
Cl Approve Cl Disapprove Dept. Head Signature Date
City Manager’s Action:
q Approve q Disapprove City Manager Signature Date
. x . _- -
bOBEm= J. ROYCE ALA.
ARCHITECTUAE/PLANNINa/lNTERIORS
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY CLXRK 1200 Elm Ave. Carlsbad, Cal. 92008
JANUARY 29, 1990
ATTN: Lee Rautenkranz
Dear Lee,
This is to request that the planning commission appeal item CUP 88-211s~~ 89-5 be scheduled, if possible, on the Feb. 13, 1990 meeting of the City Council. As the architect for the project I feel it is very important for me to attend and speak if necessary, I must, however, be out of town from Feb. 14, 1990 until Feb. 21, 1990, and I believe the next City Council meeting will be a quadrant meeting and unable to agenda this appeal item.
Your help in this scheduling is greatly appreciated.
2956 Roosevelt St. Suite 3 l Carlsbad, CA 92008 l (6191434-6259
. %
L . :
I I
.
‘215-170-03-13 BARRY S CROWN 414 N ORLEANS ST # 510 a-IICAGo, IL 60610
215-170-03-16 MARVIN & ELDRIE LUBICK 3200 EARLMAR DRIVE Ix>s AN(ELEs, CA 90064
215-170-03-19 GAEa scoLLmD SO E 52ND ST NE37 YORK EJY 10022
215-170-03-22 GOLDSTEIN SAM s INDUSTRIES P 0 BOX 1260 OSSINING NY 10562
215-170-03-25 SOL&BEULAHCOLLIER 1941-c ALGA ROAD CARLSBAD, CA 92008
215-170-03-28 DAVIDBERNSTEIN 367 ELM DRIVE FUXLYN NY 11567
215-170-03-31 DOMINICK CHIRICHILW I211 E?ow SEASIDE HEIGHTS NJ 08751
2Zi-170-03-34 JFXXIECOOPERLEAS~G INC 900 E MAIN STREET YUKON, OK 73099
2l!5-170-03-37 HWER&BEFZHAGARROTT 30019 AVENIDA CLASSICA RZVCHO PAWS VERDES,- CA 90274
215-170-03-14 cxARLEs&ANNETrELURIA 1909 E ALGA ROAD CARLSBAD, CA 92008
215-170-03-17 RALPH&MARYSHIMER 1532 KEEL DRIVE CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625
.
215-170-03-20 ETHEL SUSMAN 8568 BURTON mY #310 Los ANGELES, CA 90048
215-170-03-23 CHARLES E THOMPSON 703 S EIGHTH STREET itSA VEGAS, NV 89101
215-170-03-26 RICHARD&ESTBERVAUGHN 1333 STRA'ICHCO~JA DRIVE DETROIT MI 48203
215-170-03-29 RICHARD&ACWESDALY 4514 ELLENITA AVE TARZANA, CA 91356
215-170-03-32 JAMESBHARRIS 140 S MAPLE DRIVE #201 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
215-170-03-35 MARK&cHAIu;ENEARRINGToN P 0 BOX 2168 cARz;sBAD, CA 92008
215-170-03-38 DANIEL & CLARARUBIN 16635 NANBERRY ROAD ENCmO, CA 91316
-‘!
I /
,
I
I
I
215-170-03-15 LINCOLN ENTERPRISES INC 9147 LEWDER PLACE BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210
215-170-03-18 SIDNEY&RUTHSCHREIBER 10100 SANTA mNIC?i BLVD 25THFLWR LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
215-170-03-21 JORDAN & ZELDAGOODMAN 2688 LA CASITA AVENUE #2 LAS VEGAS, NV 89120 ..
215-170-03-24 SAMUEL&CAROLWASSERSON 9.55 PEBBLEBEACH UPLAND, CA 91786 .'
