HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-05-22; City Council; 10640; SpyglassUT’- OF CARLSBAD - AGEND,- SILL
AB# q; (OcIO TITLE: APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION
MT& 5122190 DECISION APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT NAP
DEPT. PLN 89-26, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 89-47, AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT 89-9 - SPYGLASS
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Planning Commission and staff are recoyending that the City Council ADOPT City Council Resolution No. gfl-152 , DENYING the appeal and UPHOLDING the Planning Commissionls conditions in approving CT 89-26/HDP 89-47, and SUP 89-9.
On April 18, 1990 the Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract Map 89-26, Hillside Development Permit 89-47, and Special Use Permit 89-9 to create 17 residential lots with a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet and 2 open space lots totaling 3.6 acres on a 10.4 acre site. The project site is located on the southeast corner of El Camino Real and Elm Avenue. The project applicant, The March Group, is appealing the Planning Commission decision as they believe that the combination of required fees and improvements made a condition of the project approval impose a great hardship based on the project's limited scale. Specifically being appealed are conditions number 45, 62, and 73 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3005.
The Planning Commission heard the applicant's request to modify the proposed conditions of approval during the April 18, 1990 hearing. The Planning Commission agreed with staff that the proposed conditions of approval were appropriate. In addition, the Planning Commission was informed by the City Attorney that they did not have the legal authority to grant the applicant a credit toward established fees to offset improvements being required such as the traffic signal on Elm Avenue, median construction within El Camino Real adjacent to the project's frontage, and a water pressure regulating station.
Attached is a memorandum from the Engineering Department justifying the imposition of the conditions being appealed.
ENVIRONNENTAL REVIEW
On April 18, 1990 the Planning Commission approved the Conditional Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director dated March
22, 1990.
FISCAL IMPACT
If the appeal were granted the necessary improvements would cost the City approximately $195,000.00 which would have to be appropriated from the general fund.
EXHIBITS 1. City Council Resolution No. L30y1S2 2. Memorandum from the Engineering Department dated May 3, 1990 3. Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3004, 3005, 3006 & 3007 4. Staff Report dated April 18, 1990, w/attachments 5. Letter of Appeal
Mr. Raymond Patchett City Manager City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
5-22-90
Regarding: Withdrawal of appeal of planning resolution #3005.
Dear Mr. Patchett:
On 4-3-90 I filed an appeal of planning resolution #3005. Since the filing of the appeal I have had discussions with Mr. Marty Orenyak of the Community Development Department regarding a reimbursement agreement for part of the expense of the traffic signal at Elm and Avenida Anita. This reimbursement agreement along with discussions of the other issues noted in the appeal have now resolved my concerns with the terms of the planning commission decision.
Please withdraw my appeal and remove it from the calendar of the City Council hearing tonight.
Thank you for your consideration.
Richard B. Therrien
- LB& . President March Group Inc. dba Therrien Development
jt\rt
(619) 729-1121
2979 STATE STREET. SUITE C l CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
License #362306
-.
.
8- 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
RESOLUTION NO. go-152
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE A TENTATIVE MAP TO CREATE 17 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 2 OPE SPACE LOTS, A HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERM A SPECIAL USE PERMIT ON PROPERTY GENERA
REAL AND ELM AVE
WHEREAS, onApri118, 1990, the Car d Planning Commission
approved CT 89-26/HDP 89-47/SUP 89-
of Carlsbad, on May
22, 1990 considered a Commission decision
the City Council
considered all factors r he applicant's appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE ESOLVED by the City Council
of the City o as follows:
itations are true and correct.
of the Planning Commission in
06 and 3007, on file with the City
Clerk and incor reference constitute the findings
. . .
. . .
. . .
*- 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the
day of I 1990 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk
(SEAL)
. *
.
May 3, 1990
Revised May 17, 1990
TO: PLANNING DIRECTOR
FROM: Assistant City Engineer
RESPONSE TO APPLICATION APPEALING CONDITIONS FOR SPYGLASS (CT 89-26)
We completed our review of the developer’s application appealing the Planning Commission
decision to approve Carlsbad Tract 82-26, Spyglass. As we understand it, the developer
objects to the City imposition of certain public improvement conditions which include the
construction of half street width of El Camino Real, a traffic signal at Elm Avenue/ Avenida
de Anita and a potential water pressure reduction station. We will respond to the appellants
issues individually as follows:
1. Condition to construct half street improvement to El Camino Real including half
width median adjacent to the project frontage. (Condition No. 44A). Presently, El
Camino Real exists as a four lane facility adjacent to the project. The Circulation
Elements calls for El Camino Real to be a six lane facility with a raised median. The
existing two lanes immediately adjacent to the project were constructed at their
ultimate location and include all drainage facilities as well as the southside curb and
gutter. The developer’s obligation under the condition would consist of the addition
of sidewalks, streetlights, one additional traffic lane and one half of the raised median
including landscaping and stamped concrete. Staff also included a condition to repair
any substandard section of the existing road improvement; however, subsequent
analysis by the Utility Maintenance Department indicates little need to repair to this
section of El Camino Real.
Staff believes the El Camino Real improvement requirement to be fair and
reasonable. It is standard City policy to require developer installation of adjacent
public improvements. The improvements are needed by the City to ensure provision of adequate and safe circulation of traffic for this project and for the City as a whole.
The condition is not burdensome in the that most of the adjacent public
improvements for both El Camino Real and Elm Avenue were previously installed.
The developers obligation is essentially limited to the installation of one traffic lane,
a half median and a sidewalk along only one of the two fronting streets. The
remaining improvements adjacent to the project were installed at City expense or at
the expense of other developers. The recently completed improvement to Elm
Avenue adjacent to this project were installed at a cost of $400,000. The project was
-
- May 3, 1990
* Revised May 17, 1990
Spyglass CI 89-26
2.
Page 2
built by the City and funded through Traffic Impact Fees and developer contributions
pursuant to an agreement with Foote Development.
As a related item, the appellant is appealing condition No. 61 which requires
developer reimbursement to the City should the City proceed with the construction
of the El Camino Real median improvements in advance of the developers
construction schedule, This condition was included as a means of reducing developer
costs associated with the construction of the median by incorporating the construction
into a larger project and by eliminating duplicate design costs, traffic control and
conflicts between contractors on adjoining projects.
One of the existing City Capital Improvement Programs is to complete construction
of various missing sections of median along El Camino Real. The Engineering
Department has targeted the construction of medians between Chestnut and Elm
Avenue in the initial median construction program. Funds for the construction of the
these missing links are provided through the Public Facilities Fee. Staff researched
the issue and determined that the fees were established under the assumption that
certain portions of the median were to be developer funded. Staff does not
recommend providing the Spyglass developer credits to their Public Facilities Fee as
this would leave the City with a deficiency in funds necessary to complete the
ultimate median construction program.
Condition to potentially install a pressure reduction station (Condition No. 72). This
requirement was imposed on the project at the request of the Carlsbad Municipal
Water District. The issue is more completely explained within the attached
memorandum from the water district. The basic issue is one of providing water to the
proposed development. Without a water supply the development could not proceed.
As indicated in the memo there are two potential methods to serve this site. One is
to extend waterlines offsite to connect into existing mains within the appropriate
water pressure zone. The second method is to cross connect the water system to an
existing main in Appian Road as indicated on the approved tentative map. Since this
main is within a different pressure zone a pressure reduction station would be
required. The station and/or the offsite connection are not necessary without the
project. The requirement to provide water to the site necessitates the installation of
new water facilities. The exact facilities are to be determined as a matter of
Engineering design prior to approval of the final map.
3. Condition to install a traffic signal at Elm Avenue and Avenida de Anita/Appian
Road (Condition No. 44B). Project access for the approved project is to occur via
the extension of Appian Road and an new access road off Elm Avenue. During
-May 3, 1990
* Revised May 17, 1990
Spyglass CT 89-26
Page 3
project review, staff required direct linkage of the Appian road extension with the
access point along Elm Avenue. This was deemed necessary to meet the City’s cul-
de-sac policy and to provide continuity in the City circulation system.
The access point along Elm Avenue was chosen to coincide with the existing Elm
Avenue Intersection with Avenida de Anita. This location was chosen because of the
topographic constraints.
Staff believes the signal requirement to be an appropriate and reasonable condition.
Installation of a fourth leg on the intersection introduces new traffic movements to
the intersection The significant change is the introduction of northbound to west
bound left turns out of the proposed project and northbound/southbound through
movements. Each of these movements requires significant breaks within the traffic
stream along Elm Avenue to safely accomplish the movement. Staff believes it is
necessary to install the traffic signal with this project to ensure the safety of the
future residents of the project.
The developer believes the signal installation to be a burdensome condition upon the
development and believes the signal installation will be required by the City whether
the project is constructed or not. While it is true the existing intersection meets
traffic signal warrants, the Traffic Engineer does not recommend its installation at
this time. Traffic signal warrants are meant to provide an indication of the need to
consider installation of a traffic signal and are not an absolute determinant of the
need to install a signal. It is not known at this point in time when a signal will be
needed for the existing three way intersection. There was discussion among the staff
that the signal may be needed when College Boulevard is connected to Oceanside.
Even with the College connection staff needs to review the intersection and
determine if a signal is needed.
Staff believes the condition is appropriate and the appeal should be denied.
However, should Council decide to uphold the appeal staff would recommend one
the following actions:
1. Add the signal to the Capital Improvement Program and revise
Condition 44B to require the developer to contribute one fourth of the
cost of the signal design and installation.
_ May 3, 1990 . Revised May 17, 1990
Spyglass CT 89-26
Page 4
2. Revise Condition No. 44B to require the developer to install the full
signal under a reimbursement agreement with the City. The
reimbursement would be keyed to the connection of College Boulevard
to Oceanside.
The developer has indicated a desire to receive credits against the Public Facility Fee
or the Traffic Impact Fee. Staff strongly recommends against this alternative. The
proposed traffic signal at this intersection is not included within the existing buildout
Capital Improvement Program and no fees are currently being collected by the City
for it’s installation.
DAVID HAUSER
DH:brg
Attachment
c: City Manager
City Attorney
Community Development Director
City Engineer
c May 17, 1990
TO:
FROM:
SUB3ECT:
LLOYD HUBBS
Jerry whitlay
ATTAC?iMENT:
SPYQLASS, C.T. 89-26 - CMWD PROJBCT NO. 894.310 SUGGESTED STARR REBWNBE TO RUBLIC BElARING (TT4M NO, 16 PRELIMINARY AtIENDA) EILLSIDE DBVELOPWENT, DEVELOPMENT PERmT 89-47 - 8PECI?LL USE PERXST 89-9
(1) Colored Map Showing Pressure Zones (To Be Hand DeliVared)
The subjact site is located between two different water pressure zones; one zone syetam is loaatad at Elm Avenue and tha second zone system is locatad at the north end of Appian Road. The developer's tract map shown those two systems tiad together.
Staff's position is that them two syetams must remain separated unless connected by a prasibiuro reducing station or a normally closed valve. In order to establish which connection is suitable, the developer must meat with tha Fire Marshal and the District Enginear and establish the flow demands and requirements. Based on this meeting, a water analysis study must
be prepared by the developer, and after completion and approval of the Study, *the type of connection will be establiohed,
F !!iiiii% EAginearing Manager
FJW: aj a cc: Bob Graanay, General Manager, CMWD Geoff Poole, CMWD
. 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
PUNNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3004
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, HILLSIDE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO CREATE
17 RESIDENTIAL LOTS WITH A MINIMUM LOT AREA OF 10,000
SQUARE FEET AND 2 OPEN SPACE LOTS TOTALING 3.6 ACRES ON
A 10.4 ACRE SITE.
CASE NAME: SPYGLASS
CASE NO.: CT 89-26/HDP 89-47/SUP 89-9
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 18th day of April, 1990, hold a
duly noticed public hearing as prescriied by law to consider said request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, ex amining 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 APPROVES the Conditional Negative Declaration according to Exhibit “ND“, dated
March 22, 1990, “PII”, dated January 2, 1990, and Appendix “P” attached hereto and made
a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
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
miligation measures descrikd in the initial study have been added to the project.
2. Approximately forty percent of the site has been previously graded and the remainder of
the site does not possess any significant environmental resources.
3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed project.
4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significantly
impacted by this project provided that mitigating conditions of approval are complied
with
; .
*- 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
Conditions:
This project if approved is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission
Resolutions Nos. 3005, 3006, and 3007 plus compliance with the following mitigating
conditions:
1. a) Submittal of a final Landscape and Irrigation Plan in substantial conformance with
the Conceptual Landscape Plan/Hillside Mitigation Plan for the Planning Director’s
approval is required prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
b) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall deposit at a financial
institution subject to regulation by the state or federal government, a certificate of
deposit or letter of credit made out to the City of Carlsbad or such other security
which is acceptable to the City. This document shall be for at least twice the
estimated cost of the proposed mitigation and landscaping. If the proposed
mitigation and landscaping is not installed in a timely manner, in accordance with
the approved plans, the Planning Director may author-ize the utilization of these
funds to do the necessary remedial work. Any funds remaining after the
completion of this work shall be returned to the applicant.
cl In addition to erosion control measures the required landscaping and irrigation
systems shown on the approved Landscape and Irrigation Plan shall be completed
prior to the occupancy of any unit within this project.
