Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-06-18; City Council; 11204; Development Standards For Specific Plan 201CIT\ -IF CARLSBAD - AGENil.--BILL 113 48 # ‘5 c&c3 “/ TITLE: BPECIFIC PLAN TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT WTG. b/b--q/ STANDARDS FOR AN EXISTING 4.5 ACRE SUBDIVISION LOCATED SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT, AND NORTH OF DEPT. PLN LANIXAI LANE MOBILE HOME PARK. SP-201 SECOMMENDED ACTION: 0 otco 7 If the City Council concurs, introduce Ordinance No. ~IS -153 approving the Specific Plan and adopt Resolution No. ?/-I85 approving the negative declaration for Specific Plan SP-201. ITEM EXPLANATION Specific Plan 201 is being proposed by the City of Carlsbad to establish development standards and infrastructure locations for an existing, substandard 41-lot subdivision. The area was subdivided in the 1920s into lots averaging 4,800 square feet. The lots are considered substandard because the site is zoned R-l- 10,000 and could not develop, according to present requirements, without the need for numerous variances. The proposed Specific Plan establishes development standards and guidelines which allow property owners a reasonable use of their land. At the same time, the requirements are intended to create a residential subdivision with standards which reflect those of a standard R-l subdivision. This includes requirements for 20 foot frontyard setbacks, minimum rear yards of 15' x 15', 40% lot coverage, and two car garages. One standard addressing the small lot size includes a height limitation of two stories or 25', whichever is less. This requirement is similar to the Beach Area Overlay Zone which has the same standard. Building height would be measured from existing grade to the midpoint of the roof. Two Planning Commissioners recommended denial of the project solely because building height would be measured from the midpoint of the roof rather than the peak of the roof. The Specific Plan includes provisions for all public improvements necessary to serve the subdivision. Recently, property owners began to circulate a petition for an assessment district to finance the cost of the improvements. Requirements were also included in the Specific Plan for lot-by-lot development, although, at this time, about 75% of the property owners have indicated they would be willing to participate in an assessment district. The Specific Plan addresses revisions requested by the Planning Commission regarding noise walls (section 15c, pg.11) and the Citywide Mello-Roos District (pg.13). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW On April 17, 1991, the Planning Commission approved the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director on July 12, 1989. - PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. - A financing plan is required by the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 22 prior to approval of the first final map, issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first. Because improvements will be funded by development as it occurs, there will be no fiscal impacts to the City as a result of this project. GROWTH MANAGEMENT STATUS Facilities Zone 22 Local Facilities Management Plan 22 Growth Control Point 6.0 Du/Ac. Net Density Special Facility Fees 9.2 Du/Ac.* N/A *At a density of 9.2 du/ac, the project is not consistent with the General Plan growth control point of 6.0 du/ac. The La Costa Downs subdivision is a legal subdivision by virtue of a final map approved in the 1920s. The growth management plan was not intended to erase the existence of previously approved legal lots but rather to ensure that the total of all lots does not exceed specified limits. The 41 lots were included in the Growth Management Plan dwelling unit limitation provision and was part of the Zone 22 LFMP density calculations as an existing condition. The specific plan does not approve a new density at this level but instead recognizes the previously existing legal lots and imposes development limitations on them so that they will be developed to present modern day standards. As residents develop their property, they must comply with all conditions of the Zone 22 plan. A financing plan must be approved for this zone prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, first. EXHIBITS first final map; whichever occurs 1. Ordinance NO. ns-\S3 2. City Council Resolution No. 41-Id 5 3. Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3145, and 3146 4. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated April 17, 1991 w/attachments 5. Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated April 17, 1991 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 2 2 fi$i" -1-Z 'lpg 13 x"3; 14 $j>d -tsg moou. ti -ad 15 ,bma z!gyo Errad 16 208s sts: a:? t-a 17 5 0 la 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 91-185 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A SPECIFIC PLAN TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR AN EXISTING SUBDIVISION. APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD CASE NO. : SP-201 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on April 3, 1991, and on April 17, 1991 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the City Council hereby recommends approval of the negative declaration according to Exhibit "ND", dated July 12, 1989, and sPII1l I dated July 5, 1989, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: FINDINGS 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant impact on the environment. 2. The ‘site has been previously graded and used for 1 agricultural purposes. 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 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. 5. The proposed guidelines will establish a comprehensive set of development standards to ensure that when development occurs it will be aesthetically pleasing and provide property owners with a reasonable use of their land. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 18th day of June 1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis,,Kulchin, Larson, Nygaard, and Stanton NOES: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: ALETBA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City 9 erk (SEAL) NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: For the area bounded by Descanso Boulevard, Old Highway 101,, La Costa Boulevard, and the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Development Plan establishing development standards and guidelines. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within thirty (30) days of the date of issuance. DATED: July 12, 1989 CASE NO: sop 89-9 APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad PUBLISH DATE: July 12, 1989 AML:af . MICHAEL 3. HOMILLE Planning Director 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad. California 92009-4859 - (819) 438-l 161’ - I Resources Agency * Air Resources Board Conservation Fish and Game X Coastal Commission District Caltrans A Caltrans - Planning Caltrans - Aeronautics California Highway Patrol Boating and Waterways Forestry State Water Resoruces Control Board - Headquarters Regional Water Quality Control REVIEWING AGENCIES CTRPA (CalTRPA) TRPA (Tahoe RPA) Bay Conservation & Dev't Comm Parks and Recreation Office of Historic Preservation Native American Heritage Comm State Lands Comm Public Utilities Comm Energy Comm Food and Agriculture Health Services . Statewide Health Planning (hospitals) Housing and Community Dev't m Corrections Board, Region General Services Division of Water Rights (SWRCB) Office of Local Assistance Division of Water Quality (SWRCB) Public Works Board Department of Water Resources Office of Appropriate Tech. (OPR) Reclamation Board Local Government Unit (OPR) Solid Waste Management Board Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy Colorado River Board Other FOR SCH USE ONLY Date Received at SCH Catalog Number Date Review Starts Proponent Date to Agencies Consultant # Date to SCH Contact Phone Clearance Date Address Notes: L f - x?s MAYBE NO d. The destruction, covering of modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel or a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? 2. Air - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Air emissions or deteridration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patters, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X X X X X X X X -20 r . f. l g* h. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? 4. Plant Ilife - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Animal Jife - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? XES MAYBE NO X X X X X X X ,x’ X -3- - . XES MAYBE NO 6. Noise - Will the proposal significantly increase existing noise levels? 7. Light and Glare - Will the proposal sig- nificantly produce new light or glare? i X 8. Land Use - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X 9. Natural Resources - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Unset - Does the proposal involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 11. - Pooulation Will the proposal signif- icantly alter the location, distribu- tion, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housinq - Will the proposal signif- icantly affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. TransPortation/Circulation - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking? c. Impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movementlof people and/or goods? X X X X -4- A . 17. Human Health - Will the proposal have MAYBE 18. 19. 20. 21. A) B) Cl D) El F) G) 'significant results in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? Aesthetics - Will the'proposal have significant results in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in creation of an aesthetically offensive public view? Recreation - Will the proposal have significant results in the impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? Archeoloaical/Historical/Paleontolouical - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure, object or building? X Analyze viable alte 2 roiect such as: a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site designs, c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the site, e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alter- nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative. The proposed project is a set of standards and requirements to be followed as the existing subdivision develops. The subject site will naturally phase itself because the lots are individually owned and will develop over a period of time. The subject site is already subdivided. Alternate designs are not relevant. N/A. Existing subdivision. Alternate usu for this site would be inconsistent with the General Plan, Local Coastal Program, and the City's Zoning Ordinance. Development at some future time would not significantly alter the environmental impacts. N/A because the site is already designated for single family homes. The site would remain agrscultural. A "no-project I@ alternative would not significantly alter the environmental impacts. -60 - DS 2. m: Development of the Specific Plan area will create an incremental 3. 4&5. 6. 7. a. 9. 10. 11. 12. increase in air quality impacts. This incremental increase is considered significant. WATER: Development of this project will create impervious surfaces onsite which would reduce incrementally increase absorption rates and surface runoff and runoff velocities. However, to accommodate this incremental runoff, drainage facilities (driveway swale) will be incorporated into the project to divert the runoff to new curb and gutter thereby mitigating this,concern. PIANT/ANIMAL LIFE: The site is currently under agriculture with no significant plant or animal life existing on the property. NOISE: Construction of the project may result in short term, insignificant noise impacts upon surrounding residences. Otherwise, the project is compatible with surrounding residential/agricultural land uses and will not create significant noise impacts. Because this is an existing subdivision, noise impacts cannot be reduced any lower than the mitigation measures in the Specific Plan,created. LIGHT AND GLARE: The proposal has no significant light producing elements. LAND USE: Development of this project is consistent with the General Plan and the Mello II segment of the Local Coastal Plan. N-RESOURCES: Implementation of this project will incrementally contribute to the depletion of fossil fuels and other natural resources during construction and operation. This incremental increase is not considered significant. RISK: The proposed project is surrounded by either residential or agricultural land uses. This project presents no risk of upset to these surrounding uses. POPULATION: Implementation of this project may encourage growth upon surrounding undeveloped properties. However, since the Zone 22 Local Facilities Management Plan specifies that all public facilities will be available within this area to allow for development, no population or growth related impacts are anticipated. HOUSING: This project will provide approximately 25 housing units. These 'dwellings will respond to an identified housing demand within the area. -a- . V. s (TO Be Completed By The Planning Department) Dn the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed project COUtD have a significant effect on X the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. Declaration will be proposed. A Conditional Negative I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. .’ , ,.. _ / ! ; I/’ Date VI. MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable) VI. APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date -lO- Signature L 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. 