215-170-03-27 JEZ'FREYKDANIEL 1941 ALGA ROAD #E CARLsm, CA 92008
215-170-03-30 FREDJONAS 2659 SKycm WAY Los ANGELES, CA 90046
215-170-03-33 STANLEY & BONNIE MATUSOW 2OOO~TowESIDE TERRACE #1906 MIAIti, FL 33138
215-170-03-36 ANDRE&BELLApoLLAK 6341 LINDENHURST AVENUE Los ANGELES, CA 90048
215-170-03-39 IT'S REID SILVERSTEIN, INC 1951 CLQVERDALE RD ESCONDIDO, CA 92027
2&170-07-09 HENRY LICHTENSTEIN 9653 OAK PASS ROAD
BEVERLY HILLA, CA 90210
215-170-07-12 JOHN R & NONA E WHITE 4400 E PALOS VERDES DRIVE
RANCH0 PALOS VERD, CA 90274
215-170-07-15 MICHAEL & ROSEMARY CRISTELLO 20 TANCIN LANE
CLIFTON, NJ 07013
215-170-07-18 SEYMOUR & EVELYN CANTER 2600 ARGONAUTA STREET
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
215-170-07-21
MORRIS C & CAROLE S KATZ RICHARD M & HARRIETT B MAITIN
2170 GUTHRIE DRIVE
LOS ANGELES, CA 90034
215-170-07-24
ELAINE THOMAS
7115 ESTRELLA DE MAR ROAD
CAIUSBAD, CA 92008
215-170-07-27 SAM .J & PAT A SUSSER
PO BOX 719
DALLAS, TX 75221
215-170-07-30 ALFRED J & SOPHIS M NATKIN 7185B ESTRELLA DE MAR CARLSBAD, CA 92008
215-170-07-33 BARNARD S & GERTRUDE C MEADE 2129 ALGA ROAD RANCH0 LA COSTA, CA 92008
-
OWNERSHIP LIST
215-170-07-10 WILLIAM N SOLLE 9100 CLAIREMONT DRIVE
SAN DIEGO, CA 92117
215-170-07-13 HIALEAH WEST COAST INC MICHAEL E & ERIKA E GLOUSMAN
NO MAILING ADDRESS FOR THIS
OWNER
215-170-07-16 GARY TABB & HARVEY TABB
7079 ESTRELLA DE MAR ROAD #D
PO BOX 3402
RANCH0 SANTA FE, CA 92067
215-170-07-19 MEL & RUTH HARRIS
4866 BREWSTER DRIVE
TARZANA, CA 91356
215-170-07-22 GEORGIA Z CASTLE 7115 ESTRELLA DE MAR ROAD CARLSBAD, CA 92008
215-170-07-25 NORMAN & HARRIET BECK
601 N PALM DRIVE
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210
215-170-07-28
GRACE J ROSS
993 FIFTH AVENUE
NEW YORK CITY, NY 10028
215-170-07-31 MORTIMER & GATHA TRS WINSKI 1544 RANCH0 ENCINITAS DRIVE OLIVEHAIN, CA 92024
215-170-07-34 ROBERT L & PEGGY M MITCHUSSON 2211 BIG BEND ST. LOUIS, MO 63117
215-170-07-11
. WILBUR A & LOIS R LEE C/O CALIFORNIA HI-LITES INC
1225 S EASTERN AVENUE
LOS ANGELES, CA 90022
215-170-07-14 LOUIS M & KITTY LAZAROU
'9412 TIERRA BLANCA DRIVE
WHITTIER, CA 90603
215-170-07-17
ALBERT & PHYLLIS R NEWMAN
6870 ORINOCO CIRCLE
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48010
215-170-07-20 RICHARD D MITNICK 10330 DOWNEY AVENUE, UNIT 30
DOWNEY, CA 90241
215-170-07-23 LEON & PAY CHAVES
407 LINCOLN ROAD
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33129
215-170-07-26 ERWIN & VALERIE SOBEL 5820 WILSHIRE BLVD.