2. The proposed noise mitigation measures recommended in the Acoustical Assessment report
of the Spyglass Project prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc. dated September 29,
1989, and depicted on the tentative map shall be completed prior to the occupancy of any
unit within this project. The required mitigation measures are as follows:
PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES FOR FIRST AND SECOND FLOORS
Lot Number
1
2
10
11
12
PC RESO NO. 3004
First Floor
Recommended
Measures
5’ Barrier
(includes 3’ berm height
shown in tentative map)
Second Floor
Recommended
Measures
Not Applicable
7’ Barrier
(includes 3’ berm height
shown in tentative map)
4’ Barrier
Not Applicable
4’ Barrier
5’ Barrier
Not Required
Same as First Floor
Same as First Floor
-2-
II
; 1 PASSED, APPROVkD, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
2 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of April, 1990, by the 3 .
4 following vote, to wit:
AYES: 5 Chairperson Schramm, Commissioners: Hall, McFadden & Marcus.
6 NOES: Commissioners: Erwin & Holmes.
7 ABSENT: Commissioner Schlehuber.
8 ABSTAIN: None.
9
10
11
12 AT-l-EST:
13
14
15 PLANNING DIRECTOR
16 /I 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PC RESO NO. 3004 -3-
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Southeast comer of the intersection of El Camino Real and Elm
Avenue.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A subdivision to create seventeen (17) residential lots with a minimum
lot area of 10,000 square feet and two open space lots totaling 3.6 acres on a 10.4 acre site.
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, Califomia 92009. Comments from the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within twenty-
one (21) days of date of issuance.
DATED: March 22, 1990
CASE NO: CT 89-26/HDP 89-47/SUP 89-9 Planning Director
APPLICANT: The March Group (Spyglass)
PUBLISH DATE: March 22, 1990
DN:lh
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad. California 92009-4859 - (619) 438-l 161
.-. -
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II l
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CT 89-26/HDP 89-47/SUP 89-9
DATE: JANUARY 2, 1990 .
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: SPYGLASS
2. APPLICANT: THE MARCH GROUP
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2979 STATE STREET, Ste. C
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: AUGUST 30, 1989
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Subdivision of 10.4 acres into 17 residential lots with a minimum area of 10,000 souare feet and two open soace lots.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a signif"$cant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identiyies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, ItNOt will be checked to indicate this determination.
An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project may cause a sisnificant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negative Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemed insianificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings l'YES-sigtt and "YES-insig" respectively.
discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: ‘t ES s1g) YES (1ns1g) NO
1. Result in unstable earth conditions or increase the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards?
2. Appreciably change the topography or any unique physical features? X
3. Result in or be affected by erosion of soils either on or off the site?
4. Result in changes in the deposition of beach sands, or modification of the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay, inlet or lake?
5. Result in substantial adverse effects on ambient air quality?
6. Result in substantial changes in air movement, odor, moisture, or temperature?
7. Substantially change the course or flow of water (marine, fresh or flood waters)?
8. Affect the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water or public water supply?
9. Substantially increase usage or cause depletion of any natural resources?
10. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
11. Alter a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure or object?
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
-2-
.-
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO ' (sig) (lnslg)
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic plants)?
Introduce new species of plants into an area, or a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species?
Reduce the amount of acreage of any agricultural crop or affect prime, unique or other farmland of state or local importance?
Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, all water dwelling organisms and insects?
Introduce new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals?
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
x
x
x
x
x
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
17. Alter the present or planned land use of an area?
YES YES (sig) (insig)
18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services?
19. Result in the need for new or modified sewer systems, solid waste or hazardous waste control systems?
20. Increase existing noise levels? X
21. Produce new light or glare?
NO
x
x
x
x
-3-
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
22. Involve a significant risk of an explosion
23.
24.
25. Generate substantial additional traffic?
26. Affect existing parking facilities, or create a large demand for new parking?
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
Substantially alter the density of the human population of an area?
Affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing?
Impact existing transportation systems or alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods?
Alter waterborne , rail or air traffic?
Increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans?
Obstruct any scenic vista or create an aesthetically offensive public view?
Affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities?
YES (lnslg) NO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
-4-
33.
.- -
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .
YES (s1g) YE i; insig) NO
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.
34. 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.)
35. Does the project have the possible environmental effects which are in- dividually limited but cumulatively considerable? (I'Cumulatively con- siderablel' 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.)
36. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
x
x
x
x
-5-
-DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT :
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The Soil Investigation and Geologic Reconnaissance prepared for the project by GEOCON INCORPORATED, dated July 1989, concluded that no active faults or indications of active faults were mapped on the site during the field investigation. In addition no landslides or indications of landslides were noted and the potential for landsliding is low. All slopes are proposed at inclinations of 2:l (horizontal to vertical) to provide stability.
The project proposes grading of 95 percent of the site totaling 112,000 cubic yards resulting in a balanced grading operation. The site has been disturbed by previous grading activities. Slopes ranging in height from 40 feet to over 70 feet were created by the City's construction of Elm Avenue. There are existing one to one slope along El Camino Real also created by the City to construct that major thoroughfare. These one to one slopes do not meet current City slope standards and require regrading to a minimum 2:l. The corner at Elm Avenue and El Camino Real was graded previously to a level even with the adjacent streets and is 70+/- feet lower than the original topography on site. In total, approximately 40 percent of the site has been disturbed by previous grading. To mitigate the impacts of the proposed grading operation and the creation of slopes over 30 feet in height a Conceptual Landscape Plan and Hillside Mitigation Plan has been prepared. Submittal of a final Landscape and Irrigation Plan in substantial conformance with the conceptual Landscape Plan/Hillside Mitigation Plan for the Planning Director's approval is required prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The applicant is also required to deposit a Certificate of Deposit or Letter of Credit for at least twice the cost of the proposed mitigation and landscaping. In addition to erosion control measures the required landscaping and irrigation systems shall be completed prior to occupancy of any unit within this project.
Grading of the site will not create erosion problems as 1:l slopes will be eliminated, extensive landscaping of slopes provided, and required drainage improvements constructed.
As a result of the proposed finished grades, drainage improvements, and the site's location, the project will not impact or change the bed of any water body.
The project will only generate 170 Average Daily Trips which will contribute incrementally to air contaminants.
The proposed grading concept results in the site terracing down from south to north with the properties to the south remaining approximately 20 to 40 feet higher in elevation than adjacent pad elevations of the proposed project. That in addition to the proposed placement of units will maintain air movement.
-6-
- -
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT (CONTINUED); ,
Due to the projects location and required erosion control/drainage improvements identified on the tentative tract map no substantial; change to the course or flow of water is anticipated.
The site design and drainage improvements shown on the tentative tract map- will prevent the project from significantly affecting the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water or public water supply.
The site is bounded on the north and west by two major circulation element roads. Properties to the north, south, east, and west have been developed. Approximately 40 percent of the site has been disturbed by previous grading. Natural resources on the property consist primarily of sage brush which because of adjacent developments is not of high value as wildlife habitat.
As a result of the project's relatively small size and close proximity to commercial services it is not anticipated to use substantial amounts of fuel or energy.
Since several archaeological sites had been previously discovered in the general vicinity an archaeological survey of the Spyglass Project was required. The survey was conducted by Brian F. Smith and Associates and a report prepared which is dated October 30, 1989. The entire project area was surveyed. The survey of the project did not result in the identification of any cultural resources within the property. Based on the lack of archaeological sites, no further studies or investigations are considered necessary.
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Approximately 40 percent of the project site has been disturbed by previous grading. Areas of sage brush, chaparral, and grasses exist on the site. Because the project site is surrounded on all sides by developed properties, it does not have a significant value as habitat.
There is no evidence that rare or endangered species exist on the project site.
The project site is not used for agricultural purposes. Because of its location as well as the residential general plan and zoning designations use. for the property, it is not viable for agricultural
As a result of the adjacent development on all sides of the property and the amount of existing site disturbance, the site is not of significant value as wildlife habitat.
The project site bordered on all sides by developments is not used by animals for migration.
-7-
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION tCONTINUED1:
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT .
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
The proposal is consistent with the RLM General Plan Designation and R-A-10,000 zoning designation for the site.
The project .is in Local Facilities Management Zone 2 and will comply with all public facility requirements of that zone.
The proposal will not create a need for new sewer systems other than sewer lines shown on the Tentative Map to serve the proposed dwelling units.
Existing noise levels will not be increased significantly by the project. The site is impacted by noise generated along El Camino Real and Elm Avenue. An Acoustical Assessment Report of the Spyglass Project was prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc. and is dated September 29, 1989. The report concluded that Lots 1,
2, 10, 11, and 12 would exceed the City's noise limits and would result in a significant noise impact if not mitigated. The proposed mitigation measures are depicted on the tentative map. The required mitigation measures are as follows:
PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES FOR FIRST AND SECOND FLOORS
Lot Number
1
2
10
11
12
The project
First Floor Second Floor Recommended Recommended Measures Measures
5' Barrier (includes 3 ( berm height shown in tentative map)
7' Barrier (includes 3' berm height shown in tentative map)
will not produce new light or
4' Barrier
4' Barrier
5' Barrier
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Required
Same As First Floor
Same As First Floor
glare that will negatively impact adjacent properties. Public Street lights will be installed at locations shown on the tentative map.
A significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances will not be created by this project as it proposes residential uses.
-8-
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION HUMAN ENVIRONMENT (CONTINUED): * s
23. The density Of the human population of the area will not be altered as the project is within the density range designated for the site by the General Plan Land Use Map.
24. The project.will provide additional housing opportunities. t
25. The proposal will generate 170 Average Daily Trips with a peak between 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. totaling 17 trips. The amount of traffic generated by the project is not significantly high.
26. The project will provide all required parking in attached garages. '4 e.
27. The project will improve the existing circulation system by completing the connection of an existing dead end street through to Elm Avenue.
28. No alteration to waterborne, rail or air traffic will occur as a result of this project which is outside the airport influence area and not located in the immediate vicinity of a rail line or body of water.
29. The proposed circulation system meets City engineering standards ', and sidewalks will be provided so as to not increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles and pedestrians.
30. This residential project will not interfere with emergency response plans as it will provide an additional point of access . to an adjacent development.
31. The project will not obstruct a scenic vista and will reduce the ;, height and steepness of several existing slopes. Proposed slopes r will be extensively landscaped according to the landscape mitigation plan proposed.
32. Due to the relatively small scale of the project there will be no significant affect on recreational opportunities.
-9-
ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 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.
a) Because the entire site must be graded at one time to implement the project-proposal as a result of the existing terrain and the relatively small scale of the project phased development is not feasible nor provide environmental advantages.
b) Alternate site designs would not be substantially different or provide environmental advantages as the alignment of the proposed extension of Appian Road is established by existing roads.
c) The project is proposing less than the maximum number of units allowed by the density established for the site by the General Plan.
d) The proposal complies with the use designated for the site by the General Plan and zoning for single family residences.
e) Development at some future time is not consistent with the land use designations for the site which is surrounded on all sides by developed properties.
f) There are alternate sites for the proposal; however, this is an infill project consistent with the density designated for the property.
g) The no project alternative would maintain the partially disturbed site in its existing condition with no significant environmental advantage.
-lO-
DETERMINATION (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.
x I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative Declaration will be proposed.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. the
Date
/ - /7- 9d
Date
-ll-
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1. a) Submittal of a final Landscape and Irrigation Plan in substantial conformance with the Conceptual Landscape Plan/Hillside Mitigation Plan for the Planning Director's approval permit. is required prior to the issuance of a grading
b) Prior to issuance of 3 grading permit, the applicant shall deposit at a financial institution subject to regulation by the state or federal government, a certificate of deposit or letter of credit made out to the City of Carlsbad or such other security which is acceptable to the City. This document shall be for at least twice the estimated cost of the proposed mitigation and landscaping. If the proposed mitigation and landscaping is not installed in a timely manner, in accordance with the approved plans, the planning director may authorize the utilization of these funds to do the necessary remedial work. Any funds remaining after the completion of this work shall be returned to the applicant.
cl In addition to erosion control measures the required landscaping and irrigation systems shown on the approved Landscape and Irrigation Plan shall be completed prior to the occupancy of any unit within this project.
2. The proposed noise mitigation measures recommended in the Acoustical Assessment Report of the Spyglass Project prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc. dated September 29, 1989, and depicted on the tentative map shall be completed prior to the occupancy of any unit within this project. The required mitigation measures are as follows:
PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES FOR FIRST AND SECOND FLOORS
Lot Number
1
2
10
11
12
First Floor Second Floor Recommended Recommended Measures Measures
5' Barrier Not Applicable (includes 3' berm height shown in tentative map)
7' Barrier Not Applicable (includes 3' berm height shown in tentative map)
4' Barrier Not Required
4' Barrier Same As First Floor
5' Barrier Same As First Floor
-12-
-
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION 0.F THESE MEASURES TO
!
MITIGATING MEASURES THE PROJECT. .