3145 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A SPECIFIC PLAN TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR AN EXISTING SUBDMSION. APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD CASE NO.: SP 201 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of April, 1991, and on the 17th day of April, 1991, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit “ND”, dated July 12, 1989, and “PII”, dated July 5, 1989, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findinns: 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a sign&ant impact on the environment. 2. The site has been previously graded and used for agricultural purposes. 3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed project. I 1 4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significantly impacted by this project. 2 3 4 5 6 5. The proposed guidelines will establish a comprehensive set of development standards to ensure that when development occuts it will be aesthetically pleasing and provide property owners with a reasonable use of their land. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of April, 1991, by 7 I/ the following vote, to wit: 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 II 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 AYES: Vice-Chairperson Erwin, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Marcus & Hall. NOES: Commissioners: McFadden & Schramm. ABSENT: Chairperson Holmes. ABSTAIN: None. ATTEST: TOM ERWIN, Vice Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION MICHAEL J. HOI!ZMILLkk PLANNING DIRECTOR 27 PC RESO NO. 3145 -2- 2a t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3146 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 201 ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, WEST OF THE AT&SF RAILROAD, EAST OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD, AND NORTH OF LANIKAI LANE MOBILE HOME PARK. CASE NAME: LA COSTA DOWNS CASE NO: SP 201 WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning Commission did, on the 3rd day of April, 1991, and on the 17th day of April, 1991, consider said request on property described as: Blocks 22, 23, 24 of Map 2013, La Costa Downs Unit No. 1 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 SP 201. 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 recommends APPROVAL of SP 201, according to Exhibit ‘X’, dated April 3, 1991, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: . % 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 Findings: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. . . . The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the exkting density. The Planning Commission has, by inclusion of an appropriate condition to this project, ensured building permits will not be issued for the project unless the City Engineer determines that sewer service is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service remains available, and the Planning Commission is satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project. 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. Assurances have been given that adequate sewer for the project will be provided by the City of Car&bad. This project will not cause any significant environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration has been issued by the Planning Director on July 12, 1989 and recommended for Approval by the Planning Commission on April 17, 1991. In recommending approval of 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. All property owners in the Specific Plan area are 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 22. PC PESO NO. 3146 -2- 4 . . 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 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. The proposed guidelines allow residents a reasonable use of their land while providiug a consistent framework for development to ensure a quality living environment. The proposed Specific Phm implements the General Plan by providing small lot single family homes in an area with a density designation of Residential Medium, 4-8 du/ac. The proposed Specific Plan is in compliance with the Growth Management Ordinance because all property owners have been conditioned to comply with the requirements of the Local Facilities Management Plan (LIMP) for Zone 22. The existing subdivision was included in the Zone 22 I..FMF as an existing condition, therefore the demand on public fkilities has already been analyzed. The proposed public improvements will adequately serve the subject site with all necessazy public fkilities. Noise impacts have been reduced as much as possiile. Provisions have been included to ensure that Wure potential property owners are aware of exkting noise impacts prior to purchase. The pro@ Specific Plan has no associated open space impacts as determined by the Open Space Advisor Committee at their meeting of January 24,199l. Conditions: 1. Approval is granted for SP 201, as shown on Exhibit(s) “A”, dated April 3, 1991, incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning Department. Development shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these conditions. 2. 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. 3. 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. If the fees are not paid this application will not be consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project will be void. . . . PC RESO NO. 3146 -3- . h 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 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. . . . All property owners shah pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of building permits as required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. AU property ownets 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 and the developer shall be required to construct whatever improvements are required by the Water District Master Plan and the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 22. This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the Water District serving the development determines that adequate water and service is available at the time of application for water service and will continue to be available until time of occupancy. 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. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit there shah be a notice of restriction on real property placed on the deed to property subject to the satisfaction of the Planning Director notifying all interested parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Specific Plan by Resolution No. 3146 on the real property owned by the declarant. Said deed restriction shall note the property description, location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the deed restriction. This approval shall not be effective and permits shah not be issued until this notice is recorded in the Office of the County Recorder. 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. PC RESO NO. 3146 4- . . 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 A. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of April, 1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Vice-Chairperson Erwin, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Marcus &Hall NOES: Commissioners: McFadden & Schramm. ABSENT: Chairperson Holmes. ABSTAIN: None. TmJ--’ TOM ERWIN, Vice Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. PLANNING DIRECTOR AL:rvo:km PC RESO NO. 3146 -5- DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APRIL 17, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING DEPARTMENT SP 201 - LA COSTA DOWNS - Request for approval of a Specific Plan to establish development standards on property located south of Palomar Airport Road, west of the AT&SF Railroad, east of Carlsbad Boulevard and north of Lanikai Lane Mobile Home Park in the R-1-10,000 zone and in LFMP Zone 22. I. RECOMMENDATION SI’AFF REPORT / w 0 2 That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3145 Recommending APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director, and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3146 recommending APPROVAL of SP 201 to the City Council, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. EXPLANATION This item was scheduled to be heard at the Planning Commission meeting of April 3, 1991, however was continued due to the lateness of the hour. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3145 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3146 3. Staff report dated April 3, 1991, with attachments. April 5,199l BH:km - . DATE: APRIL 3, 1991 =AFF REPORT 4 0 2 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: SP 201 - LA COSTA DOWNS - Request for approval of a Specific Plan to establish development standards on property located south of Palomar Airport Road, west of the AT&SF Railroad, east of Carlsbad Boulevard and north of Lanikai Lane Mobile Home Park in the R-1-10,000 zone and in LFMP Zone 22. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3145 Recommending APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director, and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3146 recommending APPROVAL of SP 201 to the City Council, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND Specific Plan 201 is being proposed by the City of Carlsbad to allow land owners in the La Costa Downs Subdivision the opportunity to develop their property in a manner, as consistent as possible, with City standards. La Costa Downs is an existing, substandard, 41-lot subdivision that predates the City’s incorporation. As a substandard development, the area could not develop without numerous variances. The proposed Specific Plan is I intended to address this unique, existing situation by allowing the development of one single family dwelling on each legal lot through the provision of special development standards. To establish development standards there are no discretionary actions necessary other than the proposed Specific Plan. Because the property has already been subdivided, it does not need to comply with more recent requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. Because it is not a planned development, compliance is not needed with the Planned Development Ordinance nor the Architectural Guidelines for Small Lot Subdivisions. In addition, no changes are necessary to either the Zoning Ordinance or the General Plan. Simply stated, the Specific Plan should be reviewed on the provision of development standards for an existing situation. ’ The 4.5 acre site has a zoning designation of R-1-10,000 and a -General Plan designation of RM (4-8 du/ac, 6.0 gcp). The average lot size of 4,800 square feet and the density of 9.2 du/ac are not consistent with either the zoning or General Plan growth control point, SP 201 - LA COSTA DuWNS APRIL 3, 1991 PAGE 2 however, because this is an existing subdivision, no additional actions are necessary. The site is consistent with the Local Coastal Plan classification of 3 Medium High Density (lo- 20 du/ac). The subject area is also within the Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) for Zone 22 and subject to the conditions of that approved plan. The 41 lots were included within the Zone 22 LFMP density calculations as an existing condition; therefore, the demand for public facilities has already been analyzed. The vacant site, under agriculture, is located adjacent to Lanikai Lane Mobile Home Park at the south and the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad at the east. The western property line borders on Carlsbad Boulevard. A vacant office site is located to the north. Topography of the land slopes slightly from west to east with a 13 foot drop over the property. Noise from the AT&SF Railroad will impact the property on the east with the most affected lots (Block 22) belonging to the railroad itself. ANALYSIS Planninn Issues 1. 2. Does the proposed Specific Plan implement the General Plan? Do the proposed development standards grant property owners a reasonable use of their land? 3. Does the proposed Specific Plan ensure that future development of the subject site will be aesthetically pleasing when viewed from Carlsbad Boulevard, a scenic corridor? 4. 5. Do the proposed public improvements adequately serve the subject site? Will noise impacts from the AT&SF Railroad create adverse impacts on the residents of La Costa Downs? 6. Does the project comply with the City’s Growth Management Ordinance? DISCUSSION General Plan ImDlementation The proposed Specific Plan implements the General Plan in several ways. First, the Specific Plan is consistent with the Medium Density General Plan designation which is characterized by “small lot single family homes . . . at a density of 4-10 dwelling units per gross acre.” Secondly, the proposed development standards are in accordance with the residential guidelines to preserve the neighborhood atmosphere and identity of existing residential areas. This is in keeping with the existing subdivision map and the expectations of the - SP 201 - LA COSTA DOWNS APRIL 3,1991 PAGE 3 property owners that their land would develop as a single family residential neighbbrhood. Lastly, although the existing lots are substandard in size, they are consistent with Section 21.46.210 of the Zoning Ordinance which stipulates that although existing lots may be substandard in area or width, “in no instance shall this provision prevent the erection of a single-family dwelling on any substandard lot.