LOS ANGELES, CA 90036
215-170-07-29 ANTOINETTE TR CULLEN. 71588 ESTRELLA DE MAR ROAD
CARLSBAD, CA 92009
215-170-07-32 ERWIN & VALERIE SOBEL 5750 WILSHIRE BLVD., SUITE 506
LOS ANGELES, CA 90036
215-170-07-35 CHARLES A BABBITT 3924 PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH PALOS VERDES ESTA, CA 90274
, \ . . f
‘ 1
215-504-04 CHRISTOPHER & BARBARA H HOGAN
1856 TULE COURT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
215-504-07 LYNN V & ROBERTA W MAUDLIN
1857 TULE COURT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
215-504-10 RONALD R & DORIS L DEROWSKI,
1851 TULE COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92008
215-521-03 REESE E 6 SALLY L GRADY
1854 PENTAS COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92008
OWNERSHIP LIST
215-504-05 MERLE L & BETTY J PIERATT
1858 TULE COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92008
215-504-08 WAYNE L DOWNS 1855 TULE COURT
CARLSBAD, CA 92009
215-521-01
ROBERT .J & JANET E GREENWELL
1440 HACIENDA DRIVE
EL CAJON, CA 92020
215-521-04
TED & PRISCILLA MELLON
1856 PENTAS COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92008
i
215-504-06 ROBERT J & SALLY .J JOHNSON
1859 TULE COURT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
215-504-09 JOHN F & SUSAN C HOWE 1853 TULE COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92008
215-521-02 CHARLES & KAREN M KRAUSE 1852 PENTAS COURT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
.X5-170-02-25 GRETCHEN BRAKEBILL P 0 mx 928 SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075
215-170-02-28 NEEL & PATRICIA SCHMITT 1923 ESTRELLE DE MAR COURT C CARLSBAD, CA 92008
215-170-02-31 ~UIARION E BASEDOkJ 3124 VERCHERES ST SOUTHWEST ' CALGARY ALBERTA, CANADA T2T 2R5
215-170-02-34 j
-XDJ ESTABLISHMENT 118 E 60TH ST mw YORK, NY 10022
/ I
215-170-02-37 IUXJGER GEOFXXITE IX 87 VANDAMSTREET raw YORK, NY 10013
215-170-03-01 JONATHAN & CHRISTINE JAGGERS 3865 S EioBAR IAs VEGAS, N-v 89121
.215-170-03-04 RSDINC P 0 BOX 895 LARAMIE WY 82070
215-170-03-07 LAWRENCE M COHEN 2115 NORTH CLARK CHICAGO, IL
215-170-03-10 dU & MIRIAMCUKIER 2688 CASIANO ROAD BEL AIRE, CA 90024
215-170-02-26 KURT FDSTAN 7143 ARGONAUTA WAY CARLSBAD, CA 92009
215-170-02-29 EDb@RDDRASIN 12640 SARAH STREET sTuDI CITY, CA 91604
215-170-02-32 CHESTERANDERSO~J 1927 C ESTRELLA DE MAR CT CAFUSBAD, CA 92009
215-170-02-35 MARVIN & RITAGRAYBOW 9700 N 13TH AVENUE MNPLS, MN 55441
215-170-b2-38 BARBARAF RIEGER 1915 ESTRELLA DE MAR COURT B CAIUSBAD, CA 92008
215-170-03-02 !
DAVID & MARYGOLDWATER 302 CARSON STREET IAs VEGAS, NV 89101
215-170-03-05 ROBERT & JENNIE MUIR I
19766 \;IEDGEFxxID DRIVE GROSSE FOINTE MX MI 48236
215-170-03-08 ROSE KATZ 18 W785 AVENUE LATOURS OAK BRCOK, IL 60521
215-170-03-11 CHARLES&JEANEiERMAN 1909 ALGA ROAD #B CARLSBAD, CA 92008
215-170-02-27 EDWARD & JOAN DANIEL 1923 ESTRELLE DE MAR COURT E CARLSBAD, CA 92008
215-170-02-30 M?iLINDA D NICHOLSON 809 WALTON EXX)DS COURT AUGUSTA, GA 30909
215-170-02-33 PAULEWEAVER 1931 ESTRELLA DE MAR CT A P 0 Box 3047 t CARLSBAD, CA 92008
215-170-02-36 FRANK&M?RYKRATCCHVIL 521 TOYOPA DRIVE PALISADES, CA 90272
215-170-02-39 CHARLESJGOLDSMITH 524 WALNUT STREET 700 ATLAS BANK BLDG CINCINNATI, OH 45202
215-170-03-03 MARK ROSEtJSTOCK 7333 ALNADEN LANE LA COSTA, CA 92009
215-170-03-06 ROY & SONJA ABRAMS 4310 TAM 0 SHATft'ER LANE TARZAN, CA 91356
215-170-03-09 LAZARO & CARMEN SOSA BARREN P 0 Box 777 ARCADIA, CA 91006
215-170-03-12 iYXRIS b NATALIE DARNOV 833 S BEDFORD ST Los ANGELES, CA 90035
-- . I.._. -se-_ ._ --.. --
215-170-02-25 215-170-02-26 GRETCHEN BRAKEBILL KURT lioSTAN P 0 BOX 928 7149 ARGQNAUTA W&Y SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 CARLSBAD, CA 92009
215-170-02-28 NEKL & PATRICIA SCHMITT 1923 EST- DE MAR COURT C CARLSBAD, CA 92008
215-170-02-31 WARION E BASEDOW 3124 VERCHERES ST SOUTHWEST cALG9RY ALBERTA, CANADA %iT 2R5
215-170-02-34 'XDJ ESTABLISHMENT 118 E 60TH ST NEW YORK, NY 10022
215-170-02-37 KLINGERGEORGEITE INC 87 VANDAMSTREET NEW YORK, NY 10013
215-170-03-01 JONATHAN & CHRISTINE JAGGERS 3865 S ROM L&s V%AS, N-v 89121
215-170-03-04 RSDINC P 0 Box 895 LARAMlE WY 82070
215-170-03-07 LAWRENCE M COHEN 2115 NORTH CLARK CHICAGO, IL
215-170-03-10 iMAX & MIRIAM CUKIER 2688 CASIANO ROAD
MT, ATRE t-‘A qflf-l?4
215-170-02-27 EDNARD & JOAN 1923 ESTRELLE CARLSBAD, CA
DANIEL DE MAR COURT I 92003
215-170-02-29 EDWARDDRASIN 12640 SARAH STREET STUDIO CITY, CA 91604
215-170-02-30 MALINDA D NICHOLSON 809 W&TON WDS COURT AUGUSTA, GA 30909
215-170-02-32 CHFSTERANDERSOIJ 1927 C ESTRELLA DE MAR CT CARLSBAD, CA 92009
215-170-02-33 PAUL EWEAVER 1931 ESTRELLA P 0 Box 3047 CARLSBAD, CA
. .