I. 17qe
Date
DN:lh
-13-
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3007
A RESOLUTION UF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR
A 19 LOT TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CONSISTING OF 17
RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 2 OPEN SPACE LOTS ON A 10.4 ACRE
SITE ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF EL CAMINO REAL AND ELM
AVENUE.
CASE NAME: SPYGLASS
CASE NO: SUP 89-9
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property, to wit:
A portion of Lot “J”, Ranch0 Agua Hedionda, in the City of Carlsbad, according to
Partition Map No. 823
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad, and referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request as provided by Title 21 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 18th day of April, 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 of
the City of Carlsbad as follows:
~ A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission APPROVED
SUP 89-9, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
I l- The project enhances the scenic qualities of the El Camino Real Cotidor consistent with
I the corxidois development standards by providing an attractive development reflecting an
“Old Califo~c” architectural theme, building heights below the 35 foot height
limit, a minimum building setback of 130 feet along El Camino Real, and extensive
landscaping which incorporates the theme trees for the conidor.
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.
The project protects scenic views and traffic safety along El Camino Real by providing
attractive buildings, performing cornxtive grading, extensively landscaping proposed
slopes, making street improvements along the project% frontage, and taking access off of
Elm Avenue at a signakd intersection.
The following findings of section V of the El Camino Real Corridor Development
Standards are made to allow cut or Ell gxadiug within the setback from El Camino Real
to exceed 15 feet from original grade:
A. The limit of 15 feet of cut or iill is infeasible given the correct+ grading required
and the public street requirements.
B. The use of setbacks, rounded slopes, benus and extensive landscaping will not
compromise the scenic qualities of the conidor.
C. All pertinent traffic standards will be met by the project and the deviation will not
have an adverse impact on traffic safety. The grading will meet the city’s sight
distauce requirements.
D. The project as proposed has been designed to meet or exceed the intent of the
remaking El Camino Real Cotidor Development standards. The proposed
exception will actually correct exkting topographic deficiencies along El Camino
Real
The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan since the proposed density of 2.8
du’s/acre is within the density range of 04 du’s/acre specified for the site as indicated on
the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and is at or below the growth control point
of 3.2.
The site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the site
is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the density
proposed.
The Planning Commission has, by inclusion of an appropriate condition to this project,
ensured that the final map will not be approved unless the City Council finds that sewer
service is available to serve the project. In addition, the Planning Commission has added
a condition that a note shah be placed on the final map that building permits may not be
issued for the project unless the City Engineer determines that sewer service is available,
and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service remains available, and
the Planning Commission is satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities Element
of the General Plan have been met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project.
School fees will be paid to ensure the availability of school facilities in the Carlsbad
School District.
Park-in-lieu fees are required as a condition of approval.
PC RESO NO. 3007 -2-
.
1 7
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
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
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 Low-Medium Density Residential, Medium
Density Residential, and Professional and Related development on the General Plan.
This project will not cause any significant environmental impacts and a Conditional
Negative Declaration has been issued by the Planning Director on March 22, 1990, and
APPROVED by the Planning Commission on April 18,199O. In approving this Conditional
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 2.
This project was subject to Chapter 21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Hillside
Ordinance) and meets all the requirements of that Chapter to ensure the sensitive
treatment of the City’s hillside resources.
Conditions:
1. Approval is granted for SUP 89-9, as shown on Exhibit(s) “A” - “R”, dated April 18, 1990,
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 89-9 is granted subject to the approval of CT 89-26 and HDP 89-47.
3. All conditions stated in Resolutions 3004, 3005, and 3006 for the Conditional Negative
Dechmtion, CX 8947, and HDP 8947 are incoxporated by reference herein.
PC RESO NO. 3007 -3-
- /I .
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission
1 . of the City of CarIsbad, California, held on the 18th day of April, 1988, by the following vote,
2
to wit: 3
AYES: 4 Chairperson Schramm, Commissioners: Hall, McFadden & Marcus.
NOES: Commissioners: Erwin & Holmes. 5
6 ABSENT: Commissioner Schlehuber.
7 I/ ABSTAIN: None.
11 ATTEST:
12
13
14 MICHAEL J. HOlZMILtiR
PLANNING DIRECTOR 15
16
17
ia
19 /
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 II PC RESO NO. 3007 -4-
28
S-ON SCHRAMM, chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
1 -
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3006
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT FOR A 19 LOT TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CONSISTING OF
17 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 2 OPEN SPACE LOTS ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE
INTERSECTION OF EL CAMINO REAL AND ELM AVENUE.
CASE NAME: SPYGLASS
CASE NO.: HDP 89-47
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to wit:
A portion of Lot “.I” Ranch0 Agua Hedionda, in the City of Carlsbad,
according to Partition Map No. 823,
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 18th day of April, 1990, consider
said request; and
WHEREAS, at said 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 Planning Commission Determination; and
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 Commission APPROVED
HDP 89-47, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1. Hillside conditions have been properly identified on the constraints map/slope analysis
and slope profiles exhiiit.
2. Undevelopable areas of the project site, such as slopes over 40%, have been properly
identified on the constraints map/slope analysis and were determined to be excluded from
the Hillside Development Regulations by Sections 21.95.090(a)(l) and (4).
3. The development proposal and all applicable development approvals and permits are
consistent with the purpose, intent and requirements of the Hillside Development
Regulations because the findings can be made to grant the two requested modifications
to the development and design standards as specified in the staff report.
4. The finding that no development or grading will occur in those portions of the site which
are undevelopable pursuant to the provisions of Zoning Ordinance Section 21.53.230(b)
can be made as slopes over forty percent were excluded from density calculations as
required and were excluded from the Hillside Development Regulations by sections
21.95.090(a)(l) and (4).
5. Grading design minimizes disturbance of hillside areas to the greatest extent possible
given the fact that approximately 40 percent of the site has been altered by previously
author&d grading requiring corrective grading and that access to the site is dictated by
intersection spacing standards resulting in extensive grading being required to access the
site.
6. The project design substantially conforms to the intent of the concepts illustrated in the
Hillside Development Guidelines as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Preservation of views of neighhoring subdivision
Rounded slopes are proposed throughout.
Where possible undulating slopes are proposed.
Earth berms at the top of slopes are proposed to mitigate noise and visual impacts.
Curvilinear streets are used where possible to create interest and visual diversity.
Single story units are proposed adjacent to the comer of Elm and El Camino Real
Extensive landscaping is proposed on all manufactured slopes.
Units will, in general, screen proposed manufactured slopes but not rise above the
horizon nor block existing residential views.
The proposed units provide a varied articulated tile roof.
The major slopes along Ehn and El Camino Real are to be open space lots with
easements and will be maintained by a home owners associatiox~
The width of drainage benches on slopes are varied to accommodate landscaping
for additional visual screen&.
7. The following findings required by Zoning Ordinance Section 21.95.070 are made to grant
the requested modifications to allow grading in excess of ten thousand cubic yards per
acre of cut or fill and to create manufactured slopes in excess of thirty feet in height:
1. The site has unusual geotechnical or soil conditions that necessitate corrective
work that may require significant amounts of grading.
F&sting 1:l manufactured slope along El Camino Real must be regraded to 2:l
and corrective grading at the comer of Ehn and F.l Camino Real must be done.
These two items account for over 50% of the proposed grading.
PC RESO NO. 3006 -2-
1 *
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
2. The site requires extensive grading to accommodate a circulation element roadway.
The site has been extensively distded by the construction of Elm and El Camino
Real both circulation element roads. This grading created slopes up to 70 feet in
height. Regrading along El Camino must be done to meet current city slope
standards.
Access along Elm Avenue to the project site is dictated by the intersection spacing
required in the city’s ordinances. This results in extensive grading being required
to access the site.
The project is consistent with the Civs General Plan since the proposed density of 2.8
du’s/acre is within the density range of O-4, du’s/acre specified for the site as indicated
on the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and is at or below the growth control point
of 3.2.
The site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the site
is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the density
proposed.
The Planning Commission has, by inclusion of an appropriate condition to this project,
ensured that the final map will not be approved unless the City Council finds that sewer
service is available to serve the project. In addition, the Planning Commission has added
a condition that a note shall be placed on the final map that building permits may not be
issued for the project unless the City Engineer determines that sewer service is available,
and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service remains available, and
the Planning Commission is satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities Element
of the General Plan have been met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project.
School fees will be paid to ensure the availability of school facilities in the Carlsbad
School District.
Park-in-lieu fees are required as a condition of approvaL
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 Low-Medium Density Residential, Medium
Density Residential, and Professional and Related development on the General Plan.
PC RESO NO. 3006 -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
16.
17.
18.
19.
This project will not cause any significant environmental impacts and a Conditional
Negative Declaration has been issued by the Planning Director on March 22, 1990, and
APPROVED by the Planning Commission on April 18, 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 2.
This project was subject to Chapter 21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Hillside
Ordinance) and meets all the requirements of that Chapter to ensure the sensitive
treatment of the City’s hillside resources or has been granted a modihtion to the
development and design standards.
Conditions
1.
2.
3.
\\\
\\\
\\\
\\\
\\\
\\\
\\\
Approval is granted for HDP 89-47, as shown on Exhibit(s) “A” - “R”, dated April 18,
1990, incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning Department. Development
shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these conditions.
Approval of HDP 89-47 is granted subject to the approval of CT 89-26 and SUP 89-9.
All conditions stated in Resolutions 3004, 3005, 3007 for the Conditional Negative
Declaration, CI- 8947, and SUP 89-9 are incorporated hy reference herein.
PC RESO NO. 3006 -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
PASSED, APPROFD, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of April, 1990, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Schramm, Commissioners: HalI, McFadden & Marcus.
NOES: Commissioners: Erwin & Holmes.
ABSENT: Commissioner Schlehuber.
ABSTAIN: None.
I
HRAMM,‘Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLXR
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RESO NO. 3006 -5-
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3005
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A 19 LOT TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP CONSISTING OF 17 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 2 OPEN
SPACE LOTS ON A 10.4 ACRE SITE ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION
OF EL CAMINO REAL AND ELM AVENUE.
CASE NAME: SPYGLASS
CASE NO.: CT 89-26
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to wit:
A portion of Lot “.I”, Ranch0 Agua Hedionda, in the City of
Carlsbad, according to Partition Map No. 823
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 18th day of April, 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 Tentative Tract Map.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as
A> That the above recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission hereby
APPROVES CT 89-26, based on the following findings and subject to the following
conditions:
Findings:
The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan since the proposed density of 2.8
du’s/acre is within the density range of O-4 du’s/acre specified for the site as indicated
on the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and is at or below the growth control point
of 3.2.
.
1 .
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
The site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the site
is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the density
proposed.
The Planning Commission has, by inclusion of an appropriate condition to this project,
ensured that the final map will not be approved unless the City Council finds that sewer
service is available to serve the project. In addition, the Planning Commission has added
a condition that a note shall be placed on the final map that building permits may not be
issued for the project unless the City Engineer determines that sewer service is available,
and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service remains available, and
the Planning Commission is satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities Element
of the General Plan have been met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project.
School fees will be paid to ensure the availability of school facilities in the Carlsbad
School District.
Park-in-lieu fees are required as a condition of approval.
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 Low-Medium Density Residential, Medium
Density Residential, and Professional and Related development on the General Plan.
This project will not cause any significant environmental impacts and a Conditional
Negative Declaration has been issued by the Planning Director on March 22, 1990, and
APPROVED by the Planning Commission on April 18,199O. In approving this Conditional
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 2.
PC RESO NO. 3005 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12. This project was subject to Chapter 21.95 of the Car&bad Municipal Code (Hillside
Ordinance) and meets all the requirements of that Chapter to ensure the sensitive
treatment of the City’s hillside resources or has been granted a modification to the
development and design standards.
Conditions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Approval is granted for CT 89-26, as shown on Exhibit(s) “A” - “R”, dated April 18, 1990,
incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning Department. Development shall
occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these conditions.
The developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar copy of the
Tentative Map as approved by the Planning Commission. The Tentative Map shall reflect
the conditions of approval by the City. The map copy shall be submitted to the City
Engineer prior to issuance of building permits or improvement plan submittal, whichever
occurs first.
A 500’ scale map of the subdivision shall be submitted to the Planning Director prior to
the recordation of the final map. Said map shall show all lots and streets within and
adjacent to the project.
This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be
issued for development of the subject property unless 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. This note shall be placed on the final
map.
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 fulfill the subdividers
agreement to pay the public facilities fee dated June 12, 1989, a copy of which is on file
with the City Clerk and is incorporated by this reference. If the fees are not paid this
application will not be consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project will
be void.
The applicant shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of the final map
as required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
The applicant shall provide school fees to mitigate conditions of overcrowding as part of
building permit application. These fees shall be based on the fee schedule in effect at the
time of building permit application.
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.
PC RESO NO. 3005 -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
2%
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which may be
required as part of the Zone 2 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments
made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
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.
Approval of CT 89-26 is granted subject to the approval of HDP 89-47 and SUP 89-9.
The applicant shall establish a homeowner% association and corresponding covenants,
conditions and restrictions. Said CC&R’s shall be submitted to and approved by the
Planning Director prior to final map approval.