“ The Open Space Advisory Committee reviewed the proposed Specific Plan at their meeting of January 24, 1991 and determined there were no open space impacts created by the proposed plan. Reasonable Use of Land The proposed Specific Plan allows properry owners a reasonable use of their land and at the same time provides a comprehensive set of guidelines to ensure orderly and attractive development. The Specific Plan is intended to create a residential subdivision with standards which, for the most part, reflect those of a standard R-l subdivision. In a few areas, criteria are more restrictive because of the smaller lot size. Although the existing lots are smaller in area (average 4800 sq. ft.), they have standard street frontages of 60 feet. This is the minimum width required under the current ordinance. For this reason, sideyard setbacks were set at the normal requirement of 10% of the ‘lot width or, in this case, 6 feet. Therefore, the minimum distance between homes would be 12 feet. If lot consolidations occur with one home on two lots, sideyard setbacks would be increased to a maximum requirement of 10 feet on each side. To develop the appearance of a single family neighborhood, the Specific Plan was designed to require a 20 foot front yard setback and a minimum rear yard of 15 feet. This is similar to what routinely occurs in small lot subdivisions as well as standard R-l subdivisions. With a possible building envelope of 45’ x 48’, there is sufficient space to construct an ample dwelling unit and 20’ x 20’ garage. Overall, development standards remain similar to most R-l zones. Those areas addressing the smaller lot size include the following standards: 1) Patios or accessory structures in the rear yard must be set back 5’ from the property lines. 2) Building height must be limited to two stories or 25, whichever is less. 3) One street tree must be planted in each front yard. 4) Roof decks, although allowed, must be incorporated into the roof structure as an integral part of the structure. 5) Three foot utility easements have been included in the 20’ frontyard setback. SP 201 - LA COSTA DUWNS APRIL 3, 1991 PAGE4 Three lots in the subdivision are more severely constrained than the others. Lot 13 of Block 23 was legally >plit into two separate parcels sometime before the City’s incorporation. These parcels are 30’ x 80’ or 2,400 square feet in area. Lot 11 of Block 23 is also very small with only 4,275 square feet, including land from the possible street vacation to the south. Future development of these three, very substandard lots will probably require approval of administrative variances to reduce the required sideyards. An administrative variance would allow a 25% modification to the required yard. To allow a reasonable use of the lot, a sideyard variance would be considered, provided a 10’ distance remained between homes. Aesthetic ImDacts Because the proposed project is an existing subdivision and not subject to either Planned Unit Development requirements or the Architectural Guidelines for Small Lot Subdivisions, it is difficult to apply and enforce architectural conditions on each home. After much consideration, staff determined that it would be more appropriate to suggest architectural guidelines illustrating elements of good design rather than to impose one type of architecture on potentially 41 individually owned properties. It is expected that as each home is designed, property owners will present their architects with a copy of the Specific Plan as a guideline to what the City requires as development standards and desires as architectural design. In this way, staff expects to establish a consistent framework and, at the same time, allow individual creativity. A requirement has been included within the Specific Plan to require rear elevation articulation for those properties backing up to Carlsbad Boulevard. In addition, the lower floors and backyards of these homes will be screened from Carlsbad Boulevard by a six foot decorative block wall. Given the existing situation, staff considers the proposed guidelines to be the maximum amount of architectural restriction that should be imposed on the property owners. The proposed guidelines regulate, to the maximum feasible extent, the impacts of the subject site on surrounding properties. Public Immovements Currently, adequate public improvements do not exist to serve the properties within the Specific Plan boundary. As a “paper” subdivision, it is lacking any road, sewer, water or utility improvements to serve the lots. The only improvements to the site are extensions of various facilities to serve other adjacent or surrounding developments. These include Anacapa Road, constructed to a 28 foot paved width to serve the Lanikai Lane Mobile Home Park and several sewer tn.&lines which serve other developments south of the Specific Plan area as well as areas within the Leucadia County Water District. SP 201 - LA COSTA DOWNS APRIL 3, 1991 PAGE 5 In order to provide public services to the property, extensive infrastructure improvements are necessary. These include improvements required to meet the Growth Management facilities standards as identified in the Zone 22 Local Facilities Management Plan as well as those facilities needed to provide public services to this Specific Plan area. The road, sewer, water and drainage improvements required within the Specific Plan represent the minimum improvements necessary to develop the property. Also required but not detailed within the plan are utility improvements such as telephone, gas, electric and cable television. A major issue in providing these improvements is financing and timing of improvement construction. Since the properties within the Specific Plan area are owned by numerous small landowners, it is not likely one property owner can or will IknciaIly bear the burden for the construction of all the required improvements. The Specific Plan document establishes conditions for improvement construction which must be met by each individual property owner to provide adequate public facilities to serve the site. Depending upon the timing and pattern of development of the Specific Plan area, this could result in haphazard and disjointed improvement construction. Alternatives to this occurrence would be to require that all the improvements be constructed up front via an improvement assessment district or a consortium of property owners/developers working togerher. An assessment district to provide a comprehensive construction and &an&g program would be beneficial for the City and the property owners. Without an assessment district, an individual property owner could face substantial costs to install the required infrastructure just to build a single family home. An assessment district would spread the costs among the property owners; however, it is not legal to force property owners into such an arrangement to develop a single family house on their individual properties. For this reason, conditions were established for individual development requirements. A description of the alternative financing mechanisms was included in the Development Financing section in Chapter 5 of the Specific Plan document. Staff conducted a preliminary survey of the property owners to determine their willingness to participate in an assessment district. Of the 21 property owners questioned, 52% (11) indicated that they “may be willing to participate.” A two-thirds majority (14) is necessary for the actual formation of the district. Noise Imnacts The La Costa Downs Subdivision will be subject to noise impacts of varying intensities from Carlsbad Boulevard, McClellan-Palomar Airport and the AT&SF Railroad. Because the project is an existing subdivision the City has no ability to redesign the project to reduce these impacts. Staff has proposed the following mitigation measures to reduce noise impacts to the maximum feasible extent. SP 201 - LA COSTA DOWNS APRIL 3, 1991 PAGE 6 1) Architectural plans must reduce interior noise levels to 45 CNEL. Structures must provide mechanical ventilitation and cooling in areas where the opening of windows would increase the noise level above the minimum allowed, 2) Six foot decorative block walls must be constructed along the AT&SF Railroad property line and the Carlsbad Boulevard right-of-way line. 3) Prior to the first sale of any lot or the issuance of a first building permit in any lot, existing owners must record a notice that future owners may be subject to noise impacts from these three sources. Other than these conditions, there is no other method that staff can utilize to reduce the noise impacts on the existing subdivision. Growth Mananement The subject area is located within Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 22. The impacts of the existing subdivision were analyzed in the Zone 22 plan, approved on December 13, 1988. Therefore, because no additional dwelling units are proposed, no further analysis is needed for the proposed development guidelines. As residents develop their property, they must comply with all conditions of the Zone 22 plan. The conditions include the requirement for the property owners in Zone 22 to provide a comprehensive financing plan which must be approved by the City prior to the first final map, issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first. To date, a financing plan has not been approved. Summary As stated earlier in this report, the proposed Specific Plan attempts to provide consistent standards for property owners to develop their land. It is not the intent to be more restrictive. tt is important to recognize that the City does not have the discretion to solve all the problems in this subdivision. Staff recommends approval of SP 201 because the proposed plan resolves as many problems as possible given the existing situation. -ONMENTAL REVIEW The Specific Plan was analyzed through an Environmental Assessment, Part II. The determination was made that the proposed development standards and guidelines would not create any significant adverse impacts to either the existing subdivision or surrounding properties. The Specific Plan proposes a number of conditions which may actually reduce some of the impacts created by the development or some of the impacts experienced by the development. Because it was determined that the Specific Plan would not have a significant impact on the environment, a Negative Declaration was issued on July 12,1989. The Specific Plan and Negative Declaration were subsequently sent to the State Clearinghouse for review and distribution. No comments were received during the review period. SP 201 - LA COSTA DOWNS APRIL 3, 1991 PAGE 7 ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3145 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3146 3. Location Map 4. Background Data Sheet 5. Exhibit “A”, dated April 3, 1991. September 27, 1990 ALxv0:k.m -- -- SP 201 LA COSTA DOWNS SPECIFIC PLAN April 3,199l 4 . TABLE OF CONTENTS I I. INTRODUCTION ................................................. I A. PURPOSE .................................................. 1 B. LOCATION ................................................. 1 C. LAND DESIGNATIONS ......................................... 3 D. GENERAL PROVISIONS: ....................................... 3 II. LANDUSE ...................................................... 4 A. PERMIlTED USES.. .......................................... 4 B. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ................................... 4 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. LOTSIZE ............................................. 4 LOT COVERAGE ....................................... 4 SET-BACKS ............................................ 4 PARKING ............................................. 5 BUILDING HEIGHT ...................................... 5 LANDSCAPING ......................................... 5 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ......................... 5 GRADING/DRAINAGE .................................... 5 PARK-IN LIEU FEE ...................................... 5 SCHOOLFEES ......................................... 6 PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE .................................. 6 STREET IMPROVEMENTS ................................ 6 PHASING OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS ...................... 8 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT FINANCING: ....................... 10 NOISE A-ITENUATION .................................. 10 MAILBOXES.. ........................................ 11 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN .................... 12 NOTIFICATION OF SPECIFIC PLAN ........................ 12 ClTYWlDE MELLO-ROOS COMMUNlTY FAClLlTlES DISTRICT .... 13 ODORIMPACTS ....................................... 14 Ill. ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES .................................... 15 A. SITEDESIGN ............................................... 16 B. BUILDING ARCHITECTURE .................................... 18 C. BUILDING MATERIALS ........................................ 24 - ILLUSTRATIONS Pace 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 6. Road Alignment and Lot Adjustment Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . 25 9. Street Cross - Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 SiteDesign................................................. 16 Corner Lot Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 1, Residential Architecture, Streetscape Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 2, Residential Architecture, Garage Front Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 3, Architectural Design Elements, Building Facade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 4, Residential Architecture, Building Facade Variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . 23 Paae 1. Exhibit A, Notice Concerning Proximity of Car&bad Boulevard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . 27 2. Exhibit B, Notice Concerning Aircraft Environmental Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 3. Exhibit C, Notice Concerning Railroad Environmental Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 4. Exhibit D, Notice Concerning Odor Environmental Impacts . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 5. Exhibit E, Full Size Road Alignment (Previously Distributed) LA COSTA DOWNS SPECIFIC PLAN I. INTRODUCTION A. PURPOSE: In the 1920s the area known as La Costa Downs was subdivided into parcels and narrow streets, both now considered substandard, which make the area difficult to develop according to present standards. The La Costa Downs Specific Plan addresses this issue by providing a comprehensive set of guidelines to ensure orderly, attractive, and harmonious development. The guidelines are intended to create a residential development with standards which reflect, for the most part, those of a regular R-l subdivision. In a few areas, criteria are more restrictive because of the smaller lot size. By establishing a specific set of standards, homeowners will know how they can best develop their property without the need for numerous variances from City standards. B. LOCATION: The subject property is approximately 4.5 acres in size and is located south of Palomar Airport Road, west of the AT&SF Railroad, east of Carlsbad Boulevard, and north of Lanikai Lane Mobile Home Park (see next page for location map). \ \ \ \ \ 0 \ 3’ f \ %\ Ta \ \ LA COSTA BLVD LANIKAI LANE MOBILE HOME PARK d CONNECTS LOTS UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP City of hIsbad 3TY OF CARLSBAD-LA COSTA DOWNS1 SP 201 2 C. LAND DESIGNATIONS: EXISTING PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN: RM (4-8 du/ac, 6.0 g.c.p.*) N/A ZONING: R-l -10,000 N/A LOCAL COASTAL PLAN: 3 MHD (10-20 du/ac) N/A GROWTH MANAGEMENT: Zone 22 LFMP N/A D. GENERAL PROVISIONS: 1. The Specific Plan implements the City of Carlsbad’s General Plan and Municipal Code by providing guidelines and standards for the full development of the area by requiring facilities and services consistent with the regulations and ordinances of the City’s Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 22; and by ensuring that all City standards and requirements will be met in a consistent and uniform manner. Unless specifically discussed in this Specific Plan, all City policies and ordinances apply to the La Costa Downs Specific Plan Area as they would apply to any property in the City of Carlsbad. Unless specifically addressed, the Specific Plan requires conformance with all applicable City development standards and requirements. 2. The Specific Plan sets standards for development and does not provide a guarantee of approval for future discretionary acts or projects within its boundaries. The permitted uses and development standards contained in this plan may be more stringent than those found in the underlying zoning. Therefore, the provisions of this plan shall take precedence over the underlying zone. The provisions of the underlying zone shall apply to subjects not covered in this plan. Where conflict may exist between this Specific Plan and the underlying zone, the most restrictive shall prevail. 3. Development within the Specific Plan shall be subject to all present and future Growth Management plans, policies or ordinances adopted by the City Council or by citizen vote including but not limited to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Growth Management). A Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 22 was previously processed pursuant to the City’s Growth Managment Program. This zone plan provides a detailed description and analysis of how Zone 22 will develop from its current status to buildout. The zone plan also demonstrates how and when each facility and improvement will be constructed in order to accommodate development within the Zone (phasing). The zone plan also provides a complete description of how each facility and improvement will be financed when mitigation is necessary. *Growth Control Point 3 II. LAND USE . A. PERMITTED USES Single family, detached dwellings, and accessory structures. Any principal use, accessory use, transitional use or conditional use permitted in the underlying zone is permitted subject to the same conditions and restrictions applicable in such underlying zone and to all of the requirements of this Specific Plan. B. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1. LOT SIZE: Lots created by La Costa Downs, Unit No. 1, Map 2013 cannot be further subdivided. Individual lot size reductions made by the County Assessor’s Office for tax purposes are not considered legal lots by the City of Carlsbad. Building permits will not be issued for any lot adjusted to a smaller size than those lots shown on La Costa Downs Unit No. 1.) Map. 2013. Lots may be merged to increase buildable area if processed pursuant to Chapter 20.36 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. 4 Prior to the issuance of building permits for Lots 8 or 13 of Block 23, the property owners shall submit a request for a Certificate of Compliance to determine whether or not these lots were legally divided. 2. LOT COVERAGE: Maximum 40%. 3. SETBACKS (after required dedications are made): 4 b) c) d) e) 9 9) 20 feet from property line. Front: Street sidevard: 10 feet from property line. Side: 10% of the lot width or a minimum of 6 feet whichever is most restrictive, however, such sideyard need not exceed ten feet. Rear: 15 feet from the property line. Proiections: Fireplace structures, cornices, eaves, belt courses, sills, buttresses, and other similar architectural features projecting from a building may intrude up to two feet into the required distance between buildings. Accessorv Structures: One-story accessory structures, patio covers, etc., within the rear yard shall be set back a minimum of 5 feet from the side and the rear property lines. The distance between buildings used for human habitation and accessory buildings shall not be less than ten feet. Roof decks: Roof decks may be constructed as long as they are an integral part of the structure and do not extend into any required yard. 4 4. PARKING: Each single family dwelling must provide a two-car garage with a minimum interior dimension of 20’ x 20’. Driveways shall be a maximum width of 24’ at the curb with a preferred width of 16’. 5. BUILDING HEIGHT: No newly constructed, reconstructed, altered or enlarged residential structure within the La Costa Downs Specific Plan shall exceed two stories or twenty-five feet in height, whichever is less. Covered parking areas shall be considered to be a story and shall be included in determining building height. 6. LANDSCAPING: A minimum of one 15 gallon tree shall be planted in each front yard setback prior to occupancy. One of the following species may be selected: Cupaniopsis Anacardioides (Carrotwood), or Washingtonia Robusta (Mexican Fan Palm). Trees shall be planted a minimum of 3’, from inside the property lines and set back from the corner per City requirements, All other landscaping shall be selected by individual property owners. All landscaping shall be installed and maintained by property owners. Drought tolerant landscaping is encouraged. 7. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMlT: All of the La Costa Downs Specific Plan area is in the Coastal Zone and therefore subject to the requirements of the California Coastal Commission. To ensure compliance with these regulations, prior to the issuance of each building permit, the project applicant shall submit a copy of a Coastal Development Permit approving development that is in substantial conformance with the La Costa Downs Specific Plan (SP 201). 8. GRADING/DRAINAGE: All lots shall follow the natural terrain to the most feasible extent possible. Cut and/or fill on each lot shall be limited to that necessary to provide adequate drainage. Drainage of each lot shall be directed to a public street or approved easement. Lots within Block 22 (adjacent to AT&SF Railroad) shall follow the natural drainage course adjacent to the railroad right-of-way. 9. PARK-IN LIEU FEE: All property owners shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of building permits as required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. 5 10. SCHOOL FEES: All property owners shall provide school fees to mitigate conditions of overcrowding as part of their building permit application. These fees shall be based on the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit application. 11. PUBLIC FAClLlTlES FEE: Prior to the issuance of a building permit on each lot, each property owner shall 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. 12. STREET IMPROVEMENTS: Streets shall be designed in compliance with the following criteria: (Please refer to Street Cross - Sections, page 26.) a) ANACAPA ROAD (NORTH OF DESCANSO): 1) 60’ right-of-way width. 2) 40’ curb to curb width. 3) 5.5’ contiguous sidewalks on both sides. b) ANACAPA ROAD (SOUTH OF DESCANSO) AND FRANCISCAN ROAD: 1) 2) 3) 4) 46’ right-of-way width (existing 40’ right-of-way plus additional 3’ street dedication required by property owner on each side of street). An additional 3’ utility easement shall be required on each side of the 46’ right-of-way. 36’ curb to curb width. 5’ contiguous sidewalks on both sides (includes top of curb). Parking shall be limited to one side of Anacapa Road until such time as Lanikai Lanes Mobile Home Park can be served with an alternate access. Cl DESCANSO BOULEVARD: 1) 2) 51’ right-of-way width (existing 40’ right-of-way plus additional 11’ dedication will be required from property owner on north side of Descanso at time of development). An additional 3’ utility easement shall be required on the south side of Descanso Boulevard adjacent to the 51’ right- of-way line. 36’ curb to curb width. (No access from office property at north to Descanso Blvd.). 6 5’ contiguous sidewalks on both sides (includes top of curb). Additional 11’ dedication required by property owner on north side of Descanso Blvd. No dedication will be required from property owner on south side of Descanso. 4 CUL-DE-SAC DESIGN ON ANACAPA ROAD: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Curb radius = 38’ Tangent length = 50’ Additional dedication may be required as determined by the City Engineer. Until alternate access is provided to Lanikai Lane Mobile Home Park, a modified knuckle shall be constructed as shown on the “Road Alignment” illustration page 25. Construction of full cul-de-sac and modified knuckle is required prior to occupancy of any building on Lots 8 or 9 of Block 24 and Lots 11, 12 or 13 of Block 25. e) LA COSTA BOULEVARD: 1) 2) Adjacent property owners may request street vacation by City of Carlsbad. Existing utilities will remain within appropriate easements. (Note: All street vacations must conform to State Code and are subject to approval by the City Council). Designated easements will be utilized to calculate lot size and determine setbacks; however, building construction shall not occur over said easement. Additional right-of-way may be required as determined by the City Engineer. 9 ACCESS TO LANIKAI LANE MOBILE HOME PARK: (Refer to “Road Alignment, page 25.) Access to Lanikai Lane Mobile Home Park, shall be provided via an existing 25’ wide easement plus additional right-of-way as required by City Engineer. Improvement of this access shall include but not be limited to modified knuckle and A.C. pavement base. lt shall be the responsibility of the adjacent lots to develop this access (Ref. 13a)4) below). This access shall be considered temporary until permanent access to Carlsbad Blvd. is constructed. Permanent access to Lanikai Lane Mobile Home Park will be located approximately 2800 feet south of the existing Anacapa Bridge. When permanent access to Lanikai Lane is constructed, the access easement across Lot 9 of Block 24 shall remain as an emergency secondary access. A Knox Box gate shall be installed by the developer conditioned to provide permanent access to Carlsbad Boulevard. 13. PHASING OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: Prior to development of any property within the Specific Plan boundary, certain public improvements are needed to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the future residents and the traveling public. The following conditions were developed to ensure adequate provision of these improvements concurrent with or prior to development of the properties covered by this Specific Plan, 4 STREETS: Prior to issuance of any building permit within the Specific Plan boundary, the owner/permittee shall complete or guarantee the completion of the following traffic circulation improvements to provide safe vehicular and pedestrian access to the site. These improvements shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to occupancy of the respective dwelling unit. 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Full half street improvement along the property frontage with the adjacent local street in accordance with the standards of this Specific Plan and City standards plus 14 feet of pavement on the opposite side of the street. Any necessary offsite pavement and curbs to safely and adequately handle drainage and traffic circulation. For units on Franciscan Road, construction of a minimum 28 foot wide street section offsite from the building site to Anacapa Road to provide safe ingress and egress to the project site. Lots 8 and 9 of Block 24 and Lots 11, 12 and 13 of Block 23 shall be responsible for the full construction of a modified knuckle at the south end of Anacapa Road to provide vehicular turnaround and continued safe access into the Lanikai Lane Mobile Home Park. Lots 1 thru 9 inclusive of Block 24 are responsible for the construction of curbs, gutters and street lights along their frontage on Carlsbad Boulevard. lf the ultimate alignment of Carlsbad Boulevard has not been fixed at the time of building permit issuance, the owner/permittee shall post a cash deposit with the City in the amount of $40.00 per lineal foot of frontage. The deposit amount includes provision for the design, construction, inspection and contract administration of the required improvements and shall be adjusted for inflation using the latest Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index. The current value as of April 3, 1991, of the ENR Construction Cost Index is $4,754.90. 