DEMARCTA
92008
215-170-02-35 MARVIN & RITAGRAYEQW 9700 N 13TH AVENUE MNPLS, MN 55441
215-170-02-36 FRANK&MARYKRATCCHVIL 521 TOYOPA DRIVE PALISADES, CA 90272
215-170-02-38 BARBARAFRIEGER 1915 ESTRELLA DE MAR COURT B CARSBAD, CA 92008
215-170-02-39 CHARLES JGQLDSMITH 524 WALNUT STREFT 700 ATLAS BANK BLDG CINCINNATI, OH 45202
215-170-03-02 DAVID & MARYGOLDWATER 302 CARSON STREET LAS VEGAS, NV 89101
215-170-03-03 MAFZK RosErJsTocx 7333 ALMADEN LANE LA COSTA, CA 92009
215-170-03-05 ROBERT & JENNIE MUIR 19766 WEDQXOD DRIVE GROSSE FOINI'E \30 MI 48236
215-170-03-06 ROY & SONJA ABRAMS 4310 TAM 0 SHANTER LANE TARZAN, CA 91356
215-170-03-08 ROSE KATZ 18 W785AVENUELATOURS OAK BROOK, IL 60521
215-170-03-09 LAZARO 64 CARMEN SOSA BARREG P 0 BOX 777 ARCADIA, CA 91006
215-170-03-11 CHARLES&JEANHERMAN 1909 ALGA ROAD #B
215-170-03-12 MORRIS &NATALIE DAFNOV 833 S BEDFORD ST
rm-r_a- wmx-.. TnC AN-CTDC C-X Qf-lf-l7c;
.b c
1
.
215-170-07-36 ROBERT M 6 ALICE A SALVAREZZA 110 BRAEMAR DIRVE
HILLSBOROUGH, CA 94010
215-170-07-39 CHARLES A BABBITT 15 CABALLEROS ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
215-503-23 BERTHA S KNOWLTON 7032 FERN PLACE
CARLSBAD,C A 92008
215-503-26 LE ROY C & SHARON A JOHNSON / 7038 FERN PLACE
LA COSTA, CA 92009
215-503-32 CHARLES R & MARIA E BETTS / 7035 MANZANITA STREE I
CARLSBAD, CA 92009
215-503-37-01
DAVID C & GLORIA T LA PLANTE
7028 GOLDENROD WAY
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
215-503-37-04
RONALD J JULIAN0
7012 GOLDENROD WAY
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
215-503-37-07 THERESA C BROWN, MARY A MATHEWS, 1848 COTTONWOOD AVE;
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
215-503-37-10 JAMES M JR & LORI S TOOMBS 1836 COTTONWOOD AVENUE /
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
-
OWNERSHIP LIST
215-170-07-37
DR. LAWRENCE V HASTINGS CCHIS L HASTINGS, 229 BAL CROSS DRIVE, BAL HARBOUR, FL 33154
215-170-07-40 DAVID & BEVERLY ZENOFF 7210 PLAZA DE LA COSTA
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
215-503-24
WILLIAM P & SHANNON E LISCOMB
7034 FERN PLACE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
215-503-30 CHARLES R & STACEY A BROZ
7103 MANZANITA STREET
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
215-503-33 EDELBERTO T & LUANA M PINPIN
5871 ALTA VISTA AVENUE
SAN DIEGO, CA 92114
215-503-37-02
CRAIG S WATERMAN
7024 GOLDENROD WAY
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
215-503-37-05
RONALD J JULIAN0
7012 GOLDENROD WAY
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
215-503-37-08 LARRY S MILLER
1844 COTTONWOOD AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
215-503-37-11 MALCOLM R & ELEANORE HARDMAN LORRAINE H UTZELMAN, 1832
COTTONWOOD AVENUE,
LA COSTA, CA 92009
215-170-07-38 ARTHUR M & JOAN SPIRO 19 HARBOUR ROAD, KINGS PO11
LONG ISLAND, NY 11024
215-503-22 . GILDARDO R & MARCIA A GARCI 7030 FERN PLACE CARLSBAD, CA 92008
215-503-25 JERRY W & MARCIA C PERKINS 7036 FERN PLACE CARLSBAD, CA 92008
215-503-31 DAVID & CAROL G JENKINS
7101 MANZANITA STREET
LA COSTA, CA 92009