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.
The applicant shall submit a street name list consistent with the City’s street name policy
subject to the Planning Director’s approval prior to final map approval.
Submittal of a final Landscape and Irrigation Plan in substantial conformance with the
Conceptual Landscape PhWHillside Mitigation Plan for the Planning Director3 approval
is required prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall deposit at a financial institution
subject to regulation by the state or federal government, a certificate of deposit or letter
of credit made out to the City of Carlsbad or such other security which is acceptable to
the City. This document shall be for at least twice the estimated cost of the proposed
mitigation and landscaping. If the proposed mitigation and landscaping is not installed
in a timely manner, in accordance with the approved plans, the Planning Director may
authorize the utilization of these funds to do the necessary remedial work Any funds
remaining after the completion of this work shall be returned to the applicant.
In addition to erosion control measures the required landscaping and irrigation systems
shown on the approved Landscape and Jrrigation Plan shall be completed prior to the
occupancy of any unit within this project
PC RESO NO. 3005 -4-
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 PC RESO NO. 3005
28
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
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.
All landscape plans shall be prepared to conform with the Landscape Guidelines Manual
and submitted per the landscape plan check procedures on file in the Planning
Department.
Landscape plans shall be designed to minimize water use. Lawn and other zone 1 plants
(see Landscape Guidelines Manual) shall be limited to areas of special visual importance
or high use. Mulches shall be used and irrigation equipment and design shall promote
water conservation.
Prior to final occupancy, a letter from a California licensed landscape architect shall be
submitted to the Planning Director certi@.ng that all landscaping has been installed as
shown on the approved landscape plans.
The first set of landscape and irrigation plans submitted shall include building plans,
improvement plans and grading plans.
All landscape and irrigation plans shall show existing and proposed contours and shall
match the grading plans in terms of scale and location of improvements.
Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance
with the City’s Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval of the Planning
Director prior to installation of such signs.
Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings
so as to be plainly visible from the street or access road; color of identification and/or
addresses shall contrast to their background color.
The developer shall display a current Zoning and Land Use Map in the sales office at all
times, or suitable alternative to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
All sales maps that are distributed or made available to the public shall include but not
be limited to trails, future and existing schools, parks, and streets.
As part of the plans submitted for building permit plan check, the applicant shall include
a reduced version of the approving resolution/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.
-5-
1 .
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
23
2E
31. The proposed noise mitigation measures recommended in the Acoustical Assessment report
of the Spyglass Project prepared by Ill&worth and Rodkin, Inc. dated September 29,
1989, and depicted on the tentative map shah be completed prior to the occupancy of any
unit within this project The required mitigation measures are as follows:
. PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES FOR FIRST AND SECOND FLOORS
First Floor Second Floor
Recommended Recommended
Lot Number Measures Measures
32.
10 4’ Barrier Not Required
11 4’ Barrier Same as First Floor
12 5’ BaITier Same as First Floor
Required sound walls shall be constructed of masonry material and may in&de S/8 inch
plexiglass along the top of the wall with both materials required to have a minimum
surface density of 3.5 pounds per square foot as specified in the Acoustical Assessment
Report for the project prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc. dated September 29,1989.
The wall shall utilize materials which will result in it conforming with the “Califomia -
Spanish - Mission” theme for the El Camino Real Corridor and compliment the
architectural style of the residential units. The wall design shah he approved by the
Planning Director prior to the recordation of the final map or issuance of grading permits
whichever occurs first.
33. Lot 17 shah have a single story residence to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
1 SBiuTier
(includes 3’ berm height
shown in tentative map)
Not Applicable
2 TBallier
(includes 3’ berm height
shown in tentative map)
Not Applicable
Ennineerinn Conditions:
34. All required fire hydrants, water mains, and appurtenances shall be operational prior to
combustible building materials being located on the project site.
35. Additional public water lines and onsite fire hydrants may be required, prior to
development of the project, subject to the approval of the Fire Marshal.
PC RESO NO. 3005 -6-
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
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
-
Upon completion of grading, the developer shall ensure that an “as-graded” geologic plan
shall be submitted to the City Engineer. The plan shall clearly show all the geology as
exposed by the grading operation, all geologic corrective measures as actually constructed
and must be based on a contour map which represents both the pre and post site grading.
This plan shall be signed by both the soils engineer and the engineering geologist. The
plan shall be prepared on a mylar or similar drafting film and shall become a permanent
record.
This project has been reviewed for conformancy with the grading ordinance and found to
be a project for which a grading permit is required. Prior to any building permits being
issued for the site, a grading plan in conformance with City Standards and Section 11.06
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, must be submitted, approved and grading work must be
completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. All slopes within this project shall be
graded no steeper than two horizontal to one vertical unless specifically approved
otherwise pursuant to these conditions.
No grading permits shall be issued for this subdivision prior to recordation of the final
map.
The developer shall obtain a grading permit prior to the commencement of any clearing
or grading of the site.
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.
No grading shall occur outside the limits of the subdivision unless a letter of permission
is obtained from the owners of the affected properties.
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.
Additional drainage easements and drainage structures shall be provided or installed as
may be required by the City Engineer.
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 tentative map. The offer shall
be made by a certificate on the final map for this project. All land so offered shall be
granted to the City free and clear of all hens and encumbrances and without cost to the
City. Streets that are already public are not required to be rededicated.
Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all improvements shall be prepared to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to approval of the final map, the Subdivider
shall install, or agree to install and secure with appropriate security as provided by law,
PC RESO NO. 3005 -7-
.- 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
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
improvements shown on the tentative map and the following improvements to City
Standards to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
A. Full half street improvements of El Camino Real along the project frontage to
prime arterial standards, including full median improvements and landscaping all
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Improvements shall also include repair of
existing structural defects to El Camino Real adjacent to project to the satisfaction
of the City Engjneer.
B. Traffic signal for the intersection of Elm Avenue and Appian Road/Avenida de
Anita including hardware interconnect with the intersection of El Camino Real and
EIm Avenue.
C. Street signing and &ping plans.
Improvements listed above shall be constructed within 12 months of final map approval
and/or improvement plan approval, whichever occurs first.
Unless a standard variance has been issued, no variance from City Standards is authorized
by virtue of approval of this tentative map.
The developer shall comply with all the rules, regulations and design requirements of the
respective sewer and water agencies regarding services to the project.
This project is approved specifically as 1 (single) phase.
The Subdivider shall provide separate sewer, water, gas, and electric services with meters
to each of the units.
The developer shall be responsible for coordination with S.D.G.&E., Pacific Telephone, and
Cable TV authorities.
Approval of this tentative tract map shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date
of Planning Commission approval unless a final map is recorded. An extension may be
requested by the applicant. Said extension shall be approved or denied at the discretion
of the Planning Commission. In approving an extension, the City Council may impose
new conditions and may revise existing conditions.
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.
PC RESO NO. 3005 -8-
.
1 I
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
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
Direct access rights for all lots abutting El Camino Real and Elm Avenue shall be waived
on the final map.
The developer shall pay the current local drainage area fee prior to approval of the final
map for this project or shall construct drainage systems in conformance with Master
Drainage Plan and City of Carl&ad standards as required by the City Engineer. In
addition, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the City to pay any additional
drainage area fees established as a result of the forthcoming Master Drainage Plan update.
The Owner shall pay for and submit an application for the quitclaim@ of the existing
slope and slope maintenance easement on the project site along Elm Avenue. Prior to
final map approval the issue of quitclaiming is to be heard and decided by the City
CounciL Should Council approve the quitclaim full maintenance of the slopes within
proposed open space Lot A and Lot B shall be taken over by the property owner and
when appropriate by the homeowners association. Should Council not approve the
quitclaim then Lots 1, 11, and 12 cannot be developed unless the tentative map is
amended.
Concurrent with the recordation of the final map, the City shall record the necessary
documents to accept the formerly rejected offer of dedication for the 7 foot wide blocker
strip for Appian Road as offered and rejected on Map No. 8371 (CT 74-SA).
All open space lots, private drainage easements and the private storm drain facilities
contained therein, and all concrete terrace drams on commonly owned property shall be
maintained by the homeowner% association. The individual property owner shall be
respon&le for the maintenance of any concrete terrace drains on an individually owned
lot. An appropriately worded statement clearly identifying these responsibilities shall be
placed in the CC&R’s subject to the approval of the City E@ineer.
The toe of slope shown on the tentative map extending into the required 300 foot sight
distance at the comer of Ehn Avenue and Appian Road shall be pulled back clear of the
sight distance line.
The owner shall pay for and submit an application(s) for the quitclaiming and or the
vacating of the excess public rightof-way along El Camino Real (depending on the legal
status of the right-of-way). Prior to final map approval the issue of quit~vacating
is to heard and decided by the City Council.
TheCityisp ursuing a median construction project in this area of El Camino Real. If the
City project precedes the developer’s construction of his required median improvements,
the developer shall reimburse the City for his proportionate share of the design and
construction costs, as determined by the City Engineer.
Fire Conditions:
63. Additional public and/or onsite fire hydrants shall be provided if deemed necessary by the
Fire Marshal.
PC RESO NO. 3005 -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
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
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.
An all-weather access road shall be maintained throughout construction.
All required fire hydrants, water mains and appurtenances shall be operational prior to
combustible building materials being located on the project site.
Fire retardant roofs shall be required on all structures.
Brush clearance shall be maintained according to the specifications contained in the City
of Carlsbad Landscape Guidelines Manual.
All fire alarm systems, fire hydrants, extinguishing systems, automatic sprinklers, and other
systems pertinent to the project shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval
prior to construction.
Carlsbad Municipal Water District Conditions:
70. 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.
71. 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.
72. 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.
73. The extension of Appian Road from Elm Avenue southerly to the existing Appian Road
with a proposed water line will require developer to probably construct a pressure
regulating station because of the different pressure zones, a water analysis will be required
for this project
. . .
PC RESO NO. 3005 -lO-
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of April, 1990, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Schramm, Commissioners: Hall, McFadden & Marcus.
NOES: Commissioners: Erwin & Holmes.
ABSENT: Commissioner Schlehuber.
ABSTAIN: None.
, SHARON SCHRAMM, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
A’ITEST:
MICHAEL J. HaZMILL&
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RESO NO. 3005 -ll-
\
I
i > .
I
i
I
I
,
2
z 3 L
W -I
z
ce 0 . $2 =tE *L zw tna Y YU -- w 3 5.‘:
3 L I’p jt8kd f;S
.
m -a u w u *- E E -.I- .
SZWE .C n .C rw NW-2 ET-- E .F a.- L Y.- 32 *- c,
E ‘g g .E L .C 3 a FL -WOW =n us
.CC VA
-
. STAFF REPORT
DATE: APRIL 18, 1990
APi VI-ION COMPLETE DATE:
December 4. 1989
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: CT 89-26/HDP 8947/SUP 89-9 - SPYGWISS - Request for approval of a Tentative
Tract Map to create 17 residential lots with a minimum lot area of 10,000 square
feet and 2 open space lots totaling 3.6 acres on a 10.4 acre site, a Hillside
Development Permit, and a Special Use Permit required by the El Camino Real
Corridor Development Standards, located on the southeast comer of El Camino Real
and Elm Avenue, in the R-A-10,000 Zone and Local Facilities Management Zone
2.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3004 APPROVING
the Conditional Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director, and ADOPT Planning
Commission Resolution No’s. 3005,3006, and 3007 APPROVING CT 89-26, HDP 89-47, and SUP
89-9, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
PROJECI- DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The project consists of I7 residential lots with a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet as
required by the R-A-10,000 (Residential Agricultural, 10,000 square foot minimum lot area) zone.
The average residential lot size proposed is 12,900 square feet. Two open space lots are also
proposed. Open space Lot A contains 2.7 acres and encompasses the slope area adjacent to the
east side of El Camino Real, in addition to the slope adjacent to Elm Avenue west of the proposed
extension of Appian Road. Open space Lot B contains .9 acres of area which is the slope adjacent
to Elm Avenue east of Appian Road. Together open space lots A and B total 3.6 acres of this
10.4 acre site.
The project is proposed at a density of 2.8 dwelling units per acre. This density was determined
from the constraints map/slope analysis prepared for the project. The slope analysis indicates that
2.6 acres of the site are in 25 to 40 percent slopes and therefore only receive 50 percent credit
for density calculations. A total of 3.1 acres of the site are slopes over 40 percent which receive
no credit. As a result a total of only 6 acres of the 10.4 acre site can be utilized to calculate the
density for the project.
The site has previously been disturbed by grading activities. The applicant is requesting that the
Planning Commission grant modifications to the development and design standards of the Hillside
Development Regulations. The modifications will be explained in the section of this report on
the Hillside Development Regulations. Slopes created by the city’s construction of Elm Avenue
CT 8926/HDP 89-47/S& 1,-9 - SPYGLASS
. APRIL 18, 1990
. PAGE 2
’ range in height from 40 feet to over 70 feet onsite. There are existing one to one slopes along
El Camino Real which were created by the City’s construction of that prime arterial. These one
to one slopes do not meet current city slope standards and will be required to be regraded to a
minimum 2 to I with any proposed development of the site. The comer at Elm Avenue and El
Camino Real was graded under previous permits to a level even with the adjoining streets and
is 70 feet plus or minus lower than the original topography onsite. In total, approximately 40%
of the site has been disturbed by previous urban activities and grading.