8 6) Prior to the issuance of each building permit, property owners shall install a temporary provision for a fire truck turnaround at any dead end access road which is in excess of 150 feet in length. b) SEWER: 1) Prior to issuance of any building permit within the Specific Plan boundary, the owner-permitee shall construct a public sewerline along the property frontage and offsite of the property to the existing sewer trunkline at the south side of the Specific Plan boundary along an alignment determined by the City Engineer. This sewer line shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to occupancy of the respective dwelling unit. c) WATER: 1) 2) 3) Prior to issuance of any building permit within the Specific Plan boundary, a looped water line, sized in accordance with the Carlsbad Municipal Water District requirements, shall be provided from the existing water line along the southern Specific Plan boundary down Anacapa Road to Descanso Boulevard and from Descanso Boulevard back to the existing water line. All areas of the water line beneath paved sections shall include all water service laterals to each of the properties. Prior to issuance of building permits on Lots 10 or 11 of Block 23, or Lot 11 of Block 22, the owner shall construct a 15’ wide all-weather access road in the water easement to the satisfaction of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District. All fire hydrants shall be provided as shown on Exhibit D and shall be designed to the satisfaction of the Fire Department to maintain a required fire flow of 1000 gallons per minute (GPM) at 20 pounds per square inch (PSI) residual. All fire hydrants shall be provided prior to occupancy of the first unit. 4 UNDERGROUNDING OF PUBLIC UTILITIES: 1) Prior to issuance of any building permit within the Specific Plan boundary, the owner shall enter into an agreement not to oppose the formation of an underground assessment district. If the street and utility improvements for the Specific Plan area are constructed utilizing an assessment district or other comprehensive financing program, all overhead lines within the Specific Plan boundary shall be undergrounded to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. If individual owners construct the required improvements, the overhead utility lines may remain or be relocated consistent with the proposed improvements. 9 h 14. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT FINANCING: Since adequate public improvements do not exist to serve the Specific Plan property, and because it is burdensome for one property owner to install the initial infrastructure needed to provide adequate public services to their property, alternative financing may be necessary to develop the Specific Plan properties. The following is a listing of the available financing alternatives to fund construction of the needed improvements. a) Assessment District: There are several state laws which deal with the formation of special assessment districts for the purpose of financing street and utility improvements, Generally, the formation of such a district involves the submittal of a petition containing the signatures of a majority of property owners within the proposed district and the consent of the City Council to form the district. City policy would normally require that the owner/developer front the needed money to prepare the design plans and retain counsel prior to formation of the district. This is the preferred method to finance and construct the required improvements. b) Owner/Developer Funded: Several owners within the Specific Plan boundary could join together and pool their resources to design, construct and finance the required improvements. 4 Reimbursement Aareement: City Ordinances provide for the establishment of reimbursement agreements with owner/developers wherein the required improvements exceed the need of one particular developer. This generally applies to the oversizing of sewer, drainage and water facilities. Since the drainage, utility and road improvements required of this Specific Plan area are the minimum required by City standards to serve even one unit, reimbursement agreements would not be an appropriate financing tool for this project. 15. NOISE ATTENUATION: Lots located in the La Costa Downs Subdivision may be subject to possible noise and vibration impacts from the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad, Carlsbad Boulevard and the McCellan Palomar Airport. Because the property was subdivided in 1929 it is not subject to the City’s present Noise Policy; however, to improve the quality of life for La Costa Downs residents, the following noise mitigation measures shall be complied with: a) Prior to issuance of a building permits, the Building Director shall review the architectural plans to ensure compliance with the State of California interior noise standard of 45 CNEL. At that time, any additional measures (thicker glazing, sound absorption material, shielding of vents, or artificial circulation system) to further attenuate the noise to an acceptable level shall be required. 10 1) Where windows are required to be unopenable or kept closed in order to meet the interior noise standards, mechanical ventilation and cooling, if necessary, shall be provided to maintain a habitable environment, The system shall supply two air changes per hour to each habitable room including 20% (one-fifth) fresh make-up air obtained directly from the outdoors. The fresh air inlet duct shall be of sound attenuating construction and shall consist of a minimum of ten feet of straight or curved duct or six feet plus one sharp 90“ bend. b) Prior to the close of escrow upon the sale of each lot, the owner shall prepare and record a notice that this property may be subject to impacts from Carlsbad Boulevard, the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad and the McClellan Palomar Airport in a manner meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney (See Exhibits A, B, and C). C) Prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit, decorative six foot walls shall be constructed along the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad property line and the Carlsbad Boulevard right-of-way line. Said walls shall be constructed of concrete block and any other sound attenuation material deemed by the Planning Director to provide adequate noise protection. If a noise study determines the wall could be of a lower height and still provide noise protection, the lower height shall be acceptable. The design of said walls shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director and City Engineer. Property owner(s) may enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City administering the agreement and the property owners paying 100% of the cost of construction including administration fees. 16. MAILBOXES: Combined mailbox units shmall be placed behind the sidewalk subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 11 -. 17. LOCAL FAClLlTlES MANAGEMENT PLAN: La Costa Downs is located within Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 22 and must comply with all conditions stipulated therein and any amendments made to that plan prior to the issuance of building permits. These conditions include the requirement for the property owners in Zone 22 to provide a comprehensive financing plan which must be approved by the City Council prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first. Key facilities to be financed include drainage and circulation. a) Drainage: The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 22 did not specify upgrades to existing drainage structures. The City of Carlsbad is currently upgrading its Drainage Master Plan which will evaluate the capacity of major storm drain facilities impacted by this specific plan. If the storm drain facilities are determined to be inadequate, then future development in this specific plan will be required to participate in appropriate mitigation. b) Circulation: A financing plan guaranteeing the construction of the following circulation facilities must be approved: I) Palomar Airport Road and l-5 interchange 2) Poinsettia Lane and l-5 interchange 3) Palomar Airport Road widening 4) Poinsettia Lane widening 5) Completion of Avenida Encinas 6) Intersection and signal modifications as necessary 18. NOTIFICATION OF SPECIFIC PLAN: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit on each lot there shall be a deed restriction placed on the deed to each lot subject to the satisfaction of the Planning Director notifying all interested parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Specific Plan on the real property owned by the declarant. Said deed restriction shall note the property description, location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the deed restriction. Said deed restriction(s) may be modified or terminated only with the approval of the City Council of the Cii of Carslbad. 12 19. CITYWIDE MELLO-ROOS COMMUNlTY FACILITIES DISTRICT In accordance with the City’s Growth Management Plan and the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan, it is necessary that all public facilities required to serve development be provided concurrent with need. At this time a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) is proposed to finance the construction of several Citywide facilities necessary to serve new development. One of these facilities is the l-5 interchange at Poinsettia Lane. The Zone 22 LFMP is specifically conditioned to provide a financing mechanism for improvements to this interchange. In addition, the new South Carlsbad Library is required for all new residential development. Therefore, guaranteed financing for these two Citywide facilities is necessary in order to find that the La Costa Downs subdivision will provide adequate public facilities concurrent with need. If the CFD is formed, the vacant developable land in Zone 22, including the La Costa Downs subdivision, would become part of the district. This would satisfy the requirement for financing the Poinsettia interchange improvements and the Library. The CFD, if formed, would impose a special two-level tax on the land to pay for these facilities. For properties with a General Plan designation of RM, such as La Costa Downs, the maximum tax on undeveloped land would be $1,294 per net acre per year. At the time of residential building permit issuance, a one time tax of no more than $2, 810 per dwelling unit would be assessed. After that, no further tax would be assessed as part of this CFD. If the CFD is not formed, there would not be guaranteed financing for the Citywide facilities needed to serve Zone 22. In that case, no further permits of any kind would be approved in the zone unless an alternate financing program acceptable to the City is provided. a) Approval of this Specific Plan is contingent upon the provision of adequate public facilities to satisfy the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan. At this time a Mello-Roos Community,Facilities District is proposed to finance the construction of several Citywide facilities necessary to serve new development. If the Mello-Roos Community Facilities District is not formed, or if the Community Facilities District is formed but the Zone 22 properties are not participants within that District, the required General Plan Consistency finding cannot be made. No discretionary approvals, Building Permits, Grading Permits, Final Maps, or development permits will be issued or approved unless an alternate financing mechanism is provided by the developer and approved by the City Council to finance the facilities legally applicable to Zone 22 that would have been or are included in the Community Facilities District. For purposes of this condition the Mello-Roos District will be considered to be formed following an affirmative vote of the property owners plus a 30-day period as prescribed by law to provide for any protest regarding formation of the District. 13 20. ODOR IMPACTS Lots located in the La Costa Downs Subdivision may be subject to possible odor impacts from the Encina Sewer Plant. To improve the quality of life for La Costa Downs residents the following mitigation measure shall be complied with: a) Prior to the close of escrow upon the sale of each lot, the owner shall prepare and record a notice that this property may be subject to odor impacts from the Encina Sewer Plant in a manner meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney (See Exhibit D). 14 III. ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES A. SITE DESIGN: In La Costa Downs, as in all small lot subdivisions, architecture becomes a very important element in the overall design. The La Costa Downs Specific Plan does not propose one style of architecture nor one set of design standards; however, architecture utilizing elements of good design is desired. On the following pages, a series of architectural guidelines and schematics are presented to provide additional guidance to property owners. lt should be noted that the schematics and building envelopes are prototypes and are not intended to constrain more creative solutions, 15 SITE DESIGN 60’ TYPICAL t- -m e-m -J--l r--- ------T ---I I L-l 1 I I I I I I -1 15’ MIN REAR YARD SETBACK .- I 6 r-l DINE I I GARAGE TYPICAL BUILDING ENVELOPE EXAMPLE FLOOR PLAN EXAMPLE LOT SIZE: 60’~ 80’ LOT WIDTHS AND DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE ONE ON-STREET PARKING SPACE PER RESIDENCE l City standards require minimum 5 foot positive drainage away from building footing or 3 tit upon Soils Engineer recommendation. Other standards gouem berm height and tidth recwirements along top of slope. Drainage details to be approved by City Engineer at time d building plancheck. 