215-503-34 KIRK C DUNNING 7031 MANZANITA STREET
CARLSBAD, CA 92009
215-503-37-03
JOSEPH W JR & HELEN K HENRY
7020 GOLDENROD WAY
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
215-503-37-06 NEWPORT SHORES BUILDERS
PO DRAWER A
HUNTING BEACH, CA 92648
215-503-37-09 BENJAMIN & EVELYN LEFF 1840 COTTONWOOD AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
215-503-37-12 CARMEN SPURLING 1820 COTTONWOOD AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92009
.
215-503-37-13 RALJL F & MARLENE B'ESTRADA
3932 AVENIDA VERANO
THOUSAND OAKS, CA 91360
215-503-37-16
ROBERT S & MARION B PAKULA
1804 COTTONWOOD AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92009
215-503-37-19 MARIA D RAMIREZ 1782 COTTONWOOD AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92009
215-503-37-22 GREGORY J FLYNN & DONNA R
HENRY, 1766 COTTONWOOD AVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92009
215-503-37-25 DAVID J SARAZEN 1754 COTTONWOOD AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008
215-503-37-28
RICHARD E CRAWFORD 8805 COTTONWOOD AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008
215-503-37-31 B T FERGUSON 1817 COTTONWOOD AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
215-503-37-34 MIKE & TERRIE L HOMEWOOD 7013 GOLDENROD WAY CBRLSBAD, CA 92008
215-504-01 CHERYL E HAGER 403 N ELENA #2 REDONDO BEACH, CA 90277
OWNERSHIP LIST
215-503-37-14 ALLISON A LAMB 1812 COTTONWOOD AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008
215-503-37-17 DANA E POPIELSKI
1790 COTTONWOOD AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92009
215-503-37-20 CRAIG D & KELLY WIEMANN 1778 COTTONWOOD AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92009
215-503-37-23 RUSSELL A EMSBACH
1762 COTTONWOOD AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
215-503-37-26 DENNIS E HAGGARD
1750 COTTONWOOD AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92009
215-503-37-29 MARTHA A RISSLER 1809 COTTONWOOD AVENUE LA COSTA, CA 92009
215-503-37-32 JORDAN & GERALDINE KURNICK 20835 NORDHOFF STREET CHATSWORTH, CA 91311
215-503-37-35 KATHLEEN P ABBOTT
7015 GOLDENROD WAY CARLSBAD, CA 92008
215-504-02 BRADLEY J WOJCIK 1852 TULE COURT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
215-503-37-15 PAUL E HENNES 1808 COTTONWOOD AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
215-503-37-18 MADELINE C BROWN
1786 COTTONWOOD AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92009
215-503-37-21 CHRISTINA B COURTNEY
1774 COTTONWOOD AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92009
215-503-37-24
BRIAN C WIPPERMANN
1758 COTTONWOOD AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92009
215-503-37-27 MAX R PAUL 1801 COTTONWOOD AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92009
215-503-37-30 DENISE L LYDON & ROBERT LORRAINE V LYDON 1813 1813 COTTONWOOD AVENUE LA COSTA, CA 92009
W&
215-503-37-33
DAVID R & ELLENA D SKINNER
7009 GOLDENROD WAY CARLSBAD, CA 92008
215-503-37-36 ERIC L JR WAITE 7019 GOLDENROD WAY CARLSBAD, CA 92008
215-504-03 ROBERT R & EVELYN M BEYER 1854 TULE COURT LA COSTA, CA 92009