The proposed site design and grading also reflect the access locations and internal circulation
required by the City Traffic Engineer. The project provides through access from the existing stub
of Appian Way to Elm Avenue at Avenida De Anita without which it would violate the
Engineering Department cul-de-sac policy. This results in the need to do extensive earthwork
to construct this street and sets the physical layout of the remaining property. A Traffic signal
is being required for the intersection of Elm Avenue and Appian Road/Avenida de Anita.
Single family residences are proposed consistent with the existing zoning. The units are Spanish
in style with stucco exteriors, white aluminum frame windows, and tile roofs. Three unit plans
are proposed with each having a three car garage. In addition, two different elevations are
proposed for each unit plan. Plan one is a single story 2,355 square foot unit with a maximum
height of 15 l/2 feet measured to the midpoint of the roof. Three plan one units are proposed.
Plan two is a two story 2,772 square foot unit with a maximum height of 22 3/4 feet measured
to the midpoint of the roof. Nine plan two units are proposed. Plan three is also a two story
unit, however it is larger than plan two as it contains 3,116 square feet and has three single car
garage doors as opposed to a two and a one car garage door which is utilized by both plans one
and two. Plan three has a maximum height of 25’ measured to the midpoint of the roof. Five
plan three units are proposed.
The proposed project is subject to the following standards and policies.
A. Low-Medium Density (RLM) General Plan Designation
B. Residential Agricultural - 10,000 square foot minimum lot size (R-A-10,000) Zone
C. Hillside Development Regulations
D. El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards for Area 1
E. Scenic Corridor Guidelines
F. Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 2
Adjacent land uses to the site consist of a bank and multi-family units to the north, and single
family residences to the south, east, and west. This triangular site is an infill project.
CT 89-26/HDP 89-47/W. a,-9 - SPYGLASS
APRIL 18, 1990
- PAGE 3
* III. ANALYSIS
Planning Issues
1. Can the findings required to grant a Hillside Development Permit be made (Sec.
21.95.030) including granting modifications to the Development and Design Standards
(Sec. 21.95.070) and identifying Exclusions (21.95.090) applicable to the project?
2. Is the project in conformance with the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards
for Area l?
3. Does the project comply with the Scenic Corridor Guidelines?
4. Is the project in conformance with the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 2?
DISCUSSION
Hillside Develonment Regulations
The project site as stated previously is an infill site bordered by a prime arterial (El Camino Real),
a secondary arterial (Elm Avenue) and existing land uses. Approximately 40 percent of the site
has been disturbed by previous grading. Access to the site has been dictated by an existing stub
street and city engineering traffic requirements. This results in the need to do extensive
earthwork to construct Appian Road and sets the physical layout of the remaining property. Six
(6) acres of the 10.4 acre project site can be used to determine the allowable density after the
applicable slope areas are excluded. The RLM growth control point of 3.2 units per acre would
allow a maximum of 19 units on the site. Only 17 units are proposed which equals a density of
2.8 units per acre.
The applicant is requesting that two modifications to the Development and Design Standards of
the Hillside Development Regulations be granted. The two modifications are to: 1) Allow grading
in excess of ten thousand cubic yards/acre of cut or fill, and 2) to create manufactured slopes in
excess of thirty feet in height. In addition, grading of slopes over forty percent is proposed.
Approximately 3.1 acres of the site consists of slopes over forty percent. Of that 2.4 acres were
previously disturbed by authorized grading and are excluded from the Hillside Development
Regulations by Section 21.95.060(b)(l). The remaining 0.7 acres are natural slopes divided
among eight areas that are small isolated ravines where there is no substantial evidence that the
project will have a significant effect on the environment and are therefore also excluded from the
Hillside Development Regulations by Section 21.95.090(b)(4).
The project proposes grading in the amount of approximately 113,000 cubic yards of balanced
cut and fill or 11,414 cubic yards per acre. Approximately 57,000 cubic yards of fill is necessary
to restore the previously graded comer and approximately 5,000 cubic yards of cut is necessary
to pull the existing slopes along El Camino Real back to 2:l slopes. These two areas alone
account for 54% of the total grading quantity. If this grading were not necessary, the total
grading per acre would equal 5,152 cubic yards per acre which is within the level of acceptability.
-.
CT 89-26/HDP 89-47/SU. d/-9 - SPYGLASS
APRIL 18, 1990
-- PAGE 4
* Currently there are slopes onsite over 30 feet in height. The project will lower most of these
large slopes and gradually step the site down toward the comer of Ehn Avenue and El Camino
Real. The slopes created for pad grading are typically 30 feet in height or less. The street
grading and corrective grading requires slopes over 30 feet in height.
The following are the proposed findings required by section 21.95.070 of the code to grant the
requested modifications to the standards:
1. The site has unusual geotechnical or soil conditions that necessitate corrective work
that may require significant amounts of grading.
Existing 1 :l manufactured slope along El Camino Real must be regraded to 2:l and
corrective grading at the comer of Ehn and El Camino Real must be done. These
two items account for over 50% of the proposed grading.
2. The site requires extensive grading to accommodate a circulation element roadway.
The site has been extensively disturbed by the construction of Elm and El Camino
Real, both circulation element roads. This grading created slopes up to 70 feet in
height. Regrading along El Camino must be done to meet current city slope
standards.
Access along Elm Avenue to the project site is dictated by the intersection spacing
required in the city’s ordinances. This results in extensive grading being required
to access the site.
The applicant has prepared a plan showing how the site would be developed with a strict
adherence to the development and design standards. A total of two lots located off the existing
terminus of Appian Road could be accommodated on the site which would not result in a superior
project based on the degree of existing site disturbance and adjacent development. A detailed
landscape and Hillside Mitigation Plan with a cost estimate has also been provided to illustrate
how landscaping will be utilized to screen the proposed grading. A proposed condition of
approval requires an acceptable security for at least twice the estimated cost of the proposed
mitigation and landscaping which the Planning Director can authorize the use of to assure that
the landscaping is installed in a timely manner.
The project complies with the remaining requirements of the Hillside Development Regulations
by proposing the following:
1. Preservation of views of neighboring subdivision.
2. Rounded slopes are proposed throughout.
3. Where possible undulating slopes are proposed.
4. Earth berms at the top of slopes are proposed to mitigate noise and visual impacts.
5. Curvilinear streets are used where possible to create interest and visual diversity.
6. Single story units are proposed adjacent to the comer of Elm and El Camino Real.
7. Extensive landscaping is proposed on all manufactured slopes.
CT 89-26/HDP 89-47/W. ,/-9 - SPYGLASS
APRIL 18, 1990
- PAGE 5
8.
9.
10.
11.
Units will, in general, screen proposed manufactured slopes but not rise above the
horizon nor block existing residential views.
The proposed units provide a varied articulated tile roof.
The major slopes along Elm and El Camino Real are to be open space lots with
easements and will be maintained by a home owners association.
The width of drainage benches on slopes are varied to accommodate landscaping
for additional visual screening.
The required findings to approve the Hillside Development Permit can be made and are contained
in the attached resolution for granting that permit.
El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards
The project is in conformance with the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards for Area
1 with the exception of the grading standard. That standard limits cut or fill within the setback
from El Camino Real to 15 feet from original grade unless a variance to the standard is approved
as identified in Section V of the standards. The project complies with all other standards by
proposing architecture which meets the Old California/Hispanic design theme, building heights
below the 35 foot height limit, and a minimum building setback from El Camino Real of 130 feet
where the standard requires only 40 feet.
Because of site conditions described previously a deviation to the grading standard is proposed.
Practical application of the grading standard is not feasible nor in the interest of good planning
practices for this particular site. The following are proposed findings to grant the deviation
request:
A.
B.
C.
D.
The limit of 15 feet of cut or fill is infeasible given the corrective grading required
and the public street requirements.
The use of set backs, rounded slopes, berms and extensive landscaping will not
compromise the scenic qualities of the corridor.
All pertinent traffic standards will be met by the project and the deviation will not
have an adverse impact on traffic safety. The grading will meet the city’s sight
distance requirements.
The project as proposed has been designed to meet or exceed the intent of the
remaining El Camino Real Corridor Development standards. The proposed
exception will actually correct existing topographic deficiencies along El Camino
Real.
Scenic Corridor Guidelines
The project complies with the Scenic Corridor Guidelines. The theme tree, London Plane, is
proposed to front El Camino Real and Elm Avenue as well as interior project streets. Two
eucalyptus trees (Red-Flowering Gum and Red Ironbark) and a pine tree (Aleppo) have been
selected as support trees to help compliment the required theme tree. 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.
CT 89-26/HDP 89-47/SU. -4-9 - SPYGLASS
APRIL 18, 1990
-- PAGE 6
.
* Growth Management
The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 2. The impacts
on public facilities created by the project and compliance with the adopted performance standards
are summarized below:
Facility
City Administrative
Library
Wastewater Treatment Capacity
Parks
Drainage
Circulation
Fire
Schools
Sewer Collection System
Water Distribution System
Open Space
Impact
63.01 sq. ft.
33.62 sq. ft.
3,740 GPD
.1260 acres
25.74 CFS (100 yr. Storm)
170 ADT
Sta. 1 or 3
Carlsbad Unified
17 EDU’s
3,740 GPD
No additional O.S. Req.
Comnliance with Standard
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/A
The project is proposing a density of 2.8 du/acre which is below the Growth Control Point of 3.2
du/acre. A maximum of 19 units can be proposed under the applicable Growth Control Point.
Summary
The project complies with existing General Plan and Zoning designations for the site and is
compatible with adjacent development. Compliance with the Hillside Development Regulations,
El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards, Scenic Corridor Guidelines, and Growth
Management is obtained by mitigating grading quantities and slope heights permitted to exceed
city standards through project design, extensive landscaping, and posting of financial security to
guarantee compliance.
ENvIRoNMENTALREvlEw
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 March 22, 1990. This decision was based on the findings of the
Environmental Assessment, Acoustical Assessment Report, Soils Investigation and Geologic
Reconnaissance Report, an Archaeological Survey Report which was reviewed by the Historic
Preservation Commission and its findings accepted, and a field survey by staff. Approximately
forty percent of the site has been previously disturbed. No comments have been received
following publication of the notice declaring that a Conditional Negative Declaration was issued
for the project.
CT 89-26/HDP 89-47/W, ,/-9 - SPYGLASS
APRIL 18, 1990
- PAGE 7
*- ATTACHMENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
2
7.
8.
9.
10.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3004
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3005
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3006
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3007
Location Map
Background Data Sheet
Disclosure Form
Local Facilities Impacts Assessment Form
Historic Preservation Commission Comments
Exhibits “A” - “R”, dated April 18, 1990
March 21, 1990
DN:kd
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Southeast comer of the intersection of El Camino Real and Elm
Avenue.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A subdivision to create seventeen (17) residential lots with a minimum
lot area of 10,000 square feet and two open space lots totaling 3.6 acres on a 10.4 acre site.
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 Car&bad. 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 Pahnas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within twenty-
one (21) days of date of issuance.
DATED: March 22, 1990
CASE NO: CT 89-26/HDP 8947/SUP 89-9 Planning Director
APPLICANT: The March Group (Spyglass)
PUBLISH DATE: March 22, 1990
DN:lh
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (619) 438-l 161
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CT 89-26/HDP 89-47/SUP 89-9
DATE: JANUARY 2, 1990
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: SPYGLASS
2. APPLICANT: THE MARCH GROUP
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2979 STATE STREET, Ste. C
(619) 729-1121
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: AUGUST 30, 1989
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Subdivision of 10.4 acres into 17 residential lots with a minimum area of 10,000 square feet and two onen space lots.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration.
* A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, lfiNO" will be checked to indicate this determination.
* An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project may cause a sisnificant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negative Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemed insisnificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings "YES-sigtl and 'tYES-insigt' respectively.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: ‘t ES YES sig) (insig)
1. Result in unstable earth conditions or increase the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards?
2. Appreciably change the topography or any unique physical features?
3. Result in or be affected by erosion of soils either on or off the site?
4. Result in sands, or chanqes in the deposition of beach modification of the
5.
river or stream or the bed of
any bay, inlet or lake?
Result in substantial adverse ambient air quality?
channel of a the ocean or
effects on
6. Result in substantial changes in air movement, odor, moisture, or temperature?
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Substantially change the course or flow of water (marine, fresh or flood waters)?
Affect the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water or public water supply?
Substantially increase usage or cause depletion of any natural resources?
Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
Alter a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure or object?
X
NO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
-2-
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES . (sigl
12. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic plants)?
13. Introduce new species of plants into an area, or a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species?
14. Reduce the amount agricultural crop or other farmland importance?
of acreage of any or affect prime, unique of state or local
15. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, all water dwelling organisms and insects?
16. Introduce new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals?
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
YS F insig) NO
x
x
x
x
x
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES (sigl
17. Alter the present or planned land use of an area?
18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services?