16 A- . CORNER LOT TREATMENT USE SINGLE STORY OR SET BACK TWO STORY ELEMENT OR INCREASE SIDEYARD SETBACK SINGLE STORY STRUCTURE I --- I I TWO STORY I 1 -- -- - MHMUMBTREET -AR0 SETBACK FOR-LOT -5’FOR, Two BTORY BTmJcTmE 17 B. BUILDING ARCHITECTURE: BACKGROUND An important element in a quality residential environment is its aesthetic appearance. Residential neighborhoods that are visually and aesthetically pleasing -- that possess a sense of harmony and continuity -- contribute to a relaxed and enjoyable lifestyle. Strong and balanced architectural design can create a “sense of place” whereby residents can easily identify and relate to their own homes and neighborhoods. A pleasing living environment can be created through the application of good architectural and neighborhood design principles. The primary application of these design principles is directed towards residential architecture and the streetscape. GENERAL DESIGN STANDARDS The following set of architectural standards may help the architect, planner, engineer and builder in creating aesthetically pleasing residential areas: 4 Visual interest should be created through the use of varied entry treatments in single family and townhome type dwelling units. See Figure 1, page 20. 4 Varied building height and roof massing are encouraged. See Figure 1, page 20. 4 To create streetscape variety, multiple building elevation treatments -- including roof, window, siding, trim, accent, garage door and/or entry types, should be utilized. 4 Streetscape unity can be strengthened through the use of common roof, siding, wall and fence materials or through the use of common exterior architectural treatments on structures located along the street. Alternatively, variety can be created by introducing a limited number of different roof, side, and wall materials or treatments on structures along a street. See Figure 1, page 20. 4 To avoid the dominance and repetitiveness of garage doors on the streetscene, property owners are encouraged to orient garages to face toward the side on some units, See Figure 2, page 21. 4 Building faces (particularly front elevation planes) and roof planes should be varied in placement and size to avoid visual monotony, and to create interest and human scale. See Figures 3 and 4, pages 22,33. 4 Further architectural articulation of building faces and roof planes can be accomplished through the introduction of sub-elements such as projections, dormers, roof ridge jogs, roof overhangs, building face trims, recessed doorways, bay windows, or entry courts. See Figure 3, page 22. - 4 In two-story structures varied and horizontally offset floor plans can be used to produce exterior building and roof plane articulation. See Figure 3, page 22. 4 In two-story structures, scale and vertical transition can be created in the front of the structure by “stepping back” the second story and providing a partial roof or trellis at the top of the first floor level. This eliminates continuous two-story vertical building planes. See Figure 3, page 22. 4 An accent window having a different or articulated shape (e.g., rounded, diamond and/or with contrasting moldings) or with a finer texture (e.g., many small panes) can be used to create interest on building elevations. See Figure 3, page 22. 4 Visual focus can be created through increasing texture, detail, color or trim in the architectural feature to be emphasized. Articulation of entries including doors, alcoves, entry walls, gates, overhead trellises/sunroofs, light fixtures, and contrasting colors, are common methods of creating building visual/functional focus and sense of identity. See Figure 3. page 22. 4 The texture and character of composition shingle roofs can be enhanced by using thick butt shingles and by adding double shingles along the hips and ridgelines of the roof. 4 When used on roofs, solar energy equipment such as solar panels, solar modules or piping should be well integrated into roof design in terms of placement and color. 4 To reduce the visual impacts on the traveling public using Carlsbad Boulevard, the rear building elevations on the homes backing up to Carlsbad Boulevard (a Scenic Corridor) shall integrate off-set building planes and articulated windows and doors into the architectural design. 19 hl -- FIGURE 1 RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTURE STREETSCAPE ELEMENTS STREETSCAPE ELEMENTS WlllClf CREATE INTEREST: l VARIED ROOF HEIGHTS = VARIED ROOF TYPES (EQHIy,AND GABLE ROOF1 l VARIED BUlLOmG FACADE TREATMENTS, IWI?IES,GARA .ACCEIyT FEAMESI SlREETSCAPE ELEMENTS WmCH CREATE LlMW: l SyKM ROOF &M STWCTulE SIDWG MATERIALS l SUAR AM PmCAUY OCclRRrrvo STREET TREES. 20 hh -- FIGURE 2 RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTURE GARAGE FRONT ORIENTATION TWOCAR GARAGE OooJlS /- ARCcNTEClWMLY SOFTEN SIDE OF GARAGE mom&ED lyT0 STREET VISlBLE TO T?tE SlREm. 1 SCENE AVOlPS MWOTANY r ‘-s~s&OR ’ ARCHITECTlJRALL AVOID XMTl7WEMSS TREAT TM0 GARA( TO SOFTEN WAC 21 -rLI -- FIGURE 3 ARCHITECTURAL DESlGN ELEMENTS BUILDING FACADE ARTICULATED ROOF PiAM% FOR VARIETY. @FsR R001) PLANS AND STEWED BACK PARllM ROOF. AK#NlECT1RAL ACCWTFEAMES: l llMoLE WINDOWS l ELABoilATED CMWEY. COIY#NROWAIM)TRYhlATERIALS cm3lEuNlTY. VARIED GARAGE Dooi) AND ENTRY TREA= ~~~TAmmDlvlDuMUNCTI-. 22 -- -- FIGURE 4 RESIDENTlAL ARCHITECTURE BUILDING FACADE VARIATION VArrwO GARAaE SETEACKS Uo VA UDsyo ARMCRIllM FACAOE CREA TE HTERESf 23 C. BUILDING MATERIALS: 4 A plain surface should be embellished through the use of localized contrasting materials as accents or trims. 4 To provide interest and/or architectural accents on structures predominately finished in stucco, moldings, cornices, insets or offsets should be used. Similarly, to create interest, portion of the exterior building surface should be covered with a complimentary building material, texture, or color. 4 Instead of using contrasting materials on the same flat building surface it is best to offset the contrasting materials on different building planes. 4 Any bare metallic surfaces (vents, pipes, gutters, flashing, etc.) should be painted or covered from view in a manner harmonious with the general exterior architectural treatment of the building. 4 To better complement natural materials and earth tone colors commonly found in .contemporary residential structures, the covering of metallic aluminum frames around doors or windows by wood, brick or stucco trim systems is encouraged. Anodized aluminum window frames are also appropriate. 4 Driveway materials that retain their original beauty and strength such as textured concrete, brick, tile or conglomerate are encouraged outside the City right-of-way. 4 Trees should be used to interrupt the appearance of a long, horizontal building mass. 24 m ---- i- r FIB - CD F , --- q > c -w--f d 9 0 %- - rr) ---- N - -*m - - : :i ?: ii if- ‘*- ---- + iii< Ii c : ~ ’ $ i : ; ;: 0 $8 *’ ii] 1. - - -I--- F-ET CROSS SECTIOF-- k ‘I !Y J’LY y II’ FuluRE I Rw *DEDICIltOtU-? 51’ I I IO’ 1 18’ /8’ 5’ - I 1; 40’ m/sir R/W L I 45’ 55’ 1 I I DESCANSO BLVD. MO SCALE 5’U?YL/rY Esur $1 / y, R/W /O’ 20’ 20’ /O’ 6 “CURB d GuP-ER PCC. S/OEWAL K ANACAPA ROAD (NORTH OF DESCANSO BLVD.) NO SCALE EZY W’LY Rhv R/rv 46’ 46’ I 5’ 5’ /I’ /I’ /8’ /8’ 5’ 5’ I I I I 40’ EX/S7r 40’ EX/S7r R/W I I 3’A7amrvAL J 3’A7amrvAL J D&mi¶ ?mN D&mi¶ ?mN PC.6 S/OEWAiK PC.6 S/OEWAiK ANACAPA ROAD (SOUTH OF DESCANSO BLVD.) & FRANClSCAN ROAD NO SCALE 26 EXHIBIT A FORM: NOISE 1: 1 of 3 RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO i i 1 1 NOTICE CONCERNING PROXIMITY OF THE EXISTING CARLSBAD BOULEVARD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR This Notice Concerning Environmental Impacts is made by hereinafter referred to as the “Owner” is developer of certain real property situated in tie City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. RECITALS A. The purpose of this notice is to disclose to the fullest extent possible present and future potential impacts of noise generated by all manner of vehicles including public and private vehicles which will generate noise and other environmental impacts. Purchaser acknowledges and accepts these existing and future impacts and forever waives any and all causes of action and covenants not to sue the City of Carlsbad, its agents, servants or employees as to any damages or injuries resulting from said impacts. B. The Owner is the developer and/or holder of the title to certain real property in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, California, more fully described as: C. The property is located adjacent to the Carlsbad Boulevard Transportation Corridor (hereafter described as corridor) on which transportation vehicles such as automobiles, trucks, motorcycles and/or vehicles for rail and transit are proposed to travel. D. Owner has no control over the operations of the corridor including the types of vehicles, trips and traffic, nor the frequency of the trips. 27 FORM: NOISE 1: 2 of 3 E. lt is the desire of Owner to give notice to any potential purchaser of the real property of its proximity to the corridor and the fact that purchases may be subject to the impacts of said proposed transportation corridor. NOW THEREFORE, in light of the above Recitals, owner does, for itself, and its successors and assigns, give the following notice: 1. That Owner has no responsibility or control over the operation of the corridor, including without limitation, the types or number of vehicles operating on the corridor. 2. That the vehicle operations on the corridor may create significant impacts affecting the purchasers, tenants and occupants of the property and that purchasers, tenants and occupants of the property reside there subject to sight and sound of vehicle operation. 3. The property shall be held, conveyed, hypothecated, encumbered, leased, rented, used, occupied and improved subject to this Notice. This Notice shall run with the property and shall be binding upon all parties having or acquiring any right, title or interest in the property. 4. The purpose of this notice is to disclose to the fullest extent possible present and future potential impacts of noise generated by all manner of vehicles including public and private vehicles which will generate noise and other environmental impacts. Purchaser acknowledges and accepts these existing and future impacts and forever waives any and all causes of action and covenants not to sue the City of Carlsbad, its agents, servants or employees as to any damages or injuries resulting from said impacts.” 28 . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Declaration of Notice of corridor traffic, sight and sound is made this - day of I . By: CORPORATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: PARTNER&P ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: INDIVID”:: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: On ,19-l before me, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared and personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the persons who executed the within instrument as President and Secretary, on behalf of the corporation herein named, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the within instrument pursuant to its by-laws or a resolution of its Board of Directors. WITNESS my hand and official seal Notary Public in and for said County and State 29 EXHIBIT 6 FORM: NOISE 2: 1 of 3 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ; 1 ; ; i NOTICE CONCERNING AIRCRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS This Declaration and Notice Concerning Aircraft Environmental Impacts is made by hereinafter referred to as the “Owner”, as developer of certain real property situated in’the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. A. B. C. D. RECITALS The purpose of this notice is to disclose to the fullest extent possible present and future potential impacts of noise generated by all manner of aircraft including public and private aircraft which will generate noise and other environmental impacts. The Owner is the developer and holder of the title to certain real property in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, California, more fully described as: The property is located approximately miles from the McCellan-Palomar Airport, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County (the “Airport”), operated by the County of San Diego, through which are conducted certain aircraft operations on and about said Airport and over real property in the vicinity of the Airport. Owner has no control over the operations of the Airport, including the types of aircraft, flight, the flight patterns of the aircraft, nor the frequency of the flights. 30 FORM: NOISE 2: 2 of 3 E. lt is the desire of Owner to give notice to any potential purchaser of the real property of the air flight operation and the fact that purchasers may be subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from the Airport. NOW, THEREFORE, in light of the above Recitals, as developer and owner of the property, does, for itself, and its successors and assigns, give the following notice: 1. Owner has and shall develop the property in accordance with Specific Plan 201 approved by the City of Carlsbad, which approval includes the requirement of the City of Carlsbad, that the development of the property is consistent with the Land Use Element and Noise Element of the General Plan of the City of Carlsbad. 2. That Owner has no responsibility or control over the operation of the Airport, including without limitation, the types or number of flight operations, types of aircraft (including jet aircraft), timing of flight operation, or frequency of flights. 3. The property shall be held, conveyed, hypothecated, encumbered, leased, rented, used, occupied and improved subject to this Declaration and Notice. This Notice shall run with the property and shall be binding upon all parties having or acquiring any right, title or interest in the property. 