19. Result in the need for new or modified sewer systems, solid waste or hazardous waste control systems?
20. Increase existing noise levels?
21. Produce new light or glare?
YES (insig)
X
NO
x
x
x
x
-3-
__
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
WILL TkE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES (sici) YES (insig) NO
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
Substantially alter the density of the human population of an area?
Affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing?
Generate substantial additional traffic?
Affect existing parking facilities, or create a large demand for new parking?
Impact existing transportation systems or alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods?
Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic?
Increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans?
Obstruct any scenic vista or create an aesthetically offensive public view?
Affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities?
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
-4-
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
. YES (sir31 YE ? insig) NO
33. 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.
34. 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.)
x
x
35. Does the project have the possible environmental effects which are in- dividually limited but cumulatively considerable? (VICumulatively con- siderable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) x
36. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? x
-5-
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
1. -
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The Soil Investigation and Geologic Reconnaissance prepared for the project by GEOCON INCORPORATED, dated July 1989, concluded that no active faults or indications of active faults were mapped on the site during the field investigation. In addition no landslides or indications of landslides were noted and the potential for landsliding is low. All slopes are proposed at inclinations of 2:l (horizontal to vertical) to provide stability.
The project proposes grading of 95 percent of the site totaling 112,000 cubic yards resulting in a balanced grading operation. The site has been disturbed by previous grading activities. Slopes ranging in height from 40 feet to over 70 feet were created by the City's construction of Elm Avenue. There are existing one to one slope along El Camino Real also created by the City to construct that major thoroughfare. These one to one slopes do not meet current City slope standards and require regrading to a minimum 2:l. The corner at Elm Avenue and El Camino Real was graded previously to a level even with the adjacent streets and is 70+/- feet lower than the original topography on site. In total, approximately 40 percent of the site has been disturbed by previous grading. To mitigate the impacts of the proposed grading operation and the creation of slopes over 30 feet in height a Conceptual Landscape Plan and Hillside Mitigation Plan has been prepared. Submittal of a final Landscape and Irrigation Plan in substantial conformance with the conceptual Landscape Plan/Hillside Mitigation Plan for the Planning Director's approval is required prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The applicant is also required to deposit a Certificate of Deposit or Letter of Credit for at least twice the cost of the proposed mitigation and landscaping. In addition to erosion control measures the required landscaping and irrigation systems shall be completed prior to occupancy of any unit within this project.
Grading of the site will not create erosion problems as 1:l slopes will be eliminated, extensive landscaping of slopes provided, and required drainage improvements constructed.
As a result of the proposed finished grades, drainage improvements, and the site's location, the project will not impact or change the bed of any water body.
The project will only generate 170 Average Daily Trips which will contribute incrementally to air contaminants.
The proposed grading concept results in the site terracing down from south to north with the properties to the south remaining approximately 20 to 40 feet higher in elevation than adjacent pad elevations of the proposed project. That in addition to the proposed placement of units will maintain air movement.
-6-
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT (CONTINUED):
7. Due to the projects location and required erosion control/drainage improvements identified on the tentative tract map no substantial .* change to the course or flow of water is anticipated.
8.
9.
10.
11.
The site design and drainage improvements shown on the tentative tract map will prevent the project from significantly affecting the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water or public water supply.
The site is bounded on the north and west by two major circulation element roads. Properties to the north, south, east, and west have been developed. Approximately 40 percent of the site has been disturbed by previous grading. Natural resources on the property consist primarily of sage brush which because of adjacent developments is not of high value as wildlife habitat.
As a result of the project's relatively small size and close proximity to commercial services it is not anticipated to use substantial amounts of fuel or energy.
Since several archaeological sites had been previously discovered in the general vicinity an archaeological survey of the Spyglass Project was required. The survey was conducted by Brian F. Smith and Associates and a report prepared which is dated October 30, 1989. The entire project area was surveyed. The survey of the project did not result in the identification of any cultural resources within the property. Based on the lack of archaeological sites, no further studies or investigations are considered necessary.
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Approximately 40 percent of the project site has been disturbed by previous grading. Areas of sage brush, chaparral, and grasses exist on the site. Because the project site is surrounded on all sides by developed properties, it does not have a significant value as habitat.
There is no evidence that rare or endangered species exist on the project site.
The project site is not used for agricultural purposes. Because of its location as well as the residential general plan and zoning designations for the property, it is not viable for agricultural use.
As a result of the adjacent development on all sides of the property and the amount of existing site disturbance, the site is not of significant value as wildlife habitat.
The project site bordered on all sides by developments is not used by animals for migration.
-7-
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (CONTINUED):
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
The proposal is consistent with the RLM General Plan Designation and R-A-10,000 zoning designation for the site.
The project is in Local Facilities Management Zone 2 and will comply with all public facility requirements of that zone.
The proposal will not create a need for new sewer systems other than sewer lines shown on the Tentative Map to serve the proposed dwelling units.
Existing noise levels will not be increased significantly by the project. The site is impacted by noise generated along El Camino Real and Elm Avenue. An Acoustical Assessment Report of the Spyglass Project was prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc. and is dated September 29, 1989. The report concluded that Lots 1,
2, 10, 11, and 12 would exceed the City's noise limits and would result in a significant noise impact if not mitigated. The proposed mitigation measures are depicted on the tentative map. The required mitigation measures are as follows:
PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES FOR FIRST AND SECOND FLOORS
First Floor Second Floor Recommended Recommended Lot Number Measures Measures
1 5' Barrier Not Applicable (includes 3' berm height shown in tentative map)
2 7' Barrier Not Applicable (includes 3' berm height shown in tentative map)
10 4' Barrier Not Required
11 4' Barrier Same As First Floor
12 5' Barrier Same As First Floor
The project will not produce new light or glare that will negatively impact adjacent properties. Public Street lights will be installed at locations shown on the tentative map.
A significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances will not be created by this project as it proposes residential uses.
-8-
- . .
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION HUMAN ENVIRONMENT (CONTINUED):
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
The density of the human population of the area will not be altered as the project is within the density range designated for the site by the General Plan Land Use Map.
The project will provide additional housing opportunities.
The proposal will generate 170 Average Daily Trips with a peak between 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. totaling 17 trips. The amount of traffic generated by the project is not significantly high.
The project will provide all required parking in attached garages.
The project will improve the existing circulation system by completing the connection of an existing dead end street through to Elm Avenue.
No alteration to waterborne, rail or air traffic will occur as a result of this project which is outside the airport influence area and not located in the immediate vicinity of a rail line or body of water.
The proposed circulation system meets City engineering standards and sidewalks will be provided so as to not increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles and pedestrians.
This residential project will not interfere with emergency response plans as it will provide an additional point of access to an adjacent development.
The project will not obstruct a scenic vista and will reduce the height and steepness of several existing slopes. Proposed slopes will be extensively landscaped according to the landscape mitigation plan proposed.
Due to the relatively small scale of the project there will be no significant affect on recreational opportunities.
-9-
ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS:
a)
b)
cl
d>
e)
f)
9)
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.
Because the entire site must be graded at one time to implement the project proposal as a result of the existing terrain and the relatively small scale of the project phased development is not feasible nor provide environmental advantages.
Alternate site designs would not be substantially different or provide environmental advantages as the alignment of the proposed extension of Appian Road is established by existing roads.
The project is proposing less than the maximum number of units allowed by the density established for the site by the General Plan.
The proposal complies with the use designated for the site by the General Plan and zoning for single family residences.
Development at some future time is not consistent with the land use designations for the site which is surrounded on all sides by developed properties.
There are alternate sites for the proposal: however, this is an infill project consistent with the density designated for the property.
The no project alternative would maintain the partially disturbed site in its existing condition with no significant environmental advantage.
-lO-
DETERMINATION (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.
x I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative Declaration will be proposed.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTEEPORT is required.
/- 4- gc,
Date
/ - /7- 9d
Date
-ll-
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
- l.- a) Submittal of a final Landscape and Irrigation Plan in substantial conformance with the Conceptual Landscape . Plan/Hillside Mitigation Plan for the Planning Director's approval is required prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
b) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall deposit at a financial institution subject to regulation by the state or federal government, a certificate of deposit or letter of credit made out to the City of Carlsbad or such other security which is acceptable to the City. This document shall be for at least twice the estimated cost of the proposed mitigation and landscaping. If the proposed mitigation and landscaping is not installed in a timely manner, in accordance with the approved plans, the planning director may authorize the utilization of these funds to do the necessary remedial work. Any funds remaining after the completion of this work shall be returned to the applicant.
c> In addition to erosion control measures the required landscaping and irrigation systems shown on the approved Landscape and Irrigation Plan shall be completed prior to the occupancy of any unit within this project.
2. The proposed noise mitigation measures recommended in the Acoustical Assessment Report of the Spyglass Project prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc. dated September 29, 1989, and depicted on the tentative map shall be completed prior to the occupancy of any unit within this project. The required mitigation measures are as follows:
PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES FOR FIRST AND SECOND FLOORS
Lot Number
1
2
10
11
12
First Floor Recommended Measures
5' Barrier (includes 3 I berm height shown in tentative map)
7' Barrier (includes 3 1 berm height shown in tentative map)
4' Barrier
4' Barrier
5' Barrier
Second Floor Recommended Measures
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Required
Same As First Floor
Same As First Floor
-12-
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES
1 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date
DN:lh
-13-
APPENDIX P
C
:
C
c . r ‘(
:
: .
:
;
:
. . . z: a .
E
2 % F: E E v
8 ez ;
u-- v)o 3-42 I80 c3 k w 2 LF + 27 Ql*m 8-w E*E?
Q) m E” OIOL 0-r .r 0 C&&W
rc 0 . EI!f =E mL zw ,Q
.h +u
-t- c, *wws P “‘- -- c, w L I-r OO+‘E
1 h 85
w% 089 ? my u EYE -r m I 2% 5 U %#I” QEO
530 Yv)c,
U3L
L” E.?
-5.: L n 04
it! 2 -r- c, + w L w-r
e .L, -a 5
- v
SWODC U E*r
,cz ” ‘L’ gGp’” Ov, -r w c -- w 00 w-e-0
. BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: CT 89-26/HDP 89-47/SUP 89-9
* APPLICANT: SPYGLASS
REQUEST AND LOCATION: 17 Residential lots with a minimum lot size of 10.000 square feet and 2
open space lots totalinn 3.6 acres on a 10.4 acre site located on the southeast comer of El Camino Real
and Elm Avenue.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A nortion of Lot “J”, Ranch0 Anus Hedionda. in the Citv of Carlsbad. according to
Partition MaD No. 823 APN: 167-090-68
Acres 10.4 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 19 lots/l7 units
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation RLM
Density Allowed O-3.2 du/ac Density Proposed 2.8 du/ac
Existing Zone R-A-lO.OOCl Proposed Zone N/A
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:
Zoning Land Use
Site R-A-10.000 Vacant
North R-P 81 P-C Bank & Condominiums
south R-A-10.000 Single Familv Residences
East R-A-10.000 Single Familv Residences
West R-A-10,000 Sinnle Familv Residences
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District Carlsbad Water Carlsbad Sewer Carlsbad EDU’s lJ-
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, Date June 12. 1989
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
x Negative Declaration, issued March 22. 1990
- E.I.R. Certified, dated
Other,
DN:kd
F.Lv’ in I : ,...trii.. i tu2-u- 1 tE ;‘c7lc1 ; J-IT-xl 11 : lx!l~l ; I;EFH 7 APR-I?- 90 18:17 iJi_lt’,‘-; # 2 ID.>C&y TEL 1.1~ : 6 l’v.~‘E~J?-- d #867 P82 --- - - . : \ .- ‘P 8.2
$ENT 8’fla I 4-i&m 3129PN 1 P406Pe!fa IW 0 . _ 9 . -bm E!?’ rt.y G?f Ci&grlsbae~
t I
018Q108uPa 6TATCMwT ’ ,
OF CERTAIN OW?‘dCiR@HIP lt&Ri!8T# ON AL APPiJCATlCNg
ON MI PMI’ OP Wit Oh-Y ~OUNEIL, OR ANY APPCINTCD
- ‘. 1 .a
(Pltrrr Prrnlj .
736 folIowIng Inbmatlon mud bm dhlomd: s
i
I ,4* 4 .# (5 f 1 ii :!r ’ ,; J I’ . ’
UN VI4 name and addrw~r 01 alI prmona h&v& I flnartobt ht@nrt tn the rppl~orlfon, MA- --
-.-~ - . ---... .~. --.-_-...
Lht thm namoc find addr#88er ot rll person8 trrvtng my -D DOLPHIN&&jLJ~$
OCRANSIDE a C&J&&& -Asu-4wl ((619) 7674150 ,
, &I- . ..
awnefrhlp lntrrrt! In thcl pfapetty Involved. . .
1.. ILI I- ‘*I 4
if any porron IdMlIlod puoulbt to (1) or (2) abevo It 1 corporrtkn 01 pWtnWhfp, IlIt the namer and add~~ss~8 O! all IndlvldW olmrkg mow thrn 10% Of UM rhrrbo Ifi Mb OO~~OWWI of OWlnO any prrtnwchlp Intotort In thr putnrr8hlp.
--
OCEANSIDE, CA 02054 _ PRBSIDBNT . --
If any pmon idont~nrd pummt to (1 or (&) r&v@ ba n@n=prollt ~gmlrrtkn 618 \ruet, Iht NW nrrn8) and 8ddrww ot any perron polyp w o ri car or dltoctor ot the non+rofN or~anlr~tlm oc 110 ltu~lrr or benrllcla~ ot thr tru.1.
F.L’” b I : . ..&IJ .1 I ~L~I-IJ~ IEE ,010 ; -!-l~-‘~‘LJ 11: 1l.Wl.l ; !Ikkti +
. ~PR-l7-'9Q IQ:18 ID:rEP,r TEL N~:61g~"G4'9--, / ',-
s * . . _.a
.tJT BYlA 1 rC-18-W 312ml I 24*9+CEPR
I *
: >
fJCltzi+;U 3
#867 P03
’ . -
; f Dlwloruru 8ulufnun!
4
Prga P
f: ,! 6. Have r ou hrd mara thah $lait, worth a( burtM88 trmrratod vdlh my membtr al City rtg?f, Borrd~, Cumm r8lan8, Commlttw lrnd Goti wl(hln thr paa! twake monlhr? YO# - No X It yur, plew kldloate prrron[r)
-- -
Ikm, OaPrtnmhb, )orftl VMtW, UR#lUlort, raOlal club, fmtwnr)
twekw, opdbue, wa 8fd uy 0th~ runty, aby 8f-4 00unry, 0hjt
at my ohw @rouP w oombhattm 8ctlng Y I vfdt,’ -
I
i
!
I ,-$! IL ; ) i t ! : \
<I :\
;:
:*
k$
.,‘,. $
l? . r. I f .,; ,a.,.; :, .,,’ ‘I ‘! . : .’ ‘,‘ 2 ‘%I . ,“‘; + ..1
: : ,: ,, ,f
! : f’ :, . ;,
A, ‘ki :, .’ (” ’ :‘
&Q,TJI Attroh WtUonrf pqar 1s nrorwwy,)
9. i ’ +i@zm? Blgnrturu 01 Owur/d.;r
HORACE FELKINS MARCH GROUP, INC. - Ptlnt or typ4 nrm, 01 rpplhl
RICHARD B. THERRIEN, PRIMIDBNT
DOLPHINE FELKINS 4/Pclq Prht *or type name of owner
. ’
,
-
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FA(XLlTES MPAC’IS ASSESSMENT FORM
(To be Submitted with Development Application)
PROJECT IDEN+ITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO.: -- 8WZiSJP 89-9
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 2 GENERAL PLAN: I3.T.M
ZONING: P-A-lll,BM
DEVELOPER’S NAME-F. MABCH GIX)lJP
ADDRESS: 2978 STAI-F STREET: SlJI”m ” cl”,LARCiEM~; CA ‘t~‘cK18
PHONE NO.: 229-1131 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL30 * 167-09n-~
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 111.4-17
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
1.
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: Sewed 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 -
13fw
35.74(100 yr. storm)
ArnR “AD”
170
1 br 8
A/n
17
3A
The project is 2 units below the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.
ATTACHMENT 9
January 16, .1990
TO: ASSOCIATE PLANNER .!
FROM: VIA: Senior Management Analyst .;;, ) Acting Housing and Redevelopment Director!'J
ARCHAEOIXGICAL SURVEY OF TBE SPYGLASS SUBDIVISION PROJECT
At their meeting of January 8, 1990, the Historic Preservation Commission accepted your memo that no cultural resources were identified in the Archaeological Survey of the Spyglass SuPdivision Project.
CLINT PHILLIPS
:ec
c: Don Neu/Project Planner
Utllcc d ftrc Ciiy Chk
0 I (We appeal lhe frrllowlng decision of the' P1ann!ns Comiss~~n
to tile City Coullcll!
I'rrrject llme ltltd IIurbber (or subject oF appeal)! , Spyglass
CT 89-26 / HDP 89-47 / SUI’ 89-9
.-
Uale of Ueclslcm: ., April X8, 1990
lbasoll TOI- Appeal : The combination of fees and improvements conditioned by the .
Planning Commission are too onerous for a single family project of such 8 limited
scale (only 17 single family lots). Sop&, -,Lcc I/ ,, -p-&w\ .q *
\ r
La 73 c2~ab-/-lo~ * 3msT
ha/\AA. . ,,
SIgnaJure
Rich Therrien (for The March Group)
Name (Please Prtnt)
1144 Pine Avenue
Mdress
Carl sbad, CA 92008
(6191 729-1121
Telephone Humbbr
,
:,*,.I..‘;
Mr. Raymond Patchett City Manager City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
5-22-90
Regarding: Withdrawal of appeal of planning resolution #3005.
Dear Mr. Patchett:
On 4-3-90 I filed an appeal of planning resolution #3005. Since the filing of the appeal I have had discussions with Mr. Marty Orenyak of the Community Development Department regarding a reimbursement agreement for part of the expense of the traffic signal at Elm and Avenida Anita. This reimbursement agreement along with discussions of the other issues noted in the appeal have now resolved my concerns with the terms of the planning commission decision.
Please withdraw my appeal and remove it from the calendar of the City Council hearing tonight.
Thank you for your consideration.
Richard B. Therrien
. Ld/qM@ . President March Group Inc. dba Therrien Development
jt\rt
:. ,
(619) 729-1121
2979 STATE STREET l SUITE Cm CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
License #362306
-_
h& ‘Lw- ~_ . . -I- ‘hb WD ‘I 3 txer, ‘3 3bY &.ppiPJ
cLi& Lu34-q cJk3
-_.- -...- - __-_^___I_-- _..._. -~---
-1 -Carlsbad Journal
.
I Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of San Diego County
Mail all correspondence regarding public notice advertising to
North Coast Publishers, Inc. corporate offices: P.O. Box 878, Encinitas, CA 92024
(619) 753-6543
’ Proof of Publication &r pzp ~pr-:“v*: , q-p. c;~“;;~;; . ..‘.”
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid;
I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter.
I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Journal a newspaper of general circulation,
published twice weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, and which
newspaper is published forthedissemination of locat news and intelligenceof a general character, and
which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying
subscribers, and which newspaper has been established, printed and published at regular intervals in
the said City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, c State of California, for a period exceeding one year next
preceding the date of publication of the notice
hereinafter referred to; and that the notice of
which the annexed is a printed copy, has been
published in each regular and entire issue of said
newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on
the following dates, to-wit:
MAY 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.90.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19....
. . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.. . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . 19.. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.. . .
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct. Executed at Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California on THE TENTH
.
* .
-_
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPEAL
CT 89-26/HDP 89-47/SUP 89-9
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, May 22, 1990 to consider an appeal of
the Planning Commission approval of a Tentative Tract Map to create 17 residential
lots, a Hillside Development Permit, and a Special Use Permit on property generally
located on the southeast corner of El Camino Real and Carlsbad Village Drive (Elm Ave.),
in the R-A-10,000 Zone and Local Facilities Management Zone 2, and more particularly
described as:
A portion of Lot "J", Ranch0 Agua Hedionda, in the City
of Carlsbad, according to Partition Map No. 823.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call the Planning Department
at 438-1161.
If you challenge the Tentative Tract Map/Hillside Development Permit/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: Rich Therrien (for The March Group)
PUBLISH: May 10, 1990 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
SPYGLASS I SUP 89-9
’ l 1206 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92006
Office ol the Cify Clerk
DATE: April 30, 1990
TO: Bobbie Hoder
FROM: Karen Kundtz
TELEPHONE
(619) 434-2808
RE: CT 89-26/HDP 89-47/SUP 89-9 - Spyglass
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
heduled for the City Council
.
S-6 46
Date
*
’ . . .
’ .
ImJ EtM~nvEfNrE cNllsQ/W. CAllJ~uJl~JlA PzOO8
Wlfce cl Jtrc Cily Clod
.
.
Ihe To1 lowing declslon OF the ‘laming Commission
to the C I ty Courrc I 1 :
PruJetl flsnle a,ld llurrrber (or subject of appeal): , SpygIass
CT 89-26 / IiDP 89-47 / SUP 89-9
.”
Uale of lleclslwr: ., April 18, 1990 t
The corabination of fees and im~rvvements conditioned by the tkasorl l01- nppeal: c
Planning COmiSSiOn are too onerous for a single jamily project of such a limited
scale (only 17 single family lots). Sow, C,L~~ 1 V --w&q ,q * \ P
0 73 \lrtwL cJ+ 3m5-I
/
Slgnifture
. :
Rich Therrien (for The March Group)
Name (Please Print) .
1144 Pine Avenue 5 Address
klsbad, CA 92008
.
(619) 729-1121
le I sphone fluinbbr
‘I. r.:;; ’
..! , NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING '
/jJ\ ch!!‘.rd) w I ?I 0
*NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will * hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive (Elm
Avenue), Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 18, 1990, to.
consider approval of a a Tentative Tract Map to create 17 residential lots, a
-Hillside Development Permit, and a Special Use Permit, on property generally
located on the southeast corner of El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards,
located on the southeast corner of El Camino Real and Elm Avenue, in the R-A- 10,000 Zone and Local Facilities Management Zone 2 and more particularly
described as:
A portion of Lot “J”, Ranch0 Agua Hedionda, in the City
of Carlsbad, according to Partition Map No. 823
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend
the public hearing. If you have any questions, please call the Planning
Department at 438-1161.
If you challenge the Tentative Tract Map/Hillside Development Plan/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 at or prior to the public
hearing.
CASE FILE: CT 89-26/HDP 89-47/SUP 89-9
APPLICANT: SPYGLASS
PUBLISH: APRIL 5, 1990
CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ~~--~ ------ ---------.---.-----
.’
I CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 ELMedENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFd, dIA 92008 ,
l * 4386821 . GbU,&d I%
ACCOUNT NO. DESCRIPTION _ AMOUNT
.:-
RECEIPT NO. 98534 TOTAL
7-M if?&7/~~-
(-4gp))J.
c;;c - ? / \ ‘_’ L p\,, 5.:-n*‘\ , /‘1/ -+,,& i“’ ? ,-J .“[ ; ( fr I Tc” , #:/;,. /d ,j ,: <,
[;r’--c-‘y ‘i . ../. 4-fL p ‘,.” ,,,- I--\;. y.r-2, -* r ~..“- *-_) ,. ..’ +--,! CI, ‘&’ r
; .,$,’
‘,‘,j!$ 1’ yr _ :‘j, , ! .‘$’
! L : . ; : 1 ; 1 e L I 1
! L I .
: I 1 : : t
5 1 ;
! : 1 1 ; I : ; :
e I I I
‘.r. .I 2.. ,.A :r ,! .
.w:. :, & ,: i &’ .1 :. ‘i’r - .i :c T, :<: : ,%’
?
: r
: !
: 3
:
5 : 1
! !
l
.
: 1
;
:
:
:
:
4
;
b
:
,
;
;
:
;
I
i l
.
I 1
I 1
,
i I
t I
t I
;
I I
! 1 I 1
I
I 1
1 1 I 1 1
, 1 I I I
I
I I
; I
; I
: I
I
i I
;: . I !
i:,, ‘. ::.
! 1 : I ; I I : I I
I 1 ;
I I : I ; , I 1 1 ; I
: ! I
! : . , ; : # : : I : 1 1
, I
I I I , ,
I I I I I 1 I. ,.
? ../
.
.;
.,: :
*
.’
I :,
*
:
*
,
j
‘.
. . : ‘.
:.
.I.,
‘4. ;’
;’
‘,
‘;
“.
:
‘.
: .I
. . *
.S’
‘I
I Y
#‘. ..ie., ’ ,;jj; ,. ”
: i ,, ! . ..p ,’ 1 3
$; .:; .C ,.. ‘.j.
$: .“’ j
. . . .: .i ./ 83 .,
:yr, $:,
,, ..!..f! 3 :+ $.’ “r
$;j ;: .d
4
: II 1
: 4
3 *
:
;
:
: I(
!
*
:
; 8
J
!
: I
:
:
1
?
:
l
;
4
j
:
I
:
:
I
IC.C, umz ‘4,
“ZZ
;a
f : ‘: . A
ig
; $
m
f
f
H A
!EZ
!;: F
is;
ta
gg
c
SC
tz
ii
8 2
i!
u
;;f
: w
1 t
!CF
!a3
:x4
;72
,EP ‘2%
AZ
g
wf
ii
0
[
1
: I
I
i
i I
I I I
:
i I
!
I
1 I I I 1 I
; I
I
i I
!
I I
1
1
I
I I
t
t
I I
;
I
:
I
i I
: t
: I
:
t 4
!
I
i
i 1
1 I
I
t 1
I
i I
; I
1
: I
;
1 I I
. z :: :: 2 !l
!i $ B z 8 4
I;f s m
-4
. .
;
3 !’ I ‘.,
I
: . 4
\ ;’
1 ,..
J :
_‘.
:
: .
. :
. . .
:
., . , ,I . .
,:
:. .:
‘;: .’ a.