4. The purpose of this Notice is to disclose to the fullest extent possible present and future potential impacts of noise generated by all manner of aircraft including public and private aircraft which will generate noise and other environmental impacts. 31 FORM: NOISE 2: 3 of 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Declaration of Notice of aircraft, sight, and sound is made this day of 8 19L STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ) ss. On f 19-n before me, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared and personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the persons who executed the within instrument as President and Secretary, on behalf of the corporation herein named, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the within instrument pursuant to its by-laws or a resolution of its Board of Directors. By: CORPORATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: PARTNERFHIP ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: INDIVIDU:: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public in and for said County and State 32 FORM: NOISE 3: 1 of 3 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ; i 1 ; 1 ! ) NOTICE CONCERNING RAILROAD ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS This Declaration and Notice Concerning Railroad Environmental Impacts is made bY hereinafter referred to as the ‘Owner”, as developer of certain real property situated in’the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. A. B. C. RECITALS The purpose of this notice is to disclose to the fullest extent possible present and future potential impacts of noise generated by all manner of trains which will generate noise and other environmental impacts. Purchaser acknowledges and accepts these existing and future impacts and forever waives any and all causes of action and covenants not to sue the City of Carlsbad, its agents, servants or employees as to any damages or injuries resulting from said impacts. The Owner is the developer and holder of the title to certain real property in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, California, more fully described as: The property is located adjacent to the Atchison, .Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County through which are conducted certain railway operations on and about said railway. 33 FORM: NOISE 3: 2 of 3 D. Owner has no control over the operations of the Railroad, including the types of equipment nor the frequency of the trains. E. lt is the desire of Owner to give notice to any potential purchaser of the real property of the Railroad operation and the fact that purchasers may be subject to vibration, sight and sound of trains operating on the Railroad. NOW, THEREFORE, in light of the above Recitals, as developer and owner of the property, does, for itself, and its successors and assigns, give the following notice: 1. Owner has and shall develop the property in accordance with Specific Plan 201 approved by the City of Carlsbad, which approval includes the requirement of the City of Carlsbad, that the development of the property is consistent with the Land Use Element and Noise Element of the General Plan of the City of Carlsbad. 2. That Owner has no responsibility or control over the operation of the Railroad, including without limitation, the types or number of trains, timing of, or frequency of trains. 3. That the train operations of the Railroad may create significant environmental impacts affecting the purchasers, tenants and occupants of the property and that purchasers, tenants and occupants of the property reside there subject to such vibration, sight and sound. 4. The property shall be held, conveyed, hypothecated, encumbered, leased, rented, used, occupied and improved subject to this Declaration and Notice. This Notice shall run with the property and shall be binding upon all parties having or acquiring any right, title or interest in the property. 5. The purpose of this Notice is to disclose to the fullest extent possible present and future potential impacts of noise generated by all manner of trains which will generate noise and other environmental impacts. Purchaser acknowledges and accepts these existing and future impacts and forever waives any and all causes of action and covenants not to sue the City of Carlsbad, its agents, servants or employees as to any damages or injuries resulting from said impacts.” 34 x FORM: NOISE 3: 3 of 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Declaration of Notice of train vibration, sight, and sound is made this day of I 19,. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ) ss. On Il9-, before me, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared and personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the persons who executed the within instrument as President and Secretary, on behalf of the corporation herein named, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the within instrument pursuant to its by-laws or a resolution of its Board of Directors. By: By: CORPORATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: PARTNERZHIP ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: INDIVIDUAOL: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public in and for said County and State 35 EXHIBIT D FORM: ODOR: 1 of 3 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 1 > ; ; 1 i NOTICE CONCERNING ODOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS This Declaration and Notice Concerning Odor Environmental Impacts is made by hereinafter referred to as the “Owner”, as developer of certain real property situated ;n the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. RECITALS A. The purpose of this notice is to disclose to the fullest extent possible present and future potential impacts of odor generated by the Encina Sewer Plant. B. The Owner is the developer and holder of the title to certain real property in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, California, more fully described as: C. The property is located approximately miles from the Encina Sewer Plant, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County. D. Owner has no control over the operations of the Sewer Plant. E. lt is the desire of Owner to give notice to any potential purchaser of the real . property of the Sewer Plant operation and the fact that purchasers may be subject to odor impacts from the Sewer Plant. 36 -_ FORM: ODOR: 2 of 3 NOW, THEREFORE, in light of the above Recitals, as developer and owner of the property, does, for itself, and its successors and assigns, give the following notice: 1. Owner has and shall develop the property in accordance with Specific Plan 201 approved by the City of Carlsbad, which approval includes the requirement of the City of Carlsbad, that the development of the property is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan of the City of Carlsbad. 2. That Owner has no responsibility or control over the operation of the Sewer Plant. 3. The property shall be held, conveyed, hypothecated, encumbered, leased, rented, used, occupied and improved subject to this Declaration and Notice. This Notice shall run with the property and shall be binding upon all parties having or acquiring any right, title or interest in the property. 4. The purpose of this Notice is to disclose to the fullest extent possible present and future odor impacts generated by the Sewer Plant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 FORM: ODOR: 3 of 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Declaration of Notice of odor impacts is made this day of Ilk. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ) ss. On ‘19-1 before me, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared and personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the persons who executed the within instrument as President and Secretary, on behalf of the corporation herein named, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the within instrument pursuant to its by-laws or a resolution of its Board of Directors. By: By: CORPORATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: PARTNERgHlP ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: INDIVIDU:: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public in and for said County and State 38 MINUTEs Meeting of: PLANNING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 6:00 p.m. Date of Meeting: April 17, 1991 \ ? Place of Meeting: City Council Chambers \ COMMISSIONERS CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairman Erwin called the Meeting to order at 6:OO p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Hall. ROLL CALL: Present - Vice Chairman Erwin, Commissioners Hall, Marcus, McFadden, Schlehuber, and Schramm Absent - Chairman Holmes Staff Members Present: Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director Robert Green, Principal Planner Brian Hunter, Senior Planner. Growth Management Adrienne Landers, Senior Planner Anne Hysong, Assistant Planner Jeff Gibson, Associate Planner Alan Sweeney, Associate Planner Bobbie'Hoder, Senior Management Analyst Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney David Hauser, Assistant City Engineer Bob Wojcik, Principal Engineer Robert Johnson, Traffic Engineer PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES: Vice Chairman Erwin reviewed the Planning Commission procedures on the overhead for the benefit of the audience. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED IN THE AGENDA: There were no comments from the audience. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 1) HDP 87-l(B) - VON PACKARD - An appeal to the Planning Commission of a Planning Director's decision denying an amendment to a Hillside Development Permit to maintain an existing graded building pad that was not graded in accordance with the original approved Hillside Development Permit HDP 87-l. The property is located at 4435 Sunnyhill Drive in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. Robert Green, Principal Planner, stated that staff was requesting a continuance to May 1, 1991 to allow the applicant an opportunity to comply with the City's requirements. 1 There were no persons in the gallery desiring to speak to this issue. Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to continue HDP 87-1(B) to May 1, 1991. 2) SP 201 - LA COSTA DOWNS - Request for approval of a Specific Plan to establish development standards on Erwin Hall Marcus McFadden Schlehuber Schramm MINUTES \ ? April 17, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 2 COMMISSIONERS property located south of Palomar Airport Road, west of the AT&SF Railroad, east of Carlsbad Boulevard and north of Lanikai Lane Mobile Home Park in the R-1-10,000 zone and in LFMP Zone 22. Adrienne Landers, Senior Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that this 4.5 acre site, known as La Costa Downs, is an existing, substandard 41-lot subdivision that predates the City's incorporation and is located between Palomar Airport Road and the Lanikai Lane Mobile Home Park. As a substandard subdivision, the site could not be developed without numerous variances. Specific Plan 201 is being proposed by the City of Carlsbad to allow land owners in the La Costa Downs Subdivision the opportunity to develop their property in a manner, as consistent as possible, with City standards. Because the property borders on the AT&SF Railroad to the east and Car&bad Boulevard to the west, noise mitigation is a necessary consideration. The proposed Specific Plan allows property owners a reasonable use of their land and at the same time provides a comprehensive set of guidelines to ensure orderly and attractive development. To develop the appearance of a single family neighborhood, the Specific Plan was designed to require a 20' front yard setback and a minimum rear yard of 15 ft.. which will provide sufficient space to construct an ample dwelling unit and 20' x 20' garage. However, the following standards were recommended: (1) patios and accessory rear yard structures set back 5' from the property line; (2) building height limited to two stories or 25'. whichever is less; (3) a tree planted in each front yard; roof decks incorporated into the roof structure; (4) three foot utility easements included within the 20' front yard setback; and (5) decorative block walls (6' high) constructed along the AT&SF Railroad property line and the Carlsbad Boulevard right-of-way line for noise mitigation and rear yard screening. The site lacks road, sewer, water, and utility improvements. Staff is recommending that an assessment district be formed to spread the cost of improvements equally between the homeowners. Staff has polled the property owners and believes that at least 75X would be willing to participate in an assessment district. Staff recommends approval of SP 201 because the proposed plan resolves as many problems as possible, given the existing situation. Commissioner McFadden inquired if staff is measuring the 25' roof height to the peak of the roof. Adrienne Landers replied to the affirmative. Vice Chairman Erwin opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak. Marty Montgomery, 1855 Lotus Court, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he is one of the property owners in La Costa Downs. He is in favor of the Specific Plan; however, he requested flexibility on the 6' wall along Carlsbad Boulevard. He would prefer a 3-4' block wall with posts and plexiglass along the top. He believes a 6' block wall will be unsightly and will also eliminate ocean views from the first floor of the homes adjacent to the wall. He inquired whether the sidewalks must be built prior to construction and, if so, could be included in the assessment \ \ - -. MINUTES ’ 4 April 17, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 3 \ COMMISSIONERS , district to ease the