*
;
:
,
:
: II
:
:
:
: *
!
: 4
; 4
: I
:
:
;
: II
!
! I)
4 )
:
: a
I: ¶ 3
:
: 1
?
: I
:
1
b a I
: ! .
?
:
l
:
J
f
3
:
b
;
:
I
?
!
4
:
4
:
:
;
,
:
:
II
t
,
I
I
I , I ,
I , I
I
I
I I
I
I I I I 1 I I 1
I , 1 1 I
!
I 1
1
i
I
I
I ,
r
I I
I ,
,
I
I , , 1 1 ,
, , I 1 I
t
1 1
1
I I I I
, 1 I
, , , , I
!
1 I
I
I
I
!
I 1
I
: I
‘4 i
:‘,’ .
: * ‘, I :
J ,.:
..i
I’ ‘..,
. .
?I.,,.
$1.
I,.!.; _. c :;$. ‘..$I, . *
: 2
;:
i :
5
2 : rr
?
: *
z J B ¶ 3
: 3
!i
;
? a :
: 4
: :
; a
: : II
4
; l
I
;
4 h
:
:
:
i
;
!
.
:
;
:
:
:
:
:
:
4
!
: .
1
:
2
;
:
:
# .
I
I . . .: : . . ‘,’ ‘.’ 5 . , . “. ‘L,\ i.
IVVI
FOS i 3
iSP
bXv, tre
i”d !a r*z
I p
! 3
is;? 1-o
;“P IP l <ill
‘Pm-
5: P
\
1
t
, . . . . . a.. . : * ,‘. ,t * : .::p
4 L 3 :
: 4 x
: J
5
!
:
II
; l
1
L
;
:
?
3
J
b
:
I4
!
:
4
:
:
i
:
s
:
:
II
3
: .
25”
is E
i-4 r
run!
;r’f-
45 mm rl
VP
T-
iz
::
I
1
:
I
i
t
! 1
1
I 1
I I
i
I ,
I
i L , 1
I
t
1 I I
1
!
I I
I
;
: 1 I
:
I
: 1
1 : : I 1 : L i 1 I : 1
! : . I i r t I : t I 1 I I
! : b
1 : I : : : ! I
i
:
;
i
I
: 1
!
: I
,
i
!
I I I
I I
I I
!
: I
.
i
: 1
I
I
i I , I
, -
’ !
: ,
5
; ’
:
1 1 I 4
;
:
1 1..
I
. .
‘. ’ I I ” . 1
:
,I
. .
. . . . : 8
. l
i ) “C. . . . ‘:I,$. :
?$ ’ -2,;
’ .,1 ..s:.
&
. ‘: ‘. .,’ , . . . .: . . O,’ .$ . *I ,
d
;
:
: J
:
:
: *
: r
:
4 . b , 4
: A b #
3
:
i
:
! ,
:
,
t
:
1
:
: B I .
!
: .I
; 4 a
: 4 h
:
;
: I4
r ?
:
d
: h
:
if
I
b
: *
1 .
: *
;
i
:
: >
:
: II
‘;“j@
y). ‘$ i.:;&F
I b
:
I
i
:
r
: 1
L
1 I
! 1 I I
I
i
:
I 1 I I
I 1
;
!
! I
#
;
:
r
; 1
I I I
4
;
:
1
i
:
:
: I
: I . a
!
: 1
1
i b
:
; 1 ,
:
:
I
!
b
:
I)
:
:
: ,
;
b
t
f
t
;
:
1
i
:
:
; 0
I
! I
! I
:
4
;
:
:
i
:
: 1
!
: 4
l
;
E
I
:
:
I
I
.
,
.: ! I ;a I
2
. .
‘j
: ,,
.I
:,
; :
‘i
,:
.b I
*.
‘.
, ‘;
,,
:.
‘i :
‘.
.:
.
-:’
.
. . .,
..;.:.&; ,,; ., .*‘.,. ;
..:.. ‘.
: :.. I ‘i
:gs 0Ni-f -ar 225 al-u, !8E ZT ;g
E z P
[ : m : w I
!cg ;# NQ Lb “%
t
! g
$ b’m
P ; :
:zlg ?!y= :e 1 .-a ¶Pta &i 5% 8s E z I 4
: ; .
J
; , a
:
: : h
: 3
: J
;
I l
!
l
;
4
:
E
: ,
:
!
*
?
! 1
II
:
L 4
:
i
w
:
:
II
!$s” ::g IN9 :ac bP0 ;q
‘gi
g
pm
bh)
;x s
-00
:cP,
;rp
bm ,cnn
SF
g
w
5
e I
INb
# B
irn!
:-lP
i8$
3s
! J
:
;: .I L :
::
:
; ! 4
* I
?
l
i
4
:
4
:
x
E
J .
*
!
J
:
i
x ,
4
ii
w
x
:
I(
. .,.,I :?‘;: r.. !y&
i~~~i,l
’ f-,&L
I a
: .
I
;
: I
: L I
: ! v
I *
: I
,
; b
:
:
:
:
: I
I
: I
I
; ,
:
I
:
: b . I
. .
,. ,. .:!
?.
,, ‘.
i ::
ii
e
5
E r
E c
5
? 3
E
5 m
!
5
;
b
t
m
:
i
: .’ .
[ ‘i
:
. .’
,. .b
‘A. ‘: ., 8’ .J T’;
I
‘,
y,’ ! . . . . ,‘.., : ,: .: .-; .I !’ : .’ .- .* .i: : . .‘.
;
:
: 1
:
!
: I
1
! I
!
! I
1
i
:
! .
:
I ! 1
! I , m
L
i : b ,
: b
t
:
!
!
4
;
:
:
4
:
1
:
J
;
?
:
.
I
i
i
4
:
:
J
;
?
J
4
1
5
*
;
;
:
:
:
I)
! I : : I : c I : 1 I ;
! I . , i : b : I 1 I I I
! 1 I I I : 1 c I I ; ! I
I z E
!
‘5
E G
E T Ii t t
z;
4 c C 0
f
c
3
.;
;:
i
! ,
:
: I .
;
L
:
:
: 1
I
; I .
.
:
:
t
i I
I
! I
! I I l
I
: ,
;
I
:
c
I
: I
4
! 1
:
4
i *
;
:
:
:
: I
I
;
:
1
i +
:
1 b ,
: I . ,
?
: 4
4
I L
; 1
: I
i . I)
c
i
:
; i 1 ,
:
: #
?
:
l
:
:
:
i
,
I
;
:
I
!
>
:
:
J
b 1
II
.
:
J
3
;
t ; . ! i
; 1 r I . : I
I
! I
:
i ,: . . ...’ / .
I:,
.: *
4.
. . .
.
. .
,
‘. ,,
.
::’
I
2. :
.
‘.
.
‘..
:
.’
I.
. *
I t
’ t
z m :
: -.
4 ;
. s :
; :
i : c
t
i ;
1 ;
; z
I 5 c b e
I : : c ’ l : u
i
.
.
; c
: c
c :
I ;
! : c
:
! c
I z
’ E
4
? 4
:
;
:
i
: 3
;
4 *
: a
,
; h 4
:
: I
3
:
;
4
f :
; 4 ,
I
;
;
b
: . ,
. . : i’
,. .:. y: .:: .a: : I’
: :$ : .;
’ ,’ ,. ‘.., : -; : . . :
?VW :a La ;fza r-e ctim !3E
n r
: s .
?
: .
l
:
:
:
I
:
!
1
4
f
:
a
i b 1
#
:
:
:
:
4
4 I
:
I
1
; 6 I
;
; I
:
:
I
e 9
.,',' p,'. ;.. >, : .,;.::,?"$. y 4 . . ..'?' yi;q;, :j
$i(",;, $ j! : ',:#:i '~:..~~.~~
?
: II
E .I
:
;1
i
: J I u
4
5
:
:
:
:
t
:
5
: I(
!
: 1
4
; L a
:
; I
:
: I
1.
I 1 .,, I. ..I I..:. ‘. ,, . ;
* i:;’ ’ . ‘8
: : j,*,. : :; ,.
t ! I
i
; I I t .
i
!
i
I ‘,
:
.’ . .
’ ,
.I’
. .,‘.
:: ,(.
“. ‘;
:’ ,
:;.
c
:.
‘.. : . .
‘+ .,
I, :
; 1 ‘.
.*- , L .
u a
: e
; 4 L
;
f
I
I
:
;
t , I
;
:
i
I
1 , I 1
I
I
I
I
Y
5
:
t
: .a
:
: ,
&I
: #4
!
t
: ,
:
:
:
:
I I
! I
1
,
I
I
c !.
? 3 4 4
ii x .
f
!I 1
*
ff
;
! I
:
A
:
:
:
: I
: I
I
! b ,
,
I
, I
1 I
: . .
,,.;,:.
: .’
I .
i
I
. -
.
“2
!
! i
;
i I
I
I *
,‘. * I
:-
‘i
. -
::; / :i / :.,:.
- . .
I : I i : t : ; b I ;
I
I L b ; : t ; 1
I I I
I . I
I ; : t I 1 t
I : I
? J
:
: nf L
:
5
:
i
:
?
:
l
4
:
:
:
a
:
:
:
I
4
a
:
I
4
:
h
i
:
I
:
:
II
! a II *
1
5 h
;
1
:
ii a La *
u
;
:
; 4 h
;
: J ,
I * II
! a
:
;
:
i
; a
: J
;
-
I I
t I
: t
:
:
: t
I
! t
! t
I
I
i :
:
: I
I
I I
! t I I
I
;
: I
I
c
b : I t
INW 1-Y) I=;”
k =t
‘WW IbCI
!&
rg u
‘F
5
E
; m r
1 I
I 1
: 1
:
:
i
I
! I
1
;
:
,
;
:
:
: t
t
: I I
4 I
: 4
I
;
:
:
: t
:
: I
I + : , 6 : : : b :
I : t
4 # : # a i : , ! c
I ! I
’ ,
. l
. .
:.yyf. ‘-,< ‘,‘: ,‘yl ‘1 :b’ . L
!f. .
a
:
t 4
:
:
t a
!
:
!
: d
; 4
: d I
E
:
: a
J 4
: d
5
: 4
:
:
:
I
!
: .
.
; :
:
I
: : I(
! a 1 II
1
: I .
: ?
:
:
: e
4 .
: .
4
i
; : t t
t
t
;q:.. ‘,: .‘f ~ ,*:. ,, : f>’ ,. . .: : :.. . . . . .
1
z .a
t
:
5
5
: : *
? a , ,
; J * II
!
:
: : M
!
: l
:
:
;
:
:
I ,
II
:<y,: .$ $:y.: ‘. .4 *‘.a;. ,2. . ‘, . . ,.?. : ‘; ,.,a. .I, , .-4 .&
!
: .
I
; :
:
!
: : 4
!
! ,
.
i
:
: b
:
:
: t
I L
: I
1
1 b
;
i t
I I I
c ,*. .
1 il f! p
!Y s !ZY I,$ lm30 In nut Imp ‘WZ
pp
Y’
s : 1 1 ; : : ; . : : I
4 ; I . , : , ; : b I ; 1 l
.
4
;
:
4
:
h ,
:
i
a
;
a
:
. . : .
1. ‘. . . . ‘. .‘i. ,, .: ,.:, ‘.
, ’
.
,)
!
; .
! i
;
1
i *
i
i
I
.:.
.’ .
‘.
:
*.
.’
, ,’
‘I
‘2. : .“. :
i,; :
1.:
. l
a : f,, is ::. ’ . ‘( c;;:
3 ;y”z olz Fx “0 Pf i 0 % I %
I
/
tw4 ,mo IWW ;“f$ 14-a -Pz ZE “2 ii: Z! m c +
%
P
w
1 1 1 1 1
:ys 1-4-a
i”B ‘C)P pl’”
nm
3 2
zw
z m
IWW ;$r;t ‘luGI
1°F
&j
!gg PV
UP
Ew
s
, , , 1 1
I ,
, / / /
I : I 4 I , I
, I 1 L 1 1 I
4 I ! A I) ; : i s a
: 5 t
‘WO 1nCn f&W
78
16%
‘L
!Z 8 PZ
fiz
ZP mm
3
t-
%
w
,. ,C.’ .; ::* ;:s.: ‘f*F.. ,.J I’ a. . ‘<,a ,.h’,‘,:i ! .‘I:; ‘! ?F :* . (,.
I 1 I I I
1
1
t
!
3 t
:
I
’ : *,,’ ‘: ;
,
I
, I I
I
I t t
!
b
.
..I :
:
:, ,i,f
; “.! I, ,I.
A, 3 . . . ‘:
*.
. ‘.
‘. .?
,,;
.
ii’ ‘i ;j 1’: .$ / :. :: 1’; ;’ 1” ‘., ..,
-
I 1 , I I
1 ,
I I t
c
i
r, ,
t 4
:
:
3 a
; 3
:
!? a r( d
;:
:
;
: P
3
ii
I
1
I I
I 1 , I 1
1
i
! a
:
; 4 ”
3 b
:
, I
f
I
,..i :
.a”:! ’ ,‘[Gw:
, $,’ ’
:! :..
:; ; , ;
..;h.; A . ,(