financial burden (he is worried that not all property owners will agree to granting the necessary easement for sidewalks); if the proposed development to the north would be required to participate in the assessment district to provide their share of sewer and road improvements, and if the Knox Box gate would be eliminated in favor of a permanent cul-de-sac. Robert Barelmann, 1967 North Highway 101, Leucadia, addressed the Commission and stated that he owns a lot in the project and inquired if the property owners could be exempt from Mello-Roos since the subdivision is so old. He, too, is concerned that the assessment district might have to provide extra improvements to serve properties outside the subdivision boundaries. He would like to see eliminated the requirement for a recorded notice to future owners on the noise level. Ray Fuller, CM Engineering, 910 Sycamore Avenue 11102, Vista, representing Richard Donohue, addressed the Commission and stated that he is concerned about the height requirement because it requires 26'4" to build a 2-story home with a shake roof. He inquired if the height would be measured from the pad elevation. He noted that the Coastal Commission allows a maximum roof height of 30'. There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Vice Chairman Erwin declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. At the request of Vice Chairman Erwin and other Commissioners, staff made the following responses to their questions and the public comments: Because the site is located within a scenic corridor, staff recommended the block walls for rear yard privacy and noise attenuation. Staff feels that a 6' block wall is the only way to mitigate the noise from the AT&SF Railroad and Carlsbad Boulevard. Sidewalks can be phased because easements are required. However, the cost would be less if the sidewalks were built at one time. Otherwise, property owners would be required to grant the easement at the time they pull permits. If there are only one or two property owners who are refusing to grant an easement, staff might require the sidewalks up front. If it is necessary to increase the size of the sewer line greater than 8 inches, reimbursement would be available. The Knox Box gate is requiredtfor emergency vehicles. There are no exemptions from Mello-Roos. The fixed fee for street improvements (Carlsbad Boulevard, Anacapa Road, etc.) is the standard fee and staff would not be agreeable to changing it. Street improvements iould be a phased process in accordance with page 8 of the Specific Plan. The existing Building Height Ordinance allows the 25' height to be measured from existing grade to the midpoint of the roof, which would permit a 26'4" roof to be April 17, 1991 PUNNING COMMISSION Page 4 COMMISSIONERS I constructed. However, the method of measurement is unde consideration at this time and could change in the futur Staff gave a slide presentation of the site and surrounding area. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if the block wall would ha to be of one design in order to comply with the scenic corridor. Adrienne Landers, Senior Planner, replied that i should be fairly uniform. It is possible that a 3-4' block wall with 2-3' of plexiglass above it might also be acceptable for noise attenuation and it would preserve the ocean view. Commissioner McFadden would not want to look straight into 6' block wall. She inquired if it is possible that Carlsba Boulevard could be lowered. Mr. Hauser replied that there no chance of this happening. Commissioner Schramm inquired how much solid block would be needed to avoid having vehicles look into the rear yards. Adrienne Landers, Senior Planner, replied that at least 4' ( block would be needed. Commissioner Hall inquired if all residents living on Carlsbad Boulevard will be required to pay $40 per linear foot to improve that thoroughfare. Mr. Hauser replied that this is a relatively modest cost when considering that it includes sidewalks, curbs, gutters, street lighting, and one lane of traffic. Commissioner Hall has a problem asking 8-10 property owners to pay this fee. Mr. Hauser also has a problem with that bc stated that it is a code requirement. Commissioner Marcus sympathizes with Mr. Montgomery regardi] the wall and inquired if the Planning Director could permit deviation, i.e. glass, plexiglass. Ms. Landers replied thal staff will do whatever the Planning Commission desires. Commissioner Schlehuber agrees with Commissioner Marcus. Hc would like to see the Planning Director have some flexibilit to work with plexiglass and block. Commissioner McFadden inquired if the building height measurement is to the peak of the roof or the mid-point. Mr Landers replied that the condition states 2.5' to the peak 01 the roof. Commissioner Hall feels the building height condition shoulc be reworded. He believes any property owner should be able to build a 2-story home with a pitched roof. Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney, commented that the condition could not be rewritten to be consistent with the Building Height Ordinance when we don't yet know what the ordinance will state. Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, stated that, currently, a 25'. roof is measured to the mid-point. If the Commission wants the measurement to the roof peak, it must t so stated in the condition. Commissioner Schramm inquired if a 25' roof measured to the peak would allow for a pitched roof. Mr. Wayne replied that several architects have stated that it is possible to build MINUTES - \ 4 April 17, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 5 COMMISSIONERS 2-story house using a 25' measurement to the peak. however, it may not necessarily be a shake roof. Commissioner Schramm inquired if plexiglass would reduce noise as much as a block wall. Ms. Landers replied that a noise study was not done but it is possible that noise attenuation could be achieved with plexiglass. Commissioner McFadden feels that if a noise study determines that plexiglass will accomplish the same result, she would like to see the homeowners given an alternative on the block wall. However, she would like to see the condition remain which requires the building height to be 25' measured from existing grade to the roof peak, since it is consistent with the Beach Overlay. There are many types of roof materials available besides shake. Commissioner Hall feels the architect needs some flexibility in designing a home. He strongly believes that a 2-story home should be able to be built and a 25' measurement to the roof peak is too stringent. Vice Chairman Erwin believes the way the condition reads allows the 25' measurement to mid-point. Commissioner Schlehuber stated that the Beach Overlay allows 25' to the mid-point. He thinks this project should be consistent with the Beach Overlay. Vice Chairman Erwin inquired if the wall could be conditioned subject to the satisfaction of a majority of the homeowners. Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney, replied that a condition like this would be unenforceable but it could be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. This way there would be uniformity and the wall would not resemble a patchwork quilt. Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 3145 recommending approval of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director, and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 3146 recommending approval of SP 201 to the City Council, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, with the following changes: (1) subject to the approval of the Planning Director, that the 6' wall be constructed of block and any other sound attenuation material which the Planning Director feels will provide adequate noise protection; (2) that if a noise study determines the wall could be of a lower height and still provide noise protection, it would be acceptable; and (3) addition of Section II.B.19 to the Specific Plan regarding a Citywide Mello-Roos Community Facilities District, per staff memo dated April 3, 1991. Commissioners McFadden and Schrd requested the record show they voted against the project because they would like to see a 25' building height measured from existing grade to the roof peak because the lots are small. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 7:09 p.m. and reconvened at 7:16 p.m. 3) CUP 90-2/SDP 90-4 - MOBIL OIL - Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit, Site Development Plan, and Negative Declaration to demolish an existing gas station Erwin Hall Marcus McFadden Schlehuber Schramm JUNE 18, 1991 -. TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: SP 201 - LA COSTA DOWNS SPECIFIC PLAN If deemed appropriate, the following water conservation conditions may be included within the La Costa Downs Specific Plan: 1. Landscape Plans shall be designed to minimite water use. Lawn and other Zone 1 plants (see Landscape 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the property owner 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. 5. Prior to issuance of the first building permit the property owner shall be responsible for all fees and deposits plus the major facility charge which shall be collected at time of issuance of building permit. The property owner shall pay a San Diego County Water Authority capacity charge which shall be collected at issuance of application for meter installation. AL:Ih Carlsbad Journal Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of San Diego Cou Mail all correspondence regarding public notice advertising to W.C.C.N. Inc. P.O. Box 230878, Encinitas, CA 92023-0878 (619) 753-65 Proof of Publication STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss. COUNN 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 e: I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Journal, a newspaper of gene1 published weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, and whj is published for the dissemination of 104 news and intelligence of a genera1 charactl newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription subscribers, and which newspaper has been established, printed and published at regular i said City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, for a period exceeding c preceding the date of pub1 . -.-- - notice hereinafter referred tc notice of which the annexe r ititled matter. .i al circulation, ir :h newspaper e !r, and which i ist of paying ltervals in the i I ne year next : cation of the 8; and that the 1 is a printed copy, has been published in each regular and entire issue of said news b aper and not in any supplement thereof on the follow- ing dates, to-wit: I June1 06 19 91 u19= I certify under penalty of perjury that the foror: is true and cz{.clz Carlsbad, County of San Dieg , State of Cali- day of Junei, 1991 &era of the Printer I NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SP-201 LA COSTA DOWNS 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 (formerly Elm Avenue), Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 P.M., on Tuesday, June 18, 1991, to consider an application for a Specific Plan to establish development standards on property generally located south of Palomar Airport Road, west of the AT&SF Railroad, east of Carlsbad Boulevard and north of Lanikai Lane Mobile Home Park in the R-1-10,000 zone and in LFMP Zone 22, and more particularly described as: Blocks 22, 23, and 24 of Map 2013, La Costa Downs Unit No. 1. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Adrienne Landers in the Planning Department at 438-1161, Extension 4451. If you challenge the Specific Plan in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues raised by you or someone else at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written corresponsdence delivered to the City of Carlsbad City Clerk's Office at or prior to the public hearing. APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad PUBLISH: June 6, 1991 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL LANIKAI LANE MOBILE HOME PARK CONNECT8 LOTE UNDER COYYON OWNEREWIC City II CwlM RICNARD T. DONANUE - MR. & NRS.JRXES WOOD - MARIE STANTON 4964 David Way C/O R. DONOEUE 1438 Pacific Street San Bernardino, CA 92404 4964 David Way Redlands, CA 92373 San Bernardino, CA 92024 JEF#RBY 8. MCCABE ANNE ALSOP TOM CAMPBELL 267 La Veta Avenue 255 Fairgrounds Dr. #56 1408 Ocean Drive Encinitas, CA 92024 Vallejo, CA 94589 Oxnard, CA 93035 MARJORIE EDWARDS LESLIE L. DEVLIN GUY E. WARD/VIRGINIA LEAR PO Box 1905 1131 Amethyst 4525 Wilshire Blvd. Ranch0 Santa Fe, CA 92067 Mentone, CA 92359 Los Angeles, CA 90010 JOHN G. BACRXANN CHARLES DICKIE PATRICIA M. TARTAGLIA 1545 Wilshire Blvd. #700 5350 E. Broadway 56 Monarch Bay Los Angeles, CA 92001 Long Beach, CA 90803 S.Laguna Beach, CA 92677 MARTY MONTGOHBRY La Costa Engineering 1967 N.Hwy 101, Ste B Encinitas, CA 92024 T.H. SBLIN SEAPOINTE PROF. CTR.LTD ATSF Railway 535 Encinitas Blvd. #116 740 Carnegie Drive Encinitas, CA 92024 San Bernardino, CA 92408 HEAD UM.E,BROUN JAMBS R. SAMnIS CARLSBAD ASSOC. AT&SFE RAILROAD C/O RAMON D. ASEDO 17922 Fitch Avenue C/O PROPERTY TAX DEPT. PO Box 207 Ix-vine, CA 92714 PO Box 1738 Oceanside, CA 92054 Topeka, KS 66628 WFZSS MYLES L FRANCINB I(. VALLAS THBODORB T. LUSK JOHN L SON CORP. PO Box 5057 C/O TED VALLAS 17550 Gillette Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92012 246 Fifth Street Ii-vine, CA 92664 Encinitas, CA 92024 CARLSBAD STATE BEACH 34 Trail View Road Encinitas, CA 92024 BNCINR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL 6200 Avenida Encinas Carlsbad, CA 92008 SP-201 - W COSTA DONNS LABEL (FOR CC PUB.HBARING) bytarb L -- (Form A) TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice SP-201 - LA COSTA DOWNS for a public hearing before the City Council. t Please notice the item for the council meeting of . Thank you. MARTY ORENYAK MAY 14, 1991 Assistant City Manager Date